Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „Hooker, Richard 1553-1600“

Abstract This article will examine the role the first four ecumenical councils played in the controversial enterprises of John Jewel (1522-71) as well as two later early modern English theologians, Richard Hooker (1553-1600) and George Carleton (1559-1628). In three different polemical contexts, each divine portrays the councils as representing definitive catholic consensus not only for doctrine, but also ecclesiastical order and governance. For all three of these theologians, the manner in which the first four ecumenical councils were summoned and conducted, as well as their enactments touching the Church’s life provided patristic norms for its rightful administration. Jewel, Hooker, and Carleton each argued that the English Protestant national Church as defined by the Elizabethan Settlement exemplified a faithful recovery of patristic conciliar ecclesiastical government as an essential component in England’s overall endeavor to return to the true Church Catholic. Jewel employed these councils in order to impeach the Council of Trent’s (1545-63) status as a general council, and to justify the transfer of the authority of general councils to national and regional synods under the direction of godly princes. Hooker proposes the recovery of general councils as a means of achieving Catholic consensus within a Christendom divided along national and confessional lines while at the same time employing the pronouncements of the first four general councils to uphold the authoritative patristic and catholic warrant for institutions and practices retained by the Elizabethan Church. Finally, amid the controversy surrounding the Oath of Allegiance during the reign of James VI/1 (r. 1603-25), George Carleton devoted his extensive examination of these councils to refute papal claims to coercive authority with which to depose monarchs as an extension of excommunication. In so doing, Carleton relocates this ‘coactive jurisdiction’ in the ecclesiastical authority divinely invested in the monarch, making the ruler the source of conciliar authority, and arguably of catholic consensus itself.

The problem that this thesis addresses is what was meant by politics based on consent in seventeenth-century England. It proceeds by examining several of the best-known English political writers, beginning with Richard Hooker and ending with John Locke. It attempts to offer an historical account of the meaning of consent, and its relationship to political obligation. The method used is both philosophical and historical. It examines the cogency and coherence of doctrines of consent that were articulated, beginning with Hooker, touches on several theories of consent that arose during the period of the English Civil War, and examines the relative importance of consent theories during the Restoration and Glorious Revolution. It considers consent, or contract theory in light of two models: a 'social contract theory' that argues from a state of nature, and 'constitutional contract theory' that understands consent as consent to law. The nature of political obligation is a function of both varieties of consent theory. The general conclusion is that, despite the arguments of the Levellers for a politics based on 'each man's consent', John Locke does not use this vocabulary of consent. He relies instead on a variant form of English constitutionalism, a variety of consent theory that has affinities with that of Richard Hooker's, that assumes that Parliament consents to law for all. It concludes by arguing that, in spite of recent readings of consent theories that have suggested that political obligation was simply understood as a duty to God, one's consent to particular laws was a necessary component of one's obligation and willingness to obey.
Arts, Faculty of
History, Department of
Graduate

This study focuses on the relationship between Hooker's doctrine of law and his concept of "participation," which is an important feature of his sacramental doctrine. In The Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie (V.50--67), Richard Hooker discusses the saving work of Christ and man's participation in him through faith and the sacraments. How does Hooker understand participation in God? Hooker speaks of the Atonement, Justification and sacraments in the vocabulary of the magisterial Reform, but (perhaps uniquely) understands the same doctrines within the framework of law, the instrument by which God orders his creation. Hooker defines law in terms of Aristotelian causes to describe a process of participation: the causes that inform the natures, operations and ends of creatures accomplish a hierarchical process of emanation of being from God and return to God. Law therefore mediates between God and creation. Creatures participate in God through the natural law, but after the fall, man's participation is restored through the divine law. Hooker's account of the Incarnation and Atonement, justification through faith, and sacramental participation---the main features of the divine law---therefore takes into account the idea of law. Hooker's treatment of participation, then, is based on categories in classical physics, and his doctrine of law influences his treatment of specific theological loci.