In Search of Authority: Anglican Theological Method from the Reformation to the Enlightenment by Paul Avis (review)

In this volume, the venerable English parish priest and theologian, now canon theologian of Exeter Cathedral and royal chaplain, has published the first volume of what is meant to be a three- or four-volume series.

In his previous and voluminous writings, the author is no stranger to considerations of authority in the Anglican churches. As he notes, he has dealt with both the dynamics of authority and its structures, as well as the sources of authority, with which this volume and its projected sequels deal. But the authority of Scripture, tradition, history, reason, and conscience is subject to interpretation and refinement in every age. The word search in the general title for the series may not be well-chosen, since it might “be taken by some cynical commentators to mean I think Anglicans are always searching and never finding or that I subscribe uncritically to the proverb, ‘The journey, not the arrival matters’” (xxv–xvi). As Avis shows, over and over again, this is not his position, and the concept of continuing search acknowledges that the context of conversation and quarrel shifts with each large generation, so that questions of authority need constantly to be asked again, and previous conclusions re-received. Therefore, he argues, theological method must be considered along with the conclusions, and the question of distinctive Anglican theological method is more fundamental to the descriptions of authority than has been acknowledged previously.

In this first volume, Avis surveys Anglican authors from John Jewel to Edmund Burke, that is from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. The sheer breadth of the coverage is delightful and is one of the considerations that will make these works rise above all previous attempts. In fact, review of questions of Anglican positions has focused too often primarily on the standard authors, such as Richard Hooker and the Elizabethan churchmen, the Carolines, the Cambridge Platonists, and so on. Yet others were Anglican churchpeople engaged in clear ways in theological debate and dialogue, and their conclusions are important for moving forward to new times. So, although we may be surprised to see serious and detailed treatment of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Hales, Edward Hyde, Sir Thomas Browne, David Hume, Edward Gibbon, John Locke, Joseph Butler, and Edmund Burke, Avis has made the case that they were seriously interested in questions of method in theology, were Anglicans, and were as influential in times to come as those on the standard lists, and even more so in determining theological method. It is also good to see John Wesley treated both as Anglican and as a figure of the Enlightenment, as he undoubtedly was. In fact, the robust inclusion of extended treatment of main phases of the Enlightenment is a welcome corrective to much current Anglican anxiety about this epoch-making period and the momentum of its thought. We shall await Avis’s “attempt at a theological assessment of the Enlightenment” (339), which is promised for a future volume, and expect it to be robust and favourable, given the degree of attention paid to it in this one.

Given the scope and scale of the work, it is perhaps not surprising how much critical literature is summarized here, with some engagement with authors with whom Avis does not agree. At times, this means that we hear much more from those who have studied the primary figures than from the figures themselves, even in summaries of their positions. This may mean that the drift becomes a little disengaged from the principal figures in favour of later historical and critical treatment. And there will be differences of opinion about who is included for detailed treatment and who not. In this writer’s opinion, more could have been said of such figures as Thomas Starkey and the Cambridge Platonists, although they are referred to; perhaps their contributions to questions of method are more...