1. Aquinas, , Summa Theologia (ST) (trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province; New York: Benziger Bros., 1947), I–II, q. 61 a. 4, sed contra.Google Scholar

2. Hooker, , Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (7 vols.; gen. ed. Hill, W. Speed, Vol. I ed. Georges Edelen; Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977–1990), I.iii.1, p. 63.Google Scholar

3. McGrade, A. S., ‘Introduction’, in Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (ed. McGrade, A. S. and Vickers, B.; London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1975), p. 18.Google Scholar

4. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.vii.2, p. 78.Google Scholar

5. On this, see McGrade, , ‘Introduction’, pp. 17–19.Google Scholar

6. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.ii.1, p. 58.Google Scholar

7. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xvi.5, p. 138.Google Scholar

8. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.i.3, p. 58.Google Scholar

9. This is noted by W. J. Torrance Kirby who provides a useful summary of such attacks on Hooker and their interpretations in ‘Richard Hooker's Discourse on Natural Law in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation’, in The Theology of Richard Hooker in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation (Princeton, NJ: Studies in Reformed Theology and History, Princeton Seminary Press, 1999). Available at http://www.mun.ca/animus/1998vol3/kirby3.htm (date accessed: 20 March 2004).Google Scholar

10. A Christian Letter of certaine English Protestantes, unfayned favourers of the present state of religion, authorized and professed in England: unto that Reverend and Learned man Mr. R. Hoo[ker] requiring resolution in certayne matters of doctrine (which seeme to overthrowe the foundation of Christian Religion, and of the Church among us) expreslie contayned in his five bookes of Ecclesiasticall Policie (Middelburg: R. Schilders, 1599; reprinted in The Controversy with Travers, in the Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, vol. 4 (ed. Booty, John; 1982), pp. 1–79.Google Scholar Cited by Kirby, , ‘Richard Hooker's Discourse’, n. 3.Google Scholar

11. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xii.3, p. 121.Google Scholar

12. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xvi.5, p. 138.Google Scholar

13. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xvi.5, p. 139.Google Scholar

14. Hooker, Richard, ‘A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown’, cited from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College, available at <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hooker/just.viii.html>, 8, p. 7,+8,+p.+7>Google Scholar (date accessed: 2 November 2005).

15. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.iv, 1, p. 69.Google Scholar Joan Lockwood O'Donovan speaks of a separation in Hooker's work between the law of nature and the law of reason: ‘Hooker's non-Thomistic separation between nature's law and the law of reason flows from his sharp division of natural from voluntary agents, according as God is the efficient cause or the final cause of their motion.’ Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion No. 1; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), p. 137.Google Scholar Hooker, she says, regards human law as having its origin in the law of reason rather than divine law or natural law, and thinks that the need for human law originates in the sinful depravity of individuals. Lockwood O'Donovan thus places a question mark over the extent to which Hooker sees human law as having its origin in the divine law.

16. Cranmer, Thomas, A Short Instruction into Christian Religion: Being a Catechism Set Forth by Archbishop Cranmer in 1548 (ed. Burton, E.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1829), p. 7.Google Scholar

17. Laud, William, ‘Concerning the Church, the Ornaments thereof, and the Church's Possessions’, cited in More, P. E. and Cross, F. L., Anglicanism: The Thought and Practice of the Church of England (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publications, 1935), pp. 702–15 (702).Google Scholar

18. Sparrow, Anthony, A Rationale upon the Book of Common-Prayer (London, 1725), p. 5.Google Scholar

19. Cranmer, , A Short Instruction into Christian Religion, p. 83.Google Scholar

20. ‘For after our justification only begin we to work as the law of God requireth. Then we shall do all good works willingly, although not so exactly as the law requireth by mean of infirmity of the flesh. Nevertheless, by the merit and benefit of Christ, we being sorry that we cannot do all things no more exquisitely and duly, all our works shall be accepted and taken of God, as most exquisite, pure, and perfect.’ This is an extract from Cranmer's annotations to The King's Book, which was the popular title for ‘A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man; Set Forth by the King's Majesty of England’ (1538). This electronic edition was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal from the Parker Society edition of Cranmer's writings (Cambridge University Press, 1840), and is thus in the public domain. Content has been edited in a few cases.) http://www.ccel.org/c/cranmer/doctrine/doctrine.html (date accessed: 20 March 2004).

21. Bradford, John, Letter 46 in Works by John Bradford (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI. Available at http://www.ccel.org/b/bradford/) (date accessed: 20 March 2004).Google Scholar

22. Cranmer, , A Short Instruction into Christian Religion, p. 113.Google Scholar

23. Latimer, Hugh, ‘Thou Canst Make Me Clean’, a sermon available from The Anglican Library at http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/latimer/clean.htm (date accessed: 20 03 2004).Google Scholar

24. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.ii.5, p. 62.Google Scholar

25. Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London: SCM Press, 1992), p. 554.Google Scholar

26. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xiii.1, p. 122.Google Scholar

27. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xiv.5, p. 129.Google Scholar

28. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.iii.2, p. 65.Google Scholar

29. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.ii.1, p. 58.Google Scholar

30. Marshall, John S., Hooker and the Anglican Tradition: An Historical and Theological Study of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963), p. x.Google Scholar

31. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.vii.2, p. 78.Google Scholar

32. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xii.2, p. 121.Google Scholar

33. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.viii.5, p. 85.Google Scholar

34. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.viii.10, p. 91.Google Scholar

35. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xii.1 and I.xiii.1, pp. 119 and 122.Google Scholar

36. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.xv.4, p. 134.Google Scholar

37. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.x.7, pp. 101–102.Google Scholar

38. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.x.8, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

39. Jacobson, Arthur J., ‘The Idolatry of Rules: Writing Law according to Moses, with Reference to Other Jurisprudences’, in Cornell, Drucilla, Rosenfeld, Michel and Carlson, David Gray (eds.), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 95–151 (135).Google Scholar

40. I am indebted in this reading of Hooker to Arthur J. Jacobson's work on ‘writings’ of the law in biblical accounts of God's giving of the law to Moses and the people of Israel. In his essay ‘The Idolatry of Rules’, Jacobson considers Moses' writing of the law, writing about writing the law, and ‘erasing’ the law in the smashing of the tablets. I précis this superb essay in order to draw attention to its central observations that naturalistic and positivistic jurisprudences entail only two ‘writings’ of the law: their initial inscriptions (whether in nature or at the word of a ruler) and their subsequent non-dialogic application. Moses' understanding of the law entailed at least three ‘writings’: the first is God's writing – namely ‘the world, along with the laws of the world, as a finished, created product’. The second is God's collaborative writing with Moses: ‘human deeds continuing creation’ (pp. 130–31). The third is Moses's writing which is characterized by struggle, ‘erasure’, delay, the need for sanctions to ensure compliance, re-writing, and the constant need for recourse to God in prayer. Natural law, says Jacobson, is written once by God without delay at the moment of creation. ‘But natural law is not Moses' law’ (p. 110). Neither is his law positivistic in the sense that it is written once by the law-giver and a second time by an obedient administrator. Rather: ‘Moses' law poses rules as instruments to assist humans to realize Elohim's propositions. It also puts rules in play, opens them to change through consciousness, through ceaseless collaboration of the people with Yahweh’ (p. 11). The challenge to Moses and his successors is to write laws as collaborators and friends of Yahweh, not as the direct representative of Elohim or a pharonic-type God. Jacobson's essay is helpful when reading Hooker because it provides a way of expressing the dynamism and inherent dialogism that characterizes his theology of law. More specifically, it provides a means of demonstrating that, as for the biblical accounts, his theologico-ethic of law involves multiple writings. NB: According to Jacobson, Moses calls God ‘Elohim’ when referring to him as the all-knowing, all-powerful creator who rules the earth by right. He calls God ‘Yahweh’ when referring to the God who interacts with the world he has created as collaborator and friend (Exod. 33.11).

41. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.viii.3, p. 84.Google Scholar

42. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.viii.3, p. 84.Google Scholar

43. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.x.2, p. 107.Google Scholar

44. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.viii.3, p. 83.Google Scholar

45. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.x.8, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar

46. Hooker, , Of the Laws, I.x.1 and 2, pp. 96 and 97 respectively.Google Scholar

47. Stackhouse, Max L., ‘A Premature Postmodern’, First Things 106 (10 2000), pp. 19–22 (19).Google Scholar

48. Hauerwas, Stanley and Willimon, William H., Resident Aliens: Life inthe Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), p. 41.Google Scholar

49. John Milbank makes the similar point that Troeltsch's work may have descriptive power historically but should not be allowed to lock theologians into a self-confirming hermeneutic circle (Theology and Social Theory [Oxford: Blackwell, 1990], p. 75.Google Scholar

50. Bloch, Ernst, Natural Law and Human Dignity (trans. Schmidt, Dennis J.; Boston, MA: MIT Press, 1986), p. 277.Google Scholar

51. Hooker, Richard, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: An Abridged Edition (ed. McGrade, A. S. and Vickers, Brian; London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1975), Bk VIII, Ch. 5, § 8, p. 381.Google Scholar

52. Sanderson, Robert, Bishop Sanderson's Lectures on Conscience and Human Law (Lincoln: James Williamson, 1877), p. 152.Google Scholar

53. ‘So God doth ratify the works of that sovereign authority which kings have received by men’. Hooker, , Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: An Abridged Edition, Bk VIII, Ch. 2, § 6, p. 346.Google Scholar

54. This is cited on the official website of HRH The Prince of Wales: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/princeswork/religion.html (date accessed: 1 July 2002).

55. Aquinas, ST, II–II, q. 184, a. 1, sed contra.

56. Rosenfeld, Michael, Just Interpretations: Law Between Ethics and Politics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), p. 127.Google Scholar

57. Hooker, , Of the Laws, V.I.2, p. 17.Google Scholar