|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Thank you for this article.
Now, about one thing... Richard was from "good family"? I've never known exactly what that means (I haven't heard the phrase in over 30 years), but in context it looks as if it has to do with money and/or status, or being respectable in some way. Whatever it means, it sounds a bit snobbish, saying in a backwards way that some people are *not* from "good families" and are therefore not as worthy. Maybe it could be said in a kinder way.
Anyway, thanks for the info and the painted portrait. I'm trying to learn more about Hooker, so this was a helpful place to start.
Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie
I didn't understand a thing from the section about the Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie. Could somebody who has read the work rewrite it so that it becomes a bit more comprehensible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- I am working on a full rewrite/expansion of this article as I type this. -- SECisek 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Travers:Assistant? and, Lay Reader??
Travers was officially "Lecturer" at the Temple Church. In general terms, the post of "Lecturer" was a stipendiary office for an ordained minister to be nominated by the parish, or a municipal corporation, or at times by an individual layman and financed by endowments, levies, or voluntary contributions to give lectures at certain times: these were a puritan invention and designed to provide sermons acceptable to their way of thinking. Travers had presbyterian orders and defended his the tenure of his position on those grounds. Lay readers date from the middle of the 19th Century and the link is simply misleading.--Jpacobb (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit of "Life Story"
This started out as an attempt to tidy a up a few details, but it quickly grew into a more extensive rewrite. Since there has been almost no movement here in the recent past, I went ahead without discussing things here. My apologies in advance to anyone who has been upset by this.Jpacobb (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Quoting C.S Lewis
Although the amended version by 188.8.131.52 is correct (except that the [ ] are not in the quotation as Neill gives it), it introduces an unnecessary complication for the reader: the need to explain "that art [of controversy]. The earlier version avoided that by simply supplying the subject of the following verb 'had involved' & picking up the direct quote with the verb itself. I consider this to be the more "reader-friendly" way of presenting this section of the article. Jpacobb (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
A later better statute photo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Hooker_statute_in_Exeter_2013.jpg Midgley (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)