A Learned Discourse on Justification in Modern English

by Richard Hooker

The defining doctrine of Protestantism is justification by faith alone–what Martin Luther called “the article by which the church stands or falls.” But does this mean that it is also the article by which salvation stands or falls? Are Roman Catholics heretics for rejecting that doctrine?

In this classic treatise, the great English theologian Richard Hooker tackles this question head-on, seeking to head off two opposite insisting so rigidly on a right articulation of the doctrine that we neglect Christ himself, or minimizing differences over justification as unimportant. In the process, Hooker also offers an excellent blueprint for how to interpret and navigate doctrinal disagreement within the church on any issue.

Centuries on, this remains one of the classic statements of Reformational soteriology, presenting a clear account of what Protestants do and do not believe about the doctrine of justification, along with a careful summary of what their Catholic opponents held. Readers seeking a helmsman who can faithfully guide them through the fog that so often bedevils this crucial conversation need look no further.

Genres: Theology

79 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2022

About the author

Richard Hooker (March 1554 – 3 November 1600) was an Anglican priest and an influential theologian. Hooker's emphases on reason, tolerance and the value of tradition considerably influenced the development of Anglicanism. He was the co-founder (with Thomas Cranmer and Matthew Parker) of Anglican theological thought. Hooker's great Elizabethan guide to Church Government and Discipline is both a masterpiece of English prose and one of the bulwarks of the Established Church in England. Hooker projected eight books for the great work. The first four books of Ecclesiastical Polity appeared in 1593, Book V in 1597. Hooker died in 1600 at the age of forty-six and the remaining three books were completed, though not revised, before his death. The manuscripts fell into careless or unscrupulous hands and were not published until long afterwards (1648 to 1662), and then only in mutilated form. Samuel Pepys makes mention of Hooker's Polity three times in his Diary, first in 1661, "Mr. Chetwind fell commending of 'Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity,' as the best book, and the only one that made him a Christian, which puts me upon the buying of it, which I will do shortly." In 1667 Pepys bought the new edition that had been printed in 1666, the first to include the life of Hooker by Izaak Walton.

Reviews

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterclass in charity with a backbone.

[Lukas Stock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading for Protestants, and probably all Christians. Hooker draws much needed distinctions that clarify what unites and divides on justification. Absolutely essential for any sort of ecumenical discussion as well as properly understanding what’s at stake in conversations regarding faith, works, and justification.

Many thanks to the Davenant Press for giving us such an accessible and readable modernization.

[Austin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was going to be a positive presentation of a Protestant position on justification over against a Roman conception. However, that was limited to the first chapter. What he says there was rich, and he answered some thorny questions about the Protestant ordo with concision.

The rest of the book was Hooker defending a comment he had made in his previous works to the degree that many thousands of men who died under popish superstition are likely saved. He distinguishes between heresies that overthrow the foundation of the faith directly and by consequence. Rome overthrows the foundation by consequence, he says, but because only the learned in Rome actually follow the doctrinal reasoning to its logical conclusion, many lay men and women in Rome are assuredly saved. He says Rome is still a true Church, but is hanging on by a thread.

I agree with much of what Hooker says about a remnant of the faithful still remaining in Rome, however, I think his distinction between the learned and laymen might be backwards. In my experience, popular Roman Catholic practice tends toward heresy significantly more than official dogma. For example, in popular practice, latria/ dulia distinctions are not usually understood when praying to saints. This leads many lay-men into a borderline polytheism. Likewise, distinctions between condign and congruous merit are unheard of. This often leads toward an even harder works based mindset (for salvation) in the laity. Etc, etc.

I agree with much of what Hooker says, but in short, I am less optimistic about the state of Roman religion post Reformation.

[Marc Mason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hooker’s words:

But, given how dreadful a thing it is to deny salvation by Christ alone, I am all the more slow and fearful to accuse any man of such without manifest proof. Let us beware, lest we make so many ways of denying Christ, that we scarcely leave any way for ourselves to truly and soundly confess him! Salvation by Christ alone is indeed the true foundation upon which Christianity stands. But what if I say that you cannot be saved by Christ alone without this addition:
Christ must be believed upon in the heart, confessed with the mouth, and obeyed in life and conversation? Because I add this, do I therefore deny that which I did directly affirm?

[Samuel Kropp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nice short little treatise on some relevant questions for us today: what is the foundation of faith? Must we say Roman Catholics deny it? What is the nature of heresy?

[John Damon Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

In which an anglican preacher explains justification, rips the Roman one to shreds, and then defends many of the Romans as Christians against the puritans.

[Phil Cotnoir · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my first reading of Richard Hooker. Very impressive. I resonated deeply with his demeanour and approach to the topic of what divides Protestants from Roman Catholics, and the irenic way he went about clarifying those differences. He by no means blurs the differences or downplays their significance, but he does make a compelling argument about the fact that people can be truly children of God while being simultaneously mistaken on some serious doctrinal errors, not because those errors are no big deal, but because they do not directly deny the foundation of the faith. Rather, they affirm things that undermine the foundation by necessary logical implication, but, as he points out, and as anyone who has gone back and forth with a muddle-headed person knows, not everyone has the cognitive ability to see logical inconsistencies that are one or two or four steps removed from the starting premises.

Throughout the book, which was carefully edited into modern English by the fine editors at Davenant Press for their series called 'The Library of Early English Protestantism', Hooker makes his arguments cogently and systematically. The book, it turns out, is based on a series of three sermons he gave in the late 1500s, sermons which were controversial because they bucked the trend of heavy polemics against Roman Catholics. It would seem that human nature is rather constant, and that they were at the mercy of the same social forces we are today. In other words, there was more to be gained in the short term by amping up the errors and heresies and follies of your main theological (read: tribal) opponents, and so most Protestants did that. This heated rhetoric of denunciation goes over well with the already-convinced, but really cannot help illuminate the precise differences between the one and the other, nor will any thoughtful Catholic find his own views fairly represented therein.

Perhaps I'm especially attuned to these dynamics because of my coming of age in a context where the same anti-Catholic polemics were often deployed, within the small and struggling community of evangelical Baptist believers in the once-Catholic-stronghold of Quebec. With almost all the older believers in that context having been saved from a particularly toxic manifestation of Roman Catholicism, it is only natural that they had very little good to say about them. I don't fault them for it at all. But at some point in one's theological development, you simply must try to actually understand what they actually teach and believe, and in order to do that while obeying the Golden Rule, a different posture is needed.

It is a little bit tragic that this helpful little book, which helped me greatly in understanding some key nuances in Catholic teaching, and which modeled such a gracious approach to exploring those differences, is not better known. The same goes for Richard Hooker in general; he is not usually counted among the great Reformers. I for one will make an effort to read more by Hooker. I sense that he is a kindred spirit.

I end with some quotes:

"But, given how dreadful a thing it is to deny salvation by Christ alone, I am all the more slow and fearful to accuse any man of such without manifest proof. Let us beware, lest we make so many ways of denying Christ, that we scarcely leave any way for ourselves to truly and soundly confess him!" (p.55).

"Even the wisest may speak words of the wind; the fallen state of out nature is such that we neither perfectly understand the ways and knowledge of the Lord, nor do we perfectly embrace it when it is understood, nor graciously speak it when it is embraced, not peacefully maintain it when it is spoken. But even the best of us are sometimes overtaken with blindness, sometimes with hastiness, sometimes with impatience, and sometimes with other passions of the mind to which God knows that we are also subjected" (p.77).

[Emma R. Pilcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Then what is the fault of the Church of Rome? Not that she requireth works at their hands that will be saved, but that she attributeth unto works a power of satisfying God for sin, and a virtue to merit both grace here and in heaven glory.”

“I grant that we are apt, prone, and ready to forsake God; but is God as ready to forsake us? Our minds are changeable; is his so likewise? Whom God hath justified hath not Christ assured that it is his Father's will to give them a kingdom?”

“We deny the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we imbase, disannul, annihilate the benefit of his bitter passion, if we rest in those proud imaginations that life everlasting is deservedly ours, that we merit it, and that we are worthy of it.”

This is a great Sabbath afternoon read. Hooker explained the soteriological divide of Protestants and Roman Catholics as often heterodoxical, "Error and heresy not always identical" (pg. 44), which is a helpful way to think through the issue. All in all, he was very fair to both sides.

[Isaiah · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the version on CCEL; the older English was difficult at times. However, the thrust of the work was good. I'm going to go back to those first few chapters that talk about "the foundation" & the core distinctions, as I grasped the notion, but did not wholly cling to it. I also loved how charitable Bsp. Hooker was. Absolutely Christ-like & well written.

"Whereas in truth our doctrine is no other than that which we have learned at the feet of Christ: namely, that God doth justify the believing man, yet not for the worthiness of his belief, but for His worthiness who is believed; God rewarded abundantly everyone who worketh, yet not for any meritorious dignity which is, or can be, in the work; but through His mere mercy, by whose commandment he worketh."

Bishop Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse on Justification, Chapter 13.

[Andrew Boone · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good explanation of the core distinction between the Reformers and Rome in the early Reformation. Most of Hooker's comments still apply today. Hooker makes a distinction between errors that overthrow the foundation of the faith directly and those that overthrow it only by logical consequence. From there he evaluates what he believes are the Roman Catholic Church's errors regarding grace and merit in justification.

[Sanad Al Sakakini · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Hooker provides a great explanation of the Protestant and Catholic Doctrine of justification, mainly in the first chapter. The rest of the book is dedicated to answering a more ecclesiastical question regarding Rome’s Status as a true church. The book provides great benefit, but must be understood in its proper context and what it seeks to accomplish.

[Stephen Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic, well-reasoned approach to the doctrine of justification and viewing other traditions in light of Protestant commitments. Worthy of wide consideration, especially in engaging Roman Catholics.

[Jay Chen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where exactly did Rome and the Reformers agree and disagree on justification? Does Rome directly deny the foundation of faith? It definitely needs a re-read to fully understand but overall a great summary of that issue and more broadly the nature of error/heresy.

[Matthew Hinman · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent discourse on the difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant justification. A wonderful resource to have now so accessible.

[Jason Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very incisive examination of the foundation of the faith made even better by the folks at Davenant “translating” it to modern English. I look forward to more in this series.

[Jaden Weatherly · Rating 4 out of 5]

the section on sanctification.. great stuff.

[Jared Lovell · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. I could quibble with some of Hooker's language, but the thrust of the message is an excellent one in pursuit of a generous, yet sound, Protestant orthodoxy.

[Tyler C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Generous, but sound Protestant orthodoxy.

[Kanyimbe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very charitable and precise.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hooker’s prose—particularly his syntax, and to a lesser extent his diction—is difficult to comprehend, even by the standards of sixteenth-century Early Modern English. This edition, edited by Bradford Littlejohn, Rhys Laverty, and Ken Cook, serves as an excellent modernization of a classic articulation of Reformation soteriology. I highly recommend it.