the ot

nan

jurisdiction. four objections

revelation, eight

of

heart

consistency

religious

the

logical doxy ecclesiastical

5:227—57) divine

Hooker’s

on

ormation

5:83ff.).

preached

concerning

2008:

Much

1)

the

the

The

the

principles

state.

the

address

1590s,

books,

of

prince

Hooker

(Hooker

unification

Walter

of

Laui

nature

system,

1—26).

doctrine

these

settlement

‘Law

Hooker’s

Throughout

a Richard

strong

to

theology,

(3

to

series

Of

of

the

(7)

the

usually

practices is

in

matters

Travurs’s

disputes.

underlying

the of

Travers

In

Hooker’s

a

the

both

the

which

constitutional

more

1977—90:

‘very

law

appeal

of

of

his

of

application

hookers

Laws

orthodoxy

authority

civil

published

sermons

with

including

faith

Makes

church

capacity

as

in considerable

particular

inconsistent

in

he

the

objections

inconsistent on

general,

defence

to

of

A

and

expounded,

his

the

and

treatise

5:

Supplication

Eccleiiastical

the

(1554—4600)

and

of

in

theological

ecclesiastical

was provisions

of

religious

as

261—9).

in

A

salvation

Law

bishops,

authority

the

issues

Th

of

commonwealth,

the

(2)

Master

three

Lea,’ntd

laid

Hooker’s

with undertaking,

formally

the

na

mid-

with

the

the

latter

in

the

of(S)

separate

made

‘Erastian’’

Hookers

Settlement

the

Pout 3 ,

and

ilce considerably

of

proper

of

Premises

first

1

and

18

the I)iscoiirse

of

groundwork

580s career

jurisdiction

to

the

the

continental

express

challenged

to

(8)

public

reason

King’: chief

published

the

Kirby

the

Elizabethan

volumes. 2

From

Temple

on

the

uses

and

was

and

government

formal

Privy

— presuppositions

some

tenets

OJJJ/StlJIcatlon,

Princely

aim

of

supreme

religious

and

more

consists

of

spent

hence

the greater

1559

in

of

Council:

‘reformed’

by

the

in

is

natural of

in

of

The

Answer

the

the

specifically

outset

to

the

the

the Settlement

in

authorities

reformed

their

1612

authority

in

explicate

of

Richard

duties,

Crown

detail,

philosophical

first

theological

of

Inns

central

disciplinarian

a

such

he

law

the

lengthy

the

unity

(Ilooker

an

example.

(Hooker

four of

sharply

of (6)

—

in

a

in

church,

question influential

the

on doctrinal

systematically

or

Court,

themes of

lay

Rule

manner

books

of

his

in

the

religious

the

sovereignty

Elizabethan

preface 1559

reason

at

controversy

the

challenged

treatise

and

The

1977—90:

power

1977—90:

question

the

and

address

Puritan

Chris-

Ih)oker

of

of

ortho

(Kirby

as

theo

final

piece

very

and

and

Ref

and

(4)

the

to

of of persuasion: secure

Whitgift’s

CHAnim

of them preface the peace) There ian previous contributed appeal conscientious ridicule (Hooker of ally laws

doctrinal rhetorical to

intended

my this seeing judgement. your and needs appear

first The law each

the the

and good. because hereinto

justify to

Puritans

Church

the

whereby

the

whole that

is.

qualities conscientious place

controiersy

to

is

Reformation

selves

of

to kind ‘best

treatise

sets

hate

and

disciplinarian

that

namcl>

boa

1977—90: no

contributions the

a

In,

that

to

mutually 27,

orthodox>.

the slant

seek the

formidable

cannot

significant

an

of

(Huoker endeavour

certainty

who,

the

place by then

personal would

reformed

fundamental

aithout

laws

different

first ENGLIsh acceptance

law

England’ introduction

point

Elitabethan

of

we

is

(as

both

is Hit

tone

laws

like the

recourse better which and ot framed

the

intended

haie

live

they

1.1.3;

acceptable

law

about

had 19r_90:

nature. obedience

to

either

sides heart

abuse,

Thus

kinds is of

Cartwright

ordinances

in particulars

difference churches’

premise adversary

stay

established. REFoRMATI0NS).

to

unto

(Hooker

to be whereby

giveth

term

general, the to

of

1:58.5—6).

to as

Hooker

a

theological on

Elizabethan

resolie

cloud made

is

Settlement of

of

hich then our be

the

the

to

a

which

a

both work

to

the

preface.

number laws

the it)

response

lift

fulfilled theological serve

persuasion and

that Settlement.

think grand

the.

of than

we of

in

whereof

on on I

in the

the of between

sides general and

controversy, 977—90:

unto there prejudice

when

a

and

particular,

was

strive Eternal

Law

conformity

the the

the Hooker’s

ripture. the

the

conscience, a

reformation

of

assumptions,

Travers,

it

‘.l,

needful

ith

as cosmic

polemics.

all

so announces in

are,

doubts

to it

the

controsers>

Admonition doctrinal

unless .md

main

continent,

The

is

2:

upon.

consistent consideration

trial

will

characteristic the

the

assumptions

Hooker’s

Thomas

himself

preface

or

mind

and

To the

1:3-1.20—35.2) at

PrinceI

whether

to

starting-point mist preface

rest,

sought

polity

apologetic

and

tblhm scheme and it

this

and

qualit>

shall what

I

and

Lw by

doth

base

be

He

of

tenets of doth

questions

considered,

which title;

Hooker’s with

speaks

end

means

Cartwright,

to

thoroughly

especially

judgement

within

have

laws rhetorical

forte passionate

with

RitA

the of

abandons such

closer

is sift Controversy

fbr

show

of

of

of

aork.

and

in

he

the

of

the

1:1.1),

are

the light

and and

that our

thc

aim

they and

laws

as

the

fact

irenically of

sets the

conformity a about as

professed

Church authorities:

commendable,

is

nature

main

we

easier examine

laws.

declaring

Proceeding

foundational

the cause all

near of orders

are of

principlcs affection.

to

vast addressed Calvin’s

informed,

approach

out

set

the

that

of observe,

who

sound

the

accept the

the

pastoral of

our

as at

apologetic of

of

set the

to out

majority

usual

according

of

is

c

(in

nature,

treatise, them.

ecclesiastical I

ess instruments law

aim

had the

persuade

therein doan

first

can to

England. and

to

Wherefbre.

whole

Geneva.

in

uncondition

from or

‘we

the

there

unto

formally

and

of

in

disciplinar

the recourse

of

1

aspirations

just, been

what

entrance

context: Book

such it

570s sincere

general

kinds,

reformed

in

offer

securing

of spirit

mut

what hencc

pattern unto

those

namel>

that

will

intent.

world’

the

and

tracts

by

John

in

as

2’5

The

The (see

1

the

‘to

of

an

in

to of

of

is 2 6 [orrancv 5Kirb I

things a hich omc after to be dcbated, concerning the panic nat L utse and citiestion whih we have in hand (HooLr I97 90: L1; 158 11 19)

I he ihctorical aim is to persuade opponents ot the settlement to conscientious con formity by demonstrating the coherence of the ‘particular decisions ot the Settle- merit the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, hierarhv, cpiscopacy, royal suprem Icy, and thus ultimately ecclesiastical dominion or soereignty itself, with certain ‘general meditations’ on the mttaphysics or first principles concerning the nature of law.

Hooker’s foundational proposal in Book 1 of the Laz&iis easily summarised: ‘God j4 Law’. From a metaphysical or theological point of xiew, this claim is neither original nor remarkable. It represents a restatement of classical ‘logmtheology such as one finds in Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics, in the thought ot Philo of Alexandria derived from pre-Socratie sources (1-leracleitus and Anaxagoras), and developed into the premise of a complete practical philosophy in the writings of die Stoics. Drawing upon the ftorilegthrnof Stobaeus (a Greek anthologist of the fifth century CE>, Hooker Citesall of these authorities, Christian appropriation of this Greek metaphysical theme is prominent among the early Church Fathers, for example Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, or Augustine (Kirby 2008: 5 1—88),as it was characteristic also of the later scholastic theology of such as Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, and Duns Seotus, as well as Protestant reformers like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. Again, Hookers eclectic references remind us of the extraordinary breadth of his scholarship. For all of these theologians, an uncreated divine principle, the Word (logos,or ratio, or paradeigma — i.e. reason, order, or plan) constitutes the ‘idea of ideas’, the Platonic ‘arehetypal idea’ and ‘first principle’ of all created order, while the creation itself, both visible-material and invisible-spiritual, proceeds from and is wholly dependent upon this original, underived, hidden, and transcendent first principle as its first and primary cause. For Hooker, an appeal to logosrheology entails considerably more than a purely metaphysical claim concerning the nature of the first principle. As the argument of Book 1 develops it becomes clear that Hooker is thoroughly invested in the practical, political, and constitutional consequences of this elaborate theology of law, of the claim that ‘God is law’. Indeed the edifice of his apology of the Elizabethan Settlement rests upon this philosophical point of departure:

The stateliness of houss, the goodliness of trees, when we behold them delighteth the eye; hut that foundation sshkh beareth up the one, that root which ministreth unto the other nourishment and life, is in the bosom of the earth concealed.And if there he at any time occasion to search into it, such labour is then more necessary than pleasant both to them which undertake it and for the lookers on. In like manner the use and benefitof good laws,all that liveunder them mayenjoywith delight and comfort, albeit the grounds and first original causesfrom whence they hae sprung be unknown, as to

the greatest part of men they are. (Hooker I9’7 90: 1 1.2; 1:5’ 6 16)

•

•‘ •

•

•

•

n

e’iIiic’Incl II “.—

I

lactic

I cfl I

•

it..

Ii

Lw

qihi junai

•

..‘.?Iil

Liltsitfs(iIo.I

I

55

•

I:

‘i’Ij

lilt •

•‘cd

I

‘ii’

rfc.c he_

‘II

.11 ‘h’e_

1.

•

•

a

I’

.0;

I Inc

1.1 .11

•

ilniti

of

9

mt

is

11 I.(S

it

lu_ft

.1!)

‘ii I

r

e_r

st

of ‘nIt

.

.s..rlL[ ii

it

I

I

ii

Book

anaL.

pr

ssithin

ittirinatis,ii

ir •‘i

ii

• ‘.i.it.

in

I

lilt

•Itfi(i

s •

5s(uIklf’i’

is

‘P

tiotli ansi

.

IC

uji.

•f

•.‘!.

1(111

ii.Lt wj’’1.srs

(licE

s’rlin

4 of

.

in a’;

•.

lie_ti

ii

11 Sonios—t

‘,

so

this

•r

S

in.I

It! I

rllris..4

•r.

I

this

•ri

LI,

a’e;ni “

a

this I

. 1 ihs

‘i.e.,’

mock

.11

II

:

Iii

all

n’tt

‘il iiircint

.s, Ii

.

15th.

i.iss his

•...‘•.. .iMfll •

ii,

it I

1

r’rm.t nit

S

lst

twhe

41 se_n

.

the

uiunec

(ti sic dcrisattsc

.

(ii

‘he

i,.•

i’its,nn, of

•...:

•l flit

•

rare .sr’

e_

n

in

iieoic’g

5

I.

so

‘is of ..

.p’ .iI

‘

most

•.t

rexii,.ii,usI .g

•

i’titi.

hotasu’ the

e_

‘f .4

‘

I ss

“itt

rt his

.

ciiL”arioi.s

,nou.

ii

a;wr.al

r%

th

cc

and

totwIlit ‘

I

thi

1

niun

iii

.h

ItK)i%ers

rv:tai

II

tiii Ii

s

nun.

jtist 1’

,

titi

iilletti(iln

;

it •.l..i

of seu’iat.iiiie .:

.:‘. .11,0 ‘.

)‘5

()

ii’

.tIII

i.lIi it

.

tort (10CC

fl

.tI i

•

in

I

n.hc

•.. or

beings

one_i

iCdLitt

itici

I

t

uract

their

looker

I

‘r.

HhIhich

1111(1

tc’Icoi

a. 1 j••,%

(lookers

r

9(

It,

•i)_,:

‘lit

C I •‘.

‘

.1

lit

:‘

.4

,L

that

anti

ltdi(l

ilicatighi

‘.r .me_i

fta ih in

“

‘List ihtoicn.zs

.

ii ots p

r

I I.

I

‘n

!

lirsi

cit

iiith

I

il a

g

ii

onaIIc

di’ 5’

fir

in.

I onhlet

(Kirby

I

sunimanises

•s

pei

I iIlIr posser. •

is

illicit

ftc,

sigh..

si,t’nation

itii

1IML’c’ t ’a1 1

intl ssh;.

‘.i

[us I;

I

: I

(ii

I

iopc

is

to

tie_f

‘ii

I uI

•ini:iti.al

umserse oriulnal

t•.e’:’• ““iii

.

I

r

the_chips .iins

•

thoroia,.iiis e_oiikl

.

I

sue_h

tins .

liii

c

ii

I

hi lass

tridicion

of

is.

t

fi

homas l.isss

‘

tue_jut .

1).

I

tihat 200r

•

Putt

•htith of •

•. i’i’

‘ 5 ••

‘I

n. iii.

lass.

I

slit

iii

I

I

the

dIV

that

‘parrit

of

is

‘Ii: Csrr

‘ i.ir •.

•

(timid ss

•Ill’j

his liii

C s

•

I

is

to

.assi,i

‘he_i

tkrisccl e

... J(I5

•

.4

tue_h

his .:

•

AI 1 IilIias,

iheti.

.ini hat

.

chcc)rIts

I

Is

I. ‘i 1

1)

.‘miiable

I.

(

the

ci’ ‘

tpIoit

sireiic iii

‘,

be S. so

t,eneral

(

‘‘I

...:1 5 .

‘tis

ifllt

the

u

.s’si

in

Ii’ n..ii;:..

.. nseci

•

‘Ii

cmiii

g

I.

re_sit

aItdlIiee_t

jNI 1 ILII

,iii’I,

h

tic ‘I.•

timu 11(11k .:

p

is (miii

.•.

it

“iii)

loll

Lit

I U .it

.. h

‘

511,11

i.t’Ii

•i$

I ol

•

a

‘a he

fur I...

ci

(tint

iii’

i

aim

‘tic

iPiV)iflt

ultim

I

toiascrseis.

‘in’ As

.

rat

I• ...

I. flit

•.i. s

. et ‘s

•

ut

as

Lass 1

:.

ik

with

liii

when

111011 sLihst.iliI

•‘

KIll) 3

•(u

t,

me_I

i!..

fli .:e_

LIIihtsS

Ii

C.

I t’iins ‘

i

fachtr

tIc

toss a

•

of

: f

C

rliihiti

I :1 •.. ‘‘ ;s

%

l!i’i

ne_Is ul

tsu i.ltss •

i

S

fin’tuiii ‘liii

• Mi

•

urn

I)eit%

I’.

nit

his

‘tiiit

.trcis

..

ki trz•a.d

•

ri

1

I

h

.e

ot

tiic bl Lewis I t

‘mr

Iihlt

iih

os

is

.sipti’ )9()

‘‘ •• (rum

I

i

tile

form

iii

eat

m’

the

L

1 .

ii3’h’

e

1.

I

f_ it .

I

the !

‘“i!4

,le_tlnfls I,N4.er I

‘

dcliii! iii.

tL

propci

11151

(Lewis •h

rhiinu.,

.1 ii

‘

List

ii”I

L

is (Mist’

.. iii

•‘

f

‘.1

I

owe

0(1% anti.

•

tlw

ciii)

ciii me_i

•

nfl i

j

lit

...;

iii

I) o

according

less

ing

unusual,

eternal

the

eternal’

original

in discussion

besides

a

199.3—:

of

is

manifold,

cosmic

ing

tive

theology hierarchical

what

conflared

cles divine

departure

hi,

1

God

dit

a

itself, fountain’.

tion

almost

19

l)i

the

[977—00:

.3.

‘hidden’

a

eternal

‘All

the

diverse

All

q.

ional I

to

1:

eth

‘only

law

beyond

category

1;

principle

looker

on

being

or

Hooker is :

a

opening

3,

Ia

and

things’, derivative

law

1:

Li

order,

unity

(ad

perfection

law,

both

the

crhatim

(Hooker

Eternal

one,

VI(l),

art.

/

and

adheres

the

to law IIa,

63.

lI&,

Aquinas’s

derivative

first

Aol

of

hierarchy

from

o

adheres

In

of

extra),

asserts

not

divine

and

law’

‘procession’

1

whereof

to

7).

io

the

.2.2;

works 15),

or

in

the

and

unexpected of Cod

calls

q.

‘second theolog}

this

N

eternal

questions

himself

92).

Hooker

the

consisting from

Law:

the

(197—90:

below

law

rather

91,

‘simplicity

I9’—90:

to

law

species

quotation

and

and to

90

simplicity

simplicity

1:59.

closely

that

respet

is

‘that

second

and treatise

Thomisric

species

the

some

art.

of

remains

that

a

‘that

an

of

law

(i)

emanate

eternal

thus

(In

itself

kind

accounts

very

laws

maintains, from

eervthing

1

operations

Neoplatonic

the

law orig

of

1).

of

i—I

and

he

se)

superior,

to

within

part

law

lie

(as

the

1.2.2;

of

on

invokes

hookers

of

law

1.3.1;

‘great

of

of

Oneness

0).

inati\

traditional

which

‘dispositively’

dotli’

in

higher

simple

from

in

that

a

also

law

law’

God’

all

which

law

of

law

paradigm.

first Aquinas’s

his

from

‘manifest’

the

It

participate for

the

1:58.33—59.1).

the

e

(Kirby

things

chain’

we

(Hooker

the

adheres

including

inaccessible

unto

is

in

of [:63.6—1.3). to

works

as

‘Thrrjn

part

to

principle

the

introduces the

(Aquinas

and

third

Siimma,

emphasis

it

logic

as

precisely,

and

the

God his

tradition

it

can

lower

eternal

formulations

‘dispositively’,

genesis

inefflibly

whom it

of

self—identical

is

of

definition

2005:

second working:

iewntLi

do

question

On according

mere

is

begin

of

in

Aquinas’s laid

have

to

being)

Kirb

tr

in

species.

however,

laid

besides

God’s

of

the

its

1947:

a

Aquinas’s

law

divine

upon

they

the

tip

however,

something

of

29—44).

of

certain

dviie

unity,

him

Whereas

eternal

pars

process

tip

to

transcendent

While

so-called

00:

the

whereby

divine,

in

Christian of

as

fr

own

are

of

In

Ia,

discern

the

in

of

to

Siiinmi),

both God)

with

simplicity,

while the

the

Hooker

their

1

world

that

this that

the

having

logos

i

subject,

the

q.

law,

level,

initv,

2.2:

law

divine

Unlike

of

position

self,

his

in

prima

all

bosom

3)

for

undifferentiated

the

lex

‘essence

respect,

bosom

of

perfei

bringing

thoroughly

the

is,

on

theology simultaneously

‘highest

his

a

creatures

including

discussion

1

in

by

legal

Si)

I distinguishes

‘do it

:0.6).

their

L/it’inltatls

glimmer

many

divinity

argument nothing

lookers

the by

unity

original

pars

his

is

Aquinas’s

means

insistence

is

also

and

of

non

author’,

(ompare

work

of

way

ground

as

Hooker’s

definition

theory

of

God’

worker

(Aquinas

to

God,

things wellspring

I

(such

into

is

Just

if

work

whidi

looker

law’

God

of

invention

of

of

all marked:

hut

after

and

distinctive, of

Hooker

of

(the

of

(1

definition

an

being

as

Thomas’s

nonethe a

that

creatures

they

(Hooker upon

as

the

‘accord

Hooker’s

between (Aquinas

9’7—90:

emanat

and

unity

the

Aquinas

gradual itself

genera

himself:

nomos

besides’

the

God

emana

a

derives

found

law

of

1947:

God

sort

first

arti

call

for

the

‘our

the

had

and

ira-

the

of

of

of

is. in

out

correction

human

‘,in additional

depend

in

supernatural

Protestant of

tinction

corresponds,

these

fills divinely

works

to

by

revelation distinction

portional

an disposition

manifold

cal

the

law

within oneness’,

radical

together

hierarchical their species

himself,

self

the

iuthor

chief

he

pi’

the On

Neoplatonic

its

The

and,

the

all

Augustinian

dlspoiitio

finite,

within

outside

transcendent

law

reculated

two

original

cleriation

the

natural

through

this

law

among

natural

upon

other

it.

of

QO:

of

immanence

like

of

revealed

whereby

and

utt/.nn

dispositlo. determinate

side

to

derivative

the

tiirnma

of

created

theology

law,

is

The

the

the

that

between a

of

1.2.2;

lv

the

both the

as

as

the revelation

himself

a

second

principal

to

first

law

them

of

law

condition

mediated

twofold

the

conscious,

therefore,

human

crucial

agent

the

has

the

metaphysics,

law

all

the

disorder

regulation

from

divine

‘hypostatic’

genera

natural

law

a

they

order

simplicity

and

and

erernal

species 1:59.1

revelation

already

penalty

primary

other

(Calvin

htiman

second

of

eternal

species

their

which

in

and,

provides

the

consequence

species

introduced

their

creature arc

knowledge

God

aspect

of

and

the

of

law,

il/)oJit1o,

law

of

2—I

have

things

introduced pragmatic

first

respective

the

of

laws. law

wrought.

Scriptures,

been

and

being

of

eternal Ho’ker

unity

law it

of

by

mode

application 1986:

they there

in

).

and

law,

relation

hut

of

second

their

of

God’s of

—

eternal

\villinglv

law

the

the

remedy

all

as

In

is

Scripture

As

and besides

shown,

law,

the

unity

for

Hookers

hut

under

constitute

the

into to

of

are of

the

place

means

on

are

1

the

law.

the

natural

origin

of

.2.

The

law

reflection

ordering natures diminish

by

God

second

Hooker

mediation

by

eternal

Lau

between

i.e.

rather

law

further

this

first,

viewed

imago

presupposes

1.

that

first

manifold

for

of

positing in

of

to

and

to

the

the

worketh

(197

being

a

of

(duplex to

is

the in

anti

gathering

sin

the

this

particular,

the

positing

light

relation

order

principle

it

not

they

the

eternal

Fall

eternal as

del

ensure

this

the

part

law

derivative it

(Augustine by

purpose.

can

divine

Thomist the

upon

Princely

the

cosmic

ot

to

fashion

ifl

also

90:

between

is

restoration law

—

are

of

the

first

—

participating

Hooker cogiuitlo

by

Cod

of

by.

preclude

overall

the

have

portrayed

CreatoriEternal

a

as

viz,

that which

reason

1.2.3;

the law:

law, of

the

disruption

understood

reflects

the

of

together second

source

of

eternal

God

Augustine

first

concrete

logic

is

Rn/c

the

hooker

Hookers

nations,

logic

natural

law,

no

and

general

Fall

divinely

nothing

Dci),

a

i.e.

the

the

as

significance

1998:

instance

presupposes

1 kind

so

second

other

the

t1ierefire

or

:0.

a

of

composite

God

eternal

of

the

and

divine

the

by

of

law;

second

consequence

critically

of

namely

‘return’

law

procession possibility

circumstances.

forms

simultaneously

a

of

law

16-18).

of

for

principles

Book

h

I

epistemological

the

would

distinction by

law

gradual,

alone

in

then

looker

ordained

however.

the

eternal law

—

Law

him

through

example

and

original

source

the

law

various

eternal

is

of

God

of

order

bound

19).

by

of

to

itself

species

is

such

important

a

to

created

say,

God’s

and

the

divine

All

he

as

the

a

the

his

law

hierarchical

and law

of

he

Through

in

contained

of

of

completely

for

means

asserts

the

regulated

hierarchi

a derivative

coercive species

—

law

sin.

between

creature!

to

a

any

creation

gathered

working’

light

his

human

together

gradual,

law

both

which

sets

These

of special

I

return

radical

guards

law

focal

looker be

order

This

thus

dis

law pro

‘very

and

29

of

the

to

of

up the

—

of to

belongs power centre

There

sOb

my 7

these

nounced

hierarchical

necting the assumption

within distance.

God

heaven There

means

Augustinian a

the

the I Yet,

tics (.nIer point

280

:øti!watiun:

aside,

looker

täshion

ereignty

a and

nation

which

b>

die

To

logic

reading

disine

way

thoroughly

of

bridged.

by

implications

of

perlbrming

are

of

the

is

atablashed

light sum

01

life,

of

and

to

the

in

i.e.

gathering

heaven

‘supreme

no

introduces

mystical

groundeth

implications

the

of and

In

the

grace

two

that

boundaries

the admittedly

all

source

of

up.

‘natural’

of

hierarchy,

the

earth

fliomist

principle

of

this

debate

death.

dhine

flavour

flesh

nature

In

‘ci’.il

critical

gradual

the Ilooker\

—

Hooker’s

first

and

exactly

and

Pmttstant

way,

this

of

jurisdiction’

‘a

throughout

bring in

in

natural

itself

natural

(Ilooker

a

justice.

prince

is

eternal operation

over

way

mediation

earth,

of

supernatural,

ills

any

aci

dec

of

fir respect,

procrustean

but never

within

features

Hooker’s

hierarchical

his

the

upon excluded

an

ount

inc

ishel

theolog>

mystical

saving

ecclesiology

the theology

not

law

law

Augustinian

duties

or

theology

able

with

In

197’—90:

sim;4tcit

‘Law

law,

assumptions

the

of

coherence

governor’

an

the

over

at

the

this

and

of

cannot

of

between

significant

to

appropriation

guiltiness

this

law

is

fashion. and

all

a

procession

nature

Augustinian

remainder

Hooker’s

of

fashion,

find

and

hierarchical

Makes

respect

divine

way distanced

the

mediation

of

Thrrana

way. of

in

as law

works

1.11.5,

serse

out

and

of

law

supernatural’

grace

church

directing

the

a

logic

fallen

to

of

assisting

behold

displays

of

the

of

Grace

hierarchical

law

any

Hooker’s

Augustinian

I

of

constitutional

Thomist

‘order

his

the

for

theory

sin,

to

6;

propose

of

his

Kist

from

outlined

from

of

righteousness.

fint

wa>

together

is

humanity

or

of

diipositio

mediate

1:118.11

his

hypostatic

thought.

the

and

how

hypostatic

King’

unto

doctrine

alone

properly

‘ecclesiastical

the

and

many

of

eternal

and

grace.

treatise.

its

of

through

theory

the

interpretation

obtaining sense

—

to

the

Thomist

sovereignty

derisative

dispose

earlier

emanation

return

is

is

within

eliamine

wisdom

bcrween

theologu

of

of

18)

same

and

First

capable

This

law.

the

of

theory.

understood

of

framework

of

mediation.

the

From

laws

Leaving

sin

grace

a

divine

law

in

gulf

the

to

end

of

deserving

the disrinc

is gradual

dominion’

of

‘containment’

legal

A

cannot

saliation,

the

forms the

fallen

spiritual

his

takes

reward

il

God

Hooker

of

ot

of

that

Learntd

second

between

of

turn

Books

The

justice:

lik

consequences

overcoming

the original

claim

theory

the

to

Hooker

hath

his has

on

dispositio

of

humanity

stand

serve

of

by

of

dens

Eternal

be

Fternal

the

law

eternal

charactcris

the

rightfully

works

condem

2 af&irs,

bliss

Dinerse

theory

very

a

resealed

that

man

solely

contained

through

course

with

ref

fount

el

to

at

marked

of

in

allows

öre,

but

con

pro

from

the

link

the

cuch

out

Law.

and

the

Law

the

law,

and

as

of

its

of

by

of

of r II 1 P k

‘‘ ‘ i : ‘i 1k’ I S i S 1 1 1 I ‘ I I’ ‘It’ ‘.1 Li i it ‘ ‘ ‘ 1 ‘ S I . I S

I it

I ‘ ‘ its I

I I 5 • its Ii’ I ( 5 5i( I II.. 5 II ) •,5 ii ‘. ii I £ 1% Ii • al’(I ii — I II I II

• ‘is liis in h a id the I’ra%tian Oust ittition tics nix ii and hoidli •. Ic I In II sokii in Book S as L’%entiall irretoncilable 55 itli the 5Ufl (;scill%.1ho

ti theologs of Iiw outline I in Book I. Peter Muni sets thc pattern ‘shin hi •ui.Ltes I ‘t in his ticIi nit of the rotal ccc ksiastral supsemaq Ilooker ibandons his flfl tOils • s nc to a I homist rhenlogs of law with its gradual £li%lA)%itI(Ili•d Lit powirs of ut and gi at i in f is our of a pet it’s of 1 udoi As..ii om (MLIO/ I‘TO: (9 ) II kii s ssillingncss to affirm subjection of the goscrnance of the church to the tail set is dccmeclinconsistint with the 1 homist first principles, that is to sal. with lOttIcof nit- !cs dnnutani when b) the temporal ixrn must be subordinated 1 ircliicalls to the spiritual Ixnser. as the order of naturt itself is subordinated to order of giacc. or as natutal law is suLx;rdinateto divine law. Mun,’s argument ‘In as its unspoken premise that I looker aLtuall) aflirms the l’homist nwtaph>sie a rur hit at Iisj‘n#iv,. ( ivcii Lit Ii a premise, I looker’s ‘gc-ncral meditations of Book plainis contridic ted in the ‘.ins of Muni and in that of nun other scholars ides b5 thic‘parnt ular decisicIts concerning constitutional order argued in Book •Iun, 190’ 96 Ill). I his conclusion concerning the logical incohcrcnce of I looker’s account of sover— iuts with his 1e2,alprinciples rcsns, howeser, on a fallacs, namels that the theolog •i5 ol honk I is indced a simple appropriation of I homist nit taphsical principles. sc attc mpted to show abose how I looker does indent appropriate cicmcnts of itnas’s thcon of law, how on cscasion hc appcars almost to Lx quoting duct cl> in thc S’i.i, ,, hut how JIM), noncthcless, lit incxhifics the Thontist legal thcor> taiutis I) In si ttinc’ it within a larger iramcwork marked in its Aut’ustini in ‘- i iologic al iss’impcions Our main t irpose in comparing the arguments of Books nil N sc t a nit is ‘a attempt to show that, fir from tending to logical incoherc ncc, ii. I ‘ r s Ii htiahu Lit fin of the us ii magistratc’s rolc as the highest uniommandc I iii. 1and i ii lookir I J’ ‘)O: S. I H(Kcble I885: II: s. s() 151of tlic eu lcsiasti ‘scII (lie cisil liftr irchi is nothing less titan the prac tic at compiction of his unititt, thu in icssan tulfilmcin of his nomos thcolog.

united

Proceeding

power

unity

cal converse

I (lex

physics ological

nature. relation

of

papacy

Marsilius Aquinas’s

law

the

propositions

the

spiritual

In

papacy’s cal

The

the

theology

13

is,

282

is

two

looker’s

ritic

(Hooker

and

rn’mu

the

make speak

the diipositio

A

An

accurately

the

supreme

according

I

jurisdiction.

grounds,

dijinitatis)

so-called

pope’s

in

temporal

lookers

church

centuries

particular

of

other

other:

of

such

as

Augustinian bull

the

similar

ca/tb

This

to

of

no

of

between

civil

lines

the

and

quest

‘accidents’

authority

interpretation

to

proposes

the

theory

Siemma

them

personal

l9-9O:

hierarchical

supremacy

and

accidents

I

in

implied

from

are

a

claims

jurisdiction

Augustinian

‘narn detence

Hooker

equally

very

described

that

and

papal

to

commonwealth

plenitudo

and

regard

or

names

earlier

a

to for

undergirding

as

relevance

the

commonwealth

civil

an

of

the

Samiam

Theologica

ecclesiastical

similar

ernphasis

that

consequently domination

two,

culminated

a

was

of

within ‘plenitude

by

8.1.2. the

hyposratic

logic

as of

of

Augustinian

totalising

which

radical

is

spiritual

the

by

realms

with

potestatzs

that

may

we

the

dispositio,

which evident

the

as

the

hierarchically

of

not

Marsilius

rejection to

of

papacy

Boniface

5;

an

may

of

1ev

import

the

constitutional

difference

a

central

and

added)

(Aquinas

the

the

those

redefinition

is

only

:

single

instance

the this

as

dit’initatis

and 318.

—

one

sever

of

informs

in

claim

we

relation

view

jurisdiction

should in

lex

implicit corollary

in

the

well.

Marsilius’

to

power’

the

things

logic

over

grant

embraced

premise,

fourteenth—century

Marsilius’

way,

difference.

of cause

VIII

direct

temporal

ditinitatis

324)

‘subject’

of

jurisdiction

the

7,rrance

libido

which

of

of

the

assertion

1947:

ordered,

of

always

According

Padua

the

and

are

rights

the

temporal

between

of

(pope

the

really

favoured

of

of

‘Tudor

in

is

metaphysical

opposition

subordination

arrangements

dornthand

things

Unam

spiritual

we

a

conflict

grounded

spiritual

Augustinian

the

in

that

Marsilian

ha

relation

by

and

Kirby

realms,

church

For

chief lovingly

—

different.

and

(1

grant

1

the

dispositive

29

of

the

Ike,

lex Hooker

2

o

Averroism’

church

the

that

church

in

power

Sanctarn

causes

by

to

f—l er

papal

5—1

person

aim,

diz’initatis.

same

nature

and

there

another

cj.

and

truth

power

both of

between princes

between

to Marsilius,

civil

dwell

in

0

political

But

work

primacy

172,

Augustine’s

(see

disorder

of

over

the

o

2).

namely

and of

ecclesiastical

supremacy.

and an

)

logic

critique

is

the

of

is

Aquinas

led

the

those

emanation

and

the

set

princes

between

along

way

together

hierarchical art.

fillowing

Marsilius

interpretation

the

the on

all

of

commonwealth

one

Marsilius

commonwealth

one

Over

the

spiritual

Marsilius

out

which

Elizabethan

ecclesiastical

of

church

things

Augustinian

matters

dehned

theology such

Augustinian

2).

to

godly

within

distinguished

well

asserts

Augustinian

orders

mediated

a

and

expose

Over

and

them,

against

earthly

series

in

informs over—reaching

His

of

are

of

realms

enough

the

and

one

prince:

Boniface and

...

was

civil

of

Christendom.

claims

the

to

Padua

against

of

accidents,

a

albeit

also

of

assertion

path

\Ve ecclesiasti

the

the

of

subject.

hypostatic Settlement

city

assert

grace

the

hierarchy

jurisdic species a

temporal

dogmatic

theologi

rulers

and

but

Thomas

Romans

from

political

from

can

corn— resolute

may

Roman

shapes

soteri

2005),

we of

blazed

meta

VIII,

logic

and

over

that

the

the

the

be

of

to

of of juci II, 1r I .su I’nm/i Ralt in,

on m i> oin i it in ci t pcrscni 01 tIlt ilrlncc as the t of Suprtniacs pro iainis. s i r I looker a io”ai mci lit essar> conscqutncc or the nomos thcologs sct out hi him

i tlic. first I ook ot ci i I. ‘ . mdccci it is ill ommon thrcaci 01 1lookers poiitic ii i.,Ustit anisi tilit oililccts tiit tr.’unlcnts t I ii jots I .iid S at ci rci ci rs dl ii

)il(flh)t is itil c 1 I, other I lookcrs ii tcrptcation of th ro ii s ipn nit s crtainhs Lxars morc than a passin i s mbi ltlcc tO tilt j oliti al thtoiog of Marsiiius (I boLt r I9 ‘ 90: ‘.11 .5;

•‘0,4.1 ‘Ill hit omilloil .fl)tiilci is their tnihracc of the prtct’pts cit j olitu al Au”us tinianisni It is itt isel) owing to Marsilius tilorou.gilis Augustiillatl insistc 114t. upon ‘ile need to distin:.zuish sharpi> anti dean> anti tilt. rc.fore‘ii>postatiLall) rat 11crthan iispositnel> Lktwccn tile spherts of tilt spiritual and tiit temporal powcrs th it the cttrnai and cdWrci5e jurisdiction oser the church as a human, political organisa ion is ascribed hi him to the sosereigil power of the Lcgislaror. Hi a similar line or ‘easomng hooker maintains that ( hrist alone (so/us(I;ristui) cxcrcises heaciship oser the c hurc Il as an inner, ins isable, and mystical .n its; i.e. the cllLircIi as a ‘societ upenlatural’ while tile ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the prince belongsproperh to tile outward, sisible. and e’cternal zz 11.1; i.e. the church as a ‘human, jxilitir societ>’:

Tile thur’ hi.ixin:.za supernatural soc.set>,clothdiffer from natural societiesin chi. chat the peisonsunto whom we associateourselves,in the one are men simpi> considered as men; but they to whom we Lwjomeciin the other, are God, angels, and holy men. The dlurch Lieingboth a societ>, and a society supernatural although as it is a society,it have the selfsameoriginalgrounds whit Il other politic societieshave,namclythe natural inclination which all men hase unto sociable life, and consent to some certain bond of association, which bond is tile law that appointeth what kind of order the> shall be associatedin yet unto the church as it is a societysupernatural this is peculiar,that part of the bond of their associationwhich belong to the ( hurch of God, must be a law supernatural, which God himself hath revealedconcerning that kind of worship which his people shall ciotint’) him. (I looker 9’7 90 I.15.2; 1:131.6 20)

Just as the second eternal law is related hypostatically (and not dispositively) to the first eternal law, so also the church as a ‘society supernatural’ with its ‘law supernatu ral’ is related to the church as a human ‘politic society’ (197 90: 1.15.3; 1:11. ,5) ‘occrnecl b> positise human law which in turn is dented from a rcfltx tion upon the natural law in short, by the authority of the Crown ill Parliament. let. just when we think we hate found our looting on solid Augustinian ground, I lookcr gises us pause to consicier further. Fan> in Book Hhe ins okes tile ks di, i’:itails in tile most explicit terms:

And if things md persons lit ordered, this doth imply that they are distinguished by degrees. [or ordc.ris a gradualdisposition. Thc whole world consisting of pans so mans so diffcrcnt is hi tills onusthing upheld: he which framed them hatll set them in order. Yea,the ten cieity itself both kcepeth and rcciuireth for ever this to be kept as a law, that whensotmcr then. is a toagmentat ion cit many, the lowest be knit to tile highest

oIitio

he human

prevailing

hierarchical basis of

natural’, Augustinian

of preted

the argument? also

Aristotle’s of Thomas

civil) scholastics

the plenitude

in This

ing probable

the

)0:

lishes

jurisdiction:

by

284

Moreover,

Bonitu

that

the

England,

this

In

err,

of

rules

by

the

the tinue

For

church

underlying

the

asserting

worlds.

the

:

of

the relation

that

making

of

to

the

subtle

lowest according

it

intermediary,

as account

1)

mediation

‘politic

e

the meaning

prince 01k.

‘by

the

will

Aquinas

universe,

is

the

allusion

VIII belonging

I.

ecclesiastical of

ss

judgement in

unmoved

distinguished when Is

[()- and

hic

distinction

the ‘a

dhiposztio

generic

Hooker’s power

(19

things

he

frame.

structure

spiritual

I

this of

defends

this free

h

the

lookers

society. is

1

of

Augustinian

judged

the

to

inward

being subordination

i

the

and

of

all

he

to

has

the

the

the

Christian

claim are

and

he 90: unequivocally

necessary

commonwealth

The division

to Aristotle’s

the

things

avoids

lex mover

been

of

nature

blessed

Bonifitce, product

interja

the

of

led

naming

quotes

(i.e.

by

of

terrestrial hierarch 8.2.1;

.;iiip/

the

drawn

Christ

influence relation

animata

jurisdiction

church,

numerous

his

hypostatically

is

the

to

doctrine

radically

inferior

are

ecclesiastical)

inferring

gives

Hooker

the

of

state

of

Dion contours

cot

spiritual

nomos-theology

hieran

almost

not

of

alone

between

of

between

the

laws

as

unmoved

yet highest

rna

between

of

an

government;

of

1.1 as

\‘itt

led

to

or

an

the

life by

sius,

of

sovereign

the

the

Lrrann-

transformed.

scholars

heavenly

(Hooker

incoherent

a

is

rules

trapped

the

kingdom

ordained

hical cause

and

the

back

power.

the

any

verbatim 332

of

mystical,

and sovereign contained

it

by

political

from

metaphysical

the

the

from

civil

superior

Hooker’s

is

papal

mover’

authority

power.

the

as

intermediaries.

necessary

equally

each

1)

motion [h

subordination

first

K!143

(Friedberg

spiritual

head

for

Trinity

power

graceS: in

magistrate,

1977—90:

powers.

the

in

I

agent

the

where

to

plenitude

political

the

from

many

some realm

and

invisible, as

—

Book

by Hooker

... On

c

and

of

church church

leave

thought, would

law

to

a

‘uncommanded

a

Therefore

is

subjection

or

the

llee.

second

one premise

anti theological

immediately,

the

broader

the

the

deep Ecclesiastical

—

years.

1955,

of

interpreted

sacramental I

unto

8.3.5; Then,

.

‘society

theology?

‘politic

divinity parts

Just

thereby

and

of

as

no

contrary,

is

the

entire

and hull

o

internal

a

eternal

an however,

other,

1959:

doubt By

it

I)ublin

concerning

the

‘politic

hvpostatic temporal according

as

3:355.33).

temporal

company

divine

external, of

the

I

society’

supernatural’,

attending

[/v

the

physical

pattern

nirn

completely

selfsame

hut the

arid Il,

(/)/Jiltf’/

Such

within

terrestrial

mediator

have he

laws,

power

commander’

in

contradiction

hierarchical

cols.

society’.

(I

we

the ‘society

so terrestrial

enLr,im attributes

rert.,n.

lo

to

realms with

—

has

pleased

logic visible,

all

reminiscent

to can

SO

the

lowest

cosmos, the

12i5—6)

in

the

people

leer

is closely to

/tiIti)

been

here

power

between spiritual

the

redefin

I

the manner

reinter

order

discern

Just

on

super

where

that larger

1

estab

on where

—

by

both

and

case

J.t—

(i.e.

two

the the

—

the

the

are

to

so

of

as a Iii ;Ar 0)1 Laii dlii Th!llL/} I?u/

make thc nt ciii it ment of ( hrist to h ecta raI1 that ssIkich los huicIi is noled and os mcd iii things spirit n ii Of this enc r ii ss c maL tss it dit in t kin Is, nhc

nc insml Is xnr icd I ( Oust himscIf n his r ssn pcnon, the then outssardls adinin ‘,t r d h rh cr ssh n ( O-”t 1Out tIlu\5 t 0 thk rul N a’d ‘to I N uf 1’ 0 it Ii, II itTer 1) (1 , I 9. - 10)

Ilk species of jurisdiction are h postat ical1 distinguished as s isible ins isible, itiss arc! outward, temporal eternal, et ( hrist is nonetheless persona11 the source of both. Being ses ercd in nature’, these two ‘kinds’ of posser are incommensurable, and the re tore annot be ordered h means of gradual c/ztotitii. Consequently, thc re can be no

Iisposi t ise subordination of human jurisdiction to spiritual jurisd ict ion, but solely a h postatic distinction as Marsilius had also argued. The result is a ‘humanising’ of the church as an external, political organisation under the itlrisc!ictn)n of the Crown, ssith the consequence that an essential’ distinction between ecclesiastical and cisil power svas no longer a theological or metaphysical necessity; both powers are recog nised by I looker as properly belonging to the sphere of the politic society’. At the same time, there is a parallel, symmetrical ‘sacralising’ of the common wealth: ‘exen as the soui is the worthier part of man, so humane societies are much more to care fr that which tendeth properly unto the souls estate than for such temporal things as this life doth stand in need of ... Sc) in all commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be provided for. And of things spiritual the chiefest is religion’ (hooker 197 90: 8.1. ; 3:321.10—16). Moreover, since civil jurisdiction derives authority directly from heaven, ‘God cloth ratify the works of that sovereign authority which kings have received by men’ (l97—90: 8.3.1; 3:336.1 )). Conse uently, power derived constitutionally from ‘below’, that is by consent of the gov

1 i cerned, is itself recognised as having a divine sanction from ‘above’: X popieli,oX Del or, as I looker expresses this famous formula in his discussion of positive human law in Book I, ‘The general and perpetual voice of men is as the sentence of God himself’

1977—90: 1.8.3; 1:83.33—8).2) For hooker the logic of hierarchical i/itpoiitio is retained u it/amthe political organisation of the state — a term he uses in a remarkably modern sense for a sixteenth—century theorist with its ‘natural’ but not ‘personal’ distinction between civil and ecclesiastical powers (l9” 90: 8.1 .2; : 320.9 12). Speaking simultaneously of his adversaries in both Geneva and Rome, Hooker rcmarks that ‘they hold the necessity of puar)na/ separation which clean excludes the of one individual’s dealing in both (i.e. civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction), we of hat//rh whuh does not prevent that one and the same person may in both bear a principal ssvay’(1977 90: 8.1.2; 3:320.9 12). Both the disciplinarian Puritan polem icist Thomas Cartsvright and the exponent of the Catholic Counter—Rekrmation Robert Bellarmine maintained the common position that ecclesiastical authority was autonomous in its foundation. Yet fr I looker these tsvo distinct powers are united in the person of the sos ereign, in a manner analogous to the uniting of diverse species of law within the embrace of what I looker calls the ‘second’ eternal lass’.I lierarchical Order properly obtains within the self-complete unity of the politic society, rather

destined

claims

Yet,

Hooker

‘unto

kingship

divine

by ation

(human

understood

wealth,

Moreover.

answerable diction.

than

286

Thus,

Kings

may

to the

seems

ion

that As

doth

religious they

critI

and

Shakespeare.

in

md

at

e’cact

for

Law

kings

given.

concerning

of

thrc)ugh

serse

the

all

basis

%tiqhts

the

trrv

do

to

base

in qualifies

have to

lead

I

supreme

right)

the

at

between

looker

Ilicrarchy

of kings

stand

same

a

be

not

in

conwtonwc.alth,

the C

to

by

ieople

the

(l’r

of

dialectical

God

to

also

received

competing

‘bent

hnian

largely

a

command,

royal

a

in

hands

human

are

the

considerations

sovereign

should

altogether

manner

time,

subordination

cloth

in

insists

On

power

submitting

this

the

ctight

Christ

90:

unto

also

tctlcsiastical prina’

authority

continues

of

by

g

the

ignored

give

ultimate

by

8.3.1;

The

have The

Can

Not

right

us

fashion,

their

in

to

it,

men.

that

logically

and

claims

to

one

and

power

by

insisting

or

ecclesiastical

as

be

them,

and

deputy

Cud

breath

wash

all

do.

it,

subjects

thtnmelses

kingdom

human

God 3: 3 i5.5

honour

sole

rower

‘1

nprdient

understood

throughout hand,

that

the

and

neither

(Hooker

against

9

of

source

.attairs

I

to

through

of

the

of

which

looker

of

and

ratifies

water

parallel a

elected

his

obtain

Ilenry the

rzght

of

that

temporal

general

90:

balm

worldly

from

Hooker

by

9.

‘1

an

a

what

that

supreme

claim

affairs,

it.

of

once

Elizabethan

(Richard

that

rr.ma.

theretinto

cmphasis

supreme

l9

8.

in

proposes

that

very

Christ

the

divine

anointed

by

(‘oil’s

from

political

as

i.

abo’,e

the

the

any

l3olingbroke

uizh,n

to

obedience

are

I;

their

men

ant

unto

the

united

works

concerning

divine

acknowledges

90.

the

this

jurisihc

((zr/i

4:

rough

ensuing

an

should

tlirccrin

exalted

II

own

ruler:

rinser.

Lord.

and

right

336.11

(dame

addecb

cannot

soerc

any

Word

Christian

%3.S:

a

anointed

3.2.51—’;

the

unification

of

power.

ruler:

bridge

constitution

and

the

rude

rcveakd

right

in

miter

that

(ion

not

political

unto

is

ign

icirasinuth

of

conflict

whatsoever

depose

,:453)

and

cltsame

yet

that

the

ii)

right)

sea

implicated

hint

God

sosereign

to

This king; to

kings

is

lord

than

that

see

distinc

mystical

Richard’s

Richard

due’.

In

reconcile pwj* a

oi

doth

it;

separated

Mayer

and

and

of

that

place

rcalm,

subtle

there

Vt

to

church

bath

is

fix

affairs

the

On

embody

t.

authorit

g,cast

the

pit

nowhere

(i

power

ss

which

of

in

2005:

is

analogy

It

11

hih

nothing;

Civil

the sty

the

assertion

argument

light

are

but

estate, such

nor

is

their

as

human

and

spiritual

ft

as

competing

a

one the

from

represented

cause,

a

103—20)

appoint a

domin

War.

of

wise

in

for

which

power

if

common

reconcili

of

right

hierarchy

church -_

rtasuii

sort

hand,

I-looker

aus.s

t1414j

right:

sacred

of

anti

below

was

it

juris

h

the a

I

•

)s’,n

.•i

•

I’.

...iiwr

(in,,

.9.

R.t,,r’i’:t’ou C

ii .i.,n,

.;i

P’

.11%

I

:.k

miti

hrict)fi

I

\css i’irhrrs

Slit

9.

I

•‘...

‘tastifli

I.

•“t•Ii

n

I

I’•n..

x H

aIi3, Ii

,‘

i t in

.‘

‘ii

‘‘.

l

I a’:;r..

of

,

‘•

•i

. 5 k

(vol

\Y.

I),’

J it

r Joliuu

(,r.aniI

(I’u.i(,.

i

i).mii’

‘

.5k.,.!,

lurk

r

‘aol

‘I

C

.

‘

Radmt

I

ii,’.

‘a

I .‘

•

I..’

.\

IrA

i.ih’.a

.iuic,rumt

1)1

Iinnaas

.ltirt

liii

flhlersit

Mcii

I. C

•

13(11

arni

(I

I

‘ci

,r:

I

s.

.

‘Ii

iuimsi

Hi

sri tht

si’;i

R.aj.mcls.

cUt

nn’ 1 ir is

4

‘1%).

I

(W’st

ii’)’ S.

H

S

hits.

(.

1)1

n,

B

Is.’

I’

•l

si.ak

i

R

•

...

it’ll’)

(‘ml

•

•; ‘r.

‘

Iii

he

1!

I

.11

in I.ngiish

Pniss.

‘Iatsiimtts gil .‘

..‘

‘s.

.1’:.’’.

Pu’s.

i’1S1

Ii

I

S.ii:s&,n.

B.

I

I)r,ak I

ci’n•’. n.rr,ni

lilt

t)9H)

S

1

Nil

,n.’i

fir

I)

bin’.,

,“.,.

S

Hnnhrr’..

Ii.irswps

in

‘h..

C

i)M.n.

•r’

•.I.

Il/i

Thuchnit,.

•

h.un’

i.

S’in.rna

‘

hi

Jpip

ii.’

ii Ii’:

llcdici.il

r

ii.

g’q.

Ri

Ihimmuacan

I/g

the

I

r.

Vi

rilnians.

q

.,

i

i’iS’’,

ii

4

•

tu

i

His

C,.!,

C

I

..rJll.,.i

j’ai.

an. 1

(

,h

R

L.a

•.i

FRI

,.

.!t.n,.

II

nla..sanst.ah •unhi

lit

1

R.i ii)

,Sshiuatt

l’i.i Fna’ia

•

s:a

kiln, tad

C

P

aci. st.nt

‘P1’ igi

•

ini:.i.

I..

F!’

1..

i.i 4 ’ C

is,

I’[9. a’ I’

.

%C

i’,i

sst

icige. (,Jj

.ap:.

ih

S

h

l

lii

Pr,n

•

i

i*,

t.is.t

oil .w’i

a

•

‘iiiifi’•ci

i.

Iii a. I

.•

....

•

Li

. IliSrr

.‘.

S

io

C

trails

i

npt

.‘.ia. I

hr:

‘‘Iii,

Rth

•ii

mutt

ss

I.r,

‘%l)

t $MI.

.ttn.

•t.

Sr.

is

St

ib I

.

Fi

(looker.

I

lull,

I •..

(un.

I

limit.

liii,

(rig.

RII1LR

.iuaci (I

Hi

C

l.i”n

“

I?’

R

I

II.

C

II S

I

siasrutal

I

iiri.lc •tii,l

I’)

\.i:i,q.i.rsJ

IL

),.u.n.I

‘ls iooker

.n’

miisenmty

hr

t

I

.Ln

•,•It

45 I)

‘rA

I

I

u’s

5’

‘ ,

%

John

a.,

“ree’l

non,

Rci.aissanie

r.

,ri

lS’(•% mt

.ago

ihi

•.

4,

.11

9’

ap Pt

.

Ru.

—

Its.

•

anI 1 ig

Ci

Spttl sri’’

(

rtcd

I

I

4 lii

.

Ii”

I

I..

•.t

ii.

Ri

(I

polity

a him

.

sois.

I’res.

i’rc—s

iiis’t

uiis’rsun

1’

Ku,

I 4s

Lard •!.

I hard

.‘

sciamacl.

it

as

995) 11,11

.‘‘

itt it

Ii .21a9—Xs..

...

alt’

%IUM

•‘

liar.!

F!.’

•

(pp.

It

U

Ii’i

I

(I

C.

(ecU usC nfl

S

Pr.i.,pjr

in

anr.h’sic,h.I.n,

•

‘i9’

ot

I. anti

i

ul.

Pg

)2a).

rt•ts

In

ilitili

—

i

u.s’ 1 .

the

ii ssii.

si

sss,.

•i,.

Oil

Press.

Pr’ss.

I

at

I

i)a.nsi,.anic..n.

R.iiatd

in!

(19

‘I’; .

John

iarsard

‘5

I

I

IIj.’.!

i.itts sj.

.

I

.tmi.I

I

It

90)

•

iu,ab

‘).

C

I

I.,:

Pagec. lAx

,

Press

19)

1.

II

.

I’

‘hi.

ha.

KeNc,

3 tip

Sitadits.

.,,rf

. I).iuklln

.

;r., r.ir •

.

aa’.:

(rate

lii

lIc

Lb

I

C

C

I’i

St,’h

II

‘if

s

Ii

.a,uihri.i:e. ,aanhnualqe:

II

n

iv.!

lgt

)fl

l.. iii

‘eli

I?.

•J’

sirs

I

\Y

C

sok

anal

‘cii I I

•

est

s.j,

‘liii

nUn ii...

i,r.

ii

C

.ast

s.,

nasersan

le:

,

I

.1’•

‘,h.’.s

a

n thiusiimcnr

•

rs

ciii

NI’ (iai

‘

ib”

ja..,

i

Wi (hior.l.

Si

niir •)

I

I

•..

1

en.

••1

R:h

iii

..

Pr’

urn,

‘

I’

‘I.

ud

I.

e.

.

C

stirs

SEA.

.i.i

still.

•..

tints

,

rn

t.,l

am

‘.1.

tie

Ii’.

ss.

‘hat

in!

‘S

in

ut

.5 ‘,i

McGrade,

ivicCrade,

Mc

Lo

Like.

KrIt.

k’rb,

K,rbs,

kitE’s,

,Int/

aissance

of

Studiei,

hooker’s

late—medieval

York:

116—2

and

-11 6

ç,,,

,Ion

tee

a

11’.

C

j)

1/,

kwood,

Ire’

r 1 t t

i’ta

is,

fa:

ov,

the

nth

1,89

1?

a’ red

,

man.

Peter

the

C’ni

tile

hi:

Press.

a’ ‘:‘l,

C

\\

to

t’

\\.

Tr.tnactton

‘c

\\

(enti/r5.

Pi’rth

Columbia

Ri .icd

1)

.

Kin

,r

ira

Bologna,

Arthur

Texts

S.

Kiisser.

3 He

Arthur

119.

I

(on

Shelley

use

e

ase

J.

Binghamton,

(

;‘:j

hard

3 ‘

ants

çi/ip

J.

II

I

F’

(

ti

lorrance

her.

[‘(5

forr.,n&

itrac

for

of

Int

P/at

lnrran

and

Larran

and

hr

Eael,i/.

Ss’eo-Latini

P

1

C.

In

S. Bracton’.

i.

p.

the

Unisersity

rnationa/

S.

C.

London

R

ion

.

26 early-modern

.,t

I

S

f

(,.‘i’

,tat

Studies.

(Cd.) the

(2002).

Ei 5 /ih eo’a’ani

e ci

‘

(1985).

(1990).

royal

ccd

the

e

S

I

(ci.

tig

Aug.

Ic

of

Engith

/,‘

irnit

Aldershot:

(I

NY:

n

(I

Dr

Roj.il

‘OOSj.

990e

( In and

Bonnie

“,a

997). ecclesiaste

Congrra

and

)U()

fri

ii.

I,it

irna.

tad

Press.

(41$),

Mediesal

R.

1

1

‘Constiturionalism

Marsilius I’

.

Iterationi

Boston:

I,,ii:,

ReJormattn.

nan

Sept.

s)

Hi

J.

P

‘.‘íç/

1.r

Boswn:

Oxford: Rii/jr./

i/ore

Richard

nil’: Pa/aid

-

r:t,tn’.

Schoeck ,toricj/

R,,ia’d

leX

i,lin:

Inn

‘if

A

Community.

al

/tii!t

1979

Proi’ee/inç.v

ta

mate.

e’s’eu—Lati,i

and

I.

(

.ini

of

of

suprem

I3rdl

J

tie

C n,j’,r’.n

Hooker

II

I

S

II

En

Padua

uigtm:

If

laren

(ed), ‘, I;irjiiee

Ren

Si

Stare:

New

Brill.

nwin

(pp.

at.

Szx

k,r

her

k,r

Williams,

Tierne,

Summers

Patterson.

Mum’,

Mayer,

Mersi

M

ktu/

ma!

Lan

Toronto

229-

State, right

I

961 Po/inm

One

tice:

lIlt

aflit3

gious

New

card

d

s C

0

(1

.ini

ladrian

lempe’.

Grade,

‘i

onte\t

ambriiae:

tsitt

Lao

th”

I

Annahe

/c

God,

88.

S 1

of

45.

0 f

S

Peter

lean

of ‘.

is

York’

eels,),

Brian in

bakground

i

I

1

1050

lie.

0/

Ea’/eizaitica/

it

Joarnal,

id

in

Press.

Rowan

Patrick

kings’.

Press.

,

R

tntI;h

Saras

A

AZ’

Ear/i

I

Arthur

ic

1hoit,It.

In

Padna

es.

Christoph

entelechy,

Is

eç/iaiii

Johann

hard

I

(I

Fordharn

SI

(198$).

Ba

C

Dennis

I

/

9Th). Let

ia.

.iinhridce

ileljaare

Mcdi

I1 O0.

‘

Huiteri

D.

(2006).

H

tt

14’d,,n hun

,

ds 1 a

I

s

and

21

S. looker’s

,

New

M.

res

P

C

P.

(USi.

‘fire/on,.?/

Polity

lie

ambridge.

s

Ii

2$

beauty,

Taylor

fin

Toronto:

Th

(1

I

,il

md

msitcd:

c2002).

the

‘00

ta/

‘niverslrv

01

tad

—9

98 Yrk:

liit,dme

England

‘Richard

.ini

1’ I

Pla,c

Political

.,n

C’ri.,ii

advent

revisited’,

).

n

Bri,n

Lan

).

tk

P

1,

is

.ini

I

and

1)

Rib!

/tt,

Greenwood Shakespeare

e

‘Rh

Reiiaissanc

the

(

[lookers

reitt

of

Cambridge

il/tar,

University

Pci ri’ri

of ,;J

ira’

Press.

desire

[)as

(pp

/‘

of

Ve

hard

hooker

ThouiAht,

abridge

Hooker:

establishment

Church

E r

tcU

Pre

II

the

Eic/esiesti kers

‘!

to

el

,/cnaitjcal

oJ I

, hooker,

,‘,

in

ss.

in

appren—

0

I

Beamire—

C/’rrjti divine

‘

I

2,,

d

in

Press.

a

8 s

Book

it

I

3/2,

and

The

eds

reli

new

1

/0).

Ler.

dn,

th

of

ni

xt -4.