The last section of Book II, chapter 8, in Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Piety contains a very interesting progressive argument which leads to the conclusion that the Church may allow or direct things to be done that are not commanded in Scripture. He begins with that which cannot be denied: God approves that which is good and disapproves that which is evil. He then describes degrees of good and evil, noting that God allows and approves various deeds in His creation, but that there are things absolutely necessary for salvation only revealed in Scripture. He then proceeds to mention things that have been done in the Church which have been approved by God though they were not required for salvation, such as those voluntary acts of the early Church recorded in The Acts. The conclusion is that God can approve "more than He specifically commands". "Since, then, there can be no evil in those various actions whereof God approves, and He approves more than he specifically commands; and obedience to His precepts known only by the law of Nature must be acceptable to Him; it seems unreasonable to make Scripture only the rule of moral action."
Lest we think he has a low view of Scripture, it is important that we observe in the rest of the passage that he condemns the Roman Church for thinking Scripture incomplete regarding all things necessary for salvation. He also criticises those who try to find in Scripture, in an exhaustive manner, all instruction for every single moral issue of human life because it is an abuse of Scripture. He says that such a habit is rediculous because, if we had to find a passage of Scripture for every action we have to do in life, "the very business of life must stand still; natural instincts, and reasonable discretion being of no avail, men in every relation of life would be in doubt and difficulty, and those of weak conscience in absolute despair." Such who have this view of Scripture are "overstraining" in their attempt to honour it. Hooker's position is that the Scriptures are the full and complete revelation of God necessary for salvation, recognising the breadth of instruction that it does of course give. However, he also recognises "the law of Nature" concerning aspects of human life which happen to not be directed by Scripture.
What we find here is how important the issue of Natural law is in our understanding of the relationship between Scripture and what is permitted or not permitted in the Church. If we recognise the existence of "the law of Nature," then, by necessary consequence - assuming there is no error in Hooker's logic - we cannot take the position that God only approves practices in our churches which are based on commands from Scripture, either express or implied. Thus Hooker contradicts the radical Puritan and Anabaptist view of Church practice, and supports the conforming Anglican and Lutheran views.
It is only by recognising Scripture's right place in our lives that the influence thereof, which we desire, can rightly be maintained.
Lest we think he has a low view of Scripture, it is important that we observe in the rest of the passage that he condemns the Roman Church for thinking Scripture incomplete regarding all things necessary for salvation. He also criticises those who try to find in Scripture, in an exhaustive manner, all instruction for every single moral issue of human life because it is an abuse of Scripture. He says that such a habit is rediculous because, if we had to find a passage of Scripture for every action we have to do in life, "the very business of life must stand still; natural instincts, and reasonable discretion being of no avail, men in every relation of life would be in doubt and difficulty, and those of weak conscience in absolute despair." Such who have this view of Scripture are "overstraining" in their attempt to honour it. Hooker's position is that the Scriptures are the full and complete revelation of God necessary for salvation, recognising the breadth of instruction that it does of course give. However, he also recognises "the law of Nature" concerning aspects of human life which happen to not be directed by Scripture.
What we find here is how important the issue of Natural law is in our understanding of the relationship between Scripture and what is permitted or not permitted in the Church. If we recognise the existence of "the law of Nature," then, by necessary consequence - assuming there is no error in Hooker's logic - we cannot take the position that God only approves practices in our churches which are based on commands from Scripture, either express or implied. Thus Hooker contradicts the radical Puritan and Anabaptist view of Church practice, and supports the conforming Anglican and Lutheran views.
It is only by recognising Scripture's right place in our lives that the influence thereof, which we desire, can rightly be maintained.
Comments