Theology and politics in Richard Hooker's thought

Although Richard Hooker’s private attitudes were clericalist and authoritarian, his constitutional theory subordinated clergymen to laymen and monarchy to parliamentary statute. This article explains why his political ideas were nonetheless appropriate to his presumed religious purposes. It notes a very intimate connection between his teleological conception of a law and his hostility towards conventional high Calvinist ideas about predestination. The most significant anomaly within his broadly Aristotelian world-view was his belief that politics is nothing but a means to cope with sin. This too can be linked to his religious ends, but it creates an ambiguity that made his doctrines usable by Locke.

Unwritten law in Hobbesian political thought

In Hobbesian terminology, ‘unwritten laws’ are natural laws enforced within a polity, by a non-sovereign judge, without some previous public promulgation. This article discusses the idea in the light of successive Hobbesian accounts of ‘law’ and ‘obligation’. Between De Cive and Leviathan, Hobbes dropped the idea that natural law is strictly speaking law, but he continued to believe unwritten laws must form a part of any legal system. He was unable to explain how such a law could claim a legal status. His loyalty to the notion, in spite of all the trouble that it caused, is a sign of his belief that moral knowledge is readily accessible to all.

Through Jewish eyes: polemical literature and the medieval papacy

Although the medieval papacy's stance towards the Jews is a well-established area of research, Jewish ideas about the papacy remain a surprisingly underdeveloped historical topic. This article explores such ideas through the genre of polemic and disputational literature. Jewish writers were keen to ensure the safety of their communities in western Europe and grateful for statements of papal protection. They fully acknowledged that popes had always played and would continue to play an important role in safeguarding their well-being and determining their future. Yet although contemporary and later writers often valued papal protection more highly than that of monarchs, emperors or clergy, they also knew that it had its carefully circumscribed limits. Furthermore, although they were respectful of the papacy's power, both spiritual and temporal, they were dismissive of the scriptural and theological formulations on which Christian claims for apostolic authority rested and highly critical of Christian beliefs about the papacy, in particular that of apostolic succession. Jewish ideas about both individual popes and the medieval papacy as an institution are therefore nuanced and complex; they deserve rigorous and wide-ranging investigation and it is hoped that this article will contribute to their better understanding.