William G. Witt

June 10, 2026

The Caroline Divines

Filed under: Anglicanism,Sacraments,Spiritualty,Theology — William Witt @ 12:31 pm

James I (1566-1625)

1603 Death of Elizabeth; Accession of James
1605 Gunpowder Plot (More restrictions against Roman Catholics)
1611 Authorized Version of the Bible (KJV)

Charles I (1600-1649)
1625 Death of James; Accession of Charles, who marries Henrietta Maria of of France, a Roman Catholic.
1633 William Laud becomes Archbishop of Canterbury.
1642 English Civil War
1645 Execution of Laud
1646 Triumph of Presbyterianism
1649 Execution of Charles
1658 Death of Cromwell

Charles II (1660-1685)
1660 Charles II – Monarchy restored.
1662 Revised BCP
1685 Converts to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.

James II (1685-1688)
A Roman Catholic and upholder of Divine Right of Kings
1688 James flees (The Glorious Revolution)

William III (of Orange) and Mary II (1689-1702)

1689 With flight of James, Parliament declared the throne vacant. Parliament invited William of Orange and his wife Mary (daughter of James) to take the throne.

Thomas Cranmer

The Caroline Divines were a group of spiritual writers who followed the Elizabethan settlement, and lived in a period when Anglicanism was now well established. They were far enough removed from the Reformation that Anglicanism was now “normal,” just the way things are. The period when England was Roman Catholic was now a distant memory.

The political background to the period of the Caroline Divines is a history of four terrible kings. The Caroline Divines receive their name from the Latin version of “Charles,” based on the names of two of those kings. It might seem that during a time of political unrest and crisis, not much in the way of good quality theology would be written. Paradoxically, the era of the Caroline Divines is considered to be one of the high points of Anglican history.

The Caroline Divines have two interesting characteristics as theologians. First, they were not theologians in the traditional sense, but were primarily preachers or poets, and their theology is found in their sermons and their poetry. Second is the contrast between the political turmoil taking place in the country as a whole and the profound theological reflection that we find in their writings. Paradoxically, the Caroline Divines say virtually nothing about the political conflicts of the time.

There is a similar parallel in the writings of the 19th century British novelist Jane Austen. Austen wrote her novels during the period of the Napoleonic Wars. Although soldiers play important roles in her plots, the ordinary reader would not know that a major war between England and France provided the historical setting in which Jane Austen’s novels were written. Something similar occurs when we read the writings of the Caroline Divines.

Historical Background

Because Queen Elizabeth never married, she had no children, and her death created the problem of a legitimate succession to the throne. It was decided that James VI, King of Scotland, would be Elizabeth’s successor. In 1603, James entered England from Scotland to become King James I of England. The Puritans were at first enthusiastic about having a Scottish King, and immediately presented James with some requests. They wanted to be rid of the surplice while leading worship and of the sign of the cross in baptism.

James responded by rejecting all of their requests. He had dealt with Presbyterians in Scotland, and had no patience for them now that he was king of England. James not only upheld apostolic succession, he defended in addition a political theory of the Divine Right of Kings. One was king because God intended it, and the authority of the king could not be questioned. James is known for the statement, “No Bishop, no King.”

In 1605, a group of Roman Catholics who attempted to blow up Parliament in the Gunpowder Plot were punished severely. In consequence, Roman Catholicism was placed under even more restrictions than had existed previously. After the Gunpowder Plot, Roman Catholics were no longer a political threat in England.

King James’s most significant historical contribution is likely the Authorized Version of the Bible, which he had translated under the leadership of Lancelot Andrews. Known popularly as the King James Version, it was certainly not known by either name when it was translated. A new translation of the Bible into English after the Great Bible is perhaps the one good thing that James accomplished during his reign. Overall, James was a terrible King. He was not devout or religious. Stephen Neill writes of him in his book Anglicanism: “James I loved the English church, yet he did greater harm than perhaps any other English monarch.”1

James was succeeded by Charles I, born in 1600. Charles became King in 1625, and married Henrietta Maria of France, a Roman Catholic. If James I’s response had made him unpopular with the Puritans, Charles’s marriage to a Roman Catholic only compounded the problem. Charles proceeded to make the situation even worse in 1633, when he appointed William Laud (1573-1645) as Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud is known for the vicious suppression of his opponents, doing such things as cutting off their ears, branding them, or slitting their noses.

In 1642, Puritans from inside of the Church of England joined with independent groups like Congregationalists and Baptists in the revolutionary English Civil War, leading to the eventual removal of the King by beheading. In 1645, Archbishop Laud was executed. In 1646, Presbyterianism triumphed in the war and became the official church in England, replacing the Thirty-Nine Articles with the Westminster Confession of Faith along with a Larger and Shorter Catechism. In 1649, King Charles was executed.

The Puritan regime lasted approximately ten years. Oliver Cromwell, leader of the Puritan cause, died in 1658. In 1660, the monarchy was restored, and Charles II reigned from 1660 to 1685. Charles’s main contribution to the long term future of Anglicanism was to revise the Prayer Book in 1662. Several centuries later, Parliament would reject a revision of the Book of Common Prayer in 1928, leaving the 1662 Prayer Book in place. The Alternative Service Book appeared in 1980, which was replaced in 2000 by Common Worship, which is not a single text, but a series of books used in many churches. While these revised rites are used in most contemporary parishes, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is still the official Prayer Book of the Church of England.

In 1685, Charles II converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed. He was succeeded by James II, who reigned a short three years from 1685 to 1688. James II was a Roman Catholic, and also an upholder of the Divine Rite of Kings. James was so unpopular that he had to flee the country in 1688. With the flight of James, Parliament declared the throne vacant and invited William of Orange (a Protestant from the continent) and his wife Mary (daughter of James) to take the throne. William and Mary reigned from 1689 to 1702. This replacement by William and Mary of an entire dynasty of bad kings is referred to as the Glorious Revolution.

Several changes followed. Parliament passed the Toleration Act, which guaranteed religious freedom to Non-conformist Protestants, but not yet Roman Catholics or Unitarians. A Bill of Rights restricted the King’s authority over Parliament. A small group of Anglicans who remained faithful to King James were known as the Non-Jurors.

The Caroline Divines

An examination of the writings of the Caroline Divines will be preceded by some biographical material. (more…)

June 1, 2026

Richard Hooker On Law and Gospel Part Two: Grace, Sacraments, Worship and Polity

Filed under: Anglicanism,Justification,Methodology,Sacraments,Theology — William Witt @ 8:18 pm

Grace as Participation: Justification and Sanctification

Richard Hooker

The means by which Richard Hooker understands Christians to participate in the incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended Jesus Christ would seem to be a “real mission” of the Holy Spirit (as opposed to an “appropriation” in which the common work of all three divine persons is ascribed to the Spirit). The anointing by Jesus by the Holy Spirit (at his baptism?) was not for himself only but so that we ourselves through the Spirit might share in that anointing:

Thus much no Christian man will deny, that when Christ sanctified his own flesh, giving as God and taking as man the Holy Ghost, he did not this for himself only but for our sakes, that the grace of sanctification and life which was first received in him might pass from him to his whole race as malediction came from Adam unto all mankind. Howbeit, because the work of his Spirit to those effects is in us prevented by sin and death possessing us before, it is of necessity that as well our present sanctification unto newness of life, as the future restoration of our bodies should presuppose a participation of the grace, efficacy, merit or virtue of his body and blood, without which foundation first laid there is no place for those other operations of the Spirit of Christ to ensue. So that Christ imparteth plainly himself by degrees. (Laws V.56.10)

The “whole church” is united to the “whole Christ” (in his humanity and divinity). The risen Christ is in every part of the church, which lives by his life through “participation.” Hooker writes:

And because the divine substance of Christ is equally in all, his human substance equally distant from all, it appeareth that the participation of Christ wherein there are many degrees and differences, must needs consist in such effects as being derived from both natures of Christ really into us, are made our own, and we by having them in us are truly said to have him from whom they come, Christ also more or less to inhabit and impart himself as the graces are fewer or more, greater or smaller, which really flow into us from Christ.

Christ is whole with the whole Church, and whole with every part of the Church, as touching his Person, which can no way divide itself, or be possessed by degrees and portions. But the participation of Christ importeth, besides the presence of Christ’s Person, and besides the mystical copulation thereof with the parts and members of his whole Church, a true actual influence of grace whereby the life which we live according to godliness is his, and from him we receive those perfections wherein our eternal happiness consisteth. (Laws V.56.10)

There are two ways in which we participate in Christ, partly by imputation (justification), but also partly by infusion (sanctification). We are not only justified or accounted righteous by faith, we also share in the risen Christ’s resurrection life. “Thus we participate Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed unto us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth, and afterwards more fully both our souls and bodies made like unto his in glory.” Hooker states that the first thing “infused” into our hearts is the “Spirit of Christ,” from which everything else follows. The Spirit unites us to Christ our head thus enabling the church to become Christ’s body:

From hence it is that they which belong to the mystical body of our Saviour Christ, and be in number as the stars of heaven, divided successively by reason of their mortal condition into many generations, are notwithstanding coupled every one to Christ their Head, and all unto every particular person amongst themselves, inasmuch as the same Spirit, which anointed the blessed soul of our Saviour Christ, doth so formalize, unite and actuate his whole race, as if both he and they were so many limbs compacted into one body, by being quickened all with one and the same soul. (Laws V.56.11)

Hooker makes a clear distinction between justification and sanctification that had not yet appeared in Thomas Cranmer’s theology. Cranmer instead distinguished between “lively faith” and a “dead faith.”1 Hooker more helpfully uses the terminology that he found in John Calvin. He writes:

There is a glorifying righteousness of men in the world to come; and there is a justifying and a sanctifying righteousness here. The righteousness wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come is both perfect and inherent. That whereby we are justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, inherent, but not perfect. (Learned Discourse on Justification)

Hooker thus distinguishes between three kinds of righteousness. Eschatological righteousness, the righteousness of the world to come, will be perfect and inherent. When Jesus Christ returns and there is a new heaven and a new earth, we will be made inherently and completely righteous.

Concerning our present righteousness, Hooker distinguishes between justification and sanctification. The righteousness whereby we are justified by faith is perfect, but it is not an inherent righteousness because we continue to sin. The righteousness whereby we are sanctified is inherent, but it is not yet perfect. Sanctification thus involves a real ontological change, which is a progression in righteousness. We move forward, we fall back, we sin, we repent.

Concerning justification, Hooker writes:

Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man who in himself is impious, full of iniquity, full of sin, him being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin in hatred through repentance, him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto, by pardoning it, and accepteth him in Jesus Christ as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law: shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say; but the Apostle saith, “God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” [2 Cor. 5:21]. (Learned Discourse on Justification)

This is a Reformation understanding of justification as imputation. Hooker is saying that in God’s sight, when we exercise faith in Christ, God accepts us and considers us as righteous even though we are not (inherently) righteous in ourselves.

Such we are in the sight of God the Father as is the very Son of God himself. Let it be counted folly, or phrensy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our wisdom and our comfort; we care for no knowledge in the world but this: that man hath sinned and God hath suffered; that God hath made himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God. (Learned Discourse on Justification)

This is Hooker’s way of saying that justification by faith is really about justification by Christ (alien righteousness).

But then Hooker adds concerning sanctification, which is a real and inherent infused righteousness:

Now concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant that, unless we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as a thing in nature different from the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way by the faith of Abraham, the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. (Learned Discourse on Justification)

Martin Luther made a distinction between two kinds of righteousness, which is similar to the point Hooker makes here.2 If justification is forensic alien righteousness, there nonetheless is also an inherent transforming righteousness in sanctification. (more…)

Richard Hooker on Law and Gospel Part One: God, Creation, Christology and Participation

Filed under: Anglicanism,Metaphysics,Methodology,The Trinity,Theology — William Witt @ 7:49 pm

1554 Born at Heavitree near Exeter
1577 Becomes fellow at Corpus Christi, Oxford (with Jewel’s help)
1579 Appointed Deputy Professor of Hebrew
1578 Ordained
1584 Appointed Rector of Drayton Beauchamp
1585 Appointed Master of the Temple (conflicts with Walter Travers, the Reader, and a Puritan)
1585/86 A Learned Discourse on Justification (sermon)
1588 Marries Jean Churchman
1591 Rector of Boscombe, Wilts
1593-1595 Publication of Books 1-4 of Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity
1595 Rector of Bishopsbourne, near Canterbury
1597 Publication of Book 5 of Laws
1648 Publication of Books 6 & 8
1662 Publication of Book 7

Richard Hooker

Richard Hooker is perhaps the most important theologian in the history of Anglicanism. His Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity provided the theological justification for the Prayer Book worship and polity of the Church of England during the Elizabethan settlement. At the same time, Hooker’s contribution is controversial. Partisan divisions within Anglicanism have contributed to his mixed assessment. Anglo-Catholics have tried to claim Hooker as one of their own, while Evangelical Anglicans who look to Thomas Cranmer as their source of inspiration have at the least neglected Hooker, perhaps fearing that he prepared the way for what they perceive as a falling away from Reformation principles in the following generation of the Caroline Divines. Paradoxically, a renewal of interest in Hooker’s theology over the last several decades has been led by Reformed scholars who have claimed Hooker as a Reformed theologian. What follows will recognize Hooker’s unique contributions to Anglican identity. At the same time, I think it mistaken to view Hooker as in discontinuity with the English Reformation that preceded him. On my reading, Hooker is in continuity with but also the logical conclusion of an Evangelical Catholic approach to Anglican theology that originated with Thomas Cranmer, was succeeded by John Jewel, and then passed on and developed in Hooker.

Hooker lived from approximately 1554 to 1600. It is believed that he was born in 1554 at Heavitree near Exeter. In 1577, Hooker became a fellow at Corpus Christi, Oxford, with the assistance of John Jewel. While Jewel was a protege of Cranmer, Richard Hooker was a protege of Jewel. In 1579, Hooker was appointed Deputy Professor of Hebrew. Hooker was ordained August 14, 1579 by Edwin Sandys, Bishop of London. In 1584, Hooker was appointed Rector at Drayton Beauchamp. In 1585, Hooker was appointed Master of the Temple in London, where he began having conflicts with Walter Travers, a Reader and a Puritan. Hooker would preach in the morning and Travers would preach in the afternoon, contradicting what Hooker had just preached. The controversy ended when Travers was silenced by Archbishop Whitgift in 1586.

Hooker’s Learned Discourse on Justification (published either in 1585 or 1586) was a sermon challenging the Roman Catholic position, but was nonetheless controversial among the Puritans for suggesting that Roman Catholics could still be saved. In 1588, Hooker married Jean Churchman. Hooker became the Rector of Boscombe, Wilts in 1591, and began writing the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Books One to Four were published from 1593 to 1594. In 1595, Hooker became the rector of Bishopsbourne near Canterbury. In 1597, Book Five of the Laws was published. Hooker died in 1600. In 1648, Books Six and Eight were published, long after Hooker’s death. The publication of Book Seven did not take place until 1662.

The influences on Richard Hooker were primarily Thomas Aquinas, from whom he derived his understanding of law, the church fathers Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, whom he cites in his discussion of Christology, and John Jewel, when he discusses Anglican identity. Finally, Hooker was influenced by John Calvin for his understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification as well as his Eucharistic theology.

As already noted, there has recently been a renewed interest in Hooker’s theology, primarily among Reformed theologians. This is ironic, as historically Hooker has been more admired by Anglo-Catholics, but the new interpreters are correct that although Hooker rejected Puritanism, he was nonetheless at least in conversation with a more moderate Reformed theology. I would suggest however that a better parallel would be provided by the conversation Jewel had with the Roman Catholic church. Although Jewel disagreed with Rome, he still wanted to argue that the Church of England was Catholic. Although Hooker disagreed with the Puritans, he did not simply reject the Reformation. As was the case with Jewel, I would suggest that Hooker’s own approach is Evangelical Catholic, a Reformed (in the sense of Reformation) or Evangelical (but not Calvinist) Catholicism. In particular, Hooker was in conversation with an earlier pre-Reformation Catholic tradition. Hooker especially engaged with the church fathers and the Christology and Trinitarian theology of the ecumenical councils. Hooker was also influenced significantly by the theology of the medieval Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas. (more…)

Non Sermoni Res — William G. Witt is proudly powered by WordPress