Abstract
Richard hooker apparently addressed the doctrine of predestination infrequently; his words on predestination nonetheless raised considerable alarm at the time among his opponents and critics. This conflict signals that the topic is an important one; but there is less than consensus on what position Hooker held on predestination, and on whether there is evidence that it developed or changed during his public career. Recently, Hooker’s position in the 1580s has been viewed as anticipating that of the Dutch scholar James Arminius.1 His treatment of election in Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie in the 1590s has similarly been interpreted as tending to a view of predestination based on human appropriation of grace and accompanying human works,2 although Hooker probably “held himself back” from disclosing his full opinion because of a de facto censorship on this topic imposed in the 1590s.3 Again, Hooker has been seen as coming close, at the end of his life, “to espousing an Arminian doctrine,” “despite the reservations about this which still lingered from his earlier indoctrination in Calvinist doctrine.”4
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
“Relying on a notion popular in the 1580s (though rejected by Thomas and only later revived by James Arminius), Hooker was prepared to view the will of God as `not absolute but conditionall’ upon the `forseen’ obedience (or disobedience) of men.” Egil Grislis, ed., “Introduction to Commentary,” Tractates and Sermons, FLE 5:655. In fairness to Grislis, it should be pointed out that his account is of “predestination to damnation” rather than “predestination to salvation” and it is perhaps the word “obedience” that misleads here.
Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker ( London: Allen & Unwin, 1988 ), 185–86
Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans?, 195ff.
Philip Secor, Richard Hooker: Prophet of Anglicanism ( Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1999 ), 288–89
See H.0 Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958 ), 365–71.
The five points of the Remonstrants and the decrees of the Synod of Dort are found in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3 ( Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983 ), 545–597.
Izaak Walton had given the year of Hooker’s Paul’s Cross Sermon as 1581. I have, however, adopted the revised date suggested by Georges Edelen, FLE 6(1): xxii and employed by Philip Secor in Richard Hooker, 115.
Answere to a Supplication 7, FLE 5:235.30–31
Izaak Walton, Life of Hooker in The Works of Mr Richard Hooker, edited by John Keble, Vol. 1 ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1877 ), 22–23
Doctrin preached by master Hooker in the Temple the fyrst of marche 1585 [/86], Harleian MS 291, ff. 184v-185r, “Supplement I,” FLE 5: 286. 11–15
Answere 7, 8, 5:235.29–236.19
Travers had alleged that Hooker “had taught certen things concerning predestination, otherwise then the word of god doeth, as it is understood by all the churches professing the gospell, and not unlike that wherewith Coranus sometime troubled this Churche.” Walter Travers, A Supplication made to the Privy Councill (Oxford: Joseph Barnes, 1612), repr. FLE 5:198.14–18. Anthony del Corro, a controversial scholar and teacher, had been lecturer at the Temple from 1571 to 1579. On del Corro see Christopher Dent, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 107, 110–125.
Answere 22, 5:252.30–253.9
Answere 22, 5:253.9–25
The distinction was a traditional one. In the Dublin Fragments, Hooker cites authorities for the distinction. The term “signifyed will” is attributed to “the Schoolmen,” the term “principali will of God” to John Damascene. Later Damascene is also cited for the term “consequent will,” Dublin Fragments 32, 34; 4:143.14–15, 146.15–16. Hooker did not, apparently, feel he should quote Thomas, who was almost certainly the proximate source between himself and John Damascene, Summa Theologiae Ia q.23 art.4, Reply Obj.3. Closer to home as an authority for the distinction, Hooker could also have implicated Peter Martyr. The most “scholastic” figure of the English Reformation before Hooker, Martyr had indeed spoken of two wills in God, a secret effectual will, and a signified will: “We might also adde with manie divines that there is a certeine will of God, which they call effectuall; and also another of the signe: for there are given to all men one with another certeine signes of salvation; such as are outward vocation, which doth chieflie consist of the word of God, of preaching, and of the administration of the sacraments. Another will there is of God secret, which is called effectuall; and belongeth not unto all men together: for if it comprehended all men, no doubt but all men should be saved.” Peter Martyr, Common Places III.i.61 ( London: John Day, 1583 ), 43
Lawes V.49.3; 2:204.28–205.2
Lawes V.56.6, 7; 2:238.3–23
Based on a text from the same chapter of the Bible as the Sermons on Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith and Justification, this sermon may originally have been preached at the Temple in 1585 or 1586; see Egil Grislis, Textual Introduction to Cert. 5:59–68.
Pride III, 5:346.10–17
Sermon Fragment on Matthew 27.46, FLE 5:399.4–10
Sermon Fragment on Hebrews 2.14–15, FLE 5:406.30–407.10
Sermon Fragment on Matthew, FLE 5:407.13–27
Although beyond the scope of this essay, it will be seen that Hooker would appear to have no sympathy whatsoever for the later but related Calvinist and Jansenist notion that the saving work wrought by Christ was “limited” to the elect. Hooker did note that, although Christ died for all [thesis A2], he did not pray for those for whom his death would have no effect [thesis B1.2.3]. Dublin 34, 4:146.22–25. This was similar to Calvin’s qualification: although Christ died for all, his prayer in John 17 applies only to the elect. John Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the death and passion of Christ (London: J. Clarke, 1956) 145. See R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) 13–14. fn. 3, 4.
The tract is printed together with Hooker’s autograph marginal annotations in the copy in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, ACL 4: 1–79.
ACL 10, 4:26–28
Lawes I.2.5; 1:62.10–11
The Tenth Article touching predestination,“ Dublin 19–46, 4:123–167
Notes toward a Fragment on Predestination, FLE 4:83–97
Dublin 26, 4:132.18–24
There are not, however, two but one determinate will in God, the distinction concerning only the things willed, and not the divine willing itself in which no distinction can be discerned. See Summa Theologiae Ia q.19 art.6 and John E. Booty, FLE 4: 256.
Dublin 32, 4:141.33–142.16
Dublin32, 4:143.5–12
Dublin 23, 4:128–9
Calvin had apparently changed his mind at least twice as to the best place to discuss Predestination: in the 1536 Latin edition of the Institutes, providence was discussed under Apostles’ Creed, section 1, “Creation and Providence,” and predestination under section 4, “Benefits of Faith.” Providence and predestination were discussed together in chapter 8 in 1539–41, and in chapter 14 in 1543–5 and 1550–4. In the last edition of 1559, Calvin again divided providence from predestination, placing the first topic in Book I, 16–18 and the latter in Book III, 21–24.
Dublin 35, 4:147.19–32; Dublin 40, 4:153.6–10; Dublin 45, 4:165.5–7. See also Lawes V.56.6, 7; 2:238.3–23, quoted above. This is also emphasized by Lancelot Andrewes in his writings on the Lambeth Articles see Lancelot Andrewes, Minor Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1846), 290, 295.
Michael T. Malone, “The Doctrine of Predestination in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker,” Anglican Theological Review 52 (1970): 114
Dewey D. Wallace, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–1695 ( Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982 ), 59–61
But see Inst. III.23.8 where Calvin rejects the distinction between God’s will and his permission.
For the mature Augustine, the elect are predestined to life, not because of the holiness they will have, but that they might become holy (Predestination of the Saints, 37, xviii), whereas the others were left to perish, not predestined to sin but to punishment (On the Soul and its Origin, IV, 16, xi) on account of their foreseen iniquity (On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, 31, xiii).
Dublin 35, 4:147.2
Dublin 36, 4:148.11–19
over the masse of corruption, there passed twoe Acts of the will of God. An act of favor, liberalitie and grace, choosing part to be made partakers of everlasting glorie; and an Act of Justice, forsaking the rest and adjudging them to endlesse perdition.“ Dublin 36, 4:148.27–29
Dublin 36–39, 4:147–153. Hooker refers twice to the “Arausican Counsell” (i.e., the Second Council of Orange, A.D. 529, which ended the controversy and determined a moderate version of Augustine’s concept) at Dublin 12, 37, 4:111.2, 150.17.
Dublin 35, 4:147.4. See also Thomas, Summa Theologiae Ia q.23 art.3.
Dublin 38, 4:151.25–34
Peter Lake has written that Hooker’s treatment of election in the Lawes might seem to lead to a view of predestination ex praevisa fide. Lake, Anglicans and Puritans?, 185, 195. Clearly this passage shows that this is not what Hooker actually held. Election is unconditional for Hooker in the Lawes.
Dublin 2, 4:102.26–28
Grace and Free Will,“ Dublin 2, 4:103.2–4. Although God’s election in Christ is independent of the Fall, Christ is predestined to suffer because of sin, a sublapsarian predestination. Dublin 39, 4:152.3–5
See William David Neelands, “The Theology of Grace of Richard Hooker,” (ThD dissertation, Trinity College and the University of Toronto, 1988), 66–81 and W. David Neelands, “Hooker on Scripture, Reason and `Tradition,”’ RHC, 75–94.
But John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), 253, suggests that Beza “added” supralapsarianism to Calvin’s view.
The phrase belonged to Samuel Harsnett, who preached at Paul’s Cross in 1584. P.M. Dawley, John Whitgift and the English Reformation ( New York: Scribner, 1954 ), 218
Dublin 32, 4:142.19–32
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 545
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 552f. For an exhaustive account of the genesis and subtlety of Dort’s view of reprobation, see Donald W. Sinnema, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–19) in the light of the history of the doctrine, PhD dissertation, St Michael’s College, 1985, 401f, 448f. “In its canons, Dort adopted a slightly modified version of the late medieval solution. The canons presented a negative-positive definition of reprobation, with God’s will as the cause on the negative side and sin as a cause on the positive side. This reflected the late medieval solution. The difference lay in the fact that the Canons placed reprobation within the context of a double decree rather than a single predestination framework and considered also the divine will a cause of positive reprobation…” ( 449 ) In Sinnema’s vocabulary, Hooker held “preterition” or “negative reprobation” within a “single predestination framework.”
Dublin 34, 4:145.12–16, 146.2–4, & 30, 4:139.22–3. Peter Lake notes the apparent asymmetry of Hooker’s position and suggests he “held himself back” because of the de facto censorship on these topics imposed in the 1590s. Lake, Anglicans and Puritans?, 195ff. But there is no inconsistency in Hooker’s position, which, after all, reflected the views of Augustine, Thomas and previous Christian consensus, and of Andrewes and his colleagues advising Archbishop Whitgift.
Dublin 31, 4:140.29–141.3
Dublin 46, 4:167.1–19. The Lambeth Articles and Whitaker’s proposed earlier draft had included the phrase “and reprobated some to death” after the phrase “God from eternity has predestined some to life.” Hooker’s version boldly asserts, “and not all are predestinated.” Hooker’s version of the seventh point adds the word “deservedly” to God’s withholding of efficacious or saving grace from some. This qualification is also to be assumed in a passage preceding this one, where Hooker described the conventional “golden chain” linking all the elements of the ordo salutis. Dublin 46, 4:166.16–22. Thos not elect are not truly justified, although for a time they may seem to be, since God deservedly withholds saving grace from them.
Dublin 34, 4:146.4–14
Dublin 42, 4:158.4–31
Dublin 26, 4:132.20–133.2
Dublin 39, 4:152.22–25. Or again, “… neyther are wee able to shew any cause, why mercie may not doe good where it will, and wheresoever it will justice withhold good… Of all the good wee receive, mercie is the only cause… sinne [is] the trew originall cause of all the evill which wee suffer.” Dublin 43, 44, 4:161.26–28, 162.29–31
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neelands, W.D. (2003). Richard Hooker and the Debates about Predestination, 1580–1600. In: Kirby, W.J.T. (eds) Richard Hooker and the English Reformation. Studies in Early Modern Religious Reforms, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0319-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0319-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6462-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0319-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive