No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
The Church Militant, living and working in history as an organic and visible society, must have a structure and organs which express its nature and enable it to be what it is and to fulfil its function or mission. Whatever might be argued a priori about this structure and these organs, and whatever might be learned from the experiences of history through the centuries, it is plain from the New Testament that the apostolic church possessed institutions which were part of its structure and which existed in order to further its mission. Among these was a ministry of men distinguishable qua ministers from the other members of the body, a special organ of, and therefore within, the one body.
page 161 note 2 Tert., Exhort. Castit. 7. Though this is a work of his Montanist period, it does not follow that this opinion is Montanist; cf. De Baptismo 17.
page 162 note 1 Tert., Praescr. Haer. 541.
page 162 note 2 This paper pursues only the Western tradition. For the Eastern see the paper by Brother George Every.
page 163 note 1 On Thomas, St. see Dolan, G. E.: The Distinction between the Episcopate and the Presbyterate according to the Thomistic Opinion (Washington, D.C., 1950), which I know only from a review.Google Scholar
page 165 note 1 Journet, Charles, The Church of the Word Incarnate (Eng. Trans., 1955), Vol. I, p. 27.Google Scholar
page 165 note 2 Smith, G. D. ed., The Teaching of the Catholic Church (1952), p. 1024.Google Scholar
page 166 note 1 Cf. Prideaux in More and Cross: Anglicanism (1935), No. 161. For references to earlier statements, see Woodhouse: The Doctrine of the Church in Anglican Theology, 1547–1603, p. 76. An interesting passage is in Calfhill's Answer to Martiall, Parker Society edition, pp. 227–31.
page 167 note 1 Quoted from his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England (1686) in More and Cross: op. cit. No. 162.
page 168 note 1 Ecclesiastical Polity, V, 77; More and Cross, op. cit. No. 148.
page 170 note 1 For Hooker and Mede, see More and Cross, op. cit. Nos. 148, 149. For Field, his Of the Church (ed. 3, 1635), V, 27.
page 170 note 2 For Andrewes, , see Mason, A. J., The Church of England and Episcopacy (Cambridge, 1914), p. 67Google Scholar, and for Taylor, ibid. pp. 126–7. Mason gives the opinions of many other Anglican theologians.
page 174 note 1 e.g. the proposals for the initial unifying of the ministry in Ceylon appear to rest upon different conceptions of the relation between Order and Jurisdiction from those which underlie the plan adopted in South India.