Successive Editions of the Life of Hooker. EDITOR'S PREFACE. 36 i PREFACE. THE first object of the present publication is, to exhibit the EDITOR'S remains of the great and venerable writer (all, unfortunately, more or less imperfect) in as correct a form as could be attained, by reference, throughout, to the original editions; and in some few cases, to MS. copies. 1. In respect of the Life of Hooker, by Walton-which has a sort of customary right to appear first in all collections of his remains, and a right, surely, which no one would wish to disturb, who can enter into the spirit either of the biographer, or of his subject-the reader will find some considerable variations from the copy which appears in most former editions: of which the following is the account. The life was first written at Archbishop Sheldon's suggestion to correct the errors of that by Bishop Gauden, which had come out in 1662. The first edition bears date 1665; the date of the Introduction is fixed to the year before, by the expression," I must "look back to his death, now sixty-four years past:" for Hooker died Nov. 2, 1600. In 1670, it was reprinted, together with the Lives of Donne, Wotton, and Herbert, and the collection was dedicated, as the separate life had been, to Walton's intimate friend (if he might not be called his patron) Bishop Morley. It was so popular as to reach a fourth edition in 1675 and from that, which was the last that had the author's corrections, the present reprint has been made. To the best of the Editor's knowledge, the copy of the Life prefixed to the editions of Hooker since 1666, was taken from Walton's first edition. For although there were at least two reprints of Hooker before Walton's death, one in 1676 and one in 1682, (he died Dec. 15, 1683,) the Life remained uncorrected and this circumstance not being observed by Dr. Zouch led him to select for his edition a text which undoubtedly Walton himself a ii Walton's general Correctness: Exception to it. EDITOR'S had discarded. PREFACE. Dr. Wordsworth in his Ecclesiastical Biography saw and corrected the mistake. It is remarkable that it should have escaped Strype's notice when he inserted his corrections and additions in the reprint of 1705. Some of the principal variations are set down in the notes to the present edition but without exact collation of the two texts. The general result, in the Editor's opinion, is favourable to Walton's veracity, industry, and judgment. The advantage he possessed was great in his connexion1 with the Cranmer family, Hooker's near neighbours and most intimate friends. Of this connexion Walton's biographers do not appear to have thought much, if it was at all observed by them; though it was this in all probability which gave the colouring to his whole future life, introducing him into societies and pursuits from which otherwise he seemed far removed. At the same time the Editor has no wish to deny, that which is apparent of itself to every reader-the peculiar fascination, if one may call it so, by which Walton was led unconsciously to communicate more or less of his own tone and character to all whom he undertook to represent. But this is like his custom of putting long speeches into their mouths: we see at once that it is his way, and it deceives no one. Perhaps the case of Hooker is that in which the biographer has on the whole produced the most incorrect impression of his subject. He seems to have judged rather from anecdotes which had come to his knowledge, than from the indications of temperament which Hooker's own writings afford. Otherwise he might perhaps have seen reason to add to his commendation of him for meekness and patience, that those qualities were by no means constitutional in him. Like Moses, to whom Walton compares him, he was by nature extremely sensitive, quick in feeling any sort of unfairness, and thoroughly aware of his own power to chastise it: so that his 1 This marriage of the Archbishop's great-niece with a simple London shopkeeper would seem to shew that Hooker's own marriage, however ill-assorted in other respects, would not be considered as disparaging to his station in society. The woman might be, as Antony Wood describes her, " clown"ish and silly," but in point of rank and education, according to the fashion of that time, there was no reason why she might not become the wife of a country clergyman, though of an old family, and nephew of a member of parliament. Churchman, her father, had been wealthy, and the family bore arms, as appears by the Hookers' pedigree. Fragments from Reynolds; Hooker's Change of Sentiment. iii PREFACE. forbearance (which those only can judge of, who have ac- EDITOR'S quainted themselves with the writings of his opponents) must have been the result of strong principle, and unwearied selfcontrol. Again, Walton or his informants appear to have considered him as almost childishly ignorant of human nature and of the ordinary business of life: whereas his writings throughout betray uncommon shrewdness and quickness of observation, and a vein of the keenest humour runs through them; the last quality we should look for, if we judged only by reading the Life. In these respects it may seem probable that if the biographer had been personally acquainted with his subject, the picture would have been somewhat modified in no others is there any reason, either from his writings or from contemporary evidence, to doubt the accuracy of his report. It will be observed that in the Notes and Appendix to the Life, some use has been made of the collections of Mr. Fulman, which are preserved in C. C. C. Library, to the number of twentytwo volumes; of which an account may be seen in Dr. Bliss's edition of the Athenæ Oxonienses, iv. 242: as also an account of the collector, who had been the alumnus and amanuensis of Hammond, and was the friend and literary adviser of Antony Wood. He was also acquainted with Walton, as appears from his Appendix to the Life of Hooker, p. 89. note 3: and from an indorsement in Fulman's hand, on some papers which will be found, vol. iii. p. 108, of this edition. All therefore that he knew about Hooker he had communicated to Walton, no doubt, before 1675: and therefore little or no direct additional information was to be expected, or occurs, in his papers. The chief use now made of them has been to extract a few passages relating to Reynolds, Hooker's tutor, and undoubtedly the leader of the moderate Puritanical party in the University at that time. A specimen of his tone and principles may be seen in the Further Appendix to the Life, No. ii: which letter, with all that we read of Reynolds, tends to put in a strong light his pupil Hooker's entire independence of thought, and the manner in which he worked his way towards other views than those in which he had been trained. For it may be observed that his uncle, John Hooker or Vowel, was rather a keen partisan, as he had been at one time an associate, of EDITOR'S Peter Martyr and others of the more uncompromising foreign PREFACE. Reformers: as his historical fragments, inserted in Holinshed, may shew. Hooker's connection again with Bishop Jewel; with Dr. Cole, President of C. C. C., who had been forced on the society by the Queen's government2; and with Cole's party in the College; were all things calculated, as far as they went, to give him a bias towards the extreme which was accounted most contrary to Romanism. And indeed the deep and sincere dread with which he regarded the errors and aggressions of Rome, is apparent in every part of his writings: and so much the more instructive will it prove, should we find him of his own accord embracing those catholic opinions and practices, which some in their zeal against popery may have too lightly parted with, but which Rome alone could not give, neither should we allow her indirectly to take them away. The others hortpieces, subjoined to the Life in this edition, are accounted for by notes as they severally occur. 2. If Hooker's works were arranged in the order of their composition, (a course which is so far preferable to any other, as it gives the completest view of the progress of the writer's own mind, and any modifications which his opinions may have undergone,) the Sermons relating to the controversy with Travers, 1585-6, would naturally come first in order. For that controversy not only preceded the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in order of time, but actually led to the first idea and undertaking of the great work 3. However, in the present publication, the precedent of all former ones has been respected: but it will be for future editors to consider whether they may not advantageously invert this order. The statement of Walton, that the dispute in the Temple led immediately to the design of Hooker's Treatise, is incidentally confirmed by a passage in the Sermon on Pride, which appears from internal evidence to have been a subsequent part of the same course, to which the discourses censured by Travers belonged. The passage occurs in a portion of the Sermon now for the first time printed. He is speaking of the difference between moral or natural, and positive or mutable law: "which 2 Strype, Parker, i. 528. 3 See Life, p. 65,66. 4 See vol. iii. p. 618. |