More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
October 6 - November 2, 2019
English-speaking Protestants today find themselves increasingly in the odd position of reading almost exclusively non-English writers when they seek to drink from the deep wells of church history. Why? Well because these texts, including writings of such great Reformers as Luther and Calvin, have been translated into a modern English idiom, and continue to be so translated. Meanwhile, the giants of 16th- and 17th-century English theology slip further and further from view as our language and rhetorical style evolves further and further away from the English deployed by these great masters.
there is a good case to be made that he ranks third only to Luther and Calvin in both intellectual stature and historical significance among Protestant theologians, and surpasses both in his treatment of matters of law and liturgy.
Some Puritans began to insist, in terms perhaps familiar enough to us today but out-of-step with the early Protestant Reformers, that the Bible only was the standard for liturgy and church government, and any church that failed to radically reform itself in conformity to Scripture alone was not worthy of the name of church. Some conformists began to insist, for their part, that anyone who questioned the established order of the Church of England must be hell-bent on overthrowing it, perhaps even by force, and thus might be as good as traitors to the Crown.
Recognizing that conformists and Puritans were largely talking past each other, in ever more heated terms, Hooker saw the need to take the entire debate back to first principles, with a sweeping theological inquiry into the nature of law, political authority, biblical authority, and church authority, which would then help clarify many of the particular disputed questions on episcopacy, liturgy, discipline, and more.
The Laws made only the smallest of splashes on its original publication, but its ripples steadily grew as the 17th century progressed, with Hooker eventually emerging as the preeminent theologian of the Church of England, and in the minds of many, the founder of what came to be called “Anglicanism.”
One of the gifts that he seems most eager to have bequeathed to posterity is his attempt to sort through just why it was that so many of his brothers in the faith had become so angry and in some cases so dangerously radical. What was it that led righteous and well-meaning Christians to become convinced that there was no other path to truth but theirs, no true church but theirs, and that any who opposed them were godless and corrupt?
“when the minds of men are once erroneously persuaded that it is the will of God for them to do those things they fancy, their opinions are as thorns in their sides, not allowing them to rest until they have put their speculations into practice”
“it is not how passionately someone is convinced, but how soundly they argue, that should convince us that their views genuinely come from the Holy Spirit, and not from the deceit of that evil spirit”
I know I have little reason, beloved, to expect from you anything but your usual harshness and bitterness toward all who disagree with you, but this bitterness will never drown the love which we have for all who claim the name of Christ. Man is naturally impatient when it comes to insults and slanders, but we hope that the God of peace will give us the grace to be patient, for the sake of the work which we desire to complete.
Please do not think that you are reading the words of someone who is out to oppose the truths that you have embraced, but rather the words of someone who is eager to embrace the same truths, insofar as they are indeed truths.
a man whom, for my own part, I consider the wisest man the church of France ever had, since the hour it first enjoyed him.
Calvin, being admitted as a preacher and divinity reader, saw how dangerous it was that the whole estate of the church should hang on so slender a thread as an ignorant multitude with the power to do whatever it wanted to do. Even though the other ministers were against it, Calvin and two other ministers persuaded the people to swear never again to admit the papacy among themselves and to live in obedience to an order of religion and ecclesiastical government established by true and faithful ministers of God’s word in accordance with Scripture.
Since these churches, though small, were all free and self-governing, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by taking counsel together. But it led to an even bigger problem: every new Reformed church that came along aspired to remove itself even further from any hint of church of Rome than the churches before it. Thus they drifted further and further apart from one another in practice and as a result there came to be much strife, jealousy, discord, and bad blood between them.
such discord might have been prevented easily enough if each, 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 everlastingly required by the law of that Lord of Lords, whose statutes admit of no exceptions. By doing this, they guaranteed that each church, if it found it differed in any way from its neighbors, could hardly help but accuse them of disobeying the will of Christ.
Calvin had persuaded those around him that, even though he personally preferred to use common bread in the Eucharist, he agreed that they should accept the alternative instead of making a fuss in the church over it.
They had only two options: either to disgrace themselves and reveal their fickleness by dismissing the very one whom they had recalled from exile or to agree to his demand, which he said they could take or leave.
Sometimes the best way to win the day is to run away.
But wise men are only human, and the truth is the truth. What John Calvin did to establish this discipline seems better than what he taught about it after it had been established. Everybody tends to fall in love with his own ideas and when others contradict them, this only fans our love into a flame and makes us all the more eager to contend, argue, and do everything we can on their behalf.
it would be remarkable if such an intelligent man with such pressing reasons to do everything he could for his cause could find nothing in the whole Bible that might make him think it likely that divine authority at the very least pointed in that direction.
can you point me to a single argument in which Calvin shows that Scripture absolutely requires these things,
We wrong virtue itself if we disparage those who have gained fame from their mighty labors.
I think that the truth was equally divided between them: Beza quite rightly insisted on the necessity of excommunication and Erastus just as rightly that lay elders did not need to be the ones who carried it out.
THE FIRST means that nature provides for us to distinguish between good and evil, in laws as in everything else, is our own good judgment.
Whatever we do, if our own secret judgment does not consent to it, the same is sin, even if it be permissible and therefore St. Paul says, “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5).
In some matters, things are so obvious that even men of ordinary intelligence can readily distinguish truth from falsehood and good from evil. The things necessary to our salvation are of this sort, whether it has to do with things to be affirmed or denied or with things to be done or avoided. This is why Augustine says such things are not only set down, but plainly set down in Scripture, so that whoever hears and reads may understand without great difficulty.
“Members of the flock, do not seek to assume the role of pastor towards your pastors or try to exalt yourselves above your station. It suffices for you to receive good pastoral care. Seek not to judge your judges, or give laws to the lawgivers, for God is not a God of confusion and disorder, but of peace and order.”
The uneducated among you should be aware that even the least of the changes you are so set on involves all sorts of debated issues that you have no conception of. I do not say this to make fun of those who are ignorant, but because I genuinely want them to realize that what they are so doggedly convinced of is a very, very complicated issue and that they run the risk of falling under the condemnation of the Apostle who describes those who “rail at whatsoever things they know not” (Jude 10; cf. 2 Pet. 2:12).
This is the method of winning people over to “the cause,” as you call it: first, they are always attacking their superiors with great zeal and indignation, which usually gives an impression of integrity, zeal, and holiness, since people tend to think that such people would never be so offended by sin unless they were quite good themselves.
Third, having captured men’s imaginations, they put forward their own form of church government as the only comprehensive solution to all these problems and sing its praises to the sky. Just like sick men, those who are unhappy with the status quo will imagine that anything they hear praised is the answer to all their problems, but most of all that which they have least tried.
they make men understand certain words in such a way that whenever they read Scripture they imagine that it is constantly advocating the presbyterian cause and attacking the current church government.
This is why the simple and ignorant think that Scripture is all for them: they have planted in their minds the idea that an “elder” always refers to a layman elected to office in the church, a “doctor” always to a teacher (never to an administrator of the Sacraments), and a “deacon” always to the one in charge of the poor box. Similarly, they are taught that the “scepter,” “rod,” “throne,” and “kingdom” of Christ only refer to a church with pastors, elders, doctors,[11] and deacons
their godly leaders go on to persuade those ready to believe such things that they alone see these things in Scripture because of the special illumination of the Holy Spirit, even though others who read Scripture cannot find such things.
in matters of reason, the strength of our persuasion must depend on the strength of our arguments.
often when men’s passions instead of their reason lead them to believe things, they are even more zealous than usual when they defend their error than they have a right to be, given the evidence we find in Scripture. Some things are plain, such as basic Christian doctrine, while other things are more difficult, such as church government, and we should only be as convinced as reason, guided by the Holy Spirit, permits.
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.
they learn that believing in this form of church government is a sign of being born of God and that earnest love for this discipline is the surest way to distinguish God’s people from all others. This has caused them to use terms that sharply distinguish between themselves and the rest of the world: they call themselves ‘the brethren’, ‘the godly’, and so forth, while the rest are termed ‘world-lings’, ‘time-servers’, ‘pleasers of men, not of God’, and so forth.
there is reason to think that if the cause really were founded on sound arguments, its leaders would not try so hard to succeed with those who have least ability and judgment.
But be they women or be they men, if once they have drunk the cup of this persuasion, let anyone who thinks differently open his mouth to persuade them and they will close up their ears and refuse to consider his reasons. They have their answer rehearsed: “We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us” (1 Jn. 4:6), and as for the rest, “Ye are of the world and speak of the world’s pomp and vanity, and the world, whose ye are, hears you!” This cloak fits just as snuggly on them as on the Anabaptists whenever anybody confronts them with the dignity, authority, and honor of the magistrate. Show
...more
If the true Church is the one that suffers and does not inflict persecution, let them ask the Apostle which church Sarah symbolized when she persecuted her serving girl.
you regularly redefine everything so that you think Scripture everywhere favors your side, and finally you say that the reason you find it in Scripture is by the illumination of the Spirit. You think this is a seal of your nearness to God and accordingly you must use all means within your power to nourish it within yourselves and to strengthen your minds against whatever might be said against it.
you bring forth many verses from Scripture, but such that those things which you say logically and necessarily follow from Scripture, turn out to be cobbled together only by poor and slight conjecture.
It is rather peculiar that your presbyterian government, should be so clearly taught by Christ and His Apostles in Scripture, but never discovered by any church until now, while the sort of church government, which you so resolutely oppose, has been observed by Christians everywhere and none of them noticed that it was forbidden by Scripture. I challenge you to find one church upon the face of the earth that has had such a church government, or that has not been episcopally-governed since the time of the Apostles!
you do not really mean it, and only say this because everybody else does;
This sort would be happy if the church was led by none but a company of begging friars! If it did add to the glory of God for His clergy to be as bare as the Apostles when they had neither staff nor purse, then I hope that God also would give them the accompanying spirit, which Paul describes when he says he knew “both to abound and to be in want” (Phil. 4:12).
Please apply the same standard to both sides: if the clergy are to be poor like the Apostles, let the laity be poor like those who were under them! There might be little wisdom in such an arrangement, but at least fairness.
You think that perfect reform of the church means making the church just as it was in the time of the Apostles, which is neither possible, nor certain, nor fitting. Not possible, because Scripture does not fully describe what form of church government existed in the time of the Apostles, so you are setting up a standard that cannot be known, and thus certainly cannot be practiced. Not certain, because even within the apostolic period, later times saw policies that had not been anticipated in earlier times, so that a general appeal to “apostolic practice” is much too vague, especially given
...more
To be sure, it is a good general rule, as Arnobius says, that the older a ceremony, the better; not as an absolute rule, however, but only so far as the good intention behind such rites, orders, and ceremonies continues to apply in different times and circumstances.[18]
When this argument from antiquity fails you, you appeal to learned men that seem to claim all Christians should abandon our form of church government and adopt yours. While you mention many men worthy of respect, there are others whom you cite, it would seem, only to impress the more gullible who judge by quantity, not quality.
they do not in fact all agree, and those few who do agree do so because they followed one man as their guide, and that one himself is not unlikely to have strayed.
Anyone who thinks that all the names you invoke are on your side is greatly deceived indeed.
