Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hey took over the Vermigili project didn't they?
They took over the Vermigili project didn't they?
...W. G. T. Shedd knew something of Hooker's literary ability...
Of course, this is a little off topic, but Shedd has also been noted for his literary style among Reformed dogmaticians.
Of course, this is a little off topic, but Shedd has also been noted for his literary style among Reformed dogmaticians.
Yes, he was positively influenced by Romanticism in that regard having edited the works of Coleridge. And it is rare to hear me ever say anything positive about Romanticism. I read Shedd's Dogmatic Theology earlier this year and was able to breeze through a couple of hundred pages at a time with great ease owing to his remarkable style of writing.
We're living in a time when theological and biblical scholars tend to be better writers than their forebears (D. A. Carson, J. I. Packer, Michael J. McClymond - and, yes, John Frame, among others).
Unfortunately they also tend to be inferior biblical and theological scholars. It's great to have both, but I'll take theological orthodoxy and precision over literary eloquence every day.
Another thing that I have noticed, both from reading some of their modern translations of Richard Hooker (via my Kindle Unlimited account, I have read the first two instalments that they have published), and from reading a recent translation of Moses Amyraut's Brief Treatise on Predestination, as well as the partial translation of Amyraut's A Dissertation on the Economy of the Three Person in the Divine Works in the most recent issue of Ad Fontes, is the importance of style and literary beauty.
Sadly, Hooker and Amyraut did not always employ their literary talents in the cause of doctrinal truth, but they knew how to make an argument look attractive to the reader. (Incidentally, W. G. T. Shedd knew something of Hooker's literary ability, just look up the outstanding quotes from Hooker in his Dogmatic Theology.) I really wish that the proponents of the Westminsterian regulative principle and strict particularism could write so well. Remember that it is harder to make an argument appeal to a reader already prejudiced against a position if the argument is presented in an ugly fashion. Thus, it would be nice if we had someone with Hooker's literary gifts to write modern equivalents of English Popish Ceremonies and The Death of Death.
I am glad you made this point, Daniel. If the modernizations do not transmit Hooker's astonishing gift for beauty of language, they may well leave people wondering why anyone ever paid attention to him.
From what I have read, the modernizations do transmit Richard Hooker's ability to write with such astonishing beauty.
It's like the difference between Louis Berkhof and Robert L. Reymond. They're both orthodox theologians, but only the latter was also a good writer.
I am glad you made this point, Daniel. If the modernizations do not transmit Hooker's astonishing gift for beauty of language, they may well leave people wondering why anyone ever paid attention to him. It is not that people like Burton, Hooker, and Walton live "by the beauty of their style" as though they were devoid of content, but that the attractiveness of their language makes their strong points memorable and draws a veil over some of their defects.
Among "our" writers there are frequently very clear statements of glorious realities, poetic conceptions, and eloquent expressions, but these often stand out against a rather unpolished background. In terms of literary grace, Matthew Henry probably has a better claim to greatness than any other of our well-known writers in English. The solid merits of his style, which allows extended exposition without weariness, are difficult to duplicate or parallel.
What you observe in W.G.T. Shedd is also noticeable in Patrick Fairbairn: because he spells out the totality of his thought without compressing conceptions, it is possible to read along quite smoothly and quickly. There's no need to stop to unfold an idea, because he does that for you. Of course, it's possible to have good style without flowing smoothly. But in cases of exposition a flowing style can be a tremendous help to the reader. Sadly, if our number of doctrinally solid writers is small, the number who can express that content clearly and without convolution is even smaller. Many genuinely useful writers are largely devoid of literary grace. No doubt there are many causes for this, but having to read so many abysmally-written books of information and not hearing metrical and quantitative poetry probably contribute substantially to this defect.
I don't know why they didn't publish the remaining 3 books of that work.
Dr. Dilday's site, From Reformation to Reformation Ministries, is similar, and presents a classically Reformed (in the tradition of Westminster Presbyterianism) position.This stuff is above my knowledge level, but I’d just like to ask:
Is there any institute or site like this one that is thoroughly orthodox? It is very appealing, but I don’t want to get tangled in any error that I didn’t see.