IV

A philosophical and devotional basis for the Elizabethan policy of including in the Church of England the holders of differing opinions about the Eucharist was supplied by Richard Hooker. Hooker was born in 1553; was ordained in 1581; was successively Rector of Drayton Beauchamp, Master of the Temple, Rector of Boscombe, and Rector of Bishopsbourne; and died in 1600. His treatise Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity contains a chapter on the Eucharist. Of Hooker’s own belief concerning the Eucharistic presence it is impossible to make any detailed explicit statement. He insisted that by means of the Sacrament there is a real participation in the body and blood of Christ, and consequently in Christ Himself. So far as his own belief was concerned, he rejected Transubstantiation. Of set and deliberate purpose he abstained from expressing his own opinion as to whether the body and blood of Christ are present in the consecrated elements or are only communicated to the souls of the recipients of the Sacrament; and maintained with great clearness that, so long as men are agreed that the faithful communicant receives “the real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood,” there is no reason for parting communion because they cannot define alike the method of that presence, or its relation to the consecrated elements. Hooker’s position is rather that of the Book of Common Prayer than that of the Thirty-nine Articles. The Prayer Book, as is natural in such a work, says nothing about Transubstantiation, either in the way of approval or in the way of disapproval. The Articles contain an explicit condemnation of it. Hooker contends that neither the affirmation nor the denial of Transubstantiation is of supreme importance, if only it can be agreed about the elements “that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ”.

“Some did exceedingly fear lest Zwinglius and Oecolampadius would bring to pass that men should account of this Sacrament but only as of a shadow, destitute, empty, and void of Christ. But seeing that by opening the several opinions which have been held they are grown for aught I can see on all sides at the length to a general agreement concerning that which alone is material, namely, the real participation of Christ and of life in His body and blood by means of this Sacrament, wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is? Yea, even in this point no side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ’s presence. Whereby the question is yet driven to a narrower issue, nor doth anything rest doubtful but this, whether when the Sacrament is administered Christ be whole within man only, or else His body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves.… 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 that 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. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, His body and blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So 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. 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. And with this the very order of our Saviour’s words agreeth, first, ‘take and eat’; then ‘this is My body which was broken for you’; first ‘drink ye all of this’; then followeth ‘this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins’. I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is His body or the cup His blood but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the Sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow. If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it, although it be neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it, what should induce men to think that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist before it can be in us that receive it? The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the body and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture which saith that we cannot by this Sacrament be made partakers of His body and blood except they be first contained in the Sacrament or the Sacrament converted into them. ‘This is My body’ and ‘this is My blood’ being words of promise, since we all agree that by the Sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform His promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by Consubstantiation or else by Transubstantiation the Sacrament itself be first possessed with Christ or no? A thing which no way can either further or hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ in this Sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the element such as they imagine we need not greatly to care nor inquire. Take therefore that wherein all agree, and then consider by itself what cause why the rest in question should not rather be left as superfluous than urged as necessary. It is on all sides plainly confessed, first, that this Sacrament is a true and a real participation of Christ, who thereby imparteth Himself even His whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto every soul that receiveth Him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite Himself unto Christ as a mystical member of Him, yea, of them also whom He acknowledgeth to be His own; secondly, that to whom the Person of Christ is thus communicated, to them He giveth by the same Sacrament His Holy Spirit to sanctify them as it sanctifieth Him which is their Head; thirdly, that what merit, force, or virtue soever there is in His sacrificed body and blood, we freely, fully and wholly have it by this Sacrament; fourthly, that the effect thereof in us is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life; fifthly, that because the Sacrament being of itself but a corruptible and earthly creature must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in man, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of His glorious power who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and cup which He giveth us shall be truly the thing He promiseth.… Variety of judgments and opinions argueth obscurity in those things whereabout they differ. But that which all parts receive for truth, that which every one having sifted is by no one denied or doubted of, must needs be matter of infallible certainty. Whereas therefore there are but three expositions made of ‘this is My body,’—the first, ‘this is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of My body by reason of the coexistence which My omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread,’ which is the Lutherans’ interpretation; the second, ‘this is in itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of My body, by force of that deity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread and substituteth in the place thereof My body,’ which is the popish construction; the last, ‘this hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth unto faithful receivers instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make Myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as My sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them My body,’—of these three rehearsed interpretations the last hath in it nothing but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true, nothing but that which the words of Christ are on all confessed to enforce, nothing but that which the Church of God hath always thought necessary, nothing but that which alone is sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the use and force of this Sacrament, finally nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant and all Christian confessions agreeable. And as truth in what kind soever is by no kind of truth gainsayed, so the mind which resteth itself on this is never troubled with those perplexities which the other do both find, by means of so great contradiction between their opinions and true principles of reason grounded upon experience, nature, and sense.… Where God Himself doth speak those things which either for height or sublimity of matter or else for secrecy of performance we are not able to reach unto, as we may be ignorant without danger, so it can be no disgrace to confess we are ignorant. Such as love piety will as much as in them lieth know all things that God commandeth, but especially the duties of service which they owe to God. As for His dark and hidden works, they prefer as becometh them in such cases simplicity of faith before that knowledge which curiously sifting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of that which the wit of man cannot search, chilleth for the most part all warmth of zeal, and bringeth soundness of belief many times into great hazard. Let it therefore be sufficient for me presenting myself at the Lord’s Table to know what there I receive from Him, without searching or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth His promise; let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause but over patiently heard, let them take their rest; let curious and sharpwitted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will, tire very letter of the word of Christ giveth plain security that these mysteries do as nails fasten us to His very cross, that by them we draw out, as touching efficacy, force, and virtue, even the blood of His gored side, in the wounds of our Redeemer we there dip our tongues, we are dyed red both within and without, our hunger is satisfied and our thirst for ever quenched; they are things wonderful which he feeleth, great which he seeth, and unheard of which he uttereth, whose soul is possessed of this Paschal Lamb and made joyful in the strength of this new wine; this bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold, this cup hallowed with solemn benediction availeth to the endless life and welfare both of soul and body, in that it serveth as well for a medicine to heal our infirmities and purge our sins as for a sacrifice of thanksgiving, with touching it sanctifieth, it enlighteneth with belief, it truly conformeth us unto the image of Jesus Christ; what these elements are in themselves it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ, His promise in witness hereof sufficeth, His word He knoweth which way to accomplish; why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant but this, ‘O my God, Thou art true, O my soul, thou art happy’.”

In the tract entitled A Christian Letter of Certain English Protestants, published in 1599, two years after the publication of the fifth book of Hooker’s work, one of the points on which he was attacked was the description of the doctrine of Transubstantiation as “a thing which no way can either further or hinder us howsoever it stand,” and the statement that “we need not greatly to care nor inquire” whether the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is “with change or without alteration in the element”; and it was observed that Transubstantiation had been described as “a thing contrary to the plain words of Scripture, overturning the nature of the Sacrament,” and called “monstrous doctrine,” and that Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, Rogers, Bradford, and others had “given their lives in witness against it”. A copy of this tract, preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, is annotated in the margin by Hooker’s own hand. These marginal notes include the following:—

“Whereas popish doctrine doth hold that priests by words of consecration make the real, my whole discourse is to show that God by the Sacrament maketh the mystical body of Christ; and that seeing in this point as well Lutherans as Papists agree with us, which only point containeth the benefit we have of the Sacrament, it is but needless and unprofitable for them to stand, the one upon Consubstantiation, and upon Transubstantiation the other, which doctrines they neither can prove nor are forced by any necessity to maintain, but might very well surcease to urge them, if they did heartily affect peace, and seek the quietness of the Church.”

“Not to be stood upon or contended for by them, because it [Transubstantiation] is not a thing necessary, although, because it is false, as long as they do persist to maintain and urge it, there is no man so gross as to think in this case we may neglect it. Against them it is therefore said, They ought not to stand in it as in a matter of faith, nor to make so high account of it, inasmuch as the Scripture doth only teach the Communion of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, and neither the one nor the other way of preparation thereunto. It sufficed to have believed this, and not by determining the manner how God bringeth it to pass, to have entangled themselves with opinions so strange, so impossible to be proved true.”

With this description of Transubstantiation as “false” may be compared a sentence in a later chapter of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity than that already quoted, where Hooker says:—

“The greatest difference between us and” “popish communicants” “is the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, whose name in the service of our Communion we celebrate with due honour, which they in the error of their Mass profane. As therefore on our part to hear Mass were an open departure from that sincere profession wherein we stand, so if they on the other side receive our Communion, they give us the strongest pledge of fidelity that man can demand.”

The present writer cannot agree either with those who have claimed Hooker as himself accepting a doctrine which connects the presence of the body of Christ with the consecrated elements previous to reception or with those who consider that he definitely intended to avow a receptionist doctrine. The sentence, “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,” when viewed in its whole context, is plainly seen to demand an emphasis on the words “sought for,” and to mean that the point to be considered is not as to the presence in the Sacrament but as to the presence in the communicant. On the other hand, the sentence, “This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold,” is precluded by the rest of the passage in which it stands from implying a presence previous to Communion. Hooker’s object was to concentrate attention on the fact of the reception of Christ by the faithful communicant on which he thought all might agree, and to avoid controversy about the further question as to the relation of the presence of Christ to the external elements.

The subject of the Eucharistic sacrifice is nowhere discussed at length by Hooker; and in the few references to it there is considerable obscurity.

“They which honour the Law as an image of the wisdom of God Himself are notwithstanding to know that the same had an end in Christ. But what? Was the Law so abolished in Christ that after His ascension the office of priests became immediately wicked, and the very name hateful, as importing the exercise of an ungodly function? No, as long as the glory of the Temple continued, and till the time of that final desolation was accomplished, the very Christian Jews did continue with their sacrifices and other parts of legal service. That very law therefore which our Saviour was to abolish did not so soon become unlawful to be observed as some imagine; nor was it afterwards unlawful so far that the very name of altar, of priest, of sacrifice itself, should be banished out of the world. For though God do now hate sacrifice, whether it be heathenish or Jewish, so that we cannot have the same things which they had but with impiety, yet unless there be some greater let than the only evacuation of the Law of Moses, the names themselves may (I hope) be retained without sin in respect of that proportion which things established by our Saviour have unto them which by Him are abrogated. And so throughout all the writings of the ancient fathers we see that the words which were do continue; the only difference is that, whereas before they had a literal, they now have a metaphorical use, and are as so many notes of remembrance unto us that what they did signify in the letter is accomplished in the truth. And as no man can deprive the Church of this liberty, to use names whereunto the Law was accustomed, so neither are we generally forbidden the use of things which the Law hath, though it neither command us any particular rite, as it did the Jews a number, and the weightiest which it did command them are unto us in the Gospel prohibited.”

“It serveth as well for a medicine to heal our infirmities and purge our sins as for a sacrifice of thanksgiving.”

“For anything myself can discern herein, I suppose that they which have bent their study to search more diligently such matters do for the most part find that names advisedly given had either regard unto that which is naturally most proper; or if perhaps to some other speciality, to that which is sensibly most eminent in the thing signified; and concerning popular use of words that which the wisdom of their inventors did intend thereby is not commonly thought of, but by the name the thing altogether conceived in gross, as may appear in that if you ask of the common sort what any certain word, for example, what a priest doth signify, their manner is not to answer, a priest is a clergyman which offereth sacrifice to God, but they show some particular person whom they use to call by that name. And, if we list to descend to grammar, we are told by masters in those schools that the word priest hath his right place ἐπὶ τοῦ ψιλῶς προεστῶτος τῆς θεραπείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ‘in him whose mere function or charge is the service of God’. Howbeit, because the most eminent part both of heathenish and Jewish service did consist in sacrifice, when learned men declare what the word priest doth properly signify according to the mind of the first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice. Seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry, how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied? Surely even as St. Paul applieth the name of flesh unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh, although it be in nature another thing. Whereupon when philosophers will speak warily, they make a difference between flesh in one sort of living creatures and that other substance in the rest which hath but a kind of analogy to flesh: the Apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak nameth indifferently both flesh. The fathers of the Church of Christ with like security of speech call usually the ministry of the Gospel priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice.”

In some sense then Hooker regarded the Eucharist as having a sacrificial aspect. He calls it “a sacrifice of thanksgiving”; and by describing it as “proportionable to ancient sacrifices,” and as having a “proportion” to the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, appears to have attached some fuller meaning to this phrase than was attached to it by the continental Reformers in general. Yet he says that “sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry,” and that “the Gospel” has “properly now no sacrifice,” and repudiates “heathenish” and “Jewish” “sacrifice” as hated by God. Probably this obscure treatment is intentional. To assign small importance to the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist would be harmonious with the position taken up in regard to the Eucharistic presence. If only the Communion aspect of the Eucharist is emphasised, it is easy to maintain that the one important question is that of what the communicant receives; as the sacrificial aspect is considered, the importance of the question whether the presence of the body of Christ is to be connected with the consecrated elements before reception is great.

In his Sermon on Justification, preached in 1586, twelve years before the publication of the fifth book of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker uses the word “heresies” to describe the doctrines of the Church of Rome concerning Transubstantiation and the propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist; and contends that the holding of such “heresies” is no bar to salvation only because of ignorance on the part of those who hold them, and because in this ignorance the “heresies” did not prevent them from keeping “the foundation of faith”.

“In the Church of Rome it is maintained … that the bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christ; that it is to be adored, and to be offered up unto God as a sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead.… Some heresies do concern things only believed, as transubstantiating of sacramental elements in the Eucharist; some concern things which are practised also and put in ure, as adoration of the elements transubstantiated.”

“The heresies of the Church of Rome, their dogmatical positions opposite unto Christian truth, what man among ten thousand did ever understand? Of them which understand Roman heresies, and allow them, all are not alike partakers in the action of allowing.”

“They be not all faithless that are either weak in assenting to the truth, or stiff in maintaining things any way opposite to the truth of Christian doctrine. But as many as hold the foundation which is precious, though they hold it but weakly, and as it were by a slender thread, although they frame many base and unsuitable things upon it, things that cannot abide the trial of the fire, yet shall they pass the fiery trial and be saved, which indeed have builded themselves upon the rock, which is the foundation of the Church. If then our fathers did not hold the foundation of faith, there is no doubt but they were faithless. If many of them held it, then is there herein no impediment but that many of them might be saved.”

Obviously, these allusions to the Eucharistic doctrines of the Church of Rome are much more hostile to those doctrines than the more balanced attitude of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; and this hostility is emphasised by the fact that they occur in a context where Hooker is maintaining that many who have held the doctrines of the Church of Rome may be saved.

In one of the two sermons on the Epistle of St. Jude, as to which there is considerable doubt whether they are Hooker’s work, there is a passage which to some extent recalls his positive teaching in the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity on the blessedness of Communion.

“Blessed and praised for ever and ever be His name, who perceiving of how senseless and heavy metal we are made hath instituted in His Church a spiritual Supper, and an Holy Communion to be celebrated often, that we might thereby be occasioned often to examine these buildings of ours, in what case they stand.… This Supper is received as a seal unto us that we are His house and His sanctuary; that His Christ is as truly united to me, and I to him, as my arm is united and knit unto my shoulder; that He dwelleth in me as verily as the elements of bread and wine abide within me.… Receiving the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord after this sort (you that are spiritual judge what I speak) is not all other wine like the water of Marah, being compared to the cup which we bless? Is not manna like to gall, and our bread like to manna? Is there not a taste, a taste of Christ Jesus in the heart of him that eateth? Doth not he which drinketh behold plainly in this cup that his soul is bathed in the blood of the Lamb? O beloved in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if ye will taste how sweet the Lord is, if ye will receive the King of glory, ‘build yourselves’.”