Abstract
In this work Littlejohn introduces various controversies by pointing out that the initial Reformation in England was centered around the meaning of Christian liberty and Luther’s two kingdoms theory. The author considers the different positions in Protestantism regarding individual freedom of conscience, and freedom of the church and authority of the state in order to trace with more precision the connections between Reformation and modern political liberalism. In the middle of considering these controversies, the author highlights the work of the classical Anglican theologian Richard Hooker as the best answer for the controversies mentioned. Hooker’s position represents safe ground between two dangerous extremes formulated in the initial quotes of the book: either to consider the Christians as above any civil law because of their inner freedom, or to reduce their freedom to the purely spiritual world transferring actual freedom to the state in order to control society at will.
After the first introductory chapter, L. shows the implications of these issues for political freedom. In the following two chapters, the author examines two main historical controversies in the Anglican world. First, the vestiarian controversy which happened during the initial Henrician Reformation. This controversy focused on the authority of the Church of England and the king to create rules for the church’s life and activities. This controversy also considered the possibility of giving norms for the vestments of the ministers. Second, the more sophisticated precisionist controversy in Elizabethan England involved Puritans who defended the authority of the church to give precise norms about common social life deduced from an interpretation of Scripture.
In the following three chapters, L. presents Richard Hooker’s political theology as a response to these two controversies. This theology defends the authority of the king over the different churches but where there is a role for Scripture to illuminate social action. In L.’s view, Hooker’s position is more than that of a defender for the Anglican status quo; rather it represents a major achievement in the Reformation’s implementation of Luther’s theory of the two kingdoms. Moreover, in the final chapter the author makes an effort to connect Hooker’s position with modern political philosophy in order to show the continuity between both.
Hooker has developed a sophisticated argument where he articulates natural, divine, and human law by drawing on Thomas Aquinas, and manages to properly develop Luther’s idea of “Christian liberty.” He begins by clarifying the idea of things that are “indifferent” to Scripture (adiaphora) with Hooker’s concept of indifference for salvation, introducing thus a soteriological perspective. This distinction protects individual freedom of conscience from church control. At the same time, Hooker considers common good being the goal of the state and the state-church avoiding a divinization of the institutions.
Hooker also provides arguments to support the idea of obedience of the law and the institutions. He highlights the authority and the origins of those laws. This approach avoids demanding a blind obedience to authority as some Anglicans did. For Hooker this attitude of rational approach and free obedience is a form of obedience to Christ who rules over the commonwealth and the church.
Finally, L. considers the defense of freedom of conscience by the Reformation as a preparation for modern political liberalism, but he asks himself whether the Reformation was not just a midwife that gave birth to political liberalism and then disappeared. The confessional approach of the Reformation to politics makes it difficult to see it as a base for a modern, religiously pluralistic society. However, L. wants to show how Hooker views the commonwealth not under Christ, but under an ascended Christ that allows society to build itself. Therefore, Hooker may represent a way to think about the modern, religious pluralistic societies from a confessional point of view. This final assertion seems to me a too optimistic and apologetic interpretation of Hooker’s political thought.
In a general overview, I would say that the author presents the material quite well. The basis of the text is the author’s doctoral dissertation, although it has been improved before publication. The book shows the author’s erudition and his very good knowledge of the Reformation’s history and dilemmas. In fact he tries to clearly connect historical research with present political philosophy debates, thus making the book more compelling. Moreover, the presentation of the Anglican debates which were previous to Hooker are very helpful to understand the whole question in relation to Hooker’s position.
I would just mention as a point to be improved that the approach could have been more ecumenical. The author focuses on debates within the inside of the Reformation movement. It would have been interesting to present some connections of those debates to contemporary Catholic positions in political philosophy, as, for example, Suárez’s views. I think this would have given a better understanding about the way political ideas developed towards modern political liberalism.