AND now having by a long and laborious search satisfied myself, and I hope my reader, by imparting to him the true relation of Mr. Hooker’s life: I am desirous also to acquaint him with some observations that relate to it, and which could not properly fall to be spoken till after his death; of which my reader may expect a brief and true account in the following Appendix.
And first it is not to be doubted, but that he died in the forty-seventh, if not in the forty-sixth year of his age; which I mention, because many have believed him to be more aged; but I have so examined it, as to be confident I mistake not; and for the year of his death, Mr. Camden, who, in his Annals of Queen Elizabeth, 1599, mentions him with a high commendation of his life and learning, declares him to die in the year 1599; and yet in that inscription of his monument set up at the charge of Sir William Cooper in Borne church, where Mr. Hooker was buried, his death is there said to be in anno 16031, but doubtless both mistaken; for I have it attested under the hand of William Somner the archbishop’s register for the province of Canterbury, that Richard Hooker’s will2 bears date Octob. 26th, in anno 1600, and that it was proved the third of December following3. And that at his death he left four daughters, Alice, Cicily, Jane, and Margaret; that he gave to each of them an hundred pound; that he left Joan his wife his sole executrix; and that by his inventory, his estate (a great part of it being in books) came to 1092l. 9s. 2d. which was much more than he thought himself worth; and which was not got by his care, much less by the good housewifery of his wife, but saved by his trusty servant Thomas Lane, that was wiser than his master in getting money for him, and more frugal than his mistress in keeping of it: of which will of Mr. Hooker’s I shall say no more, but that his dear friend Thomas, the father of George Cranmer, (of whom I have spoken, and shall have occasion to say more,) was one of the witnesses to it4.
One of his elder daughters was married to one Chalinor, sometime a schoolmaster in Chichester, and are both dead long since. Margaret his youngest daughter was married unto Ezekiel Chark5, bachelor in divinity, and rector of St. Nicholas in Harbledown near Canterbury, who died about sixteen years past, and had a son Ezekiel, now living, and in sacred orders, being at this time rector of Waldron in Sussex; she left also a daughter, with both whom I have spoken not many months past, and find her to be a widow in a condition that wants not, but very far from abounding; and these two attested unto me, that Richard Hooker their grandfather had a sister, by name Elizabeth Harvey, that lived to the age of 121 years, and died in the month of September, 16636.
For his other two daughters, I can learn little certainty, but have heard they both died before they were marriageable; and for his wife, she was so unlike Jephtha’s daughter, that she stayed not a comely time to bewail her widowhood; nor lived long enough to repent her second marriage, for which doubtless she would have found cause, if there had been but four months betwixt Mr. Hooker’s and her death. But she is dead, and let her other infirmities be buried with her.
Thus much briefly for his age, the year of his death, his estate, his wife, and his children. I am next to speak of his Books, concerning which I shall have a necessity of being longer, or shall neither do right to myself, or my reader, which is chiefly intended in this Appendix.
I have declared in his Life, that he proposed Eight Books, and that his first four were printed anno 1594, and his Fifth Book first printed, and alone, anno 1597, and that he lived to finish the remaining three of the proposed eight; but whether we have the last three as finisht by himself, is a just and material question; concerning which I do declare, that I have been told almost 40 years past, by one that very well knew Mr. Hooker, and the affairs of his family, that about a month after the death of Mr. Hooker, Bishop Whitgift, then Archbishop of Canterbury, sent one of his chaplains7 to inquire of Mrs. Hooker for the three remaining Books of Polity, writ by her husband; of which she would not, or could not give any account: and that about three months after that time the bishop procured her to be sent for to London, and then by his procurement she was to be examined, by some of her Majesty’s council, concerning the disposal of those Books; but by way of preparation for the next day’s examination, the bishop invited her to Lambeth; and, after some friendly questions, she confessed to him, “that one Mr. Charke, and another minister that dwelt near Canterbury, came to her, and desired that they might go into her husband’s study, and look upon some of his writings; and that there they two burnt and tore many of them, assuring her, that they were writings not fit to be seen; and that she knew nothing more concerning them.” Her lodging was then in Kingstreet in Westminster, where she was found next morning dead in her bed, and her new husband suspected and questioned for it; but he was declared innocent of her death.
And I declare also, that Dr. John Spencer, (mentioned in the Life of Mr. Hooker,) who was of Mr. Hooker’s college, and of his time there, and betwixt whom there was so friendly a friendship, that they continually advised together in all their studies, and particularly in what concerned these Books of Polity: this Dr. Spencer, the three perfect books being lost, had delivered into his hands (I think by Bishop Whitgift) the imperfect Books, or first rough draughts of them, to be made as perfect as they might be, by him, who both knew Mr. Hooker’s handwriting, and was best acquainted with his intentions8, And a fair testimony of this may appear by an Epistle first and usually printed before Mr. Hooker’s five Books (but omitted, I know not why, in the last impression of the eight printed together in anno 1662, in which the publishers seem to impose the three doubtful Books to be the undoubted Books of Mr. Hooker) with these two letters J. S. at the end of the said Epistle, which was meant for this John Spencer: in which Epistle the reader may find these very words, which may give some authority to what I have here written of his last three Books.
“And though Mr. Hooker hastened his own death by hastening to give life to his Books, yet he held out with his eyes to behold these Benjamins, these sons of his right hand, though to him they proved Benonies, sons of pain and sorrow9. But, some evil-disposed minds, whether of malice, or covetousness, or wicked blind zeal, it is uncertain, as soon as they were born, and their father dead, smothered them; and, by conveying the perfect copies, left unto us nothing but the old imperfect mangled draughts dismembered into pieces; no favour, no grace, not the shadow of themselves remaining in them. Had the father lived to behold them thus defaced, he might rightly have named them Benonies, the sons of sorrow; but being the learned will not suffer them to die and be buried, it is intended the world shall see them as they are: the learned will find in them some shadows of resemblances of their father’s face. God grant, that as they were with their brethren dedicated to the Church for messengers of peace; so, in the strength of that little breath of life that remaineth in them, they may prosper in their work, and by satisfying the doubts of such as are willing to learn, they may help to give an end to the calamities of these our Civil Wars!
And next the reader may note, that this epistle of Dr. Spencer’s was writ and first printed within four years after the death of Mr. Hooker, in which time all diligent search had been made for the perfect copies; and then granted not recoverable, and therefore endeavoured to be completed out of M. Hooker’s rough draughts, as is exprest by the said D. Spencer, since whose death it is now 50 years10.
And I do profess by the faith of a Christian, that Dr. Spencer’s wife (who was my aunt11, and sister to George Cranmer, of whom I have spoken) told me forty years since, in these, or in words to this purpose, “that her husband had made up, or finisht Mr. Hooker’s last three Books; and that upon her husband’s death-bed, or in his last sickness, he gave them into her hand, with a charge they should not be seen by any man, but be by her delivered into the hands of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, which was Dr. Abbot, or unto Dr. King then Bishop of London, and that she did as he enjoined her.”
I do conceive, that from D. Spencer’s, and no other copy, there have been divers transcripts, and I know that these were to be found in several places, as namely, Sir Thomas Bodlie’s library, in that of D. Andrews, late Bishop of Winton, in the late Lord Conway’s, in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s, and in the Bishop of Armagh’s, and in many others12; and most of these pretended to be the author’s own hand, but much disagreeing, being indeed altered and diminisht, as men have thought fittest to make Mr. Hooker’s judgment suit with their fancies, or give authority to their corrupt designs; and for proof of a part of this, take these following testimonies.
Dr. Barnard, sometime chaplain to Dr. Usher, late Lord Archbishop of Armagh, hath declared in a late book called Clavi Trabales, printed by Richard Hodgkinson, anno 166113, that in his search and examination of the said bishop’s manuscripts, he there found the three written Books, which were supposed the 6, 7, and 8, of Mr. Hooker’s Books of Ecclesiastical Polity; and, that in the said three Books (now printed as Mr. Hooker’s) there are so many omissions, that they amount to many paragraphs, and which cause many incoherencies; the omissions are by him set down at large in the said printed Book, to which I refer the reader for the whole; but think fit in this place to insert this following short part of some of the said omissions.
“First, as there could be in natural bodies no motion of any thing, unless there were some first which moved all things, and continued unmoveable; even so in politic societies there must be some unpunishable, or else no man shall suffer punishment; for such [sith] punishments proceed always from superiors, to whom the administration of justice belongeth, which administration must have necessarily a fountain that deriveth it to all others, and receiveth not from any, because otherwise the course of justice should go infinitely in a circle, every superior having his superior without end, which cannot be; therefore, a well-spring, it followeth, there is, a supreme head of justice whereunto all are subject, but itself in subjection to none. Which kind of preeminency if some ought to have in a kingdom, who but the king shall have it? Kings therefore, or no man, can have lawful power to judge14.
“If private men offend, there is the magistrate over them which judgeth; if magistrates, they have their prince; if princes, there is Heaven, a tribunal, before which they shall appear; on earth they are not accountable to any.” “Here,” says the doctor, “it breaks off abruptly15.”
And I have these words also attested under the hand of Mr. Fabian Philips, a man of note for his useful books. “I will make oath, if I shall be required, that Dr. Sanderson, the late Bishop of Lincoln, did a little before his death affirm to me, he had seen a manuscript affirmed to him to be the handwriting of Mr. Richard Hooker, in which there was no mention made of the king or supreme governors being accountable to the people16; this I will make oath, that that good man attested to me.
So that there appears to be both omissions and additions in the said last three printed Books; and this may probably be one reason why Dr. Sanderson, the said learned bishop (whose writings are so highly and justly valued) gave a strict charge near the time of his death, or in his last will, “that nothing of his, that was not already printed, should be printed after his death.”
It is well known how high a value our learned King James put upon the Books writ by Mr. Hooker, as also that our late King Charles (the martyr for the Church) valued them the second of all books, testified by his commending them to the reading of his son Charles, that now is our gracious king17; and you may suppose that this Charles the First was not a stranger to the pretended three Books, because in a discourse with the Lord Say, in the time of the long parliament, when the said lord required the king to grant the truth of his argument, because it was the judgment of Mr. Hooker, (quoting him in one of the three written Books,) the king replied, “they were not allowed to be Mr. Hooker’s books;” but, however, “he would allow them to be Mr. Hooker’s, and consent to what his lordship proposed to prove out of those doubtful Books, if he would but consent to the judgment of Mr. Hooker in the other five that were the undoubted Books of Mr. Hooker18.”
[In this relation concerning these three doubtful Books of Mr. Hooker’s, my purpose was to inquire, then set down what I observed and know, which I have done, not as an engaged person, but indifferently; and now, leave my reader to give sentence, for their legitimation, as to himself; but so, as to leave others the same liberty of believing or disbelieving them to be Mr. Hooker’s; and it is observable, that as Mr. Hooker advised with Dr. Spencer, in the design and manage of these books, so also, and chiefly with his dear pupil George Cranmer19, (whose sister was the wife of Dr. Spencer,) of which this following letter may be a testimony; and doth also give authority to some things mentioned both in this Appendix and in the Life of Mr. Hooker, and is therefore added20.
← Here Follows an Account, Given in by Mr. Hoo · Contents · The Copy of a Letter Writ to Mr. Izaak Walto →
Footnotes
-
[“The following is an accurate copy of the inscription on Hooker’s monument:“sunt meliora mihi.“richardus hooker exoniensis scholaris sociusq: collegii corp. xpi oxon. deinde londoniis templi interioris in sacris magister rectorq hujus eccliæ. scripsit viii libros politiæ ecclesiasticæ anglicanæ, quorum tres desiderantur. obiit an°. dom. mdciii. ætatis suæ l.“posuit hoc piissimo viro monumentum an°. dom. mdcxxxiii. gulielmus cowper armiger in chrito jesu quem genuit per evangelium. 1 Cor. iv. 15.” Dr. Zouch.] [By the kindness of the Rev. T. Hirst, Rector of Bishopsbourne, Dr. Zouch’s transcript, which has some inaccuracies, has been correctedfor this edition. 1886.] ↩
-
[Zouch’s Walton, I. 440. “The following is extracted from the Registry of the Archdeacon’s court of Canterbury. ‘In the name of God, Amen. This sixe and twentieth of October, in the yeare of our Lord one thousand and sixe hundred, I Richard Hooker of Bishopsborne, though sicke in bodye, yet sounde in minde, thankes be unto almightye God, doe ordaine and make this my last will and testament in manner and forme followinge. First, I bequeth my soule unto allmightye God my Creator, hopinge assuredly of my salvation purchased thorough the death of Christ Jesus, and my bodye to the earth to be buried at the discretion of mine executor. Item, I give and bequeth unto my daughter Alice Hooker one hundred pounds of lawfull Englishe money, to be paide unto her at the day of her marriage. Item, I give and bequeth unto my daughter Cicilye Hooker one hundred pounds of lawful Englishe moneye, to be paid unto her at the daye of her marriage. Item, I give and bequethe unto my daughter Jane Hooker one hundred pounds of lawful Englishe money, to be paid unto her at the day of her marriage. Item, I give unto my daughter Margaret Hooker one hundred pounds of lawful Englishe moneye, to be paid unto her at the day of her marriage. And if it shall happen any of my said daughters to departe this life before the day of their said marriage, then I will that her or their portion so dieinge, shall be equally divided among her or their sisters survivinge. Item, I give and bequeth unto the poor of the p’ishe of Barhā five pounds of lawful money, to be paid unto them by mine executor. Item, I give unto the poore of the p’ishe of Bishopesborne fiftye shillings of lawful Englishe money, to be paid unto them by mine executor. Item, I give and bequeth three pounds of lawful Englishe money towards the buildinge and makeing of a newe and sufficient pulpett in the p’ishe church of Bishopesborne. The residue of goods and chattells whatsoever unbequethed, my funeral, debts, and legacies, discharged and paid, I give unto Joane Hooker, my wel beloved wife, whom I ordaine and make sole executor of this my last will and testament. And I ordaine, and make my wel-beloved father, Mr. John Churchman, and my assured good frende, Mr. Edwin Sandes, my overseers. By me, Richard Hooker. Sealed and delivered in the presence of them, whose names are subscribed; Robert Rose, Daniel Nichols, Avery Cheston. Proved the third day of December, 1600, before the Rev. James Bissel, clerk, surr’ate to Rev. George Newman, Doctor of Laws, Commissary General of the city and diocese of Canterbury, by the oath of Joane Hooker, widow, the relict and executrix named in the said will, &c. Thos. Backhouse, Registrar. Inventory, 1092l. 9s. 2d. Ex. Wm. Cullen.’”The churches of Barham and Bishopsbourne are consolidated, and the former is the most populous part of the cure. Cranmer’s being then absent in Ireland will account for his not being named as “overseer.”] ↩
-
And the reader may take notice, that since I first writ this Appendix to the Life of Mr. Hooker, Mr. Fulman, of Corpus Christi college, hath shewed me a good authority for the very day and hour of Mr. Hooker’s death, in one of his Books of Polity, which had been Archbishop Laud’s. In which book, beside many considerable marginal notes of some passages of his time, under the bishop’s own hand, there is also written in the titlepage of that book (which now is Mr. Fulman’s) this attestation:“Ricardus Hooker vir summis doctrinæ dotibus ornatus, de Ecclesia præcipue Anglicana optime meritus, obiit Novemb. 2, circiter horam secundam postmeridianam. Anno 1600.” [Buried Nov. 4th. Bishopsbourne Register. 1886.] ↩
-
[He might be present when the will was made, and Walton might learn as much from his daughter. But (as will have been seen) he was not a witness, technically speaking.] ↩
-
[William Chark, of Peterhouse college, Cambridge, was one of the leaders of the Puritanical party in Hooker’s time: and was the first preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, appointed 1581. Strype, Ann. III. i. 79.] ↩
-
[Whom Fuller had conversed with: see before, p. 1, note 4.] ↩
-
[The following letter, from Bishop Andrewes to Dr. Parry, was first printed in the 8vo. edition of Hooker, Oxford 1793. “Salutem in Christo. “I CANNOT choose but write though you do not: I never failed since I last saw you, but dayly prayed for him till this very instant you sent this heavie news. I have hitherto prayed, Serva nobis hunc: now must I, Da nobis alium. Alas for our greate loss; and when I say ours, though I meane yours and myne, yet much more the common: with [which?] the less sense they have of so greate a damage, the more sad wee neede to bewayle them and ourselves, who knowe his workes and his worth to be such as behind him he hath not (that I knowe) left anie neere him. And whether I shall live to knowe anie neere him, I am in greate doubt, that I care not how manie and myself had redeemed his longer life to have done good in a better subject then he had in hand, though that were very good. Good brother, have a care to deal with his executrix or executor, or (him that is like to have a greate stroke in it) his father in lawe, that there be special care and regard for preserving such papers as he left, besides the three last books expected. By preserving I meane, that not only they be not embezelled, and come to nothing, but that they come not into greate hands, whoe will only have use of them quatenus et quousque, and suppresse the rest, or unhappily all: but rather into the hands of some of them that unfeinedly wished him well, though of the meaner sort; who may upon good assurance (very good assurance) be trusted with them; for it is pitie they should admit anie limitation. Doe this, and doe it mature: it had bin more then time long since to have bin about it, if I had sooner knowne it. If my word or letter would doe anie good to Mr. Churchman, it should not want. But what cannot yourself or Mr. Sandys doe therein? For Mr. Cranmer is away; happie in that he shall gaine a weeke or two before he knowe of it. Almightie God comfort us over him! whose taking away I trust I shall no longer live then with grief I remember; therefore with grief because with inward and most just honour I ever honoured him since Iknew him. “Your assured Poore loving friend, L. ANDREWES.” “At the Court, 7 Nov. 1600.” For some account of Dr. Parry, see p. 109, note 3. The Editor has not yet been able to meet with the above letter in the Bodleian library.] [“Copy, Rawl. MSS. D. 404. (112).” MS. note in Bodleian copy of ed. of 1793.] 1886. ↩
-
[See Bp. King’s letter to Walton, infra, p. 100; and the note there from H. Jackson, p. 103.] ↩
-
[Confirmed by Dr. Covel, in his Just and Temperate Defence of the Books of Ecclesiastical Policy, p. 149, 1603. “Concerning those three Books of his, which from his own mouth I am informed that they were finished, I know not in whose hands they are, nor whether the Church shall ever be bettered by so excellent a work.” ↩
-
[Dr. Spenser died Apr. 3, 1614. Wood, Ath. Oxon. II. 146, says, Several years before his death, he took extraordinary pains, together with a most judicious and complete divine, named R. Hooker, before mentioned, about the compiling of a learned and profitable work, which he published, (I mean some of the Books of Ecclesiastical Policy,) yet would not be moved to put his name to; and therefore it fell out, that ‘tulit alter honores.’ ” This statement is apparently taken from the Epistle Dedicatory, prefixed to “A learned and gracious sermon, preached at Paul’s Cross, by that famous and judicious divine, John Spenser, D. of Divinity, and late President of C. C. C. in Oxford. Published for the benefit of Christ’s Vineyard, by H. M. 1615.” H. M. was Hamlet Marshall, Spenser’s Curate. Athen. Oxon. II. 145. Mr. Marshall, however, does not name Hooker, nor his work. His words are, “When he had taken extraordinary pains, together with a most judicious and complete divine in our church, about the compiling of a learned and profitable work now extant, yet would he not be moved to put his hand to it, though he had a special hand in it: and therefore,” &c. These words are addressed to Bishop King, Spenser’s most intimate friend, and the patron of his wife and children; and Mr. Marshall states himself to have “lived under Spenser’s roof, having been his minister for the space of five years, penning and observing his precious meditations.” If therefore the passage really refer to Hooker, it must be taken as sufficient authority for the fact, otherwise probable enough, that Spenser gave so much help in the composition of Hooker’s great work, as to make his partial friends think he might almost be reckoned joint author of it. It is curious, that in the page just before, Mr. Marshall has appropriated, without acknowledgment, the remarkable passage, quoted by Walton from Spenser himself, supr. p. 66, and beginning, “What admirable height,” &c.: this passage Mr. Marshall has inserted as though it were his own, making it part of his panegyric on Dr. Spenser.] ↩
-
[See note 2, p. 4.] ↩
-
[Authority for this statement is to be found in the following notice, prefixed to the first edition of the 6th and 8th books, 1651 [1648. p. xxxiii]:“The several copies compared before publication.“The copy that is in Sir Tho. Bodley’s library in Oxford.“The copy that was in the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his library.“The copy that was in Dr. Andrews late Lord Bishop of Winchester his library.“Two copies in the hands of the Lord Archbishop of Armagh.“The copy in the hands of the Lord Viscount Conway.”In the titlepage the publication is described as a “work long expected, and now published according to the most authentic copies.” The following is subjoined:“To the Reader.“Here is presented unto thee, Two of the Three so long expected and much desired Books of learned Mr. Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Policy, viz. the Sixth and the Eighth, as they were preserved in the hands of those Mirrors of Learning, Dr. Andrews, late Lord Bishop of Winchester, and the present Dr. Usher, Lord Archbishop of Armagh, with great hopes the Seventh would have been recovered, that they might have been published to the world’s view at once: but endeavours used to that purpose have hitherto proved fruitless. And now fearing that some erroneous, if not counterfeit copies might come [are, 1648] abroad, hath occasioned the publishing of these, to prevent as much as may be any addition of abuses to the [abused, 1648] author; and also that he which so much desired the unity of the Church, might have the divided members of his labours united.”] ↩
-
[“Clavi Trabales, or, Nails fastened by some great masters of assemblies,” (alluding to Eccl. xii. 11,) “confirming the King’s supremacy, and church government under bishops. I. Two speeches of the late Lord Primate Usher’s: the one of the King’s supremacy, the other of the duty of subjects to supply the King’s necessities. II. His judgment and practice in point of loyalty, episcopacy, liturgy, and constitutions of the Church of England. III. Mr. Hooker’s judgment of the King’s power in matters of religion, advancement of bishops, &c. IV. Bishop Andrews of church-government, &c. both confirmed and enlarged by the said Primate. V. A letter of Dr. Hadrianus Saravia, of the like subjects. Unto which is added” (at p. 21,) “a sermon of regal power, and the novelty of the doctrine of resistance. Published by Nicholas Bernard, D.D. and rector of Whitchurch, in Shropshire.”In the author’s Preface is the following passage, after some account of Numbers I. and II. “Hereunto two other treatises have been thought fit to be added, (mentioned in the foresaid vindication, but then not intended to be published,) which the eminent primate had a hand in. The one, Mr. Hooker’s Judgment, &c. left out of the common copies, enlarged and confirmed by the primate, all the marginal notes of the quotations out of the fathers, being under his own hand, are noted with this mark*. The other,” &c.Bishop Sanderson, in his Preface to the Reader, which follows, bears strong testimony to the good faith of this publication. “We hold ourselves religiously obliged to use all faithfulness and sincerity in the publishing of other men’s works; by suffering every author to speak his own sense in his own words, nor taking the boldness to change a phrase or syllable therein, at least not without giving the reader both notice where, and some good account also why, we have so done. Such faithfulness and ingenuity the learned publisher of these treatises professeth himself to have used, in setting them forth neither better nor worse, but just as he found them in the reverend primate’s papers, some perfect and some imperfect, according as they were, and still are, in the copies which are in his custody, and which he is ready upon all occasions to shew if need shall require.” Then, speaking of Bishop Andrews’s treatise, he says, “Whatever defects it may have for want of the author’s last hand thereunto, the publisher in order to the public good, thought fit to join it with the rest in this edition, especially the learned primate having had it under his file, as by the notes and other additions written with the primate’s own hand, (which I have seen and can testify,) doth plainly appear. The same also is to be said of the three pieces of the renowned Hooker, and of what is written with the same hand in the margent of the MS. copy; whereof some account is given p. 47.” It should be p. 49, where Dr. Bernard states, “I have found among the primate’s papers a MS. containing Mr. Hooker’s judgment of these three things: 1. Of regal power in ecclesiastical affairs. 2. Of the King’s power in the advancement of bishops unto the rooms of prelacy. 3. Of the King’s exemption from censures and other judicial power. All which (as the primate notes with his own hand) are not found in the common copies of Mr. Hooker’s MS., (though by what art, and upon what design, so much was expunged, I know not,) only thus far the primate hath joined his testimony with Mr. Hooker in these, (which seem to be the true,) that he hath corrected and perfected the copy throughout with his own hand: and not only found out the several quotations, and put them down in the margent, but added many of his own, with some other large annotations, by which his zeal for the defence of regal power is the more evident.”The above extracts contain all that Dr. Bernard has stated on this subject in the Clavi Trabales. They hardly amount to a declaration, that he had himself found the three written Books among the archbishop’s MSS. It seems rather as if he had found a copy, made by or for the archbishop, (and that an unfinished one,) of certain portions of the treatise. The marginal notes appear to imply as much: of some paragraphs, Ussher having remarked that they are, of others, that they are not, “wanting, in the common Books of Mr. Hooker’s MS.” E. g. p. 65, of Cl. Trab. compared with p. 73.] ↩
-
[The right reading is, “Kings therefore no man can have lawful power and authority to judge:” and so it appears in Clavi Trabales.] ↩
-
[Clavi Trabales, p. 94.] ↩
-
[It is hardly necessary to observe, that this attestation implies the MS. to have professedly contained the eighth Book of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. The passage referred to may be that, in which Hooker explains at large his idea of the original dependency of kings, as of other supreme governors, on the whole body of the nation. But he is elsewhere very careful in distinguishing between this original theoretical dependency, and their being practically accountable afterwards. It is conceivable, therefore, that Bishop Sanderson may have referred not to the printed or to any particular copy, but to a current notion of what the MSS. contained: although Walton, by his inferring hence that there are “additions in the last three printed books,” evidently understood the bishop otherwise. Sanderson had probably seen the copy in the possession of his friend Dr. Barlow, now in the library of Queen’s college: and not improbably that also, which Dr. Bernard used for his Clavi Trabales. See his (Sanderson’s) preface to that work, as quoted above. Of F. Philips, see Wood, A. O. Fasti, 5.] ↩
-
[See note 1, p. 73.] ↩
-
[Dugdale, Short View of the late Troubles, p. 39.] ↩
-
[See also the notes on the sixth Book.] ↩
-
[The letter, relating wholly to the matter of Hooker’s argument, and not at all to the events of his life, will be inserted in the present edition by way of Appendix to the fifth Book.] ↩