Hooker and the Moral Law

Introduction

In another essay, I discussed the ethical vision of Timothy Sedgwick, a theologian and ethicist of some weight in the Episcopal Church. In that essay I described Sedgwick's ethics as an ethic that lacked transcendence. As a result, Sedgwick does not believe that God can speak an eternal binding command from beyond the world since he does not distinguish his god from the world. As a result, he does not believe in universal moral norms which hold for all times and places. The following statement is typical, not only of Sedgwick, but of a great deal of contemporary ethical thought.

The purpose of a moral norm is not primarily judicial, rendering final judgment on the morality of specific acts on the basis of immutable moral laws. Rather, norms seek to describe the form of human acts and relations necessary to embody the broader meanings and purposes of life. Deviations from the norm are best not considered narrowly as acts of ignorance or rebellion but as part of a broader conversation about the meaning of human life.(1)

Sedgwick is an Anglican. One of the fathers of Anglicanism is Richard Hooker. He is not only one of the fathers of Anglicanism, he is one of the outstanding moral theologian of the universal church through the ages. Hooker's understanding of ethics is utterly opposed to that of Sedgwick. There are several reasons for this. First, Hooker does real theology, classical theology, theology based on Scripture and the church fathers. Further, Hooker believed that God spoke in Scripture, and like the tradition before him, he understood that there was such a thing as a universal moral law. This is not because he didn't know anything about history or the diversity of cultures and their norms. As a child of the Renaissance and the Reformation, he was well aware of the fact that all societies are historically conditioned and that laws can vary with time and circumstance. This, however, did not lead him to conclude that all laws are mutable. No, he believed there were universal moral laws and that these laws did pass "final judgment on the morality of specific acts." He believed this because he held to a tradition, an ancient moral tradition. In light of that tradition he was able to make distinctions with some degree of subtlety. He knew that some laws were immutable, that other laws could be changed, and that some laws need to vary in their application and penalties.

This essay will present Hooker's views on the moral law. Once that is in place, I will apply his moral vision to an area of ethics that occupies both Sedgwick and the church at large, namely, sexual ethics. Here is Hooker, one of the great theologians of the Anglican church.

The Moral Law

Hooker begins with Scripture. That was his primary norm for faith and morals. As will be seen, reason plays a role, but reason cannot trump Scripture. When Hooker reads Scripture, he thinks biblically and theologically. He reads it as a unity, beginning with Adam, culminating in the second Adam, and concluding in the "life of the world to come."

In regard to Adam, Hooker claims the following: First, Adam was created good and by his reason knew the good. These truths, known by reason, was and is the universal moral law. Secondly, Adam sinned. As a result, he and his reason became corrupted, his whole person sentenced to death.(2) Hooker then relates Adam and humanity as root and branch, with Adam as root according to God's original good creation. Hooker is thinking here of Genesis, but also of Paul on Adam and Christ in Romans. In Adam, God gave humanity the capacity to reason, and by reason, to know right from wrong. All abused this capacity, all sinned, all fell, and all merit death. As a result of sin, reason's capacity to know the moral law was seriously damaged, though not totally obliterated. Traces of this universal law can be found in the accumulated wisdom of the human race.

Since the law of Adam belongs to the whole of humanity, it pertains to universal human conditions. Laws peculiar to specific conditions do not belong to the moral law. For example, laws specific to desert life are not found in sea faring societies. Such laws are not a part of the universal moral law. Only those laws which pertain to all societies everywhere belong to the natural or moral law.

The Ten Commandments belong to the universal moral law. All persons are created by God, all societies have holy days, all practice murder, all have some form of private property, all have some form of justice, all are propagated sexually, and all persons have parents. Therefore, these common features are covered by the Ten Commandments and belong to the universal moral law. How the details of these laws might vary according to circumstances, I will discuss shortly. But for now, Hooker claims that the moral or natural law is universally valid. It holds for all people in all places for all time. This law does not evolve, it is eternal. Here are a few of many quotations.

In laws, that which is natural bindeth universally, that which is positive not so. I,x,7.

Laws natural do always bind; laws positive not so, but only after they have been expressly and wittingly imposed. I,xv,1.

But there is no person whom, nor time wherein, a law natural doth not bind.(3)

The eternal validity of the natural or moral law should be perfectly clear to anyone who reads Hooker since he states as much repeatedly. I give further references in the endnote, as well as concurring references from some of the best of contemporary secondary sources.(4)

The Sources of the Universal Moral Law

How then, does one discover this universal moral law? Or, what for Hooker are the ultimate norms of faith and morals? It is beyond the scope of this essay, but it is quite clear that Hooker had only two ultimate norms for faith and morals. These are reason and Scripture. The structure of his thought entails this since Hooker thinks in terms of creation and incarnation, Adam and Christ, inspired reason and the revelation of Scripture, natural law and supernatural law. Further, he frequently and explicitly claims Scripture and reason as his two primary norms. Here is only one quotation out of many.

It sufficeth 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,xiv,5.

As a result, Hooker does not make tradition equal to Scripture or reason. He will refer to tradition in interpreting Scripture since he thinks the whole church interprets the Word. Nor does he consider experience a norm, either alongside reason or as part of it. Reason, of course, reflects on experience. The fruit of this reflection can at times be glimpsed in the teachings of the wise. He would not, however, accept individual experience, or the narration of one's personal history, as a source of truth. This individualistic modern notion of experience is alien to his thought. Human nature is corrupt. So is reason. He disagreed with his Puritan opponents on the degree of the corruption, but it was sufficiently severe as to require Scripture as its corrective.

Given the corruption of human nature and reason, Hooker claimed that God placed goodly portions of the moral law in Scripture. This, along with the supernatural laws of Jesus Christ, leads to salvation. As a result, Scripture is the definitive revelation of the natural or moral law, and redeemed reason is helpful only in those areas where Scripture does not speak. Hooker discusses these matters thoroughly, and it should be utterly obvious to anyone who reads him. Here are few quotations.

When supernatural duties are necessarily exacted, natural are not rejected as needless. The law of God [Scripture] therefore is, though principally delivered for instruction in the one, yet fraught with precepts of the other also. The Scripture is fraught even with the laws of Nature; insomuch that Gratian defining Natural Right, (whereby is meant the right which exacteth those general duties that concern men naturally even as they are men,) termeth "Natural Right," that which the "Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." I,xii,1.

What the Church of God standeth bound to know or do, the same in part nature teacheth. And because nature can teach them but only in part, neither so fully as is requisite for man's salvation, nor so easily as to make the way plain and expedite enough that many may come to the knowledge of it, and so be saved; therefore in Scripture hath God both collected the most necessary things that the school of nature teacheth unto that end, and revealeth also whatsoever we neither could with safety be ignorant of, nor at all be instructed in but by supernatural revelation from him. III,iii,3.

Scripture comprehending examples, and laws, laws some natural and some positive: examples there neither are for all cases which require laws to be made, and when there are, they can but direct us as precedents only. Natural laws direct in such sort, that in all things we must for ever do according unto them; ... III,ix,1.

In the following quotation, Hooker distinguishes between the moral law which pertains to all persons, and specific Christian duties which pertain to Christians. Christians are called to observe both.

As for those virtues that belong unto moral righteousness and honesty of life, we do not mention them because they are not proper unto Christian men, as they are Christian, but do concern them as they are men. True it is, the want of these virtues excludeth from salvation. III,i,7.

Since Hooker knows that God has revealed the moral law in the Old Testament as well as the New, he must describe which portions of the Old Testament law were maintained, abolished, or revised by the new revelation in Christ. The moral law was never abolished. It always binds.

In a word, we plainly perceive by the difference of those three laws which the Jews received at the hands of God, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, that if the end for which and the matter according whereunto God maketh his laws continue always one and the same, his laws also do the like; for which cause the moral law cannot be altered: secondly, that whether the matter whereon laws are made continue or continue not, if their end have once ceased, they cease also to be of force; as in the law ceremonial it fareth: ... III,x,4.

Jewish ordinances had some things natural, and of the perpetuity of those things no man doubteth. That which was positive we likewise know to have been by the coming of Christ partly necessary not to be kept, and partly indifferent to be kept or not. Of the former kind circumcision and sacrifice were. IV,vi,4

Christ, in works ceremonial, giveth more liberty, in moral much less, than they [the Pharisees] did.(5)

In the following quotation, Hooker locates a specific moral law, that of hallowing one day in seven, in the context of creation. Creation is common to all persons everywhere, and therefore, this particular moral law is eternal.

The moral law requiring therefore a seventh part throughout the age of the whole world to be that way employed, although with us the day changed in regard of a new revolution begun by our Saviour Christ, yet the same proportion of time continueth which was before, because in reference to the benefit of creation and now much more of renovation thereunto added by him which was Prince of the world to come, we are bound to account the sanctification of one day in seven a duty which God's immutable law doth exact for ever. V,lxx,9.

How Some Laws Should be Held Constant, Others Changed

By what principles does Hooker allow certain laws to be abolished, others modified, and others kept forever? Once seen, his principles are clear and logical.

First, Hooker considers it "profane, impious, and irreligious" (III,ix,1) to bypass Scripture in the making of laws. Secondly, Scripture does not contain all the laws needed to order the life of the individual, the church, and the state. It does, however, contain all essential supernatural laws, as well as critical portions of the moral law. Apart from that, Church and state are free to make laws, with tradition, legitimate authority, and common sense being important ways of deriving law.

In regard to Scripture, certain of its laws must be maintained forever, other portions were only temporary, and other portions can be modified. Which of these is true depends upon the purpose of the law. For a law to be changed, one must know its purpose. If that purpose cannot be known, one cannot change a biblical law.

The nature of every law must be judged of by its end for which it was made, and by the aptness of things therein prescribed unto the same end. It may so fall out that the reason why some laws of God were given is neither opened nor possible to be gathered by wit of man. As why God should forbid Adam that one tree, there was no way for Adam ever to have certainty understood. And at Adam's ignorance of this point Satan took advantage, urging the more securely a false cause because the true was unto Adam unknown. III,x,1

If, on the other hand, the end or purpose of a law is known, the law may or may not be changed. It cannot be changed if its purpose never changes. For example, the supernatural law of the gospel and its doctrine can never be changed. Its purpose is eternal life and that purpose will never vary to the end of the world. Or, the moral law cannot change, it definitions pertain to that which is common to all for all time.

On the other hand, if the purpose of a law no longer holds, or is superseded by something else, then the law can be abolished or changed. For example, the ceremonies and sacrifices of Hebrew worship were fulfilled in Christ. Their original purpose was completed, and therefore, they were abolished and replaced by the law of Christ, especially the eucharist. Or, the purpose of a law may remain constant, but something in the nature of the conditions which originally surrounded the law may change. In that case, the law remains, but its penalty or application may change. Hooker gives theft as an example (III,x,3). There will always be laws prohibiting theft, but the penalty for theft may vary from culture to culture. Or again, according to the Old Testament, adultery was punishable by stoning. But Jesus replaced that penalty with compassion (the woman caught in adultery), and Paul imposed the penalty of excommunication for the man who slept with his father's wife. Or, the purpose of the sabbath law never changed. It was a day to honor God. But in light of the gospel, the day of its celebration changed from Saturday to Sunday. Hooker sums up these principles as follows,

In a word, we plainly perceive by the difference of those three laws which the Jews received at the hands of God, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, that if the end for which and the matter according whereunto God maketh his laws continue always one and the same, his laws also do the like; for which cause the moral law cannot be altered: secondly, that whether the matter whereon laws are made continue or continue not, if their end have once ceased, they cease also to be of force; as in the law ceremonial it fareth: finally, that albeit the end continue, as in that law of theft specified and in a great part of those ancient judicials it doth; yet forasmuch as there is not in all respects the same subject or matter remaining for which they were first instituted, even this is sufficient cause of change: and therefore laws, though both ordained of God himself, and the end for which they were ordained continuing, may notwithstanding cease, if by alterations of persons or times they be found insufficient to attain unto that end. In which respect why may we not presume that God doth even call for change or alternation as the very condition of things themselves doth make necessary. III,x,4.

Hooker Applied to Sexual Ethics

Now, let us apply these principles to the matter that now disturbs our church, sexual relations.

First, sexual relations belong to all societies everywhere. Therefore, the laws governing sexual behavior belong to the moral law. This law is eternal and it does not change. These laws could only change if the purpose of sexual relations changed.

By Genesis 1 and 2, it is recognized on all sides that the purpose of sexuality is reproduction and personal delight in the other. To my knowledge, no one has ever claimed any other purpose. That purpose belonged to Adam, to the whole of the human race, and it has never changed since the beginning. Therefore, sexuality belongs to the moral law and the biblical laws governing sexuality cannot be changed.

Secondly, although the New Testament revelation did not change the purpose of sexuality, it did change the penalties associated with sexual immorality. This has already been mentioned, Jesus with the woman caught in adultery, Paul with the man in a sexual relations with his father's wife.

Thirdly, and here I can only speak in the spirit of Hooker, Hooker makes distinctions, and so does Scripture and the church's tradition. There is the perfect as revealed in the teachings and life of Jesus, there is the less than perfect yet permitted as a result of sin, and finally, the less than perfect and never permitted. In the first category there is Jesus' teaching on non violence as in turning the other cheek, utter generosity as in selling one's possessions and giving to the poor, complete service of others to such an extent that one becomes the least, and sexual activity only within life long marriage. In the second category there is violence as in acceptance of war as the lesser of two evils, accumulation as in private property and wealth, coercive power as in all government both secular and religious, and divorce. In the third category, less than perfect and not permitted, there are such matters as idolatry, human sacrifice, adultery, and homosexuality. Let me consider one of the less than perfect yet sometimes permitted, divorce.

In regard to divorce, Jesus taught it was not God's original intent. It violates the universal moral law, the law of Adam. Due to the hardness of the human heart, however, God has allowed it, even thought it was wrong. This can be seen in the Old Testament, as well as the church fathers, as well as canon law. It was allowed as the lesser of two evils. There can be no doubt that the divorce is too easily granted by both church and society, but that it was allowed, though wrong, is evident.

As far as I know, Hooker did not directly comment on divorce, but he would see it in the context of the entire biblical narrative. It belongs to the sin of Adam, it can be forgiven in Christ, but he would not interpret Jesus' teaching on divorce as grounds for maintaining abusive marriages. He was too aware of the tradition, and the tradition's interpretation of Scripture, to allow that alternative. Whether or not Hooker would allow remarriage after divorce, with both spouses living, I do not know. The ancient church permitted it to some degree. Hooker relied on the whole church for the interpretation of Scripture, and not simply his own opinions.

In regard to adultery, Hooker would rely on Scripture, although he did not comment on it to my knowledge. I am sure he would claim that Scripture prohibits adultery. Its denial is one of the Ten Commandments, a part of the universal moral law. It is not the lesser of two evils. It is simply wrong. No one is forced to do it. An abusive and unhappy marriage does not force a person to commit adultery.

In regards to homosexuality, Hooker does comment. Right reason should know that it is wrong, but given its corruption, whole nations have practiced it and thought it right. Therefore, God revealed in Scripture that it is a sin and the tradition has always upheld that understanding. It is a particular infraction of the moral law, and as such, difficult to perceive by corrupted reason. First principles of the moral law are easier to discover, particulars are not.

The first principles of the Law of Nature are easy; hard it were to find men ignorant of them. But concerning the duty which Nature's law doth require at the hands of men in a number of things particular, so far hath the natural understanding even of sundry whole nations been darkened, that they have not discerned no not gross iniquity to be sin. ... how should our festered sores be cured, but that God hath delivered a law [Scripture] as sharp as the two edged sword, piercing the very closest and most unsearchable corners of the heart, which the Law of Nature can hardly, human laws by no means possible, reach unto? I,xii,2.

First principles of the moral law would be things such as do to others as you wish they would do to you, or be willing to defer immediate gratification for long term benefit. Along with homosexuality, Hooker lists inhospitality and robbery as particular sins that whole nations have failed to perceive.(6)

Finally, Hooker was a scholar. He considered knowledge a "thing painful." He would be appalled at the level of thinking that now characterizes ECUSA. He would expect every member of the church to at least read the Articles of Religion. Like all Anglican priests until 1975, he pledged conformity to these Articles at his ordination. Yet not simply as a priest, but as a theologian, biblical scholar, and student of history, he could defend their truth, and that includes Article VIII.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral. (Article VII)

Further, Hooker would consider the following arguments ill conceived.

1. We don't kill witches and stone adulterers, why should we keep the archaic laws on sexuality found in Leviticus and elsewhere. Hooker's reply: The moral law is eternal, its penalties vary.

2. We allow divorce yet Jesus didn't. If we can be flexible on divorce, should we not be equally flexible on matters such as homosexuality, sex between the elderly whose partners have died, or living arrangements for those who cannot marry young due to the education required in modern societies.(7) Hooker made distinctions and could think clearly. The fact that something, rightly or wrongly, has been allowed does not imply that everything is allowed. Further, he would not say the church has the right to change certain moral norms. (See below, number seven.)

3. Ethics has to do with the nature of relations, relationships built on mutuality, fidelity, trust, honesty. Ethics does not specify particulars, as in denying homosexuality. This is Timothy Sedgwick's perspective, that ethics is form not content. Reply: For Hooker, the moral law is both general and particular. The general principles are more easily discerned, the particulars are more difficult. God has placed a number of these particulars in Scripture. These specify what God expects concretely. In his Word, Scripture as interpreted by the tradition, God has placed sex in the context of marriage between a man and a woman.

5. Scripture only condemns homosexuality in a handful of passages. (Of course, there are almost no passages condemning polygamy). Why should these be binding when so many other passages are ignored? Reply: Hooker read Scripture as a narrative whole, beginning with Genesis onward. By creation, God created a man and a woman for each other. Sexuality is located in that context. Other alternatives only emerged after the fall. In Jesus Christ the fall was reversed and creation's original purpose for sexuality restored. Here Hooker would follow the tradition, as well as the teaching of Jesus, who located sexuality in creation as taught in Genesis. This ancient tradition is still preserved in our marriage liturgy. In this way, Hooker sought the sense, the mind of Scripture, its overall narrative meaning. He did not reduce meaning to a few proof texts, but saw the meaning of all texts in a narrative context. Therefore, he would consider Genesis and many other texts as relevant to sexual ethics.

6. Ancient people didn't know what science now teaches us, that our sexual proclivities are given by heredity and environment. As a result, we do not choose what sorts of persons we love. Reply: This claim goes beyond Hooker as addressed in this essay. Nevertheless, Hooker believed that grace changes a person, both body and soul. As such, he was one with the ancient fathers in their doctrine of incarnation and recapitulation in which Christ redeems the whole person including the body and its passions. This is most clearly seen in Book V in his teaching on the Eucharist. As a result, God not only calls a person to keep the universal moral law, but gives the grace to do so.

7. Truth is given by the Spirit as discerned by the Church in community. This new truth can actually overturn old truth, since truth is an ongoing process of discovery. Reply: This claim also goes beyond this essay, but it is clearly addressed by Hooker in his conflict with the Puritans. Hooker would consider such a claim irresponsible and pernicious. Repeatedly, over and over, he criticized the enthusiasts who claimed the Spirit for their new revelations. Here is a typical comment, one in which Hooker mocks his Puritan opponents.

If the Spirit by such revelation have discovered unto them the secrets of that discipline out of Scripture, they must profess themselves to be all (even men, women, and children) Prophets. Preface,iii,10.

Endnotes

1. Timothy F. Sedgwick, Sacramental Ethics. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987, p. 76.
2. For Hooker's understanding of Adam and his relationship to the moral law and Christ, see I,xi,5; II,i,4; III,x,1; V,lvi,6 10; Sermon 2, part 7; and the Dublin Fragments, found in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker. Hill, W. Speed, ed. Vol. 4. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1982, pp. 102, 106, 143.
3. A LEARNED SERMON OF THE NATURE OF PRIDE, section II.
4. I,viii,3; I,viii,9; I,xvi,5; III,ix,1; III,xi,6; IV,xi,6; V,viii,1; VII,xv,14. See also the essay by Gibbs, in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, Hill, W. Speed, ed. Vol. 6, Part One. Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1977, p. 91. Also, in the same text, the essay by Haugaard, pp. 137, 158. Also, Stanley Archer, Richard Hooker. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983, p. 50.) Finally, Rowan Williams, Studies in Richard Hooker, Hill, W. Speed. (ed.) Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1972, p. 374.
5. A LEARNED DISCOURSE of JUSTIFICATION, WORKS, AND HOW THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IS OVERTHROWN, section 30.
6. See Hooker's first footnote in I,xii,2.
7. All these possibilities are promoted by Episcopal Bishop Jack Spong in his book, Living in Sin San Francisco, Harper, 1988.

The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D.
January, 2002.