Billeder på siden


and second, in a small duodecimo volume. No date or place.

“ An Answer to an Admonition to the Parliament, by John Whitgift, D. of Divinitie, 4to. printed by Bynneman, 1572.

“1." A Replie to the Answer, by T.C. no date or place. 4to. N. B. Of this there are two editions, differing in the order of numbering

the pages.

[ocr errors]

“ A Second Answer of Whitgift, as must be presumed from the title of the next article, and is probably no other than a book mentioned in Ames's Tip. Antiq. 329, by the title of A Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, folio. 1574. Printed by Bynneman.

22. A Second Replie of Cartwright (his name at length) against Whitgift’s Second Answer, 4to. 1575. No place.

“ 3. The rest of the Second Replie of Cartwright against Whitgift's Second Answer.

"Upon a reference to these several publicae tions of Cartwright, and a careful examination of sundry passages cited from him by Hooker, it most evidently appears that, by

“T. C. Lib. is meant No. 1, as above dem scribed.

“ By T. C. Lib. 3. No. 3.

« But here it is to be observed, that the references to Lib. 1. agree but with one edition of it, namely, that which has the table to the principal points at the beginning, and not at the end, as the other has. The difference between them is, that in the former, the numbers of the pages commence with the Address to the Church of England; in the latter with the book itself: so that to give one instance of difference, this passage. It is no small Injury' is to be found in page 25 of one edition, and in page 14 of the other.

“ In Ames's Typ. Antiq. 329, is this article, which seems to be a collateral branch of the controversy,

A Defence of the Ecclesiastical Regiment of England defaced, by T. C. in his Replie against D. Whitgift, D. D.' 12mo. 1574.

“ It does not appear that this defence is of Whitgift's writing, yet it has the name of his printer, Bynneman.'

“ Fuller, in his Church History, Book ix, 102; gives an account of Cartwright, and of his dispute with Whitgift, which is very erroneous; for he makes it to end at Whitgift's Defence of his Answer: nay, he goes farther, and assigns reasons for Cartwright's silence.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

The truth is, he was not silent till long after, but continued the dispute in the Tracts, No. 2 and 3, above noted. The relation of the controversy by Neal, in his History of the Puritans, Vol. 1. 285 et seq. is very fair and accurate."

But notwithstanding the Ecclesiastical Polity may be considered as originating in the general state of the theological controversies of the times, it was yet occasioned, or at least especially promoted, by a particular cause. At the time when Hooker was chosen master of the Temple, Walter Travers filled the place of afternoon-lecturer there. Travers was a man of learning, a good preacher, and of unexceptionable life; but having been ordained by the presbytery at Antwerp, he was zealously attached to the Geneva discipline. His theological sentiments too were strictly Calvinistical, while those of Hooker were of a more liberal cast. Travers had the hope, that should be be elected master, he should be enabled to introduce the discipline of Geneva into the Temple; and accordingly exerted his interest to obtain the mastership. But disappointed in his views by the appointment of Hooker, he began to attack the established

scheme of church polity from the pulpit, and his lectures were filled with discussions of to. pics relative to doctrine, discipline, and the ceremonies of the church. Hooker felt it incumbent upon

him to repel this attack, also from the pulpit; so that it was pleasantly observed, “ that the forenoon sermon spake Canterbury, and the afternoon Geneva." This contest was conducted without bitterness, yet with so much zeal, that Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, thought proper to condemn Travers to silence; who, upon this, presented

a Supplication to the Privy Council,” in which he complained that he had been judged and condemned without being heard, objected to Hooker's doctrine, and prayed to be restored to his ministry. This being disregarded, his “Supplication" was privately printed and dispersed; which called forth an answer from Hooker in a letter to the archbishop, which was highly commended by the advocates of the existing establishment, and as eagerly condemned by the favourers of Puritanism.

Firmly persuaded that he had truth on his side, he was desirous of producing a more complete and extensive conviction. In the hope therefore, of placing the dispute beyond

the reach of future controversy, he began the elaborate and learned treatise, “ Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.” It was that he might proceed without interruption, in the arduous task he had undertaken, that he solicited a removal from the Temple. His letter on this occasion to the archbishop, is so characteristic of the man, that it deserves to be transcribed.

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 mę for contentions, but . for study and quietness. And, my Lord, my particular contests here with Mr. Travers, have proved the more unpleasant to me, because I believe him to be a good man; and that belief hath occasioned me to examine mine own conscience concerning his opinions. And to satisfy that, I have consulted the Holy 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 by us, 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

« ForrigeFortsæt »