I see an important implication of abolishing Bishop, that is to say
depriving the jurisdiction, not least because it led to the fact that
for several years or many years, there were no constables. It must
have been lawfully (or by orders) abolished in some way, I think.
Hideaki
2008/1/15, Nick Hudd <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
> << That would lead to some questions I mentioned, 'when exactly did the
> authority abolish the Bishop & deans there?'>>
>
> This is the Commonwealth period, and someone who knows the Salisbury history
> should be able to give detail, but the Cromwellian changes in respect of
> temporary suspension of bishoprics and cathedrals is largely one of anarchy
> as much as of organised or official suppression. Whether the Bishop of
> Salisbury was non-existent for a few years is not known to me (and is
> probably a matter of both historical and ecclesiological opinion - the two
> opinions might validly be different from their points of view.) Many changes
> in the English and Scottish churches were at the whim of the local secular
> power in the Commonwealth period. The church had been, in England, an
> important secular authority, so it is not surprising if disintegration of
> church and cathedral organisation had led to a failure of civil order - for
> instance, no constables were sworn.
>
> This does not really give you an answer Hideaki, but it is important to
> understand that the mid-17th century interregnum was a time of significant
> disorganisation. It will be familiar to students of politics that sudden and
> radical political change often brings totally unforeseen outcomes. In this
> instance, for several years, the affairs of the English and Scottish
> churches became virtually anarchic.
>
> Nick Hudd
|