Baptism, Art. XXVII. 612-676. Difference of opinion as to whether regeneration is the grace of baptism, never separated from it unless in case of impenitent reci- pients...a difference not wholly owing to different views of predestination, 612, 613. Baptism an embracing the service of God; natural expectation therefore that He would furnish us with strength for it-Covenant of grace made by God, in Christ, with man-terms given us- baptism formal act of admission into covenant...and the engrafting also into the Church: 613, 614. Baptism gua- rantees a spiritual change, but a moral change must be the result of the soul's profiting by the spiritual change- Hooker, Waterland, Bethell, (note)— Term Baptismal Regeneration' war- ranted-yet baptized persons may be practically unregenerate-Absence of practical results accounted for: 615-17 (and 620). Relative holiness of baptized persons, even when not personally sanc- tified, 617, 618. Different cases of adult (618) and infant recipients, 618-620.
Scriptural evidence for truth of doc- trine, as here defined, of Baptism, 621- 641. Light on the subject from old Testament, and Jewish rites and lan- guage-Circumcision-Baptism of pros- elytes-types of baptism: 621-623. Baptism considered as admitting us to a covenant-difference between Mosaic covenant of works and Christian cove- nant of grace-Questions and answers at baptism-Promises made therein by God: 623-628. Baptism considered as admitting to the Church, which is the Body of Christ, the Family of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Temple of the
Holy Ghost, 628-632. Regeneration, the special grace of Baptism...identified with conversion or renovation among the Zuinglians and Calvinists, still more among the Arminians...conse- quently denied by them to exist except in such as have attained to a state of true sanctification...A figurative term... has been variously applied in various languages...glowing language of the fathers might make it easy to suppose regeneration certainly involved sancti- fication of heart-Schoolmen followed their language to its consequences- Original signification of 'regeneration' thus became augmented-Regenera- tion, twofold signification of, as used either of the time of bestowal of new- creating grace, or of the time of hearty reception of it-Scripture passages seeming to differ thus reconciled: 632- 636. Objections considered (and an- swered) drawn from hypothesis of re- generation being equivalent to moral change...from high Calvinistic views of irresistibility and indefectibility of grace...from alleged undue substitution of baptism for faith...from supposed inconsistency of any grace before bap- tism with gift of regeneration in bap- tism...from disparagement of outward ordinances Difficulty from difference of result of gift of God's Spirit in Bap- tism, best acknowledged insoluble by us; not solved in Scripture: 636-641.
General view of Baptismal Regenera- tion held by the Fathers; that conver- sion of heart did not accompany bap- tism when unworthily received or not duly profited by, but that remission of sins and the grace of the Spirit were promised to accompany baptism, and that that grace, if yielded to and cul- tivated, would regenerate the soul; hence they assigned the name of rege- neration to that Sacrament, and some- times spoke as if regeneration were tied to it, yet when explaining them- selves accurately showed that they did not hold that the Sacrament worked ex opere operato: Quotations, &c. in proof, from Apostolic fathers down to Augustine-difference between him and
Calvin: 641-654. Council of Trent- Luther; Zuingle; Calvin :-English Reformers-Cranmer and Ridley-For- mularies and views of the Church of England-Anglican Baptismal Services formed on the Lutheran model : 655-671.
Infant Baptism (subject partly anti- cipated) arguments for, from Scripture and from Jewish analogies: 671-674. Evidence from fathers, giving every reason to believe it practised from the very first, 674-676. See Sacraments, Sin, Original, &c.
Both Kinds, Art. xxx. p. 732. No pa- tristic authority for withdrawing the cup from the laity; this acknowledged by the more candid Roman Catholics- express patristic testimony, and lan- guage of ancient liturgies, show that in the early ages both elements were ad- ministered alike to clergy and laity, and ministered separately, not by dip. ping the bread in the cup, a custom introduced by superstition, and still continuing in the Eastern Churches- Withholding of the cup connected with transubstantiation...greatly complained of by early Reformers...established by Council of Constance, and Council of Trent rejected by all Reformed Churches: 732-734. Scriptural proof of the doctrine of this Art.-Serious question as to the validity of the muti- lated Sacrament; though receivers in faith and ignorance may receive the full blessing: 734-736.
Calvinism, the five points of, see Predesti- nation, 394, n.
Canon of Scripture, see Scriptures Holy, 146, &c.
Canonization Romish, see Purgatory, 536. Capital Punishments, see Civil Magis- trates, 825.
Church, the (Art. XIX. 444), distinct definition of, especially called for at the Reformation, 444, (450, 451). Church, how described and spoken of by the Fathers, 444-448 their statements mostly not logically definitive, but prac- tical and devotional, 448. Church not exactly defined, though distinguished by titles, in the Creeds, 448, 449... called Catholic in all the Creeds, and throughout the writings of the Fathers -probable origin and subsequent usage of the term, 449. Catholicity perilled by schism between Eastern and Western Churches, and yet more by gradual corruption in Western Church, 449, 450. Difficulties attendant on separa- tion of foreign Reformers from Church of Rome; the part of our own Reform- ers less difficult: 450. Church, defi- nitions of, by foreign and English Re- formers-Our Art. XIX. confined to consideration of the visible Church-no
special allusion in our formularies to dis- tinction of visible and invisible Church; 451-454. Church of Rome in grievous error, yet still a (corrupt indeed) branch of the Universal Church of Christ- Views of Reformers on this subject: 454-458. Scriptural meaning of Church investigated, 458-460. Scriptural proof of statements of Art. XIX., that the Church is a visible body of believers (this not inconsistent with belief of existence of the invisible Church)...that in it the pure Word of God is held and preached...and the Sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordi- nance: 460-465. A ministry included in the definition of this Art., (see Art. XXXIII.) 466, 467. What defective- ness in ordination, &c., is destructive of Church-existence in other commu- nions, not decided by the English Church, 467. Errors of Church of Rome; novelties and heterodoxies in the Creed of Pope Pius IV., or of the Council of Trent, 467, 468. Church, authority of the, Art. XX. 469. Disputes concerning first clause of this Art.-one portion however of it ex- pressed, Art. XXXIV., the other vir- tually contained in latter part of this: 469, 470, (473). Church-Authority, views of the Fathers respecting...of the Reformers in general...of the English Reformers: 470-473. Scriptural proof that the Church is a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, 474...has power to decree rites and ceremonies, 475, 476...has authority in controversies of faith, 476- 478. Such authority, however, judicial, not legislative-Limitations assigned to it in the Art.: 478-480. Private Judg ment, rightly understood, not interfered with by this Art. 480, n.
Civil Magistrates, Art. XXXVII., 786. Supremacy of the Crown, 786-802. The proper relation between the civil and ecclesiastical powers in a Christian commonwealth, a most difficult ques- tion-Direct antagonism for the first three hundred years between the Church and the world-Christians from the first obedient subjects in things com- patible with religion, but kept aloof, as far as possible, from heathenism: 786, 787. Revolution produced by acces sion and conversion of Constantine, and his removal of seat of empire to Byzan- tium-Constantine, though unable to assume a sacerdotal function in the Chris- tian Church (as heathen Emperors had done in heathen Rome) yet claims a pecu liar supremacy in it-Henceforward the Church, though never endowed by the State, yet receives protection for its revenues-Christian princes ever con. sidered themselves its protectors, and in
some sense its governors-Clerical rights -Imperial exercise of power in Eccle- siastical matters, and influence in the Church...greater in the East, because there was the seat of government; con- sequent degeneracy (there is little doubt) of Eastern Church: 787-789. Different state of things in the West, especially from absence of seat of government- Power of the clergy from their position, rights, &c.-Churchmen of the fourth century opposed the only available bar. rier to imperial tyranny-The Church subsequently the one great antagonist of feudal oppression : 789-791. Bishop of Rome, from the earliest times the most important prelate in the West... derived additional importance from many causes ... the most important person in the city on the absence of the Emperor-By degrees primacy became supremacy-Rome the civil centre of Europe, the ecclesiastical centre of Christian Europe-Power of the Pope a happy counterpoise to that of sove- reigns; the Church as an united body disposed to look to one visible head- Evil consequences of this, yet not all evil
-Papal authority, not merely spiritual, but political; becomes an intolerable tyranny-grievances felt by bishops, and still more by kings: 791, 792.
The Reformation a reaction from this state of things, as well as a throwing off corruptions of faith...viewed by differ- ent persons according to their respective feelings and interests.-Proceedings of, and under, Henry VIII.—‘Head of the Church' ascribed to him as a title-Op- position to such ascription-contest and different opinions as to meaning of the term-Cranmer's exposition of it-The title offensive to many...after abolition by Mary not restored by Elizabeth-
Government' thenceforward substi- tuted for Headship'-Authorized for- mularies (especially this Art.) of Eliza- beth's reign, explanatory of the mean- ings attached to this authority: 793- 796. Convocation in reign of James I. agree on Canons of 1603.-Principle therein enunciated, present charter of union between Church and State, this; that the sovereign is entitled to the ancient privileges of devout princes in Scripture, of Christian Emperors in primitive times, and of ancient sove- reigns of England before the times of Papal domination. This claim should seem both scriptural and catholic-Ob- jections urged, from dissimilarity of the Jewish National to theChristian Catholic Church; from sacredness attached to Jewish Kings, distinctively, as God's special vicegerents; from the evil con- sequences to the Church of the influence
of the Christian Emperors, and of the connexion of religion with the State;... and answered: 796-799. Supremacy of the sovereign almost necessarily follows from recognition of the propriety of a connexion between Church and State, and simultaneous denial of Papal supre- macy-The sovereign undertakes no- thing belonging to the office of the ministers of Christ, but in matters of external polity claims the right of legislation; willingly allowed by us- Supremacy of the Crown not arbitrary; everything in England limited by law- No small difficulty of late arising and increasing from the supremacy becom- ing virtually a supremacy of Parliament, which unhappily is not a supremacy of the laity of the Church of England- Speculations on the future vain; true hope, and real dangers of the Church, 800-802. Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, 802-826. Most extensive and important subject, 802. Alleged grounds on which the claim of supreme authority rests : I. That supremacy over the universal Church was given to St. Peter-Answered; a certain prio- rity among the Apostles readily ad- mitted...but not as involving primacy of power, or pre-eminence of jurisdic- tion: Scriptural proofs and patristic statements in opposition to claim of su- premacy; passages of Scripture alleged in favour of the claim shown not to warrant the Romanist conclusion; patristic testimonies against correctness of the Romanist interpretation; no- thing more to be fairly made of the case than that St. Peter was primus inter pares: 803-811. II. That St. Peter was Bishop of Rome-Answered; an early tradition indeed that he was so, but this on historical investigation found to have very slender foundation-The ques- tion decided in the negative on examina- tion of Scripture passages and patristic statements-No good reason to doubt that St. Peter was at Rome, but no reason to believe that he was ever in any proper sense Bishop of Rome: 811-816. III. That St. Peter's supremacy is in- herited by his successors, the Bishops of Rome-Answered; the two preceding positions being disproved, this must fall with them; but further, whatever priority St. Peter had among the Apostles was personal, not official-Supremacy of Rome not admitted at first; its rise and progress traceable, and easily accounted for; historical confirmation of this view of the case: 817-822. Special ground on which the Pope claims juris- diction in England; i.e. that England was in the Patriarchate of Rome- Questions as to rise of Patriarchates,
and extent of the Roman Patriarchate -Good proof that in early ages it did not comprise Britain-British Church moreover of very early origin, and ac- knowledging no obedience to the Pope
-A Church in Britain, and Christians also among the Saxons, before the mission of Augustine, from which only the Pope can put in any reasonable claim to superiority over English Bishops-Moreover, even conversion of a nation would not necessarily in- volve supreme jurisdiction over it- Claim to such a jurisdiction over Britain on the part of the Bishop of Rome un- founded and uncanonical, and rejection of it not schismatic: 822-825. Capital Punishments, not universally unlawful; lawfulness of, Scriptural authority for 825, 826. serving in, at the commandment of the Magistrate, lawfulness of, allowed by early Christians, and proved from Scrip- ture, and condemnation of all war shown to be unfounded, 826-828. Commemoration, bare, in the Eucharist; the view of Zuingle, see Lord's Supper, 678.
Confirmation, see Sacraments, 582. Consecration of Bishops and Ministers,
Art. XXXVI., 779. Ordinal, the, various particulars respecting, from Edward VI. to Charles II., 779, 780.
Object of the Art. to meet objections -Objection of Romanists, that the Ordinal lacks certain essential cere- monies-Answered; neither Scripture gives authority for the forms thus urged as essential, nor do we find authority for them in customs of the primitive Church-Objection that Bishops conse- crated according to the Ordinal of Edward VI. and Elizabeth were not rightly consecrated, because the words of consecration did not necessarily ap- ply to a Bishop...shown to be futile: 781, 782. Objection of Puritans, and many well-meaning Christians since them, to our use of Christ's words, 'Receive the Holy Ghost... Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven,' &c.-Argument of objectors that the power of remitting and retaining sins was miraculous, and confined to the Apostles-Answered; such power, of that higher kind never given to mere man-the only authority conveyed by our Lord to His first ministers was the power of the keys, to admit men into the Church or kingdom, exclude them from it, restore them to it-This power committed to the Church as a body, and more particularly to her Bishops and Presbyters-and reception of this power only meant by the words of our Ordination Service-Argument, that
man cannot bestow God's Spirit, and that the claim to do so is profane-An- swered; the gift of the Holy Spirit re- corded John xx. not His personaliy sanctifying influence, not the miracu- lous baptism of the Spirit, but evidently the ordaining grace of God; this be- lieved by the Church to flow down direct from the ordaining Spirit (wheresoever ordination, appointed by Christ as the means of receiving it, is rightly minis- tered), to constitute the ordained person truly a minister of Christ-Difference between ordination by Christ Himself, and by Bishops; and duly recognised by us: 783-785. Consubstantiation, see Lord's Supper, 678.
Conversion, see Baptism, 632, &c. Councils, General, authority of; Art. XXI. 481. Judgment of the Catholic Church of great value and importance-How to be given? 481, 482. Jewish Sanhedrim -First General Christian Council, so called by some, at Jerusalem-Pro- vincial Synods First four general Councils; of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon-Two subsequent general Councils of Constantinople- These six only (the first four more uni- versally esteemed) acknowledged as general by the universal Church, though some others by the Greek Church, many by the Latin: 483, 484. General Councils, why not held in the first three centuries...the result of peculiar exi- gencies.. could only (in fact) be sum- moned by a power which could command general obedience, i.e. the Emperor ; therefore could not be assembled by the Pope-Universality of attendance, how, only, now conceivably to be insured: 484-486. No assurance of infallibility to Councils-Universal Church only, assured that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...never yet, perhaps never possibly, represented perfectly by any Synod-Suggested possibility of major part of the Church being for a time in error-Faults of Synods: 486- 488. Synods, use of...really general and of universal authority only by re- cognition and approval by the Catholic Church 489, 490. Errors of general (i.e. passing for general) Councils, 490, 491.-Recognitions of first four General Councils by Emperors-How far deci sions of Councils are received by Re- formed Church of England: 491, n. Creeds, the Three, Art. VIII. 211. Creeds, probable origin of, in Baptismal confession of faith...originally brief... in no fixed fornf...gradually enlarged to meet heresies, 211. Many confessions of faith preserved in writings of the earliest fathers-Prevalence of some
« السابقةمتابعة » |