I'm confused about the positions taken in this debate. My understanding is that the Hoadlian, and the Whiggis, view in general, was that of erastianism: not power flowing up from the people, but supreme ecclesiastical prerogative invested in the sovereign at the expense of the clergy and any independence or relatively autonomous jurisdiction claimed by the clergy. I guess erastianism could be interpreted in various ways (whether civil supremacy over the church applied to the crown, or to the crown-in-parliament). But the political implications of the erastian party, if I'm not mistaken, was to assert magisterial authority at the expense of bishops and the clergy--as such it seems less a diminution of the royal prerogative and more an assertion of civil authority over clerical. The fallout of the controversy led to the permanent preroging of convocation after all. Hoadly himself spoke of the Goerge I as "law-giver" on the order of Moses, justifying his right to sideline clerical authority and claim more exclusive power over religious matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.