To Sir Francis Knolles 1 .

“I am sorry, right honourable, that I am enforced to make unto you such a suit, the which, I cannot move it, but I must complain of the unrighteous dealing of one of our college; who hath taken upon him, against all law and reason, to expel out of our house both me and Mr. Hooker, and three other of our fellows, for doing that which by oath we were bound to do. Our matter must be heard before the Bishop of Winchester¹, with whom I do not doubt but we shall find equity. Howbeit, forasmuch as some of our adversaries have said, that the bishop is already forestalled, and will not give us such audience as we do look for; therefore I am humbly to beseech your honour, that you will desire the bishop by your letters to let us have justice; though it be with rigour, so it be justice: our cause is so good, that I am sure we shall prevail by it. Thus much I am bold to request of your honour for Corpus Christi college sake, or rather for Christ’s sake; whom I beseech to bless you with daily increase of His manifold gifts, and the blessed graces of His Holy Spirit.

This expulsion was by Dr. John Barfoote², then vice-president of the college, and chaplain to Ambrose earl of Warwick. I cannot learn the pretended cause; but, that they were restored the same month is most certain.

I return to Mr. Hooker in his college, where he continued his studies in all quietness for the space of three years³; about which time, he entered into sacred orders, being then made Deacon and Priest; and, not long after, was appointed to preach at St. Paul’s Cross⁴.

In order to which sermon, to London he came, and immediately to the Shunammite’s house; (which is a house so called, for that, besides the stipend paid the preacher, there is provision made also for his lodging and diet for two days before, and one day after his sermon.) This house was then kept by John Churchman, sometime a draper of good note in Watling-street, upon whom poverty had at last come like an armed man, and brought him into a necessitous condition: which, though it be a punishment, is not always an argument of God’s disfavour, for he was a virtuous man: I shall not yet give the like testimony of his wife, but leave the reader to judge by what follows. But to this house Mr. Hooker came so wet, so weary, and weatherbeaten, that he was never known to express more passion, than against a friend that dissuaded him from footing it to London, and for finding him no easier an horse; supposing the horse trotted, when he did not: and at this time also, such a faintness and fear possest him, that he would not be persuaded two days’ rest and quietness, or any other means could be used to make him able to preach his Sunday’s sermon; but a warm bed, and rest, and drink, proper for a cold, given him by Mrs. Churchman, and her diligent attendance added unto it, enabled him to perform the office of the day, which was in or about the year 1581.

And in this first public appearance to the world, he was not so happy as to be free from exceptions against a point of doctrine delivered in his sermon, which was “That in God there were two wills; an antecedent, and a consequent will: his first will, that all mankind should be saved; but his second will was, that those only should be saved, that did live answerable to that degree of grace which he had offered, or afforded them⁵.” This seemed to cross a late opinion of Mr. Calvin’s, and then taken for granted by many that had not a capacity to examine it, as it had been by him before, and hath been since by Master Henry Mason⁶, Dr. Jackson⁷, Dr. Hammond⁸, and others of great learning, who believed that a contrary opinion entrenches upon the honour and justice of our merciful God. How he justified this, I will not undertake to declare: but it was not excepted against (as Mr. Hooker declares in his rational answer to Mr. Travers) by John Elmer⁹, then Bishop of London, at this time one of his auditors, and at last one of his advocates too, when Mr. Hooker was accused for it¹⁰.

But the justifying of this doctrine did not prove of so bad consequence, as the kindness of Mrs. Churchman’s curing him of his late distemper and cold; for that was so gratefully¹¹ apprehended by Mr. Hooker, that he thought himself bound in conscience to believe all that she said: so that the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he was a man of a tender constitution;” and “that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such an one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such an one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” And he not considering that “the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light;” but, like a true Nathanael, fearing no guile, because he meant none, did give her such a power as Eleazar was trusted with, (you may read it in the book of Genesis,) when he was sent to choose a wife for Isaac; for, even so he trusted her to choose for him, promising upon a fair summons to return to London, and accept of her choice; and he did so in that or about the year following. Now the wife provided for him, was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s, which is by Solomon compared to “a dripping house¹²:” so that the good man had no reason to “rejoice in the wife of his youth,” but too just cause to say with the holy Prophet, “Wo is me, that I am constrained to have my habitation in the tents of Kedar!”

This choice of Mr. Hooker’s (if it were his choice) may be wondered at; but let us consider that the prophet Ezekiel says, “There is a wheel within a wheel;” a secret sacred wheel of Providence (most visible in marriages), guided by his hand, that “allows not the race to the swift,” nor “bread to the wise,” nor good wives to good men: and he that can bring good out of evil (for mortals are blind to this reason) only knows why this blessing was denied to patient Job, to meek Moses¹³, and to our as meek and patient Mr. Hooker. But so it was; and let the reader cease to wonder, for “affliction is a divine diet;” which, though it be not pleasing to mankind, yet Almighty God hath often, very often imposed it as good, though bitter physick to those children whose souls are dearest to him.

And by this marriage the good man was drawn from the tranquillity of his college¹⁴; from that garden of piety, of pleasure, of peace, and a sweet conversation, into the thorny wilderness of a busy world; into those corroding cares that attend a married priest, and a country parsonage; which was Draiton Beauchamp in Buckinghamshire (not far from Ailesbury, and in the diocese of Lincoln); to which he was presented by John Cheny, esq. then patron of it, the 9th of December 1584, where he behaved himself so as to give no occasion of evil, but (as St. Paul adviseth a minister of God) “in much patience, in afflictions, in anguishes, in necessities; in poverty, and no doubt in long-suffering;” yet troubling no man with his discontents and wants.

And in this condition he continued about a year, in which time his two pupils, Edwin Sandys and George Cranmer¹⁵, took a journey to see their tutor; where they found him with a book in his hand (it was the Odes of Horace), he being then, like humble and innocent Abel, tending his small allotment of sheep in a common field, which he told his pupils he was forced to do then, for that his servant was gone home to dine, and assist his wife to do some necessary household business. When his servant returned and released him, then his two pupils attended him unto his house, where their best entertainment was his quiet company, which was presently denied them; for “Richard was called to rock the cradle¹⁶;” and the rest of their welcome was so like this, that they stayed but till the next morning, which was time enough to discover and pity their tutor’s condition; and they having in that time rejoiced in the remembrance, and then paraphrased on many of the innocent recreations of their younger days, and other like diversions, and thereby given him as much present comfort as they were able, they were forced to leave him to the company of his wife Joan, and seek themselves a quieter lodging for next night. But at their parting from him, Mr. Cranmer said, “Good tutor, I am sorry your lot is fallen in no better ground as to your parsonage: and more sorry that your wife proves not a more comfortable companion after you have wearied yourself in your restless studies.” To whom the good man replied, “My dear George, if saints have usually a double share in the miseries of this life, I that am none, ought not to repine at what my wise Creator hath appointed for me, but labour (as indeed I do daily) to submit mine to his will, and possess my soul in patience and peace.”

At their return to London, Edwin Sandys acquaints his father¹⁷, who was then Archbishop of York, with his tutor’s sad condition, and solicits for his removal to some benefice that might give him a more quiet and a more comfortable subsistence; which his father did most willingly grant him, when it should next fall into his power. And not long after this time, which was in the year 1585¹⁸, Mr. Alvie (Master of the Temple) died, who was a man of a strict life, of great learning, and of so venerable behaviour, as to gain so high a degree of love and reverence from all men, that he was generally known by the name of Father Alvie. And at the Temple reading, next after the death of this Father Alvie, he the said Archbishop of York being then at dinner with the judges, the reader and benchers of that society, met with a general condolement for the death of Father Alvie, and with a high commendation of his saint-like life, and of his great merit both towards God and man; and as they bewailed his death, so they wished for a like pattern of virtue and learning to succeed him. And here came in a fair occasion for the bishop to commend Mr. Hooker to Father Alvie’s place, which he did with so effectual an earnestness, and that seconded with so many other testimonies of his worth, that Mr. Hooker was sent for from Draiton Beauchamp to London, and there the mastership of the Temple proposed unto him by the bishop, as a greater freedom from his country cares, the advantage of a better society, and a more liberal pension than his country parsonage did afford him. But these reasons were not powerful enough to incline him to a willing acceptance of it: his wish was rather to gain a better country living, where he might “see God’s blessing spring out of the earth, and be free from noise” (so he exprest the desire of his heart), “and eat that bread which he might more properly call his own in privacy and quietness.” But, notwithstanding this averseness, he was at last persuaded to accept of the bishop’s proposal; and was by patent for life made Master of the Temple the 17th of March, 1585¹⁹, he being then in the thirty-fourth year of his age.

²⁰[But before any mention was made of Mr. Hooker for this place, two other divines were nominated to succeed Alvey; whereof Mr. Walter Travers, a disciplinarian in his judgment and practice, and preacher here in the afternoons, was chief, and recommended by Alvey himself on his deathbed, to be master after him: and no marvel, for Alvey’s and Travers’s principles did somewhat correspond. And many gentlemen of the house desired him; which desire the lord treasurer Burghley was privy to, and by their request, and his own inclination towards him, being a good preacher, he moved the queen to allow of him; for the disposal of the place was in her. But Archbishop Whitgift knew the man, and his hot temper and principles, from the time he was fellow in Trinity college, and had observed his steps ever after: he knew how turbulently he had carried himself at the college, how he had disowned the English established church and episcopacy, and went to Geneva, and afterwards to Antwerp, to be ordained minister, as he was by Villers²¹ and Cartwright and others, the heads of a congregation there; and so came back again more confirmed for the discipline. And knowing how much the doctrine and converse of the master to be placed here would influence the gentlemen, and their influence and authority prevail in all parts of the realm, where their habitations and estates were, that careful prelate made it his endeavour to stop Travers’ coming in; and had a learned man in his view, and of principles more conformable and agreeable to the church, namely one Dr. Bond, the queen’s chaplain, and one well known to her. She well understanding the importance of this place, and knowing by the archbishop what Travers was, by a letter he timely writ to her majesty upon the vacancy, gave particular order to the treasurer to discourse with the archbishop about it.

The lord treasurer, hereupon, in a letter, consulted with the said archbishop, and mentioned Travers to him as one desired by many of the house. But the archbishop in his answer, plainly signified to his lordship that he judged him altogether unfit, for the reasons mentioned before; and that he had recommended to the queen Dr. Bond as a very fit person. But however she declined him, fearing his bodily strength to perform the duty of the place, as she did Travers for other causes. And by laying both aside, she avoided giving disgust to either of those great men. This Dr. Bond seems to be that Dr. Nicholas Bond that afterwards was President of Magdalen college, Oxon, and was much abused by Martin Mar-prelate.

These particulars I have collected from a letter of the archbishop to the queen, and other letters that passed between the archbishop and the lord treasurer about this affair, while the mastership was vacant. The passages whereof, taken verbatim out of their said letters, may deserve here to be specified for the satisfaction of the readers.

And first, in the month of August, upon the death of the former master, the archbishop wrote this letter unto the queen:

“It may please your majesty to be advertised, that the mastership of the Temple is vacant by the death of Mr. Alvey. The living is not great, yet doth it require a learned, discreet, and wise man, in respect of the company there: who being well directed and taught may do much good elsewhere in the commonwealth, as otherwise also they may do much harm. And because I hear there is a suit made unto your highness for one Mr. Travers, I thought it my duty to signify unto your majesty, that the said Travers hath been and is one of the chief and principal authors of dissension in this church, a contemner of the book of Prayers, and of other orders by authority established; an earnest seeker of innovation; and either in no degree of the ministry at all, or else ordered beyond the seas; not according to the form in this church of England used. Whose placing in that room, especially by your majesty, would greatly animate the rest of that faction, and do very much harm in sundry respects.

“Your majesty hath a chaplain of your own, Dr. Bond, a man in my opinion very fit for that office, and willing also to take pains therein, if it shall please your highness to bestow it upon him. Which I refer to your most gracious disposition; beseeching Almighty God long to bless, prosper, and preserve your majesty to his glory, and all our comforts.

“Your majesty’s most faithful servant and chaplain,

Next, in a letter of the archbishop to the lord treasurer, dated from Lambeth, Sept. 14, 1584, he hath these words:

“I beseech your lordship to help such an one to the mastership of the Temple, as is known to be conformable to the laws and orders established; and a defender not a depraver of the present state and government. He that now readeth there is nothing less, as I of mine own knowledge and experience can testify. Dr. Bond is desirous of it, and I know not a fitter man.”

The lord treasurer in a letter to the archbishop, dated from Oatlands (where the queen now was), Sept. 17, 1584, thus wrote:—

“The queen hath asked me what I thought of Travers to be master of the Temple. Whereunto I answered, that at the request of Dr. Alvey in his sickness, and a number of honest gentlemen of the Temple, I had yielded my allowance of him to the place, so as he would shew himself conformable to the orders of the church. Whereunto I was informed, that he would so be. But her majesty told me, that your grace did not so allow of him. Which I said might be for some things supposed to be written by him in a book intituled, De Disciplina Ecclesiastica. Whereupon her majesty commanded me to write to your grace to know your opinion, which I pray your grace to signify unto her, as God shall move you. Surely it were great pity that any impediment should be occasion to the contrary; for he is well learned, very honest, and well allowed and loved of the generality of that house. Mr. Bond told me, that your grace liked well of him; and so do I also, as one well learned and honest; but, as I told him, if he came not to the place with some applause of the company, he shall be weary thereof. And yet I commended him unto her majesty, if Travers should not have it. But her majesty thinks him not fit for that place, because of his infirmities. Thus wishing your grace assistance of God’s Spirit to govern your charge unblameably,

Part of the archbishop’s letter in answer to this was to this tenor:

“Mr. Travers, whom your lordship names in your letter, is to no man better known, I think, than to myself. I did elect him fellow of Trinity college, being before rejected by Dr. Beaumont for his intolerable stomach: whereof I had also afterwards such experience, that I was forced by due punishment so to weary him, till he was fain to travel, and depart from the college to Geneva, otherwise he should have been expelled for want of conformity towards the orders of the house, and for his pertinacy. Neither was there ever any under our government, in whom I found less submission and humility than in him. Nevertheless if time and years have now altered that disposition (which I cannot believe, seeing yet no token thereof, but rather the contrary), I will be as ready to do him good as any friend he hath. Otherwise I cannot in duty but do my endeavour to keep him from that place, where he may do so much harm, and do little or no good at all. For howsoever some commend him to your lordship and others, yet I think that the greater and better number of both the Temples have not so good an opinion of him. Sure I am that divers grave, and of the best affected of them, have shewed their misliking of him to me; not only out of respect of his disorderliness, in the manner of the communion, and contempt of the prayers, but also of his negligence in reading. Whose lectures, by their report, are so barren of matter, that his hearers take no commodity thereby.

“The book De Disciplina Ecclesiastica, by common opinion, hath been reputed of his penning, since the first publishing of it. And by divers arguments I am moved to make no doubt thereof. The drift of which book is wholly against the state and government. Wherein also, among other things, he condemneth the taking and paying of first fruits, tenths, &c.²² And therefore, unless he will testify his conformity by subscription, as all others do, which now enter into ecclesiastical livings, and make proof unto me that he is a minister ordered according to the laws of this church of England, as I verily believe he is not, because he forsook his place in the college upon that account; I can by no means yield my consent to the placing, him there, or elsewhere, in any function of this church.”]

And here I shall make a stop; and, that the reader may the better judge of what follows, give him a character of the times, and temper of the people of this nation, when Mr. Hooker had his admission into this place: a place which he accepted, rather than desired: and yet here he promised himself a virtuous quietness, that blessed tranquillity which he always prayed and laboured for; that so he might in peace bring forth the fruits of peace, and glorify God by uninterrupted prayers and praises: for this he always thirsted and prayed: but Almighty God did not grant it: for his admission into this place was the very beginning of those oppositions and anxieties, which till then this good man was a stranger to; and of which the reader may guess by what follows.

In this character of the times, I shall, by the reader’s favour, and for his information, look so far back as to the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth; a time, in which the many pretended titles to the crown, the frequent treasons, the doubts of her successor, the late civil war, and the sharp persecution for religion that raged to the effusion of so much blood in the reign of Queen Mary, were fresh in the memory of all men; and begot fears in the most pious and wisest of this nation, lest the like days should return again to them, or their present posterity. And the apprehension of these dangers begot a hearty desire of a settlement in the church and state; believing, there was no other probable way left to make them sit quietly under their own vines and fig-trees, and enjoy the desired fruit of their labours. But time, and peace, and plenty, begot self-ends; and these begot animosities, envy, opposition, and unthankfulness for those very blessings for which they lately thirsted, being then the very utmost of their desires, and even beyond their hopes.

This was the temper of the times in the beginning of her reign²³: and thus it continued too long: for those very people that had enjoyed the desires of their hearts in a reformation from the church of Rome, became at last so like the grave, as never to be satisfied, but were still thirsting for more and more: neglecting to pay that obedience, and perform those vows which they made in their days of adversities and fear: so that in short time there appeared three several interests, each of them fearless and restless in the prosecution of their designs; they may for distinction be called, the active Romanists, the restless Nonconformists (of which there were many sorts), and, the passive peaceable Protestant. The counsels of the first considered and resolved on in Rome: the second in Scotland, in Geneva, and in divers selected, secret, dangerous conventicles, both there, and within the bosom of our own nation: the third pleaded and defended their cause by establisht laws, both ecclesiastical and civil; and, if they were active, it was to prevent the other two from destroying what was by those known laws happily establisht to them and their posterity.

I shall forbear to mention the very many and dangerous plots of the Romanists against the church and state; because what is principally intended in this digression, is an account of the opinions and activity of the Nonconformists; against whose judgment and practice, Mr. Hooker became at last, but most unwillingly, to be engaged in a book-war; a war which he maintained not as against an enemy, but with the spirit of meekness and reason.

In which number of Nonconformists, though some might be sincere, well meaning men, whose indiscreet zeal might be so like charity, as thereby to cover a multitude of their errors; yet, of this party, there were many that were possest with a high degree of “spiritual wickedness;” I mean, with an innate restless pride and malice. I do not mean the visible carnal sins of gluttony and drunkenness, and the like, (from which good Lord deliver us,) but sins of a higher nature, because they are more unlike God, who is the God of love and mercy, and order, and peace; and more like the Devil, who is not a glutton, nor can be drunk, and yet is a devil; but I mean those spiritual wickednesses of malice and revenge, and an opposition to government: men that joyed to be the authors of misery, which is properly his work, that is the enemy and disturber of mankind; and thereby greater sinners than the glutton or drunkard, though some will not believe it. And of this party, there were also many, whom prejudice and a furious zeal had so blinded, as to make them neither to hear reason, nor adhere to the ways of peace: men, that were the very dregs and pest of mankind: men whom pride and self-conceit had made to overvalue their own pitiful, crooked wisdom so much, as not to be ashamed to hold foolish and unmannerly disputes against those men whom they ought to reverence, and those laws which they ought to obey; men that laboured and joyed first to find out the faults, and then to “speak evil of government,” and to be the authors of confusion: men, whom company, and conversation, and custom had at last so blinded, and made so insensible that these were sins, that, like those that “perisht in the gainsaying of Core,” so these died without repenting of these “spiritual wickednesses,” of which the practices of Coppinger and Hacket²⁴ in their lives, and the death of them and their adherents, are God knows too sad examples; and ought to be cautions to those men that are inclined to the like “spiritual wickednesses.”

And in these times which tended thus to confusion, there were also many of these scruplemongers that pretended a tenderness of conscience, refusing to take an oath before a lawful magistrate²⁵: and yet these very men, in their secret conventicles, did covenant²⁶ and swear to each other, to be assiduous and faithful in using their best endeavours to set up the presbyterian doctrine and discipline; and both in such a manner as they themselves had not yet agreed on²⁷, but, up that government must. To which end there were many that wandered up and down, and were active in sowing discontents and sedition, by venomous and secret murmurings, and a dispersion of scurrilous pamphlets and libels against the church and state; but especially against the bishops; by which means, together with venomous and indiscreet sermons, the common people became so fanatic, as to believe the bishops to be Antichrist, and the only obstructors of God’s Discipline; and at last some of them were given over to so bloody a zeal, and such other desperate delusions, as to find out a text in the Revelation of St. John, that “Antichrist was to be overcome by the sword.” So that those very men²⁸, who began with tender and meek petitions²⁹, proceeded to admonitions³⁰, then to satirical remonstrances³¹, and at last having like Absalom³² numbered who was not, and who was, for their cause, they got a supposed certainty of so great a party, that they durst threaten first the bishops, and then the Queen and parliament³³; to all which they were secretly encouraged by the earl of Leicester, then in great favour with her majesty, and the reputed cherisher and patron-general of these pretenders to tenderness of conscience; his design being, by their means, to bring such an odium upon the bishops, as to procure an alienation of their lands, and a large proportion of them for himself; which avaricious desire had at last so blinded his reason, that his ambitious and greedy hopes seemed to put him into a present possession of Lambeth-house³⁴.

And to these undertakings the Nonconformists of this nation were much encouraged and heightened by a correspondence and confederacy with that brotherhood in Scotland³⁵; so that here they became so bold, that one³⁶ told the Queen openly in a sermon, “She was like an untamed heifer, that would not be ruled by God’s people, but obstructed his discipline.” And in Scotland they were more confident, for there they declared her an Atheist³⁷, and grew to such a height as not to be accountable for any thing spoken against her; nor for treason against their own king, if it were but spoken in the pulpit³⁸; shewing at last such a disobedience to him, that his mother being in England, and then in distress, and in prison, and in danger of death, the church denied the King their prayers for her³⁹; and at another time, when he had appointed a day of feasting, their church declared for a general fast in opposition to his authority⁴⁰.

To this height they were grown in both nations; and by these means there was distilled into the minds of the common people such other venomous and turbulent principles, as were inconsistent with the safety of the church and state: and these opinions vented so daringly, that, beside the loss of life and limbs⁴¹, the governors of the church and state were forced to use such other severities, as will not admit of an excuse, if it had not been to prevent the gangrene of confusion, and the perilous consequences of it; which, without such prevention, would have been first confusion, and then ruin and misery to this numerous nation.

These errors and animosities were so remarkable, that they begot wonder in an ingenious Italian, who being about this time come newly into this nation, writ scoffingly to a friend in his own country, to this purpose, “That the common people of England were wiser than the wisest of his nation; for here the very women and shopkeepers were able to judge of predestination, and determine what laws were fit to be made concerning church-government; and then, what were fit to be obeyed or abolisht: That they were more able (or at least thought so) to raise and determine perplext cases of conscience, than the wisest of the most learned colleges in Italy: That men of the slightest learning, and the most ignorant of the common people, were mad for a new, or super, or re-reformation of religion; and that in this they appeared like that man, who would never cease to whet and whet his knife, till there was no steel left to inake it useful.” And he concluded his letter with this observation, “That those very men that were most busy in oppositions, and disputations, and controversies, and finding out the faults of their governors, had usually the least of Humility and Mortification, or of the power of Godliness.”

And to heighten all these discontents and dangers, there was also sprung up a generation of godless men; men that had so long given way to their own lusts and delusions, and so highly opposed the blessed motions of his Spirit, and the inward light of their own consciences, that they became the very slaves of vice, and had thereby sinned themselves into a belief of that which they would, but could not believe; into a belief which is repugnant even to human nature (for the heathens believe that there are many gods), but these had sinned themselves into a belief, that there was no God; and so, finding nothing in themselves but what was worse than nothing, began to wish what they were not able to hope for, namely, “that they might be like the beasts that perish;” and in wicked company (which is the atheist’s sanctuary) were so bold as to say so, though the worst of mankind, when he is left alone at midnight, may wish, but is not then able to think it; even into a belief that there is no God. Into this wretched, this reprobate condition, many had then sinned themselves⁴².

And now when the church was pestered with them, and with all those other forenamed irregularities; when her lands were in danger of alienation, her power at least neglected, and her peace torn to pieces by several schisms, and such heresies as do usually attend that sin, for heresies do usually outlive their first authors; when the common people seemed ambitious of doing those very things that were forbidden and attended with most dangers, that thereby they might be punished, and then applauded and pitied; when they called the spirit of opposition a tender conscience, and complained of persecution, because they wanted power to persecute others; when the giddy multitude raged, and became restless to find out misery for themselves and others; and the rabble would herd themselves together, and endeavour to govern and act in spite of authority: in this extremity of fear, and danger of the church and state, when, to suppress the growing evils of both, they needed a man of prudence and piety, and of an high and fearless fortitude; they were blest in all by John Whitgift his being made Archbishop of Canterbury; of whom Sir Henry Wotton that knew him well in his youth, and had studied him in his age, gives this true character: “that he was a man of reverend and sacred memory; and of the primitive temper; a man of such a temper, as when the Church by lowliness of spirit did flourish in highest examples of virtue⁴³.” And indeed this man proved so.

And though I dare not undertake to add to this excellent and true character of Sir Henry Wotton; yet, I shall neither do right to this discourse, nor to my reader, if I forbear to give him a further and short account of the life and manners of this excellent man; and it shall be short, for I long to end this digression, that I may lead my reader back to Mr. Hooker, where we left him at the Temple.

John Whitgift was born in the county of Lincoln, of a family that was ancient, and noted to be both prudent and affable, and gentle by nature; he was educated in Cambridge; much of his learning was acquired in Pembroke-hall, (where Mr. Bradford the martyr was his tutor); from thence he was removed to Peter-house; from thence to be Master of Pembroke-hall; and from thence to the Mastership of Trinity college: about which time the Queen made him her chaplain; and not long after, Prebend of Ely⁴⁴, and then Dean of Lincoln; and having for many years past looked upon him with much reverence and favour, gave him a fair testimony of both, by giving him the bishopric of Worcester, and (which was not with her a usual favour⁴⁵) forgiving him his first-fruits; then by constituting him Vice-president of the principality of Wales. And having experimented his wisdom, his justice, and moderation in the menage of her affairs, in both these places; she in the twenty-sixth of her reign made him Archbishop of Canterbury, and not long after of her privy council; and trusted him to manage all her ecclesiastical affairs and preferments. In all which removes, he was like the ark, which left a blessing upon the place where it rested⁴⁶; and in all his employments was like Jehoiada, that did good unto Israel⁴⁷.

These were the steps of this bishop’s ascension to this place of dignity and cares; in which place (to speak Mr. Camden’s very words in his Annals of Queen Elizabeth⁴⁸) “he devoutly consecrated both his whole life to God, and his painful labours to the good of his church.” And yet, in this place he met with many oppositions in the regulation of church-affairs, which were much disordered at his entrance, by reason of the age and remissness of Bishop Grindal⁴⁹, his immediate predecessor, the activity of the Nonconformists, and their chief assistant the Earl of Leicester; and indeed, by too many others of the like sacrilegious principles. With these he was to encounter; and though he wanted neither courage nor a good cause, yet he foresaw, that without a great measure of the Queen’s favour, it was impossible to stand in the breach that had been lately made into the lands and immunities of the Church, or indeed to maintain the remaining lands and rights of it. And therefore by justifiable sacred insinuations, such as St. Paul to Agrippa, (“Agrippa, believest thou? I know thou believest,”) he wrought himself into so great a degree of favour with her, as, by his pious use of it, hath got both of them a great degree of fame in this world, and of glory in that into which they are now both entered.

His merits to the Queen, and her favours to him, were such, that she called him her little black husband, and called his servants her servants⁵⁰: and she saw so visible and blessed a sincerity shine in all his cares and endeavours for the Church’s and for her good, that she was supposed to trust him with the very secrets of her soul, and to make him her confessor: of which she gave many fair testimonies; and of which one was, that “she would never eat flesh in Lent without obtaining a license from her little black husband;” and would often say, “she pitied him because she trusted him, and had thereby eased herself, by laying the burden of all her clergy-cares upon his shoulders, which he managed with prudence and piety.”

I shall not keep myself within the promised rules of brevity in this account of his interest with her majesty, and his care of the Church’s rights, if in this digression I should enlarge to particulars; and therefore my desire is, that one example may serve for a testimony of both. And, that the reader may the better understand it, he may take notice, that not many years before his being made archbishop, there passed an act or acts of parliament⁵¹, intending the better preservation of the church-lands, by recalling a power which was vested in others to sell or lease them, by lodging and trusting the future care and protection of them only in the crown: and amongst many that made a bad use of this power or trust of the Queen’s, the Earl of Leicester was one⁵²; and the bishop having, by his interest with her majesty, put a stop to the earl’s sacrilegious designs, they two fell to an open opposition before her; after which, they both quitted the room, not friends in appearance: but the bishop made a sudden and a seasonable return to her majesty, (for he found her alone,) and spake to her with great humility and reverence, to this purpose:

“I beseech your majesty to hear me with patience, and to believe that your’s and the Church’s safety are dearer to me than my life, but my conscience dearer than both: and therefore give me leave to do my duty, and tell you, that princes are deputed nursing fathers of the Church, and owe it a protection; and therefore God forbid that you should be so much as passive in her ruins, when you may prevent it; or that I should behold it without horror and detestation; or should forbear to tell your majesty of the sin and danger of sacrilege. And though you and myself were born in an age of frailties, when the primitive piety and care of the Church’s lands and immunities are much decayed; yet, madam, let me beg that you would first consider that there are such sins as profaneness and sacrilege; and that, if there were not, they could not have names in Holy Writ, and particularly in the New Testament. And I beseech you to consider, that though our Saviour said, ‘He judged no man;’ and to testify it, would not judge nor divide the inheritance betwixt the two brethren, nor would judge the woman taken in adultery; yet in this point of the Church’s rights he was so zealous, that he made himself both the accuser and the judge, and the executioner too, to punish these sins; witnessed, in that he himself made the whip to drive the profaners out of the temple, overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and drove them out of it. And I beseech you to consider, that it was St. Paul that said to those Christians of his time that were offended with idolatry, yet committed sacrilege, ‘Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?’ supposing, (I think,) sacrilege the greater sin. This may occasion your majesty to consider that there is such a sin as sacrilege; and to incline you to prevent the curse that will follow it, I beseech you also to consider, that Constantine the first Christian emperor, and Helena his mother⁵³, that King Edgar⁵⁴, and Edward the Confessor⁵⁵, and indeed many others of your predecessors, and many private Christians, have also given to God, and to his Church, much land, and many immunities, which they might have given to those of their own families, and did not; but gave them for ever as an absolute right and sacrifice to God: and with these immunities and lands, they have entailed a curse upon the alienators of them⁵⁶; God prevent your majesty from being liable to that curse, which will cleave unto church-lands, as the leprosy to the Jews.

“And, to make you that are trusted with their preservation, the better to understand the danger of it, I beseech you forget not, that to prevent these curses, the Church’s land and power have been also endeavoured to be preserved (as far as human reason, and the law of this nation, have been able to preserve them) by an immediate and most sacred obligation on the consciences of the princes of this realm. For they that consult Magna Charta⁵⁷ shall find, that as all your predecessors were at their coronation, so you also were sworn before all the nobility and bishops then present, and in the presence of God, and in his stead to him that anointed you, ‘to maintain the church-lands, and the rights belonging to it;’ and this you yourself have testified openly to God at the holy altar, by laying your hands on the Bible then lying upon it. And not only Magna Charta, but many modern statutes have denounced a curse upon those that break Magna Charta: a curse like the leprosy, that was entailed on the Jews⁵⁸; for as that, so these curses have and will cleave to the very stones of those buildings that have been consecrated to God; and the father’s sin of sacrilege hath and will prove to be entailed on his son and family. And now, madam, what account can be given for the breach of this oath at the last great day, either by your majesty, or by me, if it be wilfully, or but negligently violated, I know not.

“And therefore, good madam, let not the late lord’s exceptions against the failings of some few clergymen prevail with you to punish posterity for the errors of this present age; let particular men suffer for their particular errors, but let God and his Church have their inheritance: and though I pretend not to prophecy, yet I beg posterity to take notice of what is already become visible in many families; that church-land added to an ancient and just inheritance, hath proved like a moth fretting a garment, and secretly consumed both; or like the eagle that stole a coal from the altar, and thereby set her nest on fire, which consumed both her young eagles and herself that stole it⁵⁹.

“And, though I shall forbear to speak reproachfully of your father; yet I beg you to take notice, that a part of the Church’s rights, added to the vast treasure left him by his father, hath been conceived to bring an unavoidable consumption upon both, notwithstanding all his diligence to preserve them. And consider that after the violation of those laws, to which he had sworn in Magna Charta, God did so far deny him his restraining grace, that as king Saul after he was forsaken of God fell from one sin to another; so he, till at last he fell into greater sins than I am willing to mention. Madam, religion is the foundation and cement of human societies: and when they that serve at God’s altar shall be exposed to poverty, then religion itself will be exposed to scorn, and become contemptible; as you may already observe it to be in too many poor vicarages in this nation. And therefore, as you are by a late act or acts of parliament entrusted with a great power to preserve or waste the Church’s lands; yet dispose of them for Jesus’ sake, as you have promised to men, and vowed to God; that is, as the donors intended; let neither falsehood nor flattery beguile you to do otherwise: but put a stop to God’s and the Levite’s portion, I beseech you, and to the approaching ruins of His Church, as you expect comfort at the last great day; for, Kings must be judged. Pardon this affectionate plainness, my most dear sovereign, and let me beg to be still continued in your favour, and the Lord still continue you in his.”

The Queen’s patient hearing this affectionate speech, and her future care to preserve the Church’s rights, which till then had been neglected, may appear a fair testimony, that he made her’s and the Church’s good the chiefest of his cares, and that she also thought so. And of this there were such daily testimonies given, as begat betwixt them so mutual a joy and confidence, that they seemed born to believe and do good to each other: she not doubting his piety to be more than all his opposers, which were many; nor doubting his prudence to be equal to the chiefest of her council, who were then as remarkable for active wisdom, as those dangerous times did require, or this nation did ever enjoy. And in this condition he continued twenty years⁶⁰, in which time he saw some flowings, but many more ebbings of her favour towards all men that had opposed him, especially the Earl of Leicester: so that God seemed still to keep him in her favour, that he might preserve the remaining church-lands and immunities from sacrilegious alienations. And this good man deserved all the honour and power with which she gratified and trusted him; for he was a pious man, and naturally of noble and grateful principles: he eased her of all her church cares by his wise menage of them; he gave her faithful and prudent counsels in all the extremities and dangers of her temporal affairs, which were very many; he lived to be the chief comfort of her life in her declining age, and to be then most frequently with her, and her assistant at her private devotions; he lived to be the greatest comfort of her soul upon her death-bed, to be present at the expiration of her last breath, and to behold the closing of those eyes that had long looked upon him with reverence and affection. And let this also be added, that he was the chief mourner at her sad funeral; nor let this be forgotten, that within a few hours after her death, he was the happy proclaimer, that King James (her peaceful successor) was heir to the crown.

Let me beg of my reader, that he allow me to say a little, and but a little, more of this good bishop, and I shall then presently lead him back to Mr. Hooker; and, because I would hasten, I will mention but one part of the bishop’s charity and humility; but this of both⁶¹: he built a large almshouse near to his own palace at Croyden in Surrey, and endowed it with maintenance for a master and twenty-eight poor men and women; which he visited so often, that he knew their names and dispositions; and was so truly humble, that he called them Brothers and Sisters: and whensoever the Queen descended to that lowliness to dine with him at his palace in Lambeth, (which was very often,) he would usually the next day shew the like lowliness to his poor brothers and sisters at Croyden, and dine with them at his hospital; at which time, you may believe, there was joy at the table. And at this place he built also a fair free-school, with a good accommodation and maintenance for the master and scholars; which gave just occasion for Boyse Sisi⁶², then ambassador for the French king, and resident here, at the bishop’s death, to say, “The bishop had published many learned books; but a free-school to train up youth, and an hospital to lodge and maintain aged and poor people, were the best evidences of Christian learning that a bishop could leave to posterity.” This good bishop lived to see King James settled in peace, and then fell into an extreme sickness at his palace in Lambeth⁶³; of which when the King had notice, he went presently to visit him, and found him in his bed in a declining condition, and very weak; and after some short discourse betwixt them, the King at his departure assured him, “He had a great affection for him, and a very high value for his prudence and virtues, and would endeavour to beg his life of God for the good of his Church.” To which the good bishop replied, Pro ecclesia Dei, Pro ecclesia Dei: which were the last words he ever spake; therein testifying, that as in his life, so at his death, his chiefest care was of God’s Church.

This John Whitgift was made archbishop in the year 1583. In which busy place he continued twenty years and some months; and in which time, you may believe, he had many trials of his courage and patience; but his motto was, Vincit qui patitur: and he made it good.

Many of his many trials were occasioned by the then powerful Earl of Leicester, who did still (but secretly) raise and cherish a faction of Nonconformists to oppose him; especially one Thomas Cartwright, a man of noted learning; some time contemporary with the bishop in Cambridge, and of the same college, of which the bishop had been master: in which place there began some emulations, (the particulars I forbear⁶⁴,) and at last, open and high oppositions betwixt them; and in which you may believe Mr. Cartwright was most faulty, if his expulsion out of the university can incline you to it.

And in this discontent⁶⁵ after the earl’s death (which was 1588,) Mr. Cartwright appeared a chief cherisher of a party that were for the Geneva church-government; and, to effect it, he ran himself into many dangers both of liberty and life; appearing at the last to justify himself and his party in many remonstrances, which he caused to be printed, and to which the bishop made a first answer, and Cartwright replied upon him: and then the bishop having rejoined to his first reply, Mr. Cartwright either was, or was persuaded to be, satisfied: for he wrote no more⁶⁶, but left the reader to be judge which had maintained their cause with most charity and reason. After some silence, Mr. Cartwright received from the bishop many personal favours, and betook himself to a more private living, which was at Warwick, where he was made master of an hospital, and lived quietly, and grew rich⁶⁷; and where the bishop gave him a license to preach, upon promise not to meddle with controversies, but incline his hearers to piety and moderation: and this promise he kept during his life, which ended 1602, the bishop surviving him but some few months, each ending his days in perfect charity with the other.

[It is true, the archbishop treated Cartwright with such civility as gained much upon him, and made him declare unto his patron, the Earl of Leicester, how much the archbishop’s humane carriage had endeared him to him; and withal shewed his desire that he might have liberty sometimes to have access to him; professing that he would seek to persuade all with whom he had concern and converse, to keep up an union with the church of England. This, I say, is certain; but it is not so certain, that the archbishop gave Cartwright a license to preach. It appears, that in the year 1585 he refused to grant it him, however solicited by Leicester’s own letter to do it; and notwithstanding Cartwright’s promises, he required more space of time to be satisfied of his conformity. For the elucidation whereof, and some further light into this matter, let both these letters be read and considered; the former of the earl to the archbishop; the latter of the archbishop to the earl.

“I most heartily thank you for your favourable and courteous usage of Mr. Cartwright, who hath so exceeding kindly taken it also, as, I assure your Grace, he cannot speak enough of it. I trust it shall do a great deal of good. And he protesteth and professeth to me, to take no other course, but to the drawing of all men to the unity of the Church: and that your Grace hath so dealt with him, as no man shall so command him, and dispose of him, as you shall: and doth mean to let this opinion publicly be known, even in the pulpit, (if your Grace so permit him,) what he himself will, and would all others should do, for obedience to the laws established. And if any little scruple be, it is not great, and easy to be reformed by your Grace; whom I do most heartily entreat to continue your favour and countenance towards him, with such access sometimes as your leisure may permit. For I perceive he doth much desire and crave it, &c. Thus, my good lord, praying to God to bless his Church, and to make his servants constant and faithful, I bid your Grace farewell.

To which letter the archbishop returned this answer:

“Mr. Cartwright shall be welcome to me at all times, and using himself quietly, as becomes him, and as I hope he will, he shall find me willing to do him any good: but to grant unto him, as yet, my license to preach, without longer trial, I cannot; especially seeing he protesteth himself to be of the same mind he was at the writing of his book, for the matter thereof, though not for the manner; myself also, I thank God, not altered in any point by me set down to the contrary; and knowing many things [in his book] to be very dangerous. Wherefore, notwithstanding I am content and ready to be at peace with him, so long as he liveth peaceably; yet doth my conscience and duty forbid me to give unto him any further public approbation, until I be better persuaded of his conformity. And so being bold to use my accustomed plainness with your good lordship, I commit you to the tuition of Almighty God; this 17th of July, 1585.”]

And now after this long digression made for the information of my reader concerning what follows, I bring him back to venerable Mr. Hooker, where we left him in the Temple; and where we shall find him as deeply engaged in a controversy with Walter Travers⁶⁸, a friend and favourite of Mr. Cartwright’s, as the bishop had ever been with Mr. Cartwright himself; and of which I shall proceed to give this following account.

And first this; that though the pens of Mr. Cartwright and the bishop were now at rest⁶⁹, yet there was sprung up a new generation of restless men, that by company and clamours became possest of a faith which they ought to have kept to themselves, but could not: men that were become positive in asserting, “that a Papist cannot be saved:” insomuch, that about this time, at the execution of the Queen of Scots⁷⁰, the bishop that preached her funeral sermon (which was Dr. Howland⁷¹, then Bishop of Peterborough) was reviled for not being positive for her damnation. And besides this boldness of their becoming gods, so far as to set limits to His mercies; there was not only one Martin Mar-prelate⁷², but other venomous books daily printed and dispersed; books that were so absurd and scurrilous, that the graver divines disdained them an answer. And yet these were grown into high esteem with the common people, till Tom Nash appeared against them all; who was a man of a sharp wit, and the master of a scoffing satirical merry pen, which he employed to discover the absurdities of those blind, malicious, senseless pamphlets, and sermons as senseless as they; Nash his answers being like his books⁷³, which bore these titles, An Almond for a Parrot⁷⁴, A Fig for my God-son, Come crack me this Nut, and the like: so that his merry wit made some sport, and such a discovery of their absurdities, as (which is strange) he put a greater stop to these malicious pamphlets, than a much wiser man had been able⁷⁵.

And now the reader is to take notice, that at the death of Father Alvie, who was master of the Temple, this Walter Travers was lecturer there for the evening sermons⁷⁶, which he preached with great approbation, especially of some citizens, and the younger gentlemen of that society; and for the most part approved by Mr. Hooker himself, in the midst of their oppositions: for he continued lecturer a part of his time: Mr. Travers being indeed a man of competent learning, of winning behaviour, and of a blameless life. But he had taken orders by the presbytery in Antwerp⁷⁷, (and with them some opinions, that could never be eradicated,) and if in any thing he was transported, it was in an extreme desire to set up that government in this nation: for the promoting of which he had a correspondence with Theodore Beza at Geneva⁷⁸, and others in Scotland⁷⁹; and was one of the chiefest assistants to Mr. Cartwright in that design.

Mr. Travers had also a particular hope to set up this government in the Temple, and to that end used his most zealous endeavours to be master of it; and his being disappointed by Mr. Hooker’s admittance, proved the occasion of a public opposition betwixt them in their sermons. Many of which were concerning the doctrine and ceremonies of this church: insomuch that as St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face, so did they withstand each other in their sermons; for as one hath pleasantly exprest it, “The forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, and the afternoon, Geneva⁸⁰.”

In these sermons there was little of bitterness, but each party brought all the reasons he was able, to prove his adversary’s opinion erroneous. And thus it continued a long time, till the oppositions became so visible, and the consequences so dangerous, especially in that place, that the prudent archbishop put a stop to Mr. Travers his preaching by a positive prohibition; [and that chiefly because of his foreign ordination⁸¹:] against which Mr. Travers appealed, and petitioned her Majesty’s Privy Council to have it recalled, where besides his patron the Earl of Leicester⁸², he met also with many assisting friends; but they were not able to prevail with or against the archbishop, whom the Queen had entrusted with all church-power; and he had received so fair a testimony of Mr. Hooker’s principles, and of his learning and moderation, that he withstood all solicitations.

But the denying this petition of Mr. Travers was unpleasant to divers of his party, and the reasonableness of it became at last to be so publicly magnified by them and many others of that party, as never to be answered: so that, intending the bishop’s and Mr. Hooker’s disgrace, they procured it to be privately printed⁸³, and scattered abroad; and then Mr. Hooker was forced to appear and make as public an answer: which he did, and dedicated it to the archbishop; and it proved so full an answer, an answer that had in it so much of clear reason, and writ with so much meekness and majesty of style, that the bishop began to have him in admiration⁸⁴, and to rejoice that he had appeared in his cause, and disdained not earnestly to beg his friendship, even a familiar friendship, with a man of so much quiet learning and humility⁸⁵.

To enumerate the many particular points, in which Mr. Hooker and Mr. Travers dissented, (all or most of which I have seen written,) would prove at least tedious: and therefore I shall impose upon my reader no more than two, which shall immediately follow, and by which he may judge of the rest.

Mr. Travers excepted against Mr. Hooker, for that in one of his sermons he declared, “That the assurance of what we believe by the word of God is not to us so certain as that which we perceive by sense.” And Mr. Hooker confesseth he said so, and endeavours to justify it by the reasons following⁸⁶:

“First, I taught, that the things which God promises in his word are surer than what we touch, handle, or see: but are we so sure and certain of them? If we be, why doth God so often prove his promises to us as he doth, by arguments drawn from our sensible experience? For we must be surer of the proof, than of the things proved; otherwise it is no proof. For example, how is it that many men looking on the moon at the same time, every one knoweth it to be the moon as certainly as the other doth? But many believing one and the same promise, have not all the same fulness of persuasion. For how falleth it out, that men being assured of any thing by sense, can be no surer of it than they are; when as the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth hath always need to labour, strive, and pray, that his assurance concerning heavenly and spiritual things may grow, increase, and be augmented?”

The sermon⁸⁷ that gave him the cause of this his justification, makes the case more plain, by declaring, “that there is besides this certainty of evidence, a certainty of adherence.” In which, having most excellently demonstrated what the certainty of adherence is, he makes this comfortable use of it: “Comfortable (he says) as to weak believers, who suppose themselves to be faithless, not to believe, when notwithstanding they have their adherence; the Holy Spirit hath his private operations, and worketh secretly in them, and effectually too, though they want the inward testimony of it.”

Tell this, saith he, to a man that hath a mind too much dejected by a sad sense of his sin; to one that by a too severe judging of himself, concludes that he wants faith, because he wants the comfortable assurance of it; and his answer will be, “Do not persuade me, against my knowledge, against what I find and feel in myself: I do not, I know I do not, believe.” Mr. Hooker’s own words follow: “Well then, to favour such men a little in their weakness, let that be granted which they do imagine; be it, that they adhere not to God’s promises, but are faithless, and without belief: but are they not grieved for their unbelief? They confess they are. Do they not wish it might, and also strive that it may be otherwise? We know they do. Whence cometh this, but from a secret love and liking that they have of those things believed? For no man can love those things which in his own opinion are not; and if they think those things to be, which they shew they love, when they desire to believe them; then must it be, that by desiring to believe, they prove themselves true believers: for without faith no man thinketh that things believed are: which argument all the subtilties of infernal powers will never be able to dissolve.” This is an abridgment of part of the reasons Mr. Hooker gives for his justification of this his opinion, for which he was excepted against by Mr. Travers.

Mr. Hooker was also accused by Mr. Travers, for that he in one of his sermons⁸⁸ had declared, “That he doubted not but that God was merciful to many of our forefathers living in popish superstition, forasmuch as they sinned ignorantly:” and Mr. Hooker in his answer professeth it to be his judgment, and declares his reasons for this charitable opinion to be as followeth.

But first⁸⁹ [because Travers’s argument against this charitable opinion of Hooker was, that they could not be saved, because they sought to be justified by the merit of their works, and so overthrow the foundation of faith] he states the question about justification and works, and how the foundation of faith without works is overthrown; and then he proceeds to discover that way which natural men and some others have mistaken to be the way, by which they hope to attain true and everlasting happiness: and having discovered the mistaken, he proceeds to direct to that true way, by which, and no other, everlasting life and blessedness is attainable. And these two ways he demonstrates thus (they be his own words that follow): “That, the way of nature; this, the way of grace: the end of that way, salvation merited, presupposing the righteousness of men’s works; their righteousness, a natural ability to do them; that ability, the goodness of God which created them in such perfection. But the end of this way, salvation bestowed upon men as a gift: presupposing not their righteousness, but the forgiveness of their unrighteousness, justification; their justification, not their natural ability to do good, but their hearty sorrow for not doing, and unfeigned belief in Him, for whose sake not doers are accepted, which is their vocation; their vocation, the election of God, taking them out of the number of lost children; their election, a Mediator in whom to be elected; this mediation inexplicable mercy; this mercy supposing their misery for whom he vouchsafed to die, and make himself a Mediator.”

And he also declareth, “there is no meritorious cause for our justification but Christ; no effectual, but His mercy;” and says also, “we deny the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we abuse, disannul, and annihilate the benefit of His passion, if by a proud imagination we believe we can merit everlasting life, or can be worthy of it.” This belief (he declareth) is to destroy the very essence of our justification, and he makes all opinions that border upon this to be very dangerous. “Yet nevertheless” (and for this he was accused) “considering how many virtuous and just men, how many saints and martyrs, have had their dangerous opinions, amongst which this was one, that they hoped to make God some part of amends, by voluntary punishments which they laid upon themselves: because by [of?] this, or the like erroneous opinions which do by consequence overthrow the merits of Christ, shall man be so bold as to write on their graves, ‘Such men are damned, there is for them no salvation!’ St. Austin says, Errare possum, hæreticus esse nolo. And except we put a difference betwixt them that err ignorantly, and them that obstinately persist in it, how is it possible that any man should hope to be saved? Give me a Pope or a Cardinal, whom great afflictions have made to know himself; whose heart God hath touched with true sorrow for all his sins, and filled with a love of Christ and his Gospel; whose eyes are willingly open to see the truth, and his mouth ready to renounce all error, this one opinion of merit excepted, which he thinketh God will require at his hands; and because he wanteth, trembleth, and is discouraged, and yet can say, ‘Lord, cleanse me from all my secret sins!’ shall I think, because of this, or a like error, such men touch not so much as the hem of Christ’s garment? If they do, wherefore should I doubt but that virtue may proceed from Christ to save them? No, I will not be afraid to say to such a one, ‘You err in your opinion, but be of good comfort, you have to do with a merciful God, who will make the best of that little which you hold well, and not with a captious sophister, who gathereth the worst out of every thing in which you are mistaken.’

“But it will be said, (says Mr. Hooker,) ‘The admittance of merit in any degree, overthroweth the foundation, excludeth from the hope of mercy, from all possibility of salvation.’ ” (And now Mr. Hooker’s own words follow.)

“What, though they hold the truth sincerely in all other parts of Christian faith; although they have in some measure all the virtues and graces of the Spirit; although they have all other tokens of God’s children in them; although they be far from having any proud opinion that they shall be saved by the worthiness of their deeds; although the only thing that troubleth and molesteth them be a little too much dejection, somewhat too great a fear arising from an erroneous conceit, that God will require a worthiness in them, which they are grieved to find wanting in themselves? although they be not obstinate in this opinion? although they be willing and would be glad to forsake it, if any one reason were brought sufficient to disprove it? although the only cause why they do not forsake it ere they die, be their ignorance of that means by which 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 (says Mr. Hooker) if it be ever proved, that simply an error doth exclude a Pope or Cardinal in such a case utterly from hope of life. Surely I must confess, that 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 to this error, I would never wish to speak or to live.”

I was willing to take notice of these two points, as supposing them to be very material; and that as they are thus contracted, they may prove useful to my reader; as also, for that the answers be arguments of Mr. Hooker’s great and clear reason, and equal charity. Other exceptions were also made against him by Mr. Travers, as, “That he prayed before and not after his sermons; that in his prayers he named bishops; that he kneeled both when he prayed and when he received the Sacrament; and” (says Mr. Hooker in his defence) “other exceptions so like these, as but to name, I should have thought a greater fault than to commit them.”

And it is not unworthy the noting, that in the manage of so great a controversy, a sharper reproof than this, and one like it, did never fall from the happy pen of this humble man. That like it was upon a like occasion of exceptions, to which his answer was, “Your next argument consists of railing and of reasons: to your railing, I say nothing; to your reasons, I say what follows⁹⁰.” And I am glad of this fair occasion, to testify the dovelike temper of this meek, this matchless man; and doubtless, if Almighty God had blessed the dissenters from the ceremonies and discipline of this church with a like measure of wisdom and humility, instead of their pertinacious zeal; then, Obedience and Truth had kissed each other; then peace and piety had flourished in our nation, and this church and state had been blessed like “Jerusalem that is at unity with itself;” but this can never be expected, till God shall bless the common people of this nation with a belief “That schism is a sin, and, they not fit to judge what is schism:” and bless them also with a belief, “that there may be offences taken, which are not given;” and, “that laws are not made for private men to dispute, but to obey.”

[Before we pass from these unhappy disceptations between Hooker and Travers, as we have heard two articles of pretended false doctrine objected by the one to the other, so it is pity the rest should be wholly lost, and for ever buried in silence: therefore, for the making this considerable part of the reverend man’s life and history complete, and to retrieve whatsoever may be gotten of the pen and mind of so learned and judicious a person, take this further account, not only of two, but of all the articles that his before-mentioned adversary had marshalled up against him, collected from a sermon or sermons he had heard him preach at the Temple: together with his endeavoured confutation of them; and likewise Hooker’s own vindication of himself to each of these articles. These articles seem to have been delivered by Travers to the Lord Treasurer. The same lord delivered them to Hooker to consider of, and to make his reply to. And of these articles the archbishop also was privy, and briefly declared his judgment and determination of them. I shall set all down exactly from an authentic manuscript.

Doctrines delivered by Mr. Hooker, as they were set down and shewed by Mr. Travers, Mar. 30, 1585, under this title⁹¹;

---

← The Life. · Contents · A Short Note of Sundry Unsound Points of Doc →

Footnotes

1. [If Oct. 1579 be the right date of this letter, the bishop here meant is Horn: if 1580, his successor, Watson. Strype, Grindal, 380.] ↩

2. [Fulm. X. 68. says of him, “Natus in agro Hantoniensi, circa Festum Purificationis 154⅞; æt. 16, admiss. in Discip. Feb. 5, 156⅔; Scholaris 1566. Dec. 13; Ambrosio Comiti Warwicensi a sacris; cujus auctoritate Archidiaconus Lincolniensis, Apr. 1, 1581. Ob. 1595.” Bishop Cooper made him archdeacon. See a report from him to Archbishop Whitgift, of his peremptory dealings with some puritan ministers, in Strype, Ann. III. 1, 349.] ↩

3. [Corrected, by Walton, from “three or more years.”] ↩

4. [Altered from, “in obedience to the college statutes he was to preach either at St. Peter’s, Oxford, or at St. Paul’s Cross, London; and the last fell to his allotment.”] ↩

5. [See E. P. v. 49, and Fragment III. of the Answer to “A Christian Letter,” &c. In 1595, Dr. Baro, Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, was attacked for preaching the same doctrine almost in the same words. Strype, Whitgift, II. 298. and III. 347.] ↩

6. [First of Brasennose college, Oxford, afterwards chaplain of C. C. C. and by Bishop King, of London, made rector of St. Andrew’s Undershaft; from which being expelled in 1641, he retired to Wigan, his native place, and died there in August 1647, aged about 74. The treatise of his referred to by Walton is “Certain passages in Mr. Sam. Hoard’s book, entitled, God’s Love to mankind manifested by disproving His absolute decree for their damnation.” It was answered by Dr. Twiss in 1653. See Wood’s Ath. Oxon. III. 220, 172.] ↩

7. [Works, II. 173, 202. III. 793. ed. 1673.] ↩

8. [In his Letters to Dr. Sanderson, on God’s Grace and Decrees, Works I. 663, &c. and especially Letter I. §. 28 … . 51, 70 . . 72. and Third Letter of Prescience, §. 58. ed. 1684.] ↩

9. [By whose nomination probably Hooker preached: “it having been of long time customary for the Bishops of London to summon up from the universities, or elsewhere, persons of the best abilities to preach those public sermons, whither the Prince and court, and the magistrates of the city, besides a vast conflux of people, used to resort.” Strype, Life of Aylmer, 201.] ↩

10. [This may refer to the year 158⅘, when Hooker was made Master of the Temple, partly by the recommendation of Bishop Aylmer. Strype, Ann. III. 1, 352: although in Whitg. I. 344. he says, “Sandys, Bishop of London.”] ↩

11. [In the register of C. C. C. is the following; an instance, probably, of Hooker’s gratitude: “1581, 21 Jun. Ego Gulielmus Churchman vicesimo primo Junii admissus sum et juratus in subsacristam hujus collegii.”] ↩

12. [Proverbs xix. 13. “The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.”] ↩

13. [Originally “as some think, to meek Moses.” Why the alteration was made is not clear, especially considering Hooker’s own interpretation of the place in scripture here referred to. See E. P. v. c. 62. par. 24.] ↩

14. [The college at that time was less tranquil than usual: as might be expected after the strong measures taken in 1568. Mr. Fulman’s papers contain many instances, besides those which have been adduced, of the turbulence and faction by which it was long infested.] ↩

15. [Originally, “were returned from travel, and took a journey,” &c. Now it appears from Fulman’s papers, vol. VIII. that Sandys was made regent M. A. July 8, 1583; Cranmer, not till July 13, 1589. This seems to shew that they went abroad together after their visit to Hooker, and of course confirms Walton’s correction.] ↩

16. [“This narrative reminds me of a domestic picture in the Life of Melancthon, who was seen by one of his friends with one hand rocking the cradle of his child, with the other holding a book.” Zouch, Life of Walton, subjoined to Walton’s Lives, II. p. 370, note.] ↩

17. [Corrected from “then bishop of London, and after archbishop.”] ↩

18. He was dead, and the place void in the month of August, anno 1584. J. S. [John Strype.] ↩

19. This you may find in the Temple records. William Ermstead was Master of the Temple at the dissolution of the priory, and died 2 Eliz.Richard Alvey, Bat. Divinity, Pat. 13 Feb. 2 Eliz. Magister sive Custos Domus et Ecclesiæ novi Templi; died 27 Eliz.Richard Hooker succeeded that year by patent, in terminis, as Alvey had it, and he left it 33 Eliz.That year Dr. Balgey succeeded Richard Hooker. [The year meant by Walton is no doubt 158⅘.] ↩

20. [The portions between brackets are the additions of Mr. Strype, who revised the Life of Hooker for the edition of his works printed 1705.] ↩

21. [Of whom see some account in Strype, Whitg. I. 477.] ↩

22. [Fol. 88. “Quum omnis hic locus de ecclesia nostra indignissime spoliata a doctissimo viro Martino Bucero perpurgatus sit eo libro quem ante memini, quumque eodem libro non solum Impropriationum, sed et Annalium (quæ ejusdem species quædam esse videntur) Collationum, Resignationum, et aliarum nundinationum et spoliationum direptiones prosecutus sit: malo hæc ex eruditissimis illius scriptis peti, quo majorem autoritatem oratio hæc habere possit.”] ↩

23. [See a note on these words in Dr. Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. IV. 217.] ↩

24. [See Camden. Ann. pars ii. pag. 34. ed. 1627. Strype, Ann. IV. 95.] ↩

25. [Strype, Whitg. I. 502. II. 25. 28. III. 120. I. 351, 357. Hooker, Pref. to E. P. viii. 13.] ↩

26. [By subscription. Strype, Whitg. III. 239. II. 13.Dr. Wordsworth thinks Walton inaccurate in the mention of their swearing. But see Strype, Parker, II. 285. Collier, E. H. II. 544.] ↩

27. [Dr. Bancroft proves their disagreement at large; Survey of the pretended holy Discipline, c. 9-19, 24, 34.] ↩

28. [That is, the very same class or party: Sampson, Humphrey, &c. being the leaders of the Petitioners; Cartwright, Travers, Field, &c. of the Admonitioners; Penry, Udall, and others, of the Remonstrants.] ↩

29. [E. g. In the Convocation 1562. Strype, Ann. I. 1, 500.Foster, alias Colman, his petition to Secretary Cecil, 1569. Ann. I. 2, 350.] ↩

30. [The two Admonitions to the Parliament, 1572.] ↩

31. [The tracts under the name of Martin Marprelate, and the like, 1588.] ↩

32. [2 Sam. xv.] ↩

33. [Hooker, Pref. to E. P. viii. 13.] ↩

34. [Fuller, C. H. book ix. 130. “Leicester cast a covetous eye on Lambeth house, alleging as good arguments for his obtaining thereof, as ever were urged by Ahab for Naboth’s vineyard.”] ↩

35. [See the Letter of the general Assembly to the Bishops of England, Strype, Parker, III. 150.“Since the liberty of prophesying was taken up, which came but lately into the northern parts, (unless it were in the towns of Newcastle and Barwick, where Knox, Mackbray, and Udall had sown their tares,) all things have gone so cross and backward in our church, that I cannot call the history for these forty years or more to mind, or express my observations upon it, but with a bleeding heart.” Dr. T. Jackson, Works, vol. III. p. 273.“It was in the year 1550, or very near it, that the famous Scotch divine, John Knox, was appointed preacher to Berwick, and after that to Newcastle.” Strype, Memorials, II. 1. 369.] ↩

36. Mr. Dering. [“If you have said sometime of yourself, tanquam ovis, ‘as a sheep appointed to be slaine,’ take heed you heare not now of the Prophet, tanquam indomita juvenca, ‘as an untamed and unrulie heifer.’ ” (from Jerem. xxxi. 18.) Wordsworth, Eccl. Biogr. IV. 226. Walton probably took the anecdote from Fuller, Church Hist. b. ix. p. 109. See more of Deering, Strype, Ann. II. 1. 398, &c.] ↩

37. Vide Bishop Spotswood’s History of the Church of Scotland. [B. VI. Ann. 1596. p. 419. edit. 1655.] ↩

38. [Ibid. p. 330. (1584.) p. 421. (1596.)] ↩

39. [Spotswood, p. 354. (1586.)] ↩

40. [Ibid. 324. (1582.)] ↩

41. [Penry was executed May 1593. Barrow and Greenwood the month before. Strype, Whitg. II. 175, &c. Stubbs and Page lost their right hands, for the book against the Queen’s marriage, 1580.] ↩

42. [See Cranmer’s Letter to Hooker.] ↩

43. [Reliquiæ Wottonianæ, p. 19, ed. 1651.] ↩

44. [This he had not from the Queen, but from Bishop Cox. Strype, Whitg. I. 26, and Paule’s Life of Whitg. in Wordsworth, E. B. IV. 321, from which latter Walton took most of the particulars here related.] ↩

45. [“A rare gift for her, who was so good an huswife of her revenues.” Fuller, C. H. b. x. p. 25.] ↩

46. [2 Sam. vi. 11.] ↩

47. [2 Chron. xxiv. 16.] ↩

48. [Camden’s Britannia, translated by Holland, p. 338, ed. 1610.] ↩

49. Or rather by reason of his suspension and sequestration, which he lay under (together with the Queen’s displeasure) for some years, when the ecclesiastical affairs were managed by certain civilians. J. S. ↩

50. [Paule’s Life of Whitgift in Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. IV. 387.] ↩

51. [1 Eliz. c. 19; 13 Eliz. c. 20, &c. See Blackstone’s Commentaries, II. 319, 320, 321, Coleridge’s edition; and Collier’s Eccl. Hist. II. 430, 422.] ↩

52. [E. g. “The Earl of Leicester, in a suit to her Majesty, upon the decease of Barnes, Bishop of Durham, moved her to take to herself divers bishops’ lands, the bishopricks being then void, to the value of 1,200l. yearly rent; and to settle upon them impropriations in the room thereof.” The fee-simple of a large portion of such lands to be afterwards granted to him, the earl. Strype, Ann. III. i. 689.] ↩

53. [Fuller, Ch. Hist. B. I. p. 23.] ↩

54. [Ibid. B. II. p. 131, 132.] ↩

55. [Ibid. B. II. p. 143.] ↩

56. [Hooker, E. P. V. 79, 14.] ↩

57. [“The first article of Magna Charta is, ‘Que les Eglises de Engleterre seront franches, et aient les dreitures franches, et enterinés, et plenieres.’ ” Dr. Zouch. See Hooker, ubi sup.] ↩

58. [Deut. xxviii. 27, 35.] ↩

59. [Æsop’s Fables, by L’Estrange, fable 72.] ↩

60. [He was confirmed Archbishop, Sept. 23, 1583, and died Feb. 29, 160¾.] ↩

61. [Paule, in Dr. Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. IV. 391, 392.] ↩

62. [Jean de Thumery de Boissise, counsellor to King Henry IV: who signed the commercial treaty with England, 1606, (Rymer, xvi. 645,) and was afterwards ambassador of France in the duchy of Cleves, (Sully, Mem. VII. 245, ed. Liege 1788,) and in Denmark (ibid. 285.)] ↩

63. [He was seized with palsy at Whitehall, just after an audience of the King. Paule’s Life, 397.] ↩

64. [Strype, Whitg. b. I. c. 4, 8. Ann. I. ii. 372… 382. II. i. 1—5. Bp. Cooper, Admon. 146. “Many know that a repulse of a dignity desired was the cause that our schism brake forth, and hath so eagerly continued.”] ↩

65. [In the edition of 1723, and I believe in all following editions, this passage stands as follows, the errors having been rectified, and several additions made, as it seems, by Strype:“Long before the earl’s death … . . Mr. Cartwright appeared … . . in many remonstrances, especially that called the Admonition to the Parliament. Which last he caused to be printed; to which the Doctor made an Answer, and Cartwright replied upon him: and then the Doctor having rejoined to his reply, (however Mr. Cartwright would not be satisfied,) he wrote no more, but left &c. [And to posterity he left such a learned and useful book, as does abundantly establish the reformation and constitution of our Church, and vindicate it against all the cavils of the innovators.] After some time, the Doctor being preferred to the See, first of Worcester, and then of Canterbury, Mr. Cartwright, after his share of trouble and imprisonment, (for setting up new presbyteries in divers places against the established order,) having received from the archbishop many personal favours, retired himself to a more private living.”] ↩

66. [There is an error here, which may be traced to Fuller, C. H. b. ix. p. 102. “It will not be amiss to set down what writings, pro and con, passed on the occasion of this book,” (the Admonitions to the Parliament, 1572,) “between two eminent authors of opposite parties. 1. The Admonition, first and second, made by Mr. Cartwright. 2. The Answer to the Admonition by Dr. John Whitgift. 3. The Reply to the Answer to the Admonition by Mr. Tho. Cartwright. 4. The Defence of the Answer by Dr. John Whitgift. This last kept the field, and (for ought I can find) received no solemn refutation.” To which he adds many conjectures on the possible causes of Cartwright’s silence: not being at all aware of the Second Reply, a much larger work than the first; which Second Reply came out in two parts, 1575 and 1577.] ↩

67. [“We find him at this time growing rich in the town of Warwick (there master of an hospital) by the benevolence and bounty of his followers: where he preached very temperately, according to his promise made to the Archbishop.” Fuller, C. H. b. x. p. 2, almost verbatim from Paule’s Life of Whitgift: see Wordsworth’s Eccl. Biog. IV. 366.] ↩

68. [“Mr. Walter Travers, whom I may term the neck (allowing Mr. Cartwright for the head) of the Presbyterian party.” Fuller, C. H. b. ix. 136.] ↩

69. [Here the editions since Strype insert “and had been a great while.” The latter portion of Cartwright’s Second Reply was published 1577.] ↩

70. [Feb. 8, 1586/7.] ↩

71. [By a note in Dr. Zouch’s edition, given also by Dr. Wordsworth, it appears that Dr. Wickham, Bishop of Lincoln, not Bishop Howland, preached the sermon on this occasion. Fuller, ix. 181, says, “she was buried in the quire of Peterborough, and Dr. Wickham, bishop of Lincoln, preached her funeral sermon; causelessly carped at by the Martin Mar-Prelate, as too favourable concerning her final condition.”] ↩

72. [158⅞.] ↩

73. [The meaning seems to be, “Nash’s answers being like his (Martin’s) books: which (answers) bore, &c.” Compare the titles at length of the pamphlets mentioned in the next note with the two following of Penry’s. “O read over Dr. John Bridges, for it is a worthy work: or, An Epitome of the first book of that right worshipfull volume written against the Puritans in the defence of the noble clergie, by as worshipful a priest, John Bridges, presbyter, priest, or elder, doctor of divillitie, and deane of Sarum. Wherein the arguments of the Puritans are wisely prevented, that when they come to answer M. Doctor they must needs say something that hath been spoken. Compiled for the behoofe and overthrow of the parsons, fyckers, and currats, that have learnt their catechisms and are past grace. By the reverend and worthy Martin Marprelate, gentleman, and dedicated to the confocation house… . Printed over sea in Europe, within two furlongs of a bouncing priest, at the cost and charge of M. Marprelate, gentleman.”“Theses Martinianæ: i. e. certain demonstrative conclusions, set down and collected, as it should seem, by that famous and renowned clark, the reverend Martin Marprelate the great; serving as a sufficient and manifest confutation of all that ever the college of catercaps, with their whole band of clergie priests, have or can bring for the defence of their ambitious and antichristian prelacy. Published and set forth as an after-birth of the noble gentleman himself, by a pretty stripling of his, Martin Junior, and dedicated by him to his good neame and nuncka, maister John Kankerbury… . Printed by the assigns of Martin Junior, without any privilege of the Cater-caps.”] ↩

74. [“An Almond for a Parrot, or Cuthbert Curryknave’s Alms. Fit for the knave Martin and the rest of those impudent beggars, that cannot be content to stay their stomach with a benefice, but they will needs break their fast with our bishops. Imprinted at a place, not far from a place, by the assigns of Signior Somebody, and are to be sold at his shop in Trouble-knave Street, at the sign of the Standish.”“Pappe with an Hatchet; alias, A Fig for my Godson; or, Crack me this Nut; or, A Country Cuff, i. e. a sound box of the ear for the idiot Martin to hold his peace, seeing the patch will take no warning. Written by one that dares call a dog a dog, and made to prevent Martin’s dog days. Imprinted by John Anoke and John Astile for the Bailiff of Withernam, cum privilegio perennitatis, and are to be sold at the sign of the Crab-tree Cudgel in Thwack-coat Lane.”‘To give Pap with a Hatchet:’ “a proverbial phrase, for doing a kind thing in an unkind manner.” Nares’ Glossary. ‘Pap.’Watt, Biblioth. Brit. ascribes the pamphlet to Lilly, and not to Nash.] ↩

75. [“By his (Dr. Bancroft’s) advice that course was taken, which did principally stop Martin’s and his fellows’ mouths; viz. to have them answered after their own vain writings.” Abp. Whitgift, ap. Strype, Whitg. II. 387.] ↩

76. [Mr. Alvie himself appears to have been inclined to Puritanism, as his name occurs in “Troubles at Frankfort,” among the signatures to “the Discipline,” 1557. Phœnix, vol. ii. 142. This may partly account for Travers’s appointment.] ↩

77. [Fuller, C. H. b. ix. p. 214, inserts the testimonial of his ordination, bearing date May 14, 1578.] ↩

78. [Fuller, ibid. “Meeting with some discontents in the college after the death of Dr. Beaumont, in whose time he was elected fellow, he took occasion to travel beyond seas, and coming to Geneva, contracted familiarity with Mr. Beza and other foreign divines, with whom he by letters continued correspondency till the day of his death.”] ↩

79. [He and Cartwright were invited by Melvin and others to be readers in divinity at St. Andrew’s: and the tone of the letter, given in Fuller, C. H. b. ix. p. 215, seems to imply previous acquaintance and correspondence.] ↩

80. [Fuller, Worthies of England, p. 264. “The pulpit spake pure Canterbury in the morning, and Geneva in the afternoon, until Travers was silenced.”] ↩

81. [The words in brackets were inserted by Strype. The Author of “M. Some laid open in his colours,” p. 25, says, “I have heard that M. Travers, when he was thrust out of the Temple, was bidden by my Lord of Canterbury to prove his calling; alleging that he was no minister: for what authority, saith he in his choler, hath M. Cartwright to make a minister?”] ↩

82. [Rather, lord Burghley, to whom Travers was domestic chaplain, as appears by a memorial of his in Strype, Whitg. I. 475. Fuller adds that he was tutor to Burghley’s son Robert, afterwards Earl of Salisbury. C. H. b. ix. p. 214.] ↩

83. [Rather “copied out:” see Answer to Travers’s Supplication, § 9. in vol. iii.] ↩

84. [Originally “to wonder at the man.”] ↩

85. [Possibly the very words of the archbishop, in some letter or conversation, reported to Walton by the Cranmer family.] ↩

86. [Answer to Travers’s Supplication, § 9.] ↩

87. [On the Certainty and Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect.] ↩

88. [Of Justification.] ↩

89. [“because… .of faith,” interpolated, apparently by Strype.] ↩

90. [Compare E. P. V. 30, 4. “Our answer therefore to their reasons is, No: to their scoffs, Nothing.”] ↩

91. [In the Harleian MSS. No. 291. fol. 183-185, is a paper dated March 20, 1585, and headed, “Propositions taught and maintained by Mr. Hooker. The same briefly confuted by L. T. in a private Letter.” And immediately following, “Doctrine preached by Mr. Hooker in the Temple the first of March 1585.” These papers agree in substance, though not verbally with Strype’s, as far as they go: for they do not contain either Hooker’s answer or the archbishop’s judgment on the disputed points. (L.T. was Lawrence Tomson. Dr. Bliss, in Ath. Oxon. I. 700. See an account of him in the same work, anno 1608, tom. II. p. 44. He was employed as a clerk by sir F. Walsingham. See a letter of his (Tomson’s) at the end of Knewstub’s Confutation of H. N. 1579.) It appears by Fuller, Ch. Hist. b. ix. p. 216, that notes of these sermons were taken by a great many persons. “Here might one on Sundays have seen almost as many writers as hearers. Not only young students, but even the gravest benchers, (such as Sir Edward Cook and Sir James Altham then were) were not more exact in taking instructions from their clients, than in writing notes from the mouths of their ministers.”] ↩