Whitgift's first impres able to Barrett, 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 Churches. On the other hand, Barrett appealed from the Vice-chancellor to the Primate, alleging that his opponents were no more than a puritanical faction in the University, for that many who studied truth and peace had refused to join the present persecution; and while admitting that he had dealt roughly with Calvin, directed his chief indignation against Perkins, whose book On the Apostles' Creed,' though denying an article of the faith, had not been hitherto discountenanced by any of the University authorities. On these grounds he prayed the Archbishop to interpose, and save him from the malice of his enemies who had already punished him enough by stopping his degree3. The first impressions of Whitgift seem to have sions favour- been somewhat in favour of the appellant, for in a message to the Vice-chancellor and heads of houses, he condemned the warmth of their recent proceedings and asserted his own prerogative in the adjudication of doctrinal questions. In particular he objected that some points of the retractation, which they had forced upon Barrett, were contrary to the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines1 in 1 Strype, Whitgift, 437, 438. 3 Strype, ibid. 438, 439. 4 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 pro duction, 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,' 198. the Church of England,' and which he 'for his own. part thought to be false and contrary to the Scriptures.' Of the contumelious language in which Barrett had animadverted upon the Calvinistic writers, he expressed his entire disapprobation, 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 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 them'.' to the judgment. Emboldened by the result of his former applica- who submits tion, and apprehensive lest his enemies should have archbishop's strength enough to deprive him of his fellowship, Barrett now ventured to desire from the Primate a formal statement of the truth in the controversy which continued to distract the University of Cambridge. The heads of houses in the meanwhile started the question as to the right of the Archbishop to interfere in matters like the present, and from the warmth. which this point excited on both sides, it is probable that the case of Barrett would have been thrown altogether into the background, had not Whitaker under- Influence of taken to mediate between the contending parties. His former service to the Church in answering Bellarmine had placed him very high in the opinion of There is also a 'Censura Censuræ D. Barreti,' among the Minor Works of Bp Andrewes, Oxf. 1846, 301, seqq. It is confined, however, to one point, viz. the certainty of salvation, which Whitaker and his school 1 Strype's Whitgift, 441. Whitaker. Controversy renewed. Barrett examined afresh, at Lambeth. Whitgift, and the conciliatory tone which he adopted at this stage of the dispute, was still more in favour of his faction. He did not venture to assert that the teaching of Barrett had contradicted the language of the Articles, nay, he was now not unwilling to concede that the topics chiefly controverted were not concluded and defined by public authority';' yet inasmuch as the Church had been violently disturbed, and as the opinions of his adversary were novel and offensive, he requested the Archbishop to use his influence in exacting from Barrett a further recantation. After a comparative lull of some weeks, the contest was renewed in the following September, by the 'Calvinian' heads of houses, who forwarded a more dutiful communication to the Primate, imploring him to allow a rigorous inquiry into the real opinions of the offender, in order that the grievous scandal which had been given not only to malicious enemies but also to weak professors,' might be at length entirely removed2. In compliance with their wish a string of questions3 'nicely propounded and suited critically to the principles of Whitaker,' was now forced upon the notice of Barrett, who appears to have answered them at Lambeth. His replies were immediately sent to his implacable accusers, and submitted to the strictures of Whitaker, who began by denouncing them as not only indirect and insufficient, but for the most part 1 Strype's Whitgift, App. No. 2 Ibid. 451, 452. In this do- Prayer:' but as Waterland remarks, 'they neither specify those positions, nor at that time point to any Article, or particular passage of the Catechisms or Common-Prayer, so that this general charge is of little or no moment.' Ibid. 344. 3 They were eight in number, and relate to the indefectibility of 'justifying faith' and the other topics which had been handled by the anti-Calvinistic preacher. Strype, ibid. 452, 453. strictures on popish also.' He urged in particular, that the views Whitaker's of Barrett respecting the nature of faith, were opposed his answer. to the statement of the Articles1,-but in what way he neglected to specify; and on the 17th of September, the heads of houses, with undiminished vigour, sent up a new list of animadversions in addition to those which the Regius Professor had already transmitted to Lambeth. bishop moderate. Whitgift, in his turn, was now changed into a The archmediator, and while censuring some of the answers attempts to which Barrett had recently given, declared with regard to another (and that even a principal point of the dispute) that he could not see how it varied from the Articles of Religion3. He declared, however, that he had been greatly annoyed by the want of respect to academical authority, which the defendant appears to have betrayed in the whole of the present disputation*, and as the contest between the heads of houses and himself was now amicably adjusted, he was not unwilling to aid them in correcting the unruly spirit, whom they were anxious to curb or banish. He therefore appointed a second meeting at Lambeth where Barrett was finally examined in the presence of a deputation from Cambridge, of which Whitaker was one; and after modifying some of his doctrinal statements, and recalling his acrimonious observations upon Calvin, he consented to make a public retractation in terms of his own devising; which seems, however, to have been delayed till the commencement of the following year, and then altogether abandoned. 1 Strype, Whitgift, 453. 2 Ibid. 454. 3 Ibid. 455, 456. 4 Ibid. 457. 5 A letter of his to Dr Goade (in Heylin's Histor. QuinquArtic. Part I. ch. xx. § 10) appears to establish this point in opposition to Strype. He there says: 'But if you and the rest of your assistants (whom I re verence) do purpose to proceed Calvinistic Nov. 1595. But while this controversy was still pending, another plan had been suggested to Whitaker and his party for obtaining a more authoritative sanction of their ultra-Calvinistic tenets, and for ejecting not only Barrett but Baro from the University of Cambridge, or it might be altogether from the Church. Having paved the way in a vehement sermon1 in London, from the pulpit of St Mary's, Dr Whitaker proceeded to London early in November, 1595, at the desire, it would seem, of the heads of houses, in order that he might be present at a conference for allaying the animosity which had been everywhere excited by the proceedings above recounted. Another member of the deputation was Tyndal, dean of Ely, who had before taken the most active part in prosecuting Barrett, and had been present also at his final examination. How long this conference continued it is difficult to ascertain. Whitaker was in London on the 19th of November, as we know from a letter which he then wrote to Burleigh, the Chancellor of Cambridge, and as there is some reason for believing, that the disputes among the Calvinists were animated and protracted3, it is probable that they had assembled the Lambeth Very early in the month. Heylin and others' inform us that the 'propositions,' which form the result of their labours were submitted to the notice of the Primate on the 10th of November, while Strype" mentions that the work was actually completed on the 20th of the same month. The truth seems to be that Whitaker and the friends, who aided him in making the original draught of the Lambeth Articles, held a number of preliminary meetings in private; and that after they had determined the precise shape Original draught of Articles.' formed to the Church of Rome. 1 Strype, Whitgift, 460. 2 Ibid. 3 Articuli Lambethani, 4, Lond. 1651. 4 Heylin, Hist. Quinqu. Part I. ch. xxi. § 2: Collier, II. 644. 5 Ibid. 461. Perhaps at the house of Nowell, dean of St Paul's, from whence the above letter to Burleigh is dated. |