SOURCE: Davies, E. T. “Richard Hooker and The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.” In The Political Ideas of Richard Hooker, pp. 27-43. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1946.

[In the following excerpt, Davies provides an overview of Hooker's life and work and outlines the major arguments in Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity]

Although many had taken in hand to answer the Presbyterians, it was not until the last decade of the sixteenth century that the greatest and definite answer was given. It was given by Richard Hooker who was born in March, 1554, at Heavy Tree, then a village outside Exeter, but to-day a suburb of that city. His parents do not seem to have been people of substance because, after a stay at the local school, it was his uncle, John Hooker, Chamberlain of Exeter, who made it possible for the boy to proceed to the university. The interest of Jewel, later Bishop of Salisbury, and himself a Devonian, was aroused, and consequently Hooker gained admittance into Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and henceforth, until the bishop's death in 1571, Hooker's expenses were defrayed by him. Soon after the death of his patron, Hooker became tutor to Edwin Sandys, son of the Bishop of London (afterwards Archbishop of York), and thus a connection was made which was later to have important consequences for Hooker. Another early pupil was George Cranmer, great nephew of the martyred archbishop.

In view of his later theological position, it is interesting to note that Hooker's early influences were Calvinistic. Both Bishop Jewel and Reynolds, Hooker's tutor, had come under the influence of Calvin's theology, and there is reason to believe that this was also true of Hooker's home influence. It is not surprising, therefore, that Hooker himself should have shown signs of these influences in his early life, and although they almost all disappeared by the time he wrote his great work, yet in one or two particulars, this early influence persisted.¹

In 1577 Hooker became a fellow of his college, and soon afterwards he was appointed to read the Hebrew lectures in the absence of the Hebrew professor. In view of his progress, it must have been a shock to his friends to receive the news that both Hooker and his tutor, Dr. Reynolds, had been expelled from college, the cause being unknown. He was, however, reinstated within a month, and in 1581 he was invited to preach at St. Paul's Cross.

On the occasion of this visit to London, Hooker stayed at the house of John Churchman, in Watling Street, near St. Paul's.² It is not difficult to conjecture why this house was chosen, because Churchman's son, William, was a freshman at Corpus Christi, of which college Hooker was fellow. Furthermore, there was another connection between Hooker and the house in Watling Street, this time through his pupils Sandys and Cranmer. Both had been to the Merchant Taylors School, and John Churchman had associations with the Merchant Taylors Company from his earliest years. In the year of Hooker's first visit to his house he was Third Warden of the Company; in 1589 he was made First Warden, and in 1594 he became Master of that historic Company. Civic honours followed, and early in the next century he was either Chamberlain or deputy Chamberlain of the city of London. Churchman was an honourable man, held in high repute by his associates. When Hooker first knew him, and for many years afterward, he was a successful business man, but in the early years of the seventeenth century his fortunes declined, owing to political troubles in Ireland, and in 1605 he was adjudged a bankrupt. The esteem in which he was held is shown by the grant of a very generous pension made to him by the Merchant Taylors Company, which continued until his death in 1617. Walton's story that Hooker lodged at the house of an impecunious London draper reduced to keeping lodgers is without foundation.

In 1583 John Whitgift, formerly Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, Bishop of Worcester and Vice-President of the Council of Wales and the Marches, was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. The choice had been carefully made, and it was foreseen that there would be a change of policy in dealing with the Puritans. Whitgift had already engaged Thomas Cartwright (who had been educated at Trinity College, Cambridge) in controversy, and, after the experience of Grindal, it was soon apparent that a stronger hand was now directing ecclesiastical affairs. The new orientation of policy became evident in the appointment made necessary by the death, in August, 1584, of Dr. Alvey, Master of the Temple.

The Reader at the Temple Church was Walter Travers, whom we already know as the author of De Disciplina Ecclesiastica, the manual of Presbyterian polity and discipline in England. Travers was a learned man, and his claims to the Mastership were strongly urged and supported by many influential people who approached the Queen through the Earl of Leicester, the favourite who was well disposed to the Puritans. But the Archbishop was not prepared to abandon such an important congregation as met in the Temple Church to the Presbyterian Travers, and we may be sure that he carefully considered who his nominee should be. There is every indication that Hooker was brought to his notice by Sandys (now Archbishop of York, and father of his former pupil, Edwin Sandys) as a theologian of learning and piety who had taken an independent line in the sermon preached by him at St. Paul's Cross in 1581. Professor Sisson tells us that Hooker was again in London staying with the Churchmans in December, 1584, pending his appointment to the Temple, which was announced in February, 1585. The strong hand at Canterbury had prevailed, not only against the Earl of Leicester but also against the formidable Burleigh, who also was well disposed to the Puritans.

Hooker was now Master of the Temple, a position then, as now, of considerable importance. He was 31 years of age with a reputation as a scholar and theologian, and it is not surprising that he married Joan, daughter of John and Alice Churchman, on February 13, 1588. It was, as Professor Sisson says, a “judicious” marriage, because by it Hooker became associated with an honourable London family with wide connections and, furthermore, Joan brought with her a dowry of £700—a considerable sum in those days.³ There is every indication that Hooker made his abode with the Churchmans even after his marriage, because there is no evidence that he resided in the official residence provided for the Master of the Temple. In the same house for many years resided Edwin Sandys, another guest of the Churchmans.

Sandys' stay in Watling Street, in the same house as Hooker, is significant. “It seems as certain as anything could well be,” says Professor Sisson, “that the occasion for this prolonged and conspicuous hospitality was the preparing of plans for The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, and the writing of it, during which constant and protracted consultations were going on. Churchman's house in Watling Street was the birthplace of the project and the meeting place for the consultants.”⁴ The team consisted of George Cranmer, Dr. John Spenser of Corpus Christi College, Sandys and, of course, Hooker himself, a combination of two theologians and two lawyers. But it must not be thought that the Laws was the work of a committee; on the contrary, although frequent consultations took place between the four friends, the work was that of Hooker. Behind all was the figure of Archbishop Whitgift who was deeply interested in the project and its progress.

It was Benjamin Pullen who acted as copyist to Hooker, and his work has gained high praise from Professor Sisson. It is surprising that the Laws was offered to many publishers before it was accepted, a reticence due to certain recent losses incurred in the printing and publishing of theological works. It seems that the public was then more anxious to buy books written by Puritan authors than those defending the established Church. It was Sandys who came to the rescue by undertaking to finance the publication, and upon this basis John Windet, a kinsman of Hooker's, undertook the work. Hooker's remuneration for the whole work was between £40 and £50, this sum also being paid by Sandys. Not only was the project carefully planned, but its date of publication was not accidental: Books I-IV were published before March 13, 1593, and on that day Sandys made a speech in the House of Commons in which he attacked the Separatists. Thus, says Sisson, “the year 1593 records two milestones in the history of the Church, the passing of the ‘Act to retain the Queen's subjects in their due obedience’ and the publication of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, and both in the same month”. But the work was slow in selling: in fact it took sixteen years to sell out the first edition, namely, Books I-IV (1593) and Book V (1597). Before the first books were published, Hooker had resigned from the Temple and had accepted the living of Bishopsbourne, near Canterbury, where he died in 1600, at the early age of 46.⁵

Hooker's defence was final and definitive, and the greatest tribute paid to it was the fact that only one attempt of note was made to answer it. This was A Christian Letter of certain English Protestants to Master R. Hooker, the authorship of which, probably incorrectly, was ascribed to Thomas Cartwright. This Christian Letter charged Hooker with undermining the doctrine of the Church of England as enumerated in the XXXIX Articles, and it is said that the charge so affected him that it hastened his death. Not only did contemporary opinion endorse the greatness of Hooker's work, but there has since been a consensus of opinion that, both from a literary and theological standpoint, it is one of the great works of the English language. The fact that it is the first great philosophical and theological writing in the English language would alone guarantee its importance, but, even in an age of great literary merit, it takes its undoubted place as one of the outstanding prose works in the language, and its depth and range of thought justify its comparison with the almost contemporary writings of Francis Bacon. The English language, having served its period of apprenticeship, was revealed by Hooker as a medium worthy to give expression to the deepest thoughts of theology. The range of learning shown in the Laws is amazing. Hooker's sources were classical, biblical, patristic, scholastic, and contemporary; and this range of knowledge marks him as one of the greatest figures of the English Renaissance in the days of Elizabeth, his knowledge of classical literature not being surpassed in England in this period. Dean Swift has praised his prose style, and Coleridge says of him: “Doubtless, Hooker was a theological Talus, with a club of iron against opponents with pasteboard helmets, and armed only with crabsticks.”⁶

The outstanding feature of the work is its unity. It might be expected that, drawing from so many sources and having to deal with such varied subjects as law, doctrine, ritual, Church government (not to mention the many side-issues arising from these greater questions), Hooker could not succeed in writing one all-embracing work. Yet that he succeeded is obvious to the most superficial student. Hooker himself claimed this of his work: “I have endeavoured throughout the body of this whole discourse, that every former part might give strength unto all that follow, and every later bring some light unto all before.”⁷ What made this unity possible was the cast of Hooker's mind: he had an amazing ability to trace any question he touched upon back to its first principles. This is true of the work as a whole, because it can be claimed that Books II-VIII are the corollaries and the application of the principles laid down in Book I; but in addition to this truth which is characteristic of the work as a whole, it will be seen that every question and problem is, in turn, reduced to its general principles.⁸ No writer possessed to a greater degree the ability to see the abstract principle embedded in the concrete reality. Hence, in reading Hooker, particular attention should be paid, not primarily to the conclusion which he reaches on any given subject, but rather to the reasons upon which he bases his findings. The most valuable parts of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity are its rationes decidendi.

It is also important to mention the strong historical sense which characterizes Hooker's Laws. Although his theology by no means lacks a philosophical basis, yet it is true that it is historical rather than philosophical in its spirit. His sense of the past is very strong; and although this has its drawbacks, yet in certain departments of knowledge it is a necessary equipment. This is especially true when the history of ideas has to be studied. Students of theology and political philosophy are well aware that totally new ideas are rare in these sciences, and it is only the student that has a fair knowledge of the general development of these ideas that can deal with them adequately at any given point in their history. The same sense prevents a thinker from being a mere doctrinaire. Hooker insisted that ideas which affected conduct and social life must be submitted to the test of experience, a test which can be applied only by the historian. He was suspicious of a scheme of theology that chose to neglect the development of fifteen hundred years and attempted a new beginning by its return to scripture. In the realm of belief and conduct this is impossible. Doubtless one of the greatest difficulties which existed between Hooker and the Puritans was this sense of history. Puritanism was essentially non-historical in spirit: it was too personal and individualistic to have a historical sense. But to Hooker the verdict of history on certain subjects must be conclusive: “True it is, the ancienter the better ceremonies of religion are; howbeit not absolutely true and without exception; but true only so far forth as those different ages do agree on the state of those things for which at the first those rules, orders, and ceremonies, were instituted.”⁹

It was this sense also that partly prevented the Hooker who believed in reason from deteriorating into a rationalist. Reason and the law of nature are both good, but their findings must be checked by their comparison with tradition, because what has been traditionally held has much to commend it. “For in all right and equity, that which the Church hath received and held so long for good, that which public approbation hath ratified, must carry the benefit of presumption with it to be accounted meet and convenient.”¹⁰

But this sense of history and tradition was not overpowering. He was not prepared to accept certain traditions of the Roman Church merely because they had been held for a long period of time, because: “What hazard the truth is in when it passeth through the hands of report, how maimed and deformed it becometh, they are not, they cannot possibly be ignorant.”¹¹ Tradition itself must be submitted to the test of scripture, or must “otherwise sufficiently by any reason be proved to be of God”.¹²

In the opening words of the preface to the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker tells us why he undertook his great work: “That posterity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream, there shall be for man's information extant this much concerning the present state of the Church of God established among us, and their careful endeavour which would have upheld the same.”¹³ Again, addressing the Puritans, he says: “It is no part of my secret meaning to draw you hereby into hatred, or to set upon the face of this cause any fairer glass than the naked truth doth afford; but my whole endeavour is to resolve the conscience, and to show as near as I can what in this controversy the heart is to think, if it will follow the light of sound and sincere judgment, without either cloud of prejudice, or mist of passionate affection.”¹⁴ There is abundant reason to believe that controversy was burdensome to Hooker, and he makes it clear that he did not enter the lists merely to be controversial: “Think not that ye read the words of one who bendeth himself as an adversary against the truth which ye have already embraced; but the words of one who desires even to embrace together with you the self-same truth, if it be the truth; and for that cause (for no other, God he knoweth) hath undertaken the burdensome labour of this painful kind of conference.”¹⁵ But although Hooker was loth to enter into controversy, this was not because he felt his position was insecure; he was not of the type that argues to reassure himself. The conclusion is given in the preface: “Surely the present form of Church-government, which the laws of this land have established, is such, as no law of God nor reason of man hath hitherto been alleged of force sufficient to prove they do ill, who to the uttermost of their power withstand the alteration thereof”; and, consequently, “the other [persuasion], which instead of it we are required to accept, is only by error and misconceit named the ordinance of Jesus Christ, no one proof as yet brought forth whereby it may clearly appear to be so in very deed.”¹⁶ Hooker chose his position very carefully, and did not commit himself to undertake what the Presbyterians claimed, namely, that their polity and discipline were derived from the word of God; he was content to show that the foundations of the Church to which he belonged were inconsistent neither with the scriptures nor human reason.

The Laws were primarily directed against the Presbyterians whom Hooker warned of the consequences which would follow if their views were practised; indeed, these had already happened, because the Brownists, who concurred with the Presbyterians on matters of discipline, “have adventured without more ado to separate themselves from the rest of the Church”. “These men's hastiness”, Hooker reminds the Presbyterians, “the warier sort of you doth not commend—naming them, in great commiseration of mind, your ‘poor brethren’”; while the Brownists regard the Presbyterians as their “false brethren”.¹⁷ With regard to Calvin, Hooker, while he entertained a high opinion of him, describing him as “incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy”,¹⁸ was sufficiently detached from his theology to estimate his work in perspective. He appraised his discipline rather than his theology: “That which Calvin did for the establishment of his discipline, seemeth more commendable than that which he taught for the countenance of it established;” but he did not believe that this was the only form warranted by scripture, or that “any one sentence of Scripture doth necessarily enforce these views”.¹⁹ It is impossible to agree with those who claim that Hooker had a “profound reverence for Calvin”;²⁰ on the contrary, he regarded Presbyterianism and Calvinism as something local and transitory as compared with the great tradition, extending back at least to the sub-apostolic age, to which he was convinced that he and his Church belonged.

Of course, Hooker was aware that popular consent had not been sought for the Church which he defended; nor indeed, should this have perturbed him, because there is no necessary connection between truth and democracy. He asks whether the people are competent to judge the relative merits of ecclesiastical governments, and, in support of his doubt, he points out that Calvin himself had denied their capacity to judge the best methods of civil rule.²¹ The fact is that popular support was gained for Puritanism, first by “ripping up” “higher callings—with marvellous exceeding severity and sharpness of reproof”,²² and, following this, “to impute all faults and corruptions wherewith the world aboundeth, unto the kind of ecclesiastical government established”, thereby obtaining for themselves a reputation for virtue and wisdom.²³ The way was thus prepared for the people to accept their own choice of Church government, a choice which they supported by an appeal to scripture, and by persuading the simple that new doctrines were revealed “by the special illuminations of the Holy Ghost, whereby they discern those things in the word which others reading yet discern them not”.²⁴ The next step was to instil the idea into the mind of the people that this special dispensation of the Spirit sealed them to be God's children, and that, consequently, there is a division between them and the rest of mankind.²⁵ Hence, the Spirit must not be quenched, but must be strengthened by counsel and conference with each other.²⁶

Addressing the Presbyterians, whom Hooker considered to be the most learned of the Puritans, he said that when they appealed to scripture for confirmation of their views, “it always in a manner falleth out, that what things by virtue thereof ye urge upon us as altogether necessary, are found to be thence collected only by poor and slight conjectures”. It was strange that these new ideas should have remained undiscovered so long, and very surprising that the episcopal form of Church government should have endured for such a period of time before it was discovered that it was contrary to the word of God.²⁷ He accused the Puritan laity of a desire that the clergy should return to a state of apostolic poverty, a desire cloaked beneath higher motives. He was prepared for such a change if it were shared also by the laity; “and in this reformation there will be, though little wisdom, yet some indifferency”.²⁸ There could be no return to apostolic practices, not only because the Puritans had not proved their case on historical grounds, but also because “the orders, which were observed in the Apostle's times, are not to be urged as a rule universally either sufficient or necessary”.²⁹

Regarding the appeal of the Puritans to continental reformers, Hooker, while allowing for Calvin's authority in theological matters, asks: “Will ye ask what should move so many learned to be followers of one man's judgment, no necessity of argument forcing them thereunto?” He thought that the general following given to Luther in Germany and to Calvin in the reformed Churches was a mistake, and, in theology, as in other departments of knowledge and action, the judgments of the few have carried too great authority.³⁰ In fact, the controversies waged and contentions advanced by the Puritans could be settled only by “some judicial and definitive sentence, whereunto neither part that contendeth may under any pretence or colour refuse to stand”; and Hooker asks whether they were prepared to submit their cause to a higher judgment than their own,³¹ because it were better that an erroneous sentence should prevail “than that strife should have respite to grow, and not come speedily unto some end”. In controversial matters which caused such confusion, Hooker says that it is the will of God that such questions be ended by a judicial sentence, even though matters of conscience are involved, and the sentence given be utterly opposed to the private judgment of the parties concerned. Here is “ground sufficient for any reasonable man's conscience to build up the duty of obedience upon, whatsoever his own opinion were as touching the matter before in question”.³² Not everything must be raised to the dignity of a matter of conscience; and Hooker would doubtless have deeply suspected the type of person who usually bases his objection “on the principle of the thing”.

Hooker was alarmed by the attitude of the Puritans toward learning, and he said that many feared its overthrow if Puritan discipline were enforced. The universities, where many Puritan leaders had studied, were endangered by their ideas: degrees would be abolished, and the heads and masters of colleges would be deprived of their posts on the ground that they were ecclesiastics exercising civil power contrary to Puritan ideas. Similarly, following the example of Puritan synods, colleges would be obliged to choose a new president for every meeting in order to avoid that permanent inequality which the Puritans thought was contrary to scripture. There was, of course, another way of dealing with seats of learning; and Hooker fears lest the problem might be resolved by “dissolving those corporations, and by bringing the universities into the form of the school of Geneva”.³³ Likewise with the study of civil law which was condemned by the Puritans because people were ruined by legal actions, believing that the Church could deal with those who troubled their neighbour or their country, and preaching that “the reformation will never be perfect, till the law of Jesus Christ be received alone”. The Master of the Temple realized the necessity and wisdom of civil law, “both in decision of certain kinds of causes arising daily within ourselves, and especially for commerce with nations abroad”.³⁴

But the greatest danger that Hooker foresaw would result from the Puritan position was that the world would be turned upside down by those rules of conduct and public policy which their advocates believed were the absolute commandment of God. He distrusted the position of extreme individualism both in Church and State, and considered that the bigoted claim to possess a personal knowledge believed to be based on the will of God was most dangerous, because “on him ye must father whatsoever ye shall afterward be led, either to do in withstanding the adversaries of your cause, or to think in maintenance of your doings”.³⁵ The outstanding example of the danger to which religion and society were exposed by such views was provided by the Anabaptists, of whom Hooker said that “so great was their delight to be always in trouble, that such as did quietly lead their lives, they judged of all other men to be in most dangerous case”. Their “restless levity” was interpreted by them as a growth in spiritual perfection; whereas their views on scripture were fantastic, although believed by them to be imparted by the Spirit.³⁶ In view of these dangerous tendencies, unforeseen by the more moderate and learned Presbyterians, Hooker urges them to reconsider their position and re-examine their case: “Think ye are men, deem it not impossible for you to err.”³⁷

It is obvious that the deep gulf which separated Hooker from the Puritans was both theological and temperamental. The latter had challenged the bases of authority both in religion and politics, replacing the corporate spirit with an extreme individualism which they justified by their personal views of scripture. It would be a great mistake to imagine that the issue was only one of ecclesiastical organization; and it is only to the extent that this latter view is abandoned that much of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity becomes relevant and intelligible. The Puritans claimed that all human actions should be based on scripture. Nothing should be done which was contrary to its letter. Thus, according to Hooker, the purpose of Travers' Book of Ecclesiastical Discipline is to show that “men may not devise laws of Church government, but are bound for ever to use and execute only those which God himself hath already devised and delivered in the Scripture”. Thus, the order of the Church of England was unacceptable because it was not commanded by God; “neither are they content to have matters of the Church examined by General rules and canons”.³⁸ This was a doctrine far removed from Hooker's view: scripture was not the only guide to Church government and personal conduct; there was also the light of nature which, if not followed, “the ‘star of reason and learning’, and all such other helps beginneth no otherwise to be thought of than if it were an unlucky comet”. Here was the vindication of reason which is characteristic of Hooker's writings and which is a feature of the best Christian theology throughout the ages. After examining the process whereby the Puritans came to suspect this faculty, Hooker says: “By these and the like disputes an opinion hath spread itself very far, as if the way to be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment, as if Reason were an enemy unto Religion, childish Simplicity the mother of ghostly and divine Wisdom.”³⁹ It is not too much to say that the real issue between these adversaries was the very freedom of the human spirit, and the dignity of man.⁴⁰

Notes

1. For an estimate of Hooker's theology, vide L. S. Thornton; Richard Hooker. A Study of his Theology (London, 1924).

2. From this stage the narrative of Hooker's life, and the circumstances in which his books were written, are based entirely upon the only written and authentic account obtainable. This is Professor Sisson's work: The Judicious Marriage of Mr. Richard Hooker, and the birth of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (London, 1940). This is a most fascinating work and should be read by all students of Hooker. Rarely has a student the satisfaction of so complete a reversal of a historical judgment which has persisted for 300 years as Professor Sisson has in his latest book. A pleasing feature of the work is the complete vindication of the Churchman family into which Hooker married; and although Isaak Walton's Life of Mr. Richard Hooker will continue to be read for its literary charm, it is not an exaggeration to say that Professor Sisson has changed, not only the details, but the very framework of our ideas of Hooker's life after 1581. The book is a brilliant piece of detective work in the science of bibliography.

3. It is only those who are acquainted with Walton's Life who can appreciate the remarkable work of Professor Sisson. Walton, in all faith, gives these events a different meaning. Hooker went to preach in London in 1581 and stayed in the house of an impecunious London tradesman, to whom he came in a miserable condition, wet, cold, and weary. The good offices of Mrs. Churchman enabled Hooker to deliver his sermon, after which he was subjected to a sermon from his landlady on the advisability of having a wife to look after him. Unlike some preachers, Mrs. Churchman was prepared to act as well as to exhort, and offered to find him a wife, an offer accepted by the innocent Hooker. The reader will not now be surprised to learn that Mrs. Churchman chose her own daughter Joan as the wife of the Oxford theologian. Joan brought neither beauty nor portion—although in view of Hooker's weak eyesight the former deficiency was not serious. Alas, Hooker was found a wife, “which is”, says Walton, “by Solomon compared to a ‘dripping house’: so that” the good man “had no reason to ‘rejoice in the wife of his youth’, but” too just cause “to say with the holy prophet ‘Woe is me, that I am constrained to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar’”. Professor Sisson has completely reversed this verdict of Mrs. Churchman and Joan.

4. Op. cit., pp. 32-3.

5. The fate of the unpublished Books VI-VIII is relevant to this study because the last book will be frequently quoted. Doubt has been thrown upon the authenticity of these books, a doubt based upon the story related by Walton that, on the death of Hooker, the Puritans, with the help of Hooker's widow, had access to, and tampered with the unpublished MSS. Walton says that Mrs. Hooker was examined before the Council and the following day was found dead. Sisson's researches, however, reveal that she married a second time, this time to Edward Nethersole, a prominent citizen of Canterbury, who turned out to be a scoundrel. The facts are that, hearing of Hooker's death, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes expressed concern about the unpublished MSS., “lest they be embezzled, and so suppressed, or come into great hands who will mutilate them for their own purposes”. Hitherto, it has been supposed that the “great hands” referred to by Andrewes indicated Puritans who were anxious to destroy the unpublished portion of so formidable an answer to their own cause—a supposition based upon the story related by Walton. Andrewes appealed to John Churchman to secure the MSS., and Sandys was entrusted with the task of removing them from Bishopsbourne. Books VI-VIII were handed over to Dr. Spenser, while the minor works were entrusted to Dr. Parry (later Bishop of Worcester) and Andrewes. On completing his editorial work, Dr. Spenser reported that Books VI and VII were practically complete, but Book VIII was disjointed and fragmentary. But the full edition of the Laws was not published until 1661, and Sisson attributes the delay to a dispute between Andrewes and Sandys. The Puritan crisis had passed, and Sandys took objection to “a tract of confession” contained in Book VI. It was a doctrinal issue, revealed by the notes of Sandys and Cranmer on Book VI. These felt that Hooker “favoured the papists in some points; if it were clean left out I should never miss it”. One can now understand the concern of the High Churchman Andrewes about the fate of the MSS. His “great hands” referred not to the Puritans, but rather to Hooker's collaborators, Hooker's doctrines having gone beyond what they were prepared to accept. Regarding these books we have Sisson's conclusion: “As for Books VII and VIII, there is no reason for doubting their authenticity, even allowing for the chequered history of these manuscripts from 1600 onward.” (Op. cit., p. 106.)

6. S. T. Coleridge, Notes on English Divines (London, 1853), I, 22.

7. I, i, 2.

8. Although the Laws abounds with examples of this treatment, an outstanding instance is Hooker's defence of holy-days and festivals, a defence based upon a theory of Time. (V, lxix.)

9. Preface, IV, 4.

10. Preface, IV, iv, 2.

11. I, xiii, 2.

12. I, xiv, 5.

13. Preface, I, i.

14. Ibid., VIII, 1.

15. Preface, I, 3.

16. Ibid., I, 2 (italics mine).

17. Preface, VIII, 1.

18. Ibid., II, 1.

19. Ibid., II, 7.

20. Cf. John Hunt, Religious Thought in England (London, 1870), I, 57.

21. Preface, III, 4.

22. Ibid., III, 10.

23. Ibid., III, 7.

24. Preface, III, 10.

25. Ibid., III, 11.

26. Ibid., III, 12.

27. Ibid., IV, 1.

28. Ibid., IV, 4.

29. Ibid., VI, 3.

30. Preface, IV, 8.

31. Ibid., VI, 1.

32. Ibid., VI, 3.

33. Preface, VIII, 3.

34. Ibid., VIII, 4.

35. Ibid., VIII, 5.

36. Preface, VIII, 6.

37. Ibid., IX, 1.

38. III, vii, 1.

39. III, viii, 4.

40. The great difference between the Anglican and the Puritan of the sixteenth century may best be described as a difference in ēthos. Perhaps this difference should be given wider recognition in its bearing on the problem of religious reunion. Do the heirs of these two traditions stand where their fathers stood? If so, how can the gulf be bridged?