What do you think?
Rate this book
Radicalism: When Reform Becomes Revolution: The Preface to Hooker's Laws: A Modernization
Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is one of the great landmarks of Protestant theological literature, and indeed of English literature generally, but is scarcely read today on account of its difficult and archaic style. The time has come to translate it into modern English so that Hooker may teach a new generation of churchmen and Christian leaders about law, reason, Scripture, church, and politics. In this initial offering of a multi-year translation project by the Davenant Trust, we present a short and accessible sample of Richard Hooker’s profound insight and rhetorical genius, in the form of his Preface to the work. This wide-ranging discourse on the psychology of religious and political radicalism, and the need to balance the demands of conscience with legal order, is much more than a mere preface, with startlingly relevant insights for the church and the task of Christian citizenship today.
102 pages, Paperback
Published September 2, 2016
21 people are currently reading
101 people want to read
About the author
Richard Hooker
206 books16 followersRichard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an Anglican priest and an influential theologian. Hooker's emphases on reason, tolerance and the value of tradition considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism. He was the co-founder (with Thomas Cranmer and Matthew Parker) of Anglican theological thought. Hooker's great Elizabethan guide to Church Government and Discipline is both a masterpiece of English prose and one of the bulwarks of the Established Church in England. Hooker projected eight books for the great work. The first four books of Ecclesiastical Polity appeared in 1593, Book V in 1597. Hooker died in 1600 at the age of forty-six and the remaining three books were completed, though not revised, before his death. The manuscripts fell into careless or unscrupulous hands and were not published until long afterwards (1648 to 1662), and then only in mutilated form. Samuel Pepys makes mention of Hooker's Polity three times in his Diary, first in 1661, "Mr. Chetwind fell commending of 'Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity,' as the best book, and the only one that made him a Christian, which puts me upon the buying of it, which I will do shortly." In 1667 Pepys bought the new edition that had been printed in 1666, the first to include the life of Hooker by Izaak Walton.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
January 25, 2018
Despite disagreeing with a good deal of what the author says, I give this work 3 stars because it is a useful corrective to the more radical type of neo-Puritanism that we find today that seeks to turn the world upside down in rash and unwise zeal to correct every fault in the church. There is also a danger of doing untold damage through overstating the case and engaging in over-passionate rhetoric, rather than examining the issues dispassionately and impartially.
This book is a modernised, NIV-style version of the preface to Richard Hookers Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Since Hooker's Olde English prose is inaccessible to most modern readers, the Davenant Trust decided to translate it into contemporary English to enable a wider audience to read it with profit. Brad Littlejohn acted as the translator and also provides a helpful introduction to the work, which helps to illuminate it in its broader polemic context.
The main problems that I have with Richard Hooker's approach to ecclesiology are that he undermines Christian liberty by essentially permitting church and state to impose things upon people in matters of religion without biblical warrant, he fails to recognise that many of the contentions among English Protestants arose owing to a lack of conformity between the Church of England and the other Reformed churches, and he has a tendency to paint his opponents in as negative a light as possible. Interestingly, the Scottish Presbyterian Robert Baillie did much the same thing in his polemics against the Independents.
Hooker also seems to think that the case for certain aspects of Presbyterian polity rests solely on the exegesis of certain New Testament passages. In the case of something like ruling elders, for instance, one would suggest that these are derived from the light of nature, common sense, the Old Testament, and the practices of the Jewish synagogue. I have to say that I find it odd that some modern evangelical Anglicans will defend bishops on the basis that they are not condemned in scripture, but will oppose ruling elders because they cannot find biblical warrant for such an office. On their own principles, however, ruling elders must be accepted as they are not condemned in the Bible.
The wisest approach to this whole issue seems to be that of the more moderate Puritans: while we should continue to seek the reform of the church as much as possible, errors in church government or liturgy are not, in and of themselves, a reason for separation from a Reformed church. The contrary principle would lead to complete absurdity.
This book is a modernised, NIV-style version of the preface to Richard Hookers Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Since Hooker's Olde English prose is inaccessible to most modern readers, the Davenant Trust decided to translate it into contemporary English to enable a wider audience to read it with profit. Brad Littlejohn acted as the translator and also provides a helpful introduction to the work, which helps to illuminate it in its broader polemic context.
The main problems that I have with Richard Hooker's approach to ecclesiology are that he undermines Christian liberty by essentially permitting church and state to impose things upon people in matters of religion without biblical warrant, he fails to recognise that many of the contentions among English Protestants arose owing to a lack of conformity between the Church of England and the other Reformed churches, and he has a tendency to paint his opponents in as negative a light as possible. Interestingly, the Scottish Presbyterian Robert Baillie did much the same thing in his polemics against the Independents.
Hooker also seems to think that the case for certain aspects of Presbyterian polity rests solely on the exegesis of certain New Testament passages. In the case of something like ruling elders, for instance, one would suggest that these are derived from the light of nature, common sense, the Old Testament, and the practices of the Jewish synagogue. I have to say that I find it odd that some modern evangelical Anglicans will defend bishops on the basis that they are not condemned in scripture, but will oppose ruling elders because they cannot find biblical warrant for such an office. On their own principles, however, ruling elders must be accepted as they are not condemned in the Bible.
The wisest approach to this whole issue seems to be that of the more moderate Puritans: while we should continue to seek the reform of the church as much as possible, errors in church government or liturgy are not, in and of themselves, a reason for separation from a Reformed church. The contrary principle would lead to complete absurdity.
December 5, 2019
Hooker’s argument is that when you “want to reform the church according to the word of God:” given the lack of some clear precepts and patterns, you are going to have people who a) believe any deviation from the RPW is sin, b) some who believe a) will nonetheless have different practices, which leads to c) they, too, are necessarily in sin.
On one hand he is correct. This is exactly what happened in history. On the other hand he completely misses his target. He labels those who think like this as “Presbyterians,” since they are following Knox and Calvin. Historically, however, at least in England, the true radicals were the Independents. Presbyterians in England (and Scotland!) never really had the political competence to hold on to power.
Here is a survey and structure of Hooker’s argument:
(1) The “Radicals” have nowhere shown that the Established are breaking God’s law in their liturgy.
(2) The radicals sought to get as far away from popery as possible. This ultimately lead to getting rid of the Lord’s Prayer et al in the service. Anyone who disagreed was “disobeying the will of Christ” (2.2).
(3) Instead of civil authorities having authority in the church, we have lay leaders who have close to the same amount of authority. Further compounding the problem, and Hooker doesn’t specifically make this argument, what if leaders in the community, yet not actually holding office, are also church leaders? This isn’t all that different in the end.
(4) Hooker asks where Scripture teaches the entire “Presbyterian package” (2.7). You can’t point to verses that teach “rule by elders.” That’s not the issue. The problem is where are the elders’ session to report to a presbytery which reports to the Assembly?
(5) This next argument isn’t a knock-down argument, but the radical types need to consider it: how come no church body in history (over the long term and in the mainstream) ever held to Calvin’s type of government? While Rome, EO, and Canterbury view bishops differently, they at least hold to episcopalian government as a given--and this was a given since the earliest days.
(6) Related to (4), we can’t say we are following Scripture simply because Scripture doesn’t give us an outline of First Presbyterian Church, Colossae. Nor does it give us an order of worship.
Hooker’s arguments simply show the difficulties in some hyper-Reformed views. He doesn’t in the preface give an argument for his own position, nor does he offer any knock-down logical arguments.
On one hand he is correct. This is exactly what happened in history. On the other hand he completely misses his target. He labels those who think like this as “Presbyterians,” since they are following Knox and Calvin. Historically, however, at least in England, the true radicals were the Independents. Presbyterians in England (and Scotland!) never really had the political competence to hold on to power.
Here is a survey and structure of Hooker’s argument:
(1) The “Radicals” have nowhere shown that the Established are breaking God’s law in their liturgy.
(2) The radicals sought to get as far away from popery as possible. This ultimately lead to getting rid of the Lord’s Prayer et al in the service. Anyone who disagreed was “disobeying the will of Christ” (2.2).
(3) Instead of civil authorities having authority in the church, we have lay leaders who have close to the same amount of authority. Further compounding the problem, and Hooker doesn’t specifically make this argument, what if leaders in the community, yet not actually holding office, are also church leaders? This isn’t all that different in the end.
(4) Hooker asks where Scripture teaches the entire “Presbyterian package” (2.7). You can’t point to verses that teach “rule by elders.” That’s not the issue. The problem is where are the elders’ session to report to a presbytery which reports to the Assembly?
(5) This next argument isn’t a knock-down argument, but the radical types need to consider it: how come no church body in history (over the long term and in the mainstream) ever held to Calvin’s type of government? While Rome, EO, and Canterbury view bishops differently, they at least hold to episcopalian government as a given--and this was a given since the earliest days.
(6) Related to (4), we can’t say we are following Scripture simply because Scripture doesn’t give us an outline of First Presbyterian Church, Colossae. Nor does it give us an order of worship.
Hooker’s arguments simply show the difficulties in some hyper-Reformed views. He doesn’t in the preface give an argument for his own position, nor does he offer any knock-down logical arguments.
October 13, 2016
Wise. Hooker is the kind of man you want arbitrating between combatants.* He understands how people and movements work, and he offers all the right warnings and admonitions at the beginning. This is a rich, little read, although it also disappoints since the actual book hasn't been modernized yet. *hint, hint, guys*
*Kind of like John Frame (but please don't read too much into that comparison).
*Kind of like John Frame (but please don't read too much into that comparison).
March 30, 2019
An excellent introduction to the topic of Polity. This book (and by extension the whole series) is very useful in comprehending the often forgotten Conformist and classical Anglican position on the Church.
As a modernization, it is excellent. The language seems accurate (I've not done a comparison myself) and rather dignified. Excellent job on that point
As for Hooker's content. His criticisms that he expresses over the abuses and over zealous and frankly rather ridiculous attitudes that many Puritans took came offered of a fatherly thrashing than an actual argument against the legitimacy of a position. Perhaps this develops more in the following books, but so far he doesnt seem to have spoken much of the hot button passages. Also noticable is the exclusive use of negative argumentation. Nothing positive is out forward, this makes Hooker's argument weak so far.
Excellent all around, look forward to reading the rest of the series!
As a modernization, it is excellent. The language seems accurate (I've not done a comparison myself) and rather dignified. Excellent job on that point
As for Hooker's content. His criticisms that he expresses over the abuses and over zealous and frankly rather ridiculous attitudes that many Puritans took came offered of a fatherly thrashing than an actual argument against the legitimacy of a position. Perhaps this develops more in the following books, but so far he doesnt seem to have spoken much of the hot button passages. Also noticable is the exclusive use of negative argumentation. Nothing positive is out forward, this makes Hooker's argument weak so far.
Excellent all around, look forward to reading the rest of the series!
January 28, 2019
There are multiple reviews to be had here: 1) on the content of the book and 2) the translation.
1. Safe to say Richard Hooker knows how to construct and then deliver an argument effectively. His stance is well thought out and while he is maybe slightly too verbose at times he can really get his point across while sticking to his own principle of an argument needing to be given merit on how sound it is rather than how passionately it’s argued.
2. This seems to be a really good translation, it’s made Hooker accessible and easy to read but kept his arguments in tact. The introductory chapters at the beginning (which for once I didn’t skip) were very informative and helpful for giving background information.
1. Safe to say Richard Hooker knows how to construct and then deliver an argument effectively. His stance is well thought out and while he is maybe slightly too verbose at times he can really get his point across while sticking to his own principle of an argument needing to be given merit on how sound it is rather than how passionately it’s argued.
2. This seems to be a really good translation, it’s made Hooker accessible and easy to read but kept his arguments in tact. The introductory chapters at the beginning (which for once I didn’t skip) were very informative and helpful for giving background information.
December 20, 2023
What I love most — and am most convicted by — in Hooker is that, ultimately, he opposes not order, stability, or tradition to the enthusiasms of dissent and supposedly incomplete reformations, but rather humility, which is the seedbed of all his other first principles. This opening act of the Laws is every bit as relevant for Christianity in America (dare I say *more* so?) as it was for the faith in Elizabethan England.
October 26, 2019
Indeed, Calvin should not be to us what Lombard was to Medieval Romanism...
This preface is an interesting call to irenicism. Looking forward to the rest of the book.
This preface is an interesting call to irenicism. Looking forward to the rest of the book.
July 26, 2022
Hopped over into Hooker to try to figure out just what was said that encouraged Locke in those thoughts that ultimately impacted some of the American founding fathers. It’s always interesting to see how seemingly limited historical events cast broad shadows on the world for centuries to come. Henry VIII decided he didn’t care much for monogamy, so he created his own separate church to back up his love ‘em and leave ‘em divorce cycle. His young son cleaned up that debacle a touch, bringing a little more of the mainland reformation to the isles, but he died early. Then Catholic Mary rolled onto the scene for a handful of bloody years, cementing England’s detestation for the Romish system, before Elizabeth tried to find some sort of middle ground that would break from Rome while still maintaining the highly-controlled church governance system that the monarchy could retain some control over. Which leads us to Hooker towards the end of Lizzie’s reign, trying to benevolently strong arm the non-Anglican reformed faction into giving up the mainland presbyterian system for the sake of unity and ecumenicism (the old “we could/should get along—if you’d only make all the changes and become just like us” argument). And all this under the guise that the Anglican system has the stronger historical/biblical defense…despite its foundation being the same Romish system the Anglicans had broken off from with Henry, and the Presbyterian church leadership system being used almost solely in the European reformation that started decades before the English reformation (and without such worldly incitements as Henry’s roving eye).
I predict this commingling of church and state will be the catalyst for the eventual distinction of separation of church and state—originally so that neither side can use the other to enforce their worship style/church leadership on the other (which the Anglicans ultimately did anyway)…yet doesn’t really compare to the modern separation of church and state where pagans seek to employ the state to make laws against Christian morality within the nation.
Note: the modernization is wonderful and the review is in no way a critique of the work done to render the text more understandable to modern minds.
I predict this commingling of church and state will be the catalyst for the eventual distinction of separation of church and state—originally so that neither side can use the other to enforce their worship style/church leadership on the other (which the Anglicans ultimately did anyway)…yet doesn’t really compare to the modern separation of church and state where pagans seek to employ the state to make laws against Christian morality within the nation.
Note: the modernization is wonderful and the review is in no way a critique of the work done to render the text more understandable to modern minds.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 11, 2018
The translation/modernization is skillfully done, revealing Hooker for the trenchant thinker and irenic polemicist he was. Littlejohn's preface and the "notes on editorial approach" were both helpful.
I like that Hooker directly addresses his opponents (the Puritans). He rightly notes that many of the problems in Elizabethan England were caused by jure divino presbyterianism. "Discord," he says, "might have been prevented easily enough if each [Puritan], when they established their respective church orders as most convenient, had not claimed to be following the direct command of God, presenting their system of church government unto their people as something everlasting required by the law of that Lord of lords.... By taking such a hard line from the beginning, they made it very difficult for themselves to ever back down for fear of losing face" (6).
My least favorite part was in chapter 8 of the preface, where Hooker literally puts words in the mouths of the Puritans (using the Barrowists as a sort of type) and then tries to demonstrate the deleterious effects of the would-be Puritan reformation by describing what happened among the Anabaptists. He straw-mans his opponents, effectively, which is undoubtedly an effective rhetorical ploy but is unbecoming in so thoughtful and balanced a writer.
Anyway, I'm eager to get copies of the subsequent volumes in the Davenant Institute's translation project. Hooker's "outline of the remaining book" in chapter 7 of the preface whetted my appetite for more.
I like that Hooker directly addresses his opponents (the Puritans). He rightly notes that many of the problems in Elizabethan England were caused by jure divino presbyterianism. "Discord," he says, "might have been prevented easily enough if each [Puritan], when they established their respective church orders as most convenient, had not claimed to be following the direct command of God, presenting their system of church government unto their people as something everlasting required by the law of that Lord of lords.... By taking such a hard line from the beginning, they made it very difficult for themselves to ever back down for fear of losing face" (6).
My least favorite part was in chapter 8 of the preface, where Hooker literally puts words in the mouths of the Puritans (using the Barrowists as a sort of type) and then tries to demonstrate the deleterious effects of the would-be Puritan reformation by describing what happened among the Anabaptists. He straw-mans his opponents, effectively, which is undoubtedly an effective rhetorical ploy but is unbecoming in so thoughtful and balanced a writer.
Anyway, I'm eager to get copies of the subsequent volumes in the Davenant Institute's translation project. Hooker's "outline of the remaining book" in chapter 7 of the preface whetted my appetite for more.
January 4, 2019
This book is quite good. First I'll talk about the work itself, and then the modernization done by the Davenant Institute.
Hooker's Preface to the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is a fantastic analysis and summary of the concerns of the conformist party of the Church of England in the time of Queen Elizabeth against the Puritans. He lays out a sort of psychology of radical religious movements which, though not unassailable and in some places highly questionable, is extremely useful in all the substance of its intent. The modern application of Hooker's ideas would undoubtedly look very different than Hooker's, but I still believe it is necessary to consider in many modern situations.
Anyone that has ever read Hooker can tell you that his prose hardly facilitates clarity to the modern reader. Imagine Shakespeare or the King James Bible, but ten times more difficult. The Davenant Institute, however, has produced a rather faithful modernization and even translation of this preface and half of the book proper. The modernization is immediately clear while retaining all the precision of the original Hooker, though I cannot help but feel some of the more idiomatic decisions of the editors feel trite and inappropriate for the work. So, I give it four stars, though I would probably give it four and a half if I could.
Hooker's Preface to the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is a fantastic analysis and summary of the concerns of the conformist party of the Church of England in the time of Queen Elizabeth against the Puritans. He lays out a sort of psychology of radical religious movements which, though not unassailable and in some places highly questionable, is extremely useful in all the substance of its intent. The modern application of Hooker's ideas would undoubtedly look very different than Hooker's, but I still believe it is necessary to consider in many modern situations.
Anyone that has ever read Hooker can tell you that his prose hardly facilitates clarity to the modern reader. Imagine Shakespeare or the King James Bible, but ten times more difficult. The Davenant Institute, however, has produced a rather faithful modernization and even translation of this preface and half of the book proper. The modernization is immediately clear while retaining all the precision of the original Hooker, though I cannot help but feel some of the more idiomatic decisions of the editors feel trite and inappropriate for the work. So, I give it four stars, though I would probably give it four and a half if I could.
January 15, 2019
I've tried reading Hooker a few years ago in the original old English and couldn't do it. This is a great modern translation that's fairly easy to read. I'm very impressed with Hooker's analysis of the Reformed tradition so far. His knowledge of the history of Calvin's Geneva and the establishment of Presbyterian polity is fascinating. While I disagree with Hooker's conclusion on the Puritan cause, he brings valuable psychological assessment for some of the radical imbalance that occurred in 16th century Puritan England. Above all, I was thoroughly impressed with his Christian charity towards his fellow Puritan brothers, even when they wouldn't offer Hooker the right hand of fellowship. No wonder he's regarded as the Church of England's finest apologist.
Favorite quote:
"Therefore, it is not how passionately someone is convinced, but how soundly they argue, that should persuade us that their views genuinely come from the Holy Spirit, and not from the deceit of that evil spirit, so strong even in his illusions."
Favorite quote:
"Therefore, it is not how passionately someone is convinced, but how soundly they argue, that should persuade us that their views genuinely come from the Holy Spirit, and not from the deceit of that evil spirit, so strong even in his illusions."
January 4, 2023
I was hesitant to rate this since it's only the preface but here goes -
Firstly, a good update to the language, makes for easy reading. The Davenant Institute are to be commended for this.
To the work itself.. I thought quite a poor preface that feels a bit all over the place. Uncompelling argumentation, and some parts felt to me like borderline rambling. Hooker put me off from the beginning. For example, right away he accuses his opponents with bitterness (I am unsure how this is proven) and in the following sentence calls for love and warns about slander.
By the end he is going on on and on about the most ridiculous extreme separatists, and claiming that these are the result of those advocating presbyterian government who took their ideas to their conclusions. Clearly however, anyone who goes very astray can claim to be following the most orthodox of teachings, and this is not new since the inauguration of the church from the apostles.
I hope Hooker does a better job at substantiating his claims through the following books.
Firstly, a good update to the language, makes for easy reading. The Davenant Institute are to be commended for this.
To the work itself.. I thought quite a poor preface that feels a bit all over the place. Uncompelling argumentation, and some parts felt to me like borderline rambling. Hooker put me off from the beginning. For example, right away he accuses his opponents with bitterness (I am unsure how this is proven) and in the following sentence calls for love and warns about slander.
By the end he is going on on and on about the most ridiculous extreme separatists, and claiming that these are the result of those advocating presbyterian government who took their ideas to their conclusions. Clearly however, anyone who goes very astray can claim to be following the most orthodox of teachings, and this is not new since the inauguration of the church from the apostles.
I hope Hooker does a better job at substantiating his claims through the following books.
January 14, 2019
Updated to modern language while retaining the wit and wisdom of the original. A work that is securely set in its time and circumstances, but clearly applies universally to the church and questions of authority, church structure, and interpretation of the Scriptures. This book is just the introduction to the set, but I'm motivated to see what the rest hold in store.
Read
February 21, 2019“By taking such a hard line from the beginning, they made it very difficult for themselves to ever back down for fear of losing face. Accordingly, anything these church leaders had once established, they felt compelled to resolutely defend to the end.”
November 12, 2020
A magnificent introduction to the modernized volumes of Hooker available from Davenant. Absolutely a must read for anyone interested in understanding the foundations of the English Reformation and Anglican churchmanship.
December 3, 2018
Prologue wherein Hooker makes a fist and cocks back his arm---ready to start hitting and unleash hell on the radical Puritans in Books 1-8.
October 15, 2020
Really want to get into this guy. Deeply prophetic work.
July 7, 2023
A very helpful modernization of Hooker's preface to his "Laws."
January 1, 2020
Hooker is my homeboy
March 21, 2023
Hooker’s entire argument, after much verbose-ness, rests on this sentiment: “these matters are far too complex and nuanced, for the uneducated, simple, radically biblicist puritans. Calvin was cute, but you need to leave it to us elites.”
As John Owen and many others aptly pointed out, the same was said to Martin Luther. And “Scripture alone” is the correct response.
Hooker is right in pointing out that the Presbyterian polity is practically as inventive and speculative as the Episcopacy, without the historical tradition to give it extra weight.
As far as polity goes, Thomas Goodwin’s view is unaddressed, because he lived/wrote later. Goodwin’s book “The Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches” serves an ace that has never been returned.
As John Owen and many others aptly pointed out, the same was said to Martin Luther. And “Scripture alone” is the correct response.
Hooker is right in pointing out that the Presbyterian polity is practically as inventive and speculative as the Episcopacy, without the historical tradition to give it extra weight.
As far as polity goes, Thomas Goodwin’s view is unaddressed, because he lived/wrote later. Goodwin’s book “The Constitution, Right Order, and Government of the Churches” serves an ace that has never been returned.
October 27, 2016
I liked this rendering of Richard Hooker's preface in modern English. The "translators" did an excellent job. Hooker's meditation on the seeds of radicalism within religion are certainly relevant today. As a proud 'Murican, I don't necessarily agree with Hooker about the propriety of the monarch being the head of the ecclesiastical establishment, and I don't see a problem with the plurality of churches in a free society. Other than that, I thought this was great.
January 6, 2017
This is an excellent translation, although I would have appreciated more explanatory footnotes, since I am unfamiliar with much of the historical context in which Hooker was writing.
I disagree with some of Hooker's theology, and quite a few of his ideas are outdated (e.g: the essential role of monarchs and other secular leaders in church leadership). That being said, his advice on mediating conflict within the church is both thoughtful and thorough.
I disagree with some of Hooker's theology, and quite a few of his ideas are outdated (e.g: the essential role of monarchs and other secular leaders in church leadership). That being said, his advice on mediating conflict within the church is both thoughtful and thorough.
Read
September 27, 2016If any of you are big (or small) goodreads reviewers, please rate our book :)
December 20, 2016
I'm a bit partial to this book.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews