he retires from the University. ings against Barrett. In spite, however, of the moderation of these statements and the 'modest' way in which they are reported to have been delivered, the unfortunate professor was cited before the Vice-Chancellor of the University (Dr Goade): and though proceedings then instituted were eventually stopped by the good office of his patron Burghley, Baro could not be induced to offer himself for re-election (1596)1. But while a genial friend of Overall and Andrewes, and the able champion of English orthodoxy, was thus driven from his post by the intolerant zeal of the 'Calvinian' party, a fresh victim, second to him both in age and reputation, was exciting their activity and ardour to a still more feverish The proceed pitch. William Barrett was a fellow of Caius College, and one of the warmest spirits in the number who 'liked not Calvin's scheme.' A'concio ad clerum,' preached by him at Great St Mary's church on the 29th of April2, 1595, contained a strong, if not a virulent attack upon the popular theology; in which, besides denying in emphatic terms the indefectibility of grace and the received doctrine of assurance, he indulged in a succession of disparaging reflections on Calvin, Beza, Peter Martyr, and others, all of whom had sanctioned the idea of irrespective, unconditioned, reprobation. Soon after the delivery of this sermon the offender was summoned before the Vice-Chancellor and heads of colleges, and was urged by them at several meetHis retracings to retract expressions which had given offence. He finally consented to this course, and on the 10th of May recited in St Mary's church, a form of recantation1 which tation. also his Orthodox Explanation of 1 Ibid. p. 473. 2 Heylin, Hist. Quinqu-Artic. Part III. c. 20, § 6, 7. 3 Strype, Whitgift, p. 436: and cf. Bk. IV. App. No. XXIII. 4 Ibid. App. No. XXII. It is observable in this form of recantation, that Barrett was taught to discern the doctrine of reprobation in the XVIIth Article; although Whitaker in writing to the archbishop is more cautious. His words are, 'For the points of doctrine, we are fully persuaded, that Mr Barrett hath taught had been provided by the University-authorities, if not by Dr Whitaker himself. The hollowness and insincerity of this act, like many of the similar recantations in all ages, were immediately apparent; and as early as the 26th of the same month, the old disputes had been reopened by the 'Calvinistic' members of the Senate, who presented a me- The contromorial to the Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues, denounc- reopened: ing Barrett's sermon on the ground that it 'savoured of Popish doctrine in the whole course and tenour thereof,' and censuring the 'unreverend manner' in which it was withdrawn. versy primate. The quarrel, appertaining as it did to academic rather appeal to the than episcopal jurisdiction, was now carried by both parties to Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury. A letter of the heads of colleges (bearing date June 12,) complained of Barrett's misbehaviour, and denounced his teaching as 'injurious to the worthy learned men of our times,' as 'strongly savouring of the leaven of Popery,' and as 'contrary to the doctrine of the nature of faith set forth in the Articles of Religion and Homilies, appointed to be read in Churches1.' Barrett on the other hand appealed from the Vice-Chancellor to the Primate, alleging that his fierce opponents were no more than a puritanical faction in the University, for that many of the residents who studied truth and peace refused to join the present persecution. He admitted that in preaching he had handled Calvin roughly, but reserved his strongest censures for a work of Perkins,-On the Apostles' Creed,' which, notwithstanding the denial in it of an article of the faith, had not, as he complained, been hitherto discountenanced or forbidden by any of the academical authorities. On these and other grounds he prayed that Whitgift would interpose in his behalf and save him from the further malice of his enemies, who had already punished him severely by stopping his degree3. untruth, if not against the Articles, yet against the religion of our Church, publicly received,' &c. Ib. Bk. IV. No. XXV. 1 Strype, Whitgift, pp. 437, 438. 2 Alluding to the article on the 'descent into Hell,' which Calvin- 3 Strype, Ibid. pp. 438, 439. Whitgift's The first impressions of the Primate seem to have been sions favour favourable to the cause of the appellant. In a message to first impres able to Barrett, the Vice-Chancellor and heads of houses, he condemned the hot precipitation of their late proceedings, and asserted his own right to sit in judgment on this class of questions. He objected more particularly that some portions of the retractation, they had forced on Barrett, were 'contrary to the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in the Church of England,' and positions which, for his own part, he rejected as 'false and contrary to the Scriptures.' On alluding to the contumelious language in which Barrett animadverted on the Calvinistic writers, he expressed his utter disapprobation of it, adding that he did not allow the same towards Augustine, Jerome, and other learned Fathers, which nevertheless had often been abused in the University without control. And yet,' he proceeded, 'if a man would have occasion to control Calvin for his bad and unchristian censure of King Henry the VIII., or him and others in that peremptory and false reproof of the Church of England in divers points, and likewise in some other singularities, he knew no Article of Religion against it. Much less did he know any cause why men should be violently dealt withal for it, or termed ungodly, popish, impudent. For the doctrine of the Church of England did in no respect depend upon them2.' 1 One of these was Hooker's bosom-friend Saravia, and a favourite of Whitgift. He was frequently at Lambeth and wrote (apparently for the Archbishop) a Censure of Barrett's Retraction, Ibid. Bk. IV. App. XXIV. It is a sober and elaborate production, breathing far more the spirit of Augustine than of Calvin, and quoting the former authority throughout. He concludes by censuring the acrimonious language of Barrett, and by declaring: Fuerunt et sunt adhuc hodie in diversis ecclesiis quamplures fideles Christi servi bene de Ecclesia meriti, qui non idem de prædestinatione sentiunt, qui tamen se mutua charitate fuerunt amplexi, nec ullius sese mutuo hæreseos insimulant,' p. 198.-There is also a Censura Censura D. Barreti, among the Minor Works of Bp Andrewes, Oxford, 1846 pp. 301 seqq. It is confined, however, to one point, viz. the certainty of salvation, which Whitaker and his school maintained. In the same place will be found the 'Judgment' of Bp. Andrewes touching the Lambeth Articles. 2 Strype's Whitgift, p. 441. See another example of his independence on these subjects in Nicolas's Life of Hatton, p. 487. who submits to the archbishop's Emboldened by the measure of success which had resulted from this application, or apprehensive lest his enemies judgment." in Cambridge would have strength enough remaining to deprive him of his fellowship, Barrett next proceeded to solicit from the Primate a more formal statement of the truths then controverted in the University of Cambridge. Many of the heads of colleges, in the meanwhile, had been starting an objection with regard to the Archbishop's right of interference in matters like the present, so that owing to the warmth evoked by this collateral disputation, it seemed likely that the case of Barrett would be thrown into the background, if not utterly forgotten. Whitaker. Whitaker, however, had been now induced to mediate Influence of between the three contending parties. The great service rendered by him to the Church in answering the objections. of Cardinal Bellarmine, placed him high in the opinion of Archbishop Whitgift, while the moderate and conciliatory tone which he adopted at this stage of the dispute, contributed still more to the promotion of his general object. He no longer ventured to assert that the opinions of Barrett flatly contradicted the language of the Articles; he even went so far as to concede that many of the controverted points were not concluded and defined by public authority';' yet, pleading that the Church had been most violently disturbed, and that opinions of his adversary were both novel and offensive, he requested the Archbishop to employ his influence in exacting from the culprit a more ample recantation. renewed. A comparative lull now followed for some weeks; but controversy in the month of September, the whole question was revived by the 'Calvinian' heads of houses, who forwarded a dutiful communication to the Primate, urging him to institute a far more rigorous inquiry into the opinions of Barrett, in order that the scandal which had been occasioned 'not only to malicious enemies but also to weak professors,' might at length be done away2. In deference to this wish a string 1 Strype's Whitgift, App. No. XXV. 199: cf. the remarks of Dr Waterland, on this letter; Works, II. 343, 344, Oxf. 1843. 2 Ibid. pp. 451, 452. In this document they characterize the positions Barrelt examined afresh, at Lambeth. of pointed questions1 'nicely propounded and suited critically to the principles of Whitaker,' was now transmitted to the culprit, who answered them, as we may judge, in person at Lambeth palace. His replies were sent directly to the heads of houses, and by them submitted to the criticism of Whitaker, who, in opening his denunciations, spoke of them as not only indirect and insufficient, but for the Whitaker's most part Popish also.' He contended, in particular, that his answer. the views of Barrett, with respect to the nature of faith, were not in harmony with the accredited language of the Articles, but did not specify in what he held the discord to consist; and on the 17th of September, the heads of houses, with untiring zeal, prepared and forwarded another list of animadversions,-in addition to the set which Whitaker had previously transmitted to the Primate. strictures on The archbishop attempts to moderate. Whitgift, in his turn, was now the mediator, and while censuring several of the answers which Barrett had just given him, argued with regard to another (one indeed of the most serious points of difference) that he could not sce how it varied from the Articles of Religion1. He declared, however, that he also was annoyed by the habitual want of reverence for the academical authorities, which the culprit seems to have betrayed at every stage of the existing disputation; and as all misunderstandings between the heads of houses and himself were now amicably adjusted, he was not unwilling to assist them in correcting an unruly spirit, whom they all were anxious to humiliate, or banish from the University. Acting in this spirit he appointed a second meeting at Lambeth palace, where Barrett was examined of Barrett as 'contrary to the doc- this general charge is of little or no moment.' Ibid. p. 344. They were eight in number, and related to the indefectibility of 'justifying faith,' and other kindred topics which were handled in St Mary's by the anti-Calvinistic preacher. Strype, Ibid. pp. 452, 453. 2 Strype, Whitgift, p. 453. 3 Ibid p. 454. 4 Ibid. pp. 455, 456. |