Richard Hooker has been described by Horton Davies as both a notable defender of the Church of England against Puritan belief and against the Roman Catholic position.  His position affirmed, “Anglicanism’s first loyalty was to Scripture, its second to the pure traditions of the primitive and undivided church, and its third to reason.” (Davies, 1996a: xv).  Indeed it was Hooker who provided a philosophical and devotional basis for the Elizabethan church (Stone, 1909: II, 239).  This basis is principally expressed in Hooker’s major work, entitled Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (edn. Keble, 1865), which served as an apology for the Church of England, as found in the Elizabethan settlement (Davies, 1996a: 27). 

Christopher Cocksworth argues that with the movement of history away from the immediate Reformation period, the time was right for the creation of such a distinctively Anglican tradition, which owed much to the Reformation, but which at the same time “tentatively rehabilitated certain traditional features of sacramental theology and spirituality.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 33).  It was during the Elizabethan period that Anglican theologians, beginning perhaps with Richard Hooker, but continuing in subsequent years, began this process of developing a distinctively Anglican tradition.  Such a process was “not seen as a betrayal of the Reformation but, rather, as a sign that an insufficiency was felt by both traditions [the Anglican and the Puritan] bequeathed to them by the Reformers.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 33).  This case study is therefore of vital importance since Hooker’s eucharistic theology moves away from the views of some of the early Reformation theologians. 

Hooker’s eucharistic theology is centred on the idea of “the real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of the sacrament.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 320).  It is this motif of a union with Christ which pervades the whole of the Polity and which is central to Hooker’s thinking on the Eucharist.  In essence it seems that this motif is based on a moderate realism undergirded by the doctrine of the incarnation.  As Cocksworth argues, “This enabled him to establish the ground rules for the Eucharist.  He argued that although Christ’s human nature has become God’s ‘inseparable habitation’, its human properties, such as localized presence, are not affected.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 38).  Therefore for Hooker God cannot be found beyond or behind the incarnation but intimately joined to it, such that “wherever the Word is it hath with it manhood else the Word be in part or somewhere God only and not man, which is impossible.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 222).  It is this joining of the divinity and the manhood in the doctrine of the incarnation that Hooker carries over into his theology of the Eucharist.  The manhood of Christ cannot be separated from the divinity of Christ in the Eucharist.  His theology is realist, and represents a significant break with the earlier Anglican theologians such as Cranmer.

In relation to the Eucharist Hooker expresses the view that by means of the sacrament the communicant has a real participation in the body and blood of Christ and thereby in Christ himself.  Hooker was less definitive on the means of the presence and whether or not Christ was present in the consecrated elements, although he did describe them as ‘instrumentally a cause’ of the participation in Christ.  Hooker was prepared to accept those facts dictated by Scripture and reason alike, but to suspend judgment on metaphysical problems, such as transubstantiation, consubstantiation and the manner of the real presence, where no clear guidance was given by Scripture or reason (Dugmore, 1942: 21).  These matters will be investigated in greater depth below.  Hooker specifically rejects transubstantiation, describing it as a heresy (Hooker, Sermon II, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 612) and consubstantiation, but argues that the acceptance or the rejection of these doctrines is not of supreme importance, since the means of the presence is not something to be inquired into or considered too deeply.  What seems to be of greater importance to Hooker is participation of the faithful in Christ.  He argues that in receiving the consecrated elements the body and blood of Christ is also received.  The means of the presence is less a matter for consideration than that the body and blood of Christ is really received.

The following quotations from the Polity will present Hooker’s view on the Eucharist. 

The Eucharist was for Hooker an effective means of grace.  He says:

“ … in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us, the degrees of our own increase in holiness and virtue we see and can judge of them, we understand that the strength of our life begun in Christ is Christ, that his flesh is meat and his blood drink, not by surmised imagination but truly, even so truly that through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally presented the very taste of eternal life, the grace of the sacrament is here as the food which we eat and drink.”  (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80).

Hooker denies that the sacrament is “only a shadow, destitute, empty and void of Christ” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80) and affirms that there is a ‘givenness’ of gift in the sacrament.  Hooker argues that in the sacrament there is “real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of this sacrament.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 81) and that the grace of the sacrament is present in what is eaten and drunk.  The question however, which Hooker acknowledges has been the subject of debate, is where Christ is or in what does he participate in the sacrament?  No one denies, he says, that Christ’s presence is in the soul of the faithful communicant, but is Christ’s presence also within the consecrated elements?  Speculation on this issue Hooker sees as unnecessary, rather all need to realize that “those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and conveyances of his body and blood unto them” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83).  Realism appears to be at the basis of this comment since the Eucharist is seen to be the sign which conveys the signified body and blood of Christ to the communicant.  It seems that Hooker is presenting a realist notion of the presence of Christ when he speaks of participation in the soul of the faithful communicant.  Any participation of Christ’s body and blood in the bread and wine of the Eucharist however, seems less clear.  William Crockett suggests that Hooker stands in the tradition of Paul and Augustine, in that he understands the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an ecclesial sense (Crockett, 1989: 176), where the faithful participate in Christ in the context of the eucharistic community of the church.  It is in this sense then that Crockett describes Hooker as presenting a doctrine of the ‘real partaking of the body and blood of Christ’, more than a doctrine of the ‘real presence of the body and blood of Christ’ in the Eucharist.  Hooker’s emphasis is on spiritual feeding of the faithful rather than any presence in the sacrament (Crockett, 1989: 176).  Crockett is careful however, not to exclude the latter from Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist, only to suggest that ‘real partaking’ is more a feature of Hooker’s view than is ‘real presence’.

In referring to Jesus’ words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body’ and ‘drink ye all of this, this is my blood’ Hooker comments that:

“If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ himself was a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood.  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 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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83).

The bread and cup are not the participation in the body and blood but instruments of that participation, or as Hooker describes them ‘causes instrumental’.  In this sense the bread and cup can be described as his body and blood even though they are not the participation or communion of the body and blood.  Thus Hooker argues 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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 83-84).

The body and blood are therefore in the faithful communicant by means of a divine and mystical kind of union.  This is clearly an ecclesial interpretation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, whereby Christ is seen to be present with the faithful as they receive communion in the context of the eucharistic community of the church.  Therefore Hooker says:

“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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 84).

This is a crucial sentence emphasizing the presence of Christ in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.  For Hooker it could be argued that there is a sacramental principle and that it is one of the real presence of Christ in the worthy receiver.  It must be noted however, that Hooker does not deny that the real presence of Christ’s body and blood is ‘in’ the sacrament, rather he states that it is not to be sought for in the sacrament.  This sentence could imply that Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist is a receptionist doctrine, that is, a doctrine implying Christ’s body and blood is only present as the communicant receives the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  This means that Christ’s body and blood is not present before or after the reception but only during the act of receiving.  Receptionism, it should be noted, is not opposed to any idea of a real presence.  Crockett argues that: “ … ‘receptionism’ is a doctrine of the real presence, but a doctrine of the real presence that relates the presence primarily to the worthy receiver rather than to the elements of bread and wine.” (Crockett, 1989: 190).  There certainly seems to be an element of this doctrine in Hooker’s writing, since he emphasises the participation in Christ by the faithful communicant.  To deny receptionism in Hooker would be to misrepresent his theology (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 28).  Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist however, needs to be read in its broadest sense, taking into account all aspects of his writing, not just this one crucial sentence which speaks of not seeking Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament but rather in the worthy receiver.  McAdoo and Stevenson therefore argue that:

“ … to label him as receptionist pur sang would equally be a misrepresentation and a simplistic reading of his thought.  In fact, his concern is to draw together to one focal point the ‘givenness’ of the Gift and the faith which receives the Gift and that point is the personal relationship created through the sacrament between Christ and the faithful.” (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 28).

Hooker is really being quite judicious here in that he is attempting to address both the aspect of Gift and the aspect of faith.  For him it seems that there is both a ‘givenness’ of the gift and a need for faithful reception.  He says for example that, “in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80) and “This bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 92).  The first statement seems to indicate that the gift of God is given in the Eucharist.  The second suggests that there is a ‘givenness’ about this gift and that it is not solely dependent on the faith of the worthy receiver, and indeed apart from what is visible.  At the same time Hooker argues that participation in Christ in the Eucharist is dependent on the faith of the worthy receiver, for example saying, “ … through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 80).  Conjunction is therefore an important aspect of Hooker’s theology and philosophy where he is attempting to redress the disjunction in theology that was so much part of the tension between Anglicans and Puritans in his day.  While Hooker acknowledges the gift and its ‘givenness’ he also acknowledges the need for faithful reception.  A balance or conjunction between both aspects of the presence seems to be an integral part of what Hooker is saying about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.  To emphasise or to ignore one aspect, at the expense of the other, would be to misrepresent Hooker’s views on the eucharistic presence of Christ.

Indeed Hooker admits that he does not know whether Christ’s body and blood is in the sacrament.  He says:

“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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 84).

This is not a denial of the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but an admission that he does not know how it occurs.  In fact Hooker argues that seeking to establish whether the body and blood of Christ is in the sacrament is a vain trouble.  He says:

“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 first be contained in the sacrament, or the sacrament converted into them. ‘This is my body’, and ‘this is my blood’, being words of 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 the 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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 84-85).

What then, for Hooker is the matter of concern in the Eucharist?  He explains it as follows:

“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 is in his sacrificed body and blood, we freely fully and wholly have it in this sacrament; fourthly that the effect thereof 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 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 he giveth us shall by truly the thing he promiseth.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 85).

Herein seems to be a fuller indication of what Hooker perceives the bread and wine to be and to contain.  Whilst the body and blood of Christ is not to be sought for in the sacrament, nonetheless, God’s power gives the communicant the thing or gift (Christ’s body and blood) by means of the instrument of the bread and wine (the ‘causes instrumental’ as Hooker calls them).  The elements however, remain in their natural substances and are not changed into the fleshy presence of Christ’s body and blood.  How this happens Hooker is unable to explain, other than it is by God’s power. 

Hooker’s views here represent a significant development from many other earlier Anglican opinions on this matter.  Whereas others (e.g. Cranmer, Jewell, Becon, Grindal and Sandys) were definite in that Christ’s body and blood were not in the sacrament, only in the ministration and the participation, Hooker seems to argue, that the thing or gift of the sacrament is given to the communicant by means of the bread and wine, describing them as the ‘causes instrumental’ of the participation of Christ in the faithful communicant (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 89-90).  Indeed this view is part of a wider scheme advocated by Hooker who argues that the invisible power of God works in visible things.  He argues for example that:

“The power of the ministry of God translateth out of darkness into glory, it raiseth men from earth and bringeth God himself down from heaven, by blessing visible elements it maketh them invisible grace, it giveth daily the Holy Ghost, it hath to dispose of that flesh which was given for the life of the world and that blood which was poured out to redeem souls …” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 166).

This seems to be an expression of a sacramental principle based on realism, where the invisible grace of God is made present in visible elements, such as bread and wine, following the blessing of these visible elements.  This is a significant departure from the theology of the majority of the earlier Reformation writers.  As Dugmore observes, Hooker had in so saying broken with the virtualism of his predecessors (Dugmore, 1942: 19).  Hooker maintains the view that Christ is present in the faithful receiver, but balances this with the view that there is a ‘givenness’ of gift in the sacrament, whereby the visible elements of bread and wine are made the invisible grace of God.  Hooker’s view is one of realism, where by the blessing of visible elements they are made invisible grace and where the body and blood of Christ (the invisible grace) is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist (the visible elements), not in an immoderate and fleshy manner, but nonetheless instantiated in a real and mystical manner and as instrumentally the cause of the participation of Christ’s body and blood in the faithful.  The view expressed is that of moderate realism since Hooker denies any immoderate or fleshy sense of receiving Christ’s body and blood, citing the evidence in Scripture (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 86) and in the works of the Fathers (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 87-89).

In reaching this conclusion it is also important to remember that receptionism remains integral in Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist.  Whilst his theology is not totally subjectivist (in that the presence of Christ in the sacrament depends on the faith of the communicant), there is still an insistence that the presence of Christ’s body and blood is to be found in the faith of the worthy communicant.  The objectiveness of gift for Hooker seems to be related more to the reception of the elements than to the elements themselves.  McAdoo and Stevenson argue that Hooker is:

“ … endeavouring to repair what he sees as disjunction in theological formulations and stated opinions concerning the Gift offered in the mystery of the eucharist and the faith which responds to and apprehends the Gift.” (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 32).

Hooker’s theology of the Eucharist can therefore be considered to be a conjunction of a stress on faithful reception and on ‘givenness’ of gift, which he describes as instrumentality in regard to the elements. 

Hooker in considering the variety of meanings that can be attributed to the words, ‘this is my body’, argues that there are three interpretations.  He says:

“ … 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 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 sides 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.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 89-90).

Hooker seemingly disposes of the first two views, that of transubstantiation and consubstantiation and then expresses a third.  It is this third which has been suggested as his own view (Dugmore, 1942: 17).  The elements are ‘causes instrumental’ of the mystical participation of Christ in the Eucharist.  As Dugmore observes, “this is rather different from saying that they are seals as well as signs of the covenant of grace” (Dugmore, 1942: 17-18), as earlier Anglican theologians had affirmed. 

Hooker argues that inquiring too deeply into the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is without much purpose.  He therefore says:

“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 sharp-witted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will, the 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 the faithful communicant but this, ‘O my God thou art true, O my Soul thou art happy!” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 91-92).

Clearly Hooker believes that as he takes the elements they are the body and blood of Christ.  He admits that he knows not how this can be, but that he trusts the promise of Christ that they are.  His belief here is part of a wider belief in the presence of Christ in life and in the story of salvation.  Earlier in the Polity he argues that:

“ … inasmuch as Christ’s incarnation and passion can be available to no man’s good which is not made partaker of Christ, neither can we participate in him without his presence …” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: I, 615).

The realism that Hooker presents relates not only to the participation of the faithful in the body of Christ and of Christ in them (the ecclesial dimension), but also to the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist and the ‘givenness’ of gift in the Eucharist.  Dugmore argues that Hooker echoes the words of Cranmer when he speaks of the instrumental nature of the elements and their ‘efficacy, force, and virtue’, but that he then goes much further than Cranmer’s mature theology of the Eucharist would have ever admitted (Dugmore, 1942: 19).  Hooker admits that “this bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 92) but gives little clue to what this ‘more’ is.  As Crockett suggests, Hooker deliberately adopts a position of agnosticism on this issue because any doctrine of ‘real partaking’ clearly has a Scriptural warrant but a doctrine of the manner of the presence does not.  Various explanations of the manner of the presence do not therefore require universal agreement (Crockett, 1989: 177).  It has also been argued that Hooker’s views relating to the elements themselves are deliberately reserved since the Eucharist itself is such a mystery, and therefore reserve would be consistent with such a view (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 33).  Hooker’s words are nonetheless an admission of realism not only in relation to the ecclesial dimension of the Eucharist, but also in regard to the elements of the Eucharist as well.  What he remains agnostic about is the manner of the presence, even though he is certain about the reality of the presence, in the Eucharist, in the faithful receiver and in the elements of bread and wine.  Cranmer could never have said this in his Defence and Answer.  Cranmer speaks only of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the ministration of the sacrament and not in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  For Hooker, while Christ is present in the ministration and the partaking, there is also a ‘givenness’ of gift and instrumental cause in the Eucharist.  This makes his theology one that expresses a moderate realism, both in relation to the faithful receiver and the elements of bread and wine.

In no way does the realism Hooker expresses extend to any immoderate or fleshy presence, even though it does seem to admit to something beyond the substance of the bread and wine.  Rather Hooker expresses only a moderate form of realism, where he suggests that the nature of Christ is instantiated in the faithful as a eucharistic community and in the bread and wine as instruments of the grace and virtue of Christ.  Hooker stops short of saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, and of affirming a manner for the presence, even though he does make some realist concessions.

Hooker’s discussion of sacrifice and the Eucharist follows the same balanced and judicious path he uses when he speaks of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  He has a reluctance to accept sacrificial imagery in his discussion of the Eucharist in any sense other than the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the sacrifice of thanksgiving and the sacrifice of the people (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 92, 281-282), but his use of the notion of sacrifice is stronger than earlier Anglican theologians, such as Cranmer, because he has a more powerful notion of a eucharistic presence of Christ. (Stevenson, 1986: 157).  Indeed Hooker argues that the proper use of sacrificial language in the Eucharist has a metaphorical rather than a literal use (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: I, 387-388).  He also describes the Eucharist as “proportional to ancient sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 179).  Clearly he is rejecting any form of immoderate realism in relation to the eucharistic sacrifice since the Eucharist has properly no sacrifice in the present, but not the concept of sacrifice entirely. 

The method by which Hooker argues grace is received sheds further light on how he uses the notion of sacrifice in relation to the Eucharist.  When Hooker speaks of the way in which grace is given to people, he argues that this is by both imputation and infusion.  Cocksworth argues that:

“Hooker distinguished between an imputed participation, by which we are justified by the righteousness of Christ through faith, and an imparted righteousness through which our ‘souls and bodies are made more like him in glory’ (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 322).  Both involve a personal presence of Christ to the believer, but whereas the first is a state which is applied whole, the second involves an ‘infusion of grace’ (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 333) in degrees of intensity and by different means.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 39).

For Hooker, the Eucharist was one of these means by which grace is ‘infused’ or imparted to the faithful believer. 

The Reformation debates about whether grace was imputed or infused were still current.  The Catholic view was that grace was imparted by the sacraments in the present, while the Reformed view was that grace was imputed to the faithful by the past work of Christ on the cross.  In a remarkable passage Hooker says:

“Thus we participate in Christ partly by imputation, as when those things which he did and suffered for us are imputed to us for righteousness; partly by habitual and real infusion, as when grace is inwardly bestowed while we are on earth …” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: I, 629).

Hooker’s argument here is one of conjunction, with a careful use of both imputation and infusion, arguing on the one hand that Christ’s work on the cross in the past is a source of grace (imputation), and on the other that grace is inwardly bestowed in the present (infusion).  The implication of this statement for the sacraments is clear in the context of Book V of the Polity where he is discussing Baptism and the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is an activity of the church set in the present and not in the past.  The Eucharist is therefore not solely a looking back to a past and completed event, accessible only as a memory or memorial, but an active instrument of God in the present (on earth) where grace is infused and inwardly bestowed.  Hooker argues that:

“ … grace is a consequent of sacraments, a thing which accompanieth them as their end, a benefit which he that hath received from God himself the author of the sacraments, and not from any other natural or supernatural quality in them … This is therefore the necessity of sacraments.  That saving grace which Christ originally is or hath for the general good of his whole Church, by sacraments he severally deriveth into every member thereof.  Sacraments serve as the instruments of God to that end and purpose, moral instruments, the use whereof is in our hands, the effect is his; for the use we have his express commandment, for the effect his conditional promise: so that without our obedience to the one, there is of the other no apparent assurance, as contrariwise where the signs and sacraments of his grace are not either through contempt unreceived, or received with contempt, we are not to doubt but that they really give what they promise, and are what they signify.” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 3).

This would seem to indicate that the work of Christ on the cross is not only imputed to the faithful but infused in the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Christ’s saving grace originally imputed to the whole church on the cross, is now by sacraments ‘severally deriveth into every member thereof’.  There is no immoderate or fleshy infusion, but rather the grace of God known in the present through the sacraments, acting as the instruments of God.  It could be argued using another set of words, that the sacrifice of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist, whereby the effects and the grace of the past sacrifice are known in the present as the events of the past are recalled in the context of the Eucharist and the eucharistic community.  This is moderate realism.  In liturgical theology this is known as anamnesis.  Although Hooker does not use this term its meaning seems to be implied in what he says about the Eucharist, especially in his use of the term ‘participation’.  He says in relation to this term:

“ … sith we all agree that by the sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform his promise, … our participation of Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of his omnipotent power …” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 84-85).

The promises are performed in the sacraments in the present and the participation of Christ is in the sacrament in the present.  Cocksworth expresses this as he interprets Hooker in the following way:

“… the Eucharist has its part to play, for whereas Christ puts us right before God, the Sacrament goes on to create the righteousness of Christ in the moral, spiritual and bodily life of the individual as the believer is united more deeply and more really in the life of Christ by means of the elements through the activity of the Spirit.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 40).

Clearly Hooker wishes to maintain the Reformation heritage and yet he moves beyond what that heritage originally allowed.  Hooker is thus making a subtle, yet significant, break with the Reformed tradition.  “Although faith was still seen as the prerequisite for the Sacrament, and although the Sacrament was still not defined in causal terms per se, a higher emphasis was placed on the sacramental media as the means and instruments of God’s activity.” (Cocksworth, 1993: 40).  It is therefore concluded that Hooker’s views on sacrifice and the Eucharist are restrained but what is said is set in terms of moderate realism.

What then can be concluded about Hooker’s views on the Eucharist?  His views on the question of eucharistic presence seems to be much more defined than those relating to eucharistic sacrifice.  What he says in relation to both notions though is that they are set within the idea of ‘participation’ and ‘conjunction’.  It seems that what Hooker is saying is that by receiving the bread and wine, the faithful communicant is made one with Christ in a mysterious and ecclesial participation.  It also seems that there is some sense in which Hooker says that the nature of Christ (the ‘givenness’ of gift) is received, this nature being instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  This must be considered to be a form of moderate realism.  At the same time however, Hooker affirms that Christ’s physical body is present in heaven and therefore cannot be present in the elements (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: I, 613-614, 615-621; II, 86-87).  Despite this Hooker argues that because of the unity of Christ’s person, both human and divine, the human nature participates in the universal presence of the divine nature by ‘conjunction’.  This gives it a “presence of force and efficacy” and an infinite “possibility of application” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: I, 621).  This means that the substance of the body and blood of Christ are in heaven only, but on the earth people partake of its “force and efficacy” through “mystical participation” (Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, edn. Keble, 1865: II, 86-92).  There is no immoderate realist presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, as Hooker argues the case, but there is the possibility of an application of a presence and sacrifice of Christ in force and efficacy in what could be termed a moderate realist sense, by conjunction.  Such a conjunction seemingly rests on the infinite power of God.  This means that for Hooker it could be argued that the nature of Christ participates in or is instantiated in the Eucharist, both ecclesially and in the elements, by conjunction, both in terms of Christ’s presence and his sacrifice.