Talk:Thomas Hooker

REVERSION
Reverted to older version of picture (it looked better). WB2 06:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Birth date
I noticed that the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia article on Hooker and this page cite his birthday slightly differently ("probably July 7th..." (Britannica Concise) or "probably about July 7th" (the other page)). I was curious what the source was for the July 5th date.--GregRM 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the real date is july 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatmon (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Several suggestions from a researcher and guide with background in the study of Cambridge's early sites and people
1) To the extent that it can be known, the statement that the Hooker home was "within what is now Harvard Yard" is probably incorrect. Hooker's homesite is marked with a plaque, not in Harvard Yard (as Thomas Shepard's and Wigglesworth's homesites are) but a block away, where Mt. Auburn and Dunster Sts. now intersect. However, there seems to be no "edit" bar in that section of the text by which to make corrections. Since documentation for such sites is fairly good (See the Cambridge Historical Commission's series of architectural studies on the area) it is likely that such plaques are reliable and the phrase ought to be amended to reflect this.

This is important because it points up a demographic shift of the "center" of what is now Harvard Square from an area nearer the then-shoreline of the Charles River and the Newtowne Marketplace site. It also serves as a reminder that Harvard University (then College), ubiquitous as it now is in North Central Cambridge, was once a marginal site, near the guardhouse and the Dudley Bradstreet home, but not as close to the population center as the First Church site, the Grammar school, the (1651, so a bit later) Blue Anchor tavern, the first schoolmaster's home, etc.

2) Almost nothing appears to be said about Hooker's background in England, which was extremely important in forming his theological stance, for which he became quite famous, throughout the rest of his life. See Shepherd Bush's study, two articles in the Cambridge Historical Society's "Proceedings" and references in Stout's "The New England Soul" as well as George Williams' and others' studies (I could add about six works to the bibliography as well, if there were an edit path to it.)

3) In addition to his importance in the New England colonies after his arrival, Hooker's works were sought in Old England as well. He and two other American colonial ministers were invited to the discussions which led to the Westminster Catechism; his writings for that group (one of which, lost at sea en route, was re-written and re-sent) were formative for religious development on both sides of the Atlantic.

4) His formulation of the steps along what he saw as the soul's path to an awareness of saving grace is held by some writers to provide a basis for the formulaic citations used by evangelicals and fundamentalists to effect the "saving" of an individual today, and in fact throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Many other writers and thinkers might be considered as contributing to this "pathway" but his work, widely distributed in his own day, may be seen as seminally influential on Shepard (who married his daughter and took over his pulpit when he left for New Haven) and others.

Also, since he is known to have studied with a Ramist commentator, some discussion of Ramist thinking and its effect on early American theological formulations (and the continued use, albeit unacknowledged, of Ramist logic and imagery in conservative statements about Biblical scholarship that hold themselves to be "untainted" by the incursion of human philosophical musings--Hooker was not alone among American colonial divines in being influenced by Ramus or his disciples) might also have a place here.

5) The church that was formed in Cambridge in the 1630s cannot truly be claimed to have been "First Parish," which is a Unitarian church. Nomenclature is an important historiographic part of this issue; it is best not to imply that Thomas Hooker might have had any Unitarian leanings. Early church founders were definitely Trinitarian (to wit, see their covenants). This is an example of the influence a "conqueror" can have on the writing of the historical materials leading up to and following their "victory."

The first progressive liberal churches in Boston appeared in the late 17th-mid 18th c. Some, like Samuel Mather's Bennett Street Church in Boston's North End, were more loosely formed theologically from the outset; some, like Brattle Square I (1699, originally Fifth Congregational) and King's Chapel I (1684, originally Anglican) migrated gradually towards Unitarianism (Brattle Square) or amicably embraced it with little apparent conflict (King's Chapel III, known after the Revolution as the Stone Chapel.)

By the early 19th century, 9 of Boston's original 13 colonial Congregational Churches had become Unitarian--occasioning the foundation of Park Street, dedicated as a Trinitarian congregation to seek to stem the tide of liberal church "conversions." S.F.B. Morse's father Jedediah opposed the seating of the first Unitarian in Harvard's Hollis chair of Divinity at the same time, in what came to be called the "Unitarian Controversy" at Harvard.

The spread of Unitarianism of the E 19th c. in New England (and in Cambridge/Boston in particular) was congenial in some cases, but acrimonious in others. Cambridge was one of the latter; the 1930 tercentenary placement of the Thomas Shepard homesite marker, on which both are named, may have been the first collegial event in which the two churches particiapted for over two centuries. (pictures of all these plaques and sites named are extant)

But other gatherings that had been formed as Congregational (Trinitarian) bodies early in the settlement of New England were wrenched from their Trinitarian moorings by a process that can only be described as a hostile internal takeover.

Ecumenical efforts in the last century having done much to heal resentments felt at the time--and the hope for churchses of all confessional types to uphold collegiality and unity--notwithstanding, it is still important to clarify the theological and historical natures of such churches.

Changes in nomenclature are still in use and need to be understood; the progressives' claims, used to solidify their gains, have also been absorbed into the literature without adequate explanation. So this is not just a "moot point" when discussing New England church history.

Essentially the practice was simple: instead of gathering new congregations, Unitarians packed the governing boards of older churches, replacing the preachers in their pulpits, voting themselves the parish house, the church silver, the treasury, and the church building--and leaving those with older views about the persons of the Godhead (and many other theological issues) little else but the right to form a "society" (usually named after the first minister of the original Congregational gathering--in Watertown, "Phillips," in Cambridge, the "Shepard" Society) that had to start over to raise funds and construct a new house of worship--meeting in members' homes or public halls until that point.

The Unitarian bodies, having gained governance of the congregation's physical plant and other effects, were called the "parish," while the remnant of dissenting trinitarians, once they had re-formed themselves and built their new worship site, were called the "church." First enacted in 1809-11, when the Dedham gathering, southwest of Boston, split, this disposition of the "Dedham case" set a precedential example followed by courts over the next several decades.

The diary of the Rev. Abiel Holmes, the Cambridge Trinitarian (and ancestor of Oliver Wendall Holmes) who lost his pulpit and was turned out of his own home, notes the sad effect this process had on himself and his family, as well as on the remainder of his Trinitarian congregation.

I realize this takes a bit of space to explain, but it's important NOT to say that Hooker was a part of "First Parish," which did not (despite claims made on its doorpost and elsewhere) come into existence until 1813.

6) The reasons for the departure of the Hooker company are more dimensional than given here. It's possible that their stated reason (grazing pasture for cattle) could have been the real one (see the Cambridge Proceedings referred to above--I can get vol. no.s, etc.) although it's definitely correct to say that there were differences of politial as well as political viewpoint, not only between Winthrop and Hooker, but probably between Hooker and John Cotton, and possible others among the Boston clergy.

Don't know what you want to do with all this, but I'll be giving a walking tour and slide presentation in August on 17th c. Cambridge in the Discovery Series in which this material will be discussed and developed more fully. (www.freewebs.com/buryinggroundstours; see also the Cambridge Historical Commission site). There is also a lot more that could be said of the New Haven settlement. 168.122.12.225 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Hooker birthplace
In virtually all the sources, Hooker's birthplace is given as Marfield, Leicestershire. There is one problem with this assertion. There does not appear to be any such place. There is a Marefield, Leicestershire, as well as a Markfield, Leicestershire. While the footnote now given from the Encyclopedia Britannica gives Markfield as Hooker's birthplace, nearly all the sources assert that the original 'Marfield' was within the parish of Tilton. The parish of Tilton includes Marefield. I think it most likely that Marefield – and not Markfield – was Hooker's birthplace. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either of those sources qualify as more reliable than Britannica, though. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't deem Britannica always reliable. I notice that virtually all family accounts give 'Marfield' as the location of Thomas' birth. . As I say, most of the old sources give the location as 'Marfield' within the parish of Tilton. The subject of Hooker's birthplace has been discussed since the time of Cotton Mather.  I think the Encyclopedia has it wrong. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the matter is still up for debate. This History of the University of Cambridge gives his birthplace as Markfield. Personally, I find the Marefield scenario more compelling. Hooker's entry at the New England Historic Genealogical Society online asserts he was born at Marefield.   But there are a lot of takes on this. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The most comprehensive source out there, Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, by Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster (2 volumes), gives Hooker's birthplace as either Marefield or Birstall, Leicestershire. This agrees partially with the cite from the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the oldest and largest genealogical society in the United States. I have edited the entry to read Hooker was likely born at either Marefield (which is in the parish of Tilton) or at Birstall. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Hooker plaque in Little Baddow
There is another plaque in memory of Thomas Hooker, named as "The Father of American Democracy", on the wall of Cuckoos Farm, Church Road, Little Baddow (near Chelmsford, UK). This gives the dates when Hooker and John Eliot lived in this house, said to be 1626-1631. I will try to get a picture of the house. There is a section about Hooker and Eliot at http://www.thehistorycentre.org.uk/collections.htm on the site of the Little Baddow History Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkirk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a picture of Cuckoos Farm to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cuckoos_Farm_Little_Baddow.jpg. See also my blog post http://www.gentlewisdom.org/4927/thomas-hooker-and-john-eliots-house-in-england/. Peterkirk (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism
I had to revert vandalism at the last paragraph of the page. The vandalism was "man" and was vandalized by the same user. Could anyone who is reading this help me keep track of vandalism? Thank you.Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I admit
I admit that I did it okay? I did the vandalism? It's just a test vandalism.I love Chicks! I love Chicks! (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

suffrage
discussion of his views on suffrage and policies in connecticut possibly require some clarification. his position, as i understand it, was not to advocate for puritan suffrage, as the wording here suggests, but to open suffrage to those who weren't full members of puritan congregations, in contrast to mass bay colony at the time, where "freeholder" status, and thus the right to vote and hold office, was limited to church members. i believe hooker advocated separating freeholder status entirely from church membership — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.36.115 (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Hooker article inaccurate and inadequate
This comment also relates to the Market Bosworth wiki article:
 * I have found no primary records on his birthplace.
 * No mention in the article of Hooker's early life. I will be releasing a book on Hooker and his life in England and colonial America.
 * Wiki has an article on the Hooker's methodology, Preparationism, which is pretty good. That should be referenced.
 * Also link to Wiki article on Antinomian Controversy.
 * Hooker DID NOT found the state of Connecticut. He settled in the trading post of Hartford and was instrumental in the forming of the Connecticut COLONY.  The STATE of Connecticut was formed primarily through the work of William Leete, who merged New Haven Colony and Connecticut Colony and was its first governor.  Thomas Hooker was not a Governor of anything. (My book is "Biography of Leet(e) Immigrants to North America."  It should be published later this summer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeteleetlink (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)