of Mr. Travers, arguing that he was "a chief author of dissension in the Church, a contemner of the Book of Prayers and other orders by authority established, 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." At the same time, he recommended Dr. Bond, one of her Majesty's chaplains, to the Mastership of the Temple.1 In a letter to Lord Burleigh, his Grace took occasion to say also, that Mr. Travers's "lectures were so barren of matter that the hearers took no commodity thereby."" Upon this point, he differed from everybody else. Indeed, it would seem that he never could perceive in a Puritan either grace, capacity, learning, or good behavior. In this letter the Archbishop added, that, unless Mr. Travers could prove that he had been ordained according to the laws of the Church of England, and would subscribe the Three Articles, he could by no means consent to placing him as Master of the Temple, or in any function of the Church.

Many of the Puritans had conscientious scruples about receiving episcopal ordination, although they did not question its validity. From time to time, such persons had gone abroad to receive Presbyterian ordination at Middleburgh, Antwerp, and other places. Mr. Travers was one of these, and had been ordained in due form at Antwerp, in 1578, by a synod of ministers and elders, of which fact he had the proper certificate. Lord Burleigh, find

1 Strype's Whitgift, 173-175. Hooker's Works, I. 30, 31.

2 Strype's Whitgift, 174.

Ibid., 175. Hooker's Works, II. 465. * Fuller, Book IX. p. 214. Brook, II. 314.

1

ing that this fact was an obstacle to Mr. Travers's preferment to the Mastership, and wishing that he might secure it, proposed to him "to be made minister according to the orders of the Church of England." To this Mr. Travers very properly objected. In a letter to his lordship, written in November, he argued That it was contrary to all ecclesiastical usage, ancient and modern, that one regularly ordained in any Church not heretical or schismatical should not be acknowledged, throughout the universal Church, as sufficiently qualified for any ministerial action: That the civil law itself expressly provided for such recognition: That the same usage had always obtained to the present day in the Church of England, it being only provided by the Act 13 Elizabeth that those ordained by other than the English form should subscribe to the articles of faith and the sacraments, to qualify them to enjoy the livings of the Church: That the setting aside of one regularly ordaining act, by requiring a second, was contrary to the ordinance of God, and would, by implication at least, vitiate all acts such as marriage, baptism, etc.- which the minister had performed by virtue of his former ministry. "Wherefore," he concluded, "I beseech your lordship to consider whether my subscribing to the Articles of Religion which only concern the true faith and the doctrine of the sacraments doth not, by virtue of the Statute, as fully enable me for dealing in the ministry as if I had first been made minister by the form established in this Church." There seems to

* Ibid., Appendix, Book III. No. XII.

have been no further discussion of this subject at this time, for her Majesty set aside both candidates, -Dr. Bond and Mr. Travers.

In the mean time Edwin Sandys had made interest for his old tutor, with his father, the Archbishop of York, pleading that the remediless affliction which he bore under his wife might be at least mitigated by his preferment to a better living. Consequently, "at the Temple reading next after the death of Dr. Alvey, his Grace, being there at dinner with the judges, the reader, and the benchers of that society," took occasion to commend Mr. Hooker for the Mastership. The result of this was, that Mr. Hooker "was placed as Master of the Temple and appointed to be preacher to the honorable society, while Mr. Travers continued to be lecturer there."1 Mr. Hooker received his "patent on the seventeenth day of March, 1584-5, being then in the thirty-fourth year of his age." 2

"2

It was a fundamental rule of the Presbyterian Puritans, that no man, however well qualified by his education, should offer himself to the ministry, but should await a call thereto from some particular church. Upon the principle involved in this rule, Mr. Travers had scrupulously conducted himself. The place of lecturer in the Temple, to which pertained only the duty of preaching, was not presentative, for it was no benefice, i. e. it had no stipend attached to it by law, but was occupied by whomsoever the Templars themselves might elect; and

1 Hooker's Works, I. 29. Strype's

Whitgift, 175, 235.

Hooker's Works, I. 29, 30.

3 Ante, Vol. II. 270.

Hooker's Works, II. 464.

the occupant was supported only by the benevolence or voluntary contribution of the society.1 Thus Mr. Travers could fill this place in consistency with his own views about popular election, and also without subscribing as was by law required of those who might be presented to benefices, or, as was required by the Archbishop, without law. With the same consistency, when "the Temple had desired that he might have succeeded in Mr. Alvey's place, yet neither by speech nor by letter did he make suit to any for the obtaining of it.2 Otherwise he would have conducted himself in flagrant opposition to his well-known doctrine, "that laboring and suing for places and charges in the Church was not lawful." For his exclusion from the place when solicited for him by the gentlemen of the society and by the Lord Treasurer, he bore no illwill toward Mr. Hooker; nor could he, "for he did in no sort esteem Mr. Hooker to have prevented or undermined him." He was He was even glad, as many could testify, that Mr. Hooker was placed there, for they were old friends and were connected by ties of marriage.5

Under the preaching of Dr. Alvey and Mr. Travers-"whose principles did somewhat correspond -the society of the Templars had become largely in sympathy with Puritanical sentiments. Thus, although the gift of the Mastership did not depend

upon their suffrages, yet the opinion prevailed among them, that at least an outward show of respect to their wills and voices was due from whoever might be appointed by the queen as their spiritual teacher. Hence it was that Lord Burleigh, on the seventeenth day of September, wrote to the Archbishop "that he had let Dr. Bond," then a candidate by nomination of his Grace, "know that if he came not to the place with some applause of the Company, he should be weary thereof." And hence also it was that the following incident occurred.

1

The evening before Mr. Hooker was to preach in the Temple for the first time, Mr. Travers and two gentlemen of the society waited upon him and advised him "to change his purpose of preaching in the Temple the next day, that his coming to the place might be notified to the congregation, and that so their allowance might seal his calling." To which Mr. Hooker replied, that, "as where such order existed he would not break it, so, where it never had been, he might not, of his own head, take upon him to begin it," adding that he received well the intention of the proposal, and hoped that his answer, although contrary, would not be misliked. This gave great umbrage to some, and excited such a prejudice against Mr. Hooker, that neither what he did nor what he preached was favorably received. Besides this, hard sayings about him began to be afloat.3 These things led to a second conference between the Master and the Lecturer, at the instance of a mutual friend. At this

1 Strype's Whitgift, 174.

2 Hooker's Works, II. 478; Hooker to Whitgift.

Ibid.