Discussion in 'Theology and Doctrine' started by Mark Carrigher, Jul 16, 2019.
You are so helpful, Shane and have so much information! Thank you!
I'm a Baptist but a member of an independent Presbyterian congregation. We left the CoS due to the direction the denomination was going in. I'm not a covenanter but I admire them, albeit critically. I'd be happy to chat with you about Scotland. Feel free to pm me if you like
Superb, I will do so.
No one is citing Anglican.net works
If you refresh Richard Hooker and John Mason Neale, I will be glad to cite you. Truth be told, Neale doesn't need much touch-up to be readable.
Lancelot Andrewes on the Episcopacy is rather splendid.
We have a fairly robust rule to only publish works that go up until the year 1800, because after that, the Anglican tradition begins to artificially divide, leading to the current point of there being two Anglicanisms (or more!). Publishing some works dated after the year 1800, and nearly any work published after 1900, would expose us to the charge of favoring one camp or the other. Whereas if we limit ourselves up to the year 1799, we are just reprinting Anglican classics that are common property for all faithful Anglicans, equally. This site is also keen on promoting Anglican unity, which is a call that I myself take pretty seriously. By championing the unifying, non-divided Anglican classics, we remind ourselves and everyone of the single, rich, and very coherent Anglican identity with centuries (and more) in pedigree.
Glad I'm not the only one who thought so!
There is also the fact that books published after 1800 tend to follow reasonably modern rules of spelling and typography, and generally are not printed with obsolete characters, such as the dreaded s that looks like an f. The work Anglican.net is doing is making these older volumes intelligible, by correcting the archaic or pre-standard spelling and providing modern Unicode-based typographics. It makes these older works much more accessible, whereas the newer works generally are accessible (see the Internet Archive and Google Books; they usually have these works unless they are exceedingly obscure).
Understood. So, are The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in the works?
Richard Hooker is the only Anglican divine that people actually already know of, so I wasn't in any rush to get him reprinted; by contrast, who has ever heard of Thomas Bilson, who by many accounts had written a far more robust account of the constitution of the Church? The winds of fame can be pretty fickle and not commensurate with real worth. All that is not to denigrate Richard Hooker's incredibly valuable treatise, as much as to say that he's probably the only 16th century Anglican that people already know about. Plus, the Davenant Institute is already working on a modernized version of his entire magnum opus, modernizing his language as they go (which is precisely what we do as well). So we are well assured on that front:
Richard Hooker Modernization Project: https://davenantinstitute.org/richard-hooker-modernization/
The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in modern English, vol 1: https://davenantinstitute.org/hookers-laws-I
Thank you for sharing that resource.
I myself have to confess I am not a fan of Hooker’s corpus, but on the other hand, the works of Andrewes are absolutely superb.
That really begs for a droll word-play, but I'll refrain.....