so far as yet can appear;' and Lord Huntingdon says that 'the commission would much differ in opinion for this matter' (viz. the deprivation of the Dean), and that 'for himself—he thought in conscience he might not agree to this sentence of deprivation for that cause only.' Further on in the same letter he goes on to suggest that the commission had better turn its attention to other matters, and put off this one of the Dean's deprivation indefinitely. As a fact, so it did; no further steps were taken in the matter, and Whittingham died some six months later, still in possession of his deanery. It is thus clear that Dean Whittingham was not deprived, that it is at least doubtful whether he would have been so, and, what is of far more importance than either, if he had been, it would have been not because he had Genevan orders instead of Anglican, but because he had them not.[1]
The case[2] of Travers occurred shortly after Whitgift's accession to the primacy. Walter Travers ranks second only to Cartwright as a leader of the Puritan party. He was confessedly a man of learning and ability, and apparently also of a disposition which attached many persons warmly to him. He had been a Fellow of Trinity, Cambridge, during Whitgift's mastership, and had then got into trouble by reason of his unbending Puritanism. He seems to have been thought well of by Lord Burghley and other great persons, and had many friends among the lawyers of the Temple. He was the author—though not confessedly—of the book
- ↑ For the Archbishop's letter plainly suggests that he would not have dreamed of questioning the sufficiency of orders duly conferred by the Church of Geneva, and in so doing accords with the tone universal throughout the correspondence between the Elizabethan divines and their friends in Geneva and Zurich.
- ↑ Strype, Whitgift, vol. i. pp. 342–6.
