Hooper.E2.80.93Ridley debate Nicholas Ridley (martyr)

john hooper clashed ridley advocated more radical reforms. portrait henry bryan hall, 1839.

in latin letter dated 3 october 1550, hooper laid out argument contra usum vestium. ridley s reply (in english), marks first written representation of split in english reformation. hooper s argument vestments should not used not indifferent, nor use supported scripture, point takes self-evident. contends church practices must either have express biblical support or things indifferent, approval implied scripture. furthermore, indifferent thing, if used, causes no profit or loss. ridley objected in response, saying indifferent things have profitable effects, reason used. failing distinguish between conditions indifferent things in general , church s use of indifferent things, hooper excludes possibility of being indifferent in 4 conditions sets:

1) indifferent thing has either express justification in scripture or implied it, finding origin , foundation in scripture.

hooper cites romans 14:23 (whatever not faith sin), romans 10:17 (faith comes hearing word of god), , matthew 15:13 (everything not planted god rooted ) argue indifferent things must done in faith, , since cannot proved scripture not of faith, indifferent things must proved scripture, both necessary , sufficient authority, opposed tradition. hooper maintains priestly garb distinguishing clergy laity not indicated scripture; there no mention of in new testament being in use in church, , use of priestly clothing in old testament hebrew practice, type or foreshadowing finds antitype in christ, abolishes old order , recognises spiritual equality, or priesthood, of christians. historicity of these claims further supported hooper reference polydore vergil s de inventoribus rerum.

in response, ridley rejected hooper s insistence on biblical origins , countered hooper s interpretations of chosen biblical texts. points out many non-controversial practices not mentioned or implied in scripture. ridley denies church practices normative present situation, , links such primitivist arguments anabaptists. joking hooper s reference christ s nakedness on cross insignificant clothing king herod put christ in , jolly argument adamites, ridley not dispute hooper s main typological argument, neither accept vestments or exclusively identified israel , roman church. on hooper s point priesthood of believers, ridley says not follow doctrine christians must wear same clothes.

2) indifferent thing must left individual discretion; if required, no longer indifferent.

for ridley, on matters of indifference, 1 must defer conscience authorities of church, or else thou showest thyself disordered person, disobedient, [a] contemner of lawful authority, , wounder of thy weak brother conscience. him, debate legitimate authority, not merits , demerits of vestments themselves. contended accidental compulsory ceases indifferent; degeneration of practice non-indifference can corrected without throwing out practice. things not, because have been abused, taken away, reformed , amended, , kept still.

3) indifferent thing s usefulness must demonstrated , not introduced arbitrarily.

for point, hooper cites 1 corinthians 14 , 2 corinthians 13. contradicts first point above, primus contends hooper must refer indifferent things in church , earlier meant indifferent things in general, in abstract. regardless, apparent contradiction seized ridley , undoubtedly hurt hooper s case council.

4) indifferent things must introduced church apostolic , evangelical lenity, not violent tyranny.

in making such inflammatory, risky statement (he later may have called opponents papists in part of argument lost), hooper may not have been suggesting england tyrannical rome was—and england become rome. ridley warned hooper of implications of attack on english ecclesiastical , civil authority , of consequences of radical individual liberties, while reminding him parliament established book of common prayer in church of england .

in closing, hooper asks dispute resolved church authorities without looking civil authorities support—although monarch head of both church , state. hint of plea separation of church , state later elaborated thomas cartwright, hooper, although word of god highest authority, state still impose upon men s consciences (such requiring them not roman catholic) when had biblical warrant. moreover, hooper himself addressed civil magistrates, suggesting clergy supporting vestments threat state, , declared willingness martyred cause. ridley, contrast, responds humour, calling magnifical promise set forth stout style . invites hooper agree vestments indifferent, not condemn them sinful, , ordain him if wears street clothes ceremony.