Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

be proper to give the substance of them, which was as follows:

1. That in reforming the church, it is necessary to reduce all things to the apostolic institution.

2. That no man ought to be admitted into the ministry, who is not capable of preaching.

3. That popish ordinations are not valid. And only canonical scripture ought to be publicly read in the church.

4. That equal reverence is due to all canonical scripture, and to all the names of God; there is, therefore, no reason why the people should stand at the reading of the gospel, or bow at the name of Jesus.

5. That it is as lawful to sit at the Lord's table, as to kneel or stand.

6. That the Lord's supper ought not to be administered in private; nor should baptism be administered by women or lay-persons.

7. That the sign of the cross in baptism, is superstitious. 8. That it is reasonable and proper, that the parent should offer his own child in baptism, without being obliged to say I will, I will not, I believe, &c.

9. That it is papistical to forbid marriages at certain times of the year; and to give licenses for them at those times, is intolerable.

10. That the observation of Lent, and fasting on Fridays and Saturdays, is superstitious.

11. That trading or keeping markets on the Lord's day, is unlawful.

12. That in ordaining ministers, the pronouncing of those words, Receive the Holy Ghost, is both ridiculous and wicked.*

These were the dangerous and seditious doctrines, which Mr. Cartwright occasionally touched upon in his public lectures, but evidently without the least design of promoting discord. However, those who sought his ruin, having already deprived him of his lecture and professorship, procured his expulsion from the university. This was undoubtedly a short and easy method of refuting his opinions! The pretended occasion of his expulsion was, indeed, looked upon as a crime of no small magnitude. Mr. Cartwright, a senior fellow of the college, was only in deacon's orders. Whitgift was no sooner informed of this,

* Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 589.

and that the statute required such to take upon them the order of priests, than he concluded he was perjured; upon which, without any further admonition, he exerted his interest to the utmost among the masters, to rid the place of a man whose popularity was too great for his ambition, declaring he could not establish order in the university, while a man of his principles was among them.*

The friends of Mr. Cartwright complained of this hard usage. They looked upon it as extreme severity, and savouring too much of antichrist, for a man to be thus censured, without being allowed to have a conference before impartial judges. Whitgift and his friends, therefore, to make their case appear plausible, signed the following testimonial, signifying, "That Mr. Cartwright never offered any disputation, only on condition that he might know his opponents and his judges; nor was this kind of disputation denied him, only he was required to obtain a license from the queen or council;"+ which his adversaries knew he could never procure. Here it is evident Mr. Cartwright did not stand on equal ground. The reader will easily perceive, that his proposals of a public dispute, even according to the statement of his enemies, were most equitable and just; but theirs were inequitable, and not within his power to observe.

After Mr. Cartwright's expulsion from the university, "Whitgift accused him of going up and down idly, and doing no good, but living at other mens' tables." How ungenerous was this! After the doctor had taken away his bread, and stopped his mouth from preaching, how unkind was it to reproach him with doing no good, and with depending on his friends for a dinner! Mr. Cartwright himself says, "After he had thrust me out of the college, he accused me of going up and down, doing no good, and living at other mens' tables. That I was not idle, I suppose, he knoweth too well. Whether well occupied, or no, let it be judged. I lived, indeed, at other mens' tables, having no house, nor wife, of my own: but not without their desire, and with small delight of mine, for fear of evil tongues. And although I were not able to requite it; yet towards some I went about it, instructing their children partly in the principles of religion, partly in other learning."

Mr. Cartwright being expelled from the university, and

Strype's Whitgift, p. 47.
Strype's Whitgift, p. 64.

+ Paule's Whitgift, p. 16—18.

Biog. Britan, vol. iii. p. 282. Edit. 1778.

out of all employment, went abroad, and settled a correspondence with some of the most celebrated divines in the foreign protestant universities. During his abode on the continent, he was chosen minister to the English merchants at Antwerp, then at Middleburg, where he continued about two years, the Lord greatly blessing his labours. But by the importunity of his old friends, Messrs. Deering, Fulke, Wyburn, Lever, and Fox, he was at length prevailed upon to return home. Several of our historians affirm of him, even before his troubles at Cambridge, " that he might the better feed his humour with conceited novelties, he travelled to Geneva; where he was so enamoured with the new discipline, that he thought all churches and congregations were to be measured and squared by the practice of Geneva."+ For this reproachful insinuation, however, there is no sufficient evidence. It is pretty certain he never went to Geneva till after his expulsion from the university.

About the time of Mr. Cartwright's return to England, was published," An Admonition to the Parliament, for the Reformation of Church Discipline;" to which were annexed Beza's Letter to the Earl of Leicester, and Gaulter's to Bishop Parkhurst. Mr. Cartwright was not the author, as many writers have asserted; but Mr. John Field, assisted by Mr. Thomas Wilcocks, for which they were both committed to Newgate, where they continued a long time.‡ Upon the imprisonment of these two excellent divines, Mr. Cartwright was induced to publish a "Second Admonition, with an humble Petition to both Houses of Parliament, for relief against Subscription." The first Admonition was answered by Dr. Whitgift. Mr. Cartwright then published a Reply to Whitgift's Answer; which he is said to have done so admirably well, that his very adversaries commended him for his performance. In 1573, Whitgift published his Defence against Mr. Cartwright's Reply. And in 1575, Mr. Cartwright published a Second Reply to Whitgift's Defence, in two parts. But the second part did not come out till 1577. Fuller is, therefore, mistaken, when he says, that Whitgift kept the field, and received no refutation; for it is certain Mr. Cartwright had the last word.

* Clark's Lives, p. 18.

+Paule's Whitgift, p. 11.-Heylin's Hist. of Pres. p. 262.

See Arts. Field and Wilcocks.

§ Clark's Lives, p. 18.

Strype's Whitgift, p. 50-69.-Church Hist. b.ix. p. 103.

[ocr errors]

It was impossible for these divines to settle the controversy; because they were not agreed about the standard or rule of judgment. Mr. Cartwright maintained, that the holy scriptures were the only standard of discipline and government, as well as of doctrine; and that the church of Christ in all ages ought to be regulated by them. He would, therefore, consult the Bible only, and reduce all things, as near as possible, to the apostolic standard. The less our religion was incumbered with the inventions of men, in his opinion, the more it would resemble the simplicity that is in Christ. "We mean not," said he, "to take away the authority of the civil magistrate, to whom we wish all blessedness, and for the increase of whose godliness we daily pray but that Christ, being restored to his kingdom, may rule in the same by the sceptre of his word."* Whitgift, on the other hand, maintained, that though the holy scriptures were a perfect rule of faith, they were not designed as the standard of church discipline; but that this is changeable, and may be accommodated to the government under which we live. Therefore, instead of reducing the external policy of the church to the simplicity of scripture, the doctor took in the opinions and customs of the fathers, in the four first centuries.+

These points were disputed, as might be expected, with some degree of sharpness. While Mr. Cartwright thought he had reason to complain of the hardships which he and his brethren suffered; Whitgift, having the government on his side, thought he stood on higher ground, and might assume a superior air. When Mr. Cartwright and his friends pleaded for indulgence, because they were brethren; Whitgift replied, "What signifies their being brethren: anabaptists, arians, and other heretics, would be accounted brethren. Their haughty spirits will not suffer them to see their error. They deserve as great punishment as the papists; because they conspire against the church. If they be shut up in Newgate, it is a meet reward for their disorderly doings; for ignorance may not excuse libels

Bishop Maddox warmly censures Mr. Cartwright for maintaining, that the supreme magistrate is only the head of the commonwealth, not of the church; and that the church may be established without him.-Vindication of the Church, p. 271.

+ The words of Ballard, a popish priest, before Sir Francis Knollys, concerning Whitgift's writings, are remarkable. "I would desire no "better books," said he, " to prove my doctrine of popery, than Whitgift's against Cartwright, and his injunctions set forth in her majesty's name." -Strype's Whitgift, p. 265.

66

against a private man, much less when they slander the whole church."* How would the doctor have liked this language in the mouth of a papist sixteen years before? It has too often been the method of warm disputants, when they could not untie the knots with their fingers, to cut them with the sword of the civil power.

In this controversy, the two parties complained of each other. Whitgift thus observes to Cartwright: "If you should have written against the veriest papist in the world, the vilest person, the ignorantist dolt, you could not have used a more spiteful and malicious, more slanderous and reproachful, more contemptuous and disdainful kind of writing, than you use throughout your whole book." On the other hand, Cartwright says to Whitgift, "If peace had been so precious to you, as you pretend, you would not have brought so many hard words, bitter reproaches, enemy-like speeches, (as it were sticks and coals,) to double and treble the heat of contention." Mr. Strype, speaking of Cartwright's reply, says, "Great was the opinion, both of the man and of his book, at this time in London, as well as at Cambridge: many of the aldermen of London openly countenanced him. He was secretly harboured in the city, and had a great many admirers and visitors there, and wanted not for presents and gratuities."+ Whether, therefore, Mr. Cartwright got the better of his adversary, or not, in sound learning and strength of argument, Whitgift assuredly got most by it: for he was soon after made Archbishop of Canterbury, while Cartwright was persecuted from place to place, as if he were not fit to live.

The chief of the puritans, being now deprived of the liberty of preaching and publishing, wished to obtain a public disputation with their adversaries. Though this privilege had been allowed the protestants in the days of Queen Mary, and the papists at the accession of Elizabeth, the queen and council took a shorter method, and summoned the disputants to appear before the ecclesiastical rulers, to answer such_articles as should then be exhibited against them. Mr. Cartwright was summoned by a special order from the high commission, addressed, "To all mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, headboroughs, and to all the

Whitgift acknowledged, that, by the word of God, the office of bishops and priests were the same; yet, in his controversy with Cartwright, he made it heresy to believe and teach this doctrine.-Neal's Puritans, vol. i. p. 260.-Huntley's Prelates' Usurpations, p. 124.

+ Biog. Britan. vol. iii. p. 284. Edit. 1778.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »