Mike's musings

Anglicans and authority: Richard Hooker

For a while, now, I've been doing some preparation work for a possible PhD around Anglican understandings of authority. This has involved a bunch of reading, and I've really enjoyed it. What I've started with has been some reading of the early theologians of the Church of England. I thought I'd record some of the reading I've been doing, as if all goes well, I'll need to be coming back to my thoughts.

The first piece of reading I did was some Richard Hooker, one of the Church of England's great theologians: Hooker, Richard (1593) The Folger Library Edition of The Works of Richard Hooker, Vol. 1: Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Speed Hill, W., Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.. Best is probably to set out some of the chapter synopsis provided by Hooker for his first book (Hooker, pp. 55-56):

9 Of the benefit of keeping that lawe which reason teacheth.

10 How reason doth leade men unto the making of humane lawe, whereby politique societies are governed, and to agreement about lawes whereby the fellowship or communion of independent societies standeth.

11 Wherefore God hath by scripture further made knowne such supernaturall lawes as doe serve for mens direction.

12 The cause why so manie naturall and rationall lawes are set downe in holie scripture.

13 The benefit of having divine lawes written.

14 The sufficiencie of scripture unto the end for which it was instituted.

15 Of lawes positive conteined in scripture, the mutabilitie of certaine of them, and the generall use of scripture.

16 A conclusion, shewing how all this belongeth to the cause in question.

From chapter 16, we have (Hooker, pp. 138-139): "In reasonable and morall actions another law taketh place, a law by the observation whereof we glorifie God in such sort, as no creature els under man is able to doe, because other creatures have not judgement to examine the quality of that which is done to them, and therfore in that they doe, they neyther can accuse or approve themselves. Men do both, as the Apostle teacheth, yea, those men which have no written lawe of God to show what is good and evill, carrie written in their hearts the universall law of mankind, the law of reason, whereby they judge as by a rule which God hath given unto all men for that purpose." He's keen on the importance of natural law, clearly. Slightly further on, he is talking about the importance of laws within nations - and between nations (Hooker, p. 56): "The publique power of all societies is above every soule contayned in the same societies. ... [E]xcept our owne private, and but probably resolutions be by the lawe of publique determinations overruled, we take away all possibilitie of sociable life in the worlde. A plainer example whereof then our selves we cannot have. How commeth it to passe that we are at this present day so rent with mutuall contentions, and that the Church is so much troubled about the Politie of the Church? No doubt if men had beene willing to learne how many lawes their actions in this life are subject unto, and what the true force of ech law is, all these controversies might have dyed the very day they were first brought forth." Hooker is writing not just about the contentions between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, but also about issues within the Church of England, where he was battling against Puritan elements.

In the second book, he is arguing against those who "urge reformation in the Church of England: Namely That Scripture is the onely rule of all things which in this life may be done by men." He wants to show that God's rules come from beyond solely scriptural teaching (Hooker, p. 147-8): "To teach men therfore wisedome professeth, and to teach them every good way: but not every good way by one way of teaching. Whatsoever either men on earth, or the Angels of heaven do know, it is as a drop of that unemptiable fountaine of wisdom, which wisdom hath diversly imparted her treasures unto the world. As her waies are of sundry kinds, so her maner of teaching is not meerely one and the same. Some things she openeth by the sacred bookes of Scriture, some things by the glorious works of nature: with some things she inspireth them from above by spirituall influence, in some thinges she leadeth and trayneth them onely by worldly experience and practice. We may not so in any one speciall kind admire her that we disgrace her in any other, but let all her wayes be according unto their place and degree adored."

There are some interesting issues raised in chapter 6:

Our question is, whether all be sinne which is done without direction of scripture ...? (p. 169)

For in truth the question is not, whether an argument from scripture negatively may be good, but whether it be so generally good, that in all actions men may urge it. The Fathers I graunt do use verie generall and large tearmes, even as Hiero the King did in speaking of Archimedes, From hence forward whatsoever Archimedes speaketh, it must be believed. His meaning was not that Archimedes could simply in nothing be deceyved, but that he had in such sort approved his skill, that he seemed worthie of credit for ever after in matters appertaining unto the science he was skilfull in. ... Let any man therefore that caryeth indifferencie of judgement, persuse the Bishops [the Bishop of Salisbury's] speeches, and consider well of those negatives concerning the scripture, which he produceth out of Iran&aedigraph;us, Chrisostome, and Leo ... They mention no restraint in the one then in the other. ... (pp. 173-174)

In chapter 8, he helpfully (for our purposes, at least), lays out two contrary positions:

Two opinions therefore there are concerning sufficiencie of holy scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The schooles of Rome teach scripture to be so unsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not conteine all revealed and supernaturall truth, which absolutely is necessarie for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved. Others justly condemning this opinion growe likewise unto a daungerous extremitie, as if scripture did not onely containe all thinges in that kinde necessary, but al thinges simply, and in such sorte that to doe any thing according to any other lawe were not onely unnecessary, but even the opposite unto salvation, unlawfull and sinfull. Whatsoever is spoken of God or thinges appertaining to God otherwise then as the truth is; though it seeme an honour, it is an injurie. ... [W]e must ... take great heede, lest in attributing unto scripture more then it can have, the incredibillitie of that do cause even those things which indeed it hath most abundantly to be lesse reverendly esteemed. (Hooker, pp. 191-192)

The third book is "Concerning their second assertion, that in Scripture there must be of necessitie contained a forme of Church-politie the lawes whereof may in no wise be altered." It's fairly clear from the arguments above that Hooker looks beyond Scripture for rules - and rules are very important here, as he's writing around the time where Puritans are arguing that the nation should be ruled according to their views - based, they argue, on Scripture - and that the Church should also be separated from the state's tradition exertion of authority. Hooker, who wishes to keep the church as an Established church, is arguing against this strongly.

Labels: authority, PhD, theology