was his turn to preach at St. Mary's, the sexton, on account of the multitudes who flocked to hear him, was obliged, for their accommodation, to take down the windows of the church. Mr. Cartwright took occasion, in his lectures, to deliver his sentiments concerning church discipline; and because they were unfavourable to the hierarchy, public accusations were soon exhibited against him.+ Archbishop Grindal wrote a letter, dated June 24, 1570, to Sir William Cecil, chancellor of the university, urging him to take some course with Mr. Cartwright; alleging, that in his lectures he constantly spoke against the external policy, and the various offices of the church; in consequence of which, the young men of the university, who attended his lectures in great numbers, were in danger of being poisoned by his doctrines. He, therefore, recommended to the chancellor to silence Cartwright and his adherents, and to reduce them to conformity, or expel them from the college, or from the university, as the cause should require. He also urged that Mr. Cartwright might not be allowed to take his degree of doctor in divinity, at the approaching commencement, for which he had made application. Dr. Whitgift also zealously opposed Mr. Cartwright, and wrote at the same time to the chancellor, communicating not only what Mr. Cartwright had openly taught, but also what he had spoken to him in private conversation.§ Mr. Cartwright vindicated his conduct in a letter to Sir William Cecil; in which he declared his extreme aversion to every thing that was seditious or contentious; and affirmed, that he had taught nothing but what naturally flowed from his text. He observed, that he had cautiously • Clark's Lives, p. 17. It is said, with a design to reproach Mr. Cartwright, that he and his adherents having delivered three sermons in the college chapel, on one Lord's day, they spoke so vehemently against the ceremonies and the use of the surplice, that, at evening prayer, all the collegians, except three, cast off their surplices, and appeared in the chapel without them!-Paule's Life of Whitgift, p. 12.-Fuller's Hist. of Cambridge, p. 140. Strype's Grindal, p. 162. It is observed, that what Mr. Cartwright delivered in his sermons on one Lord's day, Whitgift, in the same place, always refuted the Lord's day following, to his great commendation and applause. How far this was to his commendation or applause, we do not determine; but how to reconcile Whitgift's practice, in this case, with his own conduct afterwards, when in the most cruel manner he censured the excellent Mr. Walter Travers for the very same thing, will be found, we think, extremely difficult. Strype's Whitgift, p. 10, 11.—Paule's Whitgift, p. 13.-See Art. Travers. avoided speaking against the habits; but acknowledged his having taught, that the ministry of the church of England had declined, in some points, from the ministry of the apostolic church, and that he wished it to be restored to greater purity. But these sentiments, he said, he had delivered with all imaginable caution, and in such a manner as could give offence to none, excepting the ignorant, the malignant, or those who wished to catch at something to calumniate him; of which things, nearly all the university, if they might be allowed, would bear witness. He, therefore, entreated the chancellor to hear and judge the cause himself. Mr. Cartwright bad, indeed, numerous friends, ornaments to the university, by whom he was exceedingly admired, and who now stuck close to him. They came forwards at this juncture; and declared in their testimonial sent to the chancellor, " That he never touched upon the controversy of the habits; and though he had advanced some propositions respecting the ministry, according to which he wished things might be regulated, he did it with all possible caution and modesty." This was signed by fifteen hands; and other letters of commendation were written in his favour, signed by many names, some of whom afterwards became bishops;+ but all was to no purpose. It was too obvious, that his adversaries were resolved to make him a public example. Chancellor Cecil was, indeed, inclined to treat Mr. Cartwright with candour and moderation ; but his opponents were determined to prosecute him with the utmost rigour and severity. He was cited before the vice-chancellor, Dr. May, and other doctors, and examined upon sundry articles, which he was said to have delivered. The points alleged against him, they affirmed to be contrary to the religion established by public authority; and, therefore, demanded whether he would revoke his opinions, or abide by them. Mr. Cartwright desiring to be permitted to commit his sentiments upon these points to writing, was allowed the favour. He then drew up his opinions in six propositions, and presented them to the vice-chancellor, who admonished him to revoke them; and, upon his refusal, deprived him of his stipend, but allowed him to continue his lecture.§ During this year, Dr. Whitgift was chosen vice-chan + Ibid. p. 2-4. Appen. p. 1-4. * Strype's Annals, vol. ii. p. 3. cellor, when Mr. Cartwright was presently convened before him. Upon his appearance, Whitgift required him to revoke those opinions contained in his six propositions, to which he had subscribed; and upon Mr. Cartwright's refusal, he pronounced upon him the following definitive sentence:-"That seeing no admonition would help, but that he still persisted in the same mind, he did therefore pronounce him, the said Mr. Cartwright, to be removed from his said lecture; and by his final decree or sentence, did then and there remove him, and declare the said lecture void; and that he minded, according to the foundation thereof, to proceed to the election of a new reader. And further, he did then and there, by virtue of his office, inhibit the said Mr. Cartwright from preaching within the said university, and the jurisdiction of the same." The six propositions which Mr. Cartwright delivered under his own hand to the vice-chancellor, and which were said to be both dangerous and untrue, were the following: 1. That the names and functions of archbishops and archdeacons ought to be abolished. 2. That the offices of the lawful ministers of the church, viz. bishops and deacons, ought to be reduced to their apostolical institution: bishops to preach the word of God and pray, and deacons to be employed in taking care of the poor. 3. That the government of the church ought not to be entrusted to bishops' chancellors, or the officials of archdeacons; but every church ought to be governed by its own minister and presbyters. 4. That ministers ought not to be at large, but every one should have the charge of a particular congregation. 5. That no man ought to solicit, or to stand as a candidate for the ministry. 6. That ministers ought not to be created by the sole authority of the bishop, but to be openly and fairly chosen by the people.+ In addition to these heterodoxies and misrepresentations, as the learned historian is pleased to call them,‡ other articles were collected from Mr. Cartwright's lectures; and, as they were accounted both dangerous and seditious, it will * Clark's Lives, p. 17.-Strype's Whitgift, Appen. p. 11. + Ibid. t Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 525. 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 bis 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 + Paule's Whitgift, p. 16-18. Strype's Whitgift, p. 47. Biog. Britan. vol. iii. p. 282. Edit. 1778. |