Seth C. Holler

Written to (and against) the Puritans in the 16C English Church who had been pressing to do away with that which they deemed to be offensive/unbiblical/too-Romish in English worship and ecclesiology, Hooker’s Preface to Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity begins with a historical account of the origins of presbyterian governance in Geneva. It is not a flattering account.

After describing the presbyterians’ strategies for converting folk from both the rude and learned crowds to their position, Hooker poses a piercing question (which could, I think, be leveled more broadly against the very idea of Protestantism): “I would therefore know whether for the ending of these irksome strifes wherein you and your followers do stand thus formallie devided against the autorized guides of this Church, and the rest of the people subject unto their charge, whether I say ye be content to referre your cause to any other higher judgement then your owne, or else intend to persist and proceed as ye have begun, til your selves can be perswaded to condemne your selves” (Preface, 6.1).

A judge, according to Hooker, is necessary to resolve many (but not all) quarrels. Hooker sees such judges as falling into two categories: those appointed from within a group or body, and those whose authority is “more universall” (6.2). Hooker finds the first kind of judge authorized by Old Testament precedent: in Deuteronomy 17, Moses commands the Israelites to submit their difficult questions to the Levitical priests; the one who refuses to obey the judgment rendered is guilty of presumption, and must be slain. The second kind of judge has New Testament precedent: in Acts 15, the Antiochian Christians (led by Paul and Barnabas, among others) appeal to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem on the question of whether new Christians must be circumcised to be saved (i.e., whether they must first become Jewish before becoming Christian). Without such judges, Hooker says, many of our contentious questions and debates would never be settled-surely a situation that would not please the God of peace.

In 6.3, Hooker then anticipates three objections that the Puritans will advance in response to him:

1. They will quote Galatians 1:8, where St. Paul says he would not even credit an “angel from heaven” who preached ‘a gospel contrary to the one [he] preached’–and then stop up their ears.
2. They will say men and councils can err–and then disregard their judgments.
3. They will claim they cannot contradict the dictates of their consciences–and then persist in disagreeing.

Hooker has three responses:

1. St. Paul’s understanding of the gospel came to him via intuitive (lit. ‘untaught’) divine revelation, which cannot err–your position has been gathered from “your owne only probable collection.”
2. It is true that men and councils can err–but God would rather that we obey an “erroneous sentence” than permit “strifes” to “growe.”
3. If you would obey your consciences, add and apply this rule: “in litigious and controversed causes of such qualitie, the will of God is to have [us] doe whatsoever the sentence of judiciall and finall decision shall determine, yea, though it seeme in [oure] private opinion to swarve utterly from that which is right: as no doubt many times the sentence amongst the Jewes did seem unto one part or other…”

*Image retrieved from the Wikipedia article on Hooker.