The Holocaust of His Discretion

Abstract This essay establishes the significance of the concept of "discretion" to the scope and nature of episcopal power in the early Stuart Church. Examples are drawn from the Church's constitutional documents and the ecclesiology of Richard Hooker, where "discretion" nam...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Church history and religious culture 2020-09, Vol.100 (2-3), p.342-363
1. Verfasser: Clayton, Tom
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 363
container_issue 2-3
container_start_page 342
container_title Church history and religious culture
container_volume 100
creator Clayton, Tom
description Abstract This essay establishes the significance of the concept of "discretion" to the scope and nature of episcopal power in the early Stuart Church. Examples are drawn from the Church's constitutional documents and the ecclesiology of Richard Hooker, where "discretion" named a faculty of judgment and the particularly controversial form of autonomous power over adiaphora, or "things indifferent," proper to the clergy. Turning to the manuscript and print records of a dispute between Bishop of Lincoln John Williams and the Archiepiscopal regime of William Laud, the essay argues that contrasting interpretations of discretion within the Church's institutional culture characterized divergent approaches to conformity. These differences were established through the metaphors that translated between objects at the edges of episcopal jurisdictions and the concerns closest to the Church's doctrinal identity. Disputes over these metaphors aggravated constitutional tensions in the years preceding the civil wars.
doi_str_mv 10.1163/18712428-bja10007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>brill</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_brill_journals_10_1163_18712428_bja10007</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1163_18712428_bja10007</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b110t-709ab2cb85319d1efbb08ded2eace7dff188e2291cd7873592dcd7fc80143ff43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j81qwkAUhYdSoVZ9gK7MC0xz70zSmSzFtkYQ3Ci4G-YXE4IDmfj-NahdnY-zOIePkA-ET8QvnqMUyAomqWk1AoB4IdOxo2P5-s94eiPvKbUAJSsRp2R5OPusjl20-pqGLIasblL23STb-6GJlzmZBN0lv3jkjBx_fw7rmu72m-16taMGEQYqoNKGWSNLjpVDH4wB6bxjXlsvXAgopWesQuuEFLysmLtRsBKw4CEUfEby-67pm65Tbbz2l9ufQlCjn3r6qacf_wPiY0Ko</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Holocaust of His Discretion</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Clayton, Tom</creator><creatorcontrib>Clayton, Tom</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract This essay establishes the significance of the concept of "discretion" to the scope and nature of episcopal power in the early Stuart Church. Examples are drawn from the Church's constitutional documents and the ecclesiology of Richard Hooker, where "discretion" named a faculty of judgment and the particularly controversial form of autonomous power over adiaphora, or "things indifferent," proper to the clergy. Turning to the manuscript and print records of a dispute between Bishop of Lincoln John Williams and the Archiepiscopal regime of William Laud, the essay argues that contrasting interpretations of discretion within the Church's institutional culture characterized divergent approaches to conformity. These differences were established through the metaphors that translated between objects at the edges of episcopal jurisdictions and the concerns closest to the Church's doctrinal identity. Disputes over these metaphors aggravated constitutional tensions in the years preceding the civil wars.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1871-241X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1871-2428</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/18712428-bja10007</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leiden | Boston: Brill</publisher><ispartof>Church history and religious culture, 2020-09, Vol.100 (2-3), p.342-363</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clayton, Tom</creatorcontrib><title>The Holocaust of His Discretion</title><title>Church history and religious culture</title><description>Abstract This essay establishes the significance of the concept of "discretion" to the scope and nature of episcopal power in the early Stuart Church. Examples are drawn from the Church's constitutional documents and the ecclesiology of Richard Hooker, where "discretion" named a faculty of judgment and the particularly controversial form of autonomous power over adiaphora, or "things indifferent," proper to the clergy. Turning to the manuscript and print records of a dispute between Bishop of Lincoln John Williams and the Archiepiscopal regime of William Laud, the essay argues that contrasting interpretations of discretion within the Church's institutional culture characterized divergent approaches to conformity. These differences were established through the metaphors that translated between objects at the edges of episcopal jurisdictions and the concerns closest to the Church's doctrinal identity. Disputes over these metaphors aggravated constitutional tensions in the years preceding the civil wars.</description><issn>1871-241X</issn><issn>1871-2428</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNo9j81qwkAUhYdSoVZ9gK7MC0xz70zSmSzFtkYQ3Ci4G-YXE4IDmfj-NahdnY-zOIePkA-ET8QvnqMUyAomqWk1AoB4IdOxo2P5-s94eiPvKbUAJSsRp2R5OPusjl20-pqGLIasblL23STb-6GJlzmZBN0lv3jkjBx_fw7rmu72m-16taMGEQYqoNKGWSNLjpVDH4wB6bxjXlsvXAgopWesQuuEFLysmLtRsBKw4CEUfEby-67pm65Tbbz2l9ufQlCjn3r6qacf_wPiY0Ko</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Clayton, Tom</creator><general>Brill</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>The Holocaust of His Discretion</title><author>Clayton, Tom</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b110t-709ab2cb85319d1efbb08ded2eace7dff188e2291cd7873592dcd7fc80143ff43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clayton, Tom</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Church history and religious culture</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clayton, Tom</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Holocaust of His Discretion</atitle><jtitle>Church history and religious culture</jtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>100</volume><issue>2-3</issue><spage>342</spage><epage>363</epage><pages>342-363</pages><issn>1871-241X</issn><eissn>1871-2428</eissn><abstract>Abstract This essay establishes the significance of the concept of "discretion" to the scope and nature of episcopal power in the early Stuart Church. Examples are drawn from the Church's constitutional documents and the ecclesiology of Richard Hooker, where "discretion" named a faculty of judgment and the particularly controversial form of autonomous power over adiaphora, or "things indifferent," proper to the clergy. Turning to the manuscript and print records of a dispute between Bishop of Lincoln John Williams and the Archiepiscopal regime of William Laud, the essay argues that contrasting interpretations of discretion within the Church's institutional culture characterized divergent approaches to conformity. These differences were established through the metaphors that translated between objects at the edges of episcopal jurisdictions and the concerns closest to the Church's doctrinal identity. Disputes over these metaphors aggravated constitutional tensions in the years preceding the civil wars.</abstract><cop>Leiden | Boston</cop><pub>Brill</pub><doi>10.1163/18712428-bja10007</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1871-241X
ispartof Church history and religious culture, 2020-09, Vol.100 (2-3), p.342-363
issn 1871-241X
1871-2428
language eng
recordid cdi_brill_journals_10_1163_18712428_bja10007
source Jstor Complete Legacy
title The Holocaust of His Discretion
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T06%3A26%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-brill&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Holocaust%20of%20His%20Discretion&rft.jtitle=Church%20history%20and%20religious%20culture&rft.au=Clayton,%20Tom&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=342&rft.epage=363&rft.pages=342-363&rft.issn=1871-241X&rft.eissn=1871-2428&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/18712428-bja10007&rft_dat=%3Cbrill%3E10_1163_18712428_bja10007%3C/brill%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true