SCRIPTURE'S MAIN INTENT IS TO DELIVER THE LAWS OF SUPERNATURAL DUTIES, says Hooker. In furtherance of his handling of Scripture, he addresses the issue of whether the Scriptures contain all things that are necessary for the way of salvation or not. In terms of making "plain, apparent, and easy to be known" what is needed for salvation, Scripture may be said to contain all such things. It does not follow from this, however, that there is no philosophy, reasoning, or knowledge contained in Scripture. Nor does it follow that the Scriptures address the issue of the "very chiefest" thing to know, which is "what books we are bound to esteem holy, which point is confessed impossible for the scripture itself to teach." I.14.1, 125.
In all kinds of knowledge, Hooker insists, there are presuppositions and all kinds of "bounds and limits." I.14.1, 125. Therefore, a person who desires to learn eloquence must first know how to speak; to be an orator presupposes that there be had a knowledge of grammar and its precepts. "In like sort," Hooker argues, "albeit scripture does profess to contain in it all things which are necessary unto salvation, yet the meaning cannot be simply of all things that are necessary, but all things that are necessary in some certain kind or form." I.14.1, 126. In other words, Hooker suggests that some matters are presupposed by Scripture, just like the teaching eloquence presupposes the faculty of speech. As examples of how one can say that Scripture has all things needed for Salvation in one manner of speaking and in another manner of speaking not, Hooker gives various examples. For example, Scripture could be said to contain all things necessary for salvation, and which either could not be known at all by natural reason, or could not be known easily by the light of reason. Similarly, Scripture may be said to have all things necessary for salvation, but it presupposes "certain principles whereof it receives us already persuaded," i.e., that we already accept certain matters. I.14.1, 126.
One of the underlying presuppositions in Scripture--of which Scripture is silent--is the sacred authority of scripture, Hooker observes. We are persuaded by other means that the Scriptures are the "oracles of God," and upon such presupposition the Scriptures "then teach us the rest, and lay before us all the duties which God requires at our hands as necessary unto salvation." I.14.1, 126.
There is also the additional issue of what the Scriptures may be said to contain. Are those matters necessary for salvation contained in Scripture only those set down in plain, express terms? Or do they include or comprehened those things that may be necessarily concluded by reason from Scripture? The first seems untenable, as Hooker suggests that such doctrines as the Trinity, the co-eternity of the Son of God with the Father, and the duty to baptize infants are not expressly found in Scripture in haec verba, in so many words. These are "deduced . . . out of scripture by collection," i.e., by looking at Scripture as a whole. I.14.2, 126. Even in the issue of looking at Scripture as a whole, there is "doubt how far we are to proceed by collection before the full and complete measure of things necessary be made up." I.14.2, 126. That is, when and how is what is in Scripture "by collection" to be determined? This is a serious question in light of human ingenuity:
Hooker rejects, indeed "boldly denies," the various doctrines that are urged upon the Anglican Church by her opponents "under the name of reformed discipline" and under the guise of interpretation "by collection." I.14.2, 126-27. With respect to these matters, Hooker demands that they establish their foundation in Scripture by necessity, not just plausibly. The fact that the Scriptures contain those things necessary for salvation, and that God intended those to be in writing, suggests that such essential doctrines can be reasonably or possibly known by men; and this suggests, further, that doctrines be necessarily established in Scriptural text, even if looked at "by collection," or as a whole.
One of those things that Hooker suggests is presupposed by Scripture is the existence of reason. The divine positive law of Scripture does not abrogate the law of reason. Just like St. Paul presupposes the revelation of Christ and the New Testament teachings when he tells his disciple Timothy to abide by the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:15, so also does the law of Scripture presuppose the law of reason:
There is no question of there being a defect or lack of gap in Scripture. Hooker rejects this on principle. Scripture helps perfect the light of reason, and does not relieve us from the use of reason. Scripture does not lack anything so as to allow us to say that it fails to provide the instruction required for good works, whether these are natural or supernatural, belonging to men qua men, men relative to political society, or men relative to the Church. I.14.5. It is sufficient, with the natural law it presupposes and does not supplant, for all these things.
Hooker now addresses the issue of positive law in Scripture, and the mutability or changeability of some of these. He observes that of the four kinds of law he has spoke about--the law a man imposes upon himself, by a public society upon its members, by all nations upon the several nations, or by the Lord upon all--may be both positive or natural. Hooker rejects the notion that only positive laws are changeable, and that the only species of positive law are those promulgated by men. There is such a thing as divine positive law, and it is changeable, just like human-derived positive law. Natural law, however, is always binding. Positive law is not always binding, as positive law must be expressly and knowingly imposed, that is, promulgated. to be binding I.15.1, 130. "And although no laws but positive be mutable, yet all are not mutable which be positive. Positive laws are either permanent or else changeable, according as the matter itself is concerning which they were first made." I.15.1, 130.
As examples of positive law in the laws a man imposes upon himself, Hooker gives the example of a vow, or a promise of one man to another. Before the vow or promise, man is free, and his is not bound by it. As an example of positive laws arising from the context of a body politic, Hooker gives the examples of civil constitutions pertaining to the commonwealth. As example of positive laws in the law of nations or ius gentium, Hooker gives the examples of heraldy in war. As an example of divine positive law, Hooker points to the laws ("judicials") that God gave Israel. I.15.1, 130.
Title Page of Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie
All laws that concern supernatural duties of man are positive. They touch and concern either man himself, or else related to parts of that supernatural society that is the Church. These supernatural duties, which concern all men, would not be known by men were they not revealed by God, as they are not knowable by nature. These laws "are appointed of God to supply the defect of those natural ways of salvation [available before the Fall], by which we are not now able to attain thereunto." I.15.2, 131.
As a supernatural society, the Church differs from natural societies. In one obvious regard, natural societies involve relations among men, whereas a supernatural society such as the Church involves involve supernatural persons, including God, angels, and holy men. The Church is not only supernatural, it is also a natural society, and so shares in those "original grounds" from which natural societies derive, namely, the natural inclination man has toward social life, and some consent to an order of association. These ought to be governed by law. But the Church is peculiarly a supernatural society, one whose bond is the worship of God.
The Scriptures ought to be received with reverence, recognizing their great authority and dignity. Men ought not to "neglect the precious benefit of conference with those Oracles of the true and living God, whereunto there is so free, so plain, and so easy access for all men?" I.15.4, 132. The pagans accorded their scriptures great dignity, and we ought to do no less. Before going into his conclusion of Book I (which we will deal with in our last and final blog entry on Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity), Hooker ends with this peroration.
*Again, Hooker seems to presuppose the issue of the canon of Scripture. How is it to be determined what books are canonical, and what books are not? The Scriptures themselves do not, in haec verba or even "by collection," announce the list of books considered to be part of Scripture. Reason, likewise, does not help establish definitively what books, of either the Old or New Testaments, are inspired. Hooker's own rule--that he rejects any oral tradition claimed to the revealed will of God because it is neither in Scripture or impossible to establish by reason--would compel that he reject any definitive list of what books are canonical. The fact is that the books considered scriptural are part of the unwritten Tradition of the Church, and the list of those books that are canonical was defined by the teaching authority of the Church, as early as the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. The lists in those councils accord with the council of Rome of 382 headed by Pope Damasus I. The list of canonical books was essentially fixed by the 4th century, and defined extraordinarily only in the Ecumenical Council of Trent in 1546, when the Protestant Reformers began to question the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament, and even some of the New Testament books (e.g., James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation). The existence of Tradition and a divinely-guided teaching Church established by Christ, a Church that by binding on earth is able to bind in heaven (Matt. 18:18), is the basis for knowing the canon, the sine qua non of having a divinely-inspired Bible and knowing that we have it with the certainty of Faith. Hooker's rejection of Tradition and Magisterium implicitly undermines the authoritative basis of inspired Scripture. Hooker's rule of faith: that only that is revealed which is in Scripture expressly or necessarily be "collection," or by reason established as revealed by God is incapable of telling us what books are inspired, and which are not. Are the books of the Maccabees inspired? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis? Is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas inspired or not? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis? Neither Scripture expressly or by collection necessarily, or reason, suffices to answer the question. Only the existence of an authoritative Church founded by Christ, the Word of God, is able to do this.
Similarly, one may point to Hooker's belief that all revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, or, as Hooker puts it: God's "surceasing to speak to the world since the publishing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the delivery of the same in writing." I.14.3, 127-28. That public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle is received teaching, and part of Tradition and Magisterial teaching. It is, however, nowhere to be found in Scripture, and reason cannot establish it as a teaching of God. So Hooker violates his own presuppositions, and accepts Tradition and the received Catholic teaching when it accords with his own predelictions or conservative temper. While his predelictions regarding the natural law are Catholic per accidens, his "sola scriptura" views are not, and his defense of his position and against the Catholic Church's teaching indubitably improbable.
Portrait of Richard Hooker
In all kinds of knowledge, Hooker insists, there are presuppositions and all kinds of "bounds and limits." I.14.1, 125. Therefore, a person who desires to learn eloquence must first know how to speak; to be an orator presupposes that there be had a knowledge of grammar and its precepts. "In like sort," Hooker argues, "albeit scripture does profess to contain in it all things which are necessary unto salvation, yet the meaning cannot be simply of all things that are necessary, but all things that are necessary in some certain kind or form." I.14.1, 126. In other words, Hooker suggests that some matters are presupposed by Scripture, just like the teaching eloquence presupposes the faculty of speech. As examples of how one can say that Scripture has all things needed for Salvation in one manner of speaking and in another manner of speaking not, Hooker gives various examples. For example, Scripture could be said to contain all things necessary for salvation, and which either could not be known at all by natural reason, or could not be known easily by the light of reason. Similarly, Scripture may be said to have all things necessary for salvation, but it presupposes "certain principles whereof it receives us already persuaded," i.e., that we already accept certain matters. I.14.1, 126.
One of the underlying presuppositions in Scripture--of which Scripture is silent--is the sacred authority of scripture, Hooker observes. We are persuaded by other means that the Scriptures are the "oracles of God," and upon such presupposition the Scriptures "then teach us the rest, and lay before us all the duties which God requires at our hands as necessary unto salvation." I.14.1, 126.
There is also the additional issue of what the Scriptures may be said to contain. Are those matters necessary for salvation contained in Scripture only those set down in plain, express terms? Or do they include or comprehened those things that may be necessarily concluded by reason from Scripture? The first seems untenable, as Hooker suggests that such doctrines as the Trinity, the co-eternity of the Son of God with the Father, and the duty to baptize infants are not expressly found in Scripture in haec verba, in so many words. These are "deduced . . . out of scripture by collection," i.e., by looking at Scripture as a whole. I.14.2, 126. Even in the issue of looking at Scripture as a whole, there is "doubt how far we are to proceed by collection before the full and complete measure of things necessary be made up." I.14.2, 126. That is, when and how is what is in Scripture "by collection" to be determined? This is a serious question in light of human ingenuity:
For let us not think that as long as the world does endure, the wit of man shall be able to sound the bottom of that which may be concluded out of the scripture, especially if things by collection to so far extend, as to draw whatsoever may be at any time out of scripture but probabily and conjecturally surmised.I.14.2, 126.
Hooker rejects, indeed "boldly denies," the various doctrines that are urged upon the Anglican Church by her opponents "under the name of reformed discipline" and under the guise of interpretation "by collection." I.14.2, 126-27. With respect to these matters, Hooker demands that they establish their foundation in Scripture by necessity, not just plausibly. The fact that the Scriptures contain those things necessary for salvation, and that God intended those to be in writing, suggests that such essential doctrines can be reasonably or possibly known by men; and this suggests, further, that doctrines be necessarily established in Scriptural text, even if looked at "by collection," or as a whole.
One of those things that Hooker suggests is presupposed by Scripture is the existence of reason. The divine positive law of Scripture does not abrogate the law of reason. Just like St. Paul presupposes the revelation of Christ and the New Testament teachings when he tells his disciple Timothy to abide by the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:15, so also does the law of Scripture presuppose the law of reason:
And as [Paul's] words concerning the books of ancient scripture do not take place but with the presupposal of the Gospel of Christ embraced: so our own words also when we extol the complete sufficiency of the whole entire body of the Scripture, must in the like sort be understood with this caution, that the benefit of nature's light be not thought as unnecessary, because the necessity of a divine light is magnified.I.14.4, 129.
There is no question of there being a defect or lack of gap in Scripture. Hooker rejects this on principle. Scripture helps perfect the light of reason, and does not relieve us from the use of reason. Scripture does not lack anything so as to allow us to say that it fails to provide the instruction required for good works, whether these are natural or supernatural, belonging to men qua men, men relative to political society, or men relative to the Church. I.14.5. It is sufficient, with the natural law it presupposes and does not supplant, for all these things.
It suffices therefore that nature and scripture do serve in such full sort, that they both jointly and not severally either of them be so complete, that unto everlasting felicity we need not the knowledge of any thing more than these two, may easily furnish our minds with on all sides, and therefore they which add traditions as a part of supernatural necessary truth, have not the truth, but are in error.I.14.5, 129. Again, Hooker makes a point to state that he rejects these traditions, not because they are not in the Scripture (for they speculatively could be revealed by God and therefore binding though they be not written), but because they are neither in Scripture, nor can they be proved by reason to be from God. I.14.5, 129.*
Hooker now addresses the issue of positive law in Scripture, and the mutability or changeability of some of these. He observes that of the four kinds of law he has spoke about--the law a man imposes upon himself, by a public society upon its members, by all nations upon the several nations, or by the Lord upon all--may be both positive or natural. Hooker rejects the notion that only positive laws are changeable, and that the only species of positive law are those promulgated by men. There is such a thing as divine positive law, and it is changeable, just like human-derived positive law. Natural law, however, is always binding. Positive law is not always binding, as positive law must be expressly and knowingly imposed, that is, promulgated. to be binding I.15.1, 130. "And although no laws but positive be mutable, yet all are not mutable which be positive. Positive laws are either permanent or else changeable, according as the matter itself is concerning which they were first made." I.15.1, 130.
As examples of positive law in the laws a man imposes upon himself, Hooker gives the example of a vow, or a promise of one man to another. Before the vow or promise, man is free, and his is not bound by it. As an example of positive laws arising from the context of a body politic, Hooker gives the examples of civil constitutions pertaining to the commonwealth. As example of positive laws in the law of nations or ius gentium, Hooker gives the examples of heraldy in war. As an example of divine positive law, Hooker points to the laws ("judicials") that God gave Israel. I.15.1, 130.
Title Page of Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical PolitieAll laws that concern supernatural duties of man are positive. They touch and concern either man himself, or else related to parts of that supernatural society that is the Church. These supernatural duties, which concern all men, would not be known by men were they not revealed by God, as they are not knowable by nature. These laws "are appointed of God to supply the defect of those natural ways of salvation [available before the Fall], by which we are not now able to attain thereunto." I.15.2, 131.
As a supernatural society, the Church differs from natural societies. In one obvious regard, natural societies involve relations among men, whereas a supernatural society such as the Church involves involve supernatural persons, including God, angels, and holy men. The Church is not only supernatural, it is also a natural society, and so shares in those "original grounds" from which natural societies derive, namely, the natural inclination man has toward social life, and some consent to an order of association. These ought to be governed by law. But the Church is peculiarly a supernatural society, one whose bond is the worship of God.
[T]hat part of the bond of their association which belong to the Church of God must be a law supernatural, which God himself has revealed concerning that kind of worship which his people shall do unto him. The substance of the service of God therefore, so far forth as it has in it anything more than the law of reason does teach, may not be invented of men . . .I.15.3, 131. Hooker then summarizes thus far his conclusions regarding the divine positive law. The natural law is unchangeable. Divine positive law is also unchangeable by man, though God may alter divine positive law for sufficient cause.
Wherefore to end with a general rule concerning all the laws which God has tied men unto: those laws divine that belong whether naturally or supernaturally either to men as men, or political societies, or to men as they are of that political society which is the Church, without any further respect of men and of the Church itself in this world is subject unto, all laws that so belong unto men, they belong forever, yeah, although they be positive laws, unless being positive God himself which made them alter them.I.15.3, 131-32. Hooker gives his reason for his general rule that divine positive law is not changeable.
The reason is because the subject or matter of laws in general is thus far forth constant: which matter is that for the ordering whereof laws were instituted, and being instituted are not changeable without cause, neither can they have cause for change, when that which gave them their first institution, remains for ever one and the same.I.15.3, 132. The unchanging feature of divine positive law is not the quality of positive laws in the area of human societies, including those positive laws of the Church unrelated to relations with God. These laws are as mutable, with change of circumstance, as the the divine positive laws that relate man to God are immutable. Since God is unchanging, and the subject and matter of those laws--man's relationship with God--is the same, there is no cause for changing the divine positive laws. For this reason, the Gospel is called the eternal Gospel, the Evangelium aeternum, by the Apostle John in Revelations 14:6. "[T]here can be no reason wherefore the publishing thereof should be taken away, and any other instead of it proclaimed, as long as the world does continue." I.15.3, 132. Compare this to the myriad law of rites and ceremonies given the Jew, which, though "delivered with so great solemnity," have been "clean abrogated" by God, "inasmuch as it had but temporary cause of God's ordering it." I.15.3, 132. The positive laws of God, that is, the divine law, then are provided to us by a wise and just legislator, one that even the pagans recognized is not deceived and does not deceive. Hooker here quotes the dialogue in Plato's Republic (382e)
οὐκ ἄρα ἔστιν οὗ ἕνεκα ἂν θεὸς ψεύδοιτο.
οὐκ ἔστιν.
πάντῃ ἄρα ἀψευδὲς τὸ δαιμόνιόν τε καὶ τὸ θεῖον.
παντάπασι μὲν οὖν, ἔφη.
κομιδῇ ἄρα ὁ θεὸς ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀληθὲς ἔν τε ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ, καὶ οὔτε αὐτὸς μεθίσταται οὔτε ἄλλους ἐξαπατᾷ, οὔτε κατὰ φαντασίας οὔτε κατὰ λόγους οὔτε κατὰ σημείων πομπάς, οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὐδ᾽ ὄναρ.
“Then there is no motive for God to deceive.”
“None.”
“From every point of view the divine and the divinity are free from falsehood.”
“By all means.”
“Then God is altogether simple and true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others by visions or words or the sending of sign.”
The Scriptures ought to be received with reverence, recognizing their great authority and dignity. Men ought not to "neglect the precious benefit of conference with those Oracles of the true and living God, whereunto there is so free, so plain, and so easy access for all men?" I.15.4, 132. The pagans accorded their scriptures great dignity, and we ought to do no less. Before going into his conclusion of Book I (which we will deal with in our last and final blog entry on Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity), Hooker ends with this peroration.
Wherefore seeing that God has endued us with sense to the end that we might perceive such things as this present life does need, and with reason least that which sense cannot reach unto, being both now and also in regard of a future estate hereafter necessary to be known should lie obscure; finally with the heavenly support of prophetical revelation, which does open those hidden mysteries that reason could never have been able to find out, or to have known the necessity of them unto our everlasting good: use with the precious gifts of God unto his glory and honor that gave them, seeking by all means to know what the will of our God is, what righteous before him, in his sight what holy, perfect, and good, that we may truly and faithfully do it.I.15.4, 134.
*Again, Hooker seems to presuppose the issue of the canon of Scripture. How is it to be determined what books are canonical, and what books are not? The Scriptures themselves do not, in haec verba or even "by collection," announce the list of books considered to be part of Scripture. Reason, likewise, does not help establish definitively what books, of either the Old or New Testaments, are inspired. Hooker's own rule--that he rejects any oral tradition claimed to the revealed will of God because it is neither in Scripture or impossible to establish by reason--would compel that he reject any definitive list of what books are canonical. The fact is that the books considered scriptural are part of the unwritten Tradition of the Church, and the list of those books that are canonical was defined by the teaching authority of the Church, as early as the Synod of Hippo in 393, and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. The lists in those councils accord with the council of Rome of 382 headed by Pope Damasus I. The list of canonical books was essentially fixed by the 4th century, and defined extraordinarily only in the Ecumenical Council of Trent in 1546, when the Protestant Reformers began to question the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament, and even some of the New Testament books (e.g., James, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation). The existence of Tradition and a divinely-guided teaching Church established by Christ, a Church that by binding on earth is able to bind in heaven (Matt. 18:18), is the basis for knowing the canon, the sine qua non of having a divinely-inspired Bible and knowing that we have it with the certainty of Faith. Hooker's rejection of Tradition and Magisterium implicitly undermines the authoritative basis of inspired Scripture. Hooker's rule of faith: that only that is revealed which is in Scripture expressly or necessarily be "collection," or by reason established as revealed by God is incapable of telling us what books are inspired, and which are not. Are the books of the Maccabees inspired? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis? Is the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas inspired or not? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis? Neither Scripture expressly or by collection necessarily, or reason, suffices to answer the question. Only the existence of an authoritative Church founded by Christ, the Word of God, is able to do this.
Similarly, one may point to Hooker's belief that all revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle, or, as Hooker puts it: God's "surceasing to speak to the world since the publishing of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the delivery of the same in writing." I.14.3, 127-28. That public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle is received teaching, and part of Tradition and Magisterial teaching. It is, however, nowhere to be found in Scripture, and reason cannot establish it as a teaching of God. So Hooker violates his own presuppositions, and accepts Tradition and the received Catholic teaching when it accords with his own predelictions or conservative temper. While his predelictions regarding the natural law are Catholic per accidens, his "sola scriptura" views are not, and his defense of his position and against the Catholic Church's teaching indubitably improbable.
Portrait of Richard Hooker
No comments:
Post a Comment