Abstract
The “three last books” of Richard Hooker’s Lawes pose major problems which have been and remain those concerning their authenticity and coherence. Results of my first visit to Book VI, the first and most problematic of those three last books, were published in “Richard Hooker’s Via Media Doctrine of Repentance.”1 This article was a preliminary report of research that was in progress for the writing of my Introduction to and Commentary on Book VI for the Folger Library Edition of Hooker’s Works. 2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991): 59–74
All quotations from or references to Hooker’s Lawes are to the Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker (FLE), gen. ed. W. Speed Hill, 7 vols. Volumes 1–5 of this edition were published by Harvard University Press (Cambridge, Mass. and London: 1977–90), and volumes 6–7 by Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies (Binghamton, NY and Tempe, AZ: 1993–98). See FLE 6(1):249–308, and 6(2):833–94.
For a hypothetical outline of the reconstruction of a complete Book VI, see my Introduction to Book VI, FLE 6(1):253–55.
In “Richard Hooker’ s Book VI: A Reconstruction,” Huntington Library Quarterly 42 (1979): 117–39, Rudolph Almasy largely reconstructed the original lost draft of Book VI by reading the Notes of Cranmer and Sandys in the context of the polemical literature of the time, and especially in light of the polemical exchange between John Whitgift and Thomas Cartwright. He did not, however, address here the crucial issue of the relation of this original missing draft of Book VI to the traditional published version of 1648. Hooker’s nineteenth-century editor, John Keble, was the first to discover and publish the Cranmer-Sandys Notes in his 1836 edition of Hooker’s. See Keble 3:133–68. These notes are republished in FLE 3:107–40.
Hooker’s Autograph Notes were discovered by Paul G. Stanwood in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, and were first published in FLE 3:462–538. These notes contain rough sketches and materials being gathered for his arguments in Books VI
The scholarly literature that argues on both external and internal grounds that the 1648 version of Book VI ought to be regarded as a coherent part of the Lawes is summarized in my Introduction to Book VI, FLE 6(1): 249–53.
FLE 6: 249–53
See, for example, Rudolph Almasy’s discussion of “Book VI and the `Tractate on Penance:’ Do They Belong Together?” in the essay immediately below, 263–283.
Churchman (Spring 2000): 8, n.8. Keble’s skepticism concerning the bulk of the1648 theological first principles. I regard this to be one of the characteristics that most differentiates Hooker’s authorship from that of his contemporaries.
See the excellent summaries by Donald Joseph McGinn, The Admonition Controversy (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1949) and Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988), 13–70. The Admonition to the Parliament (1572) and Second Admonition to the Parliament (1572) have been republished by W. H. Frere and C. E. Douglas, eds., Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Origin of the Puritan Revolt (London: SPCK, 1907). Key quotations from the Admonitions, John Whitgift’s An Answere to a certen libel intituled, An admonition (1572), his Defense of the Aunswer (1574), Thomas Cartwright’s A Replye to An answere made of M doctor Whitgifte… Agaynste the Admonition (1573), and Second Replie (1575) have all been conveniently published in Whitgift’s Defense of the Answer in volume 3 of the Works of John Whitgift, ed. John Ayre, PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1853), cited hereafter as WW.
An Apology of the Church of England (Latin 1562, English 1564) and The Defense of the Apology of the Church of England (1567), along with substantial quotations from the Confutation (1565) written by his Roman Catholic adversary, Thomas Harding, have been republished in Volume 3 of The Works of John Jewel, ed. John Ayre, PS ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968 ).
Hooker provides the following headings under which he organized his material which consisted almost entirely of medieval legal sources: 1 What causes particularly are spirituall. 2 The forme and maner of proceding in them. 3 The punishments necessary in spirituall processe.4 The care which justice hath aiwayes had to uphold ecclesiasticall jurisdictions and courts (Autograph Notes, FLE 3:472).
So A. S. McGrade, for example, writes: “Sandys’s comments on the lost draft are beyond doubt the occasion for Hooker’s collection of sources on the four listed topics.” See the Introduction to “The Three Last Books and Hooker’s Autograph Notes,” FLE 6(1):239.
Cranmer’s Notes FLE 3:110
Sandys’s Notes, FLE 3:130–32
Inst. IV.1.7, LCC 1021A11 references and quotations in this paper are to and from Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, tr. Ford Lewis Battles, LCC, 2 vols. ( Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960 ).
See, for example, Inst. IV.7.23, 1143: “The first task of the bishop’s office is to teach the people from God’s Word. The second and next is to administer the sacraments. The third is to admonish and exhort, and to correct those who sin and to keep the people under the holy discipline.” See also IV.3.6, LCC 1059. Calvin’s use of the name “bishop” is very broad; it designates “all who carry out the ministry of the Word it [Scripture] accords the title `bishops” ’ (IV.3.8, LCC 1060 ).
See Inst. IV.3.8, LCC 1061, and IV.4.2, LCC 1069.
It is of crucial importance for the subject matter of this paper to note that Calvin prefaced his explication of the “orders” of church government with a discussion about the continuous need Christians have for divine forgiveness of sins, and therefore for “the power of the keys” to bind and loose them which Christ gave to the church to meet this need (Inst. IV.1.21–22, LCC 1035–36). Moreover, Calvin’s description above of church consistories in terms of “senates” or “courts” is set in the context of a long exposition of the meaning and application of “the power of the keys” (Inst. IV.11.1–2, LCC 12111214). His distinctive teaching about “the power of the keys” is dealt with more fully below in sections II and HI of this paper.
Inst. IV.11.6, LCC 1218
Inst. IV.11.3, LCC 1215–16
Inst. IV. I 1. 8, LCC 1220
Inst. IV.11.7, LCC 1219
WW 3:405; Frere, ed., Puritan Manifestoes, 30–31
WW 3:276–77; Frere, ed., Puritan Manifestoes, 32–33
PS, 48:3, 279; Frere, ed., Puritan Manifestoes, 33–34
WW 3:267–80
Cartwright, Replye, in WW 3:267
Defense, in WW 3:265
WW 3:277, 279
Defense, in WW 3:412. It is worthy of note that Whitgift appeals to what might appear to many today to be some rather bizarre Scriptural interpretations to justify the right of ecclesiastical ministers (or their deputies) in their imposition of bodily punishment and imprisonment. For example, he claims the authority of Elijah killing the false prophets of Baal 1 Kings 18:40); Christ whipping the money changers out of the Temple (Matthew 21:12–13); and the Apostle Peter punishing Manias and Sapphira “by killing them for their dissimulation” (Acts 5:1–11). Not surprisingly, Cartwright asks his opponent: “But is this a good argument: Because St Peter punished with the word, therefore the minister may punish with the sword? And because St Peter did so once, therefore the bishop may do so alway?” (Replye in WW 3:445–48).
Lawes VI.4.1; 3:14
Inst. IV.11.1, LCC 1211
Inst. IV.11.1, LCC 1212–13
Inst. IV.11.2, LCC 1214
Inst. IV.11.2, LCC 1214
Apology, in Works, PS 3:61
It is striking to observe that Jewel’s initial discussion in his Apology concerning the power of spiritual jurisdiction (i.e., the power of the keys) given by Christ to his church, along with the accompanying anti-Roman diatribe against the necessity for salvation of private auricular confession to a priest as an essential part of the sacrament of penance, is printed in less than two folio pages (Works, PS 3:60–61). After the objections raised by Harding’s Confutation, however, Jewel’s discussion of the matter in his Defense is expanded to no less than thirty-four folio pages (Works, PS 3: 351–85 ).
Jewel, Works, PS 3:366; see 354, 361–62, and 364. s third purpose and makes repentance
Jewel, Works, PS 3:369–70; cf. 362
WW 3:220–21
Cartwright, Replye, in WW 3:220
Inst. IV.12.1, LCC 1229
Inst. IV.12.5, LCC 1232–33. Calvin uses poenitentia, as had his medieval predecessors, for both “repentance” and “penance”: “The Hebrew word for `repentance’ is derived from conversion or return: the Greek word [metanoia], from change of mind or of intention… Therefore these words are used interchangeably in the same sense: `turn or return to the Lord,’ `repent,’ and `do penance”’ (Inst. III.3.5, LCC 597–598).
Lawes VI.3; 3:6.5
In Frere, ed., Puritan Manifestoes, 17. Concerning the centrality of repentance in the Book of Common Prayer and the relationship of “repentance” to Hooker’s concepts of “commonwealth” and “participation,” identified as the philosophical key to Hooker’s theology in Book V of the Lawes, see John Booty, Introduction to Book V, FLE 6(1): 200–202.
Inst. IV.12.10, LCC 1238
See Cranmer’sand Sandys’s Notes, FLE 3:110; 132. See also Hooker’s Autograph Notes, FLE 3: 481–83.
Inst. IV.19.14–17, LCC 1461–67
Inst. IV.19.14, LCC 146154 Jewel’s Apology, and especially his Defense, provide an echo of Calvin’s teaching in this regard, and were certainly important sources for the 1648 version of Hooker’s Book VI; Jewel’s position is dealt with below in this section.
cp. Lawes VI.5.9; 3:67–68
Inst. 11L3.1, LCC 593
Inst. IIL4.14, LCC 638
Inst. 11L4.14, LCC 639
On indulgences see Inst. I1I.4.1–5, LCC 670–75 and on purgatory Inst. 11I.4.6–10, LCC 675–84; compare Lawes VI.5.9; 3:67–68.60 WW 3: 356
Inst. IIL4.12, LCC 636–37
Lawes VI.4.14; 3:45.28–30
Lawes VI.4.15; 3:48; see Defence, in Jewel’s Works, PS 3:363; see 351.
FLE 5:105–69
See Lawes I.13.2; 1:123 and I.14.5; 1:129; see also Lawes IL8.7; 1:191–92.
FLE 1:271
ACL 4:64–71 and Walter Travers, Supplication, FLE 5:237–4568 Cranmer’s Notes, FLE 3:128
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gibbs, L.W. (2003). Book VI of Hooker’s Lawes Revisited: The Calvin Connection . 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_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0319-2_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6462-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0319-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive