« PreviousContinue »
Account of “A Discovery of the Causes," &c.
However, the hope thus occasioned of recovering, not only an additional copy of the eighth book, but also a MS. of the seventh, has unfortunately proved vain. After the most exact inquiry, none such appear to exist in the Dublin library. Whether therefore the copy of the eighth used by Bernard was the same with that indicated in the above paragraph, must remain doubtful : it may however be added, that the facts to a certain extent tally with the statement, made on the appearance of the first edition, that “ two copies in the “ hands of the Lord Archbishop of Armagh had been com“ pared before publication."
11. There is one short paper more, which may by possibility have relation to this eighth book, as the conclusion of the whole work : and which the reader will therefore find inserted in the Appendix, No. ii. It was put out at Oxford, 1641, by Leonard Lichfield, printer to the University; with the title : “ A Discovery of the Causes of these Contentions
touching Church Government, out of the Fragments of “ Richard Hooker.” It stood as preamble to a Collection of Tracts or Extracts, by Andrewes, Ussher, Reynolds, and others; the general drift of the publication being to recommend a sort of compromise in Church government, of the kind to which Ussher is believed to have been favourable. The immediate occasion in all likelihood was the discussions which led to the University Remonstrance for the Church, presented to parliament 35, Apr. 27, 1641. Ussher was at that time in Oxford or in London, having come to England for refuge from the troubles in Ireland : and it seems nearly certain that he sanctioned this publication ; although his biographer 36 do not directly assert it. But in Trinity college library (D. 3. 3.) is a MS. copy of this paper, which Dr. Cotton has collated with the printed text; adding to his collation the following statement. “ The above is in “ the handwriting of some person unknown. The marginal “ references to Scripture are in Ussher's hand, as likewise
Reasons for doubting the Genuineness of that Paper. xli
are several slight corrections in the text. It is highly EDITOR'S probable that this is the very MS. from which the printed copy was taken : more especially as at p. 5. line 22. (of the
printed copy) Ussher has added a sidenote to the printer; “' A larger space betwizn these;' which has been followed : “ the space left there being wider than between any other “two paragraphs of the tract.” This seems decisive as to the fact, that Ussher originally edited the collection in question. Of course he must have believed this fragment to be really Hooker's. If such were the case, it may have been a sketch for a conclusion to the whole eight books: in accordance perhaps with the plan which Cranmer in the last paragraph of his letter recommended. The use of the second person (“ye are not ignorant,” p. 4; “ you do hear and “ read,” p. 6) would seem to indicate that the conclusion was meant to be addressed, as the Preface had been, by way of expostulation, to the seekers of reform. But in truth the internal evidence is not strongly in favour of the genuineness of this piece. In substance it has nothing to recall so great a name, and there is a kind of point in its turns and transitions, ingenious enough, but in nowise characteristic of Hooker. The remark on Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and his proceedings against Arius, is little in harmony with Hooker's known approbation of the policy of Archbishop Whitgift, and with his tone and manner, where in the fifth book he has to speak of the very same part of history. No doubt the paper was found in Hooker's study, but if it was not found in his own handwriting, its authorship may well be doubted of. Still, in deference to Archbishop Ussher, it was judged right to insert it in this edition.
12. The reader has now before him an account of the materials, by the aid whereof it has been endeavoured to present this immortal but yet imperfect work, in a form somewhat more accurate, and more inviting to common readers, than it has hitherto worn. On the history of the MSS. since nothing distinct is told us, it is in vain to speculate much: but there are one or two obvious conjectures, which it may be right just to mention, if only for the chance of giving hints, which (it is barely possible) may lead to more successful researches in the same or in other quarters.
xlii Eighth Book : Conjectural History of the received Text :
It will be remembered that the first person who appeared as taking interest, at least as feeling alarm, concerning the Hooker papers, was Bishop Andrewes in his letter to Parry. It seems not unlikely, that in course of transmission from Hooker's study through Lambeth to Dr. Spenser, some of them, or transcripts from them, may have lingered in Andrewes's hands. One sermon we know was found in his study, and published for the first time by Walton long after ; and it seems on the whole not to be doubted, that if any one was allowed to take copies of the rough draught of the missing books at that time, Andrewes would have been anxious to do
Accordingly we find that among the copies stated to have been compared before the first publication, one had been in his possession: and we are afterwards given to understand that either the sixth or the eighth book, or both, were actually printed from a copy preserved in his hands, of which copy afterwards Ussher had obtained the custody. For that Ussher had in some way access to Andrewes's papers, the publication by him of the Summary View of Church Government out of Andrewes's rude draughts, 1641, may evince beyond all question. Not that Ussher was then the actual edi
for he would not of course call himself, as he is called in the Address to the Reader, “ a Mirror of Learning ;” but that he permitted the books to be printed from his MSS. And thus we seem to have arrived at a tolerable ground for considering the received text as so far guaranteed to us by Andrewes and by Ussher.
This publication took place in 1651 : when of course the Primate as yet knew nothing of the far more correct and enlarged copy now existing in Dublin : of which however there can be no doubt that it was at some time in his possession. He died in 1656: therefore this MS. must have fallen into his hands within those five years: a time during which, as he found by unpleasant experience, the treasures of retired students were not unfrequently wandering about for sale, having formed part of the spoil of the civil war in various quarters. Now in the course of the war, as before mentioned, one of the libraries which had suffered in this way was that of Henry Jackson, the rector of Meysey-Hampton, and original editor, under Spenser, of Hooker's remains. It is possible, there
Conjecture as to the History of the Dublin MS.
fore, that a MS. from Jackson's library might fall into Ussher's EDITORES hands. But is there any ground for imagining that such a MS. as the amended copy of the eighth book existed there? There is just ground enough, the Editor apprehends, for a plausible conjecture, and no more. The conjecture is this: that when Jackson delivered up the papers after Spenser's death into the custody of Bishop King, he may have retained the completer copy of the last book, (which he represents in a fragment preserved by Fulman as being absolutely " restored “ to life” by him,) and that he may have handed over to the executors only the rough draught, from which, in course of time, so many transcripts have been made. His own expressions shew that he was precisely in the frame of mind which would make a person likely to take such a step: and perhaps it must be owned that the temptation was not inconsiderable. He writes in December, 1612, “ Puto Præsidem nostrum “emissurum sub suo nomine D. Hookeri librum octavum, a
me plane vitæ restitutum. Tulit alter honores.” And in April, 1614, Spenser dies, and the MSS. are reclaimed. Is it doing Jackson any great injustice to suppose that in his pique he retained his more finished copy : being, as Antony Wood says, “ of a cynical” as well as “of a studious temper?” And if he did, the mode has already been pointed out, how that copy or a transcript of it might fall into Ussher's hands; and consequently might come to be deposited in the library of Trinity College, when the remains of the Primate's books and MSS. were lodged there after the restoration. This, it is repeated, is no more than conjecture : but such as it is, it may give a possible explanation of the great superiority of that single copy; leading us to suppose, that it is either Jackson's own, or one taken from his.
As to the seventh book, if it ever existed (as it certainly appears to have done) among Ussher's MSS. he must clearly have acquired it within the last five years of his life : but where it could have been preserved, we have no means of ascertaining. This only is evident; that it formed no part of the collection of Bishop Andrewes. It might have been in Lambeth, where at that time Ussher would hardly have found access: or it might have formed part of Jackson's store, as was just now conjectured with regard to the eighth book. In
xliv Account of the Sermons on Assurance and Justification: EDITOR'S any case, to prove it genuine, we must come back to internal
13. The few remaining Opuscula of Hooker may be arranged in two classes : the first comprising the Sermons on Habakkuk, and the controversy with Travers which arose out of some of them; the other, what may be called Miscellaneous Sermons. In the present edition, the order in which they stand has been a little changed, with a view to this arrangement. First in the first class is placed the Sermon on the Certainty and Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect: which appears, both from the mention of it by Travers and Hooker in their dispute, and from the order of the texts, to have preceded the famous discourse on Justification ; itself being preceded by one on Predestination, which has not come down to
This sermon on Assurance was originally published by Jackson, under Spenser's guidance, in 1612. The Editor regrets that he has not been able to procure a copy of that date: but the inconvenience is the less, as this and other of the sermons, regarding which he labours under the same disadvantage, viz. those on St. Jude and that on Pride, were reprinted with the whole of Hooker's works then extant, in 1622, by William Stansby, a London bookseller, apparently under the superintendance of Jackson himself. So Wood expressly affirms; and the preface with Stansby's initials subscribed is not unlike Jackson's manner of writing. To the edition of 1622, therefore, in default of an earlier one, recourse has been had for correcting the present impression.
Next comes the famous discourse on Justification, the curiosity excited by which at the time of its delivery is so vividly described by Walton and Fuller : and when it was published, so many years afterwards, we learn by a fragment of a letter of Jackson's, that the first impression was exhausted in a few days 34 “ Edidi ante paucos dies tractatus quosdam “D. Richardi Hookeri, qui omnium applausu (excipio Puri“tanos ut vocant) ita excepti sunt, ut necesse jam sit typo
grapho nostro novam editionem parare, quæ prima illa “ emendatior, mea cura, Deo volente, proditura est.” Accord
34 Ap. Fulm. x. 86. The letter is dated Sept. 1612. The Tracts were
at first published with Wickliffe's Wicket.