Everhardus Booth Een Irenist?

AbstractEverhardus Booth an irenicist? Eleven years ago F.G.M. Broeyer wrote an article in which he claims that Utrecht preacher Everard Booth's translation of William Perkins' A Reformed Catholike was not intended to be an anti-Roman polemic, but rather was of an irenic nature, and that Booth himself was an irenicist. The author of this article demonstrates that this view is refuted by what Perkins himself says in his dedication to William Bowes and in his preface. Further, according to Broeyer, the translation was a carefully considered initiative by Booth himself and was deliberately intended to foster religious peace in Utrecht. However, these views are in direct conflict with a note written to Booth by Richard Schilders, the publisher of the translation. Finally, we should not overlook the significance of an earlier translation by Booth, in which the very title demonstrates its strongly anti-Romanist nature. Conclusion: Booth's translation of Perkins' tract as well as Booth himself has nothing to do with irenicism.17