Battle of the Pulpits

Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1 (Act 2, Scene 4):

WARWICK. This blot that they object against your house
Shall be wip'd out in the next Parliament,
Call'd for the truce of Winchester and Gloucester;
And if thou be not then created York,
I will not live to be accounted Warwick.
Meantime, in signal of my love to thee,
Against proud Somerset and William Pole,
Will I upon thy party wear this rose;
And here I prophesy: this brawl to-day,
Grown to this faction in the Temple Garden,
Shall send between the Red Rose and the White
A thousand souls to death and deadly night.

London's Temple Church has been the site of many notable events, both fictional (including The DaVinci Code) and non-, in its long history. The reason it was chosen by William Shakespeare for being the site of the commencement of the War of Roses in Henry VI has to do with a famous Battle of the Pulpits that took place in the 1580's between Puritan Walter Travers and his cousin by marriage, Anglican Richard Hooker, the ripple effects of which have lingered long after the "battle" ended.

In 1581, Travers became Reader (lecturer) at the Temple Church. After Master (rector) of the Temple Richard Alvey died, Travers Puritan convictions worked against him, and instead of being promoted to Master, Richard Hooker was brought to the Temple and installed in that position on March 17, 1585. Hooker preached his first sermon on March 28, and immediately there was conflict between him and Travers. In the morning, Hooker would preach his views, and in the afternoon, Travers would preach against them. The two men met to confer but were unable to reconcile their agendas despite the family bond. By March 1586 Archbishop Whitgift forbade Travers to preach any further. Travers later became Provost of Trinity College in Dublin. Hooker meanwhile resigned as Master of the Temple in 1591, and was appointed vicar of Bishopsbourne in Kent. Here he developed his thought in his masterpiece, Ecclesiastical Polity, which was in large measure the fruit of his thought as his developed during the conflict with Travers. The Battle of the Pulpits resulted in Travers' removal from the Temple Church, but the issues raised have continued to resonate through the centuries. It was a battle between Canterbury and Geneva, as Thomas Fuller memorably put it, The History of the Worthies of England (1860 ed.), Vol. 1, p. 423: "Here the pulpit spake pure Canterbury in the morning, and Geneva in the afternoon, until Travers was silenced."

Walter Travers himself listed the points of controversy raised after that first sermon by Hooker, as recorded by Hooker's sympathetic biographer Isaac Walton, The Life of Mr. Richard Hooker, in The Works of Richard Hooker, Vol. 1:

Doctrines delivered by Mr. Hooker, as they were set down and shewed by Mr. Travers, Mar. 30, 1585, under this title, A short Note of sundry unsound Points of Doctrine at divers times delivered by Mr. Hooker in his public Sermons.

1. The church of Rome is a true church of Christ, and a church sanctified by profession of that truth, which God had revealed unto us by his Son, though not a pure and perfect church.

2. The fathers which lived and died in Popish superstition were saved, because they sinned ignorantly.

3. They which are of the church of Rome may be saved by such a faith as they have in Christ, and a general repentance of all their sins.

4. The church of Rome holdeth all men sinners, even the Blessed Virgin, though some of them think otherwise of her.

5. The church of Rome teacheth Christ’s righteousness to be the only meritorious cause of taking away sin.

6. The Galatians which joined with faith in Christ, circumcision, as necessary unto salvation, notwithstanding be saved.

7. Neither the church of Rome, nor the Galatians, deny the foundation directly, but only by consequent: and therefore may be saved. Or else neither the Lutherans, nor whosoever hold any error (for every error by consequent denieth the foundation), may be saved.

8. An additament taketh not away that whereunto it is added, but confirmeth it. As he that saith of any, that he is a righteous man, saith, that he is a man: except it be privative; as when he saith, he is a dead man, then he denieth him to be a man: and of this sort of [privative] additaments neither are works, which are added to Christ by the Church of Rome; nor circumcision, added to him by the Galatians.

9. The Galatians’ case is harder than the case of the church of Rome; for they added to Christ circumcision, which God had forbidden and abolished: but that which the church of Rome addeth, are works which God hath commanded.

10. No one sequel urged by the Apostle against the Galatians, for joining circumcision with Christ, but may be as well enforced against the Lutherans holding ubiquity.

11. A bishop or cardinal of the church of Rome, yea, the Pope himself, denying all other errors of popery, notwithstanding his opinion of justification by works, may be saved.

12. Predestination is not of the absolute will of God, but conditional.

13. The doings of the wicked are not of the will of God positive, but only permissive.

14. The reprobates are not rejected, but for the evil works which God did foresee they would commit.

15. The assurance of things which we believe by the Word, is not so sure, as of those which we perceive by sense.

Thomas Fuller, also representing the historiography of the establishment, elaborates on the Battle of the Pulpits, The Church History of Britain (1845 ed.), Vol. 5, pp. 183-185:

53. Mr. Hooker his voice was low, stature little, gesture none at all, standing stone-still in the pulpit, as if the posture of his body were the emblem of his mind, unmovable in his opinions. Where his eye was left fixed at the beginning, it was found fixed at the end of his sermon. In a word, the doctrine he delivered had nothing but itself to garnish it. His style was long and pithy, driving on a whole flock of several clauses before he came to the close of a sentence; so that when the copiousness of his style met not with proportionable capacity in his auditors, it was unjustly censured for perplexed, tedious, and obscure. His sermons followed the inclination of his studies, and were for the most part on controversies and deep points of school divinity.

54. Mr. Travers his utterance was graceful, gesture plausible, matter profitable, method plain, and his style carried in it indolem pietatis, a genius of grace flowing from his sanctified heart. Some say that the congregation in the Temple ebbed in the forenoon and flowed in the afternoon, and that the auditory of Mr. Travers was far the more numerous, the first occasion of emulation betwixt them; but such as knew Mr. Hooker, knew him to be too wise to take exception at such trifles, the rather because the most judicious is always the least part in all auditories.

55. Here might one, on Sundays, have seen almost as many writers as hearers: not only young students, but even the gravest benchers, (such as sir Edward Cook and sir James Altham then were,) were not more exact in taking instructions from their clients, than in writing notes from the mouths of their ministers. The worst was, these two preachers, though joined in affinity, (their nearest kindred being married together,) acted with different principles, and clashed one against another; so that what Mr. Hooker delivered in the forenoon, Mr. Travers confuted in the afternoon. At the building of Solomon's temple, (1 Kings vi. 7,) neither hammer, nor axe, nor tool of iron was heard therein; whereas, alas! in this Temple not only much knocking was heard, but (which was the worst) the nails and pins which one master-builder drave in were driven out by the other. To pass by lesser differences betwixt them about predestination,

Hooker maintained

The church of Rome, though not a pure and perfect, yet is a true church; so that such who live and die therein, upon their repentance of all their sins of ignorance, may be saved.

Travers defended

The church of Rome is no true church at all; so that such as live and die therein, holing justification in part by works, cannot be said by the scriptures to be saved.

Thus much disturbance was caused, to the disquieting of people's consciences, the disgrace of the ordinance, the advantage of the common enemy, and the dishonour of God himself.

Theodidactic

Theodidactic, or 'God-taught,' is a term which describes how the whole counsel of God, including the judicial laws delivered by Moses, whose force expired along with the state of Israel, except to the extent that they reflect the general equity of the moral law, can and should inform Christian magistrates seeking to rule with wisdom and discretion. George Gillespie wished, for his part, that the judicial laws, being a part of God's Word, "were more consulted with." William Gouge said that they "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly."

As to the whole counsel of God, the Westminster Divines teach that it provides all that we need for the life of man to be lived to God's glory, and yet some things "common to human actions and societies,... are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6).

The whole counsel of God, then, does not exclude the application of the light of nature and Christian prudence in the regulation of what is appropriate and common to human societies, but provides general rules which are always to be observed, even by Christian magistrates.

To explain further, I wrote the following in a chapter called "The Puritan Legacy Considered" at the conclusion of an essay by Dr. Steven Dilday on Postmodern Skepticism, Relativism, and Religious Toleration in the Light of the Westminster Standards and the Thought of George Gillespie, found in Steven Dilday, Two Essays on the Thought of George Gillespie (2009, ed., R. Andrew Myers), pp. 48-49:

And finally, this Biblical paradigm [the Puritan view of magistracy] is theodidactic,4 allowing for the employment of magisterial wisdom and discretion grounded in the whole counsel of God, rather than being confined to a blanket application of Mosaic law. As Gillespie noted:

I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc., ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with.5

The judicial laws of Moses are indeed of great use to Christian magistrates today,1 being part of the whole of Scripture, all of which is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16); and, although they are no longer nomos/law, having "expired with the state of Israel" (WCF 19:4), they are still didache, that is, part of the teaching of the Word of God.

4. The contribution of Rev. Matthew Winzer to the understanding of this term is gratefully acknowledged.

5. Ibid [Aaron's Rod Blossoming], 2.

1. Judicial laws, grounded in moral equity, "remain as good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly." William Gouge, Commentary on Hebrews (London, 1655; Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006, reprint of 1980 Kregel Publications ed. and 1866 Nichols ed.) vol. 1, 505.

That right discernment of judicial laws, as to what of general equity binds Christian magistrates today and what of that which was peculiar and temporary with respect to a nation whose polity has ceased does not, requires intimate acquaintance with the whole of counsel of God, goes without saying. Like Joshua, the Christian magistrate ought to "meditate...day and night" upon the whole of God's Word, including "the book of the law" that he might rule with wisdom and good success (Jos. 1.8).

That discernment is reflected in the Reply of Thomas Cartwright to the Answer to the Admontion to Parliament, as quoted by Archbishop John Whitgift in his Works, Vol. 1, p. 270:

And, as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given, and of a people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate, keeping the substance and equity of them (as it were the marrow), may change the circumstances of them, as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contempuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny, and am ready to prove, if that pertained to this question. And therefore, although the judicial laws are permitted to the discretion of the prince and magistrate, yet not so generally as you seem to affirm, and, as I have oftentimes said, that not only it must not be done against the word, but according to the word, and by it.

And in Cartwright's Second Reply he adds:

It is not that the magistrate is simply bound unto the judicial laws of Moses, that that he is bound to the equity, which I also called the substance and marrow of them.

Francis Turretin provides guidelines for the exercise of this discernment likewise, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 165-167:

Twenty-Sixth Question
Whether the judicial law was abrogated under the New Testament. We make distinctions.
...
III. In that law various ends must be distinguished....Undoubtedly those things are to be accurately distinguished which in the law were of particular right (which peculiarly applied to the Jews in relation to time, place and Jewish nation: such was the law concerning a husband's brother, the writing of divorcement, the gleaning, etc.) from those which were of common and universal right, founded upon the law of nature common to all (such as the laws concerning trials and the punishment of crimes widows, orphans, strangers and the like, which are of moral and common right). As to the former, they may well be said to have been abrogated because the Jewish polity having been taken away, whatever had a peculiar relation to it must also necessarily have ceased. But as to the latter, it still remains because it enters into the nature of the moral and perpetual law and was commanded to the Jews not as Jews simply, but as men subject with others to the law of nature. For distinguishing those things which are of common and particular right, a threefold criterion can be employed. (1) That what prevails not only among the Jews, but also among the Gentiles (following the light of right reason) is of common right. Thus the Greeks, Romans and others had their laws in which are many things agreeing with the divine laws (which even a comparison of the Mosaic and Roman law alone, instituted by various persons, teaches). (2) What is found to be conformed to the precepts of the decalogue and serves to explain and conform it. This is easily gathered, if either the object and the matter of the laws or the causes of sanctioning them are attended to. (3) The things so repeated in the New Testament that their observance is commended to Christians.

The Christian magistrate, therefore, as a minister of God (Rom. 13.4) -- like the minister of the Word who must rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15) -- must be informed by the Word of God, which generally is his rule, as it is of all Christians, according to the moral law; and as the judicial law is of special interest to magistrates as a divine exemplar, so it is to be referred to and "consulted with" as they provide "good directions to order even Christian politics accordingly," with appropriate distinctions made according to the "light of nature and Christian prudence." Hence, as the Apostle says, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom. 15.4), and thus the judicial law too may teach us, and is therefore theodidactic, that is, not nomos, but didache.