« НазадПродовжити »
And now after this long digression, made for the information of my Teader 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 Travers”, a friend and favourite of Mr. Cartwright's, as Dr. Whitgift 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 Dr. Whitgift were now at rest, and had been a great while, yet there was sprung up a new generation of restless men, that by company and clamours became pofsessed 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 Scots, the bishop that preached her funeral sermon (which was Dr. Howland, then Bishop of Peterborough“) was reviled for not being positive for her damna
2 Walter Travers, formerly Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, was called by Fuller, & the Neck," as Cartwright was termed by him “ the Head, of the Presbyterian party.” They were intimate friends and joint preachers to the English Factory at Antwerp. When Travers came into England, he was appointed chaplain to Lord Burghley, through whose influence he was made Lecturer at the Temple. He is the supposed author of the book “De Difs ciplinâ Ecclefiafticâ," written in Latin against the government of the Church of England, and containing the ground and model of the Puritan discipline. Archbishop Whitgift, in a letter to the Queen, to whom Travers was recommended as a proper person to be chosen Master of the Temple, on the death of Father Alvy, describes him as “one of the “ chief and principal authors of dissension in the church, a contemner of the book of prayers “ and 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.” Mr. Travers was ordained at Antwerp, May, 8, 1578, by Cartwright, Villers, and others, the heads of a congregation there.
a Dr. Richard Howland, Master of St. John's College in Cambridge, and the fourth Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1600. It does not appear that he was the preacher on this occasion.
Gunton, in his “ History of the Church of Peterborough,” page 73, &c. has given a circumftantial account of the funeral of Mary Queen of Scots, on Tuesday August 1, 1587, fix months after her death, for she was beheaded in the castle of Fotheringay, February 8, in that year. He relates that the Bishop of Lincoln (Wickham) preached out of the 39th Pfalm, 5, 6, 7. Lord, let me know my end and the number of my days, &c. In the prayer, when he gave thanks for such as were translated out of this vale of misery, he used these words :-Let us give thanks
tion. And besides this boldness of their becoming gods, so far as to set limits to his mercies, there was not only “ Martin Mar-prelate”," but other
for the happy dissolution of the high and mighty Princess Mary, late Queen of Scotland and Dowager of France, of whose life and death at this time I have not much to say, because I was not acquainted with the one, neither was I present at the other. I will not enter into judgment further ; but, because it hath been signified to me that she trusted to be saved by the blood of Christ, we must hope well of her salvation : “ For," as Father Luther was wont to say, “ many one that liveth a Papist, dieth a Pro teftant.” In the discourse of his text, he only dealt with general doctrine of the vanity of all flesh.
In the Supplement subjoined to “Gunton's History,” page 331, the subject of the fermon is resumed -" Bishop Morton, in his . Protestant Appeal,' 1. IV. c. 1. hath given the best “ account I meet with of that passage (which in the “ Apology of the Roman Church' is. “ taken out of Martin Mar-Prelate') in the Bishop of Lincoln's Sermon at her (the Queen of “ Scots) funeral, which made so great noise among factious people, who reported that he
prayed his soul and the souls of all there present might be with the foul of the Queen deceased. But the « truth of the story, he says, is this, that the reverend bishop now mentioned, understanding “ how that great and honourable personage in the last act of her life renounced all presumption • of her own inherent righteousness, and wholly affianced her soul unto Christ, in belief to be
justified only by his satisfactory justice, did therefore conceive hope of her salvation by vir“ tue of that cordial prescribed by the holy apostle, viz. that where sin aboundeth, the grace of “ God doth superabound. Which the apostle hath ministered for the comfort of every Chrif“ tian, who, erring by ignorance, shall (by sincere repentance, especially for all known fins) de..,
part from this mortal life, having the heel or end of it fhod with this preparation of the “ gospel of peace : not of the new Romish, but of the old Catholic faith, which is the faith of “ all Protestants. And this consideration of that our preacher cannot but now worthily con« demn the Apologists of partial prejudice, who chose rather to be informed concerning that “ sermon by (as they confess) a reproachful traducer and libeller, than (which they might easily “ have done) by testimony of a thousand temperate and indifferent hearers then present.”
In 1588 many libels, full of low scurrility, and petulant satire, were published against the bishops. They were principally written by a society of men, assuming the name of “Martin « Mar-Prelate." They appeared under various titles, as “ Diotrephes;” “ the Minerals ;" “ The Epistle to the Confocation House;" “ Have ye any Work for a Cooper ?" in answer to what Cowper, Bishop of Winchester, had written in vindication of the bishops and church of England; “ More Work for a Cooper,” &c. &c. The authors of these publications were John Penry, a Welshman, John Udal, and other ministers.
John Penry, or John ap Henry, was in 1593 arraigned at the King's Bench, Westminster, upon the statute of the 23 Eliz. c. 2. made against feditious words and rumours uttered against the Queen, and soon after exccuted hastily, being brought in an afternoon out of the King's Bench
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's answers being like his books, which bore these titles, “ An Almond for A Parrot;" A Fig for my Godson; “ Come crack me this Nut," and the like; fo that his merry wit made such a discovery of their
prison, in Southwark into St. Thomas Waterings, a place of execution, on that fide the river Thames, and there hanged. (Strype.)
We are informed by Dr. Heylin in his “ History of the Presbyterians,” that the men who assumed this name of “ Martin Mar-Prelate” called the archbishop “ Pope of Lambeth ;" " the Canterbury Caiaphas ;” “Efau ;” “a monstrous Antichristian Pope.” The Bishops were named “ Petty Popes," “ Petty Antichrifts,"
· Petty Antichrists," “ Incarnate Devils,” &c. whilst the inferior clergy were “ Popith Priests,” “ Monks,” “ Ale-hunters,” &c.
What effects were produced by these writings we learn from “ Brightman upon the Reve"lation," p. 149. “ There was,” says he “ one that called himself by the name of • Martin “Mar-Prelate,' who set forth books wherein he dealt somewhat roundly with the angel, i. e. " the Bishops of the Church of England. How were those bitter jests of his favoured among “ the people ? how willingly, greedily, and with what great mirth were they every where en“ tertained? There is no man fo rude and unskilful, but that pondering that time in his mind “ would say thus to himself, and that not without cause, Truly the Lord hath poured out contempt “ upon Princes; those that honour him doth he honour, and those that despise him shall be despised. He « hath made our priefis contemptible to the whole people, because they have broken their covenant.”
c Mr. Thomas Nash, a man of a facetious and sarcastic disposition, was the author of numerous tracts to which he gave quaint names, as “the Apology of Pierce Penniless ; or, Strange
News," &C.-" Have with you to Saffron Walden :-- Pappe with a Hatchet ; alias, a Fig for my « Godson ; or, Cracke me this Nutt; or, a Country Cuffe, that is, a sound Box of the Ear for the
Idiot Martin to hold his Peace; written by one that dares call a Dog a Dog." He wrote with great pleasantry and wit against a set of men, who at that time boldly pretended to prognostications and astronomical predictions.
From the various tracts written by Nash, the commentators on Shakespear have happily elucidated and explained several obscure passages of their great poet.
absurdities, as (which is strange) he put a greater stop to these malicious pamphlets, than a much wiser man had been able.
And now the reader is to take notice, that at the death of Father Alvy, who was Master of the Temple, this Walter Travers was lecturer there for the evening sermons, which he preached with great approbation, especially of the younger gentlemen of that fociety, 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, of a blameless life. But he had taken orders by the Presbyters in Antwerp“, 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 Geneva', and others in Scotland; and was one of the chiefest assistants to Mr. Cartwright in this design.
Mr. Travers had also a particular hope to set up this government in the Temple, and to that end used his endeavours to be Master of it; and his being disappointed by Mr. Hooker's admittance, proved some occasion of his opposition of Mr. Hooker's fermons publicly in the pulpit : Many of which were concerning the doctrine, discipline, and ceremonies of this church ; and Mr. Hooker again publicly justified his doctrine against the other's exceptions: infomuch, that as St. Paul withstood St Peter to his face, so did they. For as one hath pleasantly expressed it, “the forenoon “sermons speak Canterbury, and the afternoon's Geneva.”
In these fermons there was little of bitterness, but each party brought all the reasons he was able to prove his adversary's opinions erroneous. And thus it continued for a time till the oppositions became so high, and the consequences so dangerous, especially in that place, that the prudent archbishop put a stop to Mr. Travers's preaching by a positive prohibition'; against which Mr. Travers appealed and petitioned her Majesty and her Privy Council to have it recalled, where he met with many assisting powerful 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
d The testimonial of his ordination at Antwerp, May 14, 1578, is inserted in “ Fuller's “ Church History," B. IX. p. 214.
e Strype has drawn a comparison between these two rival preachers.--" Hooker was a “ true man to the church as established: Travers was not so. Hooker was for universal re" demption, and taught the decrees of God concerning the salvation of mankind by Jesus “ Christ in more latitude : Travers was for the more rigid way, for absolute exclusion of the “ greatest part of mankind from it, and to be shut up under a decree of reprobation and re“ jection. These and other opinions caused different doctrines to be preached in the same
pulpit morning and afternoon."
f That prohibition was chiefly because of his foreign ordination. Their different characters as preachers are thus delineated by Dr. Gauden:-“ Mr. Travers was a more plausible and “ profitable preacher to vulgar auditors, as well as more popular, having much more of the
oratorian decoy, a pleasing voice, a pathetic pronunciation, and an insinuating fashion or s gesture to captivate his auditors by his agreeable presence, vigorous speech, and graceful
activity; nor were his texts and matter usually ill-chosen, or impertinently or dully handled, “ upon practical heads and common places of divinity. Mr. Hooker was more profound and " the other more fluent: different gifts they had from the same spirit, for several uses of the “church, to the fame end of God's glory and souls' good, though in different ways of mini“ stration.” (Hooker's Life, p. 30.)
According to Fuller, the manner of filencing Travers gave great offence. “ For all the congregation on a Sabbath in the afternoon were allembled together, their attention pre
pared, the cloth, as I may fay, and napkins were laid, yea the guests set, and their knives “ drawn for their spiritual repaft, when suddenly, as Mr. Travers was going up to the pulpit, “ a forry fellow served him with a letter, prohibiting him to preach any more. In obedience to “authority, the mild and constant submillion whereunto won him refpect with his adversaries, “Mr. Travers calmly fignified the same to the congregation, and requested them quietly to “ depart to their chambers. Thus was our good Zaccheus (or rather Zacharias) struck dumb “ in the Temple, but not for infidelity; unpartial people accounting his fault at most but in“ discretion. Meantime his auditory (pained that their pregnant expectation to hear him “ preach should fo publicly prove abortive, and sent sermonless home) manifested in their va“ riety of passion, fome grieving, some frowning, some murmuring, and the wifest fort, who “held their tongues, snaked their heads, as disliking the managing of the matter.” (Fuller's Church Hift.B. IX. p. 217.)—Upon his expulsion from the Temple he was appointed Provost of Trinity College in Dublin, at the instance of his old friend and fellow collegian Adam Loftus, Archbishop of Dublin. He afterward resigned that office, and returned to England, where he lived many years in obfcurity, but with much quiet and contentment.
E « The Supplication made to the Council by Mr. Walter Travers” and “ Mr. Hooker's “ Answer to it, addressed to my Lord of Canterbury his Grace," are usually printed with Mr. Hooker's works,