Hooker's Apology of The Church of England.

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Hooker’s Apology of The Church of England.

This document is a first hand document : it’s indeed an excerpt taken from Richard Hooker’s book Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (Book IV) published in 1593. As far as the historical context is concerned, 1593 is the year when the new Prayer Book was created, less rigidly protestant than the second Edwardian one. There was a deliberate choice to put things in a way allowing several interpretations of the basic rituals (then different from the 6 Articles), and to retain many details commonly associated to Catholicism ; such as priestly vestments, kneeling at communion, the sign of the cross at baptism, the use of the marriage ring. Thus, this book was an answer to almost 25 years of criticism of the existing religious order, by people nicknamed Puritans (that we can rightly described as radical protestants). Their argument was that the contemporary Church of England should be reformed on the model of Calvin’s reformed Church in Geneva, to restore primitive Christianity. Among the aspects examined by those people, one of the main issues was the question of ceremonies : they claim several ceremonies should be remove from the Book Of Common Prayers, because they were innovations, corruptions, which prevented the Church of England for being really Christian.

Therefore, this text is build up like a defence to those assertions : it clearly and subtly, claimed that the Church of England is not what the Puritans strive to describe, but on the contrary, that it’s a truly Christian church not subject to any future reformation. This text is composed of three paragraphs , organized according to a coherent line of arguments relying on subtle opposition.

First of all, one fundamental assumption common to the Puritans and Hooker, is that the contemporary Church of England should be based on the same model given by the Bible and the example of the early Church. One source of authority is acknowledged by both sides of the debate : namely the combination of scriptures and the early Christian Church. However, the puritans said that the Elizabethan Church of England is not enough conformed to that particular model. Hence, Hooker’s subtly-reversed arguments. Indeed, the fundamental strategy of Hooker is contrasting the attitude of the puritans to the attitude of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

* * *

In the first line of the text, Hooker explicitly refers to the apostles themselves. The second layer appears a bit later, lines 11&12 with the reference to holly and virtuous men. Here lies obviously an identification of the church of England with the apostolical church and the reformed church of Luther and Calvin. Indeed, most Puritans were inspired by the model of the reformed church of Geneva. Actually, Hooker’s strategy is based on the notion that, since their model is the Calvinist church, the English Puritans should be willing to accept everything that Calvin himself accepted. According to Hooker, the Puritans display severity, skill, and zeal, opposed to the Church’s charity and meekness. He emphasises here the moral dimension which should define the attitude of a true Christian. Thus, Hooker denounces the puritans’ severity, their search for perfection (i.e. zeal being a sin since it bears connotation of over-pride), and their skill. These three notions means that according to Hooker, the Puritans are people whose self pride, whose sense of moral superiority made unchristian their beliefs. There is then a dimension of contradiction in their attitude in so far as their very claim to be the best Christians ever, make them the worst Christians one can imagine.

Moreover, because of the influence of puritans in contemporary England, the very notion of authority is threatened. Hooker asserts that today any individual is likely to claim authority on religious matter for himself. This is the way he describes the ultimate consequence of the Puritan attitude. If the Puritans were consistent, they would accept no authority at all. Nevertheless, they claim to obey authority of scriptures and the early Christian Church, but actually the only authority they accept is their own.

* * *

Hooker contrast this stereotyped attitude with a description of the Church of England which implies that in fact it’s in perfect conformity with the models claimed by the Puritans. As a result, Hooker’s arguments is a complete reversal of the Protestant’s.

To serve his arguments, Hooker relies on another opposition ; a very important conceptual opposition going to determine the whole debate. According to Hooker, there are two components in the practice of Christianity at any given time and place. First of all the Fundamentals, that is to say the essence of Christianity, called “the substance” in the text (line 21) : it doesn’t depend on time or place but it’s to be found in the Words of God. To Hooker, one can’t discuss fundamentals because they are common to all Christians. There are direct conditions determining the claim to Christianity. Secondly the Non-Essentials, that is to say what is not to be found in the Words of God, called “the outward” in the text (lines 27-29). If you take the question of ceremonies, in the Bible, God indeed says that there should be ceremonies (such as Christ’s Last Supper), but he doesn’t say exactly how. This “how” is specific to each church. Thus, this church of England has organized its worship in a certain way described in the book of Common Prayer and cannot be taxed of non-Christianity. Therefore, the scriptures and ceremonies are considered as Non-Essentials given that it’s necessary for edification of course, but certainly not for salvation (line 29). Indeed, edification consists in teaching (addressing to the mind) and moving (addressing to the Heart) and to Hooker, then, ceremonies should play on both dimensions : that is to say play on people’s mind and heart.

Therefore, the decision to organize worship in a certain way depends on the words of men, not on the Words of God : it depends on the lows of the Kingdom. Consequently, the King is the one who decides how worship has to be organized, because the aim of ceremonies is not to achieve personal salvation, but education. The fact that ceremonies, the public dimension of religion, are not at all about salvation, combined with the fact that the practical details of worship are not described in the Bible, imply that such things like kneeling, sign of the cross… are not important, and then, neither the Puritans nor the Church of England should waist more time disputing on it. It’s a matter that should be settled by low ; and because those decisions has no consequences on eternal life (salvation), the Puritans shouldn’t be so fussy about ceremonies.

* * *

The importance of this document, lies in the strange combination of Protestants and Catholics. In other words, this document is a very good reflection of the Elizabethan settlement, as a middle Way between Edwardian experiment of radical Protestantism and a Marian return to Roman Allegiance : a combination of conservative and protestant elements. Then, the Protestant dimension of this text, lies in the distinction between the Fundamentals and Non-Essentials. Indeed, it’s based on the assumption that salvation is a personal matter, and that there should not be mediator between the individual and God except the Christ : therefore, “my” salvation relies on a personal transaction with God, without any other authority, the business of the Church being edification. Secondly, the Catholic dimension of the text lies in the re-evaluation of the visual in worship. In the second half of the last paragraph, Hooker emphasizes the importance of what he called “visible signs” (line 47). He even suggests the superiority of vision over hearing. These considerations imply the acceptance of images and more generally the visual (rejected under Edward), as part of the normal organization of worship : it’s of course a clear rejection of the Puritan claim of the absolute superiority of preaching.

Thus, it reflects a big change from the times of Henry VIII, in the philosophy of Supremacy. Indeed, under Henry VIII, the English people was expected to share the beliefs of his monarch, in so far as his beliefs were the truth ; and therefore, the justification for both Supremacy and Uniformity was that the salvation of the English people depended on the King. On the contrary, as explained in this text, salvation is only a personal matter and public decisions are nothing but decisions about unimportant matters. However, the problem left intact by this text and his author, is what if someone rejects this distinction, claiming his salvation depends on how he worship ?

* * *