No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Historical Perspective on Doctrine and Discipline in the Church of England
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Doctrinal discipline is a necessary concomitant of ministerial accountability and ecclesial integrity. When there is division in the Church the consequence of that division is expressed in articles or confessions of faith which, in the words of the Declaration of Assent, indicate how that Church ‘bears witness’ to the Christian Gospel and the faith once delivered to the saints.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2005
References
1 The substance of this article reproduces in an appropriately amended form the historical and theological background material prepared by Bishop Rowell for the House of Bishops Working Group on Clergy Discipline (Theology and Liturgy) and which was incorporated in its report Clergy Discipline (Doctrine) (GS 1554).Google Scholar
2 Cf Mirgeler, Albert, Mutations of Western Christianity (Burns & Oates, 1964).Google Scholar
3 For this and the many questions of doctrine and discipline posed by the Reformation, especially in relation to baptism, the Eucharist, and the nature of the Church, cf MacCulloch, Diarmaid, Reformation: Europe' House Divided 1490–1700 (Allen Lane, 2003).Google Scholar
4 Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974, s 5(1); Doe, N, The Legal Framework of the Church of England (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996). p 256. Yet it has been noted that same Measure contains a circular arguments in that Once a Measure with doctrinal refrence has been passed by the General Synod and Parliment and received the Royal Assent that determines that such doctrine is in accordance with Scripture and tradition and the historic formularies according to the Canons of the Church of England, and cannot further be tested. (Cf the cases brought by the Revd Paul Williamson on precisely this issue in relation to the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Leeder, Lynne, The Ecclesiastical Law Handbook (Sweet & Maxwell 1997).Google Scholar
6 Ibid. 9.2, p. 267.
7 Bray, Gerald (ed). Tudor Church Reform: the Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum (The Boydell Press, Church of England Record Society, 2000), pp xli ff, pp 170–224.Google Scholar
8 13 Eliz 1, c 12, also known as the Ordination of Ministers Act 1571 and the Act confirming the Thirty-nine Articles 1571.Google Scholar
9 Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical 1604 (ed Bullard, J V, 1934), Canon V. p 6.Google Scholar
10 Ibid, Canon XXXIV, p 38.
11 Ibid, Canons I, III, pp 3, 4.
12 Rodes, Robert E. JrLaw and Modernization in the Church of England: Charles II to the Welfare State (University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), p. 259.Google Scholar
13 Quoted Ibid. pp 274–275.
14 Ibid. p. 275.
15 Ibid. p. 276.
16 Ecclesiastical Law Handbook, 9. 3, p. 270.Google Scholar
17 Cross, F L and Livingstone, E A (eds), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997 edn), entry on Purchas Judgement pp 1348f. For the case, see Hebbert v Purchas (1871) LR 3 PC 605.Google Scholar
18 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, entry on Ridsdale Judgement. For the Case, See Ridsdale v Clifton (1877) 2 PD 276, PC.Google Scholar
19 Cf McCart, Thomas K., The Matter and Manner of Praise: the controversial evolution of hymnody in the Church of England 1760–1820 (Scarecrow Press, 1998).Google Scholar
20 Read v Bishop of Lincoln [1891] p. 9. See Newton, John A., ‘The Trial of Bishop King’ (1999) 5 Ecc LJ 265.Google Scholar
21 Cross, F L and Livingstone, E. A (eds), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, entry ‘Ecclesiastical Discipline, Royal Commission on’ pp 524f.Google Scholar
22 Liddell v Westerton (1857) Brod & F 117, PC.Google Scholar
23 Martin v Mackonochie (1868) LR 2 PC 365.Google Scholar
24 Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, 1906, IV, Appendix C, p. 49.Google Scholar
25 Leeder, Ecclesiastical Law Handbook, 9.5, p. 271.Google Scholar
26 Bell, G.K.A., Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury (3rd edn) (Oxford University Press, London, 1952), p. 1150.Google Scholar
27 Iremonger, F. A.William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, his life and letters (Oxford University Press, London, 1948), pp 465–466.Google Scholar
28 Barnes, John, Ahead of his age: Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (Collins, London, 1979), pp 395–412;Google ScholarCarpenter, Edward, Archbishop Fisher - His Life and Times (The Canterbury Press, Norwich, 1991), pp 295–301.Google Scholar
29 The Ecclesiastical Courts: Principles of Reconstruction, Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts (SPCK, London, 1954), p 73.Google Scholar
30 Ibid, p. 71.
31 Re St Stephen's, Walbrook [1987] Fam 146, [1987] 2 All ER 578 Ct of Eccl Causes Res.Google Scholar
32 James, Eric, A Life Bishop John A T Robinson, Scholar, Pastor, Prophet (Collins, London, 1987), p 121.Google Scholar
33 Chadwick, Owen, Michael Ramsey: a Life (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990). pp 372–373. q. Michael Ramsey. Canterbury Pilgrim, 1974, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
34 Quoted in Mantle, Jonathan, Archbishop: the Life and times of Robert Runcie (Sinclair-Stevenson, London, 1991), p 207.Google Scholar
35 Jenkins, David E., The Calling of a Cuckoo: Not Quite an Autobiography (Continuum, London & New York, 2002), pp 52–53.Google Scholar
36 Hastings, Adrian, Robert Runcie (Mowbray, London, 1991), p. 202.Google Scholar
37 The Nature of Christian Belief: a statement and exposition by the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England (Church House Publishing, London, 1986), p. 2.Google Scholar
38 Ibid, p. 9.
39 Newman, J.H., Fifteen Sermons preached before the University of Oxford between AD 1846 and 1843 Longmans, Green, & Co, London 1898), ‘ The theory of developments in religious doctrine’, pp 331–332.Google Scholar
You have
Access