In this fourth volume of an ongoing translation project by the Davenant Institute, we present Book IV of Hooker’s Laws, in which Hooker defends the legitimacy of the Church of England’s reformed catholic liturgy. Arguing that Protestants must be guided by a positive vision of the purpose of worship, and not a negative reaction to Roman Catholic practice, Hooker surveys common Puritan objections to traditional liturgy and finds them wanting. Along the way, Hooker considers how Christians should understand the Jewish ceremonial law and what Christians should do when ceremonies cause a weaker brother to stumble. Still as relevant today as when it was penned more than four centuries ago, Book IV of the Laws offers an enduring vision of moderation and respect for the past that remains forthrightly Protestant.
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, is popularly known as a proponent of young earth creationism due to the insertion of dates from his biblical chronology into many editions of the King James Version of the Bible. Despite this popular portrayal, historians have recognized Ussher's importance in the ecclesiological and theological debates of the seventeenth century and his stature as one of the great scholarly intellects of early modern Europe. This volume, complete with a helpful introduction by a leading scholar in the field, seeks to introduce four of Ussher’s sermons and two treatises on church government to a modern audience.
Tertullian famously asked, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Since the first century, Christians have hotly debated the relationship between faith and reason, between Scripture and natural revelation, and between Christian doctrine and non-Christian philosophy. Too often, though, the history of this conflict has been misrepresented and misunderstood. Thus, before we seek to answer these questions for our own time, we must first come to grips with the answers of the past. What did "philosophy" mean for our spiritual forefathers? When Christian teachers raised warnings in the past about its dangers, what precisely did they have in mind? And most importantly, where does this leave the church today?