that the second article would not be taken by the puritans; and, consequently, at his very first invitation not less than 233 ministers were suspended. Repeated and urgent were the petitions of the people to the council, that their silenced pastors might be restored; but the obdurate archbishop was not to be moved; he resolutely opposed their petitions, and having obtained a new ecclesiastical commission, with inore extensive powers, drew up the twenty-four articles above-mentioned. So minute and specific are these articles that it was impossible that any clergyman who had the slightest objection to a single point in the church of England could conscientiously swear to them. It was not without reason, therefore, that Lord Burleigh wrote an expostulatory letter to the archbishop. In this letter, his lordship does not scruple to say, "I have read over your 24 articles, formed in a Romish style, of great length and curiosity, &c., and I find them so curiously penned, so full of branches and circumstances, that I think the inquisition of Spain used not so many questions to comprehend and trap their priests." To this the archbishop replied at length, and of course in self-vindication. Finding him obstinate, the treasurer sent back only a short but very emphatic answer, which drew from his Grace another long letter. We cannot have a better proof than in this contrast between the practical wisdom of the statesman, and the unbending, impracticable pertinacity of the churchman, of the truth of what Clarendon remarks, "that no men take so ill a measure of human affairs as ecclesiastics." To justify his harsh and vigorous measures, Whitgift was obliged to recur to the more than doubtful precedents of the procedure in the star-chamber, the courts of the marches, &c.; and to vindicate that oppressive expedient, the administering the oath ex mero officio, he tells us that if the dignitaries proceeded to the proof of delinquencies by witnesses only, the law could only be partially executed,expenses would be heavy-and there would not be sufficiently quick despatch with the sectaries. No wonder that Cartwright found no mercy at the hands of such an opponent as this!

In 1585, Whitgift, by a special order from the queen, was employed to frame rules for the regulation of the press. In 1586, he was sworn into the privy council, soon after which he drew up the statutes of the cathedral-churches. In 1587, on the death of Sir Thomas Bromley, the lord chancellor, the queen offered Whitgift that high office. This he declined. In 1588, appeared the celebrated pamphlet, entitled 'Martin Mar-prelate,' in which the oppressive conduct of Whitgift is most severely exposed. Two years afterwards, his old opponent, Cartwright, was sent to the Fleet prison, chiefly for refusing to take the oath ex officio. In 1591, he was brought before the star-chamber, when, upon his giving bail for his peaceable behaviour, he was discharged.

In 1595, during an interval of partial repose from other disputes, the predestinarian controversy was agitated. It was at this time that Whitgift, in concert with Bancroft, bishop of London, Vaughan, bishop of Bangor, Tyndale, dean of Ely, and others, drew up the famous Lambeth Articles.' These articles are in the main in accordance with Calvinism. "I know them," said the archbishop, "to be sound doctrines." They were sent to Cambridge, with a letter from Whitgift, in which he recommended that nothing should be publicly taught to the contrary.

In 1595, he began to build his hospital at Croydon. This act of munificence did not meet with all the gratitude to which it was undoubtedly entitled, for it occasioned some calumnious reports of his Grace's inordinate wealth. This induced the bishop to give an account of his revenues, which proved satisfactory.

On the death of Elizabeth, Whitgift sent Dr Neil, dean of Canterbury, into Scotland, to James, to learn his pleasure touching the government of the church. Though the reply was gracious, the archbishop's fears were by no means removed; the puritans knew how James had been educated, and what he had promised, and openly expressed a hope of being released from fetters which had so long galled them. At length the celebrated Hampton court conference was appointed, at which the puritans were to state their grievances. Of the history and results of that conference we are not called here to speak. Suffice it to say, that Whitgift played the courtier on this occasion as well as he had before played the tyrant: it is impossible to say much more. The following may serve as a specimen :-When the king expressed his approbation of the law making the oath ex officio, he assured his majesty that he undoubtedly spoke "by the special assistance of God's Spirit!' Whitgift did not live long after this "mock conference," as it has been justly styled. He was seized with a paralytic stroke, as he was going to the council chamber, and was conveyed to Lambeth, where, after lingering a few days, he died. Camden and Strype both intimate that grief for the state of the church, and fear of the efforts of the puritans, under a new king and a new parliament, had a share in his death. Any such distrust of the king, however, seems very improbable, for, as Strype has observed, " by what we have heard before related in the king's management of the conference, and the letter he himself wrote to the archbishop, he had a better satisfaction of the king's mind."

Whitgift was interred in the parish church of Croydon, where a monument was erected to his memory.

To form a correct estimate of his character, requires hoth great candour and great discrimination. That he was exceedingly oppressive and tyrannical towards the puritans cannot admit of a doubt; yet it is but just to say, that he appears to have been actuated by integrity of purpose, and to have been sincerely convinced of the rectitude of his own conduct. It ought, moreover, in fairness, to be stated, that the zeal and rigour which marked the early part of his career, considerably abated towards the close of life. His learning, there cannot be a question, was great, though, by many, it has been overrated. It is well known that Hugh Broughton, the celebrated Hebræist, often objected to him, that he went no farther than the Latin, and, on the profounder points of theology, he appears to have been by no means well versed, though he is admitted by all to have been an eloquent and powerful preacher. His fame chiefly rests, however, on his knowledge of ecclesiastical history and antiquities; but still more in the talent and decision with which he exercised, in so many years, and in such critical times, the high functions with which he was invested.

In the employment of his wealth he was not only charitable but munificent; especially to distressed and persecuted ministers from abroad, whom Beza and others commended to his kindness. Nay, it

is reported that he frequently remitted large sums to Beza himself.

In his temper, he was irascible, an infirmity, alas! that is seldom found disunited from ardent zeal. This disposition, however, it is said, he partially subdued; so far, indeed, that the 'judicious Hooker' scruples not to say, "that he always governed with that moderation which useth, by patience, to suppress boldness." Nevertheless, there were incontrovertibly seasons in which he governed, but without moderation, and displayed far more boldness than patience. He published nothing but what the controversy with Cartwright provoked. In Strype's life, however, will be found a curious collection of his papers, declarations, letters, &c., which form both a valuable commentary on his own character, and one strikingly illustrative of the times in which he lived.

Richard Hooker.

BORN A. D. 1553.—died A. D. 1600.

This celebrated divine was born at Heavitree, near Exeter, about the year 1553. His parents were respectable in character, and of middling circumstances, but neglected not the education of their son. He was placed at the grammar school of Exeter, and, by his early genius, modesty, and inquisitive mind, won the affectious of his tutor. This worthy man interested himself exceedingly for young Hooker; and, by his earnest persuasion, the youth was continued at school to wait for some opening whereby he might proceed to college. Being now destined for the church, his parents and tutor redoubled their diligence to instil into his mind the principles of piety and virtue; and the tutor did his part toward the advancement of his pupil in the paths of learning.

Young Hooker had an uncle, possessed of wealth, and residing in the city of Exeter, chamberlain of the city, and representing it in parliament; learned also in antiquities, and able to appreciate the value of education. To this gentleman the tutor applied, on behalf of his pupil, to prevail with him to become his patron, and send him to college. The uncle assenting, Richard was introduced by him to Bishop Jewel, whom he "besought, for charity's sake, to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar, but the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning, and that the bishop would, therefore, become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for that he was a boy of remarkable hopes."

Being now in his fourteenth year, Richard was directed, by the bishop, to remove to Oxford, and there to attend Dr Cole, then president of Corpus Christi college, who appointed him a tutor, and made him Bible-clerk of the college. Here he continued under the instruction of Dr John Reynolds until he was eighteen; and his patron, the bishop, took care to recommend him so strongly to Sandys, archbishop of York, that he had the bishop's son for a pupil at Oxford. About this period, he had a dangerous illness, which lasted two months. On his

recovery, he took a journey on foot, with a college friend, to see his mother, who had been extremely anxious for his recovery. On his way, he called on his patron, the bishop, at Salisbury, who treated him with great friendship, enjoining him to return to him on his way back. In the meantime, however, the bishop died, and Hooker became dejected at the loss of his patron. His friend, Dr Cole, however, promised him his assistance, and, in a short time, he was chosen to be one of the twenty scholars of the foundation, being a native of Devonshire. Having taken his degree of master of arts, in 1577, he was chosen fellow of the college. At this time Hooker contracted an intimacy with several learned men, whose names are well known to the world, among whom were Sir Henry Savil, Dr J. Reynolds, and Dr Spence. His two distinguished pupils, Sir Edwyn Sandys and George Cranmer, nephew to the archbishop, entertained for him the highest regard, and became his intimate friends.

Thus pursuing his studies till about 1581, he then entered into orders, and was, according to the college statutes, immediately appointed to preach a sermon at St Paul's Cross, London. On arrival in

town, after a fatiguing and uncomfortable journey on horseback, he was lodged at a dwelling appropriated for the preachers, called the Shunamite's house. This was kept by a person of the name of Churchman, whose wife, pitying Mr Hooker's sad plight, nursed him very assiduously, thereby enabling him to go through the duty for which he came. The worthy preacher felt his hostess's kindness so gratefully, that he was easily persuaded to promise her that he would enter into the matrimonial estate, and commit to her care the business of choosing him a wife. Mrs Churchman soon fulfilled her commission, by proposing her own daughter, who soon after became Mrs Hooker. Having thus lost his fellowship, and, according to report, made a most unequal match, he was presented, in 1584, to the rectory of Drayton-Beauchamp, in Buckinghamshire, where, having continued about a year, his two pupils, Edwyn Sandys and George Cranmer, on their return from their travels paid him a visit. They found him tending a few sheep on the common, with the odes of Horace in bis hand, and learned that they must stay with him there till the servant's return. They had scarcely entered the parsonage when Mrs Hooker sent for her husband to rock the cradle; and the visitors, finding their presence unwelcome to the lady, took their departure hastily, much lamenting their beloved tutor's condition, to which, however, he was piously resigned, as appears by his reply to George Cranmer's condolement," My dear George, if saints have usually a double share in the miseries of this life, I that am none ought not to repine at what my wise Creator hath appointed for me, but labour, as indeed I do daily, to submit to his will, and possess my soul in patience and peace."

On their return to London, Edwin Sandys earnestly solicited his father, then bishop of London, to provide for Hooker's more comfortable maintenance. An opportunity soon occurred by the death of Mr Alvy, master of the temple, who, for his learning and consistent deportment, had acquired the appellation of Father Alvy. The archbishop so strongly recommended Mr Hooker to succeed their late friend, that the benchers offered him the appointment, which, though pressed by the bishop, he was most reluctant to accept, preferring a more private and quiet station. His aversion, however, being overcome by the bishop's persua

sions, he was, by patent, made master of the temple for life, being then in the 34th year of his age. The publicity of this situation was not suitable to the habits of Hooker, nor was he able to enjoy that personal quietness which he desired. Being the morning lecturer at the temple, in the room of Mr Alvy, the afternoon preacher was Mr Travers, who followed the opinions of Cartwright the puritan, and leaned to the presbyterian side in discipline. This contrariety of sentiment led to an amicable controversy between the lecturers, who seem to have enter tained for each other all due respect. Thus, it was observed, "the forenoon sermon spoke Canterbury, and the afternoon Geneva."

This pulpit warfare having continued sometime, and the benchers being as divided as their preachers, Travers's sentiments beginning to prevail in the temple, the archbishop, Whitgift, put a stop to Mr Travers's preaching, by a positive prohibition. Travers appealed in vain to the queen, though powerfully supported in the council by the earl of Leicester and others. The archbishop, her 'little black husband,' as she termed him, effectually excluded him, and thus decided the controversy in the temple. But Mr Travers having published his memorial addressed to the queen, and his cause being taken up by persons of great consideration, Hooker was called upon, also, to appear in print with his answer, which he dedicated to the archbishop. Mr Travers accused

Hooker of maintaining several doctrinal errors, particularly this, that men might be saved although they mingled their own merits with those of Christ, supposing, for example, a pope or cardinal to renounce all error, this one opinion of merit excepted, that we ought not to conclude them without hope.

The removal of Mr Travers from the temple, in this way, gave much offence to many of the benchers, who were not careful to transfer to Mr Hooker the respect which they had manifested to their late minister. Hooker, however, thought to win them, by composing a regular treatise on church polity, to be comprised in eight books, justifying to the utmost the established order of the church of England. This work was to defend the doctrine of the church's power to make canons for the use of cere monies, and, by law, to impose an obedience to them as upon her children. Having commenced the work in the temple, he found too much distraction in that situation, and, therefore, solicited the archbishop to remove him to the country. In his address he says,- "I am weary of the noise and oppositions of this place: indeed God and nature did not intend me 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 their tender consciences shal! require us; and, in this examination, 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