est stress,1 was laid hold of merely as a convenient reason, having the air and force of filial deference to the "Mother Church"; a plausible pretence for silencing a man of popular abilities whose opinions were offensive to the Prelacy. But even this position was thought to be assailable and insecure; for could it have been relied upon as impregnable, other reasons would hardly have been put forward for crippling a man whom the most zealous Churchmen -with the exception of Archbishop Whitgift mention in terms of the highest respect.2 Mr. Travers's counsel to Mr. Hooker, that he should not commence preaching in the Temple until "his coming to the place might be notified to the congregation, that so their allowance might seal his calling," and Lord Burleigh's opinion, that "whoever came to the place without some allowance of the Company would soon weary thereof," proved true auguries. Although Mr. Hooker had a great and growing reputation among the "learned and wise of the nation," and although "the chief benchers in the Temple gave him much reverence and encouragement," yet, partly because of his slighting the suffrages of the society, which created great displeasure and prejudice against him, and partly because of his contest with Mr. 1 Strype's Whitgift, 251. 2 Izaak Walton, who is most bitter and unjust in his representations of the Puritans of this reign, does so (Hooker's Works, I. 50) in language which I have already quoted. Collier does the same (VII. 150). Fuller (Book IX. p. 219), in closing his account of Mr. Travers, uses strong language: "Perchance the reader will be angry with me for saying so much, and I am almost angry with myself for saying no more, of so worthy a divine." 3 Hooker's Works, II. 478; Hooker's answer to Travers. Travers, Mr. Hooker "there met with many neglects and oppositions, insomuch that it turned to his extreme grief." These things suggested to him his famous work on "Ecclesiastical Polity," which gained him the appellation of "the judicious Hooker"; a work which he projected while yet in the Temple. But, "when he found that no fit place to finish what he had there designed," and "became weary of the noise and oppositions of the place," he sought other preferment at the Archbishop's hand, and obtained it. In the summer of 1591 he left the Temple.1 In closing this chapter we take occasion to notice some errors which have crept into the different accounts of these events in the Temple. Mr. Marsden, we think, has erred in supposing that Mr. Travers had been "permitted to advocate in the Temple church"-in its pulpit, is the implication -"an entire change of structure and of polity in the English branch of the Church catholic, and to do this in contradiction of his superior cominister."2 Mr. Travers did, in private, take exception to some ceremonials observed by Mr. Hooker; and undoubtedly his private influence and teach ings were for the more latitudinarian modes of public worship for which the Presbyterian Puritans contended. But we find no pulpit controversy between the co-ministers, except on points of scholastic divinity. Besides, had Mr. Travers but once advocated in the Temple church such a reconstruction of Church polity, he would have laid himself open so flagrantly to prosecution under the 2 "Early Puritans," 229. 1 Hooker's Works, I. 62–64. statute, that the Archbishop would hardly have gone all the way round by Antwerp for means to bring him under censure. With this view of Mr. Travers's pulpit deportment, we cannot admit Mr. Marsden's very important deduction, that this wasan instance of dignified forbearance to which few churches can afford a parallel." But we turn attention to this very candid writer for a more important reason,-to illustrate the necessity of extreme caution accurately to notice the times and order of events. He supposes that the occurrences which we have narrated took place in the year 1592, and that Mr. Travers had been suffered in the Temple "during the long interval" between the years 1578 and 1592.1 Collier has fallen into the same mistake, and from this false premise has drawn an inference even more unfortunate than that of Mr. Marsden. He remarks, that the "Commissioners signed an order for silencing Travers in the Temple and elsewhere, because they found the non-conformists pushing and troublesome, and that the complaint was made against him at a seasonable juncture, for now Cartwright, Snape, and some other leading men of the Puritan persuasion were brought before the High Commission."2 Yet these men were not convented until eight years after Mr. Travers had left the Temple, nor until a year after Mr. Hooker had left it. So that there was no such "seasonable juncture," and this was not the reason why Mr. Travers was silenced. The supposed cause came long after the supposed effect. These mistakes are probably owing to Fuller,1 "Early Puritans," 226. 2 Collier, VII. 150. upon whom writers sometimes rely too implicitly, who has unaccountably placed his narrative of this affair under date of the year 1591. Mr. Strype places the time of these occurrences in the years 1584, 1585, and 1586;1 and demonstrates the precise time of Mr. Travers's suspension by a letter of his dated the twenty-seventh day of March, 1586, in which he complains of "his calling having been taken away from him.”2 1 Strype's Whitgift, 173-176, 235. 2 Ibid., 250. CHAPTER III. BABINGTON'S CONSPIRACY. WALSINGHAM'S EXTENSIVE ESPIONAGE. FACTIONS AMONG THE ROMANISTS. 1586. AMONG all her statesmen, Queen Elizabeth had no servant more devoted, vigilant, and laborious for her protection than her Secretary Walsingham. Well knowing the varied plans which her enemies had devised against her government and life from the very day of her accession to the throne; aware, too, that they had neither slackened their zeal nor bated aught of their machinations, |