DOCSLIB.ORG

Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason Durham E-Theses Richard Hooker and the authority of scripture, tradition and reason Atkinson, Nigel Terence How to cite: Atkinson, Nigel Terence (1995) Richard Hooker and the authority of scripture, tradition and reason, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/5131/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason by Nigel Terence Atkinson A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Theology in Application for the Degree of Master of Arts DURHAM UNIVERSITY May 1995 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be ackowledged. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 3 0 APR 1996 b CONTENTS I. Richard Hooker: Theologian of the Church of England 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Hooker: Reformed Theologian of the Church of England? 4 II. Richard Hooker and the Authority of Reason 18 2.1 Introduction 18 2.2 The Puritans and Reason 21 2.3 Erasmus and Reason 26 2.4 Hooker and Reason 31 2.5 Martin Luther and Reason 40 2.6 John Calvin and Reason 46 2.7 Conclusion 52 2.8 Hooker, Hooker Scholarship and Reason 5 7 III. Richard Hooker and the Authority of Tradition 60 3.1 Introduction 60 3.2 The Puritans and Tradition 65 3.3 Hooker and Tradition 76 3.4 The Reformation and Tradition 94 3.5 Martin Luther and Tradition 97 3.6 John Calvin and Tradition 101 3.7 Conclusion 106 3.8 Hooker, Hooker Scholarship and Tradition 108 IV. Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture 113 4. J Introduction 113 4.2 The Puritans and Scripture 116 4.3 Hooker and Scripture 129 4.4 The Reformation and Scripture 153 4.5 Martin Luther and Scripture 154 4.6 John Calvin and Scripture 161 4.7 Conclusion 166 4.8 Hooker, Hooker Scholarship and Scripture 169 V. Hooker on Reason, Tradition and Scripture. An Assessment 177 References 182 Bibliography 212 Chapter One Richard Hooker: Theologian of the Church of England 1.1 Introduction Richard Hooker (1554-1600) priest, preacher and theologian is widely recognised as "unquestionably the greatest Anglican theologian".1 It has also been said that it is difficult "to overestimate the importance of Hooker" because he "was great with the greatness of Shakespeare" 2 It is accepted that Hooker's "greatness" is located primarily in the fact that his Lowes of Ecclesiastical Polity mark, in the words of Aidan Nichols, "the true beginning of Anglicanism". According to Nichols it is in the Lowes that "Anglicanism first achieved a relatively coherent theological form".3 Others agree with this assessment. Louis Weil claims that "the first major exponent of the Anglican view was. .Richard Hooker" whilst John Booty thinks that Hooker "came to represent a vital turning point in the history of Anglicanism" .4 So authoritative is Hooker's position in the field of Anglican theology that Anglican theologians have often felt the need to demonstrate that major developments in Anglican thought and practice are merely extensions of the ideas already contained within the Lowes. Examples of this are not hard to find. John Keble, who edited the Lowes at the start of the Oxford Movement, added a preface in which he attempted to argue that Hooker would have given his blessing to the High Church movement; even though Hooker's theological dependence on Calvin and Augustine had previously been taken for granted.5 Similarly, as the Church of England gradually moved towards an inclusive ministry, Stephen Sykes was compelled to justify this development in l _ the Church's life by arguing that it was a process entirely compatible with Hooker's theological first principles.6 But what are Hooker's theological first principles? Obviously, if Hooker occupies such a prominent position in the galaxy of Anglican theologians it is important to ascertain, as precisely as possible, the theological matrix that informed his thinking. However, it is at this very point that great difficulties are encountered. Over the years various "schools" of Hooker scholarship have arisen with the result that an unfortunate impasse has been reached with some even concluding that Hooker's theology was contradictory and even fatally flawed.7 That the current state of doctrinal play in the Church of England might also be fatally flawed has also recently been pointed out.8 It is doubtful whether a Church without a recognisable, articulate doctrinal commitment can survive for long, unless it is merely content to be held together by some undefinable "ethos" or by its ties to the establishment. Naturally, it might be argued that Anglicanism's lack of theological coherence springs from the lack of theological integrity that lies at the heart of her own most representative theologian; but that would be to misunderstand both Hooker and the Church of England's theological edifice. So what accounts for the apparent theological ambiguity that seems to afflict so much current Anglican thinking?9 A clue may be found in the similarity that exists between the varying shades of opinion that exist with regard to Hooker in particular and with regard to the present day Church of England in general. Both seem to have only one thing in common. They are adamant that whatever else Hooker's theology is deemed to be, and whatever else the Church 2 of England is seen to bj^fit is certainly not a theology, or a Church, that bears the characteristic^>Stamp of the Reformation.10 This almost unanimous interpretation of Hooker can, however, be disputed and the primary purpose of this thesis is to demonstrate that Hooker's handling of the vexed question of authority is certainly compatible with an explicitly Reformed outlook.11 This may, in turn, lead to a rediscovery of the Church of England's theological heritage. In order to proceed, however, we need to remove some of the obstacles from our path. We shall need to investigate, first of all, how the various schools of Hooker scholarship have tried to distance Hooker from the Reformation in order to highlight some of their weaknesses. We shall then, secondly, need to examine Hooker's own stated perception of his relationship to the Reformation. We shall then be in a position to move in to the thesis proper which will look at Hooker's understanding of Reason, Tradition and Scripture. It might then become clear that, far from distancing himself from the Reformation Hookers was, in fact, seeking to remain faithful to its doctrinal commitments and was, on the contrary, distancing himself from a Puritanism that had distorted some of the central tenets of Reformed thought. 1.2 Hooker: Reformed theologian of the Church of England? That Hooker's theological position is not that of the Reformation has been frequently stated. John Keble, the High Churchman of the Oxford Movement and the nineteenth century editor of Hooker's works, maintained that English theology underwent such a "decisive change" in Hooker's hands that the next generation of English divines (Laud, Hammond and Sanderson) owe to Hooker's Lowes the fact that the Church of England "continues at such a distance from Geneva, and so near to primitive truth and apostolical order".12 This assertion, once made, seems to have become the test of orthodoxy and most students of Hooker seem to be unduly anxious in their attempts to out-do one another in seeking to demonstrate Hooker's deviation from the doctrinal stance adopted by both English and Continental Reformers. Both Egil Grislis and W.J. Torrance Kirby have conducted their own exhaustive investigations into the state of play into the world of Hooker scholarship and it is worth briefly examining their conclusions.13 Egil Grislis argues, after a careful inquiry into the shape of Hooker scholarship, that four clear positions emerge, although he concedes that there is much overlap between them. Grislis argues that Hooker can be read, first of all as "a champion of reason". Citing an impressive array of writers on Hooker it is easily seen how many have seen Hooker's distinctiveness to lie in that "he elevates reason into the criterion" by which theological truths necessary to salvation are to be judged.14 Hooker's "rationalism" has been much lauded and even today "scholars continue to speak of Hooker as a rationalist without further clarification".15 4 Secondly Hooker has been read as a "Christian humanist". This school claims Hooker brought "the spirit of the Renaissance" into close contact with "the spirit of the Reformation". In a sense this "humanist" approach is merely an extension of the rationalist approach since what is highlighted in the Renaissance- Humanist perspective is Hooker's treatment of Reason.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Points of Calvinism
    • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Bethlehem College & Seminary 720 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 612.455.3420 [email protected] | bcsmn.edu Copyright © 2007, 2012, 2017 by Bethlehem College & Seminary All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Copyright © 2007 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. • TULIP The Five Points of Calvinism instructor’s guide Table of Contents Instructor’s Introduction Course Syllabus 1 Introduction from John Piper 3 Lesson 1 Introduction to the Doctrines of Grace 5 Lesson 2 Total Depravity 27 Lesson 3 Irresistible Grace 57 Lesson 4 Limited Atonement 85 Lesson 5 Unconditional Election 115 Lesson 6 Perseverance of the Saints 141 Appendices Appendix A Historical Information 173 Appendix B Testimonies from Church History 175 Appendix C Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism 183 Instructor’s Introduction It is our hope and prayer that God would be pleased to use this curriculum for his glory. Thus, the intention of this curriculum is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ. This curriculum is guided by the vision and values of Bethlehem College & Seminary which are more fully explained at bcsmn.edu. At the Bethlehem College & Semianry website, you will find the God-centered philosophy that undergirds and motivates everything we do.
    [Show full text]
  • Objections to the Doctrine of Total Depravity
    Biblical Soteriology: An Overview and Defense of the Reformed Doctrines of Salvation by Ra McLaughlin Total Depravity, Part 4 OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY 1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of total depravity is the objection that man is not so sinful that God must condemn him. 2. Another objection to the doctrine of total depravity states that all men can savingly believe and trust the gospel, while a corollary objection asserts that man cannot savingly believe the gospel in and of himself, but that God graciously grants all men (or all men who hear the gospel) this ability, which man must then exercise by his own freewill in order to be saved. Under this second system, not all who have the God- given ability to believe actually exercise this ability in saving faith. Most versions of this view hold that all mankind has received this enabling gift. 3. Some objections to the doctrine of total depravity are based on experience. They insist that experience demonstrates that man may desire to be saved, to do good, and to please God prior to coming to saving faith. If any of these things are true, then total depravity is false. 4.. Most objections to total depravity also insist that a command by God to do something implies that the people of whom the thing is commanded possess a corresponding ability to do the thing commanded. That is, God would not command the impossible. Therefore, since God commands all men to exercise saving belief in the gospel, all men have the ability savingly to believe the gospel (whether from natural or graciously granted ability).
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    TULIP: A FREE GRACE PERSPECTIVE PART 1: TOTAL DEPRAVITY ANTHONY B. BADGER Associate Professor of Bible and Theology Grace Evangelical School of Theology Lancaster, Pennsylvania I. INTRODUCTION The evolution of doctrine due to continued hybridization has pro- duced a myriad of theological persuasions. The only way to purify our- selves from the possible defects of such “theological genetics” is, first, to recognize that we have them and then, as much as possible, to set them aside and disassociate ourselves from the systems which have come to dominate our thinking. In other words, we should simply strive for truth and an objective understanding of biblical teaching. This series of articles is intended to do just that. We will carefully consider the truth claims of both Calvinists and Arminians and arrive at some conclusions that may not suit either.1 Our purpose here is not to defend a system, but to understand the truth. The conflicting “isms” in this study (Calvinism and Arminianism) are often considered “sacred cows” and, as a result, seem to be solidified and in need of defense. They have become impediments in the search for truth and “barriers to learn- ing.” Perhaps the emphatic dogmatism and defense of the paradoxical views of Calvinism and Arminianism have impeded the theological search for truth much more than we realize. Bauman reflects, I doubt that theology, as God sees it, entails unresolvable paradox. That is another way of saying that any theology that sees it [paradox] or includes it is mistaken. If God does not see theological endeavor as innately or irremediably paradoxical, 1 For this reason the author declines to be called a Calvinist, a moderate Calvinist, an Arminian, an Augustinian, a Thomist, a Pelagian, or a Semi- Pelagian.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Depravity
    Here We Stand: Total Depravity INTRODUCTION Ø A brief review of the 5 Sola’s Ø Our objective over our remaining evenings together is to begin unpacking what is called in Reformed Theology, “The doctrines of grace”. We are going to devote one evening per each point to analyze what Scripture teaches concerning the nature of sin and the nature of God’s saving grace. 2 very important qualifiers to this study Ø #1 The division we are about to address within the Reformed church is not a division concerning the essentials of the Christian faith! Ø #2, although these doctrines are not essential to be a Christian, we believe they are essential to ascribe all the glory to God in salvation and that they grant the Christian the truest grounds for comfort and assurance. Arminianism’s First Point Ø “Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.” Ø In other words, they believe that man possesses the “ability” to respond to the gospel in and of himself. Man is able to comply with the gospel command to “repent and believe” apart from God’s regenerating grace. Ø And here’s the implication… salvation or damnation, ultimately will be dependent on the sinner’s choice. Ø The Synod of Dort’s teaching could be summarized under this counter point… “Total Depravity”. This has also been referred to as Radical Corruption. Erasmus and Luther Ø In 1524 Desiderius Erasmus, a Renaissance humanist and Catholic priest, was considered in his time as the foremost opponent to challenge Martin Luther and his teachings on the nature of saving grace.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvinism and Arminianism Are Tw
    K-Group week 3 Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?" Answer: Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609. Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. Note: classical Arminianism rejects “partial depravity” and holds a view very close to Calvinistic “total depravity” (although the extent and meaning of that depravity are debated in Arminian circles). In general, Arminians believe there is an “intermediate” state between total depravity and salvation. In this state, made possible by prevenient grace, the sinner is being drawn to Christ and has the God-given ability to choose salvation. Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election. Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual. Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Various Theological Systems Within the Christian Tradition
    Introduction to Theological Systems: Dr. Paul R. Shockley Theological Systems Dogmatic Theology: A doctrine or body of doctrines of theology and religion formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a group. Calvinist Theology John Calvin (1509-1564) French Institutes – 80 chapter document explaining his views Presbyterian churches Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, William Shedd, Benjamin Warfield, Cornelius Van Til Westminster Confession - 1647 Emphases of Calvinism Sovereignty Predestination TULIP – Synod of Dort (1619) Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints Arminian Theology Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) Dutch Remonstrance – 1610 document by followers of Arminius explaining his doctrine Methodist, Wesleyan, Episcopalian, Anglican, Free Will Baptist churches John Wesley, H. Orton Wiley Emphases of Arminianism God limits His sovereignty in accordance with man’s freedom – all divine decrees are based on foreknowledge Prevenient Grace – Prevenient grace has removed the guilt and condemnation of Adam’s sin – it reverses the curse Emphases of Arminianism Man is a sinner but not totally depravity (Free Will) Conditional Election based on the foreknowledge of God (God does not predestine all things) Unlimited Atonement Resistible Grace Salvation Insecure Covenant Theology Johann Bullinger (1504-1575) Swiss He was the sole author of Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which gives a clear statement of the Reformed doctrine. Reformed churches Johannes Wollebius, William Ames, Johannes Cocceius, Hermann Witsius Westminster Confession – 1647 Emphases of Covenantism A system of interpreting the Scriptures on the basis of two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Some add the covenant of redemption. Importance of grace – In every age, believers are always saved by grace.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecclesiology in the Church of England: an Historical and Theological Examination of the Role of Ecclesiology in the Church of England Since the Second World War
    Durham E-Theses Ecclesiology in the Church of England: an historical and theological examination of the role of ecclesiology in the church of England since the second world war Bagshaw, Paul How to cite: Bagshaw, Paul (2000) Ecclesiology in the Church of England: an historical and theological examination of the role of ecclesiology in the church of England since the second world war, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4258/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Ecclesiology in the Church of England: an historical and theological examination of the role of ecclesiology in the Church of England since the Second World War The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should i)C published in any form, including; Electronic and the Internet, without the author's prior written consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptations of Hooker by Shakespeare and Voegelin
    The Pneumopathology of the Puritan: Adaptations of Hooker by Shakespeare and Voegelin Copyright 2003 Jeffrey Tessier In The New Science of Politics as well as in The History of Political Ideas, Voegelin comes to his analysis of Puritanism by way of Richard Hooker, focusing in part on Hooker's account of the psychological techniques through which Puritanism advanced its cause. While mindful of Hooker's shortcomings as a philosopher, Voegelin praises and relies on his diagnostic acumen. His analysis of "the psychological mechanism that is put into operation in the creation of mass movements"1 [1] is as useful now for understanding modern gnostic movements as it was then in analysing the radical response to the emergent Anglican ecclesiastical order. It was Hooker's insight into the psychological origins and political consequences of the Puritan movement that enabled him to present the mechanism by which the Puritans would implement on a mass scale the desire of the movement's egomaniacal members that their private will be established as the public will, a revolution which would destroy the reality of and hope for the common weal of the nation.2 [2] 1 [1] Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works of Eric Voegelin, vol. 23, History of Political Ideas, vol. 5: Religion and the Rise of Modernity, ed. James L. Wiser (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1998), 94-5. 2 [2] Ibid, 98. In his discussion of Hooker, Voegelin draws attention to an interesting problem. If the Puritans are as Hooker says they are, then the deformed condition of their souls makes them immune to the sort of persuasive speech that characterises his writing.
    [Show full text]
  • 1789 Journal of Convention
    Journal of a Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina 1789 Digital Copyright Notice Copyright 2017. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America / The Archives of the Episcopal Church All rights reserved. Limited reproduction of excerpts of this is permitted for personal research and educational activities. Systematic or multiple copy reproduction; electronic retransmission or redistribution; print or electronic duplication of any material for a fee or for commercial purposes; altering or recompiling any contents of this document for electronic re-display, and all other re-publication that does not qualify as fair use are not permitted without prior written permission. Send written requests for permission to re-publish to: Rights and Permissions Office The Archives of the Episcopal Church 606 Rathervue Place P.O. Box 2247 Austin, Texas 78768 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 512-472-6816 Fax: 512-480-0437 JOURNAL OF A. OF THB PROTESTA:N.T EPISCOPAL CHURCH, IN THE STATES OF NEW YORK, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND DELAWARE, I SOUTH CAROLINA: HELD IN CHRIST CHURCH, IN THE CITY OF PHILIlDELPBI.IJ, FROM July 28th to August 8th, 178~o LIST OF THE MEMBER5 OF THE CONVENTION. THE Right Rev. William White, D. D. Bishop of the Pro­ testant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania, and Pre­ sident of the Convention. From the State ofNew TorR. The Rev. Abraham Beach, D. D. The Rev. Benjamin Moore, D. D. lIT. Moses Rogers.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglican Principles for Liturgical Revision
    ATR/92:3 Expressing What Christians Believe: Anglican Principles for Liturgical Revision J. Barrington Bates* What principles have guided liturgical revision in the Anglican Communion? This essay attempts to address that question for each of four historical periods, as well as offer suggestions for fu- ture revision. The author asserts that we cannot simply forge ahead with more experimental texts and trial liturgies if we truly endeavor both to value the inherited tradition and to move where the Spirit is leading us. By working toward a shared understand- ing of principles for liturgical revision, the Episcopal Church and other entities in the Anglican Communion can potentially avoid fractious conflict, produce better quality liturgical texts, and foster confidence that we are following divine guidance. “Liturgy expresses what Christians believe. To change the liturgy therefore runs the risk of changing doctrine—or at least those doctrines which worshippers regularly hear and absorb and which become part of their Christian identity.”1 Since the formal establishment of a separate identity for the Church of England from that of Rome in the sixteenth century, the various church entities that now form the Anglican Communion have made numerous revisions to their liturgy. What principles have guided these efforts? This essay attempts to address that question for each of four historical periods: (1) the reforms of the sixteenth cen- tury, focusing on the claims made by Thomas Cranmer and Richard * J. Barrington Bates currently serves as rector of the Church of the Annunciation in Oradell, New Jersey (www.annunciationoradell.org). He holds a Ph.D. in liturgical studies from Drew University, as well as master’s degrees from the Church Divin- ity School of the Pacific, the Graduate Theological Union, the General Theological Seminary, and Drew.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Law Makes the King': Richard Hooker on Law Andprincely Rule
    18 ‘Law Makes the King’: Richard Hooker on Law and Princely Rule Thnailce Kirby Much of Richard hookers (1554—4600) career was spent in theological controversy concerning the constitutional provisions of the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559 (Kirby 2008: 1—26). In his capacity as Master of the Temple in the Inns of Court, Ih)oker preached a series of sermons in the mid- 1 580s on some of the central themes of Ref ormation theology, including A Lea,’ntd I)iscoiirse OJJJ/StlJIcatlon, an influential piece on the doctrine of faith and salvation first published in 1612 (Hooker 1977—90: 5:83ff.). Hooker’s orthodoxy was formally challenged by the disciplinarian Puritan divine Walter Travers in A Supplication made to the Privy Council: he sharply challenged Hooker’s strong appeal to the authority of reason and natural law in religious and ecclesiastical matters as inconsistent with the chief tenets of reformed doctrinal ortho doxy (Hooker 1977—90: 5: 261—9). Hookers formal Answer (Ilooker 1977—90: 5:227—57) to Travurs’s objections laid the groundwork of the philosophical and theo logical system, which he expounded, in considerably greater detail, in his treatise of 3, From the outset the question of the the 1590s, Of the Laws of Eccleiiastical Pout consistency of Hooker’s defence of the ‘Erastian’’ presuppositions of the Elizabethan religious settlement with his theological Premises — more specifically on the question of the unification of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Crown — lay at the very heart of these disputes. The Laui is a ‘very considerable undertaking, and consists of a lengthy preface and in three 2 The first four eight books, usually published separate volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ANGLICAN VOCATION in AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY by Randall
    A Mediating Tradition: The Anglican Vocation in Australian Society Author Nolan, Randall Published 2008 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Arts DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/159 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/366465 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au A MEDIATING TRADITION: THE ANGLICAN VOCATION IN AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY by Randall Nolan B.A. (Hons.) (University of NSW) B.D. (University of Sydney) Grad. Dip. Min. (Melbourne College of Divinity) School of Arts Faculty of Arts Griffith University A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2007 ABSTRACT The Anglican Church of Australia agreed to a national constitution in 1962. Yet at a national level it is hardly a cohesive body with a sense of unity and common purpose. Historically, Australian Anglicanism developed along regional lines, with the result that diocesan separateness rather than national unity became enshrined as a foundational principle of Anglicanism in Australia. This study questions this fundamental premise of the Anglican tradition in Australia. It argues (1) that it is not a true reflection of the Anglican ethos, both in its English origins and worldwide, and (2) that it prevents Anglicanism in Australia from embracing its national vocation. An alternative tradition has been present, in fact, within Australian Anglicanism from the beginning, although it has not been considered to be part of the mainstream. Bishop Broughton, the first Anglican bishop in Australia, was deeply sensitive to the colonial context in which the Anglican tradition was being planted, and he adapted it accordingly.
    [Show full text]