Here Follows an Account, Given in by Mr. Hooker Himself, of What He Preached, March 28, 1585 1 . and Then of What Travers in his Lectures Excepted Thereunto. and Lastly, of Hooker’s Reply and Vindication of Himself and his Sermons.

“I doubted not but that God was merciful to thousands of our fathers, which lived in popish superstition: for that they sinned ignorantly. But we have the light of the truth.

¹“Which doctrine was withstood, because we are commanded to depart out of Babylon, else we should be partakers of those plagues there denounced against such as repent not of their superstitions: which they cannot who know them not.

“I answered, that there were thousands in our days who hate sin, desiring to walk according to the will of God; and yet committing sin which they know not to be sin. I think, that they that desire forgiveness of secret sins, which they know not to be sins, and that are sorry for sins, that they know not to be sins, [such] do repent.

“It is replied, that without faith there is no repentance. Our fathers in desiring mercy did but as divers pagans; and had no true repentance.

“They thought they could not be saved by Christ without works, as the Galatians did: and so they denied the foundation of faith.

“I answered, although the proposition were true, that he who thinketh he cannot be saved by Christ without works, overthroweth the foundation; yet we may persuade ourselves that our forefathers might be saved. 1. Because many of them were ignorant of the dogmatical positions of the church of Rome. 2. Albeit they had divers positions of that church, yet it followeth not that they had this. 3. Although they did generally hold this position, yet God might be merciful unto them. No exception hath been taken against any one of these assertions. 4. I add, that albeit all those, of whom we speak, did not only hold this generally, but as the scholars of Rome hold this position now, of joining works with Christ; whether doth that position overthrow the foundation directly, or only by consequence? If it doth overthrow the foundation directly, &c. To make all plain, these points are to be handled. First, what is meant by the foundation. Secondly, what it is to deny the foundation directly. Thirdly, whether the elect may be so deceived, that they may come to this, to deny the foundation directly. Fourthly, whether the Galatians did directly deny it. Fifthly, whether the church of Rome, by joining works with Christ in the matter of salvation, do directly deny it.

I. To the first I answer: “The foundation is, that which Peter, Nathaniel, and the Samaritans confessed; and that which the Apostles expressly [affirm,] Acts iv. [12.] ‘There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ It is, in fine, this, Salvation is by Christ only. This word only, what doth it exclude? [As when we say,] ‘This judge shall only determine this matter:’ this only doth not exclude all other things, besides the person of the judge; as, necessary witnesses, the equity of the cause, &c. but all persons: and not all persons from being present, but from determining the cause. So when we say, ‘Salvation only is by Christ,’ we do not exclude all other things. For then how could we say, that faith were necessary? We exclude therefore not those means whereby the benefits of Christ are applied to us; but all other persons, for working any thing for our redemption.

“II. To the second point: We are said to deny the foundation directly, when plainly and expressly we deny that Christ only doth save. By consequence we deny the foundation, when any such thing is defended, whereby it may be inferred, that Christ doth not only save.

“III. To the third: The elect of God cannot so err that they should deny directly the foundation: for that Christ doth keep them from that extremity: and there is no salvation to such as deny the foundation directly. Therefore it is said, that they ‘shall worship the beast, whose names are not found in the book of life.’ Antichrist may prevail much against them [viz. the elect], and they may receive the sign of the beast in the same degree, but not so that they should directly deny the foundation.

“IV. To the fourth: Albeit the Galatians fell into error; but not so that they lost salvation. If they had died before they had known the doctrine of Paul, being before deceived by those that they thought did teach the truth: what do you think? should they have been damned? This we are taught, that such errors [as are damning] shall not take hold, but on those that love not the truth. The Galatians had embraced the truth; and for it had suffered many things, &c. There came among them seducers that required circumcision. They being moved with a religious fear, thought it to be the word of God, that they should be circumcised. The best of them might be brought into that opinion; and dying before they could be otherwise instructed, they may not for that be excluded from salvation. Circumcision being joined with Christ doth only by consequence overthrow the foundation. To hold the foundation by an additament is not to deny the foundation; unless the additament be a privative. He is a just man, therefore a man: but this followeth not; he is a dead man, therefore he is a man. In the 15th chapter of the Acts they are called credentes [i. e. such as believed] that taught the necessity of circumcision. That name could not have been given unto them, if directly they had denied the foundation. That which the Apostle doth urge against the Galatians, in respect of circumcision, may be urged against the Lutherans in respect of their consubstantiation. [But they do not directly deny the foundation.] So neither did the Galatians directly deny it.

“V. Lastly: Whether doth the church of Rome directly deny the foundation, by joining Christ and works? There is a difference between the papists and the Galatians: for circumcision, which the Galatians joined with Christ, was forbidden, and taken away by Christ. But works are commanded, which the church of Rome doth join with Christ. So that there is greater repugnancy to join circumcision with Christ, than to join works with him. But let them be equal. As the Galatians only by consequent denied the foundation, so do the Papists. (Zanchy, Calvin, Mornay; I need not go so far as some of these.)² But this I think, if the Pope, or any of the Cardinals, should forsake all other their corruptions, and yield up their souls, holding the foundation again but by a slender thread, and did but as it were touch the hem of Christ’s garment, believing that which the Church of Rome doth in this point of doctrine, they may obtain mercy. For they have to deal with God, who is no captious sophister, and will not examine them in quiddities, but accept them if they plainly hold the foundation.

“This error is my only comfort as touching the salvation of our fathers. I follow Mr. Martyr. I know Ignorantia non excusat in toto, but in tanto. It maketh not a fault to be no fault, but that which is a fault to be a less one.”

At length, thus did the Archbishop of Canterbury discreetly and warily correct and moderate these articles between them both:

I. “Papists living and dying Papists may notwithstanding be saved. The reason; ignorance excused them. As the apostle allegeth, 1 Tim. i. 13. ‘I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly.’

The Archbishop’s Judgment.

“Not Papists, but our fathers. Nor they all, but many of them. Nor living and dying Papists, but living in popish superstitions. Nor simply might, but might by the mercy of God, be saved. Ignorance did not excuse the fault to make it no fault: but the less their fault was, in respect of ignorance, the more hope we have, that God was merciful to them.”

II. “Papists hold the foundation of faith: so that they may be saved, notwithstanding their opinion of merit.”

Archbishop. “And Papists overthrow the foundation of faith, both by their doctrine of merit, and otherwise many ways. So that if they have, as their errors deserve, I do not see how they should be saved.”

III. “General repentance may serve to their salvation, though they confess not their error of merit.”

Archbishop. “General repentance will not serve any but the faithful man. Nor him, for any sin, but for such sins only as he doth not mark, nor know to be sin.”

IV. “The Church of Rome is within the new covenant.”

Archbishop. “The Church of Rome is not as the assemblies of Turks, Jews, and Painims.”

V. “The Galatians joining the law with Christ might have been saved, before they received the Epistle.”

Archbishop. “Of the Galatians, before they were told of their error, what letteth us to think, as of our fathers, before the Church of Rome was admonished of her defection from the truth?”]

And this also may be worthy of noting, that these exceptions of Mr. Travers against Mr. Hooker proved to be felix error, for they were the cause of his transcribing those few of his sermons, which we now see printed with his books; and of his Answer to Mr. Travers his Supplication: and of his most learned and useful Discourse of Justification, of Faith and Works; and by their transcription they fell into such hands as have preserved them from being lost, as too many of his other matchless writings were; and from these I have gathered many observations in this discourse of his life.

After the publication of his Answer to the Petition of Mr. Travers, Mr. Hooker grew daily into greater repute with the most learned and wise of the nation; but it had a contrary effect in very many of the Temple that were zealous for Mr. Travers and for his Church-discipline; insomuch, that though Mr. Travers left the place³, yet the seeds of discontent could not be rooted out of that society, by the great reason, and as great meekness, of this humble man: for though the chief benchers gave him much reverence and encouragement, yet he there met with many neglects and oppositions by those of Master Travers’ judgment; insomuch that it turned to his extreme grief: and that he might unbeguile and win them, he designed to write a deliberate sober Treatise of the Church’s power to make canons for the use of ceremonies, and by law to impose an obedience to them, as upon her children; and this he proposed to do in eight books of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; intending therein to shew such arguments as should force an assent from all men, if reason delivered in sweet language, and void of any provocation, were able to do it: and that he might prevent all prejudice, he wrote before it a large Preface or Epistle to the Dissenting Brethren, wherein there were such bowels of love, and such a commixture of that love with reason, as was never exceeded but in Holy Writ; and particularly by that of St. Paul to his dear brother and fellow-labourer Philemon: than which, none was ever more like this Epistle of Mr. Hooker’s: so that his dear friend and companion in his studies, Dr. Spenser, might after his death justly say⁴, “What admirable height of learning and depth of judgment dwelt in the lowly mind of this truly humble man, great in all wise men’s eyes except his own; with what gravity and majesty of speech his tongue and pen uttered heavenly mysteries; whose eyes, in the humility of his heart, were always cast down to the ground: how all things that proceeded from him were breathed as from the spirit of love; as if he, like the bird of the Holy Ghost, the Dove, had wanted gall: let those that knew him not in his person, judge by these living images of his soul, his writings.”

The foundation of these books was laid in the Temple; but he found it no fit place to finish what he had there designed; and he therefore earnestly solicited the archbishop for a remove from that place, to whom he spake to this purpose: “My Lord, when I lost the freedom of my cell, which was my college; yet, I found some degree of it in my quiet country parsonage: but I am weary of the noise and oppositions of this place, and indeed God and nature did not intend me for contentions, but for study and quietness. My Lord, my particular contests with Mr. Travers here have proved the more unpleasant to me, because I believe him to be a good man⁵; and that belief hath occasioned me to examine mine own conscience concerning his opinions; and, to satisfy that, I have consulted the scripture, and other laws both human and divine, whether the conscience of him and others of his judgment ought to be so far complied with as to alter our frame of Church-government, our manner of God’s worship, our praising and praying to him, and our established ceremonies, as often as his and others’ tender consciences shall require us: and, in this examination, I have not only satisfied myself, but have begun a Treatise, in which I intend⁶ a justification of the Laws of our Ecclesiastical Polity; in which design God and his holy Angels shall at the last great day bear me that witness which my conscience now does; that my meaning is not to provoke any, but rather to satisfy all tender consciences, and I shall never be able to do this, but where I may study, and pray for God’s blessing upon my endeavours, and keep myself in peace and privacy, and behold God’s blessing spring out of my mother earth, and eat my own bread without oppositions; and therefore, if your Grace can judge me worthy of such a favour, let me beg it, that I may perfect what I have begun.”

About this time the parsonage or rectory of Boscum, in the diocese of Sarum, and six miles from that city, became void. The Bishop of Sarum is patron of it: but in the vacancy of that see (which was three years betwixt the translation⁷ of Bishop Pierce to the see of York, and Bishop Caldwell’s admission into it) the disposal of that and all benefices belonging to that see during this said vacancy, came to be disposed of by the Archbishop of Canterbury; and he presented Richard Hooker to it, in the year 1591. And Richard Hooker was also in this said year instituted, July 17, to be a minor prebend of Salisbury, the corps to it being Nether-Havin⁸, about ten miles from that city; which prebend was of no great value, but intended chiefly to make him capable of a better preferment in that church⁹. In this Boscum he continued till he had finished four of his eight proposed books of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, and these were entered into the Register-book in Stationers’-hall, the 9th of March, 1592¹⁰, but not published¹¹ till the year 1594, and then were with the before-mentioned large and affectionate preface, which he directs “to them that seek (as they term it) the Reformation of the Laws and Orders Ecclesiastical in the Church of England;” of which books I shall yet say nothing more, but that he continued his laborious diligence to finish the remaining four during his life (of all which more properly hereafter) but at Boscum he finisht and publisht but only the first four, being then in the thirty-ninth year of his age.

He left Boscum in the year 1595, by a surrender of it into the hands of Bishop Caldwell, and he presented Benjamin Russel, who was instituted into it the 23d of June in the same year.

The parsonage of Bishopsborne in Kent, three miles from Canterbury, is in that archbishop’s gift; but, in the latter end of the year 1594, Dr. William Redman the rector of it was made Bishop of Norwich¹²; by which means the power of presenting to it was pro ea vice in the Queen; and she presented Richard Hooker, whom she loved well, to this good living of Borne the 7th of July, 1595, in which living he continued till his death, without any addition of dignity or profit¹³.

And now having brought our Richard Hooker, from his birthplace to this where he found a grave, I shall only give some account of his books, and of his behaviour in this parsonage of Borne, and then give a rest both to myself and my reader.

His first four Books and large Epistle have been declared to be printed at his being at Boscum, anno 1594. Next, I am to tell, that at the end of these four Books, there was when he first printed them this Advertisement to the Reader: “I have for some causes thought it at this time more fit to let go these first four Books by themselves, than to stay both them and the rest, till the whole might together be published. Such generalities of the cause in question as are here handled, it will be perhaps not amiss to consider apart, by way of introduction unto the books that are to follow concerning particulars; in the mean time the reader is requested to mend the printer’s errors, as noted underneath.”

And I am next to declare, that his fifth Book (which is larger than his first four) was first also printed by itself anno 1597, and dedicated to his patron (for till then he chose none) the archbishop. These Books were read with an admiration of their excellency in this, and their just fame spread itself also into foreign nations. And I have been told more than forty years past, that either Cardinal Allen, or learned Dr. Stapleton¹⁴ (both Englishmen, and in Italy about the time when Hooker’s four Books were first printed) meeting with this general fame of them, were desirous to read an author that both the reformed and the learned of their own Romish Church did so much magnify, and therefore caused them to be sent for to Rome; and after reading them, boasted to the Pope, (which then was Clement the Eighth,) “That though he had lately said he never met with an English book whose writer deserved the name of an author; yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and it would be so to his Holiness, if it were in Latin; for a poor obscure English priest had writ four such Books of Laws and Church-Polity, and in a style that expressed such a grave and so humble a majesty, with such clear demonstration of reason, that in all their readings they had not met with any that exceeded him;” and this begot in the Pope an earnest desire that Dr. Stapleton should bring the said four books, and looking on the English read a part of them to him in Latin; which Dr. Stapleton did, to the end of the first book; at the conclusion of which, the Pope spake to this purpose: “There is no learning that this man hath not searcht into; nothing too hard for his understanding: this man indeed deserves the name of an author; his books will get reverence by age, for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall last till the last fire shall consume all learning.”

Nor was this high, the only testimony and commendations given to his Books; for at the first coming of King James into this kingdom, he inquired of the Archbishop Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker that writ the Books of Church-Polity; to which the answer was, that he died a year before Queen Elizabeth, who received the sad news of his death with very much sorrow: to which the King replied, “And I receive it with no less, that I shall want the desired happiness of seeing and discoursing with that man, from whose Books I have received such satisfaction: indeed, my Lord, I have received more satisfaction in reading a leaf, or paragraph, in Mr. Hooker, though it were but about the fashion of Churches, or Church-musick, or the like, but especially of the Sacraments, than I have had in the reading particular large treatises written but of one of those subjects by others, though very learned men; and, I observe there is in Mr. Hooker no affected language¹⁵; but a grave, comprehensive, clear manifestation of reason; and that backed with the authority of the Scripture, the fathers and schoolmen, and with all law both sacred and civil. And though many others write well, yet in the next age they will be forgotten; but doubtless there is in every page of Mr. Hooker’s book the picture of a divine soul, such pictures of Truth and Reason, and drawn in so sacred colours, that they shall never fade, but give an immortal memory to the author.” And it is so truly true, that the king thought what he spake, that as the most learned of the nation have and still do mention Mr. Hooker with reverence; so he also did never mention him but with the epithet of learned, or judicious, or reverend, or venerable Mr. Hooker.

Nor did his son, our late King Charles the First, ever mention him but with the same reverence, enjoining his son¹⁶, our now gracious King, to be studious in Mr. Hooker’s books. And our learned antiquary Mr. Camden¹⁷ mentioning the death, the modesty, and other virtues of Mr. Hooker, and magnifying his books, wisht “that for the honour of this, and benefit of other nations, they were turned into the universal language.” Which work, though undertaken by many, yet they have been weary, and forsaken it; but the reader may now expect it, having been long since begun, and lately finisht by the happy pen of Dr. Earl, now Lord Bishop of Salisbury, of whom I may justly say, (and let it not offend him, because it is such a truth as ought not to be concealed from posterity, or those that now live, and yet know him not,) that since Mr. Hooker died, none have lived whom God hath blessed with more innocent wisdom, more sanctified learning, or a more pious, peaceable, primitive temper: so that this excellent person seems to be only like himself, and our venerable Richard Hooker; and only fit to make the learned of all nations happy, in knowing what hath been too long confined to the language of our little island¹⁸.

There might be many more and just occasions taken to speak of his books, which none ever did or can commend too much; but I decline them, and hasten to an account of his Christian behaviour and death at Borne; in which place he continued his customary rules of mortification and self-denial; was much in fasting, frequent in meditation and prayers, enjoying those blessed returns, which only men of strict lives feel and know, and of which men of loose and godless lives cannot be made sensible; for, spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

At his entrance into this place, his friendship was much sought for by Dr. Hadrian Saravia, then or about that time made one of the prebends of Canterbury, a German by birth¹⁹, and sometimes a pastor both in Flanders and Holland²⁰, where he had studied and well considered the controverted points concerning episcopacy and sacrilege, and in England had a just occasion to declare his judgment concerning both, unto his brethren ministers in the Low Countries; which was excepted against by Theodore Beza and others²¹; against whose exceptions, he rejoined²², and thereby became the happy author of many learned tracts writ in Latin; especially of three; one of the Degrees of Ministers, and of the Bishop’s Superiority above the Presbytery; a second against Sacrilege; and a third of Christian Obedience to Princes; the last being occasioned by Gretzerus the Jesuit²³. And it is observable, that when in a time of church-tumults, Beza gave his reasons to the Chancellor of Scotland for the abrogation of episcopacy in that nation, partly by letters, and more fully in a treatise of a threefold episcopacy, (which he calls divine, human, and Satanical,) this Dr. Saravia had by the help of Bishop Whitgift made such an early discovery of their intentions²⁴, that he had almost as soon answered that treatise as it became publick, and he therein discovered how Beza’s opinion did contradict that of Calvin and his adherents; leaving them to interfere with themselves in point of episcopacy²⁵; but of these tracts it will not concern me to say more, than that they were most of them dedicated to his and the Church of England’s watchful patron, John Whitgift, the archbishop, and printed about the time in which Mr. Hooker also appeared first to the world, in the publication of his first four Books of Ecclesiastical Polity²⁶.

This friendship being sought for by this learned doctor, you may believe was not denied by Mr. Hooker, who was by fortune so like him, as to be engaged against Mr. Travers, Mr. Cartwright, and others of their judgment, in a controversy too like Dr. Saravia’s; so that in this year of 1595, and in this place of Borne, these two excellent persons began a holy friendship, increasing daily to so high and mutual affections, that their two wills seemed to be but one and the same: and, their designs both for the glory of God, and peace of the Church, still assisting and improving each other’s virtues, and the desired comforts of a peaceable piety. Which I have willingly mentioned, because it gives a foundation to some things that follow.

This parsonage of Borne is from Canterbury three miles, and near to the common road that leads from that city to Dover: in which parsonage Mr. Hooker had not been twelve months, but his Books, and the innocency and sanctity of his life became so remarkable, that many turned out of the road, and others (scholars especially) went purposely to see the man, whose life and learning were so much admired; and alas! as our Saviour said of St. John Baptist, “What went they out to see? a man clothed in purple and fine linen?” No, indeed; but²⁷ an “obscure, harmless man; a man in poor clothes, his loins usually girt in a coarse gown, or canonical coat; of a mean stature, and stooping, and yet more lowly in the thoughts of his soul; his body worn out, not with age, but study, and holy mortifications; his face full of heatpimples, begot by his unactivity and sedentary life.” And to this true character of his person, let me add this of his disposition and behaviour: God and nature blessed him with so blessed a bashfulness, that as in his younger days his pupils might easily look him out of countenance; so neither then, nor in his age, “did he ever willingly look any man in the face; and was of so mild and humble a nature, that his poor parish-clerk and he did never talk but with both their hats on, or both off, at the same time:” and to this may be added, that though he was not purblind, yet he was short or weak-sighted; and where he fixt his eyes at the beginning of his sermon, there they continued till it was ended; and the reader has a liberty to believe, that his modesty and dim sight were some of the reasons why he trusted Mrs. Churchman to choose his wife.

This parish-clerk lived till the third or fourth year of the late long parliament: betwixt which time and Mr. Hooker’s death, there had come many to see the place of his burial, and the monument dedicated to his memory by Sir William Cooper, (who still lives,) and the poor clerk had many rewards for shewing Mr. Hooker’s grave-place, and his said monument, and did always hear Mr. Hooker mentioned with commendations and reverence; to all which, he added his own knowledge and observations of his humility and holiness; and in all which discourses, the poor man was still more confirmed in his opinion of Mr. Hooker’s virtues and learning: but it so fell out, that about the said third or fourth year of the long parliament, the then present parson of Borne was sequestred, (you may guess why,) and a Genevian minister put into his good living. This, and other like sequestrations, made the clerk express himself in a wonder, and say, “They had sequestred so many good men, that he doubted, if his good master Mr. Hooker had lived till now, they would have sequestred him too.”

It was not long, before this intruding minister had made a party in and about the said parish, that were desirous to receive the sacrament as in Geneva; to which end, the day was appointed for a select company, and forms and stools set about the altar or communion-table, for them to sit and eat, and drink; but when they went about this work, there was a want of some joint-stools, which the minister sent the clerk to fetch, and then to fetch cushions (but not to kneel upon). When the clerk saw them begin to sit down, he began to wonder; but the minister bade him “cease wondering, and lock the church door;” to whom he replied, “Pray take you the keys, and lock me out: I will never come more into this church; for all men will say, my master Hooker was a good man, and a good scholar, and I am sure it was not used to be thus in his days.” And, report says, the old man went presently home, and died; I do not say died immediately, but within a few days after²⁸.

But let us leave this grateful clerk in his quiet grave, and return to Mr. Hooker himself, continuing our observations of his Christian behaviour in this place, where he gave a holy valediction to all the pleasures and allurements of earth, possessing his soul in a virtuous quietness, which he maintained by constant study, prayers, and meditations: his use was to preach once every Sunday, and he or his curate to catechise after the second lesson in the evening prayer; his sermons were neither long nor earnest, but uttered with a grave zeal, and an humble voice; his eyes always fixt on one place to prevent his imagination from wandering, insomuch that he seemed to study as he spake²⁹; the design of his sermons (as indeed of all his discourses) was to shew reasons for what he spake; and with these reasons, such a kind of rhetorick, as did rather convince and persuade, than frighten men into piety³⁰; studying not so much for matter (which he never wanted) as for apt illustrations to inform and teach his unlearned hearers by familiar examples, and then make them better by convincing applications; never labouring by hard words, and then by needless distinctions and subdistinctions, to amuse his hearers, and get glory to himself; but glory only to God. Which intention, he would often say, was as discernible in a preacher, “as a natural from an artificial beauty.”

He never failed, the Sunday before every Ember week, to give notice of it to his parishioners, persuading them both to fast, and then to double their devotions for a learned and pious clergy; but especially the last; saying often, “That the life of a pious clergyman was visible rhetorick, and so convincing, that the most godless men (though they would not deny themselves the enjoyment of their present lusts) did yet secretly wish themselves like those of the strictest lives.” And to what he persuaded others, he added his own example of fasting and prayer; and did usually every Ember-week take from the parish-clerk the key of the church-door; into which place he retired every day, and lockt himself up for many hours; and did the like most Fridays, and other days of fasting.

He would by no means omit the customary time of Procession³¹, persuading all both rich and poor, if they desired the preservation of love, and their parish-rights and liberties, to accompany him in his perambulation; and most did so: in which perambulation, he would usually express more pleasant discourse than at other times, and would then always drop some loving and facetious observations to be remembered against the next year, especially by the boys and young people; still inclining them and all his present parishioners, to meekness, and mutual kindnesses, and love; because “love thinks not evil, but covers a multitude of infirmities.”

He was diligent to inquire who of his parish were sick, or any ways distrest, and would often visit them, unsent for; supposing that the fittest time to discover to them those errors to which health and prosperity had blinded them; and having by pious reasons and prayers moulded them into holy resolutions for the time to come, he would incline them to confession, and bewailing their sins, with purpose to forsake them, and then to receive the Communion, both as a strengthening of those holy resolutions, and as a seal betwixt God and them of his mercies to their souls, in case that present sickness did put a period to their lives.

And as he was thus watchful and charitable to the sick, so he was as diligent to prevent lawsuits, still urging his parishioners and neighbours to bear with each other’s infirmities, and live in love, because (as St. John says) “he that lives in love lives in God, for God is love.” And to maintain this holy fire of love constantly burning on the altar of a pure heart, his advice was to watch and pray, and always keep themselves fit to receive the Communion; and then to receive it often, for it was both a confirming and strengthening of their graces; this was his advice: and at his entrance or departure out of any house, he would usually speak to the whole family, and bless them by name; insomuch, that as he seemed in his youth to be taught of God, so he seemed in this place to teach his precepts, as Enoch did by walking with him, in all holiness and humility, making each day a step towards a blessed eternity. And though in this weak and declining age of the world, such examples are become barren, and almost incredible; yet let his memory be blest with this true recordation, because he that praises Richard Hooker praises God, who hath given such gifts to men; and let this humble and affectionate relation of him become such a pattern, as may invite posterity to imitate these his virtues.

This was his constant behaviour both at Borne and in all the places in which he lived: thus did he walk with God and tread the footsteps of primitive piety; and yet, as that great example of meekness and purity, even our blessed Jesus, was not free from false accusations, no more was this disciple of his, this most humble, most innocent, holy man; his was a slander parallel to that of chaste Susannah’s by the wicked elders; or that against St. Athanasius, as it is recorded in his life³², (for that holy man had heretical enemies,) a slander which this age calls trepanning³³; the particulars need not a repetition; and that it was false, needs no other testimony than the public punishment of his accusers, and their open confession of his innocency. It was said that the accusation was contrived by a dissenting brother, one that endured not church-ceremonies, hating him for his Books’ sake, which he was not able to answer; and his name hath been told me, but I have not so much confidence in the relation, as to make my pen fix a scandal on him to posterity; I shall rather leave it doubtful till the great day of revelation. But this is certain, that he lay under the great charge, and the anxiety of this accusation, and kept it secret to himself for many months; and being a helpless man, had lain longer under this heavy burden, but that the Protector of the innocent gave such an accidental occasion as forced him to make it known to his two dear friends, Edwin Sandys and George Cranmer: who were so sensible of their tutor’s sufferings, that they gave themselves no rest, till by their disquisitions and diligence they had found out the fraud, and brought him the welcome news, that his accusers did confess they had wronged him, and begged his pardon: to which the good man’s reply was to this purpose, “The Lord forgive them;” and, “The Lord bless you for this comfortable news. Now I have a just occasion to say with Solomon, ‘Friends are born for the days of adversity,’ and such you have proved to me: and to my God I say, as did the mother of St. John Baptist, ‘Thus hath the Lord dealt with me, in the day wherein he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men.’ And, O my God, neither my life nor my reputation are safe in mine own keeping, but in thine, who didst take care of me, when I yet hanged upon my mother’s breast: blessed are they that put their trust in thee, O Lord; for when false witnesses were risen up against me; when shame was ready to cover my face, when my nights were restless, when my soul thirsted for a deliverance, as the hart panteth after the rivers of waters; then thou, Lord, didst hear my complaints, pity my condition, and art now become my deliverer; and as long as I live I will hold up my hands in this manner, and magnify thy mercies, who didst not give me over as a prey to mine enemies, the net is broken and they are taken in it. O blessed are they that put their trust in thee; and no prosperity shall make me forget those days of sorrow, or to perform those vows that I have made to thee in the days of my affliction; for with such sacrifices, thou, O God, art well pleased; and I will pay them.”

Thus did the joy and gratitude of this good man’s heart break forth. And it is observable, that as the invitation to this slander was his meek behaviour and dovelike simplicity, for which he was remarkable; so his Christian charity ought to be imitated: for, though the spirit of revenge is so pleasing to mankind, that it is never conquered but by a supernatural grace, revenge being indeed so deeply rooted in human nature, that to prevent the excesses of it (for men would not know moderation) Almighty God allows not any degree of it to any man, but says, “Vengeance is mine:” and though this be said positively by God himself, yet this revenge is so pleasing, that man is hardly persuaded to submit the menage of it to the time, and justice, and wisdom of his Creator, but would hasten to be his own executioner of it: and yet nevertheless, if any man ever did wholly decline, and leave this pleasing passion to the time and measure of God alone, it was this Richard Hooker of whom I write; for when his slanderers were to suffer, he laboured to procure their pardon; and when that was denied him, his reply was, “That however he would fast and pray, that God would give them repentance, and patience to undergo their punishment.” And his prayers were so far returned into his own bosom, that the first was granted, if we may believe a penitent behaviour, and an open confession. And it is observable, that after this time he would often say to Dr. Saravia, “O with what quietness did I enjoy my soul after I was free from the fears of my slander! and how much more after a conflict and victory over my desires of revenge!”

About the year 1600, and of his age forty-six, he fell into a long and sharp sickness, occasioned by a cold taken in his passage by water betwixt London and Gravesend; from the malignity of which he was never recovered; for, after that time till his death he was not free from thoughtful days and restless nights: but a submission to His will that makes the sick man’s bed easy by giving rest to his soul, made his very languishment comfortable: and yet all this time he was solicitous in his study, and said often to Dr. Saravia, (who saw him daily, and was the chief comfort of his life,) “That he did not beg a long life of God for any other reason, but to live to finish his three remaining Books of Polity; and then, Lord, let thy servant depart in peace;” which was his usual expression. And God heard his prayers, though he denied the Church the benefit of them, as completed by himself; and it is thought he hastened his own death, by hastening to give life to his Books. But this is certain, that the nearer he was to his death, the more he grew in humility, in holy thoughts and resolutions.

About a month before his death, this good man, that never knew, or at least never considered, the pleasures of the palate, became first to lose his appetite, and then, to have an averseness to all food, insomuch, that he seemed to live some intermitted weeks by the smell of meat only, and yet still studied and writ. And now his guardian Angel seemed to foretell him, that the day of his dissolution drew near; for which, his vigorous soul appeared to thirst.

In this time of his sickness, and not many days before his death, his house was robbed; of which he having notice, his question was, “Are my books and written papers safe?” and being answered, that they were, his reply was, “Then it matters not; for no other loss can trouble me.”

About one day before his death, Dr. Saravia, who knew the very secrets of his soul, (for they were supposed to be confessors to each other,) came to him, and after a conference of the benefit, the necessity, and safety of the Church’s absolution, it was resolved the doctor should give him both that and the Sacrament the day following. To which end, the doctor came, and after a short retirement and privacy, they two returned to the company; and then the doctor gave him and some of those friends which were with him, the blessed Sacrament of the body and blood of our Jesus. Which being performed, the doctor thought he saw a reverend gaiety and joy in his face; but it lasted not long; for his bodily infirmities did return suddenly, and became more visible; insomuch that the doctor apprehended death ready to seize him: yet, after some amendment, left him at night, with a promise to return early the day following; which he did, and then found him better in appearance, deep in contemplation, and not inclinable to discourse; which gave the doctor occasion to inquire his present thoughts: to which he replied, “That he was meditating the number and nature of angels, and their blessed obedience and order, without which, peace could not be in heaven; and oh that it might be so on earth!” After which words he said, “I have lived to see this world is made up of perturbations, and I have been long preparing to leave it, and gathering comfort for the dreadful hour of making my account with God, which I now apprehend to be near; and, though I have by his grace loved him in my youth, and feared him in mine age, and laboured to have a conscience void of offence to him, and to all men; yet, if thou, O Lord, be extreme to mark what I have done amiss, who can abide it? And therefore, where I have failed, Lord shew mercy to me, for I plead not my righteousness, but the forgiveness of my unrighteousness, for His merits who died to purchase pardon for penitent sinners; and since I owe thee a death, Lord let it not be terrible, and then take thine own time; I submit to it! Let not mine, O Lord, but let thy will be done!” With which expression he fell into a dangerous slumber; dangerous, as to his recovery; yet recover he did, but it was to speak only these few words: “Good doctor, God hath heard my daily petitions, for I am at peace with all men, and He is at peace with me; and from that blessed assurance I feel that inward joy, which this world can neither give nor take from me: my conscience beareth me this witness, and this witness makes the thoughts of death joyful. I could wish to live to do the Church more service, but cannot hope it, for my days are past as a shadow that returns not.” More he would have spoken, but his spirits failed him; and after a short conflict betwixt nature and death, a quiet sigh put a period to his last breath, and so he fell asleep. And now he seems to rest like Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom; let me here draw his curtain, till with the most glorious company of the Patriarchs and Apostles, the most noble army of Martyrs and Confessors, this most learned, most humble, holy man, shall also awake to receive an eternal tranquillity; and with it, a greater degree of glory than common Christians shall be made partakers of.

In the mean time, bless, O Lord, Lord bless his brethren, the clergy of this nation, with effectual endeavours to attain, if not to his great learning, yet to his remarkable Meekness, his godly Simplicity, and his Christian Moderation: for these will bring peace at the last! And, Lord, let his most excellent writings be blest with what he designed when he undertook them: which was, “Glory to thee, O God on high, peace in thy Church, and good-will to mankind!”

The following epitaph was long since presented to the world, in memory of Mr. Hooker, by Sir William Cooper, who also built him a fair monument in Borne church, and acknowledges him to have been his spiritual father.

---

← A Short Note of Sundry Unsound Points of Doc · Contents · An Appendix to the Life of Mr. Richard Hooke →

Footnotes

1. [“Salvation belongeth to the Church of Christ. We may not think, that they could be capable of it, which lived in the errors held and maintained in the Church of Rome, that seat of Antichrist. Wherefore to his people God speaketh in this sort: ‘Go out of Babylon, my people, go out of her, that you be not partaker of her sins, and that you taste not of her plagues.’“The Galatians thinking that they could not be saved by Christ, except they were circumcised, did thereby exclude themselves from salvation. Christ did profit them nothing. So they which join their own works with Christ.” Travers’s own Answer.] ↩

2. [The words in ( ) appear to be a reference, crept by mistake into the text. The passages referred to are specified in the body of the sermon.] ↩

3. [“Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin, and Chancellor of Ireland, his ancient colleague in Cambridge, invited him over to be Provost of Trinity college in Dublin. Embracing the motion, over he went, accepting the place, and continued some years therein, till discomposed with the fear of their civil wars, he returned into England, and lived here many years very obscurely, (though in himself a shining light,) as to the matter of outward maintenance. Yet had he Agur’s wish, neither poverty nor riches, though his ‘enough’ seemed to be of shortest size… When Archbishop Ussher, brought up under him, proffered money unto him for his relief, Mr. Travers returned a thankful refusal thereof. Sometimes he did preach, rather when he durst, than when he would; debarred from all cure of souls by his nonconformity. He lived and died unmarried, and though leaving many nephews (some eminent) scholars, bequeathed all his books of Oriental languages (wherein he was exquisite) and plate worth fifty pounds, to Sion college in London.” Fuller, C. H. IX. 218.] ↩

4. [In his Preface to the edition of 1604.] ↩

5. [“In the very midst of the paroxysm betwixt Hooker and Travers, the latter still bare (and none can challenge the other to the contrary) a reverend esteem of his adversary. And when an unworthy aspersion, someyears after, was cast on Hooker, Mr. Travers being asked of a private friend what he thought of the truth of that accusation: ‘In truth,’ said he, ‘I take Mr. Hooker to be a holy man.’ ” Fuller, C. H. IX. 217.] ↩

6. [This paragraph originally stood as follows; “I have not only satisfied myself, but have begun a Treatise in which I intend the satisfaction of others, by a demonstration of the reasonableness of our laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; and therein laid a hopeful foundation for the Church’s peace; and, so as not to provoke your adversary Mr. Cartwright, nor Mr. Travers, whom I take to be mine, (but not mine enemy,) God knows this to be my meaning. To which end, I have searched many books, and spent many thoughtful hours; and I hope, not in vain: for I write to reasonable men. But, my Lord, I shall never be able to finish what I have begun, unless I be removed into some quiet country parsonage, where I may see God’s blessing spring out of my mother earth, and eat mine own bread in peace and privacy. A place where I may, without disturbance, meditate my approaching mortality, and that great account, which all flesh must at the last great day give to the God of all spirits.“This is my design; and, as these are the desires of my heart, so they shall, by God’s assistance, be the constant endeavours of the uncertain remainder of my life.”] ↩

7. [Originally “death of Bishop Pierce.” Strype, Whitg. II. 202, charges Walton with this mistake, not being aware that he had corrected it in a subsequent edition. Dr. John Peers, or Piers, was confirmed Archbishop of York, Feb. 19, 1588/9. Strype, Whitg. I. 548. Dr. John Coldwell, Dean of Rochester, was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury, Dec. 26, 1591. Id. ibid. II. 112.] ↩

8. [At the end of Dr. Bernard’s Clavi Trabales, 1661, are some memoranda of subscriptions to the Thirty-nine Articles, by divines of high authority; “among whom,” says the compiler, “it pleased me to find the hand of the reverend and learned Mr. Hooker thus subscribing, ‘Per me Richardum Hooker clericum in artibus magistrum præsentatum ad Canonicatum et Præbendam de Neather-Haven in Ecclesia cathedrali Sarum. 17 Julii 1591.’ ” p. 147.] ↩

9. [He was at the same time made Subdean of Sarum. See that title in Le Neve’s Fasti, 273. “1591, 33 Eliz. Richard Hooker was collated July 23, 1591. Void by the resignation of Baldgey;” who succeeded Hooker at the Temple. The Subdean is not, as such, a Canon residentiary, and his emoluments are very scanty. In the Chapter books appear the following entries: Subdeans of Sarum. Installed. Ric. Hooker per Lit. mandat. Archiepi 23 Julii 1591. Thos. Coldwell per Resign. Ric. Hooker 16 Feb. 1594. Netheravon Prebend. Ric. Hooker per Resign. Nic. Baldguy 23 Julii 1591. Thos. Joy per Resign. — Hooker 6 Feb. 1594. (16 Feb.?) In Sir Thomas Phillips’s Book of Wiltshire Institutions (taken from the Archives of the Registry) is the following entry, under the title, Registrum Johannis Coldwell: 1595 Patronus. Clericus. Eccl. Boscomb. Ricardus Hooker, clericus. Benjamin Russell per resign. dicti Ric. Hooker. In this, the description of Hooker as patron is an error, unless he was so for one turn, as it is said in some other instances, “ex concessione Episcopi.” The patronage of Boscomb has been in the bishop from the very earliest period. Between the years 1584 and 1591, Bishop Pierce’s Register is lost: consequently Hooker’s institution does not appear.The above particulars were kindly communicated to the editor by a member of the Chapter. That Hooker was really the patron by concession pro ea vice seems the more probable, as the person presented had been a scholar of C.C.C. and possibly one of Hooker’s own pupils. “Benj. Russell, discipulus. Feb. 6, 1579.” From the President’s Register.] ↩

10. [The true date is 29th January, 159⅔. Arber’s Transcripts, 11. 295.] 1886. ↩

11. [Originally “printed.” The change may be thought to be warranted by the letter to lord Burghley; for which see App. N°. V. although Mr. Strype (Whitg. II. 148.) conjectures the book to have been sent in a written copy rather than in print.] ↩

12. [Consecrated 12 Jan. 159⅘, Strype, Whitg. II. 218.] ↩

13. [Mr. Wharton says (Def. of Plural. 192, 2d edition) that Hooker died possessed of very great preferments. But he offers no proof of this assertion; nor is any to be found in Le Neve’s Fasti. Fulman, MSS. vol. x. near the end, says, “Heylin, Animadv. on Fuller’s Ch. Hist. p. 165, calls him Prebend of Canterbury; I think, without good ground.” Dr. Heylyn’s assertion is the less to be regarded, because in the same sentence he commits two other mistakes concerning Hooker: calling him “then Master of the Temple,” and dating the first publication of his great work 1595. Dr. Spenser in his preface expressly affirms “he neither enjoyed nor expected any the least dignity;” meaning at the time of his death.] ↩

14. [Stapleton is particularly mentioned as an admirer of Hooker, in Bishop King’s letter to Walton. He died in 1598. Collier, E. H. II. 662. Cardinal Allen in 1594. Id. ibid. 643. This proves that the former must have been the person here meant.] ↩

15. [Chr. Letter, page 45. “Our last scruple and demaund is this: seeing your bookes be so long and tedious, in a stile not usuall, and, as we verilie thinke, the like harde to be found, farre differing from the simplicitie of holie scripture, and nothing after the frame of the writings of the reverend and learned fathers of our Church, as of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewell, Whitgift, Fox, Fulke, &c… . . whether your meaning be to show yourself some rare Demosthenes, or extraordinary rabbi, &c.” Hooker, MS. note: “The dislike you have of me for not thinking as some others doe whom you love, hath drawne you into invectives against my stile, and made you eloquent in accusing me for that my maner of writing is not such as other mens hath bene. You might with as great discretion find falt that I look not like Calvin, Beza, Paulus Fagius, P. Martyr, M. Luther. For I hold it as possible to be like all those in countenance, as them in stile whom you have mentioned. You that carry the mind of a Phalaris towards your adversary are not fit to exercise the office of an Aristarchus. I must looke as nature, speak as custome, and think as God’s good Spirit hath taught me, judg you howsoever either of my mynd, or of my stile, or if you will of my looke also.” Again, Chr. Letter, p. 46. “In the booke of that most learned and reverend Father D. Whitgift wee finde the question judicially (Hooker in margin. ‘you would say, judiciously’) sett downe, his aunswere to the matter in question sensible, his reasons … . directly applied, so as such poore men as wee be may beare away what he saith … . but in your writing we are mightily incombred.”Hooker, MS. note: “You beare it away. I wish it did rather cary you away from the errors and vanities of your mind.“But howsoever your part require you to speake heere, the censure which all the pack of you giveth both of my L. Grace his writings, and of all other mens that hath the same cause is Ἀνέγνων, ἔγνων, κατέγνων.”] ↩

16. [Rather his daughter, the Lady Elisabeth. See her relation at the end of Εἰκὼν Βασιλικὴ, p. 261, ed. 1649. “He bid me read Bishop Andrews’ Sermons, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and Bishop Laud’s book against Fisher, which would ground me against popery.” Thus exprest by Gauden, in his Dedication of Hooker’s Works to King Charles II. ed. 1662: “Your Majesty’s Royal Father, a few days before he was crowned with martyrdom, recommended to his dearest children the diligent reading of Mr. Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, even next the Bible.” (Why the last clause was inserted does not appear.) This seems to have been Walton’s authority for saying that his Majesty gave the injunction to his son.] ↩

17. In his Annals of Eliz. 1599. [“Hoc anno animam cœlo reddidit Richardus Hookerus ex Devonia nobilium ingeniorum feraci oriundus, Oxoniæ in Corporis Christi collegio educatus, theologus modestia, temperantia, mansuetudine et cæteris virtutibus imitandus, et supra multiplici eruditionis laude celebris, quam libri de Ecclesiastica Politeia, patria lingua editi, dignissimi qui Latine loquantur, abunde testentur.” t. II. p. 189. ed. 1627.] ↩

18. [Bishop Earle was tutor to Prince Charles, and attended him in his exile: (see Clarendon, III. 203, 752. ed. 1819.) Dean of Westminster, 1660, Bishop of Worcester 1662, Bishop of Salisbury 1663, died Nov. 17, 1665, at Oxford, and is buried in Merton college chapel. The following is part of his epitaph there: “Ille qui Hookeri ingentis Politiam Ecclesiasticam; ille qui Caroli Martyris Εἰκόνα Βασιλικὴν, volumen, quo post Apocalypsin divinius nullum, legavit orbi sic Latine redditas, ut uterque unius Fidei Defensor, patriam adhuc retineat majestatem.” April 26, 1662, in convocation, “the care of translating the Book of Common Prayer into Latin was committed to Dr. John Earl, Dean of Westminster, and Dr. John Pearson.” Collier, E. H. II. 889. Bishop Burnet says, “He was the man of all the clergy, for whom the King had the greatest esteem. He had been his sub-tutor, and had followed him in all his exile, with so clear a character, that the King could never see or hear of any one thing amiss in him. So he, who had a secret pleasure in finding out any thing that lessened a man esteemed eminent for piety, yet had a value for him beyond all the men of his order.” Hist. of his Own Times, I. 225, ed. 1724.] ↩

19. [“Natione Belgica, natus Hedinæ Artesii.” His epitaph in Canterbury cathedral, quoted by Strype, Wh. II. 210. “His father a Spaniard, his mother one of Artois: both protestants.” Strype, An. I. ii. 224. The Belgic provinces were often spoken of under the title of Lower Germany; and are so in Saravia’s own dedication of his three Treatises.] ↩

20. [At Ghent, before 1566. Strype, ibid. 226. In the dedication mentioned above, Dr. S. says, “Apud meos fratres et collegas, et nonnullos ex magistratu urbis Gandavi, &c.” Thence he retired to England, and was sent by the council to Jersey, but was “evocatus ab Ecclesiis Belgicis,” and taught at Leyden for some ten years, ending 1587. Ibid. and in Baker’s notes at the end of Strype, An. IV. 603.] ↩

21. [Especially Danæus: see Saravia’s Answer to Beza; and Collier, E. H. II. 622.] ↩

22. [In 1594. Strype, An. I. ii. 224. Whitg. II. 207.] ↩

23. [Strype, Whitg. II. 202, gives some account of Dr. Saravia’s first publication; which contains three tracts: 1. De Diversis Ministrorum Evangelii Gradibus. 2. De Honore Præsulibus et Presbyteris debito. 3. De Sacrilegis et Sacrilegorum Pœnis. What Walton calls his third Tract is probably that which now stands fifth, (in his works collected and published in folio, 1611,) viz. “Responsio Hadriani Saraviæ ad quasdam calumnias, Jesuiticas nimirum illas Gretzeri in defensione sua Bellarminiana.” It is chiefly taken up with a comparison between papal primacy and regal supremacy. Walton perhaps confuses it with the incomplete work (four books out of seven) “De Imperandi Potestate, et Christiana Obedientia:” which closes the volume abovementioned. But that was not written against Gretser.] ↩

24. [“Honoratus vir Dom. Glamius, quondam regni Scotiæ Cancellarius, de deturbandis Episcopis gradu, quem ab Apostolorum temporibus in hunc usque diem ubique terrarum in Ecclesia tenuerunt, a D. Beza consilium, vel (ut mihi videtur) potius suffragium petivit; ut ejus rei, quam animo perficere constituerat, illum probatorem haberet et auctorem. Epistolarum autem ipsorum nactus exemplaria, mirari cœpi, tam levibus rationibus quenquam ad innovandam tanti momenti rem potuisse moveri. Quando illud argumentum contra eundem D. Bezam pertractavi, hanc quoque disputationem adjecissem, si ad meas manus pervenissent. Et ubi illas nactus sum, non statim contra quidquam pervulgandum existimavi, sed distuli in hunc usque diem, expectans opportunitatem, qua commodo Ecclesiarum cum minima offensione prodire in lucem posset.” Saravia, Dedic. prefixed to his Examen Tractatus de Episcopatuum Triplici Genere. It appears from an epistle of Whitgift to Beza, in Strype, Wh. II. 166, that the letter of Beza, referred to here, was not written to Lord Glamis himself, but to James Lawson, who succeeded Knox as minister in Edinburgh, and of whom some account may be found in M‘Crie’s Life of Knox, II. 213, 293. It was dated 1580. (misprinted 1590 in Strype.) Whitgift intimates in his letter, that Beza’s book, of a threefold episcopacy, had been “in 1580 sent to this island; and not much after also translated into the English tongue, and privately printed; together with his epistle to one Lausanus, a Scot, written the same year.” He speaks also of Saravia’s book of Degrees in the Ministry, and of the care which he, Whitgift, and his brethren took to have the Church properly vindicated, in a way which indirectly much confirms the statement in the text. Only Walton seems to be wrong in what he says of the date of Saravia’s Examen. The quotation from Saravia, just given, proves that work to have appeared a good while after Beza’s. Probably Walton had seen or heard of Whitgift’s letter in the Antiquities of Canterbury, Cantuaria Sacra, App. xv. and had applied what is there said of the book of Degrees, &c. to the Examen. At the end of Clavi Trabales is a letter of Saravia to the ministers of Guernsey, in which, p. 144, he says, “I pass over what I have myself written concerning it (the Discipline) in my book, De diversis Ministrorum Gradibus, and in my defence against the answer of Mr. Beza, and more largely in my Confutation of his book De Triplici Genere Episcoporum. I cannot wonder enough at the Scotchmen, who could be persuaded to abolish and reject the state of bishops, by reasons so ill grounded, partly false, partly of no moment at all, and altogether unworthy a man of such fame. If the Scots had not more sought after the temporal means of bishops than after true reformation, never had Mr. Beza’s book persuaded them to do what they have done.” Dr. Saravia had been, as this letter states, one of the first protestant ministers in the islands, and knew “which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God’s word was planted there.” p. 137. “In those beginnings, at the pursuit” (the letter is from the French) “of Mr. John After, Dean, I was sent by my Lords of the Council to the islands, as well in the school that was newly erected,” (Elisabeth college,) “as to be a minister there.” p. 138. Whenever Saravia’s works are reedited (they amply deserve it) it is to be hoped that this letter will not be forgotten: nor yet the masterly paper on Barret’s recantation (i. e. on the Calvinistic controversy) in Strype, Whitg. III. 321.] ↩

25. [“D. Calvinus in tractatu de necessitate reformandæ Ecclesiæ testatur, se paratum fuisse subjicere se Hierarchiæ Ecclesiasticæ, quæ Christo Domino subjici non recusaret. Ejus verba hæc sunt. ‘Talem nobis Hierarchiam exhibeant, in qua sic emineant Episcopi, ut sub Christo esse non recusent, ut ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant, et ad ipsum referantur; in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant, ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati: tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fateor, si qui erunt, qui non eam revereantur, summaque obedientia observent.’ His audivimus, quid de Episcopis, et Episcoporum Hierarchia censuerit D. Calvinus. Ab ejus sententia si D. Beza non recessisset, hac disputatione nihil opus esset.” Sarav. Prol. ad Exam. Tract. de Episc. Tripl. Gen. ↩

26. [The three tracts came out earlier, 1590, and were printed in English, 1591. In 1590 also Saravia was incorporated at Oxford, July 9, being before D.D. of the university of Leyden. Wood, Fasti, subjoined to the Athen. Oxon. I. 252. His preferments in England, after his return hither in 1587, were these, as far as appears. First, master of the school at Southampton: in which he was much distinguished, Nich. Fuller the orientalist being one of his pupils, (Ath. Oxon. II. 327), and Sir Tho. Lake, Secretary of State to King James, (Chalmers, Biog. Dict.) Then Dr. Saravia was successively Prebendary of Gloucester, (ibid.) Canterbury, Dec. 6, 1595, (Le Neve, p. 16.) Westminster, July 5, 1601, (id. 371,) in the room of Bishop Andrews, and Rector of Great Chart in Kent, Feb. 24, 1609/10. (Clavi Trab. 148.) In 1607 he was nominated one of the translators of the Bible, his name appearing third, after those of Andrews and Overall, in the Westminster committee, to whom was assigned the Old Testament, from Genesis to the second Book of Kings. (Fuller, C. H. X. 45.) His Hebrew learning probably, as well as his great discretion, led the archbishop to employ him in his communications with the “learned though morose” Hugh Broughton. Strype, Whitg. II. 118. III. 370. He died aged 82, Jan. 15, 161⅔. (Ath. Oxon. ubi sup.)] ↩

27. [Probably the very words of Walton’s informant.] ↩

28. [Sampson Horton was buried May 9, 1648, having been parish clerk of Bishopsborne threescore years. Dr. Zouch, from the Parish Register.] ↩

29. [“Mr. Hooker his voice was low, stature little, gesture none at all … . Where his eye was left fixed at the beginning, it was found fixed at the end of his sermon: in a word, the doctrine he delivered had nothing but itself to garnish it. His stile was long and pithy, drawing on a whole flock of several clauses before he came to the close of a sentence. So that when the copiousness of his stile met not with proportionable capacity in his auditors, it was unjustly censured, for perplext, tedious, and obscure. His sermons followed the inclination of his studies, and were for the most part on controversies, and deep points of school divinity. Mr. Travers his utterance was graceful, gesture plausible, matter profitable, method plain, and his stile carried in it indolem pietatis, a genius of grace, flowing from his sanctified heart. Some say, that the congregation in the Temple ebb’d in the forenoon and flowed in the afternoon, and that the auditory of Mr. Travers was far the more numerous, the first occasion of emulation betwixt them. But such as knew Mr. Hooker, knew him too wise to take exception at such trifles, the rather because the most judicious is always the least part in all auditories.” Fuller, C. H. IX. 216. This work was published just before the Restoration. In his Worthies of England, 1662, the following occurs: “Hooker his stile was prolix but not tedious, and such who would patiently attend and give him credit all the reading or hearing of his sentences, had their expectation ever paid at the close thereof. He may be said to have made good music with his fiddle and stick alone, without any rosin, having neither pronunciation nor gesture to grace his matter.” p. 264.] ↩

30. [“The Gospel, which Mr. Hooker dispensed in so still a voice and silent gesture, but with potent demonstrations of scripture and reason, which are the greatest virtue and efficaciousness of a preacher, whose mere Stentorian noise and theatrick gesticulations in a pulpit, serve more to amuse and scare, or to decoy or lowbel the gaping, sleeping, or frighted people, than much to edify, inform, or amend them.” Gauden’s Life of Hooker, p. 36.(“Low-bell; a hand-bell used in fowling, to make the birds lie close, till, by a more violent noise, and a light, they are alarmed, and fly into the net.‘As timorous larks amazed areWith light and with a low-bell.’“Percy’s Reliques, III. 321.”)From Nares’s Glossary.] ↩

31. [See in the 2d Book of Homilies, the “Exhortation to be spoken to such parishes where they use their Perambulation in Rogation week, for the oversight of the bounds and limits of their town.” See also Bishop Sparrow’s Rationale of Common Prayer, p. 160. It appears from Strype, Parker, I. 303—5, that this was one of the usages excepted against by the Puritans.] ↩

32. [Sozomen, E. H. II. 25. Theodoret E. H. I. 30.] ↩

33. [Or “trapanning;” see Todd’s edition of Johnson’s Dictionary. No example of the word is there given of a date previous to the 17th century.] ↩