Richard Hooker

Case Study 1.7

Hooker

Richard Hooker

c.1554 - 1600

Anglican Divine

Richard Hooker has been described by Horton Davies as both a notable defender of the Church of England against Puritan belief and against the Roman Catholic position. His position affirmed, “Anglicanism’s first loyalty was to Scripture, its second to the pure traditions of the primitive and undivided church, and its third to reason.” (Davies, 1996a: xv). Indeed it was Hooker who provided a philosophical and devotional basis for the Elizabethan church (Stone, 1909: II, 239). This basis is principally expressed in Hooker’s major work, entitled Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (edn. Keble, 1865), which served as an apology for the Church of England, as found in the Elizabethan settlement (Davies, 1996a: 27).

Christopher Cocksworth argues that with the movement of history away from the immediate Reformation period, the time was right for the creation of such a distinctively Anglican tradition, which owed much to the Reformation, but which at the same time “tentatively rehabilitated certain traditional features of sacramental theology and spirituality.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 33). It was during the Elizabethan period that Anglican theologians, beginning perhaps with Richard Hooker, but continuing in subsequent years, began this process of developing a distinctively Anglican tradition. Such a process was “not seen as a betrayal of the Reformation but, rather, as a sign that an insufficiency was felt by both traditions [the Anglican and the Puritan] bequeathed to them by the Reformers.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 33). This case study is therefore of vital importance since Hooker’s eucharistic theology moves away from the views of some of the early Reformation theologians.

Hooker’s eucharistic theology is centred on the idea of “the real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of the sacrament.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 320). It is this motif of a union with Christ which pervades the whole of the Polity and which is central to Hooker’s thinking on the Eucharist. In essence it seems that this motif is based on a moderate realism undergirded by the doctrine of the incarnation. As Cocksworth argues, “This enabled him to establish the ground rules for the Eucharist. He argued that although Christ’s human nature has become God’s ‘inseparable habitation’, its human properties, such as localized presence, are not affected.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 38). Therefore for Hooker God cannot be found beyond or behind the incarnation but intimately joined to it, such that “wherever the Word is it hath with it manhood else the Word be in part or somewhere God only and not man, which is impossible.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 222). It is this joining of the divinity and the manhood in the doctrine of the incarnation that Hooker carries over into his theology of the Eucharist. The manhood of Christ cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. His theology is realist, and represents a significant break with the earlier Anglican theologians such as Cranmer.

In relation to the Eucharist Hooker expresses the view that by means of the sacrament the communicant has a real participation in the body and blood of Christ and thereby in Christ himself. Hooker was less definitive on the means of the presence and whether or not Christ was present in the consecrated elements, although he did describe them as ‘instrumentally a cause’ of the participation in Christ. Hooker was prepared to accept those facts dictated by Scripture and reason alike, but to suspend judgment on metaphysical problems, such as transubstantiation, consubstantiation and the manner of the real presence, where no clear guidance was given by Scripture or reason (Dugmore, 1942: 21). These matters will be investigated in greater depth below. Hooker specifically rejects transubstantiation, describing it as a heresy (Hooker, Sermon II, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 612) and consubstantiation, but argues that the acceptance or the rejection of these doctrines is not of supreme importance, since the means of the presence is not something to be inquired into or considered too deeply. What seems to be of greater importance to Hooker is participation of the faithful in Christ. He argues that in receiving the consecrated elements the body and blood of Christ is also received. The means of the presence is less a matter for consideration than that the body and blood of Christ is really received.

The following quotations from the Polity will present Hooker’s view on the Eucharist.

The Eucharist was for Hooker an effective means of grace. He says:

“ … in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us, the degrees of our own increase in holiness and virtue we see and can judge of them, we understand that the strength of our life begun in Christ is Christ, that his flesh is meat and his blood drink, not by surmised imagination but truly, even so truly that through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally presented the very taste of eternal life, the grace of the sacrament is here as the food which we eat and drink.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80).

Hooker denies that the sacrament is “only a shadow, destitute, empty and void of Christ” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80) and affirms that there is a ‘givenness’ of gift in the sacrament. Hooker argues that in the sacrament there is “real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of this sacrament.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 81) and that the grace of the sacrament is present in what is eaten and drunk. The question however, which Hooker acknowledges has been the subject of debate, is where Christ is or in what does he participate in the sacrament? No one denies, he says, that Christ’s presence is in the soul of the faithful communicant, but is Christ’s presence also within the consecrated elements? Speculation on this issue Hooker sees as unnecessary, rather all need to realize that “those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and conveyances of his body and blood unto them” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83). Realism appears to be at the basis of this comment since the Eucharist is seen to be the sign which conveys the signified body and blood of Christ to the communicant. It seems that Hooker is presenting a realist notion of the presence of Christ when he speaks of participation in the soul of the faithful communicant. Any participation of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist however, seems less clear. William Crockett suggests that Hooker stands in the tradition of Paul and Augustine, in that he understands the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an ecclesial sense (Crockett, 1989: 176), where the faithful participate in Christ in the context of the eucharistic community of the church. It is in this sense then that Crockett describes Hooker as presenting a doctrine of the ‘real partaking of the body and blood of Christ’, more than a doctrine of the ‘real presence of the body and blood of Christ’ in the Eucharist. Hooker’s emphasis is on spiritual feeding of the faithful rather than any presence in the sacrament (Crockett, 1989: 176). Crockett is careful however, not to exclude the latter from Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist, only to suggest that ‘real partaking’ is more a feature of Hooker’s view than is ‘real presence’.

In referring to Jesus’ words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body’ and ‘drink ye all of this, this is my blood’ Hooker comments that:

“If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ himself was a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood, for that they are so to us who receiving them receive by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83).

The bread and cup are not the participation in the body and blood but instruments of that participation, or as Hooker describes them ‘causes instrumental’. In this sense the bread and cup can be described as his body and blood even though they are not the participation or communion of the body and blood. Thus Hooker argues that:

“ … his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every thing which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83-84).

The body and blood are therefore in the faithful communicant by means of a divine and mystical kind of union. This is clearly an ecclesial interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whereby Christ is seen to be present with the faithful as they receive communion in the context of the eucharistic community of the church. Therefore Hooker says:

“The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 84).

This is a crucial sentence emphasizing the presence of Christ in the worthy receiver of the sacrament. For Hooker it could be argued that there is a sacramental principle and that it is one of the real presence of Christ in the worthy receiver. It must be noted however, that Hooker does not deny that the real presence of Christ’s body and blood is ‘in’ the sacrament, rather he states that it is not to be sought for in the sacrament. This sentence could imply that Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist is a receptionist doctrine, that is, a doctrine implying Christ’s body and blood is only present as the communicant receives the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This means that Christ’s body and blood is not present before or after the reception but only during the act of receiving. Receptionism, it should be noted, is not opposed to any idea of a real presence. Crockett argues that: “ … ‘receptionism’ is a doctrine of the real presence, but a doctrine of the real presence that relates the presence primarily to the worthy receiver rather than to the elements of bread and wine.” (Crockett, 1989: 190). There certainly seems to be an element of this doctrine in Hooker’s writing, since he emphasises the participation in Christ by the faithful communicant. To deny receptionism in Hooker would be to misrepresent his theology (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 28). Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist however, needs to be read in its broadest sense, taking into account all aspects of his writing, not just this one crucial sentence which speaks of not seeking Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament but rather in the worthy receiver. McAdoo and Stevenson therefore argue that:

“ … to label him as receptionist pur sang would equally be a misrepresentation and a simplistic reading of his thought. In fact, his concern is to draw together to one focal point the ‘givenness’ of the Gift and the faith which receives the Gift and that point is the personal relationship created through the sacrament between Christ and the faithful.” (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 28).

Hooker is really being quite judicious here in that he is attempting to address both the aspect of Gift and the aspect of faith. For him it seems that there is both a ‘givenness’ of the gift and a need for faithful reception. He says for example that, “in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80) and “This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 92). The first statement seems to indicate that the gift of God is given in the Eucharist. The second suggests that there is a ‘givenness’ about this gift and that it is not solely dependent on the faith of the worthy receiver, and indeed apart from what is visible. At the same time Hooker argues that participation in Christ in the Eucharist is dependent on the faith of the worthy receiver, for example saying, “ … through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80). Conjunction is therefore an important aspect of Hooker’s theology and philosophy where he is attempting to redress the disjunction in theology that was so much part of the tension between Anglicans and Puritans in his day. While Hooker acknowledges the gift and its ‘givenness’ he also acknowledges the need for faithful reception. A balance or conjunction between both aspects of the presence seems to be an integral part of what Hooker is saying about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. To emphasise or to ignore one aspect, at the expense of the other, would be to misrepresent Hooker’s views on the eucharistic presence of Christ.