Riches from the Past
JANUARY 2026
Welcome back to Riches From The Past, a newsletter in which we explore a sample of a venerable Christian theologian or theological work from the Church’s 2000-year history. Today, we will be looking at Richard Hooker. Richard Hooker was an Anglican theologian and priest from the 16th century, and his work has a deep influence on Anglican theology today.
As a young man, Richard was taken under the wing of John Jewell, Bishop of Salisbury and himself an influential theologian in the Anglican tradition, who helped him secure admittance to Oxford to study theology. He would go on to be featured as a preacher at St. Paul’s Cross, one of the most prominent churches in England, where many sermons were recorded and reprinted for distribution. It was here that he would preach one of his most famous works: A Learned Discourse on Justification.
In A Learned Discourse on Justification, Hooker defends his assertion that he expected to see many of the forefathers of the Western Church in Heaven, despite their occasional lack of clarity on the doctrine of justification and their mistaken confidence in the virtues of penance (as opposed to repentance). For this view, he was accused of being too soft on his theological opponents. His response is a masterclass in theological triage, remaining clear-eyed about the need for truth in doctrine while also being pastoral about God’s mercy and grace.
AN EXCERPT OF A LEARNED DISCOURSE ON JUSTIFICATION
Howbeit, considering how many virtuous and just men, how many saints, how many martyrs, how many of the ancient fathers of the Church have had their sundry perilous opinions -- and among sundry of their opinions this, that they hoped to make God some part of amends for their sins by the voluntary punishments which they laid upon themselves: because by a consequent it may follow hereupon that they were injurious unto Christ, shall we therefore make such deadly epitaphs and set them upon their graves: “They denied the foundation of faith directly, they are damned, there is no salvation for them”? St. Augustine hath said, “Errare possum, haereticus esse nolo.” [I may be mistaken, but I have not the will to be heretical.]
And except we put a difference between them that err and them that obstinately persist in error, how is it possible that ever any man should hope to be saved? Surely, in this case, I have no respect of any person alive or dead. Give me a man, of what estate or condition soever, yea, a cardinal or a pope, whom at the extreme point of his life affliction hath made to know himself, whose heart God hath touched with true sorrow for all his sins, and filled with love toward the Gospel of Christ, whose eyes are opened to see the truth, and his mouth to renounce all heresy and error any way opposite thereunto, this one opinion of merits excepted, which he thinketh God will require at his hands, and because he wanteth, therefore trembleth and is discouraged: “It may be I am forgetful or unskilful, not furnished with things new and old, as a wise and learned scribe should be,” nor able to allege that whereunto, if it were alleged, he doth bear a mind most willing to yield, and so to be recalled as well from this as from other errors -- and shall I think, because of this only error, that such a man toucheth not so much as the hem of Christ’s garment? If he do, wherefore should not I have hope that virtue may proceed from Christ to save him?
Because his error doth by consequent overthrow his faith shall I therefore cast him off as one who hath utterly cast off Christ, one who holdeth not so much as by a slender thread? No, I will not be afraid to say unto a cardinal or to a pope in this plight, “Be of good comfort, we have to do with a merciful God, ready to make the best of that little which we hold well, and not with a captious sophister who gathereth the worst out of everything wherein we err.” Is there any reason that I should be suspected, or you offended, for this speech? Let all affection be laid aside; let the matter be indifferently considered. Is it a dangerous thing to imagine that such men may find mercy?
The hour may come when we shall think it a blessed thing to hear that if our sins were as the sins of the pope and cardinals, the heart of the mercy of God is larger. I do not propose unto you a pope with the neck of an emperor under his foot, a cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints, but a pope or a cardinal sorrowful, penitent, disrobed, stripped, not only of usurped power, but also delivered and recalled from error and Antichrist, converted and lying prostrate at the feet of Christ; and shall I think that Christ will spurn him? Shall I cross and gainsay the merciful promises of God generally made unto penitent sinners by opposing the name of a pope or a cardinal? What difference is there between a pope and cardinal, and a John a Style, in this case?
If we think it impossible for them, after they be once come within that rank, to be afterwards touched with any such remorse, let that be granted. The Apostle saith, “If I or an angel from heaven preach unto you,” etc. Let it be as likely that St. Paul or an angel from heaven should preach heresy as that a pope or a cardinal should be brought so far forth to acknowledge the truth; yet if a pope or a cardinal should, what could we find in their persons why they might not be saved? It is not their persons, you will say, but the error wherein I suppose them to die which excludeth them from hope of mercy: the opinion of merits doth take away all possibility of salvation from them.
What, although they hold it only as an error; although they hold the truth soundly and sincerely in all other parts of Christian faith; although they have in some measure all the virtues and graces of the Spirit, all other tokens of God’s elect children in them; although they be far from having any proud presumptuous opinion that they shall be saved for the worthiness of their deeds; although the only thing which troubleth and molesteth them be but a little too much dejection, somewhat too great a fear, rising from an erroneous conceit [conception] that God will require a worthiness in them which they are grieved to find wanting in themselves; although they be not obstinate in this persuasion; although they be willing and would be glad to forsake it, if any one reason were brought to disprove it; although the only let [hindrance] why they do not forsake it ere they die be the ignorance of the means whereby it might be disproved; although the cause why the ignorance in this point is not removed be the want of knowledge in such as should be able, and are not, to remove it?
Let me die if ever it be proved that simply an error doth exclude a pope or a cardinal, in such a case, utterly from hope of life. Surely, I must confess unto you, if it be an error to think that God may be merciful to save men even when they err, my greatest comfort is my error: were it not for the love I bear unto this error, I would neither wish to speak nor to live.
REFLECTION
While Hooker takes the error of Roman Catholicism regarding justification seriously, saying that it “overthroweth… faith,” his love for them as separated brethren is profoundly evident. He also makes an important point: salvation is not a theology test, and there’s a big difference between those who are accidentally mistaken and those who are obstinately mistaken. While true doctrine is important, God looks at the heart, and His mercy extends wide and far. He is merciful to receive even those who struggle to receive grace, as long as they truly come to Jesus despite their doubts. Isaiah 42:3 prophesies of Jesus that “a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench…” How gracious the Lord is! We would be so greatly helped in our theological disagreements if, side by side with a concern for Biblical faithfulness, we prayed to share Christ’s heart of mercy.