The Admonition Controversy [Reprint 2022 ed.] 9781978815513

Table of contents :
Preface
CONTENTS
PART ONE The First Puritan Controversy: Its Sources, Participants, and Content
CHAPTER I The Evolution of Nonconformity in the English Church
CHAPTER II The Background of the Controversy
CHAPTER III The Prologue at Cambridge
CHAPTER IV The Main Issue
CHAPTER V Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense
CHAPTER VI Further Efforts of Cartwright
CHAPTER VII Political Implications of the Controversy
CHAPTER VIII The Old Law vs. the New
CHAPTER IX The Significance of the Controversy
PART TWO The Primitive Church: An Abridgement of the Controversy
Introduction
I. THE REMOVAL OF "ALL POPISH REMNANTS BOTH IN CEREMONIES AND REGIMENT."
II. THE INSTITUTION OF "A RIGHT MINISTRY OF GOD AND A RIGHT GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES SET UP."
Conclusion
Notes for Part One
Notes for Part Two
INDEX

Citation preview

R U T G E R S S T U D I E S IN E N G L I S H . ' N U M B E R

The Admonition Controversy

5

THE

ADMONITION CONTROVERSY By Donald Joseph McGinn

£ NEW

BRUNSWICK

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

I949

PRESS

COPYRIGHT

1949

BY

T H E TRUSTEES OF R U T G E R S COLLEGE IN N E W J E R S E Y A L L RIGHTS

RESERVED

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

To My Wife FOR H E R ENCOURAGEMENT AND GENEROUS ASSISTANCE DURING THE PROGRESS OF THIS STUDY

Preface While investigating the pamphlets of John Penry, alias Martin Marprelate, 1 and his imitator and antagonist, Thomas Nashe, 2 I found it necessary to make a thorough study of the Admonition Controversy, which preceded the warfare between the Martinists and anti-Martinists and which provides the materials essential for an understanding of the doctrinal differences in the later controversy. T h e tracts of the Admonition Controversy, indeed, serve as a sort of glossary for most of the pamphlet literature of the sixteenth century. Not only do they clarify the theological tracts, but they also throw light on such popular writings as Nashe's Pierce Penilesse, which ran through some five editions between 1592 and 1595. A knowledge of the fundamental differences between Puritan and Episcopalian gives new meaning to the allegory of the "Beare" and the " F o x e , " forming a sizable portion of Nashe's satire. 3 Historically the Admonition Controversy marks the beginning of the literary exchanges between the Puritans and the Episcopalians. In launching this first attack on the existing ecclesiastical polity, the Puritan writers summarize all of the previous arguments of the "hot gospellers" 4 (the extreme reformers opposed to the presence of any elements of Roman Catholicism in the Church) against the vestments and the ritual retained from the Old Faith and at the same time fully describe and defend their system of Presbyterian "discipline," which they would substitute for the Episcopalian government. The Episcopalian writers, in turn, are forced to clarify their own position. Consequently, the pamphlets written on either side are, as W . H . Frere expresses it, the "textbooks" for all subsequent controversy between nonconformist and conformist, for, in Frere's words, "much was added in bulk and volume, but the Puritan controversy did not really advance an inch bevii

viii

The Admonition Controversy

yond the point reached here." 6 From these pamphlets the student of Puritanism may learn the original arguments for and against that movement. Similarly, the historian of the Church of England may here discover an important stage in the development of that institution. In spite of the eminence of the Controversy in the history of ideas, particularly of religious ideas, no satisfactory, or even adequate, account of it has ever been given. The three volumes of the Parker Society edition of John Whitgift's Defense of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright, excellent as they are, present by way of commentary only a few historical sketches of the main figures involved and occasional footnotes containing excerpts from Cartwright's subsequent Replies. In the Cambridge History of English Literature, besides a few scattered and sometimes inaccurate references to Whitgift and Cartwright, 6 the only allusion to the Controversy is a brief account, about two pages in length, of the Admonition to the Parliament with no mention whatsoever of Whitgift's and Cartwright's writings, which actually contain the main issues. A.F. Scott Pearson, in his biography of Cartwright, gives a fairly comprehensive account of Cartwright's part in the quarrel, but little about Whitgift. 7 Similarly, Whitgift's biographer, John Strype, mainly presents Whitgift's side of the contest.8 W . K . Jordan devotes a few pages to "those aspects of the writings of the two men which relate organically to the question of toleration." 9 Of course, in such epic studies of Puritanism as Daniel Neal's History of the Puritans,10 T.W. Knappen's Tudor Puritanism?11 and William Haller's The Rise of Puritanism,12 the authors are mainly concerned with the outstanding ecclesiastical figures in the period from 1534 to 1660 and with the development and implications of the movement itself; hence, the issues pro and con at any particular point are merged with the trend as a whole. As a result, unlike the Marprelate Controversy, of which several studies have been made, the original Puritan controversy remains comparatively unknown. The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to supplement the panoramic views of the struggle between the Puritans and the Church of England and thereby to provide students of

Preface

ix

English literature with the basic facts in this struggle. For those who seek a general knowledge of the Puritan-Episcopalian arguments, I have in Part One sought to present an objective analysis of the background of the Controversy, its main issues, and its two chief contestants. In Part Two I have selected representative passages from the various pamphlets and have arranged them in what seems to me to be the most logical and intelligible order for a careful study of the opinions on both sides. In addition to increasing our knowledge of the Controversy itself, these selections written by Cartwright and Whitgift, supplemented by my commentary in Part One, I trust, will provide a more accurate appraisal of the character and ability of the two men than has hitherto been available. In my own commentary, in my determination to present an unprejudiced view of both sides, I have preferred to report large sections exactly as they were written rather than to paraphrase. This method may prove tiresome to the casual reader, but it will enable the student to check my interpretations. In addition, I have freely quoted from two studies of sixteenth-century Puritanism by A.F. Scott Pearson, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Symbolics at the Presbyterian College, Belfast, Ireland — Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism and Church and State: A Study of Political Ideas of Sixteenth Century Puritanism — both of them masterpieces of sound thinking, scholarly completeness, and intellectual honesty. The editors of the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature wisely direct the student of Elizabethan Puritanism to Pearson's biography of Cartwright. 13 They might well have included his second study, free as it is from sentimentality or prejudice. I also wish to acknowledge my debt to the Research Council of Rutgers University for the grant which permitted me to devote one whole year to the completion of this study, as well as for other monetary aid. In particular, I wish to thank Dr. J . Milton French, the Chairman of the English Department of the University, who, in spite of his arduous duties as Acting Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, was kind enough to read my manuscript and to give me many invaluable suggestions for revision. T o my colleague, Dr. Rudolf Kirk, I am indebted for his deep

x

The Admonition Controversy

interest in my investigation. Mr. George A. Osborn, the late Librarian of Rutgers University, Mr. Donald F. Cameron, now Librarian, and Miss Edith M. Deerr of the Library Staff assisted me in obtaining the necessary tools for my research. Mr. Robert H. Schroeder, Curator of the McAlpin Collection of the Library of the Union Theological Seminary, was particularly helpful in making available the original pamphlets of the Controversy. The late Director of the Folger Shakespeare Library, Dr. Joseph Q, Adams, my former teacher, permitted me to have photostats made of the copy of the Admonition to the Parliament in the Folger vaults. Finally, to Mrs. J . Wheeler Bird, who untiringly typed, retyped, and proofread my manuscript, I express my gratitude. Donald J. McGinn Rutgers University New Brunswick, N. J. April / , J949.

CONTENTS PART

ONE:

THE FIRST PURITAN CONTROVERSY: Its Sources, Participants, and Content I IX III IV V VI VII VIII IX

T h e Evolution of Nonconformity in the English Church T h e Background of the Controversy T h e Prologue at Cambridge T h e Main Issue Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense Further Efforts of Cartwright Political Implications of the Controversy T h e Old L a w vs. the New T h e Significance of the Controversy PART

3 17

29 49 64

94 110 121 134

TWO:

THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH: An Abridgement of the Controversy

I

Introduction

145

T h e Removal of "All Popish Remnants both in Ceremonies and Regiment"

149

A. The Book of Common Prayer in General 149 168 B. Specific Portions of the Book of Common Prayer c. The Injunction "Receive the Holy Ghost" in the Order ing of Ministers 25 1 252 D. Vestments 265 E. Nonresidences and Pluralities F. Permitting "Popish Mass-mongers" to Become "Preachers of the Gospel" 277 278 G. The Episcopal Hierarchy H. The Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy 347 xi

xii n

Contents T h e Institution of " a Right Ministry of God and a Right Government of His Church According to the Scriptures Set U p " 369 A. B. c. D. E. F. G.

The Government of the Church The Election of Ministers The Office of Doctors The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory The Office of Deacons The Office of Widows Ecclesiastical Discipline

369 418 465 468 496 507 510

Conclusion

538

Notes for Part I Notes for Part II Index

541 558 567

PART

ONE

The First Puritan Controversy: Its Sources, Participants,

and Content

CHAPTER

I

The Evolution of Nonconformity in the English Church In an account of the growth of Puritanism in the sixteenth century it is difficult to select one particular starting-point, for the Presbyterian Puritanism which made its appearance about 1570 was of multiple origin, political and economic as well as religious. The old ducal families such as the Howards, the Nevilles, and the Percys, clung to Roman Catholicism, whereas the more recent nobility created by Henry V I I I and Elizabeth, like the Dudleys and the Cecils, espoused reform. The countryfolk, especially in the North, retained their old faith; the middleclass tradesmen in the towns, on the contrary, were zealous reformers: the citizens of London, indeed, were largely Puritan. The Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian tolerated, or openly approved of, alliances with Spain and France and likewise preferred a Stuart heir to the throne; the Puritan, however, regarded Spain and France, except for the Huguenots, as the realms of antichrist and Mary of Scotland as his tool. Similarly, the old landed families were sympathetic with the agricultural folk, whereas the "upstart" nobility, who had made fortunes as tradesmen, were greedy for land. Thus the religious differences between the Roman Catholic or Episcopalian and the Puritan were accentuated by different political and economic viewpoints. Furthermore, the English Puritans are only one of many sects which, during the long history of Christianity, have sprung up demanding a return to a "primitive church." * The followers of * Regarding the origin of Puritanism Professor William Haller writes: "Who was the first Puritan and who may prove to be the last are questions one need not try to answer. There were Puritans before the name was invented, and there probably will continue to be Puritans long after it has ceased to be a common epithet. Chaucer met one on the road to Canterbury and drew his portrait." 1 3

4

The Admonition Controversy

J o h n Wycliff, the Lollards of the fourteenth century, were the direct ancestors of the Puritans of the sixteenth. WyclifFs criticism of the existing ecclesiastical order and his program for reform 2 might well have come from the lips of the Puritan leaders T h o m a s Cartwright or J o h n Penry. Like Cartwright a professor of divinity in the university, W y c l i f f denied the doctrines of transubstantiation and of the spiritual infallibility of the pope. Like Cartwright, he refused to recognize the C h u r c h of R o m e as the head of all other churches; moreover, he denied that St. Peter had the power of the keys any more than had the other Apostles. Like Cartwright, in place of the doctrines of the R o m a n Catholic Church, he would substitute the Scriptures as the perfect rule of life and manners to be read by the people. Like Cartwright, he would have only two degrees in the sacrament of orders, namely, presbyters and deacons. A n d finally like Cartwright, he insisted that m e n must practice and teach only the laws of Christ; in other words, he held that the " p r i m itive c h u r c h , " as he conceived it, must be made the model for the church of his own time. T h i s demand became the fundamental principle of Puritan reform. Perhaps the best approach to an understanding of Puritanism is to treat it as the logical result of the excessive zeal of those reformers w h o were dissatisfied with the via media that early became the ideal of the C h u r c h of England. 3 Hence, Puritanism is a phenomenon distinct from the Reformation of Henry V I I I , w h i c h was almost entirely a political, rather than a religious, change. For though in 1534 H e n r y by the A c t of Supremacy displaced the Pope and substituted himself and his "heirs and successors" as " t h e only supreme head in earth of the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d , " 4 he retained most of the R o m a n Catholic doctrines, ceremonies, and forms of worship: the seven sacraments, transubstantiation, the doctrine of purgatory, the celibacy of the clergy, the communion in one kind only, the sprinkling of holy water, auricular confession, praying for the dead, the invocation of the saints, some images in the churches. T h e only custom of the R o m a n C h u r c h w h i c h he openly attacked was the pilgrimage, perhaps because he himself had already appro-

Nonconformity in the English Church

5

priated for the crown the rich offerings made at the English shrines. In 1539, after the King had effected the transfer of ecclesiastical authority, Parliament, in order to prevent further dissidence of opinion, passed the "Act for Abolishing Diversity of Opinions in Certain Articles concerning Christian Religion," commonly known as the "six articles." 6 These were as follows: first, that in the sacrament of the altar after the consecration there remains no substance of bread and wine, but that under these forms the natural body and blood of Christ are present; secondly, that communion in both kinds —bread and wine—is not necessary to salvation to all persons by the law of God, but that both the flesh and blood of Christ are together in each of the kinds; thirdly, that priests by the law of God must remain celibate; fourthly, that vows of chastity ought by the law of God to be observed; fifthly, that private Masses ought to be continued because they are both pleasing to God and beneficial to men; sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary and therefore to be retained in the church. These "six articles," to which every clergyman had to subscribe, show how close Henry's Church was to the Church of Rome. Obviously Puritanism has little in common with the transfer of ecclesiastical power from pope to king. Certain clergymen, however, refused to subscribe and, like Hugh Latimer, were imprisoned, or, like John Hooper, fled to the Continent. As soon as Edward became king, these men returned to prominence. At the same time several continental reformers—Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Bernardino Ochino, and Paul Fagius—were invited by Thomas Cranmer, the new archbishop, to positions in Oxford and Cambridge, from which they urged further reformation in the English Church. As a result in 1548 a committee of divines was appointed to examine and to reform the ecclesiastical offices. This committee made several notable decisions concerning rites and ceremonies.6 The service was to be in English instead of in Latin. In the communion service after a general confession of sins and absolution the sacrament was to be given both in bread and wine without eleva-

6

T h e Admonition Controversy

tion of the Host b u t w i t h the sign of the cross twice over the b r e a d a n d wine. I n baptism near the beginning of the c e r e m o n y a cross was to be m a d e on the child's forehead and breast. T h e subsequent crossings of the R o m a n C a t h o l i c ritual w e r e omitted, a l o n g w i t h the placing of the salt, symbolical of Christian wisdom, in the child's m o u t h and of the spittle on his ears and nostrils after the e x a m p l e of Christ ( M a r k vii. 33) symbolical of the o p e n i n g of the child's spiritual senses for the reception of instruction in the h e a v e n l y truths. If the child w e r e strong enough, he was to b e d i p p e d three times in the font, first the right side, then the left, last w i t h his face toward the font; otherwise the w a t e r was to be poured on his h e a d as in the R o m a n C a t h o l i c c e r e m o n y . T h e n , p r a y i n g for the u n c t i o n of the H o l y Spirit, the minister was to anoint the child on the h e a d alone instead of o n the shoulders, the breast, and the h e a d as in the earlier ceremony. Finally, t h o u g h the w h i t e cloth w a s retained, the lighted candle was no longer used. T h e Calvinistic insistence u p o n t w o sacraments only, the L a s t S u p p e r a n d baptism, h a d n o t yet m a d e itself felt, for every parishioner was b o u n d " t o c o m m u n i c a t e once in the y e a r at the l e a s t " and " t o receive and take all other sacraments a n d rites in this book a p p o i n t e d . " 7 In confirmation the bishop, or some one appointed b y h i m , first catechized the one to be confirmed on the articles of Christian faith. T h e n he crossed the child on the forehead and laid hands u p o n h i m in the n a m e of the F a t h e r , and of the Son, and of the H o l y Ghost. T h e oil and the b l o w on the cheek of the original c e r e m o n y were omitted. If a sick person desired unction, the minister m a k i n g the sign of the cross, m i g h t anoint h i m o n the forehead or o n the breast only, m e a n w h i l e p r a y i n g for his recovery. T h e crucifix, the holy w a t e r , a n d the anointing of the five senses of the former sacrament of extreme u n c t i o n were neglected. I n burial, the minister c o m m e n d e d the soul of the departed person to G o d ' s m e r c y w i t h prayers for his soul and the souls of the entire congregation followed b y psalms a n d other scriptural readings and finally a closing p r a y e r that the d e a d m a n ' s sins m i g h t be forgiven and that his soul m i g h t b e a d m i t t e d to heaven. B u t no p r a y e r was offered for the souls in p u r g a t o r y . T h e people w e r e u r g e d to m a k e a practice of

Nonconformity in the English Church

7

reading the Bible. Finally, a new service book was prepared — the first Edwardine Book of Common Prayer, which in part was scarcely more than a translation of the Ordinary of the Mass — and in 1549 was approved by Parliament. A t this point in the movement away from Rome the question of vestments first became an issue. One group of churchmen, those who had been exposed to continental ideas, objected that vestments should be regarded as "inventions of popery" 8 and should not be continued. The other, more moderate, group regarded them as "indifferent" to salvation and therefore to be determined by the magistrate. In the objections of this first group may be recognized the earliest demand for reform, which in a few years was to reappear as the Vestiarian Controversy. T h e chief antagonist to vestments in Edward's reign was John Hooper, who under Henry had fled to Zurich where he had encountered the influence of the extreme reformers opposed to retaining any of the old rites in the church. According to Neal, Hooper insisted that vestments had no countenance either in Scripture or in primitive antiquity but as "inventions of antichrist" had been "abused to superstition and idolatry, particularly in the pompous celebration of the Mass" and that since they thus symbolized Roman Catholicism and would "mislead the people" they were "not indifferent." 9 Furthermore, when Hooper was about to be consecrated as bishop, he at first refused to wear them. Eventually at his consecration he consented to put them on providing that he would have to use them only when he preached before the king, or in his cathedral, or in any public place. His argument that vestments were unauthorized by the Scriptures was the prelude to the Puritanical demand that the church in all its ceremonies must be guided by the Bible. In 1552, as a result of the efforts of the reformers, a second Book of Common Prayer containing several changes was approved by Parliament. The most decisive of these was the removal of all reference to the communion as a sacrifice and the emphasis, wherever possible, to its aspects as a commemoration. T h e title of the Service was changed from " T h e Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion, Commonly called the Mass,"

8

The Admonition Controversy

to "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion." The doctrine of transubstantiation was explicitly denied: "for as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians." 10 In order "to take away the superstition, which any person hath, or might have in the bread and wine," the bread must be "such, as is usual to be eaten at the table with other meats, but the best and purest wheat bread, that conveniently may be gotten," 11 and not "unleavened and round, as it was afore." 12 Instead of taking the bread directly into the mouth from the priest's hand as in the earlier Book, the communicant received it in his own hand. As a further blow to the doctrine of the Real Presence, whatever bread and wine remained after communion was to belong to the curate "to his own use." In addition, the posture of kneeling at communion was declared not to be "adoration" but "a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy receiver." In the first Prayer Book, as the priest delivered the bread, he had said, "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life" —a translation of the words of the priest in the Mass, Corpus domini nostri Jesu Christi, etc. —and as he delivered the wine, he had said, "The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." 13 But in the second version these words were replaced by the following: for the delivering of the bread, "Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving," and for the delivering of the wine, "drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." 14 Finally, for the word altar in the communion service is substituted table. In addition to this essential change in the significance of the communion, certain rites and ceremonies were discontinued: the introit (psalms said or sung while the priest was entering within the rails of the communion table), the oil and the white garment, or "chrisom," and the triple immersion in baptism,

Nonconformity in the English Church

9

the oil in extreme unction, the exorcising of the "unclean spirit" in baptism, the prayer for the dead in the office of burial and in the communion service, and the special office for the Eucharist at funerals, auricular confession except for the sick, the cross in the communion and marriage services and in confirmation. Most startling of all, albs, copes, and vestments were forbidden throughout England. In fact, in the directions for the ordering of deacons, priests, and bishops all references to vestments were deleted. 18 At the ordination of priests the presentation of the chalice at the solemn moment was also omitted; 1 6 likewise the presentation of the pastoral staff at the ordering of bishops. 17 Furthermore, the demand that every parishioner "communicate once in the year at the least" and receive "all other Sacraments and rites" 18 is amended to read "communicate at the least three times in the year" and "receive the Sacraments and other rites." 19 In addition to these and a few other minor changes in the Book of Common Prayer, Parliament declared the marriages of the clergy, if performed according to the Service Book, good and valid. When in 1 5 5 3 M a r y became Queen, she restored those of the Roman Catholic clergy who had remained faithful, such as Stephen Gardiner and Edmund Bonner, and in 1554 her Parliament by her Second Act of Repeal enumerated and reversed all previous antipapal legislation.20 Then she imprisoned and executed many of the reformers who had not fled to the Continent. T h e leaders—Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and Thomas Cranmer —were burned at the stake. 21 Though others fled to Strasbourg, Zurich, and Basel, for the most part those so fortunate as to escape went to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt occurred the contest and division which, according to Neal, " g a v e rise to the Puritans." 22 Actually, however, the quarrel was merely a continuation of the one that had arisen at the making of the first Book of Common Prayer, namely, whether the old rites and ceremonies of the R o m a n Church should be retained or be superseded by the discipline of a "primitive church." The congregation at Frankfurt had set up a church government modeled upon that of Calvin at Geneva and consisting of pastor, preacher, elders, and deacons. 23 T h e

io

The Admonition Controversy

pastor attended to his flock, preached, ministered the sacraments, and exercised discipline. T h e elders were overseers of manners and morals. Between them the pastors and the elders appointed four " w e l l lerned" men (i.e., Calvin's "doctors") w h o had charge of reading and expounding the Scriptures and of catechizing the youth. 2 4 T h e deacons provided for the poor and the sick and catechized the youth as well. 26 In the administration of the sacraments alone the second Edwardine Book of C o m m o n Prayer was followed. 2 6 O n August 2, 1554, the congregation at Frankfurt sent letters to the "lerned men off Strausbrough" 27 and to the other English Protestant groups at Zurich, Emden, and elsewhere, requesting them to send some of their number to take charge of the settlement at Frankfurt. In these letters the Frankfurt congregation commended their own new order of worship without the litany, surplice, and responses —in other words, without the rites and ceremonies of R o m e —as being nearer to the policy and order of Scripture than was the Edwardine Book as a whole. A p parently growing impatient, they did not wait for a reply but specifically invited J o h n K n o x from Geneva, Walter H a d d o n from Strasbourg, and T h o m a s Lever from Zurich to take charge of them. Furthermore, when the students at Zurich agreed to come to Frankfurt on condition that the Edwardine Book would be used in its entirety, the congregation at Frankfurt stubbornly replied that while they desired the " e x e c u t i o n " of the Book " s o farr as Gods worde dothe commende i t " they would not use its "unprofitable ceremonies." 28 A t that point the learned men of Strasbourg sent E d m u n d Grindal, later Archbishop of Y o r k under Elizabeth, in order to urge the complete adoption of the Edwardine service. But the Frankfurt congregation, now led b y K n o x and William Whittingham, remained obdurate and were upheld in their refusal by Calvin in Geneva, w h o wrote them that in his opinion the Book of C o m m o n Prayer did not possess " t h a t puritie w h i c h was to be desired." 29 W h i l e K n o x , Whittingham, and the other leaders at Frankfurt were trying to prepare a satisfactory order corresponding to that of Geneva, D r . R i c h a r d Cox, formerly K i n g Edward's tutor, accompanied by his followers, arrived in Frankfurt and proceeded to disrupt

Nonconformity in the English Church

11

the group by insisting upon reinstating the Edwardine Book of Common Prayer in its entirety. Although Knox had seconded their petition to join the congregation, Cox and his followers eventually forced him out. Afterward the old congregation withdrew and left Cox's party in possession of their church. With the exception of John Foxe, the martyrologist, who went to Basel, the rest went to Geneva where they set up a church with Knox and Christopher Goodman as their pastors. Here in place of the Edwardine Book of Common Prayer they used the Genevan discipline, which in 1556 they published under the title of The Forme of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, &c., used in the Englishe Congregation at Geneva. The rites and ceremonies of the Edwardine Book they set aside as invented by men in contrast with their own discipline, which according to them was taken directly from the Bible and consequently was of God's making. Nevertheless they immediately found themselves faced with the dilemma which always confronts the advocates of scriptural authority and which precedes the breaking up into sects: what to accept from the Scriptures and what to reject. Discarding the washing of the disciples' feet and the love feasts as ceremonies that have occasioned great contentions in the church in every age, the English Genevan congregation asserted that they derived their wisdom from "Godes booke," in which they had learned "to preache the Woorde of God purely, minister the Sacramentes sincerely, and use prayers and other orders therby approved, to the increase of Godes glorye, and edification of his holye people." 30 Neal rightly calls this separation on the Continent "the first breach or schism . . . which made way for the distinction, by which the two parties were afterward known, of Puritans and Conformists," 31 for a few years later the Puritans, attacking the organization of the Church of England, took up the demands of the English Genevan congregation for the "preaching of the woorde purely" and the "ministring of the sacraments sincerely." 32 And as differences of opinion arose regarding these "outwarde markes wherby a true christian church is knowne," one after another came the Brownists, the Separatists, and so on. Shortly after Elizabeth mounted the throne, the schism begun

12

The Admonition Controversy

at Frankfurt appeared in the English Church. Though the reformers were of one faith, they could not agree on discipline and on ceremonies. Those who returned from Geneva with the English Genevan Prayer Book and the Genevan Bible —the "left-wing of the Marian exiles," as A. F. Scott Pearson calls them 33—wanted to rebuild the Church of England on the Genevan plan. The others, who advocated the Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI, desired to withdraw no further from the Church of Rome than was necessary to maintain the independence of the church from a foreign power and to correct some of the abuses which, they felt, had crept into it under the popes. This second group believed that rites and ceremonies were indifferent and therefore could be determined by the magistrate; moreover, that those of Rome, to which the people were accustomed, were preferable to others. In order to annex to the crown all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Elizabeth's first Parliament in the Act of Supremacy revived those laws of Henry V I I I and Edward V I which Mary had repealed.34 All appeals to Rome were forbidden. The only difference between Elizabeth's claim and that of her father was that whereas he called himself the "supreme head" of the church, she was content with the title of the "supreme governor." 36 Thus her ecclesiastical power, in principle at least, rested on a statutory basis. In order to administer the Act, Parliament created a new court called the Court of High Commission. At the opening of the Parliament on January 25, 1559, the Queen through the Lord Keeper urged the Lords and Commons to eschew all contention and to use "no Contentious, Contumelious, nor opprobrious words, as Heretick, Schismatick, Papist, and such like names, being Nurses of such Seditious Factions, and Sects." 36 Next she appointed a committee of divines whose duty it was to review King Edward's liturgy and to see whether any changes were necessary. Sympathetic with her more conservative subjects, she herself had no taste for reform but to the disgust of the extremists preferred to retain crucifixes, vocal and instrumental music, and vestments — all of which they abhorred as the "leauinges off Popishe dregges," to borrow Calvin's phrase from his letter to Knox and Whitting-

Nonconformity in the English Church 37

13

ham at Frankfurt. Doubtless as a result of her sympathies her committee proceeded to remove from the Edwardine liturgy the prayer in the litany for deliverance "from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities." 38 They also removed the rubric which declared that kneeling at the sacrament did not imply adoration to any corporeal presence of Christ (in other words, the explicit denial of the doctrine of transubstantiation); 39 afterward the Queen and Parliament made kneeling at the communion obligatory. Furthermore the committee expanded the words of the priest as he delivered the bread and wine to include those of the first Edwardine Book, which implied the Real Presence in the elements of the communion: at the delivery of the bread, 11 The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life: and take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving"; and at the delivery of the wine, " T h e blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life: and drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, and be thankful." 40 Perhaps the most reactionary change of all, they returned to the "ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof" 41 as prescribed in the first Edwardine Book of Common Prayer. Finally, after a few minor alterations in the Collects of no particular controversial significance, the committee approved the second Edwardine Book. In the spring of 1559 in the Act of Uniformity the revised Book was approved by Parliament. 42 Shortly after the passage of the two Acts the Queen gave out commission for a general visitation and published a body of Injunctions, which consisted of fifty-three articles enforcing her Book of Common Prayer. 43 Although in her own chapel Elizabeth retained the altar and the crucifix, in her twenty-third article she ordered the destruction of "all shrines, coverings of shrines, all tables, candlesticks, trindals, and rolls of wax, pictures, paintings, and all other monuments of feigned miracles, pilgrimages, idolatry, and superstition, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere" 44 within church or house. But her Commissioners apparently

14

The Admonition Controversy

needed no urging. Wherever they went, doubtless because of their sympathy with the extreme reformers, they tended to exceed their strict commissions. With the assistance of mobs they tore down roods and crucifixes, burned vestments, altarcloths, books, and banners, and destroyed stained-glass windows. Their wanton depredations W.H. Frere describes as follows: At St. Bartholomew's Fair in Smithfield as well as in Cheapside, St. Paul's Churchyard, and other places, great bonfires were made of roods and images. London, being all on this side, exulted in the novel auto da fe; but it was a disgraceful proceeding, and the report of it caused much comment abroad. Even those who regarded the change as necessary thought the manner of it reprehensible. In other places the copes, vestments, and other legal ornaments were also burnt, in defiance of the Act of Uniformity. So the first signs of nonconforming puritanism made their appearance under the evil and tumultuous omens of an outburst of sacrilege which raged unchecked for three weeks and more.45 Thus at the beginning of her reign Elizabeth's innate conservatism had little effect either on her own officers or on the fanatical element demanding further reformation of the church. Moreover, in spite of the Injunctions, disagreement concerning rites and ceremonies was rampant among the clergy, who were uncertain of the interpretation of the "ornaments" rubric in the Act of Uniformity sanctioning the use of vestments as approved in the first Edwardine Book of Common Prayer. Bishops Grindal and Jewel were opposed to the restoration of the destroyed roods. 46 At the Convocation in 1563 Bishop Sandys with Grindal's support urged the abolition of the crossing at baptism and of all private baptism, or "baptism by women," as it usually was called. On one occasion at the same Convocation sixty-four clergy of the Lower House wished to go even further and to restrict baptism to ministers, to abolish the answering of questions by sponsors in the infant's name, to exclude noncommunicants from participation in the service, and to make the intending communicants state at the confession that they " d o detest and renounce the idolatrous Mass." 47 On another occasion thirty-three of the same group requested that

Nonconformity in the English Church

15

kneeling at communion be left to the discretion of the individual, that copes and surplices be supplanted by a preaching gown, and that clerical out-of-door dress not be enforced. On February 1 3 , 1 5 6 3 , as a result of this unrest in the group, six articles about worship were proposed, debated, and voted on. The proposers adopted the view of the thirty-three in favor of permitting the communicant to kneel, stand, or sit at communion as he preferred; they agreed to tolerate the surplice; they demanded that organs be removed, that crossing in baptism be omitted, that all holy days except Sundays and the "principal feasts of Christ" be abrogated, and that the parson be compelled to read divine service facing the people. On August 16, 1563, Laurence Humphrey, president of Magdalen College, Oxford, requested the opinion of Henry Bullinger of Zurich regarding the "indifference" of vestments.48 In December of the following year Humphrey with Thomas Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, met with the bishops for the purpose of debating the issue but got nowhere.49 At length aroused by all this dissension, Elizabeth on January 25, 1564-65, complained to Archbishop Parker of the lack of regard for unity on the part of the bishops and demanded that an end be put to all nonconformity.50 As a result the bishops drew up a book of Articles regulating clerical costume and other matters connected with church worship and discipline and on March 3, 1564-65, presented it to the Queen for her authorization.81 But she ignored it and left the Archbishop to quell the rising dissent as best he could. On October 12, 1565, the Universities became the center of hostile criticism of the Church when in St. John's College, Cambridge, three hundred of the fellows appeared in chapel without their surplices. Though their action has been attributed to the fiery sermons of Thomas Cartwright, Fellow of Trinity College, Pearson, Cartwright's biographer, inclines to the belief that Cartwright's activity did not begin until 1567-68, when he was elected one of the twelve University preachers for the academic year. 52 When Sir William Cecil, Chancellor of the University, commanded the students to wear their vestments or be expelled, the heads of the Colleges, along with John Whitgift, then Lady

16

T h e Admonition Controversy

Margaret Professor of Divinity and later Cartwright's opponent, petitioned for a dispensation because of the threatened loss of students. The vestiarian revolt rapidly spread from the clergy and the Universities to the country as a whole. People refused to worship where vestments were worn and abused the ministers wearing them. As a result many dissenting ministers disregarded the episcopal mandate and preached without them. In London the situation became so serious that after another futile attempt on March 12, 1565-66, to get Elizabeth's signature, Parker was forced to take action on his own. Revising his book of Articles, he had it printed without the Queen's sanction under the name of "Advertisements." 53 In this form the articles were grouped under four heads: doctrine and preaching, administration of prayer and sacraments, certain orders in ecclesiastical polity, and outward apparel of persons ecclesiastical. Then on March 26, 1566, he and the commissioners summoned nearly a hundred of the clergy from the City to appear in the chapel at Lambeth. 8 4 There the dissenters beheld a certain Mr. Robert Cole dressed in the prescribed ecclesiastical garb for all to see and to copy. Without giving them time for argument, the Archbishop demanded their signatures. Those who refused to sign were suspended. Almost immediately the Archbishop sent his book of Advertisements to all his suffragans and required similar conformity. As the High Commission proceeded against the dissenters, a number of small tracts began to appear—the preliminary volleys in the imminent pamphlet-war between Puritan and Episcopalian. No sooner were they in circulation than they were answered by the bishops. Then came counter-replies, and the battle was on.

CHAPTER

II

The Background of the Controversy

T h e literary skirmish of 1566, w h i c h preceded the first Puritan controversy, was the outcome of several years of controversy in the pulpit. T o the Episcopalian accusation that criticism of the Established C h u r c h had been going on " i n secrete sorte for these two or three yeres," the nonconformist reply was, " I t is well knowen, that the matter was not handled so secretlie these ii. or iii. yeres but openly set forth in the pulpit these seuen yeres," 1 in other words, since the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth. These preliminary tracts form a miniature controversy of their own, in w h i c h the issues soon to be clearly defined are dimly shadowed forth. T h e first publication, obviously inspired by the vestiarian dispute among the L o n d o n clergy, is entitled A briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and Ministring garmentes of the popishe church (1566) with the subtitle " A declaration of the doings of those Ministers of Gods worde and Sacraments, in the Citie of London, which haue refused to weare the outwarde apparell, and Ministring garmentes of the Popes c h u r c h . " Its author, w h o cautiously conceals his identity, expounds the thesis that ministers should "edifie or build u p the C h u r c h of Christ," 2 as authority for w h i c h he cites four chapters from the Epistles of St. P a u l , * which were to become basic in Puritan dialectic, * 11 CORINTHIANS xiii. 10.: "Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." EPHESIANS ii. 22.: " I n w h o m ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." EPHESIANS iv. 12.: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." 1 CORINTHIANS xiv. 26.: " L e t all things be done unto edifying." 3

17

18

T h e Admonition Controversy

namely, n Corinthians xiii., Ephesians ii. and iv., and i Corinthians xiv., in each of w h i c h St. Paul refers to the church as the house of G o d to be " e d i f i e d , " or built by its members. F r o m this time on, the most inclusive of these texts, St. Paul's exhortation, i Corinthians xiv. 26., " L e t all things be done unto edifyi n g , " becomes the battle-cry of the " h o t gospeller." 4 M o r e specifically, the author of A briefe discourse maintains that vestments, even though they m a y be "things indifferent," do not edify: 5 first, they encourage simple men to return to Catholicism; secondly, they confirm obstinate Catholics in their opinions; thirdly, they are idolatrous and hence offensive. A c cordingly, in refusing to admit those things which have neither commandment nor ground in the Scriptures, the nonconformists maintain that they are following the commandment of G o d . 6 T h e n , if the magistrate insists upon conformity, he exceeds his authority, which is merely to execute God's commands. 7 In these statements appear the two principles later to be elaborated upon by Puritan controversialists: first, that the Scriptures set forth the complete plan for the building of God's church; second, that the magistrate is subordinate in authority to the church. This initial attack on the Established C h u r c h at once brought forth a reply entitled A briefe examination for the time of a certain Declaration (1566), in w h i c h the author, representing the Episcopal cause, willingly admits that all things in the church should edify but denies that Christ's church is not edified by vestments. A t the same time he reminds the nonconformists that vestments are indifferent things and therefore not essential to edification. Moreover, while conceding that "concerning faith and doctrine, concerning remission of sinnes and eternal saluation, nothing ought to be taught or receyued, which is contrary or not grounded in the Canonicall scriptures," 8 he insists that " t h e maner and order of setting of it foorth, is not particularly expressed, but generally left to the disposition of Christes Churche from time to time." 9 For example, though fasting is commanded in the Scriptures, the specific fast days are not stated. Similarly, though the administration of baptism and communion is commanded, the time, place, and manner of administering are not specified. In addition, in commenting on the scriptural examples

The Background of the Controversy

19

in the earlier tract, the author of A briefe examination rebukes his opponent for searching for what was done in times of persecution rather than in peaceful times. These two arguments — first, that while the Scriptures contain all doctrine essential to salvation, they leave the details of polity to the church, and secondly, that these details in an era of peace will differ from those in time of persecution — become the fundamental Episcopal defenses against the extreme reformers. Scarcely had A briefe examination appeared in print than the nonconformists replied with another anonymous tract entitled An answere for the tyme, to the Examination put in print, with out the authours name, pretending to mayntayne the apparrell prescribed against the declaration of the mynisters of London (1566). T h e author reprints the Episcopalian argument of " T h e E x a m i n e r " piece by piece, and after each section of the Examination he inserts his own reply under the heading of " T h e Aunswerer." In addition to vestments — cope, surplice, cap, tippet, and gown—he objects to crossing at baptism and to baptism by women. T o the Examiner's suggestion that the nonconforming ministers should regard vestments as "indifferent," he replies that as "monumentes of idolatrie and stombling blockes to the weke" they are not "indifferent." 10 He also defends the interpretation of the scriptural examples given in A briefe discourse. T h e assertion that the Scriptures set forth doctrine pertaining only to salvation and not to the organization of the church he counters with an ambiguity much like that later found in the Puritan arguments from Holy Writ: The maner & order of setting it forth, is not particularie expressed. But left generallie to the disposition of the church, wee graunt. but so that this disposition is barred in, whith manye condicions, that nothing superfluus, or superstitious be brought in, nothing offensiue be decreed, all thinges be orderlie, and directlie apoyncted, and that for edifing. 11 Regarding fast days, for which the Examiner finds no specific direction in the Scriptures, the Answerer, again none too lucidly, states:

20

The Admonition Controversy

S o superstición be a w a y e , & other condicions obserued, a lawe m a y be m a d e off fasting, prouided allwais that b y no humaine constitution whichis beside the word off god, mens consciencis be entangled, w h i c h were contrarié to the word of g o d . 1 2

Similarly he maintains that explicit directions for the administration of the sacraments appear in the Scriptures: "Likewise for ministring the Sacraments, order m a y be taken by the church, so it be most to edification, according to the time place and c o m p a g n i e . " 13 T h e Answerer, like the author of A briefe discourse, contends that the magistrate's only authority in the church is the "service to defend it." 14 In his discussion of the magistrate's relation to the church he makes the first attack, still veiled indeed, on the rule of the episcopacy: Y e t shall the porest mynisters, euen euerie vicar, curat, and parrish priest . . . haue as great authoritie, in the ministration of the word, and Sacraments, in his C h u r c h , as a n y of these prelates. . . . W e e confesse that kings and Q u e e s shold be Nurcies of the C h u r c h , b u t not Lordes of it, nor of our consciens. 16

In this w a y the attempt to restrict the power of the bishops became synonymous with a restriction of the royal prerogative. T h e Answere for the tyme seems closer in spirit to the later pamphlets of Cartwright and his fellow Puritans than do any of the other earlier attacks on the C h u r c h of England. First, the author asserts that the London ministers would gladly give up their livings if only they " m i g h t preach Christ purelie." 16 This demand for the gospel " p u r e l y p r e a c h e d " was to become a distinctive part of Puritan propaganda. Secondly, in this pamphlet appears the first reference to "seniors" as a proposed order in the English Church. But that this Presbyterian order had not yet been clearly defined also is evident, for w h e n the Examiner points out that vestments are not more " J e w i s h " than the "Seniours" proposed by the nonconformists, the Answerer evades the point at issue: W e knowe not w h a t Seniors youe speake of, if youe meane the elders or Ministers, the Jewes had none suche: b u t if they had a n y thinge

T h e Background of the Controversy

21

that was neither Ceremoniall nor superstitious, we mai well learne hit of them.17 Clearly the Galvinistic distinction between the orders of elders and of ministers, which was to be introduced into the English Church by Thomas Cartwright, was still unformed. Finally, the Answerer issues the demand for " a free and a generall disputación" between the bishops and the nonconforming ministers — a demand frequently to be heard from the Puritan controversialists for the remainder of the century. 18 T h e realization that the refusal to conform to episcopal authority was closely linked with the effort to limit the power of the magistrate was immediate. T h e publication of a plea for conformity entitled Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse ciuil lawes, which be the commaundementes of ciuill Magistrates (1566) shows that the government at once recognized the political implications of the new movement. T h e author of this pamphlet states that it is the duty of every citizen to obey the magistrate as he would his parents. Accordingly, even though certain ecclesiastical ceremonies may be indifferent, if they have been ordained by the magistrate, they must be accepted. Anyone causing offence by disregarding them commits a mortal sin. Furthermore, obedience makes for public quietness and sets a good example for youth to follow. T h e author concludes with the argument that ceremonies satisfy a need of the common people and therefore are essential to a well-governed state. Attached to this defence of the established order are four further divisions: first, a commentary by Philip Melanchthon upon Romans xiii. urging obedience to the magistrate; second, a series of letters from continental reformers entitled " T h e resolution of D . Hen. Bullinger and D . R o d . Gualter, of D . Martin Bucer, and D . Peter Martyr, concernyng the apparrel of Ministers and other indifferent thinges," all of which unite in an appeal for conformity; third, a section entitled A briefe and lamentable consyderation, of the apparell now vsed by the Cleargie of England: Set out by a jaithjull seruaunt of God, for the instruction of the weake; and finally, a letter from Bucer to Hooper. Since the last two sections are not mentioned on the title page of the

22

The Admonition Controversy

pamphlet, they probably were originally intended to be issued as a separate tract. 19 T h e author of A brieje and lamentable consyderation first summarizes the arguments hitherto presented against vestments, and then, flatly denying them all, he asks to be shown where in the Scriptures any form of apparel is expressly forbidden, and he calls upon the nonconformists to prove either that uniformity of apparel is not meet or that a magistrate in his own realm may not order what apparel he pleases.20 Thereupon, with an admonition to repentance, he outlines in parallel columns the arguments against vestments and the episcopal replies to each. 21 Included in the argument against vestments—another sign of the increasing resistance of the nonconformists—is an objection to holy days, which also is answered by the author. Finally, in the letter from Bucer to Hooper, which concludes the pamphlet, the writer states that though he would prefer the removal of vestments which symbolize Roman Catholicism, yet he is of the opinion that the abuse of apparel would disappear if the reformation were carried to completion by the elimination of pluralities, non-residences, careless ministers and careless preaching, baptism by women, marriage feasts, faulty excommunication, and ignorant congregations. 22 Although at first glance this letter seems somewhat antagonistic to the authority of the bishops, it evidently was here inserted because of two statements contained in it. First, Bucer maintains that the fault lies not in the vestments themselves but in the minds of the minister and of the congregation, for to the good all things are good. 23 Secondly, he points out that in Scripture the Lord has prescribed "the substance only of the holy ministerie of his word and the sacramentes" but has left to the church the "ordinaunce of al other thinges which belong to the comely & profitable administration of his sacramentes." 24 Hence, notwithstanding Bucer's personal antipathy toward vestments he would consider them indifferent things. Not directly connected with this miniature controversy, but imbued with the same reforming zeal, were the "comfortable," "godly," or "zealous" letters written in support of the nonconforming ministers. The first of these appeared in a pamphlet, probably by Anthony Gilby, entitled To my louynge brethren that

The Background of the Controversy is troublyd

abowt the popishe aparrell,

two short and comfortable

23 Epistels

(1566?). Although the main emphasis here is placed on the idolatrous nature of vestments, the author also briefly condemns as "popishe supersticions and Idolatries"

25

such other ecclesi-

astical customs as baptism by women, pluralities, tot quots, impropriations, non-residence, dispensations, excommunications and absolutions for money, and suspensions. A similar exhortation from Gilby, " A godly and zealous letter written by Mai. A . G . , " dated 1570, appears in A parte

of a register.

T h e writer

urges the reformers to "labour to race out all the dregges & remnauntes of transformed Poperie that are crept into Englande."

26

Again he does not confine his attack to vestments alone. From these few allusions to other sources of dissatisfaction it must have been apparent that the zealous reformers were preparing to launch a more ambitious campaign than the vestiarian revolt. Doubtless in order to forestall such religious dissension as now was beginning, the Queen in her Injunctions of 1559 had included an article (Number 51), which called for strict censorship of all printed material.* Apparently until this crisis this article restricting the freedom of the press had not been strictly enforced. Now, in order to combat the new threat to the Estab* "Because there is a great abuse in the printers of books, which for covetousness chiefly regard not what they print, so they may have gain, whereby ariseth great disorder by publication of unfruitful, vain, and infamous books and papers; the queen's majesty straitly charges and commands, that no manner of person shall print any manner of book or paper, of what sort, nature, or in what language soever it be, except the same be first licensed by her majesty by express words in writing, or by six of her privy council; or be perused and licensed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of London, the chancellors of both universities, the bishop being ordinary, and the archdeacon also of the place, where any such shall be printed, or by two of them, whereof the ordinary of the place to be always one. And that the names of such as shall allow the same to be added in the end of every such work, for a testimony of the allowance thereof. And because many pamphlets, plays, and ballads be oftentimes printed, wherein regard would be had that nothing therein should be either heretical, seditious, or unseemly for Christian ears; her majesty likewise commands that no manner of person shall enterprise to print any such, except the same be to him licensed by such her majesty's commissioners, or three of them, as be appointed in the city of London to hear and determine divers causes ecclesiastical, tending to the execution of certain statutes made the last Parliament for uniformity of order in religion. And if any shall sell or utter any manner of books or papers, being not licensed as is above-said, that the same party shall be punished by order of the said commissioners, as to the quality of the fault shall be thought meet. . . ." a

24

The Admonition Controversy

lished Church, the High Commission produced a decree from the Star Chamber forbidding the printing or publishing of any book against the Queen's injunctions, ordinances, or letters patent under pain of forfeiting all the books, suffering three months' imprisonment, and being forbidden to print again.28 This decree also prohibited selling, binding, or stitching secretly printed books and gave the wardens of the Stationers' Company the right to search all suspected places, to seize all books printed against the Queen's ordinance, and to arrest all involved in their printing, binding, or sale. Stimulated, perhaps, by these restrictions, the extreme reformers, along with their attempts to arouse public opinion through the press, began to bring pressure on the Parliament for reforming the Book of Common Prayer. On October i o, 1566, in the House of Commons a bill touching the apparel of laity and clergy was introduced and passed at least two readings before it was "committed to Mr. Vice-Chamberlain, and others." 29 On December 5, 1566, the "Bill with a little Book Printed in the Year 1562 . . . for the sound Christian Religion" 30 was first read in the House. Next day "divers Bills touching Religion," five in all, including bills concerning the ordering of ministers, the residence of pastors, the avoiding of corrupt presentations, the leasing of benefices, and the obtaining of pensions from benefices and leases of benefices, likewise made their appearance. Although the bill concerning the "little Book" passed its three readings during this Parliament, the remaining bills "touching Religion" were laid aside until the following Parliament in 1571. 3 1 Then all these bills were again brought before the House. On April 6, 1 5 7 1 , Mr. Strickland, " a grave and ancient Man of Great Zeal, stood up, and made a long Discourse, tending to the remembrance of Gods Goodness, giving unto us the light of his Word." Referring to the "little Book" mentioned in the first of the bills introduced in 1566, he urged the reform of the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer by the removal of such "superstitious things" as the sign of the cross in baptism, "with some Ceremonies, and such other Errors," in order to "have all things brought to the purity of the Primitive Church, and insti-

T h e Background of the Controversy 32

25

tution of Christ." O n this same day the six bills of 1566 were again presented to the House with the addition of a seventh "touching the Commutations of Penance by the Ecclesiastical J u d g e . " I n spite of a warning from the Queen on M a y 1, 1571, the bills concerning the ordering of ministers, the residence of pastors, the commutations of penance, and the leases of benefices passed three readings, and the first three eventually were sent to the House of Lords. 33 Likewise at this session was enacted the bill for "Pastors to be of sound Religion. 34 This Act demanded subscription to the Articles of 1562, now revised by convocation to become the Thirty-nine Articles. 35 I n the Parliament of 1572 two bills for "Rites and Ceremonies" were introduced in the House. One of these passed through its three readings until called in by the Queen. Finally, on May 22, 1572, all efforts to reform the Prayer Book through Parliamentary action were brought to a halt by a command from the Queen, who stated through the Speaker of the House that no more bills concerning religion should be received until they had first been approved by the ecclesiastical authorities. 36 A few weeks later the country was startled by the appearance of an anonymous pamphlet, the Admonition to the Parliament (probably written by J o h n Field and Thomas Wilcox), which Frere and Douglas call the "first open manifesto of the puritan party." 37 T h e editors of the tract support their statement by explaining that the Admonition "marks the point at which puritanism began to be a hostile force, determined to do away with the existing system of polity and worship in the English Church." Hitherto the reformers had confined their attacks to the rites and ceremonies that, they insisted, had been retained from Roman Catholicism. Now, apparently assuming that the " O l d Religion" had been crushed, they openly struck at the Episcopal polity, including not only archbishops and bishops but even the Queen herself, the "supreme governor" of the Established Church. Whether the Admonition was originally intended as a true appeal to the Parliament or whether it was a desperate attempt to enlist popular sympathy, it is now difficult to say. T h e circumstances of its publication, however, point to the second

26

The Admonition Controversy

possibility, n a m e l y , that it was directed to the English people as a whole. I n the first place, a c c o r d i n g to J o h n W h i t g i f t , the spokesman for the episcopacy, it was " p u b l i s h e d after the parliament, to the w h i c h it was dedicated, was e n d e d . " 38 N e v e r theless Pearson questions W h i t g i f t ' s a c c u r a c y on the basis that on A u g u s t 4, 1572, J o h n Field, one of the p r o b a b l e authors, stated that for six weeks he h a d been in N e w g a t e ; therefore, maintains Pearson, Field must h a v e been imprisoned for his share in the work before the end of J u n e and the Admonition, in turn, must h a v e a p p e a r e d before the P a r l i a m e n t a r y session ended o n J u n e 30. 39 B u t Pearson does not c o m m e n t on W h i t g i f t ' s second accusation, w h i c h is even m o r e revealing than the first as to the true purpose of the tract. " I f y o u speak of the p l a c e , " writes W h i t g i f t , " i t was not exhibited in parliament (as it o u g h t to h a v e been), b u t spread a b r o a d in corners, and sent into the c o u n t r y . " A n d he significantly adds, " I f y o u inquire of the persons; it c a m e first to their hands who had least to do in reforming" ; in other words, to the hands of the general r e a d i n g public. 4 0 Elsewhere W h i t g i f t repeats that the Admonition was " p u b l i s h e d in print before the p a r l i a m e n t was m a d e p r i v y u n t o i t . " 41 H e n c e , if W h i t g i f t ' s accusation is h o n e s t — h i s P u r i t a n opponents never d e n y i t — t h e Admonition to the Parliament actually was the first a t t e m p t in print to influence public opinion in f a v o r of a Presbyterian system of c h u r c h g o v e r n m e n t . T h e authors of the Admonition express d e e p resentment a t b e i n g called " p u r i t a n , " m u c h as if this epithet were b e i n g applied for the first time: They link in together, and slanderously charge poor men . . . with grievous faults, calling them Puritans, worse than the Donatists.42 W h i t g i f t , in his Answere, likewise uses the w o r d as though n e w l y coined: This name Puritan is very aptly given to these men; not because they be pure, no more than were the heretics called Cathari; but because they think themselves to be mundiores ceteris, "more pure than others," as Cathari did, and separate themselves from all other churches and congregations, as spotted and defiled; because also they suppose the church which they have devised to be without all impurity.

The Background of the Controversy

27

A n d T h o m a s Cartwright, the leader of this new group, accepts the title: The pureness that we boast of is the innocency of our Saviour Christ, who shall cover all our unpureness, and not impute it unto us. And, forsomuch as faith purifieth the heart, we doubt not but God of his goodness hath begun our sanctification, and hope that he will make an end of it even until the day of our Lord Jesus. Albeit we hold divers points more purely than they do which impugn them, yet I know none that by comparison hath either said or written that all those that think as we do in those points are more holy and more unblameable in life than any of those that think otherwise. If we say that in those points which we hold from them that we think soundlier than they do, we are ready to prove it; if we say also that we live not so offensively to the world commonly, by getting so many livings into our hands as would find four or five good learned able ministers, all the world will bear us witness.43 T h u s emerges a new group entirely distinct from the Henrician, and even from the Edwardine, reformers, namely, the Puritans. Unlike the bishops w h o regarded the rites and ceremonies retained from the R o m a n C h u r c h as " e x t e r n a l " and therefore indifferent, the Puritans wished not only to do a w a y with them but to reorganize the church on a Presbyterian plan. Since 1570, w h e n Cartwright was elected L a d y M a r g a r e t Professor at C a m bridge University, he had been advocating just such reorganization. Likewise at Cambridge was the m a n destined to be the great apologist for the Established C h u r c h and consequently Cartwright's opponent: no sooner had the Admonition appeared than Whitgift. set to work on his Answere to a certen Libell intituled, An admonition to the Parliament. In the following November he had the Answere ready for publication and brought it out just about the time a Second Admonition appeared, elaborating on the Presbyterian reform and describing the machinery whereby it was to be effected. In the spring of the following year Cartwright issued his Replye to an answere made of M. Doctor Whitegifte againste the Admonition to the Parliament. In February, 1574, Whitgift returned with his Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition against the Replie of T.C. Cartwright in 1575 published his Second replie, and in 1577 The rest of the second replie.

28

T h e Admonition Controversy

Because Whitgift did not prolong the interchange, the Puritan controversialists for the rest of the century maintained that Cartwright had emerged victorious. In 1588 Martin Marprelate in his Epistle to the Terrible Priests cried, "His Grace [Whitgift, now Archbishop of Canterbury] will carry to his grave, I warrant you, the blows which Master Cartwright gave him in this cause." 44 Upon this passage William Pierce, the most recent editor of the tract, notes that "the Puritans never doubted that Whitgift relinquished the controversy over the Admonition to Parliament, because Cartwright was too learned and dexterous an opponent for him." 46 Nevertheless Pierce concedes that the bishops seemed "eminently satisfied" with the "achievement of their champion." 46 In order to express his own opinion as to which was the victor, Pierce, borrowing from the historian Froude, compares Whitgift's sizable Answere with "the lofty Spanish galleon" of the Armada, which "some years later" was defeated by "the small but active English ship" (the compact Admonition to the Parliament).*1 Since Pierce then admits that the Admonition " m a y be said to have given currency" to Cartwright's views and that the Controversy resolves itself into " a literary duel between Whitgift and Cartwright," 48 his nautical figure of speech implies that Whitgift was defeated even before he started. Furthermore, though aware that the arguments used in this Controversy "occur again and again throughout the discussions of the next twenty years," Pierce is content to dismiss it with the statement that "on the general merits of the controversy little need be said," except that it "resolved itself into the question, whether the Scripture afforded a full and final authority for the government and ceremonial of the Church," as Cartwright maintained.49 This question, however, is fundamental in the dispute between Puritan and Episcopalian and cannot thus casually be dismissed. Moreover, the Admonition Controversy with its doubtful outcome marks the real beginning of the literary war between the two groups, now for the first time clearly defined. Therefore a re-examination of the protagonists and the issues involved should not only clarify it but also place it in its proper relationship with all subsequent controversies between nonconformist and conformist.

C H A P T E R III

The Prologue at Cambridge

Since the Admonition Controversy is, as Pierce puts it, a "literary duel" between Cartwright and Whitgift, an understanding of the difference in temperament between these two men is prerequisite to an understanding of their theological differences. Ever since students of English literature first assumed that in the July eclogue of the Shepheardes Calender Spenser represents Cartwright as the good shepherd Thomalin, contrasted with the "proude and ambitious" pastor Morrell (Bishop Elmer of London), they have idealized the Puritan as the champion of truth and unselfish piety. Whitgift, on the contrary, is usually referred to as a selfish ruthless bigot—like Spenser's Morrell — whose chief weapon was the royal prerogative. Edward Arber, for example, declares that "the long-suffering Cartwright is, in all respects, the greater being than his sometime associate among the Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, physical-force John Whitgift, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury." 1 More recently Edgar I. Fripp calls Cartwright "the greatest theologian (after Hooker) of his day" 2 and describes him as a "lovable man and popular, the 'Idol' as well as the 'Champion of Warwick.' " 3 When Fripp comes to Whitgift, however, he condemns him for a quality which he extols in Cartwright, namely, his devotion to duty: Truth to him was single and superimposed, and peace was obedience. He was a born martinet. He spied upon his clergy, and all within his survey in his diocese, as upon his scholars at Cambridge. What his biographer records with approval we read with disgust. "He never absented himself from prayers as for devotion chiefly so to observe the behaviour and the absence of others . . . He generally ate his meals in Hall that he might have the more watchful eye over the scholars and keep them in awe 29

30

T h e Admonition Controversy

and obedience." He was ultra-Calvinist in his distrust of men as men and, for their good, would permit them no latitude. 4 F r i p p ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the t e r m ultra-Calvinist

to W h i t g i f t r a t h e r

t h a n to C a r t w r i g h t is in itself ironical, for W h i t g i f t expressly states t h a t h e reverences C a l v i n " a s a singular m a n a n d w o r t h y instrument in Christ's c h u r c h " b u t a d d s t h a t he is " n o t so w h o l l y a d d i c t e d u n t o h i m " t h a t he will " c o n t e m n other m e n ' s j u d g m e n t s t h a t in divers points a g r e e n o t fully w i t h h i m , especially in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of some places of the s c r i p t u r e . "

8

Cart-

w r i g h t , o n the c o n t r a r y , not o n l y cites C a l v i n as a n a u t h o r i t y b u t , as w e shall point out, a c t u a l l y tries to institute in t h e E n g l i s h C h u r c h a system of P r e s b y t e r i a n discipline m o d e l e d u p o n t h a t of G e n e v a . W i l l i a m Pierce also paints W h i t g i f t in blackest colors. Asserti n g t h a t it is " r e a l l y n e c e s s a r y " to k n o w W h i t g i f t " i n o r d e r to u n d e r s t a n d b o t h the a p p e a r a n c e a n d the special c h a r a c t e r of M a r t i n M a r p r e l a t e ' s writings, as w e l l as to u n d e r s t a n d

the

intense h a t r e d w i t h w h i c h he w a s r e g a r d e d b y all classes of the reforming party,"

Pierce, like F r i p p , in p a r t i c u l a r

ridicules

W h i t g i f t ' s d e v o t i o n to d u t y : Whitgift was one of the most consistent of men. Throughout his even career of promotion there is only one single wayward note [the signing of the petition for leniency toward the vestiarians at Cambridge in 1566 —see ante., pp. 15-16]; all else is subjected to the chief aims which he set before him in life. No folly, no human weakness, no sentimental yielding to the cry of intellectual or physical suffering, no perilous subjugation to woman's beauty or passion, hindered his progress. T h u s u n a b l e to find e v i d e n c e of weakness or i m m o r a l i t y , P i e r c e disparages W h i t g i f t ' s v e r y goodness. B u t he concedes t h e m a n ' s austerity — a trait n o t possessed b y all bishops of this p e r i o d : He had no love of ease; he was no thrall to the comfort and luxury of his palaces; to him Canterbury was no Capua; busy he was always; alert, tireless, trimming his sails to every breath of favouring wind which should urge his vessel along its assigned course. 6 W h i l e a d m i t t i n g t h a t neither threats nor the o p e n opposition of m e n of p l a c e a n d p o w e r c o u l d " i n t i m i d a t e h i m or t u r n h i m

The Prologue at Cambridge

31

7

aside in his way," Pierce implies that he was an ambitious politician rather than a truly religious man: When he became himself Archbishop of Canterbury, he recognized no one, save the Queen, to be his superior. . . . T o the Queen he continued to the end a flatterer and a courtier, and seldom failed to secure her authority for his high-handed policy. His only seeming resistance to Elizabeth was on the score of her shameless robbery of Church property; and in these cases he never ventured beyond a whining ad misericordiam; moreover, his jealousy on behalf of the property of the Church is to be qualified by the fact that it only manifested itself when that property was misappropriated by laymen. N o moral convictions entertained by him were scandalised by the alienation of Church possessions. His was the zeal of the bureaucrat for his office—of the ecclesiastical potentate for the magnificence, wealth, and overawing power of his dominions. 8

And with sarcastic reference to Whitgift's personal appearance Pierce asks, "Who could regard the dark-visaged little Prelate, with his black, beady, and restless eyes, basking in the sunshine of uninterrupted worldly prosperity, and doubt that his was the side of the angels?" 9 Apparently Whitgift's contemners have been more vociferous than his admirers, and Elizabeth's affectionate appellation, "little black husband," seems too often to be regarded as a reference to his character rather than to his gown.10 The historian Frere, whose writing is distinguished both for moderation and scholarly accuracy, states that just as during Whitgift's lifetime he was "consistently misrepresented by his enemies," so he has been "persistently misjudged by posterity." 11 Frere attributes the misrepresentation of Whitgift in his own time to the slanders of "presbyterian martyrs," who were willing "to sacrifice truth and justice" in order to lay the burden of blame and abuse for their persecution on the bishops rather than on the officers of the crown. As a result of their distortion of facts Whitgift ever since has represented "the extreme of prelatical intolerance." 12 The first step in restoring proper perspective in the analysis of the controversy between Cartwright and Whitgift is to return to their earliest encounter within the walls of Cambridge University. In this initial bout the two contestants revealed not only

32

The Admonition Controversy

their temperamental differences but also their basic theological viewpoints. Here, indeed, actually began the dispute which eventually made them —to borrow Pearson's eloquent description—"the champions of two divergent and apparently irreconcilable ideals." 13 Up to this point in the history of English Protestantism, as yet divided only on the issue of indifferent rites and ceremonies, the careers of these two men were nearly parallel. Born about 1535, Cartwright in 1547 entered as sizar at Glare Hall, Cambridge, and three years later in 1550, received a scholarship to St. John's. 14 On the list of Bachelors for 1553-54 his name appears thirty-fourth. In 1556, during Mary's reign, he left Cambridge and, according to tradition, took up the study of law. Returning to the University after the accession of Elizabeth, he was admitted a Fellow of St. John's College on the Lady Margaret Foundation in 1560 and that same year was awarded the degree of Master of Arts. In 1561-62 he was made Junior Dean of his College; then he transferred to Trinity, where he became Fellow. In 1567 he obtained the degree of Bachelor of Divinity. In 1567-68 he was elected one of the twelve University preachers. Finally, in 1569 he became the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity. Whitgift, born about 1530, entered Queens College, Cambridge, in 1550, three years after Cartwright, and almost immediately transferred to Pembroke, where he matriculated.18 Though older than Cartwright and later in entering the University, he likewise received his Bachelor's degree in 1553-54. Next year he was awarded a fellowship in Peterhouse, where he met his patron and friend, Dr. Andrew Perne, the Master of the College, who during Mary's reign helped him to conceal his Calvinistic sympathies and to elude the visitation of the University authorized by Cardinal Pole. In 1557 he commenced Master of Arts and entered into holy orders in 1560, the same year when Cartwright received his Master's degree. Three years later, in 1563, Whitgift received his Bachelor's degree in Divinity and became the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity. In 1567 he was awarded his degree of Doctor of Divinity. Also that year he was made, first, Master of Pembroke and then Master of

The Prologue at Cambridge

33

Trinity and Regius Professor of Divinity. Finally, on September 25, 1570, he was elected Vice-Chancellor of the University. In 1572 he was re-elected to the vice-chancellorship. Along with these academic honors, he was, in 1568, made Canon of Ely and in 1571, Dean of Lincoln. And on October 31, 1571, Archbishop Parker granted him " a faculty that he might hold with his deanery the mastership of Trinity College, his canonry at Ely, the rectory of Teversham, and any other benefice whatsoever." 16 O n the eve of the Controversy both men found themselves in Trinity College—Whitgift as Master and Cartwright as Fellow. Whitgift in regular fashion had proceeded to holy orders and to his Doctorate, whereas Cartwright, the more precocious of the two, had received his Master's degree three years after Whitgift and had never entered into holy orders or become Doctor of Divinity. His failure to comply with the statutes of Trinity College, which required that a Master of Arts should enter holy orders seven years after receiving his degree, 17 is of fundamental importance in the analysis of his temperament. Furthermore it is closely associated with his theory of the office of the doctor, which later becomes a basic issue in the Controversy. Since it led to the loss of his professorship and fellowship and his departure from Cambridge and thus marks the origin of the rift between him and Whitgift, let us review the circumstances. While Whitgift and Cartwright were students, the " M a r i a n exiles," full of enthusiasm for the Genevan discipline, returned to Cambridge. A t the outset both men were much affected by the Genevan ideas. Though, as has been pointed out, 18 Whitgift always paid due respect to Calvin as an interpreter of the Scriptures, he never was an exponent of the Genevan form of ecclesiastical polity, whereas Cartwright from the beginning was filled with zeal to reorganize the Church according to the Genevan plan. Seemingly he wanted to become the English Calvin. Keeping himself in the background during the Vestiarian Controversy, he nevertheless was completely in sympathy with the opponents of vestments. In fact, mainly instigated by him, the movement in 1567 spread from St. John's to Trinity, where

34

The Admonition Controversy

in the absence of W h i t g i f t , then M a s t e r of the College, C a r t wright, ironically e n o u g h , " p r e a c h e d so v e h e m e n t l y against the surplice, etc., that all the m e m b e r s of his College, w i t h the exception of three, a p p e a r e d at the evening service in c h a p e l w i t h o u t their surplices." 19 F u r t h e r m o r e , in 1570 G r i n d a l w r o t e W i l l i a m C e c i l , the C h a n c e l l o r of the University, that C a r t w r i g h t was " n o t conformable in his a p p a r e l . " 20 A n d C a r t w r i g h t himself, in his Replye to W h i t g i f t , declaims that c a p , surplice, and tippet are " a n attire u n m e e t for a minister of the gospel to w e a r ; and the surplice especially more t h a n the other two, because such hurtful ceremonies are so m u c h m o r e dangerous, as they d o app r o a c h nearer the service or worship of G o d . " 21 A t the same time asserting that m e r e vestments were not the " g r e a t e s t m a t t e r s " for w h i c h he is striving, he implies that he is willing to compromise as far as they are concerned. His process of rationalization r e g a r d i n g conformity in a p p a r e l , typical of the less extreme nonconformist clergy, Pearson analyzes as follows: The Puritans held that it was wrong to wear the prescribed Popish garments; not to wear them was to disobey the Queen; such disobedience entailed deprivation of office; but a minister was called to preach the Gospel and must not relinquish his function; therefore to disobey the Queen as conscience commanded meant to disobey Christ which conscience would not allow. Men like Cartwright resolved this dilemma by a reluctant loyalty to the earthly monarch in order that they might be in a position to be faithful to their highest duty, viz. to exercise the main offices of their ministry. 22 T h e s e " m a i n offices," of course, w e r e p r e a c h i n g and administeri n g the sacraments, w h i c h C a r t w r i g h t considered more i m p o r t a n t t h a n vestments. In 1569, u p o n election to the L a d y M a r g a r e t professorship, C a r t w r i g h t b e g a n a series of lectures on the first t w o chapters of the A c t s of the Apostles, in w h i c h he discussed such questions as the election and equality of ministers. H e also expressed his conviction that the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d must be reformed according to the apostolic model, w h i c h he assumed to b e Presbyterian in constitution. 2 3 His lectures b e c a m e so p o p u l a r that he quickly a c q u i r e d a large f o l l o w i n g a m o n g b o t h the students a n d the f a c u l t y .

The Prologue at Cambridge

35

T h e University authorities at once took steps to c u r b his activity. W h i t g i f t f r o m the pulpit confuted some of his most unorthodox statements. 2 4 O n J u n e 11, 1570, W i l l i a m C h a d e r t o n , C a r t w r i g h t ' s predecessor as L a d y M a r g a r e t Professor and n o w R e g i u s Professor of D i v i n i t y , complained to the C h a n c e l l o r of the University of C a r t w r i g h t ' s o p e n criticism of the ecclesiastical polity of the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d . 2 6 J o h n M a y , the V i c e - C h a n cellor of the University, then procured f r o m C a r t w r i g h t a signed statement of his theological views in the f o r m of six articles, w h i c h Pearson paraphrases as follows: The names and offices of Archbishops and Bishops should be abolished. In their stead the offices of Bishops and Deacons, as described in the New Testament should be established. The Bishop should have a purely spiritual function and the deacon should care for the poor. The government of the Church should not be entrusted to Chancellors of Bishops or Officials of Archdeacons, etc., but to the minister and the Presbytery of the Church. Each minister should be attached to a definite congregation. No one should, like a candidate, seek the office of a minister and none should be created ministers by the authority of Bishops, but should be elected by a Church. All should promote this reformation according to their several vocations, i.e. the magistrate by his authority, the minister by preaching, and all by their prayers.26 C a r t w r i g h t ' s statement represents the first attempt to reform the government of the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d . C o m i n g as it did t w o years before the publication of the Admonition, it truly designates C a r t w r i g h t as the arch-Puritan. O n J u n e 24, 1570, as soon as the six " a r t i c l e s " c a m e into the hands of A r c h b i s h o p G r i n d a l , he sent t h e m to Sir W i l l i a m C e c i l w i t h the c o m p l a i n t that in his j u d g m e n t the " V i c e C h a n c e l l o r and heads of houses proceed n o t so r o u n d l y in this case as w e r e requisite." 27 T h e A r c h b i s h o p d e m a n d e d that C a r t w r i g h t and all his adherents be silenced and after an e x a m i n a t i o n b y the University authorities b e punished a n d , if necessary, expelled. Since one of C a r t w r i g h t ' s "assertions" r e a c h i n g G r i n d a l ' s ears was " t h a t he himself b e i n g a reader of D i v i n i t y , is a Doctor exercising the office n a m e d , Ephes. iv., a n d therefore must only read, and m a y n o t p r e a c h , " the A r c h b i s h o p inferred that in addition to p r e a c h i n g against " t h e extern policy and distinction

36

The Admonition Controversy

of states in the ecclesiastical g o v e r n m e n t , " C a r t w r i g h t was guilty of " c o n t e m n i n g also m a n y other laudable orders of the university." Therefore he ordered that the L a d y M a r g a r e t Professor b e prevented from proceeding D o c t o r of Divinity at the ensuing c o m m e n c e m e n t "which he now suethjor." 28 A c c o r d i n g to a letter f r o m V i c e - C h a n c e l l o r M a y to Cecil, written J u n e 29, 1570, C a r t w r i g h t ' s followers tried to override Grindal's orders b u t were prevented b y M a y ' s action. 29 A few weeks later, on J u l y 27, 1570, G r i n d a l informed Cecil that " a l t h o u g h C a r t w r i g h t would rev o k e " his "factious assertions," he was " n e v e r to be permitted to read a g a i n in the U n i v e r s i t y , " for he had " a busy head, stuffed full of singularities." 30 Finally, on A u g u s t 19, 1570, Whitgift, as Master of his C o l lege, wrote Cecil a letter in w h i c h he specifically outlined " M r . C a r t w r i g h t ' s opinions . . . as he himself h a t h uttered . . . in private conference: the w h i c h he hath also openly t a u g h t " — i n substance, the same opinions that M a y had outlined in his letter to G r i n d a l : I. That there ought not to be in the Church of Christ either Archbishops, Archdeacons, Deans, Chancellors, or any other, whereof mention is not expressly made in the Scriptures. II. That the office of the Bishop and Deacon, as they be now in the Church of England, is not allowable. III. That there ought to be an equality of all Ministers, and every one to be chief in his own cure. I V . That Ministers ought to be chosen by the people, as they were in the Apostles' time. V . That none ought to be a Minister, unless he have a cure. V I . That a man should not preach out of his own cure. V I I . That the order of calling and making Ministers, now used in this Church of England, is extraordinary, and to be altered. W h i t g i f t closes his list with, " d i v e r s others depend u p o n these, (as y o u r H o n o u r m a y easily conjecture) w h i c h would breed a meer confusion, if they should take p l a c e . " 31 I n the meantime C a r t w r i g h t ' s rapidly g r o w i n g popularity a m o n g the fellows of the colleges 32 m a d e it conceivable that under the existing ordinances he m i g h t be elected to the vicechancellorship. T h i s possibility, as Pearson suggests, m a y h a v e

The Prologue at Cambridge

37

induced the drawing up of new University statutes. 33 Whereas formerly the fellows of the Colleges had nominated the candidates for vice-chancellor, the new statutes entrusted solely to the heads of the houses the nomination of two candidates, whose election was left to the regents. T h e vice-chancellor thus elected, with five others chosen by the heads in conjunction with the doctors of each faculty and two "scrutators," became the caput or governing body. 34 Since the heads now were antagonistic to Cartwright, they were certain to appoint a vice-chancellor who like themselves was hostile to him. Their election fell upon Whitgift. T h e new statutes moreover permitted the heads of the colleges to compel a professor, of whose views they disapproved, to renounce his tenets or be dismissed. T o Whitgift fell the duty of disciplining Cartwright. O n December 11, 1570, Cartwright was called before Vice-Chancellor Whitgift and the judges, consisting of five Doctors of Divinity and three Doctors of Law, and accused of the six propositions for ecclesiastical reform, which Cartwright himself had written out and signed. First, he was reminded that he several times had been warned before the former Vice-Chancellor, Dr. M a y , that these doctrines were contrary to the established religion of the land and that he should revoke them. Then, when Whitgift once and for all demanded an absolute answer, Cartwright refused to back down. As a result, with the unanimous consent of the judges Whitgift removed him from the Lady Margaret professorship and inhibited him from preaching within the University and its jurisdiction. 35 Then Cartwright began to call for a public disputation of his doctrine. In a conference with him Whitgift consented to such disputation providing that it was conducted in private and in writing. T h e rumor, however, arose that he had refused. 36 Accordingly in self-defense the Vice-Chancellor caused a certificate to be drawn up and signed by several faculty members to the effect that in their presence Cartwright had several times been offered an opportunity to state his views in writing and had refused it.37 "Moreover," the document continues, "the said Mr. Cartwright did never offer any disputation but upon

38

The Admonition Controversy

these conditions, viz• that he might know w h o should be his adversaries, and w h o should be his judges: meaning such judges as he himself could best like of." Y e t even this opportunity would have been his, had he been willing to obtain license from the Q u e e n or the Council permitting him to discuss assertions "repugnant to the state of the commonwealth." T h i s document Pearson calls "sufficient reply to the common bruit that Cartwright's challenge had not been accepted"; and he adds that it also "explains the whole question of conference and shows that neither side would accept the other's terms." 38 For Cartwright was determined that the disputation be a public affair, whereas Whitgift desired it to be in private and in writing. Cartwright therefore refused. T h o u g h Cartwright was deprived of his professorship, until 1572 he retained his fellowship. 39 A t Trinity, however, every fellow took his oath to become priest seven years after receiving his degree of Master of Arts. 40 In 1560, while a Fellow at St. John's and two years before becoming Fellow at Trinity, Cartwright had received his Master's degree; therefore he should have been ordained in 1567. H e thus had held his fellowship five years longer than was his right. In the meantime, stung by the disorders in Trinity caused b y Cartwright's followers, Whitgift discovered Cartwright's failure to fulfill his fellowship oath and at once dismissed him from the University. T h i s dismissal the Master of Trinity justifies on the grounds of academic duty. F r o m his opponent's accusation that he gloried in causing trouble for other men b y casting them from their livings, he indignantly defends himself: I trust there is not one that can justly say I have without great cause molested him. . . . If I have done you any injury, prosecute it to the uttermost, and spare not: I never entreated you to hold your peace. The greatest injury that I acknowledge myself guilty of is unto the college that I so long suffered you, contrary to your express oath, to usurp a place therein, to the great hinderance and disquieting thereof.41 Elsewhere, replying to the charge that he is enjoying a plurality, he expresses his disgust at Cartwright's perjury:

T h e Prologue at Cambridge

39

"The multitude of livings" which I have I do enjoy by law, and may retain (I thank God) with a far better conscience than T. C. did one living for the space of certain years, and would have done still with all his heart if he might have been winked at, though it were expressly against his oath,42

Whitgift's charge of perjury was based not alone on Cartwright's failure to fulfill his fellowship oath. T h e Master of Trinity felt that in questioning the lawfulness of various orders of the University and in attacking Whitgift's Answere Cartwright had broken a second oath, namely, that sworn by the student entering Trinity never to speak against the master of the College or against the University.* Whitgift therefore reminds him of this obligation: And, howsoever you have by word and writing sought to deface both me and the college, yea, the whole university for my sake (contrary to the express words ojyour oath . . . ) yet are you in act and deed confuted. 4 4

Finally, his conviction that he is acting on principle is further emphasized in his retort to Cartwright's sneer at his "expulsions," his "imprisonments," and "all that racket which he maketh in Cambridge": The words you here utter be contumelious: you only rail, you answer not. I never expelled any of degree since my first coming to Trinity College, but two: one for pertinacy, the other for perjury.46 Thus Whitgift reiterates his stand that in his treatment of Cartwright he has performed his duty as Master of Trinity College. But Cartwright, on the other hand, contends that merely because he shows his distaste for certain Cambridge customs, * "Item, me huic Collegio fidelem et benevolum futurum; ei et omnibus Sociis ac Discipulis, atque etiam Magistro ejusdem, non solum dum in eo vixero, sed etiam postea, pro virili, cum opus sit, benevolentiam et opem praestiturum; nullum Collegio damnum incommodumve unquam allaturum; aliorum consilia, coitiones, conjurationes, insidias, facta ac dicta quae Collegium detrimento et infamia afficiant, quantum potero, repulsurum, ac Officiariis Collegii, qui de ejusmodi rebus cognoscere ac decidere debent, recunciaturum. Et si propter aliquod crimen inter majora crimina numeratum e Collegio per consensum Magistri et majoris partis octo Seniorum eo modo, quo in capite de majoribus criminibus declaratum est, expulsus fuero, me neque ad alium judicemjudicesve appellaturum, aut Magistro Collegii, aut Socio alicui litem aut actionem unquam in posterum ea de causa intentaturum."43

40

The Admonition Controversy

either by refusing to follow them or by openly condemning them, he should not be deprived of his living: W h a t conscience is there that bindeth a m a n to depart from his living in that place where he liketh not of all the orders which are there used? Is it not enough to abstain from them if there be any evil in them, or to declare the unlawfulness of them, if his calling do suffer him, when as the reformation is not in his power?

In short, he demands complete "academic freedom." But he is given the answer to his questions by a man who, having once sworn to uphold the statutes of the University, will not compromise: If he be sworn to keep those orders keeping his living, if as honest men as he is will like them, if his equals, or rather betters, might supply his place, I think he ought either to satisfy his oath, or to refuse his living, if he will avoid perjury; yea, though there were no such meet persons to succeed him. But, if the case be this, that a m a n shall directly swear, either to do such a thing by such a time, or to leave his place, if by that time he neither do the thing by oath required, nor leave his place, but still usurp the same, at the least the space of five years, I think he ought to be displaced for perjury; which is a greater matter than either cap or surplice.

Whitgift concludes with an apology for his long explanation: I do but now put a case, that men may understand every m a n that is displaced not to be displaced without great and urgent occasion. I would not enter into this vein, if I were not urged. Therefore, to answer in one word for all, I have put no m a n out of his living, but there is greater cause why he should be ashamed to complain of injury, than I to do according to my oath and duty.u

The sincerity of his convictions at this time is vindicated by his actions years later when as Archbishop of Canterbury he learned that "divers of the Fellows entered not into holy Orders within the time assigned by their statute" and he ordered the situation immediately to be rectified.47 Accordingly Pearson's statement that Whitgift seized upon Cartwright's failure to fulfill his oath in order "to get rid of the obnoxious Puritan whose presence and influence in the Univer-

The Prologue at Cambridge sity h a d

filled

it w i t h c o n t e n t i o n "

48

needs qualification.

41 Con-

s i d e r i n g t h e u n r e s t c a u s e d b y C a r t w r i g h t ' s s e r m o n s , it w o u l d h a r d l y b e e x p e c t e d t h a t W h i t g i f t w o u l d l e t slip a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o dismiss t h e n o n c o n f o r m i s t . I n d e e d , i n a l e t t e r t o A r c h b i s h o p P a r k e r d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 1 5 7 2 , h e f r a n k l y a d m i t s his relief a t d i s c o v e r i n g C a r t w r i g h t ' s b r e a c h of t h e statutes: I have pronounced M r . Cartwright to be no Fellow here; because, contrary both to the express words of his oath, and plain statute of this College, he hath continued here above his time, not being ful Minister: w h i c h truly I did not know until now of late; for if I had known it before, I might have eased myself of much trouble, and the college of great contention. Hitherto I thank G o d , it hath been as quiet a college as any was at Cambridge. N o w it is clean contrary; mervaillous troublesome and contentious, w h i c h I can ascribe to no cause so much, as to M r . Cartwright's presence here. 49 Hence, even though w e m a y not agree with Whitgift that an o a t h is b i n d i n g , w e c a n a t least f o r g i v e h i m t h e desire f o r t h e t r a n q u i l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e C o l l e g e of w h i c h h e w a s M a s t e r . T h a t C a r t w r i g h t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a t h o r n in t h e side o f a n y c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r m a y b e d e d u c e d f r o m his theories of a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m . I n t h e first p l a c e , in e x c u s i n g his d e f e c t i o n , h e insists u p o n t h e r i g h t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e U n i v e r s i t y statutes as h e likes: M y ministerie is diuerslie accused: as that I did not seke for the ordre off priesthood as it is called: for that is that he meaneth I should haue done by othe or els departed the Colledge. T h e answer hereto is longer/then this treatise m a y embrace: w h i c h I am readie to exhibit before him/to w h o m it belongeth: because I am prouoked/I humbly desire him to receiue the cause. But in a word: yt is a meer cauill. For the meaning off the statute off the howse/is to prouide that men should not turne their studies/to other professions off law, & c : but that there should be to furnish the Colledge off a numbre off preachers/o^ which I was one I as sone as I entred. Nether was there any dutie of mynisterie/which the C o l l e d g could require off me: that I was not inabled to doo according to the lawes of the churche off E n g l a n d / b y vertue off that mynisterie / w h i c h I had receiued. So that the law y t self (as that whose meaning was fulfilled euen with m y entrie) did not require yt. 60

42

T h e Admonition Controversy

T h i s determination to follow his o w n interpretation m a y be better understood in the light of a statement m a d e in 1591 before the H i g h Commission. W h e n he refused to take the o a t h ex officio mero,bl D r . R i c h a r d B a n c r o f t reminded h i m that he h a d taken the same o a t h twenty years before, doubtless w h e n he was e x a m i n e d at C a m b r i d g e regarding his doctrines. C a r t w r i g h t replied that the circumstances were different; a f t e r w a r d he w a s heard to say that h a d he not been interrupted he c o u l d further h a v e answered that " h e took not that o a t h t w e n t y years ago, b u t w i t h exception to answer so far as m i g h t well stand w i t h G o d ' s glory and the good of his n e i g h b o u r . " 62 Perhaps, too, w h e n he h a d taken his oaths to u p h o l d the University statutes, he h a d m a d e similar mental reservations. I n the second place, C a r t w r i g h t took exception to certain of the degrees granted b y the University, especially the D o c t o r a t e , w h i c h h a d been refused him. Pearson excuses h i m f r o m personal bitterness at this refusal: Cartwright objects to the conferring of academic degrees, such as B.D. and D.D. upon ministers who are unlearned or incapable of teaching, not, as Whitgift suggests, because he desires the abolition of schools and universities and resents the repulse he suffered when he desired the D.D. for himself but because such degrees are frequently bestowed upon men of no scholarship and because a doctorate should be given only to those who hold the office of a doctor. 63 A n d if w e consider C a r t w r i g h t ' s words alone, Pearson's excuse is justified. T o the accusation that the Second Admonition " c o n d e m n e t h the degrees of doctors," C a r t w r i g h t replies that the authors of the Admonition c o m p l a i n only " w h e n titles of doctorship be given to those w h i c h h a v e not the office of a doctor, and oftentimes to those w h i c h cannot d o the office if they h a d it, a n d w h e n m e n d o seek vain-glory in them, and such l i k e . " 64 A n d in his Second replie he writes: What an abuse yt is in the vniuersitie/that they are created doctors which not onely doo not the office/but haue not so muche as a certeine place assigned to teach in: which amongest other/are the two principall thinges I mislike/as vnlawfull. 66 T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n Pearson accepts on its face v a l u e .

The Prologue at Cambridge

43

B u t W h i t g i f t is m o r e c y n i c a l than Pearson. Nettled b y C a r t w r i g h t ' s contemptuous repetition of the epithet " M . D o c t o r , " he resentfully comments: Touching his manner of writing I shall not need to say much; for any man of judgment that readeth his book may easily perceive, with what haughtiness of mind, what contempt and disdain of others, in what slanderous and opprobrious manner it is written. How oft doth he repeat " M . Doctor," in contempt either of the degree or of the person! 370 times is the least. 66 T h o u g h W h i t g i f t here seems uncertain whether this c o n t e m p t is directed at himself or at his degree, further on in his Defense in no uncertain terms he states his conviction that C a r t w r i g h t ' s bitterness comes f r o m the repulse w h i c h he h a d suffered in being refused the D o c t o r a t e . T h i s conviction he arrives at in the f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r . I n his Answere he complains that the A d m o nitioners in their list of c o n d e m n e d orders h a v e a m e n d e d the w o r d " d o c t o r s " in their first edition to "university doctors and bachelors of d i v i n i t y " in their second, and he expresses the fear that the resulting " c o n f u s i o n of degrees (which they call equality) as well in universities as in parishes and other their imagined c o n g r e g a t i o n s " w o u l d overthrow the universities. 5 7 I n the Replye to an answere, first pointing out that W h i t g i f t accuses the A d monitioners of c o n d e m n i n g doctors whereas elsewhere he admits t h a t they " a l l o w of a d o c t o r , " C a r t w r i g h t approves the c h a n g e in the Admonition: He that taketh away degrees of doctor or bachelor of divinity doth not bring in confusion, nor taketh not away all degrees of schools; especially seeing they are now made bare names, without any offices, and oftentimes they are admitted to these degrees which neither can nor will teach. W h e r e u p o n W h i t g i f t clarifies his earlier statement and then rebukes C a r t w r i g h t for c o n t e m n i n g a degree w h i c h he actually covets: I say that belike they allow of a doctor of law, because they have left that title out in their second edition, and have instead thereof placed

44

The Admonition Controversy

"doctors and bachelors of divinity." The cause, why you lean so much unto them in this barbarous opinion, may be conjectured to be the repulse that you suffered when you earnestly desired the one of them. If the degrees be bestowed upon unworthy persons . . . the fault is in the persons that so bestow them, not in the degrees . . . and therefore do you here insinuate that you are content to allow all the degrees in schools, but only the degrees in divinity; and yet, as I said before, not long since you greatly desired even the highest of them.69 To

this d i r e c t c u t C a r t w r i g h t

i n his Second replie o f f e r s t h e

following defense: Wherein beside that I moued nothing/but yelded onely to the request off certain frindes: I had (before m y grace propounded in the scholes) the aduise off more then a dosen learned ministers. W h o considering /that I had the office off a Doctor in the vniuersitie: were off opinion/ that (for the good they estemed might be done therby) I might swalow the fond and idle ceremonies/which accompanie yt. 69 W e i g h i n g W h i t g i f t ' s l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s o f his o p p o n e n t ' s a v e r s i o n to the D o c t o r a t e against C a r t w r i g h t ' s evasive reply, w e c a n n o t g o as f a r as P e a r s o n a n d a l t o g e t h e r a b s o l v e C a r t w r i g h t f r o m a n y trace of personal feeling o n the subject. Nevertheless Cartwright's defense that he already has the o f f i c e o f a D o c t o r a n d m a y " s w a l l o w t h e f o n d a n d idle c e r e m o n i e s which accompanie y t " — i n other words, the University

Com-

m e n c e m e n t — s u g g e s t s t h a t his distaste for t h e D o c t o r a t e arises, a t least i n p a r t , f r o m t h e c o n v i c t i o n w h i c h h a d s t a r t l e d G r i n d a l into ordering C a m b r i d g e to refuse h i m the degree, n a m e l y , that i n b e i n g a r e a d e r of D i v i n i t y i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y h e also w a s a D o c t o r . 6 0 T h e d u t i e s i m p l i e d b y " r e a d i n g " a r e set f o r t h i n d e t a i l i n t h e Second Admonition, p r o b a b l y w r i t t e n b y C a r t w r i g h t h i m s e l f : T h e teacher [i.e., the Doctor] (saue that in the consistory of the same parishe/and in all conferences of ministers/he is to be joyned with the ministers) shall in such places as prouision is m a d e for h i m / & being lawfully called as afore/onely intend lectors/and expositions of the scriptures/ to the end that there m a y be set furth/and kepte a soundnes of doctrine/a right & naturall sence of the scriptures/and playne and manifest proues of the articles of the Christian religion/so that he oughte to be an exquisite and mighty man in the scriptures. T h e vse of suche an one is most nedeful/wher the frie of the churche (as I might call

THe Prologue at Cambridge

45

it) is/to enter them well which after shuld be emploied to the ministrie/whether it be in the vniuersitie or elswhere/that such be brought vp to this turne. So that in deede the titles of oure vniuersitie doctors /and bachelors of diuinitie/are not onely for vayn glory sought and graunted/but there they are the names of course/conferred rather by the prophane iudgments of them that know not what office of the church they belong too/and by the importunate sute and meanes made / b y such vaine men as desire to clime/and to haue hygh names/and also of a blinde custome partly/which (besydes the graces gotten easely by frendship/or corrupt briberie/compounding I should say/althoughe no shew of learning be vttered/nor exercises kept) doth in respect of continuance of standing in manner throw these titles vpon many dolts /which neither do/nor can do any thing that is required in a teacher or doctor. And a plaine case it is/that ostentation and outwarde glorye is soughte by these names/& by the name of master of Arte/which is esteemed many degrees beneathe the titles of Doctor/or Bachelor in diuinitie/for otherwise they would not offer those titles to suche as the vniuersities would shewe pleasure vnto/as to noble men and others/as though they were noble names/nobilitating them that otherwise wer unnoble/and adding to their nobilitie that without them were noble. And thus haue they turned vpside downe/and made a mockery of God hys order/conferred vpon his churche for the benefite of the same /excepte they will not be ashamed to professe themselues heerein to folowe the heathenish tradition of prophane scholes/which rather seke by suche titles to aduance learning/as they say/then by their learning to aduantage the church of God. For none other are true teachers or doctors/ but they which doe teache/and be jounde meete/and be called by the churche to teache/how so euer the vniuersitie doctors seeme to haue some indelible Caracter/that once and euer doctor/as the popishe priestes once shauen/were euer priestes/and can neuer be no priestes after/but such doctors as these/though they had neuer so many graces/shall be but idol doctors/as truely doctors/as an image is a man/whych hath nothing but the shew of a man/eyes and see not/eares and heare n o t / and so they/teachers & doctors/and teache not. These vaine names become suche vaine men/but the churche of God they become not/ and are forbidden by oure sauioure. 61 S i n c e C a r t w r i g h t thus assumes t h a t t h e D o c t o r a t e was one o f G o d ' s orders " c o n f e r r e d u p o n his c h u r c h e for t h e benefite of t h e s a m e " a n d therefore could n o t b e g r a n t e d b y a university f a c u l t y b u t r a t h e r m u s t d e p e n d o n divine selection to b e d e t e r m i n e d

46

The Admonition Controversy

b y the m a n " c a l l e d " and b y the congregation, the degree in his eyes loses its strictly a c a d e m i c significance. A n d j u s t as the D o c t o r a t e becomes a n e m p t y title, so d o the other degrees lose their importance. U n l i k e C a r t w r i g h t , W h i t g i f t firmly believed in the necessity of the D o c t o r a t e to a m e m b e r of a university faculty. L a t e r as archbishop he objected to the promotion of another Puritan, W i l l i a m W h i t a k e r , to the mastership of St. J o h n ' s C o l l e g e on the grounds that t h o u g h he was — t o borrow Strype's phrase — " o f D o c t o r ' s s t a n d i n g " he h a d not taken that degree " n o r seemed inclinable so to d o . " W h i t a k e r ' s negligence " g a v e occasion to the college a n d the University to c o n c l u d e the reason thereof to be, that he was touched w i t h the principles of the Puritans; w h o disallowed of that title as Antichristian, and not to be conferred b y a n y University p o w e r ; nor did allow of any other Doctors, but those that were doctors (i.e., teachers) in the C h u r c h , as a distinct ecclesiastical o f f i c e . " 62 W h e n Cecil, n o w L o r d Burghley, accused W h i t g i f t ' s patron and friend, D r . A n d r e w Perne, M a s t e r of Peterhouse, of opposing W h i t a k e r and " e n d e a v o u r i n g to procure letters f r o m the Q u e e n , or other great persons, to the c o l l e g e " in order to promote a friend of his o w n instead, Perne doubtless — as Strype suggests 63 — w i t h the a d v i c e of W h i t g i f t , w h o m he was visiting at the time at C r o y d o n , protested that " h i s Lordship k n e w h o w earnest a suitor he h a d been to h i m [like a good University man,] for the staying of all such letters, contrary to the statutes and good foundations of the colleges: the w h i c h he k n e w w o u l d be the great d e c a y of all good learning and order in the same U n i v e r sity." 64 R e g a r d i n g W h i t a k e r , Perne urged Burghley to " m o v e h i m to take the degree of doctorship in D i v i n i t y ; w h i c h b y the statutes of the University was requisite for the Q u e e n ' s R e a d e r in D i v i n i t y ; w h o w a s appointed Doctor cathedra illius facultatis." P e r n e explained to B u r g h l e y that a m a n holding this position " h a d the creation of all the Doctors that proceeded in D i v i n i t y : the w h i c h he could not do, except he were first D o c t o r himself." If W h i t a k e r w o u l d conform to the University requirements, Perne assures B u r g h l e y that " h e should for his p a r t be as heartily glad as a n y friend he h a d . " W h e n W h i t a k e r eventually did

The Prologue at Cambridge

47

conform, Burghley and Whitgift succeeded in overcoming the opposition to his election to the mastership of St. John's. T h i s generosity toward one Puritan who conformed to the University requirements goes far to vindicate Whitgift from the charge of persecution of Cartwright. 6 5 W h i c h fact contributed more to Cartwright's scorn for the Doctorate — his early conviction that the title should be given only to a m a n w h o has been " c a l l e d " or the refusal of the University to grant it to him — it would be impossible now to determine. Even before Grindal had forbidden him the degree, he himself had maintained that as a reader in divinity he was also a Doctor and therefore had no need to go through the formality of fulfilling his fellowship oath to take orders within the stated time or of becoming Doctor of Divinity. Nevertheless he had " s u e d " for the degree, and his insulting references to Whitgift's title clearly reveal his pique. Accordingly his insistence upon the order of Doctors in his ecclesiastical discipline m a y be in part an attempt to compensate for his own shortcoming. In other words, his theory that the Doctorate is an ecclesiastical rather than an academic office permitted him the rationalization that the University statutes were illegal. In short, the University was wrong, and he was right. Naturally, then, he had to justify his criticism of the University as a whole. His reasoning seems to run something like this: T h e statutes of C a m b r i d g e are man-made, whereas the statutes of the ideal University were formulated by Christ through St. Paul, Ephesians iv. 8., 1 1 . : " W h e r e f o r e he saith, W h e n he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. . . . A n d he gave some . . . pastors and teachers." Examples of this ideal University are to be found in both the O l d and the N e w Testaments: Judges v. 14., 1 Samuel xix. 19., 11 K i n g s ii. 3., 5., 7., and Acts vi. 9. T h e statutes of Cambridge are not based on these scriptural texts; therefore they m a y be disregarded.* * T h e texts cited by Cartwright are the following: JUDGES V. 14.: " O u t of Ephraim was there a root of them against A m a l e k ; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of M a c h i r came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer."

48

The Admonition Controversy

To seek for scriptural authority for the academic discipline seemed absurd to Whitgift. As for Cartwright's "examples," not one of them, asserts Whitgift, "proveth that in this text to the Ephesians either 'schools or universities' be mentioned, though it be certain that they pertain both to teaching and governing." 67 Unlike Cartwright, he displays a high regard for law and order. In his eyes ordinances made and approved by men of intelligence are worthy to be obeyed. And university statutes which had outlived their usefulness could be amended or nullified only by the authorities properly constituted for that purpose. Thus the preliminary bout between the Puritan and the Episcopalian is fought on the issue of authority. From this contest Cartwright emerges as a nonconformist by temperament; Whitgift, a conformist. This temperamental difference between the two men colors their entire Controversy. I SAMUEL xix. 19: " A n d it was told Saul, saying, Behold, D a v i d is at Naioth in R a m a h . " II KINGS ii. 3 . : " A n d the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the L o r d will take a w a y thy master from thy head to day? A n d he said, Y e a , I know it; hold ye your peace . . . 5. A n d the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the L o r d will take a w a y thy master from thy head to day? A n d he answered, Y e a , I know it; hold ye your peace . . . 7. A n d fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood b y J o r d a n . ACTS vi. 9.: T h e n there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 6 6

CHAPTER

IV

The Main Issue

Returning from the lecture hall to the pulpit, we might do well to recall exactly how far the breach between the nonconformists and the English Church had by this time extended lest perchance we fail to appreciate Cartwright's preeminence in Puritan dissent. Until 1570 the quarrel had been confined to the relative "indifference" of rites and ceremonies, with particular emphasis on vestments. From the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566 had emerged two principles which were to form integral parts of Puritan doctrine: first, that the Scriptures contain the complete plan for the "edification," or building, of God's church, and second, that the authority of the magistrate is subordinate to that of the church. T h e Episcopalian defense, on the other hand, had maintained, first, that God in his Word has set forth all doctrine essential to salvation but has left to his church the ordinance thereof, and secondly, that the magistrate is the "supreme governor" of the Established Church. It remained for Cartwright to precipitate the direct attack upon the Episcopalian authority and to send it reeling to its foundation. In 1569-70, two years before the publication of the first Puritan pamphlet, Cartwright, as L a d y Margaret Professor, in his lectures on the Acts of the Apostles had attacked the existing ecclesiastical polity. 1 He therefore deserves the attribute given him by Pearson —"chief exponent of Presbyterianism in Engl a n d . " 2 T h e Admonition to the Parliament merely sets forth in general form Cartwright's doctrines with copious marginal references to the scriptural texts which ostensibly serve as authority for these doctrines. So sketchy was the Admonition, indeed, that Cartwright found it necessary almost immediately to publish the Second Admonition for the purpose of enlarging upon the program 49

5o

The Admonition Controversy

for the reorganization of the church government as set forth in the earlier tract. He further establishes himself as the true father of English Presbyterianism when he springs to the defense of the authors of the Admonition and in three lengthy pamphlets — the Replye to an answere, t h e Second replie, a n d The rest of the second

replie—defends their dogma almost word by word. Hence, the program for reform promulgated in the first Puritan tract may be regarded as the product of Cartwright's brain. This tract is a sort of ultimatum of nonconformity summarizing all the hostile criticism directed thus far in Elizabeth's reign against the Established Church. The authors open the battle with the cry that "we in England are so far off from having a church rightly reformed, according to the prescript of God's word, that as yet we are not come to the outward face of the same." Then they present the following criteria whereby their "rightly reformed church" may be recognized: The outward marks, whereby a true christian church is known, are preaching of the word purely, minis'tering of the sacraments sincerely, and ecclesiastical discipline, which consisteth in admonition and correcting of faults severely.3

In order to effect this reform, they prescribe for the English people a two-fold objective: to employ their "whole labour and study, n o t only in abandoning all popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment, b u t also in bringing in and placing in God's church those things only which the Lord himself in his word commandeth." 4

These "popish remnants" include the much hated rites and ceremonies, the list of which had been steadily growing since the days of Henry V I I I . The Admonition especially condemns the Book of Common Prayer. 6 In a general way it deplores, first, the origin of the Book in the Mass; secondly, the fact that it places the service in the chancel; thirdly, its prescript forms of prayer; and fourthly, the use of the name "priest" instead of "minister." It also attacks specific portions of the Book, particularly all the ritual taken over from the Roman Church; for example, the introit, the epistle and gospel, the Nicene Creed, the reading of homilies (instead of preaching) before the ad-

The Main Issue

51

ministration of the sacraments, the form and m a n n e r of administering the c o m m u n i o n , the use in baptism of "surplices, interrogatories ministered to the infant, godfathers and godmothers, holy fonts, and crossing . . . b r o u g h t in l o n g after the purity of the primitive c h u r c h , " confirmation, the use of the w e d d i n g ring, the private administration of the sacraments, " J e w i s h p u r i f y i n g s " of w o m e n after childbirth, and the observance of holy days. Furthermore, the authors of the Admonition would d o a w a y w i t h the " b l a s p h e m o u s " injunction in the ordering of ministers: " R e c e i v e the H o l y G h o s t . " T h e y restate the arguments against vestments earlier set forth in the pamphlets of 1566. T h e y then proceed a long step further than their predecessors: they systematically attack the entire g o v e r n m e n t of the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d . Non-residences and pluralities, of course, must go. T h e Episcopal hierarchy in names and offices must be abolished, and all of its power, b o t h ecclesiastical and civil, must be shorn f r o m it. H a v i n g thus destroyed the existing organization, the Puritans w o u l d introduce their o w n Presbyterian discipline, in w h i c h ministers, elders, and deacons w o u l d supplant the Episcopal orders. 6 I n this reformed ecclesiastical polity the ministers, e a c h elected b y the congregation and all possessing e q u a l power, w o u l d p r e a c h and administer the sacraments. A l o n g w i t h the ministers the seniors, or elders, w o u l d govern the c h u r c h in order to consult, to admonish, to correct, a n d to order all things a p p e r t a i n i n g to the state of the congregation, e a c h g r o u p of elders a c t i n g for its o w n c h u r c h only. Finally, the deacons w o u l d gather and distribute alms and care for the sick b u t w o u l d not p r e a c h and b a p t i z e as they did in the Established C h u r c h , w h e r e they were a "first step to the m i n i s t r y . " 7 T h e s e three orders of ecclesiastical officials w o u l d exercise their authority in the congregation b y m e a n s of public admonition for the reforming of the disordered and of e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n in order to bring t h e m to repentance. I n addition, the p o w e r of the magistrate in the c h u r c h w o u l d be restricted to the m e r e c a r r y i n g out of the orders of the elders. T h e authors of the Admonition justify their ecclesiastical revo-

52

The Admonition Controversy

lution on the grounds that they are restoring the church to its pristine purity, for they warn that nothing must be done without "the express warrant of God's word." 8 Since they do little more than sketch the outlines of the proposed reorganization, a Second Admonition was needed in order to describe the machinery whereby this reorganization was to be effected. The author of this tract explains the functions of the Presbyterian courts, the consistory, the conference, and the provincial, national, and universal councils. His complete understanding of the system and his authoritative manner of expressing himself suggest the pen of Cartwright. Pearson, however, denies Cartwright's authorship, primarily on the negative grounds that his contemporaries were "tacitly agreed in not ascribing it to him" and that he himself does not admit it, and secondarily, on the grounds of style, seldom a convincing argument. 9 Actually, as has been noted, 10 in interminable sentences, in involved constructions, and in ambiguity the Second Admonition strongly resembles Cartwright's other writings. Moreover, Pearson fails to remark that to the three orders named in the earlier Admonition — ministers, seniors or elders, and deacons — the author of the Second Admonition adds two more characteristically Cartwrightian orders, namely, teachers or doctors and widows. Following Calvin, he subdivides the ministry into two "sortes," that is, "pastors & teachers/which doe not differ in dignitie/but in distynction of office/and exercise of theyr gifts." 11 The pastor is to "haue the ouersight & charge of the whole parish/to instruct to admonish/to exhort/& to correct bi doctrine al and euery one in the assemblies or in the priuate houses of the same parishe/and to minister the sacraments in the same parish," whereas the doctor is merely to read and to expound the Scriptures. This conception of the office of the doctor was a cherished ideal of Cartwright's, which had already brought him to grief at Cambridge. 12 The suggestion for the office of widows Cartwright also probably borrowed from Calvin, who in his Institution of Christian Religion describes the widow as originally a sort of deacon. But neither Calvin nor Cartwright clearly distinguishes between the deacon and the widow. Calvin writes as follows:

The Main Issue

53

T h e care of the poore was committed to the Deacons. Howbeit to the Romaines there are set two kyndes. Let him that geueth (saieth Paul in that place [Romans xii. 8.]) do it in simplicitie: let hym that h a t h mercie, do it in cherefulnesse. Forasmuche as it is certaine that he speaketh of the publyke offices of the Chirch, it must nedes be that there were two seuerall degrees. Unlesse my iudgement deceiue me, in the first point he meaneth Deacons, that distributed the alms: in the other he speaketh of them that had geuen themselues to loking to the pore & sicke: of which sort wer the wydowes of whom he maketh mention to Timothe. For women coulde execute no other publike office, but to geue themselues to the seruice of the poore. If we graunt this . . . then there shalbe two sortes of Deacons: of which one sort shall serue in distributing the thynges of the poore, the other in lokyng to the poore of the Chirch themselues. 13

Cartwright is equally vague. In his Replye to an answere he first

divides his governors of the church into those "whose charge pertained unto the whole church," or elders, and those "whose charges extend but to a part of the church," or deacons. Then he subdivides the deacons, "whose charge was over the poor," into two groups: those whose charge was "over all the poor of the church," or deacons; and those whose charge was "over the poor strangers and those poor which were sick only," namely deaconesses or widows.1* Immediately discarding the title of "deaconess," Cartwright defines the "widows" as "godly poor women in the church, above the age of three score years, for the avoiding of all suspicion of evil, which might rise by slanderous tongues, if they had been younger." Apparently, however, after the publication of the Second Admonition, in which he is quite

positive in stating the need for the office of the widow, he has begun to doubt the practicability of this fifth and last order, for after his definition in the Replye he expresses the following opinion: T h e r e is not so great use of these widows with us, as there was in those places where the churches were first founded, and in that time wherein this order of widows was instituted, part of the which necessity grew both by the multitude of strangers through the persecution, and by the great heat of those east countries, whereupon the washing and suppling of their feet was required. 16

54

The Admonition Controversy

Nevertheless, since he does not " s e e how a better and more convenient order can be devised" for the care of the poor and the sick than "this which St. Paul appointeth," he concludes that " ( i f such may be gotten) we ought also to keep that order of widows in the church still." 1 6 Moreover, the elimination of the order would conflict with his claim that his Presbyterian system is an exact replica of the Pauline Church. Accordingly, he is content to leave the decision to his disciples. I n the Answere Whitgift with his flair for extracting the essence of his opponent's argument declares " t h e chief and principal ground" of the Admonition to be that "those things only are to be placed in the church which the Lord himself in his word c o m m a n d e t h . " And he adds: As though they should say, nothing is to be tolerated in the church of Christ, touching either doctrine, order, ceremonies, discipline, or government, except it be expressed in the word of God. And therefore the most of their arguments in this book be taken ab auctoritate negative, which by the rules of logic prove nothing at all.17 I n other words, Whitgift maintains that it is illogical to argue that because a thing is not expressed in the Bible it should not be done. Cartwright comes to the defense of the Admonition with the dogmatic assertion: Many things are both commanded andforbidden, for which there is no express mention in the word, which are as necessarily to be followed or avoided as those whereof express mention is made. . . . Forsomuch as the Lord God, determining to set before our eyes a perfect form of his church, is both able to do it, and hath done it, a man may reason both ways necessarily: The Lord hath commanded it should be in his church; therefore it must: and of the other side: He hath not commanded; therefore it must not be. 18 Cartwright's statement that God could " c o m m a n d " without making "express m e n t i o n " also seems illogical to Whitgift: I know sundry things to be expressed in the word of God, which are not commanded; as Christ his fasting forty days, and his other miracles. . . . But I think you were not well advised when you said, that "many things are both commanded and forbidden, of which there is no express

The Main Issue

55

mention in the word of God, which are as necessarily to be followed or avoided as those whereof express mention is made." If you mean that " m a n y things are commanded or forbidden" in the word, which are not expressed in the word, in my opinion you speak contraries; for how can it be commanded or forbidden in the word, except it be also expressed in the same? If you mean, that " m a n y things are commanded or forbidden to be done" necessary unto salvation, which notwithstanding are not expressed in the word of God, then I see not how you differ from that opinion, which is the ground of all papistry, that is, " t h a t all things necessary unto salvation are not expressed in the scriptures." Howsoever you mean it, it cannot be true; for there is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both "commanded" and "expressed" in the scriptures. I count it "expressed," when it is either in manifest words contained in scripture, or thereof gathered by necessary collection. 19 Before debating the vital question of scriptural authority, Whitgift therefore desires a definition of terms. Apparently at a loss for a rational answer, Cartwright resorts to a verbal quibble: Alas iff he woulde vnderstande his g r a m m e r / a n d acknowledge that which simple scholers off the grammer schole doo well knowe/that their is difference betweene expressed and conteined, betweene expressed and included, between expressed and implied, betweene expressed and gathered: He woulde neuer haue troubled the reader with suche folies. 20 A n d he scoffingly concludes: I suppose/that there was neuer writer/holie nor prophane/that euer spake so: and that yt byddethe defiance bothe to devinitie/and humanitie/being forged (as yt is to be feared) contrary to his owne knowledge/onely that he might giue some colour vnto that absurdytie/which he woulde so gladlye fasten on me. 21 His failure to present a logical argument seems to indicate his inability to counter Whitgift's first theological axiom, namely, that "nothing ought to be tolerated in the church as necessary unto salvation, or as an article of faith, except it be expressly contained in the word of God, or m a y manifestly thereof be gathered," 22 and also the corollary of this primary axiom, "Yet d o I d e n y that the scriptures d o express particularly everything

56

The Admonition Controversy

t h a t is to be done in the c h u r c h . " 23 F o r example, according to Whitgift, the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation is set d o w n in the Scriptures, 2 4 b u t the m e t h o d of administering this sacrament — whether " i n fonts, in basons, or rivers, openly or privately, at home, or in the church, every d a y in the week, or on the sabbath-day only"—is left to the c h u r c h to determine. 2 5 This restatement of the original Episcopalian answer to the nonconformist contention t h a t the administration of the sacraments and of other rites a n d ceremonies in the C h u r c h of England lacks scriptural p r e c e d e n t 2 6 Whitgift now applies to the new attack on the existing ecclesiastical polity: he also denies that the Bible " d o t h set down any one certain form and kind of government of the church, to be perpetual for all times, persons, and places, without alteration." 27 Proceeding from these basic principles, Whitgift reasons that ecclesiastical ceremonies, orders, discipline, and kind of governm e n t are "things indifferent u n t o salvation" a n d therefore are to be left to the authority of the bishops aided by the civil magistrate. For, like the a u t h o r of A brief e examination,28 he maintains t h a t such things depend u p o n political conditions: in apostolic times, when the C h u r c h was suffering persecution, the form of government was chosen for the purpose of protecting and preserving Christianity, b u t in sixteenth-century England u n d e r the "godly magistrate" Elizabeth conditions are entirely different. Whitgift thus reiterates the Episcopalian theory of the magistrate as the head of the C h u r c h , which the Puritans stoutly opposed. I n defense of the assertion t h a t " t h e word of God containeth the direction of all things pertaining to the church, yea, of w h a t soever things can fall into any p a r t of m a n ' s life," 29 Cartwright presents four "rules which St. Paul gave in such cases as are not particularly mentioned of in scripture" as the rules by which the Puritans would have not only "all orders a n d ceremonies of the church f r a m e d , " b u t also "those orders a n d ceremonies which are now in question, whether they be good a n d convenient OF n o , " tried a n d examined: the first, that they offend not any, especially the church of G o d ; 30 the second, that all be done in order a n d comeliness; 31 the third, that all be done to edifying; 32

The Main Issue

57 33

and the last, that they be done to the glory of God. Then he triumphantly and, it must be confessed, somewhat incoherently concludes: So that you see that those things which you reckon up of the hour, and time, and day of prayer, &c., albeit they be not specified in the scripture, yet they are not left to any to order at their pleasure, or so that they be not against the word of God; but even by and according to the word of God they must be established, and those alone to be taken which do agree best and nearest with these rules before recited. And so it is brought to pass (which you think a great absurdity), that all things in the church should be appointed according to the word of God. 34 In such inconclusive passages as these Cartwright by ambiguity conceals the weakness of his argument. The vagueness of these rules and the difficulty in applying them to the church as a whole Whitgift points out in his comment on the first rule, which is taken from i Corinthians x.: You set down four rules, which you would "have all orders and ceremonies of the church framed by, &c. The first is, i Cor. x., that they offend not any, especially the church of God;" which rule I think you take out of these words of that chapter . . . "Be such as you give no offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Grecians, nor to the church of God." But truly they make little or nothing for your purpose, neither yet any other thing contained in that chapter. For the apostle there sheweth how one private man should behave himself towards another, yea, and towards the church in things that may be done, or not be done: he prescribeth no general rule for the church to make orders and appoint ceremonies by. For what reason were it that the orders of the church should so depend upon one or two men's liking or misliking, that she should be compelled to alter the same so oft as any should therewith be offended? which must of necessity come to pass, if this your rule were general. For what church is void of some contentious persons, and quarrellers, whom no order, no reason, no reformation, can please? 36 And in a few words he summarizes Cartwright's whole Replye to an answere: This Reply of T. C. . . . consisteth of two false principles and rotten pillars; whereof the one is, that we must of necessity have the same

58

The Admonition Controversy

kind of government that was in the apostles' time, and is expressed in the scriptures, and no other; the other is, that we may not in any wise, or in any consideration retain in the church anything that hath been abused under the pope. 36 Both Cartwright and the Admonitioners, then, demand the removal of all vestiges of R o m a n Catholicism and a return to a "primitive church." T h e opposing theories of the two antagonists with regard to this "primitive church" Pearson lucidly summarizes as follows: Whitgift . . . contends that the form of ecclesiastical government is dependent upon time and place, that the Apostolic Church is not a model for all time, and that one element alone —the absence of a Christian magistrate — prevents the early Church from being taken as such. Whitgift argues that in the Apostolic Age, which was a time of persecution when there was no Christian magistrate, there may have been seniors, the people had naturally much to do with the new organisation, deacons for the poor were more necessary than now, and the distinction between Church and State was inevitable, but that the Christian monarch and the Christian State have no need of seniors or deacons, eliminate popular government and make the distinction between Church and State an anachronism. Cartwright, however, will not allow the advent of the Christian magistrate to be taken as a predominating circumstance affecting Church government. Working on his two-kingdom theory he says that seniors do not intermeddle with the function of a magistrate, godly or ungodly, and that therefore there is "no reason why the magistrate entering into the Church the elder should be thrust out." Indeed, the alteration of circumstances makes for the greater need of elders, because the ministers now require more assistance than those who lived when the gifts of the Spirit were more plentiful. But the determining factor should not be the suitability or unsuitability of a divinely ordained system to fleeting circumstances; whether we think it impossible or hard to work or unprofitable or otherwise is beside the point, seeing it has been commanded by a God Who "will plane the ways be they never so rough." 37 Following this summary, Pearson permits himself to raise the question of Cartwright's consistency in demanding that the English Church be modeled upon the "primitive church":

The Main Issue

59

We note, therefore, that the Puritan does not take account of circumstances and wonder whether he really accepted what he considered the commands of Scripture in favor of Presbyterianism because they were expressly given by God, or because they were for other reasons approved by him and in his opinion best suited to the times in which he lived. After thus suggesting a rational, rather than a scriptural, basis for Cartwright's Presbyterian "discipline," Pearson concludes that the Puritan's views were "coloured by the circumstances of his own age." But no matter how much we may try to excuse Cartwright's inconsistency regarding the "primitive church," the fact remains that he himself constantly protested that his "discipline" was derived from the Scriptures. If, therefore, Cartwright be correct in asserting that his entire plan for reforming the existing ecclesiastical polity and discipline is to be found in the Bible, we need not long wonder, as Pearson puts it, "whether he really accepted what he considered the commands of Scripture in favor of Presbyterianism because they were expressly given by God"; we have only to follow Cartwright's own injunction that we "set before our eyes the most ancient and gospel-like church that ever was or shall be." 38 This "primitive church" must, of course, be fully described in the scriptural passages to which he and the authors of the Admonition in the margins of their pamphlets refer their readers. These passages, enlightened by the commentary for which they stand as authority, should depict the outlines of the "lively image and perfect pattern" 39 of the "primitive church" which the Puritans longed to re-establish in the "New Jerusalem" of England; at least we should find there the plans for its construction and organization. Undoubtedly there is a certain fascination in the idea of returning to the simplicity of the apostolic times when Christ walked and talked with his disciples on the Galilean countryside. With the same nostalgic longing the ancient Greeks looked back to the Golden Age; likewise the Elizabethan courtiers, weary of the artificiality of Hampton Court and Westminster, longed for the simple life of the Arcadian shepherds and shepherdesses; and in the eighteenth century Rousseau wrote of the charm of the

6o

The Admonition Controversy

life of the Natural M a n . The very words associated with the Puritan ideal —purity and reformation—have lent it an almost irresistible appeal to idealists. These words, indeed, have charmed scholars into the belief that Puritanism actually was a return to the simple faith of the apostles. J . E . Neale, the historian, to mention only one, in commenting on the spread of Elizabethan Puritanism writes that it is "little wonder that the keenest spirits among the clergy and laity were attracted to the party that wanted to go the whole hog in reform, strip the Church of the accretions of centuries, and get back to the purity and simplicity of apostolic times, to the Church as God meant it to be." 40 But before identifying Puritanism with apostolic Christianity, the Elizabethan scholar should momentarily look away from the vision of Cartwright and his followers communing with St. Paul and consider Whitgift's closely reasoned analysis of the Puritan assertion that their "true platform of a church reformed" 41 is taken in full from the Word of God. For whether we like it or not, the justification for the efforts of Cartwright, Field, Wilcox, and indeed of all the Puritans claiming scriptural authority for their program of reform, depends upon the outcome of this Controversy. As originally stated by the authors of the Admonition, the two ways by which this reform is to be effected —first, "abandoning all popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment" and, secondly, "bringing in and placing in God's church those things only which the Lord himself in his word commandeth," which Whitgift terms the "two false principles and rotten pillars" supporting Cartwright's Replye 42—resolve themselves into the main issue of the Controversy: whether or not the "primitive church" which the Puritans profess as their model actually appears in the Scriptures. At first glance it might seem that this "primitive church" was the ecclesiastical organization, such as it was, set up during the lifetime of the apostles and alluded to in the New Testament, as contrasted with the papacy. In fact, Cartwright actually states that his Presbyterian system is not " n e w ' a n d strange" but "for the most part used in the apostles' times." 43 Moreover, he contends that the "strongest bulwarcke/which the church hath to defend yt selfe/against the Popishe beggerie/and all other cor-

T h e Main Issue

61

r u p t i o n s " is the assurance that " w h a t s o e u e r is c o m m a u n d e d of the L o r d e v n t o the church/is conteined in the w o r d e off G o d . " 44 Consequently, w h e n e v e r W h i t g i f t cites a post-apostolic a u t h o r ity, C a r t w r i g h t p r o m p t l y informs h i m that his a r g u m e n t is tainted w i t h " p o p e r i e . " 45 A n d w h e n W h i t g i f t specifically limits the " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h " to the " n e x t 500. years after C h r i s t , " 46 C a r t w r i g h t challenges his definition: I would know what charter the Answ.[erer] can shew/that the firste 500. yeares (within compas wherof he hathe browght his testimonies) be iuste the time off the primitiue churche/nether more nor lesse.47 H e then accuses W h i t g i f t of using " t h i s glorious title off the primitiue c h u r c h e " in order to "dasell the eies off the s i m p l e . " 48 C a r t w r i g h t himself, h o w e v e r , never hesitates to g o b e y o n d the strict limits of the apostolic era. In one reference to T e r t u l l i a n (C.155-C.222 A . D . ) , to w h o m he frequently refers, 49 he specifically states that he is a p p e a l i n g to the authority of the " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h . " 60 H a v i n g thus enlarged the confines of that v e n e r a b l e edifice b y the addition of m o r e than fifty years b e y o n d the d e a t h of St. J o h n , the last of the original T w e l v e (c.ioo A . D . ) , he then extends it almost a h u n d r e d years m o r e w i t h the e x a m p l e of " o n e M a l c h i o n , " w h o was a " s i m p l e E l d e r " in the " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h " and w h o presided over the C o u n c i l of A n t i o c h ( 2 6 4 266 A . D . ) . 6 1 Furthermore, w i t h o u t specific mention of his " p r i m itive c h u r c h , " he also cites C y p r i a n (c.200-258 A . D . ) , 6 2 J e r o m e (340-420 A . D . ) , 6 3 the First C o u n c i l of N i c e (325 A . D . ) , 6 4 the C o u n c i l of A n t i o c h (341 A . D . ) , 6 6 the Second C o u n c i l of C a r t h a g e (407 A . D . ) , 6 6 the A f r i c a n C o u n c i l , the earliest of w h i c h was called in 220 A . D . , 5 7 and even the S e c o n d C o u n c i l of N i c e (787 A . D . ) . 6 8 His inconsistency r e g a r d i n g the limits of the " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h " is most striking w h e n he is driven to d e n y the authority of the apostolic church, w h i c h , if any, must be the core of this " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h . " T h i s denial occurs in a n e x c h a n g e concerning l a y baptism. First, in order to prove that some people w h o cannot p r e a c h c a n administer the sacraments, W h i t g i f t cites St. Paul's statement, 1 Corinthians i. 17., " F o r Christ sent m e not to baptize, but to p r e a c h the gospel." 69 C a r t w r i g h t , however,

62

The Admonition Controversy

assures h i m t h a t in St. P a u l ' s t i m e t h e c h u r c h w a s n o t yet " s e t t l e d " a n d t h e r e f o r e could n o t serve as a m o d e l : I n so great numbers of men and wemen to be baptized, if to the end that the Apostles cours of preaching should not be stayed, others had that charge to pour on the water, which were no Ministers of the word: that was in the beginning, before any ordinary ministery of Bishop was erected in the churches: and therfore nothing perteyning to our question, which inquire, what owght to be the ordinary and settled government of the church.*" T h u s w h e n W h i t g i f t cites t h e p r a c t i c e of t h e apostolic c h u r c h , C a r t w r i g h t rejects it as unsettled in g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e r e f o r e i r r e l e v a n t to t h e question. H e n c e , it seems e v i d e n t t h a t t h e p h r a s e the primitive church, as used b y C a r t w r i g h t , h a s n o signific a n c e w h a t s o e v e r . W e m i g h t even go so f a r as to reverse his censure of W h i t g i f t a n d accuse h i m of u s i n g this p h r a s e to " d a s e l l t h e eies off t h e s i m p l e . " P e a r s o n analyzes t h e evolution of t h e P u r i t a n i d e a of t h e " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h " as follows: The Puritans professed to find their ideas in Scripture, but they frequently found there just what they sought. They assumed that Church government is of the substance of the Gospel and that matters of discipline are necessary to faith, or as William Ames put it that Christ did not die intestate but "before his death settled his own domestical concernments." They accordingly expected to discover in the New Testament the system of ecclesiastical government ordained by God, and bringing a distinctive mode of interpretation to bear upon the New Testament they met with their Presbyterian model in the Apostolic Church. Other minds, for instance Whitgift's, could see no prescribed system of Church government in Scripture at all. We therefore conclude that the Puritans looked for their model with minds prepared in a certain direction. We are convinced that they looked for what they saw, and that they based their beliefs as much upon reason as upon the express word of God, or, to put the same thing otherwise, upon revelation as interpreted by their own rational preconceptions.81 A f t e r i n d i c t i n g t h e P u r i t a n s of r a t i o n a l i z i n g t h e i r " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h " i n t o existence, P e a r s o n t h e n concedes t h e justice of W h i t g i f t ' s criticism of his o p p o n e n t o n this p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t : Whitgift charged Cartwright with making Scriptural texts prove what he wanted them to prove, with turning the Bible into a nose of wax, and we think that the accusation was justified.62

The Main Issue

63

Again like Whitgift, he accuses Cartwright of "begging the question": If a Scriptural event does not fit in with his theory Cartwright calls it "extraordinary;" or he states that one fact does not make a rule, but that the continual practice of the Apostles must be considered; or arbitrarily and without exegetical warrant he uses texts to support Presbyterian tenets —Rom. xii. to prove that there were elders, Die ecclesiae that the Church must have an eldership, and Acts i. and vi. that popular election is necessary. 63

Finally, though in utmost fairness he explains that "Cartwright bases his arguments on more than the explicit words of the Bible," namely, "the light of reason," "conscience," "antiquity," "writers old and new," Pearson unequivocally denies scriptural authority for the "primitive church": T h e Puritan appeal to Scripture was largely an attempt to ground beliefs, already held, on an authority regarded as divine and was therefore a species of what the new psychologists call rationalisation. T h e real reason why the Puritans held many of their distinctive tenets was not necessarily because Scripture enjoined them; they sought Scriptural support because they already believed in or were inclined to such tenets. 64

Thus no matter how kindly this distinguished scholar judges Cartwright and his disciples and how carefully he tries to explain that they based their convictions on reason or upon "revelation as interpreted by their own rational preconceptions," he nevertheless is forced to admit that the scriptural basis for their idea of the "primitive church" is an illusion—in other words, the "rotten pillar" which Whitgift declared it to be. A comparison of Cartwright's technique with that of Whitgift may clarify the motives and methods of the arch-Puritan and aid the reader in understanding why the Puritans have thus been indicted for rationalization in their efforts to seek a scriptural authority for their discipline. Incidentally, it may also become clear how they were able to gain a following powerful enough to overthrow not only the Church but even the government of England. At the same time such comparison may further alter the traditional portrait of the Episcopalian Whitgift.

CHAPTER

V

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense Certainly no rational person will abandon his old convictions, religious or otherwise, for new without assuring himself, first, that the old are erroneous, and secondly, that the new are better than the old. At the beginning of the Controversy, therefore, Whitgift had the advantage of his opponent in that the Episcopalian system which he was defending had been established by Parliamentary decree for almost forty years. In attempting to overthrow this system, Cartwright had to demonstrate its error and at the same time the righteousness of his own Presbyterian discipline. In order to effect this ecclesiastical revolution, he appeals to the authority of a "primitive church" as a basis, first, for eliminating not only the rites and ceremonies of Catholicism but the power of the bishops as well, and secondly, for instituting the rule by elders. In the preceding chapter the fallacy of his argument from the "primitive church" was demonstrated. But Pearson suggests that Cartwright may base his Puritanical dogmas upon reason rather than upon Scripture. 1 Therefore it remains to examine Cartwright's weapons of logic and to compare them with those of his opponent. In this intellectual duel Whitgift, on the defensive, is matching wits with Cartwright and attempting to detect every flaw in his argument. In studying Cartwright's technique, then, we can do nothing better than to use as a basis for discussion Whitgift's second and final reply to the Puritan attacks, the Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition against the Replie of T. C., and to let the Master of Trinity College analyze the Puritan claims for us.2 Professor R.B. McKerrow calls the Defense "by far the most useful work" for the study of this Controversy. 3 It certainly 64

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

65

merits this high praise, for it is an encyclopaedic exposition in 846 pages of the views of both Puritan and Episcopalian. Just as in the Answere Whitgift has carefully set down the words of his opponents in order to avoid misinterpretation through rephrasing, so in the Defense he includes both the Admonition and Cartwright's Replye to an answere. O p e n i n g with his own Preface " T o the G o d l y R e a d e r , " Whitgift next inserts Cartwright's "Epistle to the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d , " which is divided into sections, each of which is severally refuted. T h e n in similar fashion Whitgift reprints, first, the Admonition, then his Answere, next Cartwright's Replye (or if Cartwright is silent, Whitgift notes his failure to reply), and finally he presents his own Defense. A l l in all, Whitgift's writings inspire nothing but confidence. T h o u g h the reader m a y not agree with all of the Episcopalian arguments, he cannot help admiring the author's clarity of expression. Furthermore, since Whitgift scrupulously quotes and annotates his sources, the scholarly construction of the magnum opus attests to the honesty and keen intellect of the m a n who was to become the Archbishop of Canterbury during some of the most trying times for the Established Church. Cartwright, on the contrary, in none of his three replies exhibits anything resembling the meticulous scholarship of his opponent. In his Replye to an answere he asks his reader to " v o u c h safe diligently and carefully to compare Master Doctor's Answer and m y Reply," but only occasionally does he insert " M . D o c tor's" words. For this negligence he offers the excuse of a lack of money and time: I first purposed to set d o w n his A n s w e r before m y R e p l y , as he did the A d m o n i t i o n before his A n s w e r : but afterward, considering that (his book being already in the hands of men) it would be double charges to buy it again; and especially weighing w i t h myself that, through the slowness of the print for want of help, the Reply by that means, should come forth later than was convenient (for although he might commodiously bring in the A d m o n i t i o n , being short, yet the same could not be done in his book, swelling in that sort w h i c h it d o t h ) ; I say, these things considered, I changed my mind, and have therefore set down the causes which moved me so to do, because I know that those, if any be, which have determined to continue their fore-judged opinions against the cause, whatsoever be alleged,

66

The Admonition Controversy

will hereupon take occasion to surmise that I have left out his Answer, to the end that it might the less appear wherein I have passed over any weight of his reasons; whereas, had it not been for these causes, which I have before alleged, my earnest desire was to have set his Answer before my Reply; whereof I call the Lord to witness, whom I know to be a sharp judge against those which shall abuse his holy name to any untruth. 4 Thus he attempts to forestall the obvious criticism that he has omitted what he could not refute. Ignoring this verbose protestation with its somewhat sanctimonious conclusion, Whitgift reproves him: If you had meant the truth in good earnest, you would have dealt more plainly in replying than you have done: you would have set down my book, as I have done the Admonition, that the reader might have compared both together, and not have mangled it, depraved it, falsified it, and untruly collected of it, as you have done, and almost nothing else, as (God willing) shall appear. 6 Then, as Cartwright had feared, Whitgift accuses him of being loath to have the two books compared lest his "frivolous replies," his "childish collections," his "wilful depraving," his "fraudulent dismembering" of the Answere should "manifestly appear." 6 Displaying a keen knowledge of human nature, Whitgift pretends to admire Cartwright's cleverness in suggesting that his reader compare his book with Whitgift's, when the Puritan well knew that his followers would not "take pains to compare them both together, except they had been joined together, that they might have done it with one labour." One of Cartwright's rare quotations from the Answere (or perhaps it should better be termed a misquotation) is, indeed, so garbled that Whitgift is forced to appeal to the reader: Now how corruptly you have dealt with me here in this place, I would wish the indifferent reader to consider. Where I say, "that bishops have authority to admit ministers," you make me to say, "that the election of ministers by one man was in the apostles' time." And, where I say that these words of Paul to Timothy . . . "be an admonition to Timothy that he ought to be circumspect in appointing of ministers," you make the reader believe that I say, that it is " a commandment given by Paul to Timothy, that the bishop only should choose the minister."

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

67

And, where I say that "Hierome and others do expound" these words to Titus . . . "of the authority that Titus had in placing ministers in every church," you report them as though I should say that "Hierome proveth the right of the election of the minister to belong to the bishop only." Where I have "ordaining," there you have "election"; and where I say, "belongeth to the bishop," there say you, "belongeth to the bishop only." Is this your sincerity? dare you accuse other men of corruption, being guilty of it yourself almost in every line.7 If for the sake of fairness to his opponent Cartwright inserts these fragments, he might better have left them out. These omissions and misrepresentations, Whitgift asserts, are by no means Cartwright's only faults: he has neglected to answer several points; he has stooped to petty bickering; he has not given logical answers; and he has abused Scripture. In Whitgift's own words — You have not set down my book, that the reader might perceive how uprightly you deal with me; secondly, you have passed over many things, and left them unanswered; thirdly, you have unreasonably wrested my words, and in most places you do nothing but wrangle; you have mangled my book, and so skipped from place to place, that the reader shall hardly perceive what you take or what you leave; to be short, you have used few scriptures, and those untolerably wrested. . . . I say with St. Augustine: "Let scripture be compared with scripture, reason with reason, authority with authority, cause with cause"; and let us both according to the same be judged. 8 For in such a dispute as this, depending on differing interpretations of the Scriptures, it is essential, Whitgift believes, to set down both the disputed text and its interpretations in full so that the reader may judge. As proof of the justice of his complaint, Whitgift at the end of his Defense adds "a note of certain untruths and falsified authorities contained in the Reply of T.C." 9 These so-called "untruths," which might perhaps better be termed careless scholarship, consist of such common scholarly errors as incorrect textual reference, inaccurate quotation, omission of reference, reliance on secondary sources, omission of essential words. In short, Whitgift is indicting Cartwright of intentional sophistry— a far more sinister criticism than the mere disagreement over

68

The Admonition Controversy

the interpretation of biblical texts in that it renders suspect Cartwright's entire exposition of these texts. T h e fairness of Whitgift's indictment is beyond question. Even Cartwright is forced to admit his own carelessness, but either he excuses it as being in accordance with his own theory of scholarship or by ridiculing Whitgift he tries to conceal it from his reader. For example, on ecclesiastical polity he assumes an indifference to any other authority but his own. Though the argument regarding the organization of the "primitive church" depends on a thorough understanding of the Scriptures and hence necessitates recourse to the exegeses of other biblical scholars, Cartwright expresses a profound contempt for Whitgift's frequent and detailed references: Your manner is that, if you can have but one writer, new or old, of your side, or which seemeth to be of your side, you run away with the matter, as though you had scripture, reason, doctors, all.10

Just as in the interpretation of the University statutes he prefers his own interpretation to all other, so here he boasts of his disregard for scholarly authority: I heap not up here the judgment of writers; you know, I think, it might easily be done, if I like to follow that way. 1 1

Thus a consistent nonconformist, he sets himself up as a law unto himself in scriptural interpretation. Whitgift, on the other hand, modestly defends his own use of authority: Truly I do not stand so much in my own conceit, neither am I so well persuaded of my own wit and understanding, but that I greatly esteem the opinions of learned men; and I think myself to have reason sufficient, when I have good and learned authority, which is grounded both upon scripture and reason. 12

His reverence for the work of other scholars, he maintains, is inherent in him: I have always greatly esteemed the judgments and opinions of learned men; and, howsoever you are persuaded of your own excellency and dexterity of wit, yet am I content to submit myself to the opinions of other, to whom I am in no respect comparable. 1 3

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

69

This willingness to consult other scholarly interpretations is exactly what we should expect from the Master of Trinity, who respected the statutes made by his peers in the University. Insinuating that Whitgift's full quotations are intended to increase the size of his book, Cartwright justifies his own scanty references as well as his omission of Whitgift's argument: Wherein, because I love not to translate out of other men's works, whereby I might make mine to grow, I have kept this moderation, that I neither set down all the writers, nor all their places that I could, nor yet of every singular matter; but the chiefest writers, and either of the chiefest points, or else of those, wherein they are alleged against us by M. Doctor, and only one place of each (as far as I could judge and choose out) most direct to that wherefore I have alleged it. 14

Whitgift, however, disapproves of this eclectic method: Surely it had been more commendable, set down the very words of the authors own collections upon them; for so should have appeared; whereas now you frame for your purpose.

in mine opinion, if you had themselves, rather than your their judgments more plainly them as they may best serve

For Whitgift always painstakingly quotes in full from his sources. Since the few authorities which Cartwright cites he either paraphrases or quotes only in part, Whitgift accuses him of "counterfeiting." 15 Consequently, when Cartwright states that "M. Doctor's book" is "patched . . . and pieced . . . of a number of shreds of the doctors," Whitgift indignantly defends himself: The "patches, pieces, and shreds of doctors," that be in my book, are taken out of the doctors themselves, and they be whole sentences faithfully alleged. But the "shreds of doctors," that your book is stuffed with, you have borrowed of other; you have falsified them, and cut them off by the half; you have fathered upon them that which is not to be found in them; and the words of late writers you have set down under the name of ancient fathers; and the scriptures you have falsely alleged and untruly translated.

Then, unlike Cartwright who frequently falls to wrangling, he immediately apologizes for dealing in personal recrimination:

7o

The Admonition Controversy

I would not gladly have burst out into this accusation at this time, being from the matter, but that you have urged me thereunto. 16

Elsewhere he ventures the suggestion that perhaps Cartwright's seeming aversion to scholarly reference might arise from envy or pride: Surely I marvel what you mean so often to quarrel with me for the alleging of the authority of learned writers, except it be because you have not read so many yourself, or else that you would seem yourself to be the author and inventor of those reasons which you have borrowed of them: which indeed is to win the praise of a good wit unto yourself, and to rob the learned writers of their just commendation. 17

Here Whitgift also hints that his opponent is more eager to impress his readers than he is to present the truth. That Whitgift's doubts regarding the extent of Cartwright's reading and his intentional plagiarism are not merely feigned for the purpose of ridicule is shown by his frequent exposure of Cartwright's misuse of secondary sources. For instance, in criticizing the authorities which Cartwright cites in his argument for the popular election of ministers, Whitgift rebukes him for vagueness and incompleteness of reference: You have before told us what Justinian saith in Codice; also of " a n epistle sent from the council of Nice unto the church of Egypt, as Theodoret maketh mention;" of the "council of Carthage;" of "Toletane council;" and afterward you tell us what "Augustine and Gratian say," and will that " t h e Centuries should be seen," &c.; and yet you neither tell us in what part of Justinian's Code, in what book or chapter of Theodoret, in what council of Carthage, or of Toledo, in what tome of Augustine, or part of Gratian, in what century or book of Centuries. 18

This vagueness, at least as far as the reference to Justinian is concerned, Whitgift attributes to Cartwright's failure to acknowledge his secondary source, Illyricus: The words that you allege in Codice Justiniani must somewhere else be sought for. I think your author Illyricus is deceived in quoting that place; for surely I cannot understand that they are to be found in that book. But from what author soever they come, you have subtilly left out the words that expound his meaning, and make directly against you.

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

71

Wherefore I will recite them word for word, as they are reported in Illyricus, the author out of whom you have borrowed them}9 T h o u g h Cartwright indignantly denies that he has "subtilely" omitted anything, he does not deny Whitgift's charge of faulty reference, but he excuses himself by insisting that he left out only "that which m a d e nothing ether for/or againste the pourpose." 2 0 I n rapid succession Whitgift pounces upon three similar instances of carelessness in the use of secondary sources in Cartwright's references to "the gloss" on Acts vi., to Jerome, and to Augustine. Cartwright writes as follows: Upon the sixth of the Acts the gloss hath, that that which was done there of the twelve apostles, in willing the brethren to look out fit men, was done to give us example, and "must be observed in those that are ordained; for," saith the gloss, " t h e people must choose; and the bishop must ordain." And that St. Hierome must be so understanded, it appeareth not only that it hath been so expounded, but also it may be easily proved; for that St. Hierome's sentence and judgment appeareth in other places that he would have nothing here done without the people; as, in his Epistle ad Rusticum Monachum . . . and in his epistle to Neopotian . . . . 21 St. Augustine also, when he speaketh how he appointed Eradius to succeed him, shewed how it was the approved right and custom that the whole church should either choose or consent of their bishop. 22 U p o n these references Whitgift thus c o m m e n t s : What gloss saith so? where shall a man find it? or where is it? This is too large a scope that you take unto yourself. But I must pardon you; for Illyricus, of whom you have borrowed it, doth not otherwise quote the place . . . . T h e place that you allege out of the epistle of Hierome, ad Nepotianum de Vita Clericorum, is not to be found in Hierome. They be Master Musculus his own words, Tit. de Verbi Ministris. And, because that he doth adjoin them to a place which he hath alleged out of Hierome, therefore you think them to be alleged of him as Hierome's words: which is a gross oversight, and argueth that you have not read the authors themselves. O how would you have triumphed if the like could have been espied in my book! . . . 2 3

72

The Admonition Controversy

Did not Illyricus tell you where Augustine speaketh these words, neither in what tome, nor in what book, nor in what epistle? Surely Augustine's works are far larger than Musculus' Common-places. But the treatise you mean of is in his second tome among his epistles, in number 11 o. I would wish the learned reader to peruse it; then shall he soon perceive how little it maketh for your purpose, and how aptly it serveth mine. 24 A n d as proof of his identification, Whitgift quotes and expounds the entire passage from Augustine. W h e n Cartwright admits his debt to a treatise of Flaccus Illyricus "in this matter of the choice of the church touching the ministers," Whitgift assures h i m : You do well to confess the help that you had by Illyricus; for it could not have been unespied, seeing you have, almost verbatim, drawn all the authorities and reasons that you use in this cause out of him. And truly I marvel with what face you can so opprobriously object unto me "other men's collections," and "lack of reading the ancient writers," when as it is evident that your whole book consisteth of other men's notes and collections, and that you yourself have scarce read any one of the authors that you have alleged: 18. authorities at the least you have borrowed of Illyricus in this cause, besides certain other reasons. 26 For the careless misinterpretation of St. Jerome, Cartwright only can weakly explain: I graunte that I tooke Musculus wordes/for Jeromes; yet, iff that make to the pourpose/I had redd the place. And Jerome himselffe/in an other place/hath a sentence not much vnlyke. 26 Finally, in self-justification he accuses Whitgift of "open violence doone vnto August, [ine's] wordes." 27 Seeking some explanation for these errors, Whitgift is forced to conclude that Cartwright's vagueness is intentionally assumed for the purpose of concealing his dishonesty: You refer the reader to the 6. and 7. book of Eusebius. . . . But the reader should have been something beholding to you, if you had named the chapters as well as you have done the books. Howbeit you do very politicly to refer your readers to the whole books, which you are sure the most of them cannot, and of those that can many will not, peruse: but you have not dealt faithfully; for it is not to be found in any part of these two books. 28

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

73

C a r t w r i g h t a g a i n excuses himself b y asserting that he h a d m e a n t to write " t h e 6. and 7. of S o c r a t e s " for " t h e 6. and 7. of Eusebius": As in certeine other places/so in this/in steed off that I should haue taken the quotacion which came after/I taking the quotacion in my paper booke which went before/was deceiued: and for the 6. and 7. of Socrates/set downe the 6. and 7. of Eusebius. This verely is the error which the D. maketh so great triumphes of.29 Y e t , t h o u g h he protests his honesty, his error shows his carelessness, a fault h a r d l y less offensive than dishonesty to the scrupulously a c c u r a t e W h i t g i f t . Similarly, in demonstrating that St. Stephen's oration in A c t s vii. is read and n o t spoken and therefore no sermon, C a r t w r i g h t adds as his authority the clause, " a s M . B e z a d o t h very learnedly and substantially p r o v e in his annotations u p o n those places of St. Stephen's disputations a n d defense." 30 W h i t g i f t , however, complains that he " c a n n o t find in M . B e z a his a n n o tations any such t h i n g " as C a r t w r i g h t affirms. C a r t w r i g h t then confesses that he " f a i l e d " in q u o t i n g B e z a , but substitutes his own a r g u m e n t instead. 3 1 A p p a r e n t l y he originally h a d introduced B e z a in order to impress his r e a d e r ; actually he wants his statement accepted on his o w n authority. A s a result the reader can only assume that if W h i t g i f t h a d not called attention to the error, C a r t w r i g h t would h a v e been content to let it remain. Perhaps the most d a m n i n g of his v a g u e references is that to the " 1 5 . c a n o n of the [Second] council of N i c e , " 32 w h i c h , a c cording to W h i t g i f t , was " o n e of the corruptest councils that ever w a s . " 33 W h i t g i f t points out that b y omitting the adjective Second before the n a m e of the C o u n c i l and b y p l a c i n g the reference as a w h o l e before that to D a m a s u s , w h o wrote l o n g before the Second C o u n c i l , C a r t w r i g h t misleads his reader into thinking that he is alluding to the First C o u n c i l . T o this accusation C a r t w r i g h t evasively replies: I can not precisely say/whether the leauing owt off fault/or the fault off some other, but that I meant there be which can witnes: by that that in the second yt was omitted) I gaue a note wherby that should be

Second/were my to deceiue none/ edition (howsoeuer corrected. 34

74

T h e Admonition Controversy

But since this note was omitted from the second edition of the Replye, we must take Cartwright's word that at least his intention was honorable. Whitgift also accuses Cartwright of misleading his reader through inaccurate translations. In demanding equality of ministers, Cartwright quotes "the Greek scholiast upon Titus, who citeth there Chrysostom, where it is said that St. Paul 'did not mean to make one over the whole isle, but that every one should have his proper congregation.' " 35 Whitgift corrects him: The words of the author be: Sed singulas civitates suum habere pastorem: "but every city should have her pastor." And you have translated it, that "every one should have his proper congregation;" whereby you mean scant good faith, but covertly go about to make your reader believe that the scholiast would have no ministers without a proper congregation.36 Similarly, a little further on Cartwright quotes Theodoret as saying that "there was not in all those 800. churches one tare, that is, one hypocrite or evil m a n . " 37 Again Whitgift corrects him: You do but as you are wont, when you expound that which Theodoret speaketh of his 800. churches being without tares, "of hypocrites and evil men." If you had read the author yourself, I think you would not so grossly have erred. . . . Theodoret . . . meaneth "heresy," he meaneth not "hypocrisy." 38 This time Cartwright has the grace to confess: When I expounded tares, hipocrites: I had not the booke before me/ but trusting therin to Theodoretes knowledge in the scripture/estemed that he meant them/off whom the parable is vnderstanded.39 This habit of translating according to his own preconceived ideas without regard to the original text would suggest that his chief aim is to convince his readers by fair means or foul rather than to discover the truth. Occasionally Cartwright's authority is nonexistent, and he has to fall back on mere blustering. In denying Whitgift's correct assertion that Erasmus called Titus Archbishop of Crete, the Puritan categorically states:

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

75

I am sure he will grant me, that Titus and Timothy had one office, the one in Ephesus, the other in Crete; but it appeareth by Erasmus his own words that Timothy was but bishop of Ephesus; therefore Titus was but bishop of Crete. 40 When Whitgift asks, "Where doth Erasmus say, 'that Timothy was but a bishop,' " Cartwright impudently answers, "Yf a spade be but a spade/and a fig but a fig: then a bishop is but a bishop." This flippant remark he then supplements with ambiguous argument: Then also Erasmus saying . . . that Timothe was a bishop/and no where that he was an archbishop/affirmeth that he was but a bishop. . . . For if Erasmus speaking but of two/called one of them archbishop: is it like that Eusebius speaking of so many/supposed archbishops/ called neuer one of them by their proper name: nether will I stick to confesse/that Erasmus deceiued with the corruption of times wherin he liued/spake as he thowght: imagining Titus an Archbishop/as left in Creta an Isle/and Timothe a simple bishop/as left in one cytie.41 Thus he evades Whitgift's question. After this carelessness, when Cartwright blandly intimates that Whitgift's references are not specific enough, Whitgift with more than a touch of irony tells him: This is to be observed throughout your whole book . . . that, when any authority is alleged that pincheth you, then you fall to cavilling by and by. . . . I have nowhere referred you to "Justinian's Code," to "Gratian's decrees," to "Augustine's works," to "divers councils," to "Theodoret," to the "Centuries," &c., without noting either book, chapter, distinction, number, canon, or such like, as you usually deal with me.42 A typical illustration of Cartwright's "cavilling" at the citation of an authority contrary to his own opinion appears in his attempt to misrepresent St. Jerome. After he several times, but each time vaguely, has quoted Jerome to the effect that the office of a bishop is equivalent to that of a "minister or elder," and after Whitgift, in turn, cites passages from Jerome to prove otherwise, 43 Cartwright concedes: I will not denie but in Jeromes times/the bishops vpon occasions before off me alledged/had enlarged their boundes in suche sort/that there

76

The Admonition Controversy

were certen congregacions which belonged to their ouersight/and wherof they were called bishops.44 But with a superior air he falls back on the "primitive c h u r c h " : " I appele first to the institution off" G o d / a n d vse of the purer times after the Apostles." His persistence in scoffing at the authorities disagreeing with him, asserts Whitgift, m a y "easily wipe a w a y all authority of histories and fathers." 45 T h o u g h Whitgift tries to keep the argument on a dignified plane, suitable to the subject under discussion, he complains that when Cartwright is unable to confute he resorts to ridicule. For instance, in answer to Whitgift's argument that the reading of homilies in church is necessary not only because preachers are lacking but also because it is edifying to the congregation, Cartwright sneeringly comments: But let us hear your reason: there must be reading in the church; therefore there must be ministers which can do nothing else. Then we may reason thus too: There must be breaking of bread, and distributing of the cup in the church, and pouring on water; therefore whosoever is able to break a loaf of bread, or to lift a cup of wine, or to pour water on the body of the child, may be made a minister.46 W i t h some dignity Whitgift replies: My argument is this, that, forasmuch as there cannot be a sufficient number of preachers to furnish this church of England in all places, therefore there may be reading ministers, that is, such ministers as, by reading the scriptures and other books appointed unto them, may profit the people and instruct them; "for reading is necessary in the church, &c." This is my reason. T h e n he reproves Cartwright for unseemly jesting: That which you use is a child of your own begetting, it is none of mine; as the reader cannot choose but perceive. The reason that followeth "of breaking bread, and distributing the cup, &c." is used but for a jest, which ought not to be in serious matters; and therefore I leave it to them that are disposed to laugh, when they should rather weep.47 O n another occasion, instead of answering Whitgift's argument, Cartwright in a quibbling manner ridicules its phraseology: " ' T o be short,' saith M . Doctor, when he reciteth me almost

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

77

a whole side word for word, as he hath cited before, where he hath had his answer." With a reprimand for his levity Whitgift calls attention to the fact that the argument remains unanswered : Surely this jesting spirit was never in any of the apostles or martyrs of Christ's church that I can read; but, to pass it over, M. Doctor's "short" is very shortly answered; the cause whereof I refer to the reader. Howsoever you jest out the matter, you have neither answered M. Doctor's "to be short," nor that which is translated. 48 Again, in order to illustrate his point that the Scriptures do not provide explicit directions for all church ceremonies and rites, Whitgift asks: For how is it possible to receive the holy communion, but either sitting, standing, kneeling, walking, or lying; either at one time or other; in the morning or at night; before meat or after meat; clothed or naked; in this place or in that place, &c.? and yet none of these circumstances are in scripture commanded, or by necessary collection may thereof be gathered. Evasively, and with a touch of malice, Cartwright answers: I will touch that which is not repeated, and that is, that M. Doctor maketh it an indifferent thing for men and women to receive the supper of the Lord clothed or naked. This savoureth strongly of the sect of the Adamites. O n this passage Whitgift has the marginal note, "A wrangling cavil," to which he adds: The arguments are left unanswered, because indeed they cannot be answered. Wherefore T. C. picketh other quarrels, and here beginneth his vein of gibing and jesting. Who would have made this ado about "clothed or naked," but such a one as is delighted in quarrelling? or who can gather that, by using this example, I would have men to receive the communion naked, or once surmise that I think it lawful for them so to do, and therefore to "savour strongly of the sect of the Adamites," but he that is disposed to piece out his Reply with such imagined toys? I pray you, where do I "make it an indifferent thing to come either clothed or naked unto the Lord's table?" Set down my words; but, if I say no such thing, if I have not so much as once named

J8

The Admonition Controversy

this w o r d " i n d i f f e r e n t " in that place, then surely have y o u dealt w i t h me, not only not indifferently, but very dishonestly, in laying this thing to m y charge. T h e e x a m p l e is apt, and proveth that thing manifestly that I allege it for; that is, that the most part of the d u e circumstances (without the w h i c h the very institutions of Christ in his sacraments cannot be observed) be not c o m m a n d e d particularly, nor expressed in the scriptures, but left to the c h u r c h to determine. 4 9 Finally, when Whitgift quotes the eminent reformer Beza against interpreting the example of the appointment of Matthias to the company of the apostles, Acts i., as a rule for the election of ministers by the congregation, 50 Cartwright dubs his adversary "cuckoe" for —as he puts it—repeating himself. 51 Logic failing, Cartwright thus descends to invective — a weapon later used with great effect b y his disciple, Martin Marprelate. To

Whitgift's evident suspicion of these omissions,

these

vague references, and these incorrect quotations is added his serious doubt of Cartwright's use of the Scriptures, particularly as authority for his reformed ecclesiastical polity.

Cartwright

boasts that his Presbyterian system, which, he maintains, is patterned upon that of the "primitive church," is intended to bring order to the church: T h i s doctrine . . . putteth the people in subjection under their governors, the governors in degree and order one under another, as the elder underneath the pastor, and the deacon underneath the elder; w h i c h teacheth that a particular c h u r c h shall give place unto a provincial synod, where m a n y churches are, and the provincial to a national, and likewise that unto the general, if a n y be, and all unto Christ and his word. 6 5 T h e two scriptural texts in which he professes to find his Presbyterian system are the following: I CORINTHIANS xii.: 28. A n d G o d h a t h set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. EPHESIANS iv.: 11. A n d he [Christ] gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. From "governments" in the first text Cartwright, like the translators of the Genevan Bible (1560), derives the authority for his

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

79

government by seniors or elders. From "pastors" in the second text he derives his ministers; from "teachers" in both, his doctors; and from "helps" in the first, his deacons and widows. But in elaborating upon his system he immediately departs from this apostolic organization, for he divides the "whole ecclesiastical function" into "extraordinary, or those that endured for a time," and "ordinary, which are perpetual." Among the extraordinary functions which supposedly have disappeared are those of apostle and evangelist. The "ordinary and continual functions" which remain are "divided into two parts," namely, the elders, "that govern or take charge of the whole church," and the deacons, "which take charge of one part of the church." The elders, in turn, are subdivided into "those who teach and preach the word of God, and govern too," that is, the pastors and the doctors, and those "which govern only," that is, the elders proper. Cartwright then distinguishes between the "preaching elders," or pastors, and the "teaching elders," or doctors, as follows: Where the pastor doing his duty cannot suffice, there the scripture hath given him an aid of the doctor, which for because his office consisteth in teaching doctrine, to this end that the pastor might not be driven to spend so much time in propounding the doctrine, but might have the more time to employ in exhorting and dehorting, and applying of the doctrine to the times and places and persons, it is manifest that he also is tied to a certain church. For how could he be an aid unto the pastor to whose help he is given, unless he were in the same church where the pastor is? 63

Thus from the Pauline "offices" and "gifts" he arbitrarily selects those which best fit into his preconceived system. Since Cartwright maintains that he is attempting to rebuild the "primitive church" in England, Whitgift naturally looks for scriptural authority for this proposed reorganization. Not finding any, he informs his opponent, "You cannot warrant by the scriptures this distinction of 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' ecclesiastical functions." 64 Similarly, the division and subdivision of the "ordinary and continual functions of the church" is of Cartwright's "own inventing." 55 And Whitgift adds that he

8o

The Admonition Controversy

sees no reason why the "unpreaching and unministering 'seniors' " should be perpetual in the church any more than the apostles. As far as the pastors and the doctors are concerned, "divers both ancient and late writers, as namely Hierome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Musculus, and Bucer, &c." consider them one and the same office. Furthermore, Whitgift demands evidence from the Bible "to prove that 'the doctor' is added to 'the pastor,' as 'an aid,' or that the doctor is tied to a certain place." And he warns Cartwright: You have no licence to coin new scriptures; and in the old I am sure you cannot find it. As for your bare word, it is but very bare proof. Finally, he would "gladly know" whence Cartwright learned that "the doctor's office consisteth in teaching doctrine to this end, that the pastor might not be driven to spend so much time in propounding the doctrine." 56 Hence, according to Whitgift, Cartwright's arguments for his Presbyterian system are weakened by the logical fallacy of "the petition of the principle," which Whitgift defines as the error committed "when a man frameth unto himself principles of his own device, grounded neither upon authority, neither yet upon substantial reason, and then upon the same will conclude his purpose, which is . . . a very erroneous kind of reasoning." 67 This error, he insists, Cartwright repeats in his assertion that a particular form for the election of ministers by the people is prescribed in the Scriptures. Whitgift, indeed, challenges his opponent to give one example out of the Bible to prove that the "laying on of hands" in the ordination of ministers is done by the congregation as a whole rather than by one man. When Cartwright cites "examples of all the apostles, in all churches, and in all purer times," 68 Whitgift again accuses him of "petition of the principle" in that the places of Scripture are not uniform in their methods described and therefore would provide no general rule. On the contrary, according to Whitgift, since diverse methods were used both in the apostolic and in the early churches, the exact form must be determined by the particular church with the aid of the "godly magistrate." In his opinion,

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

81

therefore, Cartwright's system of ministers, doctors, elders, and deacons lacks an adequate scriptural foundation. But the most serious misuse of the Scriptures by Cartwright and his followers Whitgift feels to be their insertion of the numerous biblical references in the margins of their tracts. Since the Puritan writers give only the numbers of the chapter and verse and not the complete text (e.g., Acts i. 16.), the reader cannot know without consulting the Bible that frequently, except for an occasional similarity in phrasing, the text provides little or no authority for the argument. In commenting on the marginal notes in the "Preface of the A d m o n i t i o n , " Whitgift warns the reader not to consider them authoritative: O n e thing I must desire thee to note, gentle reader, (wherein the folly of these men marvellously appeareth,) how they have painted the margent of their book w i t h quoting of scriptures, as t h o u g h all were scripture they write, w h e n as indeed they abuse the scripture and thee. For w h a t one place of scripture is in all this preface alleged to any purpose? and yet how m a n y is there q u o t e d ! T h e y m a y very aptly b e c o m p a r e d to furious or m a d men, w h o in the v e h e m e n c y of their anger rashly smite their enemy, and throw at him whatsoever is next them, as tables, stools, tongs, pots, or anything else; even so these m e n a p p l y to their purpose quicquid in buccam venerit, a l t h o u g h it be never so far fetched. 5 9

A n d in spite of Cartwright's apology that " t h e Admonition for the shortness which it promiseth . . . could not apply the places," Whitgift sternly condemns the authors, Field and Wilcox: It was very uncircumspectly done of them, to quote places w h i c h could not be applied to that purpose for the w h i c h they were quoted. . . . T o w h a t purpose should the margent of their book be pestered w i t h such unapt quotations, but only to delude the reader, and to m a k e h i m believe that all things there contained be grounded of the express w o r d of God. 6 0

Whitgift believes, indeed, that the real purpose of these marginal references is " t o delude both such as for lack of learning cannot, and such as either for slothfulness or some prejudicate opinion will not, examine the same." 61 In support of his conviction he

82

T h e Admonition Controversy

analyzes certain of the references affixed to the " P r e f a c e of the A d m o n i t i o n . " T h e authors of this tract open their Preface " T o the godly r e a d e r s " with the adjuration: Two treatises ye have here ensuing, beloved in Christ, which ye must read without partiality or blind affection: for otherwise you shall neither see their meaning, nor refrain yourselves from rashly condemning of them without just cause.62 T o the phrase " p a r t i a l i t y or blind a f f e c t i o n " is affixed a marginal reference to i Thessalonians v. 2 1 . , J a m e s i. 19., 20., a n d J a m e s ii. 1. U p o n this reference Whitgift comments as follows: To prove that we must read these two treatises without partiality or blind affection, here is noted in the margent 1 Thess. v., ver. 2 1 , J a m . i., J a m . ii. The place to the Thessalonians is this: " T r y all things, and keep that which is good." The place of the first of James is this: "Wherefore, my dear brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath." And the second place of James is this: " M y brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons." And to what purpose are these places alleged? what prove they? or what need is there to allege them? These apostles in these places speak not of railing libels, but of hearing the word of God, and judging of matters of faith according to the truth, and not to the persons.63 T h e incongruity between the references and the Puritan a r g u ment, therefore, causes Whitgift to suspect intentional deception. Perhaps, too, he suggests, in addition to misleading the " s i m p l e and i g n o r a n t , " w h o believe without examining, 6 4 the Puritan writers m a y hope b y a multiplicity of reference to win a reputation for great learning. A s evidence of this ambition Whitgift cites their argument against questioning the infant in baptism: To prove that this questioning with the infant is a mocking of God you quote Gal. vi., verse 7.: " B e not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap." Paul in this place taketh away excuses which worldlings use for not nourishing their pastors; for no feigned excuse will serve, because God is not mocked; but what is this to the questioning with infants? how followeth this: God is not mocked; ergo, he that questioneth with infants mocketh God? Truly

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

83

you mock God when you so dally with his scriptures, and seek rather the glory of quoting many places of scripture, than the true applying of any one.65 T h u s W h i t g i f t shrewdly forces his o p p o n e n t to e x p l a i n these references w h i c h ostensibly provide the scriptural basis for the P u r i t a n p r o g r a m of reform. I n defending the reference in the Admonition to G a l a t i a n s vi. 7., G a r t w r i g h t reveals that he regards the m a r g i n a l note as a rhetorical, as well as a scholarly, device. H e explains that the phrase, " G o d is not m o c k e d , " could b e used in a " g e n e r a l " w a y to indicate that " G o d is not mocked at all or in a n y m a t t e r , " just as the phrase, " I t is not l a w f u l to separate that w h i c h G o d h a t h j o i n e d , " particularly referring to divorce, also is used " a g a i n s t the papists, w h i c h sever the c u p f r o m the b r e a d . " 66 In fact, he goes so far as to state that the Admonition " d o t h quote the Scripture, not only to p r o v e the matters w h i c h it handleth, b u t sometimes also to note the place from whence the phrase of speech is taken." A n d he complains that W h i t g i f t " d o t h go a b o u t to m a k e his reader believe that those places, w h i c h be alleged for proof of the phrase, are quoted for proof of the m a t t e r . " 67 Y e t he does not seem to feel that the author need indicate w h i c h of his references are authoritative and w h i c h are rhetorical or decorative. C a r t w r i g h t ' s flippant attitude toward these references does not enhance his reputation as a scholar. F o r W h i t g i f t ' s careful scrutiny of each he has nothing but ridicule: How many leaves have you wasted in confuting of the quotations, which, you say, are vain, foolish, unlearned, and to no purpose of that for which they are alleged? And, if they be so, where learned you to spend so much time about them? Did you never learn that . . . " t o confute trifling things seriously is a point of those which have no judgment to know what is meet for the time and place, and other such circumstances?" 68 W h i l e conceding m i g h t h a v e been a great n u m b e r , so lightly, w h i c h

that " t h e r e be some few places quoted, w h i c h s p a r e d , " he nevertheless insists that " t h e r e are w h i c h M . D o c t o r tosseth and throweth a w a y he shall perceive to sit nearer h i m than he is,

84

The Admonition Controversy

or at the least seemeth to be, aware of." 69 In spite of evident resentment, he pretends to ignore Whitgift's criticism: If I should, of the other side, now go about to maintain every place to be not unfitly quoted unto that end wherefore it is alleged, and shew how unjust your reprehensions are, and how small cause you have to lead them oftentimes so gloriously in triumph as you do, which I assure you I could do in the most places . . . how evil should I deserve either of learning, or of the truth itself, in blotting of much paper, whereby no profit would come to the reader! And if the days of a man were as many as the days of an oak, I would neither willingly trouble, nor be troubled, with such strife of words.70

Thus he would make light of the ineptness of most of the marginal references. Whitgift, on the contrary, does not consider paper and ink wasted in setting forth what he believes to be the truth; nor does he regard the discussion of fundamentals a mere "strife of words." Since the main issue of the Controversy concerned the remodeling of the Church of England according to the "primitive church," Whitgift naturally wanted the facts regarding this "primitive church." As far as he could perceive, these facts would be found in the scriptural texts cited in the margins of the Puritan tracts. "The quotations," he declares, "be the substance of that book." 71 Accordingly he has no sympathy for the authors' excuse that these references are rhetorical as well as authoritative: Whereas you say that "where the Admonition quoteth the scripture, not only to prove the matter, but to note the place from whence the phrase of speech is taken, &c.," that is a very feeble excuse, and farfetched; for to what purpose should they so do? or why do you not by some examples declare unto us that they have so done? This is but a shift, and argueth that you are not purposed to acknowledge any fault, be it never so manifest: and therefore little hope there is of any amendment.72

When we realize that the marginal note was the sixteenthcentury counterpart of our modern footnote, we can readily understand Whitgift's impatience with the Puritan disregard for literary conventions.

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

85

Occasionally, too, these marginal references are not only irrelevant but inaccurate. Just as Whitgift endeavors to give the correct version of Cartwright's misquoted sources, so he calls his opponent's attention to typographical errors, which have been overlooked. As a result Cartwright accuses him of taking advantage of the "faults of the printer." 73 T h e Puritan's resentment even at this routine criticism seems hardly justified. For example, Whitgift calls his attention to the error in the marginal note " u p o n the Acts x v i . " attached to a quotation from Calvin: Your note in the margent must be corrected; for Calvin hath no such thing "upon the xvi. of the Acts;" but the like he hath upon the xiv.74 Without admitting his error, Cartwright merely charges W h i t gift with "moste vnfaithfull dealing" in citing Calvin's "Institutions." 75 Thus he refuses to accept any correction whatsoever. T h e overwhelming advantage of the Puritan writers in using these misleading marginal notes is obvious. Since Cartwright in his Replye to an answere very seldom quotes his opponent, W h i t gift's comments on the references would probably never be seen by the readers of the Puritan tracts. Frequently, then, instead of replying to Whitgift, Cartwright merely inserts another marginal reference. For instance, in refuting the statement in the Admonition that in " t h e old time" the W o r d was preached before the administration of the sacraments, Whitgift cites the baptism of Christ in Matthew iii. 13-15. not preceded by preaching. Ignoring this illustration, Cartwright offers the marginal note, Luke iii. 21., attached to the following commentary: Whereas you say it is manifest that our Saviour Christ was baptized without preaching, I would know of you what one word doth declare that, when as the contrary rather doth appear in St. Luke, which seemeth to note plainly that our Saviour Christ was baptized when the people were baptized.76 Y e t in the third chapter of St. Luke, in the verses immediately preceding the twenty-first, the implication is that before baptizing Christ John first baptized "the people," the "publicans," and " t h e soldiers," for in verse 16. it is written that John said to them, " I indeed baptize you with water; but O n e mightier

86

The Admonition Controversy

t h a n I c o m e t h , t h e l a t c h e t of w h o s e shoes I a m n o t w o r t h y t o u n l o o s e . " T h e n i n v e r s e 2 1 . , w h i c h C a r t w r i g h t cites, t h e w o r d s a r e as f o l l o w s : N o w when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened. W h i t g i f t therefore replies: Luke doth not say that John preached immediately before he baptized. But the contrary rather appeareth, if St. Luke write the story orderly [i.e., in chronological order]. 77 M o r e o v e r , h e asks t h e o b v i o u s q u e s t i o n , W h y s h o u l d J o h n p r e a c h to Christ before b a p t i z i n g him? F o r , he logically points

out,

J o h n h a d to p r e a c h the " b a p t i s m of r e p e n t a n c e for the remission o f sins" t o t h e " g e n e r a t i o n o f v i p e r s " w h i c h c a m e o u t t o h e a r him. B u t w h y should he p r e a c h to the O n e mightier t h a n he, t h e l a t c h e t o f w h o s e shoes h e w a s n o t w o r t h y t o unloose? Without repeating Whitgift's sound arguments,

Cartwright

calls f o r " m a n i f e s t r e a s o n s , " a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e i n d u l g e s in quibbling: Where it being most boldly affirmed off the D . that it is manifest that our Sauiour Christ was baptized without preaching, he owght to haue shewed yt by manifest reasons: he not onely set downe no reason/but agaynst the reasons I alledged/opposeth his naked saying. For that that S. Luke hath not, that S. John preached immediately before he baptized, is vnworthy off answer: as if the order off the storie could not shew that/withowt the word immediatly: or as if nothing might be saide doon immediatly after an other/but where some such precise note off time is added. 7 8 C o n d e m n i n g W h i t g i f t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as m e r e " n a k e d s a y i n g , " h e r e c o g n i z e s n o a u t h o r i t y b u t his o w n . I n short, t h o u g h h e d e m a n d s f r e e d o m t o i n t e r p r e t t h e S c r i p t u r e s as h e pleases, h e d e n i e s this f r e e d o m to e v e r y o n e else. A s m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d f r o m C a r t w r i g h t ' s careless s c h o l a r s h i p a n d loose l o g i c , his w r i t i n g , b o t h in c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d in c o n t e n t , is t u r b i d , t i r e s o m e , a n d c r u d e . Y e t his a d m i r e r s praise his style. P i e r c e , f o r i n s t a n c e , n o t o n l y g i v e s h i m t h e " a d v a n t a g e of m o r e extended l e a r n i n g " t h a n Whitgift, b u t writes that he " w i e l d e d a defter p e n . "

79

W h e r e i n this " d e f t n e s s " lies, P i e r c e d o e s n o t

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

87

explain. On the contrary, Cartwright's sentences are long, involved, full of figures of speech, and ambiguous, whereas Whitgift's are simple and lucid. Though the many passages heretofore cited for other purposes have doubtless already brought out this contrast, we shall mention one more which particularly confused Whitgift. In setting the Presbyterian division of ecclesiastical offices against the Episcopal hierarchy, Cartwright writes: Let us see of discipline a n d government, w h i c h we m a y see to be committed to those w h i c h have the p r e a c h i n g of the word, a n d to others also w h i c h did not p r e a c h the word, w h e n St. P a u l saith t h a t " t h e elders which govern well are w o r t h y double honour, especially those w h i c h travail in the w o r d ; " w h e r e he a p p o i n t e t h the government to the ministers of the word, a n d to those also t h a t were not ministers of the word. 8 0

In reply, Whitgift repeats his customary criticism that Cartwright should have set down the passage being confuted: "The reader should better have understood what you had gone about, if you had set before his eyes the words that you confute." Then with a weary "Now I scarce understand your meaning myself," with which the reader is forced to sympathize, he tries to interpret Cartwright's meaning: You shoot altogether without a m a r k . I know no m a n t h a t denieth "discipline a n d government to be committed to those that have the preaching of the word, a n d to others also w h i c h preach not the w o r d . " But, if you m e a n t h a t either all kind of ecclesiastical discipline a n d g o v e r n m e n t is committed to all such as p r e a c h the word, or in as a m p l e m a n n e r to one as to another, you have not yet proved it, neither will you b e able to prove it w i t h all the learning t h a t you think yourself to have. 8 1

Without pretending to illuminate the meaning of the involved passage, Cartwright laughs at his opponent's discomfiture: T h e march I shoot at is c e r t e i n / t h a t is to confute yowr distinction off mynisteries off the w o r d / a n d Sacramentes o n e l y / a n d ministeries off g o u e r n e m e n t a n d order: a n d it seemeth I shot so n i g h / t h a t I h a u e d r i u e n yow a w a y f r o m the m a r c k . For yow w a n d e r / a n d tell vs of thinges t h a t h a u e nether h e a d / n o r foot: a n d which if they were true / m a k e n e t h e r w h o t / n o r kold v n t o this question. 8 2

88

The Admonition Controversy

Cartwright's unclearness thus enables him to extricate himself from many a tight spot into which he is forced by his logical adversary. A peculiar characteristic of Cartwright's style — probably a rhetorical affectation carried over from his preaching and always effective with the naive listener or reader —is his use of the "similitude" as a weapon of argument. For instance, he compares the minister to a watchman or a shepherd and the congregation to a city or a flock of sheep; then on these metaphors he bases his arguments against episcopal power. In order to prove that no minister should have the power of a bishop over a whole diocese, province, or realm, he asserts that episcopal power is "contrary to the policy of good husbandry of all those that would either have their city safe, or their flocks sound." And he asks: Who are they which would appoint one for the watch of a thousand towns or cities, when as all they which love their safety would rather have for every city many watchmen, than for many cities one? Or what is he, that is so watchful and circumspect, whose diligence and watchfulness one city assaulted with enemies will not wholly occupy and take up? Or what is he, whose sight is so sharp, that he can see from one end of the diocese, or province, or realm, to the other end thereof? Or what is he, that will commit the keeping of twenty thousand sheep to one man, that looketh for any good or increase of them? How shall all these hear his whistle, how shall all know his voice, when they cannot hear it? How shall they acknowledge him, when they cannot know him? how shall they follow him, when they cannot see him go before? how shall he heal their diseases, when he cannot possibly know them? 83

Doubtless Cartwright himself senses the logical hazards underlying this type of argument, for he defends it on the grounds of biblical usage: But some man will say that these are human reasons, and likelihoods, which may be overthrown with other similitudes. These notwithstanding are analogies drawn from the nature of those things which the ministers are likened unto, and are of the most part used of the Holy Ghost himself expressly.

To this defense Whitgift dryly replies:

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

89

It is a great point of husbandry and policy also to have, besides the several shepherds over several flocks, and sundry watchmen over sundry cities, divers other to feed the sheep, as occasion serveth, and to admonish the watchmen and the cities of their duties: else why did the apostles, after they had planted the churches, and placed shepherds and watchmen over them, so diligently afterwards visit them, and so carefully look unto them . . . ? Was the watch, think you, the worse kept, or the sheep the negligentlier looked unto?

Then he warns Cartwright that he has used "the weakest kind of argument that can be to prove anything," for, in Whitgift's words, the similitude is "easily overthrown by shewing the unlikelihood" : In this the similitude agreeth that, as every city must have a watchman, and every flock a shepherd, so every church or parish must have a watchman or a pastor; and, as the watchman and shepherd his office is to watch and feed, and to have a necessary care over their charges, so must also the spiritual watchman and shepherd have a care over the people committed unto them. All this is true, and neither proveth nor improveth anything that is in question. I might as well say that, if the city be well watched, and the flock carefully looked unto, though it be not by the watchman or shepherd himself, but by his means and procurement, there can be no just fault found with either of them: likewise, that, when the shepherd hath brought his sheep into a pasture where they may both be sure from all danger, and have meat sufficient, then his presence is not so necessary for them, so that he do sometimes visit them: also that there is no one watchman that either doth or can watch continually, but must of necessity have his rest, so that some other supply his absence; and likewise, that there is no master-shepherd, but that he hath some under him, either boy, or man, to supply his absence whilst he is about other matters: to be short, that one shepherd hath care over sundry men's sheep, sundry flocks of sundry towns and parishes, &c. Divers other such similitudes of shepherds and watchmen might I also use, to prove many things contrary to your meaning. I might also shew unto you the dissimilitudes betwixt a temporal shepherd and a spiritual shepherd; unreasonable sheep that cannot feed themselves, or by any means provide for themselves, nor have any charge to look to themselves, and reasonable sheep, such as God hath endued with knowledge, to whom he hath left his word, which containeth in it sufficient to salvation, whom he hath charged to read it, and to hear it, who shall also answer for themselves, &c.; finally, what

go

The Admonition Controversy

difference there is betwixt temporal meat and drink, which is soon digested, and therefore daily to be renewed, and spiritual food which continueth, and whereof he that hath once sufficiently tasted shall not hunger or thirst, &c. —these, I say, and a great number of other dissimilitudes, could I bring, to overthrow all that you can build upon these similitudes. 84 I n this proof of the weakness of the similitude in d e b a t e as in p e r h a p s n o other p a r t of Whitgift's a r g u m e n t does W h i t g i f t ' s c o m m o n sense t r i u m p h over C a r t w r i g h t ' s sentimentalism. W i t h a m a r g i n a l reference to L u k e ii. 8.— " A n d t h e r e were in the same c o u n t r y shepherds a b i d i n g in the field, keeping w a t c h over their flock by n i g h t " — C a r t w r i g h t uses the same m e t a p h o r of m i n i s t e r - w a t c h m a n - s h e p h e r d in attacking non-residence: And you see that, if I would follow those noble metaphors of watchman and shepherd, which the scripture useth to express the office of a minister with, what a large field is opened unto me. For then I could shew you how that cities besieged, and flocks in danger of the wolves, are watched continually night and day; and that there is no city so sore and so continually besieged, nor no flocks subject to so manifold diseases at home, or hurtful and devouring beasts abroad, and that without any truce or intermission, as are the churches, the shepherds and watchmen whereof are pastors or bishops.86 T o this flood of m e t a p h o r s W h i t g i f t calmly answers: I have shewed before what your metaphors of "watchmen" and "shepherds" can prove; what dissimilitudes there is betwixt them and spiritual watchmen and pastors. I think your meaning is not, that the pastor should preach both night and day, or that there is no continual watching but continual preaching. If I were disposed to dally with you in your metaphors, I could say unto you that "watchmen" must of necessity oftentimes have their deputies, or else that there must be many of them, and so watch by turns. I could also say that, as soon as the "watchman" hath told the city of the enemy's approaching, and hath descried them unto it, he may depart from his station and take his rest: likewise that the "watchman" hath least to do when his enemies are nighest, especially when they have invaded the city; for then are the soldiers to drive them away by force. Wherefore by these metaphors this only can you prove, that the pastors ought to admonish

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

91

their flocks of their enemies, descry them in time, and will them to be vigilant. The enemies are known, the armour is certain, the citizens reasonable: wherefore, if they neglect the admonitions given in due time and order, if they be not vigilant, their blood be upon their own pates; the "watchman" hath done his duty. The like in all respects may be said of "shepherds" and sheep. Then with a flash of humor — surprising, indeed, from the man whom Pierce describes as humorless 86 —Whitgift in the midst of his logical rebuttal concludes: To what purpose you have quoted in your margent the ii. of Luke, I know not, except it be because it is there said that "the shepherds were watching their sheep in the night." The which how you can apply to your purpose I would gladly learn; for these shepherds went from their sheep, and left them in great danger. 87 In disposing of Cartwright's similitudes, he thus shows the absurdity of another marginal reference. The Puritan's only defense is that Whitgift here dallies, not with his, but "with the holy Gostes metaphors off pastor/and watcheman." 8 8 Whitgift's threat in his analysis of the previous similitude, that, if forced, he might prove the difference between "temporal meat" and "spiritual meat," he has to carry out when Cartwright introduces another similitude in reply to the argument that a carefully prepared sermon given once a month is better than frequent poor sermons. In a burst of rhetoric Cartwright launches forth: It must be very simple and slender meat which is not better being given every day than the best and daintiest meat once only in a month. For with the one a man may live, although he be not liking, with the other he, being once fed, is afterward famished. But how if the case be put that the monthly and long-laboured sermons, as they are called, have as little, and less, good wholesome doctrine in them than the sermons which are preached every day. Assuredly for the most of those that go so long with a sermon, and which I know, and have heard, when they come to bring it forth, bring forth oftentimes more wind and unprofitable matter than any good and timely fruit or wholesome substantial doctrine.89

92

The Admonition Controversy

Whitgift deftly discloses the inappropriateness of Cartwright's metaphor: The similitude betwixt the external meat that feedeth the body, and the word of God that feedeth the soul, doth fail in many things, and especially in these; that the meat of the body remaineth not in the stomach, but passeth through; the word of God continueth and endureth in the mind for ever. The meat of the body, the better it is digested, the lesser while it doth continue: the word of God, the better it is understood and remembered, the longer it remaineth. The meat of the body once taken serveth but for the present time, be it never so good and wholesome: the word of God once preached and faithfully received doth nourish and feed continually; therefore one learned, effectual, orderly sermon, preached once in a month containeth more nourishment in it, feedeth longer, worketh more in the hearts of the hearers, edifieth more, than all the unorderly and verbal sermons, I might also add contentious, that some preach in one whole year.

Concluding, he puts his fingers over his nostrils, so to speak, at the indelicacy of Cartwright's metaphor: "But you compare the word of God and the nutriment of the body together in most grossest manner, and in that wherein they are nothing like." 90 Thus Cartwright's skill in dialectics, of which his followers, particularly Martin Marprelate, loudly boasted,91 fails to withstand careful analysis. First, his careless scholarship is brought out not only by Whitgift's searching criticism of his use of authorities but also by his own frequent apologies for his errors. Secondly, his arguments and those of his followers are more often emotional than rational, largely because the Puritans in general searched the Scriptures not in order to discover the truth but in order to justify their own hypotheses. Thirdly, Cartwright is inconsistent. Insisting that his Presbyterian system is taken intact from the New Testament, he is willing to quote the Church Fathers when they agree with his preconceived ideas, but when they disagree, he falls back on his initial premise, that he and he alone has the authority of the "primitive church" behind him. Finally, his rationalization of the Scriptures is set forth in a heavy, involved style that merits none of the adjectives fre-

Cartwright's Offense and Whitgift's Defense

93

quently applied to it except that of "abusive." His rhetoric, indeed, would be ineffective on the mind not already convinced of the practicability of the "discipline." Hence the suggestion that Cartwright's proposed reorganization of the English Church had a rational basis, which, in turn, implies that Whitgift blindly accepted the Episcopalian order, seems to lack foundation.

CHAPTER

VI

Further Efforts of Cartwright

If, as has been said, 1 Whitgift's Defense furnishes the complete presentation of both sides, the question naturally arises, H o w did this monumental study affect Cartwright? Perhaps the most illuminating answer comes from another contemporary Puritan, W i l l i a m Whitaker. 2 After the publication of the Second replie, a volume over 666 pages in length, Whitaker, according to Bancroft, 3 wrote Whitgift that it was unworthy of answer and urged him to ignore it. 4 In short, Whitgift's display of logic had no apparent effect upon his Puritan antagonist. Actually C a r t wright's later writings, including the Rest of the second replie (1577) and the Preface to his translation of the Ecclesiastics Disciplina (1574), contribute nothing new to the issues already stated, and they certainly do not augment his reputation either as a controversialist or as a theologian. His retention of all the scholarly weaknesses pointed out by Whitgift in the Defense, combined with his exasperating verbosity and ambiguity, serve only to strengthen the impression of him as a blind zealot, whose sole aim was to overwhelm all opposition to his "discipline." N o t only does Cartwright add nothing of importance to the evidence already assembled, but he seems consciously bent upon confusing the issues. His technique therein resembles that of other famous masters of propaganda w h o are more interested in winning converts than in seeking the truth. First, as if to conceal his own efforts to confuse, he accuses Whitgift of obscurantism, " H e broilethe/and mingleth all upon a heape/thincking throwgh confusion off all/to cawse his treachery not to be seen." 6 T h e n he hurls back at Whitgift all the criticisms that Whitgift has leveled at him. Pretending to warn the reader against his wily opponent, Cartwright accuses him 94

Further Efforts of Cartwright

95

of using reproaches, surmises, repetitions, "naked affirmacions withowt proof/vented often by questions ether fond or from the purpose," 6 all of which Whitgift has already detected in Cartwright's own writing. Gartwright's most serious fault, as we have seen,7 was his careless use of his sources. Accordingly, he first accuses Whitgift of misrepresenting his authorities: I n his testimonies/beside that yt shall a p p e a r e / t h a t so m a n y as make to the cause they are almost euery one ether falsified/or drawen from the meaning of the autors: yt is first to be obserued/that to answer the places off scripture alledged/yt is verie like that he first turneth to Maister Caluin/if he be against him he goeth to aske fauour at other: if no body answer nothing/yet he bringeth sondry times euen that n o t h i n g / t h a t is to say which maketh not for him/sometime also against him.

Next he condemns both Whitgift's failure to acknowledge his sources and his misuse of secondary sources: Secondly/where in his former b o k e / h e propoundeth certein thinges/as his own: not able to maintein them in this/he callethe for the autors assistance/of whom he h a t h not so muche borowed t h e m / a s taken them against their willes. yet he counteth yt vaine glorie, to take owt off an autor, and to conceale his name. Notwithstanding/if he had knowen from whom his collections c a m e / w h i c h he vseth/and had bene thankfull to his autors/in that sort he saith we owght: we should often haue had in the margent/for Augustin, Ambrose, Chrysostome, &c. Pigghius/Hosius/ Harding/&c.

He then feigns to suspect Whitgift of quoting "popish" authorities : Thirdly where his autoritie is nameles/and goethe vnder this generall title/other learned men thinck otherwise, a learned man saith so: haue yt for suspected/off popery. For t h a t / i n some off those places: he can h a u e no other autors but Papistes/as I am persuaded.

Finally he asserts that Whitgift fails to apply his authorities to his argument: Last-off a l l / t h a t he doth often barely recite them/withowt applying them to his matter: or gathering his argument off them. T h e cause

96

T h e Admonition Controversy

whereoff is/for that they are not hable/to beare any argument/the vanity wherof/would not forthewith appeare/if it were gathered.8

But unlike Whitgift, whose criticism was always directed at specific passages, Cartwright here cites no illustrations of his opponent's lack of scholarliness. Hence, his generalizations arouse suspicion of the purity of his motive. That Cartwright is deliberately trying to hide his own negligence would appear from his admission that, as Whitgift discloses, he has quoted Musculus for Jerome. 9 His frankness seems intended to restore confidence, if need be, in his readers. Then, by immediately condemning Whitgift for "open violence doone" to Augustine by quoting Pighius instead, "as appeareth manifestly," 10 he blunts the force of Whitgift's criticism of his own failure to acknowledge Musculus. It is noticeable, however, that he does not follow Whitgift's method of giving the original text, but he leaves it up to the reader to discover by himself the "manifest appearance" of the misquotation, if indeed there be any. At the same time his style becomes so obscure that the average reader is soon lost in a maze of references. Cartwright's charges and countercharges serve only to bring out the fact that Whitgift really seldom fails to note his sources. For example, insinuating that the broad reference to Calvin's "Institutions, cap. viii," without book or page, suggests the use of a secondary source, Cartwright takes occasion to bring his opponent to task for his "strange citations and quotations" from "Musculus' Common-places," "Augustine's works," "Chrysostom's works," Cyril, and Foxe.11 To this charge, unsupported as it is by instances, Whitgift first explains that in controversial matters he has tried to make his references as specific as possible: I do not remember that I referred you to Augustine, Chrysostom, or any other writers, for any matter in controversy (Cyril, Musculus, and M. Fox only in one place excepted), but I quoted the places as particularly as I could.

Then, pointing out that the particular edition of the Institutes which he used is divided only into chapters, he tells Cartwright why he used it:

Further Efforts of Cartwright

97

T h i s book of Institutions, which is distinguished into chapters and not into books, I read and noted through before y o u (as it should seem) k n e w whether there were any such book or no; and, because I have laboured in it, noted it, and am well acquainted with it, therefore I use it, andfollow it, and so will I do still; neither are y o u ignorant, I a m sure, that there b e sundry editions of those Institutions, although y o u seem to dissemble the matter in this place, I might say of purpose {for you have answered after your manner places before, out of the same book quoted in like manner), but let it be of ignorance, y o u take occasion by it to utter your cynical rhetoric but to your o w n shame. 1 2 Whitgift's preference for the 1553 edition of Calvin's

Institutes,

which, as a student, he had "laboured in," had " n o t e d , " and had "become well acquainted with," is quite understandable. Nor does Cartwright question the scholarly accuracy of this edition. O n the contrary, instead of commenting on Whitgift's distinction between quotations for "matters of controversy" and those serving as illustrations, he repeats his accusation: T h e D . accuseth me offfalsehood, for that I charge him with citing Augustine, and Crysostome at large. T o w c h i n g Augustine: that he was so alledged appeareth/firste pag. 583. and both h e / a n d Chrysostom pag. 296. W h e r e he saith he vsed that large quotacion, onely once in Muscul. Cyril, and M. Fox: he coulde hardly doo y t oftner in the two laste/considering that as I r e m e m b e r / h e alledgeth them once onely. but towchi[n]g M u s c u l . beside the place I charge him w i t h / h e lefte his aduersary twise to his wide worckes. W h e r e he remembreth not that he sendeth to any other writers, but with places quoted as particularly as he could: his m e m o r y w h i c h is so miraculouse at other times/is here but miserable. T o helpe yt/beside this place off C a l . he sendeth to his Institutes/withowt a n y further restreinte as appeareth pag. 132. againe pag. 74. in his former booke: for he h a t h quoted y t in this later. Likewise that D a m a s u s calleth Stephen A r c h d e a c o n / w i t h o w t any direction pag. 344. A l s o alledgeth G r a t i a n / P o l i d o r e / V o l a t e r a n / w i t h o w t e a n y restreinte 589. pa. I omit that he sendeth towardes thend off his booke/to the large feilde off godly interpreters: that diuers times he gyueth the booke onely/ w h e r e he might gyue the chap, the c h a p , onely w h e r e he mighte giue the section: all w h i c h are contrary to that he setteth d o w n e . W h e r b y m a y appeare w h a t a hard m o u t h he h a t h / a n d h o w e I speake sparingly off this kinde off allegation off his. 1 3

98

The Admonition Controversy

B y e n d i n g w i t h the statement that he is exposing only a f e w of the v a g u e references in his opponent's book, he insinuates that W h i t g i f t is essentially careless. B u t C a r t w r i g h t ' s insinuation grossly misrepresents his o p ponent. First, since he does not r e p r o d u c e W h i t g i f t ' s full statement, his reader cannot k n o w that in the explanation thus ridiculed W h i t g i f t restricts his c l a i m to specific references to matters in controversy, e x c e p t i n g for one place e a c h in C y r i l , in Musculus, a n d in M . Foxe. Secondly, C a r t w r i g h t sarcastically c o m m e n t s that W h i t g i f t could only once o m i t the references to C y r i l and F o x e because, as he remembers, W h i t g i f t m a d e only one reference to e a c h in his w h o l e book. B u t here the Puritan's m e m o r y fails him, for W h i t g i f t specifically refers to C y r i l at least four times 14 and to F o x e no less than nine. 1 5 T h i r d l y , C a r t w r i g h t fails to indicate w h e r e W h i t g i f t " t w i c e left his a d v e r s a r y " to the " w i d e w o r k s " of Musculus. F o u r t h l y , since W h i t g i f t has a l r e a d y explained his b r o a d references to C a l v i n , C a r t w r i g h t ' s insistence is pointless. Fifthly, the other references, in e a c h instance merely a p p e n d e d to the m a i n argument, W h i t g i f t considered " n o n controversial" and hence not w o r t h y of particular emphasis. A c t u a l l y he inserts t h e m as additional general references supplementing an a r g u m e n t already fully set forth. T a k i n g further unfair a d v a n t a g e , C a r t w r i g h t maliciously implies that his o p p o n e n t uses the 1553 edition of the Institutes for a sinister purpose, rather than for his personal c o n v e n i e n c e : Charged heere by his fonde allegacion off Cal. Institut. he answereth/ I knew there were sundry editions. I did so: but whether yt be absurd that he should leaue both the beste/and moste vsual to take that which is worse/and in the handes of fewe (onles he mente to play vnder the boorde/ that men should not understand) I leaue to the readers iudgment. His reason (he had noted yt, laboured it, and was acquainted with yt) is very simple. For is yt meete that because he had made his booke a litle heuier with yncke/he should be wedded so to y t / a s to neglecte the commen commoditie: how he is acquainted withyt I knowe not: but I trust yt h a t h / and shall appeare/that there is no more frendship betwene him and his booke in thes matters/then betwene light and darknes. 16 J u s t w h y he considers the 1553 edition inferior, he does not explain. 1 7 A n d since he himself never worries a b o u t a c c u r a c y in

Further Efforts of Cartwright

99

quoting, he h a r d l y appreciates the v a l u e of an annotated edition. Indeed, even in this same tract he has no hesitation in referring to C a l v i n ' s censure of " E s d r a s A p o c r y p h a , " the treatise whereof he does not "precisely r e m e m b e r " except that " i t is like to be in one of those against the A n a b a p t i s t s / o r L i b e r t i n e s . " 18 W h e n W h i t g i f t accuses C a r t w r i g h t of abusing Scripture, he touches h i m on a tender spot. A c c o r d i n g l y C a r t w r i g h t does his best to cover his mistakes and at the same time to accuse his o p p o n e n t of the same fault. I n one instance in the Second replie he a c t u a l l y admits his error but then i m m e d i a t e l y tries to turn the tables on W h i t g i f t . His admission occurs in the following manner. I n his Replye he concedes that perhaps there h a v e been a few " z e a l o u s and l e a r n e d " m e n b e t w e e n the apostolic era and his o w n m o v e m e n t to restore the discipline of the " p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h . " In order to show that a similar interim is recorded in Scripture, he cites N e h e m i a h vii. 1 7 - 1 8 . : " I t a p p e a r e t h in the book of Nehemias, that the feast of tabernacles, w h i c h w a s c o m m a n d e d of the L o r d to be celebrated every year, was not celebrated f r o m the days of Josua, the son of N u n , until the return of the people f r o m their c a p t i v i t y . " 19 W h i t g i f t in the Defense points out the error of this interpretation: But what if you have abused the place in the 8 chapter of Nehemias? What if you understand it not truly? What if there can be no such thing gathered of it, as you would make the reader believe? Shall I triumph over you, and say, that either "you have not read it," or " y o u do not understand it," or that "you wittingly and willingly abuse it," or "that you received it in some notes from others," as it pleaseth you to deal with me, when no such occasion is offered unto you? I will not so requite you; but this only I say, that you have not set down the true sense of that place: for the meaning is not, "that the feast of tabernacles was not celebrated from the time of Josua the son of Nun, until that day, which was almost a thousand years," but that it was not celebrated in that manner, that is, with such solemnity, so great rejoicing and gladness; as the very words themselves declare, both in the Hebrew text and in the best translations.20 A t this exposure of his misinterpretation of the passage, while granting the justice of his opponent's a r g u m e n t , C a r t w r i g h t tries to conceal his discomfiture w i t h m a n y w o r d s :

i oo

The Admonition Controversy

In the allegation off the place of Nehemias/yff I would followe the answeres traine/I need not retracte any thinge. For I could alledge/ uppon that that bothe before and after ther is rehearsed the same storie which was spoken off in Esra/the feast off tabernacles is like to be all one/spoken off in Esra/and in Nehemia: howbeit because there are reasons which leade me to thinke otherwise: I willinglie conjesse that the storie of the celebration of the feast of tabernacles in the third of Esraj maketh against that I said/of not holdinge that feast so manie yeares. But I denie that the answerer in all this great triumphe/either dothe or can lose my holde off that place/wherby I confirmed the continuance off so many yeares in omittinge that/which owght to haue bene done b y the commaundement of god. 21 A n d heaping his reasons for alleging the text higher and higher over his admission of his error, he finally turns o n Whitgift: Where he asketh whether he should saie) T h a t I haue not read the place, or doe not vnderstand yt, or willinglie and wittinglie abuse it or receiued it in some notes from others) let it be free to him for me to saye either of t h e m / o r all off them togither. T h u s assuming an air of bravado, he dares Whitgift to accuse h i m of misinterpreting the Scriptures: But wher he saith he will saie none of t h e m / a n d yet in another place twentie lines after/chargeth me with the most heinous of them all that is with wilfull deprauing off the Scriptures: excepte he can bring it to some figure of Rhetoricke/which wilbe harde for him to doo: it is to open an vntrewth/ioined as it should seme/with a great excesse of enuie and displeasure: the streme wheroff was so stronge/that it did as it were by force/carie awaie the trewth off his promise. 22 In spite of the obvious justice of Whitgift's charge, especially in the light of Cartwright's o w n admission, Cartwright then has the effrontery to accuse h i m of corrupting the Scriptures "sentence by sentence." 23 A n even more amusing example of Cartwright's borrowing from Whitgift's arsenal occurs in the distinction either makes between particular scriptural examples and general doctrines. First, Whitgift scores the Admonition for concluding that since J o h n preached to those w h o c a m e to be baptized in the Jordan, therefore preaching, and not reading, must always precede the

Further Efforts of Cartwright

101

administration of the sacraments. For, points out Whitgift, " i t is a common rule, that we m a y not conclude a general doctrine of a singular and particular e x a m p l e " and " i t is against all rule of logic." 24 Cartwright, in turn, disposes of these arguments b y asserting that J o h n baptized " n o t as a singular person, or as the son of Zachary, but as the minister of the gospel." Whitgift thereupon asks, " M u s t therefore all other ministers of the gospel do the same?" A n d he repeats that " a general doctrine m a y not be concluded of particular examples, except the same examples be according to some general rule or c o m m a n d m e n t . " 25 Y e t whenever he cites a scriptural example purely as an illustration, Cartwright labels it " e x t r a o r d i n a r y " and " f o r the time." 26 T h e important difference between the use of Scripture b y these two men is that whereas Cartwright constantly generalizes f j p m one example, Whitgift merely wishes to show that at least once according to the Bible a certain incident occurred. For instance, Cartwright uses the single example of John's preaching before baptizing as the authority for his insistence upon preaching before the administration of the sacraments. O n the other hand, Whitgift, in order to prove that ministers have exercised civil offices, cites the incident of Elias killing the false prophets of Baal and of Christ whipping the money-changers out of the T e m p l e . Both incidents Cartwright at once terms "singular and extraordinary," and in self-righteous indignation he cries, " I f these one or two examples be enough to break the order that G o d hath set, by this a m a n m a y prove that the ministers may be fishers and tent-makers, because Peter and Paul (being ministers) did fish and make tents." 27 N o t at all disconcerted, Whitgift reiterates that the examples of Elias and Christ at least show that ecclesiastical persons have used corporal, or civil, punishments. Assuring Cartwright that particular examples, while not making general rules, "declare w h a t hath been, and what upon the like occasions m a y be done," Whitgift half-humor ously adds, " I know not w h y the ministers of the gospel m a y not do as Peter and Paul did upon the like occasion." 28 In the Rest of the second replie Cartwright seizes upon and misinterprets this whimsical afterthought: " B y the D . answer, it is conuenient the Bishops should exercise some h a n d y c r a f t . " Neglecting to add

102

The Admonition Controversy

the qualification in the original statement, " u p o n the like o c c a sions," he asserts, " I f by these examples he wil conclude, that Ministers m a y ordinarily be called to the ciuil gouernment: then it must also follow, that by these examples of S. Paul and Peter, the Ministers may ordinarily have occupations ioyned with their ministeries." 29 In this instance, indeed, Cartwright's eagerness to return criticism exceeds the bound of honesty. By holding back part of Whitgift's statement and by means of reductio ad absurdum, he reinforces his earlier argument that the examples of Elias and Christ were "singular and extraordinary." But when, on the other hand, he himself states that " S t . Paul saith that a man cannot preach which is not sent," and Whitgift, in turn, replies that St. Paul "speaketh of the extraordinary calling to the office of preaching," 30 Gartwright reverses his stand on the distinction between " e x t r a o r d i n a r y " and " o r d i n a r y " with the scornful comment, " a s thowgh it were not aswel required in ordinary callinges, that one be sent, as in the extraordinary." 31 A s might be expected, therefore, Cartwright's defense of his marginal references to the Bible is neither logical nor honest. Frequently he denies Whitgift's refutation and merely repeats his original scriptural interpretation. For example, in his Replye he tries to prove that as no apostle was chosen until a place awaited, so no pastor should be ordained until there was a " c h u r c h v o i d " for him. 3 2 Whitgift answers, however, that the office of an apostle differs from that of a pastor: first, before the Resurrection the number of apostles was limited to twelve whereas the number of preachers and pastors is unlimited, and therefore after the falling-off of Judas, in order to make u p the proper number, the apostles chose Matthias b y lot; secondly, after the Resurrection Paul, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, and Junia were added to the number of the apostles, though no place was void. Cartwright scoffs at these reasons and repeats w h a t he has already written: His first exception is of Matthias, which he saith was not so chosen: which is vtterly vntrue: where he saith also that I confesse the same: that is an open vntruth. For I shewed that the election out off those two/was permitted vnto lot: that thereby the Lord might from heauen/declare whom he would haue to be an Apostell. So that the church chose no

Further Efforts of Cartwright

103

Apostle/but onely chose twoo off the which one was taken by the Lord/to be an Apostle. His other exception is off Barnabas, which being an Apostle (as he saith) appeareth by the n. off the Actes, not to haue bene called immediately: where there is not a word which confirmeth that/and therefore he durst not note the place/whereoff he gathered yt. Where he saith it can not beproued by the scripture, that he was so called: he beggeth the thing in controuersie/not able to answer the reasons alledged. . . . T o that I alledged off Epaphroditus called an Apostel, not in respect of the ministrie of the word, but as sent with relief vnto Saint Paul: he patcheth out an answer almost of as many coulors/as he alledgeth autorities. . . . Against that I alledged to proue/that Junias/and Adronicus were no Apostels/for that a man may be famous amongest the Apostels/ and yet no Apostel: he opposeth Martyr, that semeth to doubt whether the wordes will beare that sense: which I leaue to the readers iudgement. 3 3

Nevertheless his denials, accompanied by his paraphrasings of his earlier arguments, give the incorrect impression that he is contributing new material to the Controversy. Sometimes, instead of with outright denial, Cartwright comes back at his opponent with rhetorical questions, the answers to which already have appeared in Whitgift's writings. Yet since Cartwright does not reprint from the Answere or the Defense, he gives his reader, intentionally or otherwise, the impression that his own arguments are unanswerable. And as a further diversionary technique, he frequently inserts a series of new marginal references without disposing of Whitgift's objections to the originals. For example, in support of the perpetual nature of government by elders —a doctrine fundamental to his "discipline" — Cartwright does not condescend to answer his opponent but merely adds seven marginal references to the Old Testament alone "for the readers sake." 34 The illogical nature of this procedure becomes evident when we realize that by this time, after both the Admonition and Cartwright's Replye have supposedly shown the true picture of the "primitive church" toward which the Puritans are striving, further references should be purely supplementary. Almost always these denials, repetitions, rhetorical questions, and multiplied references are well punctuated with jibes. Whit-

104

The Admonition Controversy

gift's arguments are "too childish," "absurd," "ridiculous," "frivolous," "nothing worth," "nothing sound," "full of disorder." As might be expected, therefore, his second and third Replies are even more insulting than the first. For example: "Iff M D. will be so ignorant/as not to know how these two maye stand togither: let him be ignorant: if he delight in his blindnes / w h a t shouldhe doo with a guide." 36 Again, in such passages as the following, he displays a biting wit resembling that of Martin Marprelate: How vntruly the Ans. writeth/off the archbishops and bishops autoritie in our church/to hyde the hornes off their immoderate power . . . the eyes/and eares off all men are witnes. But as he serueth tharchbishops/ and bishops in this defense: so for recompense off his paines/he maketh them waite vpon him: and hauing now set them on horseback by and by for shift of answer/he maketh them light/and goe a foote with their fellowes.36

Indeed, Cartwright is quite as abusive as Martin, but the heaviness of his style, as compared with Martin's light-hearted raillery, somewhat takes the edge off his abuse. In spite of Whitgift's demands that his arguments be reproduced in full before they are confuted so that the reader may see his exact words, Cartwright quotes no more from the Defense than he did from the Answere. With the usual sneer at Whitgift's doctorate, he justifies his omission on the grounds that everyone has read Whitgift's "lies": Howbeit/because there was some daunger least the D. lofty titles/and glittering estate might ether seduce som simple ones/or vtterly carie away those whose mindes were forestalled with some preiudice against the cause we maintein: I thowght good once at large/and peece by peece/to lay forth the vnworthines of his accusations. Now I see/there is no end of his vnhonest charges: I meane not by further answer in poursuit off his oulde/or auoiding his nwe/ether weary my selfe or the reader. For seing the vntrwth off them/is in the eies and eares off all: why shoulde I trauaile to stop his Throate/which (as an open sepulchre off untrw sumises) wil as (seemeth) neuer with any reasonable answer be filled vp.37

But apparently feeling that this explanation is not sufficient, he calls the reader's attention to an occasional quotation from

Further Efforts of Cartwright

105

Whitgift indicated by smaller type and adds that Whitgift's wordiness makes it impractical to reproduce more fully: For better vnderstanding of the book, after yow are a litle entred: yow shall (where I remembred yt) finde the doctor, althowgh not alwaies in so many wordes yet in the same sense, in a smaller letter: the testimonies and that alledged out off my former book and admonition being in a greater. Sometimes throwgh his to muche fondnes, and repetition, I put onely a word or two to gyue the reader to vnderstand that I wander not withowt an adversary: referring him, for further knowledge vnto his own book. 3 8

By means of these fragmentary quotations, combined with his own paraphrasings, Cartwright manages to present a woefully distorted interpretation of his opponent's argument. His freedom of interpretation, as it may euphemistically be termed, is sometimes difficult to understand. For example, in the Rest of the second replie he flatly states that Whitgift has failed to answer the reason alleged, "why the word Councel, in S. Mathew, is taken for the Eldership of the church." 39 And in his margin he indicates that the place to which he refers is Matthew v. 22. 40 Yet in the Defense, expressing doubt that Christ would borrow any form or manner of government from the Jews, Whitgift already has presented a logical interpretation of this passage and at the same time has requested further proof: I do not understand how you can draw the place in the v. of Matthew to your purpose; for, if you mean these words . . . " H e that calleth his brother R a c h a shall be in danger of a council," as I a m sure you do, Christ doth not there prescribe any form of government, or order of punishing, but he declareth the degrees of uncharitable dealing towards our brethren, and the increase of punishments according to the same. 4 1

Therefore, even if Cartwright disagrees, he should have the grace first to acknowledge that Whitgift has given him an answer, such as it may be, and then to present the additional proof requested, or at least to deny the necessity thereof. As in his Replye, he takes the same liberty with his sources that he does with Whitgift. Again he refuses to consider the scriptural interpretations by reputable scholars differing from

106

The Admonition Controversy

his own. Nevertheless he himself continues to quote the C h u r c h Fathers and the Councils whenever he needs their authoiity. I n his quotations in the two later tracts he is as careless as in the Replye. For example, when Whitgift questions his assertion that Augustine " d o t h not allow either of baptism in private houses, or by w o m e n , " 42 he nonchalantly replies, " A l t h o w g h these wordes of m y n e doeth not alow, be not so ful: yet, in that, talking of this surmised case of necessity, he neuer cometh so low, as to the b a p t i m by wemen, b u t stayeth in that which is ministered by l a y m e n : it is manifest, t h a t he disalowed the b a p t i m by w e m e n . " 43 T h e n using this hypothesis as a base, he heaps supposition u p o n supposition. Similarly, when Whitgift accuses h i m of incorrectly reporting Aristotle's words, C a r t wright calmly replies, " A wrangling cauill," a n d protests that, after all, even though he has not repeated the exact words used by Aristotle he has " k e p t the sense off the a u t o r . " 44 I n such a controversy as this, however, where the interpretation of p a r ticular texts is of vital importance to the a r g u m e n t , each text should be quoted in full as Whitgift demands. Despite the accusation that in seeking the authority of the O l d Testament Cartwright is reverting to Judaism, 4 6 he c o n tinues to refer to the H e b r e w writers. Yet, asserting t h a t the O l d T e s t a m e n t is of insufficient authority, he ridicules Whitgift for using the generally accepted analogy t h a t circumcision in the O l d L a w prefigures baptism in the New. Contrary to the words of the Admonition Whitgift has m a i n t a i n e d t h a t since Sephora, Moses' wife, circumcised, then baptism by midwives is permissible. 4 6 Cartwright replies: Vnles he had browght the example of Sephcfra, to mayntein baptim by wemen, it had bene fondly alledged: considering that the wordes of the Adm. are of the practis of the Apostles tymes, an exception against which, fetched from the tyme which was IOOO yeares before, might seme to come from him, whose wittes were not at home.47 I n his Replye, however, he himself has already used the same analogy: You say the papist and heretic be baptized, and so are not the Jews and Turks. Their baptism, being cut offfrom the church, maketh them as much

Further Efforts of Cartwright

107

strangers unto it as was Ismael and Esau, which, albeit they were circumcised, yet, being cast out of the church, they were no more to be accounted to be of the body of God's people than those w h i c h never were in the church. 4 8

As usual, the "primitive church," which in Cartwright's argument is large enough to include Ishmael and Isaiah and the law of circumcision, rapidly shrinks when Whitgift tries to appeal to it. In fact, the two later Replies are so poorly organized and muddled in thought that the reader can only ask, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" In Cartwright's first tract he at least occasionally attempts to paraphrase Whitgift's thought, but in the later writings his paraphrasings become more and more infrequent. Typical of his rebuttal is the following passage: T o the next section answere shalbe m a d e in the place wherunto he referreth vs. F o r the next vnto that: I answere that this is a vaine shift/ the a d u a n t a g e wheroff he c a n not take to excuse his folie. 49

Thus he avoids the inconvenience, and perhaps the embarrassment, of presenting the arguments of his opponent. Illustrative of his muddled thinking is his defense of a pointless scriptural reference to Proverbs ii. as authority for the broad statement that "the word of God containeth the direction of all things pertaining to the church, yea, or whatsoever things can fall into any part of man's life": 1. M y son, if thou wilt receive m y words, and hide m y c o m m a n d m e n t s with thee . . . 9. T h e n shalt thou understand righteousness,

and j u d g m e n t ,

and

equity; yea, every good path. 6 0

Whitgift, in turn, informs him: T h e place y o u do allege out of the ii. chapter of Salomon's Proverbs doth not prove your purpose; for S a l o m o n there teacheth the fruits a n d c o m m o d i t y of wisdom, and in the person of her declareth w h a t understanding he shall have in "righteousness, j u d g m e n t , equity, a n d every good p a t h , " that hearkeneth unto wisdom, obeyeth her c o m mandments, and giveth his heart to knowledge. 6 1

io8

The Admonition Controversy

A n d he asks, " W h a t is this to prove that the scripture h a t h e x pressed every particular c e r e m o n y or kind of g o v e r n m e n t in the c h u r c h ? " A t the same time he warns C a r t w r i g h t , " S u r e l y except y o u take heed, y o u will w a n d e r as far out of the w a y in alleging the scriptures, as the authors of the A d m o n i t i o n did in quoting t h e m . " 52 C a r t w r i g h t ' s reply typifies his distortion of the Scriptures: And to the first place/whiche is that the wisdome of god in his worde/ doothe teache men euery good way/and therefore the way which ought to be taken in the establishement of orders/and ceremonies in the churche: he asketh me in great scome./what that maketh to the purpose? in deede to proue that which he vntruly/and contrarie to my playne wordes/in his answer to al my argumentes surmiseth to be my pourpose (that is/that no lawe ought to be made in the churche/which is not expressed in the worde) I say to proue this/I graunt it is not sufficient: but to proue that all thinges owght to be doone in the church/not onely not against the commaundement/but also accordinge to the commaundement of God (which was that which I propounded/and he denied) it is more sufficient/then he is hable to answer. His answer also/which supposeth this sentence directed vnto princes and magistrates (onely belike in that he saith my sonne) is vttered withowte all iudgement: consideringe that Salomon/by that title speaketh vnto all the children of god/of what callinge soeuer they be.63 T h i s defense of the m a r g i n a l reference to Proverbs epitomizes the a m b i g u i t y , the abusiveness, and the general ineffectiveness of the last t w o Replies. B y jeers and b y the reiteration of previous arguments C a r t w r i g h t artfully conceals his failure to answer W h i t g i f t ' s searching question, " W h a t is this to prove that the scripture h a t h expressed every particular c e r e m o n y or kind of g o v e r n m e n t in the c h u r c h ? " Perhaps the most convincing evidence that C a r t w r i g h t w a s determined at all costs to establish his " d i s c i p l i n e " appears in his translation in 1574 of the Ecclesiastics Discipline, w h i c h he entitles " A full and plaine declaration of Ecclesiasticall Discipline o w t off the w o r d off G o d / a n d off the declininge off the c h u r c h off E n g l a n d f r o m the s a m e . " I n his introduction he admits that he differs w i t h the author " i n the interpretation off a p l a c e or

Further Efforts of Cartwright

109

t w o , " but he assures his reader that he has " l e f t them v n chaunged, and reserued them whole to the iudgement off the c h u r c h . " 54 Y e t in the main text of the translation, which b y the w a y is merely a restatement of his opinions with most of the acrimonious material omitted, Cartwright makes two important additions that change the original meaning. First, as if to reinforce the author's assertion " t h a t we haue to fetche the rules" of ecclesiastical discipline " f r o m no other fountaines but from the holie scriptures," 65 Cartwright in typical fashion adds numerous characteristic marginal references to the Bible. Secondly, in several places where the author has written "episcopus," as if he sanctions the office of the bishop, Cartwright translates "bishop, that is to say, minister," 56 and in one place he even goes so far as to turn "Episcopos" into "minister" without mentioning the word bishops/'1 In the light of these attempts to institute his "discipline" by fair means or foul, all of Cartwright's writings after the first Replye, in spite of their huge bulk — the two later Replies together run to more than 930 pages — m a y be considered extra-controversial. T h e y have been analyzed in detail only for those w h o feel that there must be some wisdom in many words. T h e y do, however, serve to show the hopelessness of trying to reason with this Puritan fanatic and his followers, for Whitgift's " l u c i d and impressive" defense—to borrow Pearson's tribute 58 — b r o u g h t from Cartwright's successors, both in his own time and later, nothing but abuse and ridicule. T h o u g h Whitgift undoubtedly directed the writings of Hooker and the anti-Martinists, he himself in his Defense has given his o w n final answer to the enemies of the episcopacy.

CHAPTER

VII

Political Implications of the Controversy

In attacking the government of the English C h u r c h Cartwright struck not only at the bishops w h o were the ecclesiastical heads but also at the "supreme governor," Q u e e n Elizabeth herself. His questioning of royal authority in ecclesiastical affairs, however, was not without precedent. In the pamphlets issued in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566, before any attempt had been made to change the government of the Church, the theory had been expressed that the magistrate is subordinate in authority to the church. T h e author of An answere for the tyme, for instance, specifically states that "kings and Quees shold be Nurcies of the Church, but not Lordes of it." 1 Just as Cartwright welds all the earlier nonconformist arguments against the "indifferent" rites and ceremonies into a powerful weapon against the episcopacy, so he also fuses the political theories of his predecessors into an antimonarchial Puritan policy that long after his death was to bring about the deposition of a Stuart monarch. 2 Cartwright's political philosophy, like his "discipline," was based on his conviction of the necessity for a return to a "primitive c h u r c h . " Concerning the scope of scriptural influence, he assures Whitgift that " t h e word of G o d containeth the direction of all things pertaining to the church, yea, of whatsoever things can fall into any part of man's life." 3 Immediately grasping the political implications of this sweeping assertion, Whitgift replies that the Scriptures only generally direct man's actions; indeed, to maintain that nothing ought to be done in man's life contrary to the W o r d of G o d would be to "conclude that every civil action, every private action, every civil kind of government, is expressed in the w o r d . " T h e n , infers Whitgift, magistrates must " m a k e no civil or eccle110

Political Implications of the Controversy

111

siastical law or order which is not expressed in the word of God." This argument he summarily denies.4 In order to appreciate Whitgift's consternation at Cartwright's views on reforming the civil government, we must understand the Puritan's theory of scriptural interpretation. Cartwright believes that a man who enters upon a political career must, like the elders,6 receive a "call." 6 Along with this "call" will come the gifts requisite for the administration of the office: W e see t h a t , w h e n m e n are called to a lawful a n d profitable calling, especially to a public calling, God d o t h p o u r on his gifts of t h a t person which is so called so plentifully, t h a t he is as it were suddenly m a d e a new m a n ; w h i c h if he do in the wicked as Saul was, there is no d o u b t b u t he will d o it in those which are w i t h the testimony of the church, a n d with experience of their former godly behaviour, chosen to such offices of weight. 7

Thus it would not be necessary to select the gifted man for the office; the office itself in some mysterious way would provide these gifts. The idea of gifts attached to "callings" seems absurd to his scholarly opponent, who contends that education has replaced the miraculous "callings" of the Scriptures: T h i s lacketh p r o o f . . . t h o u g h God sometimes "bestows his gifts u p o n the person t h a t is called to a lawful a n d public function, as he did u p o n S a u l , " yet d o t h not he alway so. G o d d o t h not of necessity tie his graces to offices; for, as he in the beginning of his c h u r c h miraculously bestowed his gifts, so d o t h he now leave the same by outward means in part to be obtained, as by education, learning, instruction, reading, studying, &c., which m e a n s being neglected, God d o t h of his justice p e r m i t evil magistrates and officers . . . . Surely, if this were true t h a t you here so boldly without proof affirm, t h e n should it not m u c h skill w h a t kind of m e n were chosen to be either pastors or magistrates; for, howsoever they were before furnished with gifts, yet, w h e n they be once called, G o d will miraculously pour u p o n t h e m gifts necessary, t h o u g h they be the rudest a n d ignorantest m e n in a whole country. Is not this to boast of the Spirit, as the anabaptists do?

And he reproves Cartwright for his presumption:

112

The Admonition Controversy

Therefore to ground any general doctrine upon singular examples, or to stablish an external kind of government upon God's inward and secret working, to bind God unto that of necessity that he doth bestow of grace and mercy, to make that common to all which he of his infinite wisdom bestoweth upon some, is not the part of a skilful divine. 8

Because once or twice, according to the Bible, God has miraculously bestowed his gifts upon a person chosen to a religious or political office, Whitgift does not intend to cast overboard all the learning of the universities. Cartwright's belief that a "calling" is accompanied by gifts divinely bestowed is closely associated with the Puritan doctrine of an "inner light," either in the reader of the Bible or in the Bible itself, which enables a man, no matter how ignorant he may be, to understand divine truth. This doctrine is perhaps best expressed by Cartwright's "zealous" contemporary, Edward Dering, who writes that "God hath giuen vs his spirit, by which wee should know the things that are of God. . . . And this spirit maketh vs see in the Scriptures . . . more cleere . . . than we see the Sunne light with our eyes." 9 Dering derives his theory for divine illumination from Mark iv. n . : "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables," whence he concludes that God's Word "is not hard unto his children but to strangers, to infidels, to men without God in the world, to these hee speaketh darkely." He therefore asserts that anyone who admits his inability to interpret any scriptural passage whatsoever may as well consider himself a spiritual outcast: Who so ever he be, to whom the Scripture is hard, let him accuse his owne dulnesse; and whosoever blameth the Scripture in this behalfe, he blameth himselfe, both of slowe eares and of a faithlesse heart.10

Hence, a man by "prophesying," or giving his own scriptural interpretation, proves to his fellowmen that he is saved. Cartwright, like Dering, also believed that the Scriptures were self-illuminating even to the most illiterate. This theory he first expounds with examples from the Old Testament, one of which may serve as illustration:

Political Implications of the Controversy

113

T h e dignity also and high estate of those which are not so earnest in this cause cannot hinder it, if we consider the wisdom of God almost from time to time to consist and to shew itself most in setting forth his truth by the simpler and weaker sort, by contemptible and weak instruments, by things of no value, to the end that, when all men see the baseness and rudeness of the instrument, they might the more wonder at the wisdom and power of the Artificer, which with so weak andfoolish instruments bringeth to pass so wise and mighty things. And, if men will with such an eye of flesh look upon matters, they shall condemn that excellent reformation made under the godly king Josias which the Holy Ghost doth so highly commend; in which it is witnessed that the Levites, which were a degree under the priests, were more forward and more zealous than the priests themselves; yea, wherein it is witnessed that the people were yet more earnest and more willing than either the Levites or the priests, which thing, if ever, is verified in our time.11

Then he assumes that if under the Old Law the common people were "more earnest and more willing" than the trained priests and Levites, certainly, with the light of the gospel all of God's elect could distinguish truth from falsehood.12 Into this bewildered reasoning, confused as it is by a mystical yearning for perfection, Whitgift directs a gleam of sound common sense: No m a n denieth but God of his wisdom, in the beginning of the church of Christ, poured out his gifts more plenteously upon the simpler, contemptible, and weaker sort, and that he choosed for his apostles fishermen, toll-gatherers, and ignorant persons, lest that should be ascribed to the wit, eloquence, and learning of man, which cometh only of the goodness, might, and power of God: as the apostle plainly declareth, i Cor. i. and ii. But will you therefore conclude that truth, zeal, and godliness, remaineth either only or especially in the simple, rude, and ignorant sort? and make this your conclusion, T h e learned, the honourable, men of great countenance or knowledge, be of this or that opinion; ergo, it is not true? O r , the simple, rude, and ignorant people are thus and thus persuaded; ergo, they must be followed; or to the like effect? 13

In other words, although in the times of the apostles God used ignorant men as his instruments, the more to make known his power and love, today he "useth not the simple only, or always,

114

The Admonition Controversy

to set forth his truth." 14 Accordingly Whitgift prefers to place his trust in the authority of the civil magistrate rather than in the "ignorance, simplicity, and rudeness" that characterizes most of Cartwright's elders,15 who pretend to possess special gifts from God acquired through the reading and the interpretation of the Scriptures. Cartwright, however, steadfastly contends that since the elders are "called" to govern the church whereas the magistrate is "called" merely to govern the state, which is less important than the church, the elders are superior to the magistrate and may direct him. In order to express his conception of the relation between church and state, Cartwright as usual invents a similitude: As the hangings are made fit for the house, so the commonwealth must be made to agree with the church, and the government thereof with her government. For, as the house is before the hangings, and therefore the hangings which come after must be framed to the house which was before, so the church being before there was any commonwealth, and the commonwealth coming after must be fashioned and made suitable unto the church. 16

Thus Cartwright enunciates his "two-kingdom theory," as Pearson terms it,17 in which the magistrate must conform to the will of the elders. T o Whitgift's direct question as to what authority in ecclesiastical matters the civil magistrate possesses, Cartwright replies: The prince and civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of God, touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders of the church, be executed and duly observed, and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly. As for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the church, they do . . . pertain unto the ministers of the church, and to the ecclesiastical governors; and that, as they meddle not with the making of civil laws, and laws for the commonwealth, so the civil magistrate hath not to ordain ceremonies pertaining to the church; but, if those to whom that doth appertain make any orders not meet, the magistrate may and ought to hinder them, and drive them to better, forsomuch as the civil magistrate

Political Implications of the Controversy

115

hath this charge to see that nothing be done against the glory of God in his dominion.18 T h e subordinate position of the magistrate Cartwright more specifically states in the following passage: It is true that vraought to be obedient unto the civil magistrate which governeth the church of God in that office which is committed unto him, and according to that calling. But it must be remembered that civil magistrates must govern it according to the rules of God prescribed in his word, and that as they are nourises [nurses] so they be servants unto the church, and as they rule in the church so they must remember to subject themselves unto the church, to submit their sceptres, to throw down their crowns, before the church, yea, as the prophet speaketh, to lick the dust of the feet of the church.19 Even Cartwright, however, must have realized the temerity, and indeed the futility, of suggesting that a T u d o r monarch "submit his sceptre," "throw down his crown," and "lick the dust of the feet of the church," for he immediately qualifies his requirements for the ideal "obedient" monarch: Wherein I mean not that the church doth either wring the sceptres out of princes' hands, or taketh their crowns from their heads, or that it requireth princes to lick the dust of her feet (as the pope under this pretence hath done), but I mean, as the prophet meaneth, that, whatsoever magnificence, or excellency, or pomp, is either in them, or in their estates and commonwealths, which doth not agree with the simplicity and (in the judgment of the world) poor and contemptible estate of the church, that they will be content to lay down.20 Nevertheless he maintains that the magistrate should be liable to excommunication: To say, that Princes are not subiect vnto this order: is al one, as yf he should say, that Princes pertain no to the kingdome of heauen, are none of the church, haue no part with Christ &c. Thus ys boeth Christ robbed of his honor, which in contempt of his order (as thowgh yt were to base for Princes to goe vnder) is hym self contemned: and Princes defrauded of a singular ayd of saluation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they (throwgh the common corruption) fal into such diseases, against which this medicin was prepared.21

116

The Admonition Controversy

For just as kings and noblemen in the Old Law were subject to the law of uncleanness for leprosy, so in Elizabethan England they must be subject to the law preventing spiritual contagion, namely, excommunication by the church. Cartwright's words, Whitgift warns his readers, "contain the overthrow of the prince's authority both in ecclesiastical and civil matters," for "by the church he meaneth the presbytery and eldership, so that he would have princes in as great bondage to his seniors as ever they were to the pope." 22 Whitgift, indeed, was the first to point out that Cartwright's antiepiscopal opinions were likewise antimonarchial and could as easily be applied to the prince as to the bishop so that if the people became imbued with the Puritan doctrines they would turn against the civil government. Declaring that Whitgift was "justified in his view that Cartwright's appeal to conscience meant in practice an attempt to straighten the authority of the magistrate to the Puritan purpose," 23 Pearson gives the following evaluation of Cartwright's political theory: Cartwright's recognition of the civil authority in relation to the Church is of such a conditional nature as to render it suspect. . . . In his doctrine of final appeal to the godly magistrate, although it is qualified by his belief in the jus divinum of Presbyterianism and the sovereignity of God, Cartwright approaches the conception of the omnicompetent State. Jealous as he is of the liberty of the Church as a societas perfecta he realises that in actual practice it may be fallible and imperfect. Above the ideal Church there is no court of appeal, but above the imperfect administration of the actual Church there must be the ultimate arbitrament and coercive jurisdiction of the ruler of the unified State. But it is apparent that to Cartwright this resort to the magistrate can never be satisfactory until the latter is a true Presbyterian servant and exponent of a Presbyterian God. 24

Accordingly, until the magistrate (that is, the Queen) would submit to the will of the presbytery, Cartwright and his followers would continue to consider her stubborn and incorrigible. Naturally Cartwright's theory that the magistrate's only duty in the church is to enforce the ecclesiastical laws would imply a limitation of power abhorrent to Elizabeth. Her reaction to this Puritan tenet Pearson analyzes as follows:

Political Implications of the Controversy

117

The political danger-point in Presbyterianism . . . was the idea of sovereignty, so far as it related to ecclesiastical affairs, which according to the Puritans resided in people, presbyters, and Christ by jus divinum and in the civil magistrate only so far as his authority was compatible with t h a t j a i divinum. Elizabeth saw that although the Puritans were conscientiously able and willing to take the oath of royal supremacy, they did so with an interpretation which implied the autonomy of a divinely appointed Church and the absolute sovereignty of Christ, and that in practice this would naturally mean a limited monarchy. 25 As a conclusion to this analysis of the Puritan threat to royal power, Pearson draws a vivid picture of the probable effects on England if the Presbyterian-Puritan party had had its way: We are convinced that Elizabeth's fear that her sovereignty would be jeopardised by the legal establishment of Presbyterianism was justified. The civil magistrate's prerogatives would have been curtailed. The Church would have managed its own affairs. The Queen as a member of the Church would have been amenable to discipline and taken to task for her delinquencies. Bishops would have been abolished. The Book of Common Prayer would have been radically reformed. The Genevan parity of ministers and the Genevan service would have been introduced. Clericalism would have tended to rear its head; ministers as God's interpreters would have tried to dictate in social and political affairs as well as in religious. Intolerance would have been continued and a rigid uniformity enforced. 26 Hence, while the Puritans did not "deliberately or primarily lay down a political programme," 27 their system did threaten the framework of the Elizabethan state; for, if the principles of Presbyterian government had been applied to the state, a limited monarchy would have resulted. In addition to subordinating the Q u e e n to the presbytery as —according to Cartwright —Jehoshaphat was subordinate to the priests and the Levites, 28 Cartwright also wishes to revive the biblical laws, particularly the punitive laws of the Old Testament, which were to be enforced by the civil magistrate. T h e dependence of the Puritans on the Hebrew punitive laws is of special concern to Pearson, w h o notes that Cartwright and his disciples "paid considerable attention" to the subject of capital punishment. 2 9 Cartwright, indeed, demands the death penalty

118

The Admonition Controversy

for "blasphemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death." 30 For, reasons Cartwright, murder and adultery are transgressions of the second table of the commandments, whereas idolatry and blasphemy are transgressions of the first, on which the second depends. Therefore magistrates who require death for murder, according to the natural law, and for adultery, according to the Mosaic law, and leave the other sins unpunished "beginne at the wronge ende," for the "breache off the firste table" opens the way for the "breache off the seconde." 31 Accordingly, in a reactionary fashion he wishes to increase rather than to diminish the number of crimes requiring capital punishment. And if there were any doubt in the reader's mind regarding his strict adherence to the punitive laws of the Old Testament as expressed in his Replye, it is dispelled b y his clear s t a t e m e n t in his Second replie: It is not . . . that the magistrate is simply bound vnto the iudicial lawes off Moses: but that he is bound to the equitie/which I also called the substance/and marrowe off them. In regard off which equitie/I affirmed that there are certen lawes amongest the Iudicialles/u^'cA can not be chaunged. And hereof I gaue example/in the lawes which c o m m a n d / t h a t a stubbern Idolater/blasphemer/murtherer/incestuous person/and suche like/should be put to death.™

Then in no uncertain terms he reiterates his firm conviction that "the morall lawe . . . is in as full strenght as euer it was before the comming of our Sauiour Christ." 33 Finally, as he demands the death penalty for "false teachers," he defiantly justifies his harshness with the statement, "If this be bloudie, and extreme: I am contente to be so counted/withe the holie goste." 34 His insistence on capital punishment appears even more ferocious in the treatment which he recommends for persons refusing to attend public prayers. Whitgift's assertion that the Scripture has appointed no discipline for the correcting of these transgressors,36 Cartwright questions: "Where was your judgment when you wrote that the scripture hath appointed no discipline nor correction for such as shall contemn the common

Political Implications of the Controversy

119

prayers and hearing the word of God?" Then he cites the "civil punishments and punishments of the body" appointed by the Word of God in the following texts: E X O D U S xxii: 20. H e that sacrificeth unto a n y god, save unto the L o r d only, he shall be utterly destroyed. 11 C H R O N I C L E S XV: 13. T h a t whosoever w o u l d not seek the L o r d G o d of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether m a n or w o m a n .

"And thus," he concludes, "you see the civil punishment of contemners of the word and prayers." 36 Since both of these ancient laws require the life of the offender, Whitgift incredulously asks whether or not Cartwright would condemn to death all persons who are negligent in attending public prayers. In reply, in a cloud of ambiguous clauses Cartwright makes an effort to differentiate between those who "neglecte the worde" (probably persons careless in attending church), for whom he would recommend less extreme punishment, and those who "contemn the worde" (everyone who does not believe in his "discipline"), who are not "Idolaters" but worse than "Idolaters" and hence are to be executed: A s for that parte of the seconde question w h i c h withe other his sainges folowing surmise that I w o u l d e haue the neglecte of the w o r d e punished by deathe: y t is directly against m y expresse w o r d e s / w h i c h (hauing shewed the punishementes/that shoulde be executed v p o n contemners) add that there are other punishementes for those/which neglecte the worde &c. A n d as to that parte off his question/which is whether contemners off the worde owght to be put to deathe: y t is as his other questions be/of thinges not onely affirmed/and set d o w n e / b u t disputed o f f b o t h e partes. For this is that which we plainlie affirme/and bringe argumentes to proue. A n d w h e n he that despiseth the w o r d e of God/despiseth G o d himselfe: the equitie of this muste needes appeare/vnto all those in w h o m e there is but a corne off the zeale and looue of the glorie off G o d / o r rather in w h o m there is not some pleasure/to see the glorie of G o d troden vnder feete. But he saithe/that the place off Moses off putting Idolaters vnto deathe, maketh nothing to proue this. T h e reason wherof he assignethe to be: because contemners/are not Idolaters. T h i s is his ordinary faulte/that he can not vnderstande/that iff an Idolater owght to die: miche more a contemner of the worde. For contempte (althowghe y t be

120

The Admonition Controversy

not in an action/which doothe vtterly ouerturne the seruice of God/ as Idolatrie: but in one which staineth/or cracketh yt onely/as is the breache off the Sabbothe) is yet shewed to be so displeasante vnto the lorde/and so detestable: that that which off yt selfe/was not deadly/ onely by this circumstance of contempte/was punished with presente deathe.37 Thus Cartwright admits what Whitgift could scarcely believe, that is, that he would recommend immediate death for all who would not conform to the Presbyterian "discipline." I n Whitgift's opinion the revival of the laws of the Old Testament would restrict the royal prerogative and utterly destroy the entire system of English law: All the laws of this land, that be contrary to these judicial laws of Moses, must be abrogated: the prince must be abridged of that prerogative which she hath in pardoning such as by the law be condemned to die . . . . To be short, all things must be transformed: lawyers must cast away their huge volumes and multitude of cases, and content themselves with the books of Moses: we of the clergy would be the best judges; and they must require the law at our hands.38 And Whitgift appeals to the "indifferent reader" to judge whether Cartwright is not thereby wringing the sword out of the magistrate's hand. 39 Cartwright's ambition to introduce a civil government such as he imagined that he found in the Old Testament, in which the magistrate was subordinate to the presbytery, both in civil and in ecclesiastical affairs, and in which the Mosaic laws were to supersede the common laws of the land, was to the Elizabethan bishops and monarchists nothing short of treason. In their eyes, indeed, the Puritan was no more loyal than his countryman, the R o m a n Catholic exile who plotted the downfall of the Queen. Consequently Elizabeth, like her bishops, considered the fulsome protests of loyalty in the Puritan pamphlets to be mere lip service to the Crown. 40 Much of the severity of the High Commission, therefore, is to be attributed to the political, rather than to the religious, implications of Cartwright's "discipline."

C H A P T E R VIII

The Old Law vs. the New

In order to give the finishing touches to our pictures of the arch-Puritan and his Episcopalian opponent, we shall now consider the attitude of each towards his fellowmen, particularly towards those possessing different religious principles. Only too often is the contribution of the Puritans to freedom of worship permitted to overshadow their fanatical intolerance. For instance, Edward Arber, in spite of his vast knowledge of the Elizabethan Age, writes as follows: Whatever frenzies or narrow-mindedness may be chargeable to the Puritans, they were undoubtedly the Founders of our present freedom: w h i l e

the Bishops and their entourage, with all their patristic learning and general culture, were the supporters of arbitrary power and the active instruments of the people's repression.

And he himself "arbitrarily" underlines this sweeping conclusion with the categorical pronouncement that " n o amount of historical research can obliterate this distinction." 1 But McKerrow with his customary realism brings Puritanism into its proper perspective: It is important that this fact should be clearly bprne in mind, that the Puritan idea was no more favourable to liberty of thought than was the Anglican view, for there has been much loose writing upon the subject. 2

In addition, Pearson points out that the Puritans, like many other religious and political rebels against despotism, unconsciously helped to hasten the realization that if one group is to be free from molestation it must permit others the same freedom: By their claim to liberty of conscience the Puritans prepared the way for that toleration which allowed both State and Church to be free.

121

122

T h e Admonition Controversy

This they did, not because they believed in toleration for all but because, like other dissenting minorities, they showed that peace in a realm can only be achieved if the rights of conscience are recognized. . . . T h e Puritans were allied with Jesuits, Huguenots, and Dutchmen in the struggle against the forces of absolute monarchy and the tyranny of civil power, and in spite of themselves they contributed to the furtherance of both civil and religious liberty

Thus the Puritan contribution to religious freedom was purely fortuitous. Actually the very name puritan implies intolerance, for this epithet was given to those nonconformists who considered themselves purer than their fellowmen, 4 who, in turn, were considered lost souls. Furthermore, the Puritans were essentially a proselyting sect; not content with contemplating their own perfection, they wished to make everyone else like unto themselves. Whitgift complains that instead of carrying the gospel to places where it does not exist they remain and preach in such places as London where the people long have had the gospel preached to them. "As if," returns Cartwright, "there were a fitter place/to propounde the Discipline then where the doctrine/hath allredie beene receiued." And he asks, "Where shoulde the wall be fitlier made: then where the citie/is before builded; where/the diche cast, but where the Orcheyarde/is alreadie planted?" 5 Cartwright, as Pearson explains, premises "that God has decreed Presbyterianism as the only perfect and perpetual polity of the Church" and "that God is a Presbyterian." 6 Therefore he demands universal acceptance of his "discipline." His doctrine of enforced conformity, according to Pearson, "implies that a Puritan Presbyterian Church should be established, that uniformity should be enforced, that the Puritan ministers are the best judges, and that the evils of intolerance would continue, the victims and oppressors changing places." 7 Had the Puritans attained their national Presbyterian Church, Pearson is convinced that the inevitable result would have been a far greater intolerance than that practiced by the bishops: It is obvious that the Puritans did not believe in toleration. They could not conceive of more than one true religion, and held that their duty to God bade them seek the furtherance of it and simultaneously the

The Old Law vs. the New

123

suppression of all that was incompatible with it. . . . If in power, the Elizabethan Puritans would doubtless have excelled in intolerance the authorities whose regime they denounced. . . . For the Puritanfreedom of conscience means in general liberty to act according to his own interpretation of the word of God, and in particular liberty to set u p a Puritan Church with a Presbyterian polity. But what of the others whose interpretation of divine law differs from theirs? All are wrong, for there is only one true religion. 8 For this dissenting majority, as w e have seen, 9 Cartwright reco m m e n d e d nothing short of imprisonment until they conformed, or else death. M u c h of the information regarding the intolerance of the bishops, on the other hand, has been taken directly from the Puritan tracts, the "bitterness and virulence" of which Pearson has noted. 1 0 Since these tracts were instruments of propaganda, the Puritan complaint of ill-treatment must be taken with some reservation, for truthfulness, as Frere warns us, was never the strong point of Puritan writers. 11 Addressing the authors of the Admonition, Whitgift, in fact, accuses them of exaggerating their mistreatment: You complain much of unbrotherly and uncharitable entreating of you, of removing you from your offices and places. Surely in this point I must compare you to certain heretics that were in Augustine's time, who, most bitterly by sundry means afflicting and molesting the true ministers of the church, yet for all that cried out that they were extremely dealt with, and cruelly persecuted by them; or else unto a shrewd and ungracious wife, which, beating her husband, by her clamorous complaints maketh her neighbours believe that her husband beateth her. . . . You are as gently entreated as may be, no kind of brotherly persuasion omitted towards you, most of you as yet keep your livings, though some one or two be displaced, you are offered all kind of friendliness, if you could be content to conform yourselves, yea, but to be quiet and hold your peace. You, on the contrary side, most unchristianly and most unbrotherly, both publicly and privately, rail on those that shew this humanity towards you, slander them by all means you can, and most untruly report of them, seeking by all means their discredit. 12 Whitgift's assertion that at the time of the Admonition Controversy most of the Puritan clergymen retained their livings is

124

T h e Admonition Controversy

verified by Frere, who brands as "untrue" the common Puritan allegation that their ministers were ejected in large numbers for failure to conform. 13 Accordingly we are convinced that the Episcopalians were far more tolerant than Cartwright and his followers with their insistence upon a Presbyterian system ordained by God. Cartwright's intolerance for all non-Presbyterians stems from his choice of the Old Testament as a moral guide. His efforts to revive the Mosaic laws seem particularly un-Christian to his opponent, for like St. Paul, who terms the Old Testament " a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things," 14 Whitgift regards the events of the Old Testament as merely prefiguring and symbolizing the events of the New. In an effort to get at Cartwright's distinction, if any, between the Mosaic law and ceremonies on the one hand and the Christian doctrine on the other, also between "occasional" commandments and those of perpetual significance, Whitgift questions the Puritan's demand for explicit obedience to "all the commandments of G o d " : 1 5 Have you ever read in scripture, or in the writings of any learned man, or can you by reason prove this paradox, that "all the commandments of God and of the apostles are needful for our salvation"? What is to lay an intolerable yoke and burden upon the necks of men, if this be not? or whereby could you more directly bring us into the bondage of the law, from the which "we are made free," than by this assertion? For, if "all the commandments of God, &c. are needful for our salvation," then must we be bound, upon necessity of salvation, to observe the whole ceremonial law, which was the commandment of God.16 Whitgift himself recognizes a diversity of commandments both in the Old and in the New Laws: Some general, and given to all; other personal, and pertain only to one singular person, or to one nation and kind of people . . . some which are perpetual, and not to be omitted or altered; other which are temporal, and may be omitted or altered, as the circumstance of time, place, and persons doth require.17

The Old Law vs. the New

!25

Accordingly, w h e n C a r t w r i g h t cites as scriptural a u t h o r i t y for the election of ministers by the congregation the text N u m b e r s viii. 10., Whitgift in a m a r g i n a l note comments, " Y o u a r e driven to a strait, w h e n you a r e glad to fetch a m a n d a t u m o u t of the ceremonial l a w . " 18 After analyzing Gartwright's a r g u m e n t , W h i t g i f t informs h i m t h a t it "smelleth of J u d a i s m . " A n d he asks: " W h a t r e m a i n e t h b u t to say t h a t Christ is n o t yet come?" 19 Nevertheless, in defense of the p e r m a n e n t a u t h o r i t y of the O l d L a w , C a r t w r i g h t stoutly m a i n t a i n s : Forasmuch as we have the same laws to direct us in the service of God which they [the Hebrews] had, besides that, a noble addition of the new testament to make things more manifest, and to bring greater light unto the old testament, we have also precise direction of our religion as they had; and therefore those places of Deuteronomy stand in as great force now, touching the government of the church, as they did then. 20 R e i t e r a t i n g t h a t Christ a b r o g a t e d the O l d L a w , W h i t g i f t disputes C a r t w r i g h t ' s t r e a t m e n t of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t as a m e r e " a d d i t i o n " to t h e O l d : Where you say that "we have the same laws to direct us in the service of God that they had," if you mean the same moral laws, you say truly, but nothing to the purpose: if you mean the same ceremonial laws (which properly are said to be "laws directing them in the service of God"), then do you Judaizare, "play the Jew." And certainly I marvel what you mean by this saying, seeing that you know our external manner and kind of worshipping of God to be far distant from theirs; and our sacraments, though spiritually the same, yet both in number, form, matter, observation, and kind of signification, much differing from them, and especially seeing that their ceremonial law is utterly abolished. Neither do I well understand what your meaning is when you add, "Besides that, a noble addition of the new testament, to make things more manifest, and to bring a greater light unto the old testament." For, if you mean that the new testament is added to the ceremonial law, that cannot be so, for it is the end of the ceremonial law, and doth utterly abrogate it. Nam finis legis Christus, &c.: "Christ is the end of the law." For as well the figures, as the promises contained in the law and the prophets, are fulfilled in the new testament by the

126

The Admonition Controversy

coming of Christ; as he himself saith, Luke xxiv. If you mean that it is added to the moral law, that is also untrue; for it only explaineth it, it addeth nothing unto it. Indeed it bringeth "a great light to the old testament," because all things are there fulfilled which were prophesied of, and prefigured, in the old testament.21

Whitgift then quotes the eminent Protestant authorities Calvin and Beza to the effect that the Old Law was prescribed for the Jews alone. As if at a loss for a logical answer, Cartwright calls it a "vaine cauill/that maketh douht/whether in saying/that we haue the same lawes to direct vs in the seruice off God, which the Jewes had, I meane the Ceremoniall lawe, or no." H e likewise terms Whitgift's question about the subordination of the New Testament to the Old mere wrangling and arbitrarily insists that Calvin used the same " m a n e r of speach" as his own. 22 Finally, in comparing the relative authority of the Old Testament with the New, he declares, " T h e r e is no doctrine in the newe Testamente/which is not conteined in the olde: and there is somewhate in the olde Testamente/which is not to be found in the newe." 23 Thus he is driven to assert the superior authority of the Mosaic law. Whitgift's charge that Cartwright's "discipline" was a return to Judaism was more than just an attempt to belittle the argument of his opponent. Commenting on the Hebraism of Cartwright and his fellow-Puritans with regard to their "discipline," Pearson likewise writes as follows: It is of the greatest interest that the Puritans again look to the Hebrews for guidance on the question of punishment. Both Cartwright and Travers explicitly state that their notions of suspension and excommunication are derived from the practice of the Jewish synagogue. Whitgift denies the validity of the synagogal prototype: he points out that the synedrion was a council of civil judges and therefore cannot be taken as the model of a Puritan seigniory.24

In substituting the Mosaic for the Christian, as well as for the common law, Cartwright thus stands forth as the more reactionary of the two men. As a result of this preoccupation with the Old Law, Cartwright and his disciples became convinced that they were the

T h e Old Law vs. the New

127

"chosen people" of the N e w L a w and therefore elected by G o d to build "Jerusalem" in " E n g l a n d ' s green and pleasant l a n d . " Accordingly all persons w h o refused to subscribe to their "discipline" were outcasts like the Egyptians and the Philistines. Furthermore, as the elect of G o d , the Puritans felt it necessary in every w a y to separate themselves from the rest of society. T h i s illusion serves to explain their determination to eliminate all the old rites and ceremonies. A c c o r d i n g to Cartwright's teaching, just as G o d was careful to sever the Jews by ceremonies from other nations, particularly from the Egyptians among w h o m they lived, so " t h e religion of G o d should not only in matter and substance, but also, as far as m a y be, in form and fashion, differ from that of the idolaters, and especially the papists," with w h o m the Puritans came in contact. Indeed, he warns his readers that it is safer to " c o n f o r m " their "indifferent ceremonies" to " t h e T u r k s which are far off, than to the papists w h i c h are so n e a r . " 26 Since Cartwright thus singles out his R o m a n Catholic brethren as the special object of his hatred, a comparison between his attitude toward those clinging to the O l d Faith and that of Whitgift serves to reveal their relative tolerance. A t the time of the Admonition Controversy the position of the English Catholics was exceedingly difficult. In 1570 Pope Pius V had excommunicated the Q u e e n . His action, as Frere points out, had placed the English Catholics in the "intolerable position" of having to "choose between loyalty to the English C r o w n and loyalty to the Apostolic See." 26 T h e n , as if this dilemma were not painful enough, they were denounced by Cartwright and his fellow extremists as "idolaters." But Whitgift and the other more moderate English Protestants, including the Q u e e n , recognized that the R o m a n Catholics, after all, were Christian like themselves. 27 A s a result, Cartwright's rash sentiment that the Puritans might more safely imitate the infidel T u r k than another Christian shocks Whitgift, who, it may be noted, had no great sympathy himself for R o m a n Catholicism: 28 The Egyptian and idolatrous gentiles neither worshipped, nor pretended to worship, the God of Israel, and therefore no marvel though

128

T h e Admonition Controversy

in rites and ceremonies they were utterly severed from them; but the papists either worship, or pretend to worship, the same God which we do; and therefore there is no such cause in all points of rites and ceremonies to differ from them. Furthermore, adds Whitgift, with his customary regard for the facts: It is most untrue that God so severed his people from the Egyptians or other nations near adjoining, that they had nothing in common with them, or no ceremonies like unto theirs; for they were like in many things touching the external form. The gentiles had sacrifices; and so had they: the gentiles in worshipping their gods used external pomp of garments, of golden and silver vessels, and such like; and so did they; yea, divers learned men be of this judgment, that God did prescribe unto the Israelites that solemn manner and form of worshipping him by external rites and ceremonies shortly after their return out of Egypt, that they, being therewith not only occupied, but also delighted, should have no desire to return into Egypt, or to worship their gods whom they had seen with great solemnity of ceremonies and external rites adored. And therefore you ground your talk upon false principles, which you have not proved, but imagined. A n d for Cartwright's statement that it w o u l d be better to conform to Turkish ceremonies than to R o m a n Catholic, Whitgift administers a mild reproof: I take it to be but spoken in a heat, and that you will otherwise think when you have better considered the matter; the one being a professed enemy unto Christ, and the name of Christ, the other pretending the contrary. 29 For Whitgift himself was convinced that "some truth is taught by some papists, yea, some truth is taught b y some J e w and Turk." 30 But Cartwright had n o intention of backing down. H e m e a n t exactly w h a t he wrote, and his views were shared by his followers. H e bitterly replies: The Turkes beleue one god, and so doe we: and therefore, we differ not in al substantial pointes, from them. And althowgh popery houldeth diuers thinges, better then they: yet the Turkes hould some thinges, better than yt. . . . As for his reason, that the Turk is a professed, enemy

The Old Law vs. the New

129

vnto Christ and his name, the Pope pretending the contrary: the first is not altogither, and in al respectes, true. For the Turk, acknowledgeth our Sauior Christ a prophet, and giueth the true Christians [i.e., the Puritans] more rest vnder hym, then the papistes doe vnder them: Nether can the pretence of the name of Christ, when the effect is contrary, diminish the Popes faut: seing beside the enmity against Christ, the syn is rather increased by his hypocrisy. Howbeit, I wil not here dispute, whether the Turkes or papistes are greater enemies: yt is enowgh, that they are boeth fallen from Christ . . . in which respect, as boeth their ceremonies are to be auoided, so in that the papistes are nearer vs then the Turkes, theirs are more to be avoided, then those of the Turkes. 31 I n Cartwright's opinion, then, the " p a p i s t s " were not even Christian. Consequently, w h e n Whitgift informs the Admonitioners t h a t if a n office is "good, profitable, a n d necessary, for the maintaining of religion, learning, wise and learned m e n , " it is " n o t m a t e r i a l " that it h a p p e n e d to be invented by a pope, 3 2 Cartwright screams, "Whatsoever cometh f r o m the pope, which is antichrist, cometh first f r o m the devil." 33 Finally, he asserts that " y t can not be shewed, that euer the lordes people fetched their lawes to gouern the church by, f r o m the heathen, m u c h les f r o m the Pope, which is the head of the heathen." 34 His intense aversion for anything Catholic causes h i m to dislike even the n a m e of " p r i e s t " in the Book of C o m m o n Prayer, for it signifies " b o t h by the papists' j u d g m e n t in respect of their abominable mass, a n d also by the j u d g m e n t of the protestant in respect of the beasts which were offered in the law, a sacrificing office, which the minister of the gospel neither doth, nor can execute." 38 A t this quibble Whitgift can only smile. T o the Admonition he replies: The name of priest need not be so odious unto you as you would seem to make it. I suppose it cometh of this word presbyter, not of sacerdos; and then the matter is not great.36 A n d to Cartwright, who takes issue with his derivation of the word: I am not greatly delighted with the name, nor so desirous to maintain it; but yet a truth is to be defended. I read in the old fathers that these

130

T h e Admonition Controversy

two names sacerdos and presbyter be confounded. I see also that the learned, and the best of our English writers, such I mean as write in these our days, translate this word presbyter so; and the very word itself, as it is used in our English tongue, soundeth the word presbyter. As heretofore use hath made it to be taken for a sacrificer, so will use now alter that signification, and make it to be taken for a minister of the gospel.37 I n addition, d e n y i n g the assertion in the Admonition that the w o r d priest touching office never appears in the N e w T e s t a m e n t " u s e d in the good p a r t , " W h i t g i f t cites five examples — H e b r e w s iv. 14., 15., v. 6., A p o c a l y p s e v., and 1 Peter ii. — o f its use otherwise; then he impatiently breaks off: But what should I trouble you with a tedious heaping up of scriptures? Shew me one place in this epistle, yea, in the whole new testament, where this word "priest" is taken in evil part, touching office.38 W i t h no reference to W h i t g i f t ' s examples, C a r t w r i g h t in defense of the Admonition v a g u e l y directs the reader to the A c t s of the Apostles, w h e r e the w o r d " i s taken divers times in evil p a r t . " 39 W h i t g i f t wearily answers, " I desired to h a v e one place in all the n e w testament n a m e d u n t o m e ' w h e r e this w o r d priest is t a k e n in evil p a r t ' ; and y o u send m e over to the A c t s of the Apostles, n a m i n g neither text nor c h a p t e r . " Finally, in the Rest of the second replie, instead of n a m i n g these texts and chapters, C a r t w r i g h t incoherently bids his reader to " i u d g e " of W h i t g i f t ' s " w a n t w h i c h he vttereth in this b e h a l f . " 40 I n keeping w i t h C a r t w r i g h t ' s dislike for the w o r d priest, the authors of the Admonition c o m p a r e " k i n g H e n r y ' s priests," " k i n g E d w a r d ' s priests," a n d " q u e e n M a r y ' s priests," w h o m they call " p o p i s h mass-mongers," to " i d o l a t r o u s sacrificers or heathenish priests," and d e m a n d that they be " u t t e r l y r e m o v e d " f r o m the ministry. 4 1 W h i t g i f t , r e c o m m e n d i n g forbearance, cites the exa m p l e of Peter, w h o " f o r e s w o r e his M a s t e r Christ, w h i c h was as evil as sacrificing to idols, yet he was not p u t f r o m his apostles h i p . " B u t C a r t w r i g h t as usual rushes to the defense of the Admonition: What ought to be general if this ought not, to put the minister that hath been an idolater from his ministry? . . . I think, if so be a man

T h e Old Law vs. the New

131

had been known to be an adulterer, although he repented him, yet none that is well advised would take him into the ministry. . . . Now the sin of idolatry is greater and more detestable than any of them. 42 With a charity that would be surprising to us if we had read only Pierce's description of the man who might be on the side of the angels but who "never caught a glimpse of the shining raiment of the angel of toleration," 43 Whitgift quietly repeats: I doubt not that a whoremonger, after he hath repented him (if other things be correspondent), may be admitted to the ministry, even as well as Peter, after his denial, was admitted to be an apostle, or Paul after that he had been a persecutor. . . . True it is that idolatry is an horrible and great sin; yet doth repentance stretch unto it, which so altereth and changeth a man through the mercy of God, be he never so defiled, that it maketh him pure and clean: and shall we seclude him from ministering unto God that is pure in the sight of God? 44 In reply to this plea for tolerance Cartwright savagely asserts that a person guilty of some notorious sins should never be admitted into the ministry, or if admitted, should be deposed, for the example of Christ is not always to be followed.45 Cartwright considers the Roman Catholic laymen no better than their priests. H e classes together "papists, idolaters, and atheists, which are not only filthy, but also poisoned and venomed beasts" and casts them from his church. "But now," he says to Whitgift, "I hear you ask me, what then shall become of the papists and atheists, if you will not have them be of the church." H e then demands conformity or death: I answer, that they may be of and in the commonwealth, which neither may nor can be of nor in the church; and therefore, the church having nothing to do with such, the magistrate ought to see that they join to hear the sermons in the place where they are made, whether it be in those parishes where there is a church, and so preaching, or where else he shall think best, and cause them to be examined how they profit, and, if they profit not, to punish them; and, as their contempt groweth, so to increase the punishment, until such times as they declare manifest tokens of unrepentantness; and then, as rotten members that do not only no good nor service in the body, but also corrupt and infect others, cut them off: and, if they do profit in hearing, then to be adjoined unto that church which is next the place of their dwelling.46

132

The Admonition Controversy

A t this outline for an E l i z a b e t h a n concentration c a m p W h i t g i f t calls for scriptural authority prescribing to the magistrate h o w to deal w i t h those not in the c h u r c h and at the same time states that if " w h o r e m o n g e r s , papists, idolatrous and superstitious persons, t h o u g h they be k n o w n to be s u c h , " c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h the rest in the W o r d and sacraments, they shall be " c o u n t e d in the c h u r c h until they be orderly secluded f r o m the s a m e . " 47 A s C a r t w r i g h t ' s bloodthirsty p r o n o u n c e m e n t stands exposed in the light of W h i t g i f t ' s rebuke, w e find ourselves in full accord w i t h Pearson, w h o concedes the " p r i o r i t y and all importance of the i n w a r d r e g e n e r a t i o n " as expressed b y the P u r i t a n b u t maintains that C a r t w r i g h t ' s a r g u m e n t for it is " v i t i a t e d and d a m n e d b y its association w i t h the d e a t h p e n a l t y " for all w h o do not believe in Presbyterianism. 4 8 But t h o u g h Pearson is too honest to call C a r t w r i g h t a tolerant m a n , he attempts to exonerate the Puritan b y interpreting h i m in the light of his o w n times: He shared the principles of intolerance that were current in his time. He believed in the unity of Christ's Church and proclaimed the need of conformity to his ideals. Divergence of opinion must be severely dealt with. The death penalty must be exacted for those breaches specified in the Old Testament. The severity underlying this principle was due not to Cartwright's hard-heartedness but to his sense of duty. A non-conformist by force of circumstances, and a conformist at heart, he aimed at ascendancy for his own beloved system and not liberty of conscience for all. 49 T h e n for the purpose of mitigating the description given b y the historian Green, w h o calls C a r t w r i g h t ferocious in his intolerance, Pearson advances the plea of religious enthusiasm: We certainly do not endorse the Puritan's "bloody" tenet, but we can understand it in its setting. It represents an enthusiastic devotee of Scripture, whose conscience obliged him to accept as perpetually binding a literal interpretation of the Old Testament judicial laws. Undoubtedly, if Cartwright had had power to execute these laws he would have regarded it as his duty to put such false prophets as Roman Catholic priests to death—of course through the agency of civil authorities—not because he was a bloodthirsty man, but because he considered himself the willing servant of a God Who declared His will

T h e Old Law vs. the New

*33

in unmistakeable terms. His intolerance was equivalent to obedience to God's behest and the end of it was, not the slaughter of men, but the furtherance of God's glory. . . . Cartwright is but an example of the godly man in the sixteenth century whose lack of toleration sprang from conviction, whose readiness to persecute and inflict the death penalty was inspired by the loftiest motives and by a deep sense of duty. I n his opinion the dire duty to

put to death was expressly commanded by God Himself in His infallible Word. To refrain from the enormity was to disobey God. If therefore we differ from him let us not, like Green, regard him as an inhuman monster, but as a sincere and conscientious religious man, whose convictions were misdirected by an excusably wrong view of Scripture.50 Y e t this apology might as well be applied to the H i g h Commission and to the Inquisition. Certainly in their own eyes their "intolerance was equivalent to obedience to God's behest and the end of it was, not the slaughter of men, but the furtherance of God's glory." T h e i r " l a c k of toleration," too, "sprang from conviction," and their "readiness to persecute and inflict the death penalty" also " w a s inspired by the loftiest motives and by a deep sense of d u t y . " T h i s same apology, indeed, might serve to extenuate most forms of religious persecution actuated by a difference in dogma. By emphasizing the O l d Testament as a w a y of life at the expense of the N e w , Cartwright and his disciples became deprived of that Christian virtue of charity, without which, though we " h a v e the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge," we are nothing. Whitgift's replies to the Puritan criticism of the Established Church, on the other hand, stamp him as a just, but merciful, man. 6 1 A n d we feel compelled to ask ourselves whether, if Cartwright had been in Whitgift's place on the H i g h Commission in 1590, he would have come to the aid of his former enemy as Whitgift did. 6 2

CHAPTER

IX

The Significance of the Controversy

T h e Admonition Controversy is unique in the history of English Protestantism in that it marks the first systematic nonconformist attack on the government of the Established Church. In the furious heat of the debate between Cartwright and W h i t gift were forged both the Puritan and the Episcopalian ecclesiastical polities. T h e Admonition to the Parliament and Cartwright's three Replies contain the complete plans for the reorganization of the C h u r c h as a Presbyterian institution. Whitgift's Answere and his Defense of the Aunswere, in turn, establish the via media that has become the mark of distinction of the Anglican Church. T h e struggle between Cartwright and Whitgift, and hence between Puritanism and the episcopacy, regarding the government of the C h u r c h was no mere conflict in point of view, such as today w e find between the liberal and the conservative in politics, but actually a struggle for extermination or survival. Just as Cartwright had regarded the R o m a n Catholics as "enemies of G o d " and "worse than the T u r k s , " so his followers as a result of his writings came to regard the Episcopalians as quite as evil as the Catholics. A f t e r Cartwright's attacks, indeed, all the abuse that the nonconformists of 1566 had heaped on the R o m a n C h u r c h was directed at the English C h u r c h . T h i s change in the direction of fire of the " z e a l o u s " reformers may be illustrated b y the teachings of the two Separatists Henry Barrow and J o h n Greenwood as reported by the historian Paule. In the opinion of Barrow and Greenwood the C h u r c h of England was " n o Church, or at the least, no true C h u r c h " because its worship was " f l a t Idolatrie," because it admitted to its membership "persons vnsanctified," because its preachers had no " l a w f u l l calling," because its government was " v n g o d l y , " because no 134

T h e Significance of the Controversy

135

bishop or preacher preached Christ "sincerely and truely," and because the people did not choose their own bishop. Furthermore, these Separatists maintained that every elder, though he be no doctor or pastor, is a bishop. 1 In these assertions the echoes of Cartwright are apparent. Consolidating the earlier demands for the removal of all R o m a n Catholic elements from the C h u r c h by the substitution of the Genevan Prayer Book for the Elizabethan Book of C o m mon Prayer, Cartwright set forth the first plan for reformation according to the model of the "primitive c h u r c h " which he thought that he found in the Scriptures. H e demanded the abolition of the episcopacy and the institution of a Presbyterian system of ministers, doctors, elders, deacons, and widows, organized into synods, first on a provincial, then on a national, and finally on an international basis. T h o u g h he sought for scriptural authorization for his four orders, it seems clear that he adopted those already outlined by Calvin. A n d , like Calvin, he included the three orders of ministers, doctors, and elders, all under the general heading of elders, as distinguished from the deacons. But whereas Calvin's system was designed for a citystate only, Cartwright had visions of an English Presbyterian state church, which some day might become affiliated with the state churches of other nations. 2 A l t h o u g h his disciples repeated and intensified his demands for the extirpation of Catholicism and in general adopted his plan for government by elders, they occasionally differed from him in their definition of the ecclesiastical orders. For example, the author of the Ecclesiastics Discipline, as translated b y Cartwright, while repeating sometimes word for word Cartwright's doctrines, nevertheless presents a slightly different conception of the deacons, w h o m he divides into two groups: the distributors and the overseers. Although, as he immediately points out, only the distributors m a y properly be called deacons, the overseers, " w h o also in other places are called Elders and Governors off the c h u r c h , " 3 are likewise deacons " a p p o y n t e d to take heede off the offences that arise in the churche." 4 T h e n he immediately contradicts this definition by stating that " t h e name off Elders is no wher in the Scriptures that I can remember attributed vnto

136

The Admonition Controversy

Deacons/But only vnto Pastors/Doctors/and suche as are properly called." 5 Apparently he suffers from the common difficulty of Calvin, Gartwright, and the other advocates for a return to a "primitive church," namely, that of trying to draw a specific plan for church government from the general statements in the Scriptures. T h e next detailed exposition of Puritan doctrine, A brieje andplaine declaration, commonly known as A Learned Discourse of Ecclesiasticall Government, published in 1584, again repeats Cartwright's teachings almost verbatim. Subscribing to the four main orders as set forth by Cartwright — ministers, doctors, elders, and deacons —the author of the Learned Discourse also subdivides the order of deacons into deacons proper and into widows and, somewhat more enthusiastically than the archPuritan, recommends the retaining of widows. 6 In addition to these sober tracts, the merry pamphlets of M a r t i n Marprelate popularized Cartwright's doctrines throughout England, and then, as Pearson points out, his influence spread to Ireland, to Scotland, to Holland, and with " t h e Pilgrim Fathers and their Puritan successors" even to America. 7 T h u s he succeeded in making himself the English Calvin. T h a t he was regarded as such by the English people in general is implied in Nashe's anti-Martinist tract An Almond for a Parrot, in which Nashe attributes the rise of Martinism in particular and of Puritanism in general to " T . C . " : T.C. in C a m b r i d g e first inuented this violent innouation, w h e n as his mounting ambition w e n t through euery kinde of Ambitus, to compasse the office of the Vice-chauncelourship. But after he saw himselfe disfauourd in his first insolence, and that the suffrages of the vniuersity w o u l d not discend to his dissentious indignityes, his seditious discontent deuised the meanes to discredite that gouernement w h i c h he t h r o u g h his il behauiour might not aspire to. T h e n began his inueterat malice to vndermine the foundations o f our societies and reduce our Colledges to the schooles of the Prophets, to discard all degrees of art as antichristian, to condemne all decency in the ministery as diabolicall, and exclude all ecclesiasticall superiority forth the C h u r c h as Apocripha. N o sooner had these new fangled positions entred the tables of y o u n g students, but Singularity, the eldest childe of heresy, consulted w i t h maleconted m e l a n c h o l y h o w to b r i n g this misbegotten scisme to a mon-

The Significance of the Controversy

137

archy. To which purpose hipocriticall zeale was addrest as a pursuiuant into all places of Suff., Norff., Essex, and Midlesex, with expresse commandement from the sinod of Saints to proclaime T.C. supreme head of the Church.8 This satirical indictment summarizes Gartwright's career from his life as a professor at Cambridge to his position as leader of the nonconformists. In this miniature biographical sketch Nashe alludes to Cartwright's attacks on the universities (the reduction of our "Colledges" to "the schooles of the Prophets" and the discarding of "all degrees of art as antichristian"), 9 on the church (the condemnation of "all decency in the ministery as diabolicall" and the exclusion of "all ecclesiasticall superiority forth the Church as Apocripha"), and on the state (the proclaiming of "T.C. supreme head of the Church"). Evidently in the sixteenth century Cartwright was generally considered to be the mastermind of Puritanism. Whitgift, on the other hand, became the intellectual leader of the Episcopalians. His arguments for the Episcopacy, as set forth in the Defense, were echoed and re-echoed by Nashe and the other anti-Martinists 10 and also by the more dignified defenders of the Established Church such as Bridges, Bancroft, and Hooker. Hooker, indeed, dedicates his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity to the Archbishop and therein acknowledges his great debt to the first champion of the Church of England against the onslaught of the nonconformists. As a matter of fact, the development of Whitgift's theology from his early days at Cambridge, when as a disciple of Calvin he labored in, noted, and became well acquainted with the Institutes,n to his last years as archbishop, when, at least tacitly, he approved of Hooker's denunciation of Calvinism in the famous Preface to the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, may have been brought about by his writings against Cartwright. Though both in his Answere and in his Defense he copiously quotes Calvin and, indeed, shows quite as extensive knowledge of the Genevan theology as Cartwright, even as early as 1574 he feels free to disagree with the author of the Institutes,12 Without doubt, then, Whitgift led the Church of England back from the Calvinistic school of John Jewel, Edmund Sandys, and the earlier theolo-

138

T h e Admonition Controversy

gians who had been directly exposed to the teachings of Frankfurt and Geneva. In this movement away from Calvinism, Whitgift was able to develop a more tolerant attitude toward Rome than his predecessors who had engaged in anti-Catholic controversy, but at the same time he set up the distinctions between Anglicanism and Catholicism that still stand. This trend in his thought is even clearer in his writings against the Puritans than is his changed attitude toward Calvin. As has been pointed out,13 he was shocked that Cartwright would regard the Turks as more worthy of imitation than the Romanists, who were fellow-Christians. Unlike Cartwright, he recognized the historical continuity of the English Church. His conviction that not everything was evil under the Pope may have stimulated Hooker to compose his Learned Discourse of Justification, in which he defends the Church of Rome as a Christian church. Moreover, Whitgift's insistence upon the civil magistrate as head of the Church against Cartwright's demand that the magistrate be subservient to the presbytery is actually a definition of the Establishment. Indeed, Whitgift's theory regarding the place of the civil magistrate in church government may have evolved from his debate with Cartwright over the power of the archbishop. For when Whitgift quotes Jerome as saying that one man "should be chosen to bear rule over the rest, to whom the chief care of the church should appertain, and by whom sects and schisms should be cut off," 14 Cartwright reminds him that the same argument could be used in defense of the papacy : If it be necessary, for the keeping of unity in the church of England, that one archbishop should be primate over all, why is it not as meet that, for the keeping of the whole universal church, there should be one archbishop or bishop over all, and the like necessity of the bishop over all Christendom, as of the bishop of all England? unless peradventure it be more necessary that there should be one bishop over the universal church than over the church of England; forasmuch as it is more necessary that peace should be kept, and schisms be avoided in the universal church, than in the particular church of England.16

In the face of this logic, which Whitgift complains of as borrowed from the argument for the supremacy of the Pope but which

T h e Significance of the Controversy

139

Cartwright actually advances for doing away with the bishops altogether, Whitgift quotes Calvin to the effect that "that which is profitable in one nation cannot by any reason be extended to the whole world; for there is great difference betwixt the whole world and one nation." 16 And he asserts that whereas " a bishop of one diocese or province may have conference with his archdeacons and chancellor, and be privy to all and singular their doings," the Pope with "his cardinals, archbishops, and legates, &c.," dispersed throughout whole Christendom would lose contact with his followers.17 Thereupon Cartwright skeptically points at the close contact between Rome and the most distant Roman Catholic parish: He seemeth to haue forgotten the conference by letters/and intelligence which the Pope hath had from tyme to time/so particular/and precise off churches furtheste off him/as if he had bene in the bosome off them. . . . And if conference by mouthe be necessary Rome is not so far but as it hathe bene/so it maie be had.

Then, immediately countering Whitgift's argument that the episcopacy is needed to mend schisms that may occur in the Church, Cartwright asserts that when archbishops are fallen out, they will need a Pope to reconcile them, for a falling-out in high places is especially dangerous. 18 In order to cope with such obvious conclusions to the argument for the archbishop and the bishop, Whitgift arrives at his theory of the civil magistrate as the head of an essentially national church—a theory distasteful both to the Puritans and to the Roman Catholics, but fundamental to Anglicanism. Instead of the political expedient of substituting the civil magistrate for the Pope, Cartwright urges the establishment of his Presbyterian discipline as an antidote to "popery": Common reason also doth teach that contraries are cured by their contraries: now Christianity and antichristianity, the gospel and popery, be contraries; therefore antichristianity must be cured not by itself, but by that which is (as much as may be) contrary unto it. . . . To abolish the infection of false doctrine of the papists, it is necessary to establish a divers doctrine, and to abolish the tyranny of the popish government, necessary to plant the discipline of Christ.19

140

The Admonition Controversy

But Whitgift will not admit that everything Catholic is "antichristian," and hence contrary to the gospel: "Christianity and antichristianity, the gospel and popery," be not in all things contrary, touching outward profession; and therefore no necessity of abandoning all things from "Christianity," that was used in "antichristianity." . . . As they have some truth in doctrine, so have they some lawful kind of government, and good and godly prayers; all which, being restored to their purity, are to be retained. 20 Cartwright, of course, refuses to concede the possibility of anything good whatsoever coming from R o m e : He toucheth not the point of my reason. For the cause why, that good which is in Popery of the doctrine and discipline, can not be changed, is, for that they are perpetual commandements, in whose places, no other can come: but the ceremonies we speak of, are changeable, so that if ether better, or but as good as they can be ordeyned, yt is manifest, that, for the cause assigned, those abused in popery, owght to giue place. Again, whatsoeuer good they haue, ether in doctrine or in discipline: yt is none of theirs, but the churchis. Therefore by his answer, as no popish doctrine or discipline, is fit for the church of Christ: so are no ceremonies, being browght in by popery. 21 In short, he tells Whitgift that whatever seems to be good in Catholicism owes its goodness not to the Pope but to the church, and therefore is to be retained not because it is "popish," but because it is a "perpetual commandment." T h e rites and ceremonies condemned by the Puritans, according to Cartwright, do not belong in this category. As a final argument for abandoning all R o m a n Catholic ceremonies Cartwright appeals to philosophy: Philosophy, which is nothing else but reason, teacheth that, if a man will draw one from vice which is an extreme unto virtue which is the mean, that it is the best way to bring him as far from that vice as may be, and that it is safer and less harm for him to be led somewhat too far than he should be suffered to remain within the borders and confines of that vice wherewith he is infected. . . . I do not therefore speak as though we ought to abolish one evil and hurtful ceremony for another, but that I would shew how it is more dangerous for us that

T h e Significance of the Controversy

141

h a v e been plunged in the mire of popery to use the ceremonies of it, than of a n y other idolatrous and superstitious service of God. 2 2

In reply to this argument, which epitomizes the extremes to which the Puritans would go in their zeal to destroy R o m a n Catholicism, Whitgift first states the concept of the via media: " P h i l o s o p h y " also " t e a c h e t h " that both the extremes be vices; and therefore your rule d o t h teach that a m a n must go from one vice to another, if he will come to virtue, w h i c h is a mean; but St. Paul teacheth the contrary, saying, Non est faciendum malum, ut inde veniat bonum: " W e must not d o evil that good m a y come thereof." Wherefore, as your rule is heathenish and naught, so do y o u as naughtily follow it. Is there . . . no w a y to come from popery to the gospel, but b y confusion, and overthrow of all good order and government? 23

This association of the via media with " a l l good order and governm e n t " comprises Whitgift's idea of the C h u r c h of England as the historical English Catholic Church, retaining many R o m a n Catholic elements, but governed by the civil magistrate. T h u s ends the first Puritan Controversy. O n the one side stands Cartwright demanding that the C h u r c h of England rid itself of all remnants of R o m a n Catholicism and be reorganized according to the "order and policy" of " t h e most ancient and gospel-like church that ever was or shall b e . " 24 T h e first step in the rebuilding of this "primitive church," the specifications for w h i c h Cartwright professes to find in the Scriptures, is the substitution of the eldership, or presbytery, for the episcopacy and the civil magistrate. N e x t will follow the establishment of the orders of minister, doctor, deacon, and widow. Finally, " t h e commonwealth must be m a d e to agree with the church, and the government thereof with her government." 25 O n the other side stands Whitgift maintaining that Cartwright's two demands are "false principles and rotten pillars." 26 According to W h i t gift, the C h u r c h of the Apostles, the only "primitive c h u r c h " to be found in the N e w Testament, was suitable for the times of persecution when there was no Christian magistrate, but not for Elizabethan England. T h o u g h Cartwright's admirers in his own time and ever since have loudly proclaimed his victory, it remains for the

142

T h e Admonition Controversy

reader to examine the biblical passages from which the Puritan and his followers derive their "primitive church" and to compare Whitgift's analysis of these passages with Cartwright's defense of them. These arguments and counter-arguments have been selected and edited in Part Two entitled " T h e Primitive Church."

PART TWO

The Primitive Church An Abridgement of the Controversy

Introduction

For the student who prefers to examine the arguments of Cartwright and Whitgift in their original form I have prepared an abridgement consisting of selections from the Admonition (1572), Whitgift's Answere (1572), Cartwright's Replye (1573), Whitgift's Defense (1574), and finally Cartwright's Second replie (1575) and The rest of the second replie (1577).* Though this abridgement is considerably shorter than the three-volume edition of Whitgift's Defense made by the Parker Society, it contains relevant material from Cartwright's two later Replies, to which in brief footnotes the editor of the Parker Society volumes, the Reverend John Ayre, merely refers. Like most other scholars, Mr. Ayre probably felt that Cartwright in these two pamphlets added little or nothing to the Controversy. Yet the excerpts here presented serve to clarify Cartwright's technique and consequently are essential to this study. In assembling this original material I have aimed primarily at clarity and usefulness. In order to aid the reader in getting at the main issues, I have eliminated whatever appeared irrelevant and have arranged the arguments in as lucid a form as possible in this very involved debate where an entire ecclesiastical order may stand or fall on the interpretation of one verse of Scripture. As my guide in this delicate—I might almost say dangerous — task, I have followed the injunction set forth in the opening lines of the Admonition, that "all popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment" be replaced by "those things only which the Lord himself in his word commandeth." f Since Whit* After the name of each controversialist is placed a parenthesis indicating the text whence the excerpt is taken. For convenience the titles of these texts have been abbreviated as follows: (A) — Whitgift's Answere to a certen Libell; (D) — Whitgift's Defense of the Aunswere; (R) —Cartwright's Replye to an answere; (SR) — Cartwright's Second replie; (RSR) — Cartwright's The rest of the second replie. t See page 558. Text to which notes in Part T w o refer is identified by page and line in Notes for Part T w o . 145

146

T h e Admonition Controversy

gift at once recognized this two-fold purpose as the "chief and principal ground" of the Puritan attack, and since Cartwright tacitly concurred, it seems to present the most obvious approach to an understanding of the real differences between the Puritans and the Episcopalians. As has been pointed out, the main issue thus resolves itself into the question of the existence of a "primitive church" which has been set forth in the Scriptures to serve as a model for succeeding generations. Whitgift's contention is incontrovertible that the specifications for this "primitive church," which the Puritans wished to rebuild in England, must appear, if anywhere, in the numerous marginal references to the Bible affixed to their arguments. Accordingly, he is entirely justified in ignoring Cartwright's protests whenever one of these references is questioned and in insisting that the confutation of each is necessary in that they serve as "grounds of that Admonition and the doctrine therein contained" or, as he elsewhere puts it, in that "the quotations be the substance of that book." Convinced that "the opening of the vanity and unaptness of them is the overthrow of that book, which the common sort thought to be all scripture, and nothing else but scripture, and therefore the doctrine therein contained to be most true," he places his hope for a favorable decision upon his superior interpretation of these scriptural passages and, of course, upon his skill in demonstrating their irrelevance to Cartwright's proposed Presbyterian reform. Because of this difference of opinion regarding these references, they are set forth in full in the following abridgement as numbered inserts following the line in which the reference of the original occurs, along with as much of the context of each as is necessary for clarity, so that the reader can judge for himself their relevance or irrelevance. All material not appearing in the margins of the original texts is enclosed in brackets. In assembling this purely utilitarian study, I have made no attempt at reproducing the spelling and punctuation either of the original pamphlets or of Mr. Ayre's easily available edition of the Defense, to which, wherever possible, I have referred the reader. Nevertheless, for my own satisfaction I have checked each excerpt only to discover the meticulous accuracy of the

Introduction

147

Parker Society volumes, wherein the textual variations between the Defense, on the one hand, and the Admonition, the Answere, and the Replye, on the other, or among the various editions of each, had already been noted. T h e variations between the Parker Society edition and the originals therein reproduced are negligible and m a y possibly be attributed to variations in the several editions or printings of a particular pamphlet. T h e editions of the Admonition, for instance, markedly differ, one from another. In addition, I have attempted to clarify the obscurity of Cartwright's two later Replies, never before reprinted. T h e careless or ignorant printer of these tracts has made m a n y of Cartwright's already involved sentences almost incomprehensible. T h e socalled " D u t c h letters," or black-letter type, in w h i c h the Second replie is printed, have not lightened the task. A n d the punctuation in both pamphlets is extremely erratic. Accordingly, for the sake of consistency, I have adopted a uniform modern punctuation throughout m y study. A g a i n in order to aid the reader, instead of the text of the G e n e v a n Bible of 1560, the "Breeches" Bible, with which both Whitgift and Cartwright were familiar and which is difficult to obtain, I have followed the K i n g James version. But for the purpose of detecting any chance variation in translation that might affect either argument, I have checked with the G e n e v a n version of 1560 in the N e w Y o r k Public Library. T h i s abridgement of the Admonition Controversy, I hope, will prove helpful not only to students of the sixteenth century b u t also to all whose researches require a knowledge of the fundamental arguments of the Puritans against the C h u r c h of England and the equally fundamental Episcopalian defense.

I.

THE REMOVAL OF "ALL POPISH REMNANTS BOTH IN CEREMONIES AND REGIMENT."

A. The Book of Common Prayer in General 1 . I T S ORIGIN

CARTWRIGHT (R): Before I come to speak of prayers, I will treat of the faults that are committed almost throughout the whole liturgy and public service of the C h u r c h of England; whereof one is that which is often objected by the authors of the Admonition, that the form of it is taken from the church of antichrist, as the reading of the epistles and gospels so cut and mangled, as the most of the prayers, the manner of ministering the sacraments, of marriage, of burial, confirmation, translated as it were word for word saving that the gross errors and manifest impieties be taken away. . . . WHITGIFT (Z>): Such things as w e now use in the Book of C o m m o n Prayer, though some of them have been used in the time of papistry, were appointed in the church by godly and learned men before the Pope was antichrist or the C h u r c h of R o m e greatly corrupted. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): For the W o r d of G o d I have shewed before both by the example of the apostles conforming the gentiles unto the Jews in their ceremonies and not contrariwise the Jews to the gentiles 1 and by that the wisdom of G o d hath * ACTS xv: ig. [Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:] 20. [But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.]

149

150

The Admonition Controversy

thought it a good way to keep his people from the infection of idolatry and superstition, to sever them from idolaters by outward ceremonies, and therefore hath forbidden them to do things which are in themselves very lawful to be done. . . . Now I will add this further, that whenas the Lord was careiul to sever them by ceremonies from other nations, 2 yet was 2 LEV. xix: 27. [Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.] DEUT. xxii: 1 1 . [Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.] 12. [Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself.] LEV. xi: [no verse given], DEUT. xiv: [no verse given].

EPH. ii: 13. [But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.] 14. [For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.]

he not so careful to sever them from any as from the Egyptians

3

LEV. xviii: 3. [After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.] DEUT. xvii: 16. [But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Y e shall henceforth return no more that way.] 3

amongst whom they lived and from those nations which were next neighbours unto them because from them was the greatest fear of infection. Therefore, by this constant and perpetual wisdom which God useth to keep his people from idolatry, it followeth that the religion of God should not only in matter and substance but also, as far as may be, in form and fashion differ from that of the idolaters and especially the papists, which are round about us and amongst us. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): T h e Egyptians and idolatrous gentiles neither worshipped nor pretended to worship the God of Israel, and therefore no marvel though in rites and ceremonies they were utterly severed from them; but the papists either worship or pretend to worship the same God which we do, and therefore there is no such cause in all points of rites and ceremonies to differ from them. And it is most untrue that God so severed his

The Book of Common Prayer in General

151

people from the Egyptians or other nations near adjoining that they had nothing common with them or no ceremonies like unto theirs, for they were like in many things touching the external form. The gentiles had sacrifices, and so had they. The gentiles in worshipping their gods used external pomp of garments, of golden and silver vessels, and such like, and so did they; yea, divers learned men be of this judgment that God did prescribe unto the Israelites that solemn manner and form of worshipping him by external rites and ceremonies shortly after their return out of Egypt that they, being therewith not only occupied but also delighted, should have no desire to return into Egypt or to worship their gods whom they had seen with great solemnity of ceremonies and external rites adored. And therefore you ground your talk upon false principles which you have not proved but imagined. Now if we may have ceremonies common with them or like unto them from whom we wholly differ in matter and substance of religion, as we do from the gentiles and from the Turks, much more may we have ceremonies common with them or like unto them from whom we do not wholly differ in matter and substance but in certain material and substantial points. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): As the wisdom of God hath thought it the best way to keep his people from infection of idolatry to make them most unlike the idolaters; so hath the same wisdom of God thought good that, to keep his people in the unity of the truth, there is no better way than that they should be most like one to another and that, as much as possibly may be, they should have all the same ceremonies. And therefore St. Paul, to establish this order in the Church of Corinth that they should make their gatherings for the poor upon the first day of the sabbath (which is our Sunday), 4 allegeth this for a reason, that 4

1 COR. xvi: 1. [Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.]

he had so ordained in other churches so that, as children of one father and servants of one family, he will have all the churches not only have one diet in that they have one word but also wear, as it were, one livery in using the same ceremonies.

152

The Admonition Controversy

W H I T G I F T (D): Y o u take upon you to tell what "the wisdom of God is" without any warrant of God's word, which is presumption. . . , C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : In his answer he feareth not to say that I "speak without any warrant of God's word," as if St. Paul's authority were no word of God with him, which if I had abused, why did he not convince me. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Now they [the ministers] are bound of necessity to a prescript order of service and Book of Common Prayer . . . patched (if not altogether, yet the greatest piece) out of the Pope's portuis. . . . W H I T G I F T (J): It maketh no matter of whom it was invented, in what book it is contained so that it be good and profitable and consonant to God's Word. Well saith Ambrose . . . " A l l truth, of whomsoever it is spoken, is of the Holy Ghost." . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : If I were disposed to move questions, I could demand of him which careth not of whom he have the truth, so he have it, what our Saviour Christ meant to refuse the testimony of devils when they gave a clear testimony that he was the Son of God and the Holy One 5 and what St. Paul MARK i: [23. A n d there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,] 6

24. [Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy O n e of God.] LUKE iv: 41. [And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, T h o u art Christ the Son of God. A n d he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.]

meant to be angry and to take it so grievously that the pythoness said he and his companion were the servants of the high God, which preached unto them the way of salvation. 6 Here was truth 6

ACTS xvi:

16. [And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain

damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:] 17. [The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18. A n d this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. . . .]

The Book of Common Prayer in General

153

and yet rejected, and I would know whether M. Doctor would say that these spake by the Spirit of God. . . . W H I T G I F T (Z)): Christ liked not the truth being uttered of the devil because he spake it of an evil meaning, but he liked very well the same testimony of truth afterwards uttered by Peter sincerely, Matt, xvi., 7 Mark viii.8 Neither did he mislike 7

[MATT, xvi: 16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.]

8 [MARK viii: 29. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? A n d Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.]

the words because they were abused by the devil before. 2 . T H E PLACE FOR T H E SERVICE C A R T W R I G H T (R): There is a . . . fault which likewise appeareth almost in the whole body of this service and liturgy of England, and that is that the profit which might have come by it unto the people is not reaped; whereof the cause is for that he which readeth is not in some places heard and in the most places not understanded of the people through the distance of place between the people and the minister so that a great part of the people cannot of knowledge tell whether he hath cursed them or blessed them, whether he hath read in Latin or in English; all the which riseth upon the words of the Book of Service, which are that the minister should stand in the accustomed place; for thereupon the minister in saying morning and evening prayer sitteth in the chancel with his back to the people as though he had some secret talk with God which the people might not hear. And hereupon it is likewise that after morning prayer, for saying another number of prayers, he climbeth up to the further end of the chancel and runneth as far from the people as the wall will let him as though there were some variance between the people and the minister or as though he were afraid of some infection of plague. . . . Likewise for marriage he cometh back again into the body of the church, and for baptism unto the church-door. What comeliness, what decency, what edifying is this—decency, I say,

154

The Admonition Controversy

in running and trudging from place to place, edifying in standing in that place and after that sort where he can worst be heard and understanded? St. Luke sheweth that in the primitive church both the prayers and preachings and the whole exercise of religion was done otherwise.9 For he sheweth how St. Peter, sitting ACTS i: 15. [And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty) . . . ] 9

amongst the rest, to the end he might be the better heard rose, and not that only, but that he stood in the midst of the people that his voice might as much as might be come indifferently to all their ears and, so standing, both prayed and preached. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : No man denieth but that both praying and preaching, &c., ought to be in that place where it may be best heard of all, and therefore the book doth prudently leave it to the discretion of the bishop. But the midst is not the fittest place for that purpose. He that standeth in the midst of the church hath some behind him, some before him, and some of each side of him. Those which be behind or on the sides cannot so well hear as those that be before. . . . Wherefore in my opinion that place in the church is most fittest, both for praying and preaching, where the minister may have the people before him except the church be so great and the people so many that he cannot be heard of them; then there ought to be some regard thereof. St. Luke telleth what St. Peter did in the congregation; he doth not prescribe any general rule. Every circumstance that is told in the Scriptures is not straightway to be made an inviolable rule of all men to be followed. The place is not material so that it be such as the people may well hear and understand that which is read and preached. . . . 10 C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : The place of St. Luke is an un10 ACTS i: 15. [And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty). . . ]

changeable rule to teach that all that which is done in the church ought to be done where it may be best heard, for which cause I alleged it.

The Book of Common Prayer in General

155

3 . THE PRESCRIPT FORMS OF PRAYER ADMONITION : Then ministers were not so tied to any form of prayers invented by man, but as the Spirit moved them, so they poured forth hearty supplications to the Lord. 11 Now they 11

ROM. viii: 26. [Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we

know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.] 1 TIM. i: 2. [Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.]

are bound of necessity to a prescript order of service and Book of Common Prayer. . . . W H I T G I F T (.¡4): You quote Rom. viii. . . . This place speaketh nothing against any prescript form of prayer, for then it should disallow the Lord's Prayer; but it teacheth us that it is the Spirit of God that stirreth us up to pray and maketh us earnestly pour out our supplications unto God. And thus the Spirit worketh as well by prescript prayers as by prayers suddenly invented. The words to Timothy . . . are far-fetched and nothing to the purpose. . . . What maketh these words against any prescript form of prayers? Peradventure you would have alleged the 1. to Timo. ii. " I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, &c.," 12 which maketh directly against you. 12 [1 TIM. ii: 1. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men:

2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.] WHITGIFT

( D ) : Nothing answered to this.

a. Short Prayers C A R T W R I G H T (R): Concerning the form there is also to be misliked, a great cause whereof is the following of the form used in popery. . . . For whilst that service was set in many points as a pattern of this, it cometh to pass that, instead of such prayers as the primitive churches have used and those that be reformed now use, we have divers short cuts and shreddings, which may be better called wishes than prayers. And that no man think that this is some idle fancy and that it is no matter

156

T h e Admonition Controversy

of weight what form of prayer we use so that the prayers be good, it must be understanded that as it is not sufficient to preach the same doctrine which our Saviour Christ and his apostles have preached unless the same form of doctrine and of teaching be likewise kept, so is it not enough that the matter of our prayer be such as is in the Word of God unless that the form also be agreeable unto the forms of prayers in the Scripture. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): It is not only "an idle fancy" but an untrue surmise. For, first, which be those "prayers that the primitive church used, instead whereof we have but short cuts and shreddings"? Why do you not name them? Will you still speak without proof? Will you raise up a general slander and shew no particulars? . . . How prove you that "it is not sufficient to preach the same doctrine that our Saviour Christ and his apostles have preached unless the same form of teaching be likewise kept"? For I take that to be "an idle fancy" and utterly untrue. I am persuaded that if the same doctrine be preached, the manner and form of preaching is left for everyone to use according to the gift that God hath given unto him as he shall think it to be most expedient to edifying; but this is an old "fancy" of yours, partly grounded upon an arrogant opinion of yourself, whose manner and form of preaching you would bind all men unto, partly of emulation and envy because you have perceived other men's manner and kind of preaching to have been much better liked than yours. But, to let this pass, Christ and his apostles did not usually pray before nor after their sermons, or at the least it is not expressed in Scripture that they did; they, when they preached, did not usually take any one certain place or portion of Scripture to entreat of; and it is manifest that they used not any uniform manner of preaching, but they spake as God gave them utterance; neither did they labour or study for their sermons but preached as present occasion served; and therefore, for my part, until I hear very good reasons of this new device, I must needs account it a very fond imagination. Shew me wherein the form of our prayers doth differ from the manner and form of praying contained in the Scripture. Or

The Book of Common Prayer in General

157

shew me in the Scripture any prescript form of public and daily prayers commanded, the Lord's Prayer only excepted. Or let me understand what Scripture you can allege why in the public congregation we may not sometime pray and sometimes read the Scriptures. And what do we else in the whole order of our service? Will you still more and more utter your contempt against God, against his church, against a most pure and godly kind of public prayer and service, and that with such unreverend speeches? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And if any will say that there are short prayers found in the Acts, it may be answered that St. Luke doth not express the whole prayers at large but only set down the sums of them and their chief points. And, further, it may be answered that always those prayers were continued together and not cut off and shred into divers small pieces. W H I T G I F T (D): How know you that "St. Luke doth not express the whole prayers at large but only set down the sums of them and their chief points"? What Scripture have you that teacheth you so to think? And if this be a sufficient answer to say the "Scripture hath not expressed the whole, &c.," why is it not also a sufficient answer for me to that which followeth, that the Scripture hath not expressed any certain or determinate form of public prayer to be used in all churches (as indeed it hath not) but only in the Lord's Prayer given certain general points according to the which all our prayers must be framed? . . . Tell me, I pray you, where have you in the whole New Testament (the Lord's Prayer only excepted) any form of public prayer used in the church described?

b. The Function of the Congregation in Prayer C A R T W R I G H T (R): God hath ordained the minister to this end that as in public meetings he only is the mouth of the Lord from him to the people, even so he ought to be only the mouth of the people from them unto the Lord, and that all the people should attend to that which is said by the minister and in the end both declare their consent to that which is said and their

158

T h e Admonition Controversy

hope that it should so be and come to pass which is prayed by the word "Amen," as St. Paul declareth in the epistle to the Corinthians.13 . . . 131

COR. xiv: 16. [Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say A m e n at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not w h a t thou sayest?]

(D): Hath God ordained this? I pray you, where find you this ordinance? Sure I am that the place by you alleged doth not prove it. For although it be true that the minister is the mouth of the people to God, yet doth it not follow that he is the "only mouth of the people unto the Lord"; and although we read that the people used to give their consent unto the prayer pronounced of the minister by this word "Amen," yet if you will hereof conclude that they ought only to say "Amen" and at no time join as well in voice as in heart with the minister (which you seem to affirm in saying he is the only mouth), then besides the weakness of your conclusion the practice of the church of God will sufficiently confute you. We read that when Peter and John were let go after their examination before the priests and elders for healing the man that was lame from his mother's womb, they came to the rest of the disciples and declared to them what happened; "and when they heard that, they lift up their voices to God with one accord and said, 'Lord, thou art God, &c.' " 14 So that the minister here was not "the only mouth WHITGIFT

ACTS iv: [24. A n d when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to G o d with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art G o d , which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.]

14

of the people," but the whole company that was assembled joined together in this prayer, lifted up their voices, and spake with one accord. And surely it is not unlike that they used herein that order which you before accounted "an unprofitable wasting of time"; for seeing that this prayer was framed according to the present occasion, I am persuaded that the rest did rather repeat the words after him that conceived the prayer than that they all miraculously joined upon the sudden in one and the same form of words. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): My reason, which is "that as in the

The Book of Common Prayer in General

159

public liturgy the minister is only the mouth of God from him to the people, so he is the only mouth of the people from them unto God," he corrupteth, leaving out only in one place and taking it in the other that the strength of the argument of pairs might the less appear. . . . Then he allegeth Acts iv., that "in praying, all the apostles lifted up their voices." The Greek is "they with one accord lifted up a voice to God" not "voices," so that St. Luke noteth that there was but one "voice" amongst them all, which, because it was with consent, he doth aptly call the voice lifted up of them all and wherewith they all prayed. c. Repetition of Prayers SECOND ADMONITION : Where learned they to multiply up many prayers of one effect: so many times "Glory be to the Father," so many times "The Lord be with you," so many times "Let us pray"? Whence learned they all those needless repetitions? 16 Is it not the popish Gloria Patri? . . . Their many Pater 16

MATT, vi: 7. [But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen dd: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Gen. ver.: "For they thinke to be heard for their much babling," accompanied by the marginal note "He commandeth us to beware of muche babling & superfluous repetes.")]

nosters, why use they them? . . . WHITGIFT (^4): The text which they allege . . . Matt, vi., is wickedly wrested and corruptly alleged, for the words of Christ be not, as they translate them, "when you pray, use not vain repetitions" but "when you pray, use not much babbling," whereby not the oft repetition of good prayers but vain babbling in prayers, that is, many words without faith and the inward affection of the mind, is forbidden. Paul, 1 Thess. v., saith, "Pray continually." And Christ, Matt, vi., saith, "Pray on this manner, Our Father, &c." So that of necessity we must oftentimes repeat the Lord's Prayer, if we will believe Christ and his apostle Paul. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): Knoweth he against whom and against the excellent learning and singular piety of how many he

160

T h e Admonition Controversy

speaketh? For this is the translation of those learned and godly men which translated the Bible, which is commonly called the Geneva Bible. And is this a wicked wresting? Admit it were not translated exactly to the word of the evangelist, is it therefore a wresting and a wicked wresting? . . . W H I T G I F T (D): I do not say that so to translate the place is a wicked wresting or corrupt alleging of it, but this I say that that place is "wickedly wrested and corruptly alleged" by the Admonition to improve the oft repetition of the Lord's Prayer. Neither do I think that translation to be so apt as the other is. . . . Who can think that Christ doth here condemn long prayers or many words or the repetition of godly prayers (himself continuing in prayers a whole night in the mountain and oftentimes repeating one and the same prayer not long before he suffered his passion, Matt, xxvi., 16 and willing us to pray continually and 16 MATT, xxvi: [39. A n d he . . . prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. . . . 42. H e went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. . . . 44. A n d he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.]

not to be weary) 17 but that only he forbiddeth many words 17 LUKE xviii: [1. A n d he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.]

without faith, whether it be, as I said, by multiplying or repeating? . . . If we repeat the Lord's Prayer twenty times in half an hour, so it be done in faith and zeal, it is not this multiloquium or vain repetitions that Christ speaketh of in this place. d. The Prayer That "All Men May Be Saved" : They pray that all men may be saved. . . . {A): We do so indeed. And what can you allege why we should not so do? St. Paul, 1 Tim. ii., saith, " I exhort, ADMONITION WHITGIFT

The Book of Common Prayer in General

161

therefore, that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, & c . " And adding the reason he saith, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will that all men shall be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth." 18 T h e apostle doth 18 [i TIM. ii: r. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be m a d e for all men. . . . 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of G o d our Saviour. 4. W h o will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the k n o w l edge of the truth.]

here will us in plain words to pray for all men even that they mav be saved, for thereunto tend the words following. W H I T G I F T (D): T o this is nothing answered.

e. Responses and Private Devotions A D M O N I T I O N : In all their order of service there is no edification according to the rule of the apostle 19 but confusion. 191

COR. xiv: 16. [Else w h e n thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say A m e n at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not w h a t thou sayest?]

They toss the psalms in most places like tennis-balls. T h e people, some standing, some walking, some talking, some reading, some praying by themselves, attend not to the minister. . . . W H I T G I F T (A)\ This is a slanderous untruth, and the 1 Cor. xiv. abused to confirm it. Whatsoever St. Paul requireth in that place is used in that Book of Service; for, first, the whole service is in a tongue known, as St. Paul there requireth, that the people may understand and say " A m e n . " Then are the Scriptures read, the sacraments ministered according to Christ's own institution. Those that be godly-disposed persons know what a manifest untruth this is that you here utter.

f. The Prescript Burial Service and Other Funeral Customs A D M O N I T I O N : They appoint a prescript kind of service to bury the dead. . . . We say nothing o f . . . their strange mourning by changing their garments, which if it be not hypocritical,

162

T h e Admonition Controversy

yet it is superstitious and heathenish because it is used only of custom, nor of burial sermons . . . whereout spring m a n y abuses. . . . WHITGIFT (A): It is true that we have " a prescript kind of service to bury the dead. . . . " A n d w h a t have you in the whole Scripture against this? . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): N o w for the things w h i c h the Admonition findeth fault with and thereof bringeth reason, M . Doctor of his bare credit without any reason or Scripture or anything else commendeth them unto us and saith they be good. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : W h a t one reason is there used in the Admonition, w h a t one word of Scripture, w h a t authority of writer to improve " a prescript kind of service to bury the dead . . . " ? If there be any, rehearse it. If there be none, w h y do y o u keep your old custom of speaking untruly? . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): Forsomuch as neither the church under the L a w nor under the gospel, when it was in the greatest purity, did ever use any prescript form of service in the burial of their dead, it could not be but dangerous to take up any such custom. A n d in the time of the L a w it was not only not used but utterly forbidden. 20 . . . l ^ v . xxi: i. [And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, there shall none be defiled for the dead among his people . . . ]

20

11. [Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother.]

WHITGIFT ( D ) : Y o u have neither warrant to say that there was no such order in the apostles' time; neither, if you had any such warrant, doth it follow that it m a y not be so in our time, seeing that, in ceremonies and divers other orders and external things, we are not bound to the form and manner of the apostolical church. . . . Another argument you conclude thus . . . the Jews had no such prescript form. Be it so. But will you drive us to conform ourselves to the Jews' ceremonies? D o you think that touching the dead or being at burials will now make the minister unclean? I understand not to w h a t end you should allege any such proofs unless y o u would have us to return again to Judaism. T h i s kind

T h e Book of Common Prayer in General

163

of reasoning from the ceremonial law is not only of no force but also very dangerous, as though Christians were bound to behave themselves according to that law. . . . WHITGIFT (¿4): It is no good reason to say that because mourning apparel is only used of custom, therefore it is superstitious and heathenish. M a n y things be used of custom which be neither superstitious nor heathenish, as to receive the communion before dinner. . . . M o u r n i n g apparel is of great antiquity, as y o u know, and I think it is no matter of religion but of civility and order. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): For the mourning apparel the Admonition saith not simply it is evil because it is done of custom but proveth that it is hypocritical oftentimes for that it proceedeth not from any sadness of mind which it doth pretend but worn only of custom, there being under a mourning gown oftentimes a merry heart. A n d considering that where there is sorrow indeed for the dead, there it is very hard for a m a n to keep a measure that he do not lament too much, we ought not to use these means whereby we might be further provoked to sorrow and so go a great w a y beyond the measure which the apostle appointeth in mourning; 2 1 no more than it was well done of the Jews in 211

THESS. iv:

13. [But I w o u l d n o t h a v e y o u to b e ignorant, brethren,

c o n c e r n i n g t h e m w h i c h are asleep, t h a t y e sorrow not, even as others w h i c h h a v e no hope.]

the gospel to provoke weeping and sorrow for their dead b y some doleful noise or sound of instrument 2 2 or than it was lawful for 22

MATT, ix:

23. [ A n d w h e n Jesus c a m e into the ruler's house, a n d saw

the minstrels a n d the people m a k i n g a noise, 24. H e said u n t o t h e m , G i v e p l a c e : for t h e m a i d is not d e a d ,

but

sleepeth. A n d they l a u g h e d h i m to scorn.]

M a r y , Lazarus' sister, to go to her brother's grave, thereby to set the print of her sorrow deeper in her mind. 2 3 . . . 23

JOHN xi:

3 1 . [ T h e J e w s then w h i c h were w i t h her i n the house, a n d

comforted her, w h e n they saw M a r y , t h a t she rose u p hastily a n d w e n t out, followed her, s a y i n g , S h e g o e t h u n t o the g r a v e to w e e p there.]

WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e words of the Admonition be these: " N o r of their strange mourning by changing their garments,

164

The Admonition Controversy

which if it be not hypocritical, yet is it superstitious and heathenish because it is used only of custom." Let the reader now judge whether the Admonition doth conclude this apparel to be heathenish and superstitious only because it is used of custom or no. Truly in my simple judgment their words be plainer than that they can be excused. Your reason of hypocrisy is no more sufficient to condemn mourning apparel than it is to condemn any other civil and decent order. By the like reason I might improve your wearing of a turkey gown and a hat because that kind of apparel, being a token of such persons as mislike the gown and the square cap and pretend preciseness above the rest, is notwithstanding commonly worn of such as in other places than in London both wear and like the other and be precise neither in life nor doctrine. . . . WHITGIFT (A): But wherein have funeral sermons offended you? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): If so be that M. Doctor will say that it is good that notable and famous men should have their commendation to the end that both the goodness of God towards them might be the better known and others the sooner drawn to follow their example, I grant it is so; and the Scripture doth both approve it and sheweth what mean is best to do that by. For we read that Jeremy the prophet commended that godly and zealous prince Josias in writing verses of his death.24 He 24

11 CHRON. xxxv: 2 5 . [And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations.]

could have as easily preached, but this he thought the best way. So did also David write verses at the death of Saul and Jonathan 25 and Abner, in which he commendeth their gifts and 25

11 SAM. i: 17. [And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son.] & c .

graces which the Lord had bestowed upon them.26 . . . 26

N SAM. Hi: [32. A n d they buried Abner in Hebron: and the king lifted up his voice, and wept at the grave of Abner; and all the people wept.] 3 3 . [And the king lamented over Abner, and said, Died Abner as a fool dieth?] & c .

T h e Book of Common Prayer in General

165

"Jeremy lamented Josias' death and writ verses upon it; David also writ verses at the death of Saul . . ." and it is lawful to have "orations at the death of noble personages, &c."; therefore there may be no funeral sermons. This argument hath neither necessary nor probable conclusion, for they may both be used and be so commonly at the burial of notable personages. . . . W H I T G I F T (.¡4): Touching the place of burial, I muse what you mean to mislike of it, seeing there hath always been an appointed place for the same even from Abraham 27 to this WHITGIFT

27

(D):

[GEN. XXV: 10. T h e field which A b r a h a m purchased of the sons of H e t h :

there was A b r a h a m buried, and Sarah his wife.]

day. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): By the story of Abraham's place of burial it appeareth that the manner was that every one was buried in his own several ground, as may appear also by that that the Evangelist saith, that there was a "field bought to bury the strangers in" which had no place of their own.28 . . . 28

MATT, xxvii:

7. [And they took counsel, and bought with them the

potter's field, to bury strangers in.] W H I T G I F T ( D ) : There have been places always appointed to bury the dead in, dedicated to that use only; and therefore there may be so now; neither have you one word in any approved writer to the contrary. The convenience of the place and the pointing of it out is in the power of those that have authority and be governors of the commonwealth and church.

4.

THE

N A M E

"PRIEST"

APPLIED

TO

THE

MINISTER

A D M O N I T I O N : We speak not of the name of "priest" wherewith he defaceth the minister of Christ . . . seeing the office of priesthood is ended, Christ being the last priest that ever was. To call us therefore "priests" as touching our office is either to call back the old priesthood of the Law, which is to deny Christ to be comen or else to keep a memory of the popish priesthood

166

The Admonition Controversy

of abomination still amongst us. As for the first, it is by Christ abolished,29 and for the second, it is of antichrist, and therefore HEB. v: i. [For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. . . .] 6. [As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.] HEB. ix: 11. [But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.]

29

we have nothing to do with it. Such ought to have no place in our church.30 . . . We never read in the New Testament that EZEK. xliv: io. [And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. . . .] 12. [Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity.] 13. [And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.] JER. xxiii: [no verse given]. HEB. v: 4. [And no man taketh his honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.] 30

this word

as touching office is used in the good part. (^4): The name of priest need not be so odious unto you as you would seem to make it. I suppose it cometh of this word presbyter, not of sacerdos, and then the matter is not great. CARTWRIGHT (R): Although it will be hard for you to prove that this word priest cometh of the Greek word Trpeafinrepas, yet that is not the matter. But the case standeth in this that forsomuch as the common and usual speech of England is to note by the word priest not a minister of the gospel but a sacrificer, which the minister of the gospel is not, therefore we ought not to call the ministers of the gospel "priests." . . . WHITGIFT (D): I am not greatly delighted with the name nor so desirous to maintain it, but yet a truth is to be defended. I read in the old fathers that these two names sacerdos and presbyter be confounded. I see also that the learned and the best priest

WHITGIFT

The Book of Common Prayer in General

167

of our English writers, such I m e a n as write in these our days, translate this w o r d presbyter so; and the v e r y w o r d itself as it is used in our English tongue soundeth the w o r d presbyter. A s heretofore use h a t h m a d e it to be taken for a sacrificer, so will use n o w alter that signification and m a k e it to be taken for a m i n ister of the gospel. B u t it is mere v a n i t y to contend for the n a m e w h e n w e agree of the thing. T h e n a m e m a y be used a n d n o t used w i t h o u t a n y great offence. . . . WHITGIFT (A): It is true that the priesthood of the O l d L a w is abolished, but the place of Scripture noted in y o u r m a r gent proveth it not. For, H e b r e w s v., P a u l d o t h shew w h y the high-priest was ordained and w h a t w e r e his offices, b u t he speaketh nothing of the abolishing of the priesthood. I muse w h a t y o u m e a n thus unnecessarily to paint y o u r m a r g e n t , a n d that w i t h so little j u d g m e n t and less discretion. T h e ix. to the H e b r e w s is something to the purpose b u t needless. . . . Y o u far overshot yourself in m i n e opinion w h e n y o u set it d o w n that y o u " n e v e r read in the N e w T e s t a m e n t this w o r d priest touching office to be used in good p a r t . " W h a t say y o u to the fourth to the H e b r e w s , vers. 14.: " S e e i n g then that w e h a v e a great high-priest, w h i c h is entered into heaven, Jesus Christ, & c . " ? A n d vers. 15.: " F o r w e h a v e not a high-priest w h i c h c a n not be touched w i t h the feeling of our infirmities, but, & c . " ? 31 [HEB. iv: 14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

31

15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.]

A n d c h a p t e r v., vers. 6.: " T h o u art a priest for ever, & c . " ? 32

32

And

[HEB. V: 6. As he saith also in another place, T h o u art a priest for ever

after the order of Melchisedec.]

A p o c a l y p s e v., 3 3 1 Pet. ii.? 33

34

B u t w h a t should I trouble y o u w i t h

[REV. V: 10. A n d hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we

shall reign on the earth.] 34

[1 PET. ii: 9. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood. . . .]

a tedious h e a p i n g u p of Scriptures? S h e w m e one p l a c e in this epistle, y e a , in the w h o l e N e w T e s t a m e n t , w h e r e this word priest is taken in evil part touching office. . . .

i68

The Admonition Controversy

CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d whereas he desireth to learn w h e r e the w o r d priest is taken in evil p a r t in all the N e w T e s t a m e n t , a l t h o u g h all m e n see h o w he asketh this question of no m i n d to learn, yet if he will learn, as he saith, he shall find that in the A c t s of the Apostles it is taken divers times in evil part. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : I desired to h a v e one p l a c e in all the N e w T e s t a m e n t n a m e d unto m e " w h e r e this w o r d priest is taken in evil p a r t , " and y o u send me over to the A c t s of the Apostles, n a m i n g neither text nor chapter.

B. Specific Portions of the Book of Common Prayer 1. THE INTROIT ADMONITION : T h e y h a d no introit, for Celestinus, a P o p e , b r o u g h t it in a b o u t the y e a r 430. B u t w e h a v e b o r r o w e d a piece of one out of the M a s s Book. WHITGIFT (A): W h a t y o u understand here b y the " i n troit," certainly I k n o w not. T h e first thing t h a t w e say at the c o m m u n i o n is the L o r d ' s Prayer, w h i c h Celestinus did n o t invent, b u t Christ, M a t t , vi., nor first use in the celebration of the L o r d ' s supper, b u t the apostles, as w e read in good chronicles. 2. THE EPISTLE AND GOSPEL ADMONITION : T h e y read no fragments of the epistle and gospel; w e use both. WHITGIFT {A)\ A n d w h a t fault c a n y o u find in that? Is not the w h o l e Scripture and every piece of it profitable to edify? C a n the Scripture at any time in the open congregation be read out of season, b e i n g in a k n o w n tongue? B u t I think y o u r q u a r r e l is at reading, not against the epistle and the gospel. 3. THE NICENE CREED ADMONITION: T h e N i c e n e C r e e d was not read in their c o m m u n i o n ; w e h a v e it in ours.

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

169

W H I T G I F T (A): The Nicene Creed and every part of it is grounded upon the Word of God; it was collected by that famous Council of Nice to confound that detestable heresy of the Arians and therefore meet to be read in all Christian congregations.

4 . T H E READING O F HOMILIES INSTEAD O F P R E A C H I N G ADMONITION: In this Book also it is appointed that after the Creed, if there be no sermon, an homily must follow, either already set out or hereafter to be set out. This is scarce plain dealing that they would have us to consent unto that which we never saw and which is to be set out hereafter, we having had such cause already to distrust them by that which is already set out, being corrupt and strange, to maintain an unlearned and reading ministry. And sith it is plain that men's works ought to be kept in and nothing else but the voice of God and Holy Scriptures, in which only are contained all fulness and sufficiency to decide controversies, 35 must sound in his church, for the very N TIM. Hi: 6. [For of this sort are they w h i c h creep into houses, and lead captive silly w o m e n laden with sins, led a w a y with divers lusts . . . (This reference to verse 6. w a s apparently a typographical error in Whitgift's copy of the Admonition and w a s later corrected to verse 16.)] 16. [All Scripture is given b y inspiration of G o d , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:] 17. [ T h a t the m a n of G o d m a y be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.] 11 PET. i: 19. [We h a v e also a more sure w o r d of prophecy; whereunto ye d o well that y e take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the d a y d a w n , and the d a y star arise in y o u r hearts:] 20. [ K n o w i n g this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of a n y private interpretation.] 21. [For the prophecy c a m e not in old time b y the will of m a n : b u t holy m e n of G o d spake as they were moved by the H o l y Ghost. (Whitgift refers only to verse 20.)] ROM. i: 16. [For I a m not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the p o w e r of G o d unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the J e w first, and also to the Greek.] 1 COR. i: 18. [For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; b u t unto us w h i c h are saved it is the p o w e r of G o d . ] & c . 36

name "apocrypha" testifieth that they ought to be kept close than to be uttered. . • .

170

T h e Admonition Controversy

WHITGIFT (A): T h i s assertion, that " i n the Holy Scriptures is contained all fulness to decide controversies," if y o u mean controversies in matters of faith and in matters touching salvation, is very true; but y o u have used little discretion in quoting some places to prove the same. I find no fault with y o u for citing the sixth verse of the 11 T i m . iii. for the 16. verse; that is but a small oversight, and it m a y be in the printer. But how do y o u conclude this assertion of the words of Peter, n Epist. cap. i., verse 20.? . . . For this place only proveth that the Scriptures be not of m e n but of the Holy Ghost; it speaketh nothing of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. WHITGIFT ( D ) : N o t h i n g a n s w e r e d .

WHITGIFT (A): T h a t place also, 1 Cor. i., is not fitly applied to this purpose. T h e r e is Scripture sufficient directly to prove the sufficiency of Scripture so that y o u should not have needed to give the adversary occasion to carp at the unaptness of these places for that purpose. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): H e saith " t h e Admonition proved not the sufficiency of the Scripture by 1 Cor. i. 18. a n d R o m . i. 16. because there be manifest places for that purpose," as though it were thus to be charged if it used places w h i c h prove that, although not the fittest. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e place unto the Corinths is the same unto the Romans, and M . Doctor approving one hath no cause to find fault with the other. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : Neither of both the places doth prove directly that for the w h i c h the authors of the Admonition do use them. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e r e remaineth that I shew briefly that neither the homilies nor the A p o c r y p h a are at all to be read in the church. Wherein first it is good to consider the order w h i c h the L o r d kept with his people in times past when he commanded that no vessel nor no instrument, either besom, or flesh-hook, or pan, & c . , should come into the temple but those only which were sanctified and set apart for that use.36 A n d in 3 6 EXOD. xxx: 29. [And thou shalt sanctify them (the furnishings of the temple), that they may be most holy: whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.]

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

171

the Book of Numbers he will have no other trumpets blown to call the people together but those only which were set apart for that purpose. 37 . . . T h e Lord would by these rudiments and 37

NUM. x: [1. A n d the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,] 2. [Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou

make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps.]

pedagogy teach that he would have nothing brought into the church but that which he had appointed, no, not although they seemed in the judgment of men as good as those things which God himself had placed there. Which thing is much more to be observed in this matter, seeing that the homilies read, be they never so learned and pithy, neither the Apocrypha, are to be compared either in goodness within themselves, either in fruit or in effect towards the hearer, with the authentical Scriptures of God. Now if a man will say that the homilies do explain and lay open the Scriptures, I answer that the Word of God also is plain and easy to be understanded and such as giveth understanding to idiots and to the simple.38 And if there be hardness in them, yet the PS. xix: 7. [The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.]

38

PROV. i: [1. T h e proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel. . . .] 4. [To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.]

promise of the assistance of God's Spirit that God hath given to the reading of the Scriptures in the church, which he hath not given to homilies or to the Apocrypha, will be able to weigh with the hardness and to overcome it so that there shall easily appear greater profit to come unto the church by reading of the Scriptures than by reading of homilies. W H I T G I F T (D): All this of the "vessels of the temple, the instruments, besoms, flesh-hooks, trumpets, & c . , " is superfluous and proveth nothing except it can be shewed that the Lord hath commanded only the canonical Scriptures to be read in the church and nothing else; or that the Lord hath as particularly expressed all things to be used in the church under the gospel as he did in the temple under the Law . . . and the kind of

172

The Admonition Controversy

reasoning that you use in this and other places, upon similitudes, is not of sufficient force to prove anything, only it carrieth away the ignorant people. . . . I make this only difference betwixt homilies and sermons, that the one is pronounced within the book, the other not so. If you object and say that the preacher is directed by the Spirit of God, I will answer that the writers of homilies be so likewise. And what can you allege in this point for the one that I cannot allege for the other? The promise of the assistance of God's Spirit is as well given to him that writeth homilies and to those that hear them as it is to such as study for their sermons and such as hear them. To the Scriptures I give the chief pre-eminence, but yet both sermons and all other kinds of teaching publishing the doctrine contained in the Scriptures have their singular commodities and necessary uses in the church of God. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): He answereth that "similitudes be no sufficient proof" and that "the Lord did not command that nothing should be read in the church but canonical Scripture," not remembering that it is the Holy Ghost's, which teacheth that the tabernacle with the vessels were made according to the pattern of the church now.39 The which in the holy trumpets HEB. viii: [4. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:] 5. [Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of G o d when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.]

39

is more clearly seen, considering that the Holy Ghost commanding them to be blown by the priests alone and comparing the public teaching with the sound of them doth not obscurely declare that they were shadows thereof.40 Therefore as the trumpets NUM. x: 8. [And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations.] ISA. Iviii: 1. [Cry aloud, spare not, lift u p thy voice like a trumpet, and shew m y people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.]

40

were sanctified to the temple by the commandment of God, so to make homilies holy in God's principal and public service the like authority is required. . . .

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

173

Belike homilies and sermons are equal in all other things, yet homilies excel sermons in that they are read in the book; the other is done by lively voice. But is there no difference at all but this? First, let him understand that sermons in the church are expressly commanded of the Lord, are such as are necessary for all churches and which no one can want. As for homilies, if they were in this dearth of preaching granted convenient for our church, yet have they no commandment whereby they are made necessary and such as the church is bound unto; they also are such as either all or the most flourishing churches have not. . . . Secondly, if they were convenient, yet they might both be made and publicly read without any of those ordinary ministries which the Lord hath appointed in his Word. For a private man may write them as he may do a commentary; and if a minister make them, yet he doth not that by bond of his ministry. . . . The third difference is that where sermons are applied to the present circumstance, which by change of times, budding of new vices, rising of errors, &c., vary almost every day, this kind of interpretation, as that which is stark and annumbed, cannot pursue them. For where the preacher with his sermon is able according to the manifold windings and turnings of sin to wind and turn in with it to the end he may strike it, the homilies are not able to turn neither off the right hand nor off the left but to what quarter soever the enemies are retired it must keep the train wherein it was set of the maker. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Here cometh to be considered the practice also of the church, both before our Saviour Christ's coming and after, that when the churches met together there is nothing mentioned but the reading of the Scriptures, for so is the liturgy described in the Acts.41 . . . 41

ACTS xiii: 15. [And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.] ACTS xv: 21. [For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.]

Surely in all this there is nothing spoken against reading of homilies that may not in like manner be alW H I T G I F T (D):

174

T h e Admonition Controversy

leged against preaching of sermons and other godly exercises of interpreting the Scriptures. For if homilies interpreting the Scriptures according to the true meaning and sense of them be the "interpretations of m e n " and therefore not to be read in the church, whose interpretations shall we call sermons and other readings? T h e one as well as the other is uttered by men and b y men in that order framed. But I think that no right and true interpretation of the Scripture is to be counted man's though it be written, read, or preached by man, for the Spirit of G o d is the author of it, and m a n is but the instrument. T h e rest of your proofs taken from the use of the church (as y o u say) be all ab auctoritate negative a n d m o s t of t h e m ab auctoritate hominum,

which

kind of argument yourself have before utterly condemned. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( S R ) : W h e r e also go to the ground other absurdities laid upon this foundation as . . . that "sermons should be kept out of the church, as well as homilies, if they should be shut out because they are men's interpretation," considering that the preacher, albeit he be a man, yet in respect of his public ministry instituted and commanded of the Lord is as the angel of G o d , yea, as Christ himself, 42 which cannot be 42

GAL. iv:

14. [And m y temptation w h i c h was in m y flesh ye despised

not, nor rejected; b u t received me as an angel of G o d , even as Christ Jesus.] 11 COR. v: 20. [Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though G o d did beseech y o u b y us: w e pray y o u in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.]

said of homily readers nor makers, especially in that respect. T o that I allege of the custom of the churches before our Saviour Christ's coming and after, touching homilies not used in the church, and that in such time w h e n there was greatest use of them, he answereth that " t h e argument is of authority negat i v e l y " ; where I leave to the j u d g m e n t of the reader w h a t likelihood there is that there were any homilies read in the church when, both holy and ecclesiastical writers making mention of the form of service of G o d in the church to the least and smallest ceremonies, there is none divers one hundred years that once vouchsafeth to mention homilies-reading, which the Doctor

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

175

matcheth with preaching, the highest service of God in his church. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then feeding the flock diligently; 43 now 431

PET. v: 2. [Feed the flock of G o d w h i c h is a m o n g y o u , taking the oversight thereof, n o t b y constraint, b u t willingly; not for filthy lucre, b u t of a ready mind.]

teaching quarterly; then preaching in season and out of season;

44

44 11 TIM. iv: 2. [Preach the w o r d ; b e instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort w i t h all longsuffering and doctrine.]

now once in a month is thought sufficient; if twice, it is judged a work of supererogation. W H I T G I F T {A): These be but words of pleasure: God be thanked there be ministers, and such as you mislike of, which feed their flocks diligently and preach in time and out of time according both to St. Peter's and St. Paul's meaning. But you must understand that he doth not always feed the best nor take the greatest pains which preacheth most often, but he that preacheth most learnedly, most pithily, most orderly, most discreetly, most to edifying. It may be that he that preacheth but once in the month taketh more pains for his sermon, hath more pith and learning in his sermon, edifieth more by his sermon than you do for all your sermons, in all your sermons, or by all the sermons that you make in the whole year, be they never so many. For what is it to preach every day and to spend the time with words only or with bitter invectives against certain trifles and against superiors? Such sermons do not edify but destroy, do not work in the hearts of the hearers faith and charity but either contempt of religion or else contempt of superiors, contempt of good orders, yea, hatred, malice, undiscreet wrath coloured with a pretence of zeal. Truly such sermons seldom or never work any good effect. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Therein the Word of God is fulfilled which declareth that the talents of God's gifts and grace are increased by continual use and laying out of them and, of the other side, diminished and in the end taken quite away whenas they

176

T h e Admonition Controversy

are suffered to lie so long rusting, as it were digged in the ground.45 . . . 46

MATT, xxv: 22. [He also that had received two talents came and said, L o r d , thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.] 2 3 . [His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the j o y of thy lord.] & c . [24. T h e n he which had received one talent came and said, L o r d , I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 2 5 . A n d I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.] W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Every man shall render an account of his labour according to his talent. Wherefore you and your company, which are so greatly delighted in spreading false rumours of other men and seek to win credit unto yourselves by defaming of them, shall answer one day to God and to me for the great injury you have done me in that behalf. If it were lawful for me to boast of myself, I might justly say, and prove it, that I have preached as many sermons as the most of you. God forgive me for my boasting, but you compel me. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Some in the fulness of their blasphemy have said it, that much preaching bringeth the Word of God into contempt. . . . Paul was not so wise as these politic men when he said, "We cannot believe except we hear, and we cannot hear without a preacher." 46 . . . 46

ROM. x: 14. [How then shall they call on him in w h o m they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?] W H I T G I F T (yl): The place of St. Paul, Rom. x., by you alleged derogateth nothing from the reading of the Scriptures, and I think no learned man will deny but that faith cometh also by hearing the Scriptures read. . . . Is not the Word of God as effectual when it is read as when it is preached? Or is not reading preaching? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): The Word of God is not so effectual read as preached. For St. Paul saith that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing of the Word preached," 47 so that the

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

177

47 ROM. x: 14. [ H o w then shall they call on h i m in w h o m they h a v e not believed? and how shall they believe in h i m of w h o m they h a v e not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?]

ordinary and especial means to work faith by is preaching and not reading. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I say that St. Paul, in that chapter to the Romans, by "preaching" doth generally understand all kinds of publishing the gospel by the external voice, which comprehendeth reading as well as it doth that which you call preaching. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And to know that the Word of God preached hath more force and is more effectual than when it is read, it is to be observed whereunto the preaching is compared. It is called a lifting or heaving up of our Saviour Christ, like unto the displaying of a banner, as the serpent was lift up in the wilderness.48 . . . JOHN iii: 14. [And as Moses lifted u p the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of m a n be lifted up.] 48

W H I T G I F T (Z)): Where is there any such comparison in that third chapter of John? If you mean these words: . . . " A s Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, & c . , " 49 as you JOHN iii: 14. [And as Moses lifted u p the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of m a n be lifted up.]

49

can mean no other, then I think you were not well advised, or little cared for your credit when you abused them for this purpose to prove that the Word of God is more effectual when it is preached than when it is read. Surely, if you fetch your similitudes so far and imagine that which was never meant and make the Scripture a nose of wax as the papists do, you may conclude what you list. For how hangeth this together . . . " A s Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up that all that believe in him, & c . " ; therefore "the Word of God hath more force when it is preached than when it is read"? This gear is too profound for me. I cannot understand it except I will imagine that which is not, and it may be that you were in some other deep meditation when you wrote it and so applied this text to a wrong matter, for in that place Christ

178

The Admonition Controversy

foretelleth of his death and passion, whereof the lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness was a figure.50 And although I am not NUM. xxi: [8. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.]

60

ignorant that some do allegory upon this place, saying that Christ is lifted up by the preaching of the gospel, yet that maketh nothing against me who nowhere deny this effect of preaching. And it is a very hard collection to say, "Christ is lifted up by preaching; therefore reading letteth him lie on the ground," as though by reading the gospel Christ is not also lifted up and made manifest unto the eyes of the faithful. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where upon lifting up of our Saviour as Moses lift up the serpent 61 (following Calvin's interpretation JOHN iii: 14. [And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.]

61

which expoundeth it of the preaching of the gospel) I shewed that the Word preached being lifted up higher than when it is read is easilier seen of the eye of faith, this trifler frameth first my reason of the 13. verse whereof I make not a letter mention. Secondly, [he] bringeth another interpretation of the place I allege but answereth not Calvin's reasons, who confuteth it. Thirdly, he saith that although the interpretation be granted which I followed, yet the cause is not proved thereby for that "Christ is lifted up by simple reading," which is no sufficient answer unless he had added that it is lifted up as high. For when I affirm the Word set in a low place, I mean not that all reading simply and in itself considered is on the ground but in comparison of that when it is expounded by preaching. And if preaching do make it better understanded and easilier seen than when it is read only, which at unawares he manifestly confesseth, then it is true which I have set down, that preaching in respect of reading doth, as it were, set the Word in a more sightly, and therefore higher, place. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It is called also " a sweet savour"; 52 6211

COR. ii: [15. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.]

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

179

and therefore as the spices being brayed and punned smell sweeter and stronger than when they be whole and unbroken, so the Word by interpretation being broken and bruised carrieth a sweeter savour unto the understanding than when it is by reading given gross and whole. The same also may be said in that the preaching is called a cutting of the Word of God; 6 3 6 3 11

TIM. ii:

15. [Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman

that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.]

for as when the meat is cut and shred, it nourisheth more than when it is not so, so likewise it is in preaching and reading. W H I T G I F T (D): St. Paul, speaking of himself and of the ministers of the Word, saith thus: "For we are unto God the sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved, &c." And 11 Tim., he admonisheth Timothy "to cut the word of truth rightly," that is, prudently and according to the capacity of the hearers. What conclude you of this? Or what one word is there in either of those places that derogateth anything from reading? Do you think that the praise of preaching is the dispraise of reading, as though they were one contrary to another and not rather both of them most profitable? Is not the Word of God when it is read " a sweet savour"? Is there not prudency and discretion required in reading the Scriptures? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Unto that I allege of the savour of the Word, sweeter and more nourishable when it is brayed and cut than when it is by reading given, as it were, whole and in gross,64 touching the first he asketh "whether the Word read is 54 11

COR. ii: 16. [To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. A n d who is sufficient for these things?]

not a sweet savour"; instead that he should have said "as sweet," which he durst not. In the second, "whether there be no discretion required in reading," yes, but more in preaching.65 . . . 65

11 TIM. ii:

15. [Study to shew thyself approved unto G o d , a workman

that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.]

C A R T W R I G H T (R): St. Paul compareth the preaching unto planting and watering.66 . . . For as the husbandman receiveth 661

COR. iii: 6. [I have planted, Apollos watered; but G o d gave the increase.]

180

The Admonition Controversy

no fruit unless he both plant and water that which is planted; even so there is no salvation to be looked for where there is no preaching. And to this also may be well referred that the preaching is called of St. Luke an opening of the Scriptures, 67 whereby 67 LUKE xxiv: 32. [And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?]

it is declared that they be, as it were, shut or clasped or sealed up until such time as they be by exposition or declaration of them opened. It may be that God doth sometimes work faith by reading only, especially where preaching cannot be, and so he doth sometimes without reading by a wonderful work of his Spirit; but the ordinary ways whereby God regenerateth his children is by the Word of God which is preached. And therefore Solomon saith that "where prophecy (which is not a bare reading but an exposition and application of the Scriptures) faileth, there the people perish." 68 58

PROV. xxix: 18. [Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.]

W H I T G I F T (D): St. Paul saith, " I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase"; 6 9 ergo, "there is no salva68

1 COR. Hi: 6. [I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.]

tion without preaching." Is not this good stuff and a strong argument to build a matter of salvation upon? St. Paul there declareth that the preaching of the Word is not effectual except God give the increase and that we ought not to attribute our salvation to the ministers of the Word but only to God. He maketh no comparison betwixt reading and preaching; neither is there anything there spoken either of tilling or watering which may not also be applied to attentive and diligent reading. If your distinction of quoting Scriptures, sometimes for the matter, sometimes for the phrase, serve at any time to excuse the unskilfulness of the authors of the Admonition, it must either serve now or never; else I understand not to what purpose it can be alleged. . . .

Portions of the Book of C o m m o n Prayer

181

C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Not daring, as it seemeth, say "planting," he hath changed it whereof the question was for "tilling" belike because he remembered he had said before that "it is proper unto the apostles to plant." Where again his cause receiveth another wound: for if planting be by preaching and not by reading, then in this respect preaching is more effectual than bare reading. Then that he saith "tilling and watering may be applied to reading," he should, to maintain his cause, have said "as well" or "as much." . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Solomon saith that "where there is no vision the people decay." And most true it is. For where there is no true doctrine nor faithful ministers to preach the same, there the people must needs decay in godliness and true knowledge; but this derogateth nothing from reading. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Why doth he say "decay" and not "perish" as Salomon speaketh? Where his cause falleth flat to the ground: for if the people perish where be no preachers although there be readers and contrariwise preaching without bare reading saveth, engendereth faith, and nourisheth it, it is manifest that the Word read is not so effectual as preached and that by bare reading ordinarily there is no salvation and therefore also no faith, both which he before denied. And if the people perish without preaching, which have already been lightened by it, how much more, except the Lord work extraordinarily, must they perish that never had preaching. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Of infinite examples take one of the eunuch, which, although he had been at Jerusalem and, returning home, was reading of the prophet Esay, yet he believed not until Philip came and preached unto him.60 . . . ACTS viii: [26. A n d the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the w a y that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 60

27. A n d he arose and went: and behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority . . . 28. Was returning, prophet. . . .

and

sitting

in

his

chariot

read

Esaias

the

30. A n d Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31. A n d he said, H o w can I, except some man should guide me? A n d he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. . . .

182

T h e Admonition Controversy 35. T h e n P h i l i p o p e n e d his m o u t h , a n d b e g a n a t the same Scripture,

a n d p r e a c h e d u n t o h i m Jesus.]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : "One example of infinite" is as few as may be. But if that one make not for your purpose, then must you be fain to seek some other, seeing you have such store. The eunuch did not understand the Scripture that he read, as it appeareth in the same place of the Acts, but I speak of such as understand that which they read, and therefore this place is soon answered. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : By the Word of God it is an office of preaching; they make it an office of reading. Christ said, "Go, preach"; 61 they in mockery give them the Bible and authority 61

MATT, xxviii:

19. [ G o y e therefore, a n d t e a c h all nations, b a p t i z i n g t h e m

i n the n a m e of the F a t h e r , and of the S o n , a n d of t h e H o l y G h o s t . ] MARK xvi:

15. [ A n d h e said u n t o t h e m , G o y e into all the w o r l d , a n d

p r e a c h the gospel to e v e r y creature.]

to preach and yet suffer them not except that they have new licences. So that they make the chiefest part, preaching, but an accessory, that is, as a thing without which their office may and doth consist. In the Scriptures there is attributed unto the ministers of God the knowledge of heavenly mysteries,62 and there62

1 COR. iv: 1. [ L e t a m a n so a c c o u n t of us, as of the ministers of Christ,

a n d stewards of the mysteries of G o d . ]

fore, as the greatest token of their love, they are enjoined to feed God's lambs; 63 and yet with these such are admitted and 83

JOHN xxi:

16. [ H e saith to h i m a g a i n the second time, S i m o n , son of

J o n a s , lovest t h o u m e ? H e saith u n t o h i m , Y e a , L o r d ; t h o u knowest

that

I love thee. H e saith u n t o h i m , F e e d m y sheep. 1 7 . H e saith u n t o h i m the third time, S i m o n , son of J o n a s , lovest t h o u me? Peter w a s grieved b e c a u s e he said u n t o h i m the third t i m e , L o v e s t t h o u me? A n d he said u n t o h i m , L o r d , t h o u knowest all things; t h o u knowest t h a t I l o v e thee. Jesus saith u n t o h i m , F e e d m y sheep.]

accepted as only are bare readers, that is, able to say service and minister a sacrament. . . . W H I T G I F T (/I): You say "by the Word of God the ministry is an office of preaching," and we "make it an office of reading." . . . Christ saith to his disciples, "Go, therefore, and teach all nations, &c." What if a man should say unto you that this com-

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

183

mission was given only to the apostles? For he saith, " G o into the whole world"; whereas you teach now that no man may come into the ministry except he first have a flock, and then must he keep him with his flock and go no further. If this doctrine be true, then cannot this place serve your turn; for as the office of apostle is ceased by your doctrine, so is this commission also except you will have the one part to stand, that is, " G o and preach," and this to be abrogated, " in universum mundum" (into the whole world). . . . " I n the Scriptures (you say) there is attributed unto the ministers of God the knowledge of the heavenly mysteries," and for proof hereof you cite the 1 Corinth, iv., which is needless, for it is manifest. And yet all have not knowledge of them alike; no, there is great diversity among them touching knowledge of these mysteries, and yet he that knoweth least may be profitable in the church according to his talent. You go on and say that "therefore, as the greatest token of their love, they are enjoined to feed God's lambs"; and you allege the xxi. of John, the words of Christ to Peter, "Feed my lambs, & c . " All this is true, and feeding is not only public preaching but reading also of the Scriptures and privately exhorting and that according to the gift and grace given of God to every man. "And yet," you say, "with these such are admitted and accepted as only are bare readers, that is, only able to say service and to minister a sacrament." I say this is the fault of the man, not of the Book, for the Book alloweth none such. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): You have not anywhere answered directly to any of this. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): But where doth the Book make the ministry an office of reading only? Or what contrariety is there betwixt reading and preaching? Nay, what difference is there betwixt them? If a man should write his sermon and read it in the book to his flock, doth he not preach? Is there no sermons but such as be said without book? I think to preach the gospel is to teach and instruct the people in faith and good manners, be it by writing, reading, or speaking without book; and I am sure the Spirit of God doth work as effectually by the one of these ways as it doth by the other. . . .

184

T h e Admonition Controversy

(R): I deny that . . . he that readeth another man's sermon preacheth; and further, I say that, if there be any such, as, being able to preach for his knowledge, yet for fault either of utterance or memory cannot do it but by reading that which he hath written, it is not convenient that he should be a minister in the church. For St. Paul doth not require only that the bishop or minister should be learned in the mysteries of the gospel and such a one as is able to set down in writing in his study the sense of the Scripture but one which is "apt and fit to teach." 64 And the prophet Malachi sheweth CARTWRIGHT

641

TIM. in: 2. [A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,

vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.]

that he must have "the law," not in his papers but "in his lips," 66

MAL. ii:

66

7. [For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they

should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.]

noting thereby that it is necessary to have the gift of utterance. And Esay the prophet, saying that God had given him "the tongue of the learned," 66 doth thereby declare that it is not 66

ISA. i: 4. [The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned,

that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: H e wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.]

sufficient that he be well instructed in the mystery of salvation but that he have also the gift of utterance. W H I T G I F T (Z)): And why doth not "he which readeth another man's sermon preach" as well as he doth when he readeth his own? What if he pronounce another man's sermon in the pulpit without book, doth he not preach because it is not his own? I do not speak this to defend any such ignorant pastor that should need so to depend upon other men's labours; I do but put a case. It may be that a learned pastor having both "memory and utterance" sometime upon occasion may read a sermon. And I nothing doubt but in so doing he preacheth. And surely he shall the more readily have "the law in his lips" if he have it first "in his papers." And yet if he read, he must use his lips. Jeremy the prophet, as it appeareth in the

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

185

xxxvi. chapter, was commanded to write that which the Lord had commanded him to say to the people of Judah and of Jerusalem and to cause it to be read unto them; and so it was in the open congregation and in the house of the Lord in the hearing of all the people. 67 And so did Baruch in like manner write that JER. xxxvi: 4. [Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book. 5. And Jeremiah commanded Baruch, saying . . . 6. Therefore go thou, and read in the roll, which thou hast written from my mouth, the words of the Lord in the ears of the people in the Lord's house upon the fasting day.] 67

which he had to say to Jechonia and to all the people and read the same in the open congregation, Bar. i.,68 and surely both BAR. i: [3. And Baruch did read the wordes of this boke, that Jechonias the sonne of Joacim King of Juda might heare, & all the people that were come to heare the boke. (From the "Apocrypha" in the Gen. ver.)]

68

these books were sermons. C A R T W R I G H T (SR): T O the places proving that it is necessarily required in a minister that he should not only be sufficiently learned but have also the gift of utterance, he answereth not. Touching that the priest's lips should keep knowledge and not his papers, he answereth that " h e shall have it readier in his lips if he have it in his papers," which is not to purpose, seeing we spake of those which have it only in papers. Then he hath a childish cavil that "if he read he must use his lips," as if the prophet contented himself if the priests were able to read only and did not note thereby the aptness to teach, as by uncircumcised lips 69 is noted heaviness or unreadiness of EXOD. vi: 12. [And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?] 63

speech. That " a preacher able for utterance and learning to preach may read a sermon," if he mean privately, is not in question; if publicly, it belongeth to the question of homilies. His case of a man pronouncing another man's sermon without book, besides the fondness, is from the cause. That "the reading

186

The Admonition Controversy

of Jeremie's and Baruch's books was preaching because the books were sermons" is to dream and not to dispute. . . . W H I T G I F T (^4): Did not St. Paul preach to the Romans when he writ to therri? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): No, forsooth; his writing to the Romans was no more preaching than St. Paul's hand or his pen, which were his instruments to write with, were his tongue or his lights or any other parts which were his instruments to speak with. And St. Paul himself, writing to the Romans, putteth a difference between his writing and his preaching when although he wrote unto them, yet he excuseth himself that he could not come to preach unto them, saying that he was ready, as much as lay in him, to preach unto them.70 70

ROM. i: 15. [So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.] W H I T G I F T (D): Forsooth and I think verily that the same epistle did them more good and wrought more with them than if the self-same matter had been preached unto them and not written. And if you will but peruse the 15. and 16. verse of the xv. chapter of that epistle, I think you shall hear the apostle call this written epistle in effect preaching.71 I do not perceive 71

[ROM. XV: 15. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given me of God, 16. T h a t I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offerings up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.]

that in the first chapter of this epistle he maketh any such "difference between his writing unto them and his preaching." If you mean the 15. verse, he therein only signifieth that, so much as lieth in him, he is ready personally to preach the gospel among them as well as he doth it now by his letters; and therefore to say that this "his writing is no more preaching than his hand or his pen was his tongue or his lights" is a proper jest but not so apt for the purpose nor so fit for your person. A man's mind is commonly much better expressed by writing than by word, and that which is written continueth. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): He saith that "the reading of St.

Portions of the Book of C o m m o n Prayer

187

Paul's epistles did the Romans more good than preaching," which is contrary to St. Paul's meaning, who sheweth that he could not have the like fruit of his ministry towards them as of other nations because he was letted to come and preach unto them. 72 . . . ROM. i: 13. [Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.] N

The 15. 16. verses Rom. xv. make nothing to prove reading preaching but make rather against ,him in that the apostle, shewing that his writing to them was grounded of God's calling, sought a more general word of working for the gospel, which agreeth to any action the minister doth by reason of his ministry either in ministering the sacraments or otherwise. The difference St. Paul putteth between his preaching is apparent although the Doctor hath lost his sight. That "St. Paul meant he could not personally preach unto them" is his own addition, corrupting the mind of the apostle. For where showing that he had great desire to be personally with them, for in spirit he was not absent, he addeth for a cause that he might preach, the Doctor by this answer drowneth the effect in the cause and so maketh the apostle assign causes which cause nothing nor have anything to be referred unto. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): Was not the reading of Deuteronomy to the people a preaching? 11 Reg. xxiii. Will you so scornfully and so contemptuously speak of the reading of Scripture, being a thing so fruitful and necessary? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): "But," saith he, "was not the reading of Deuteronomy preaching?" No more than the reading of Exod. Here be good proofs. It is generally denied that reading is preaching, and M. Doctor without any proof taketh it for granted that the reading of Deuteronomy is preaching. All men see how pitiful reasons these be. W H I T G I F T (D): And why then did God by Moses, Deut. xxxi., command the priests and Levites that they should read "the words of this law before all Israel that they might hear it and learn and fear the Lord God and keep and observe all the words of the law"? 73 Why did Josiah, after he had found this

188

The Admonition Controversy

DEUT. xxxi: [io. And Moses commanded them, saying, A t the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, 11. When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.]

73

book, cause it to be read before all the people, 7 4 if reading h a d [N KINGS xxiii: 2. And the king . . . read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the Lord.]

74

not been effectual and of as great force to persuade as preaching, that is, if reading in effect had not been preaching? If the eighth chapter of N e h e m i a s be well considered and the true m e a n i n g of the 4. and

7. verses according to learned

and g o d l y

in-

terpreters weighed and pondered, this controversy will soon be at an end; and it will there appear in express words that reading is preaching. 7 5 . . . 76NEH.

viii: [1. And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street. . . and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. 2. A n d Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding. . . . 5. A n d Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up. . . . 7. Also Jeshua and Bani . . . and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.] CARTWRIGHT (SR):

T o maintain his ridiculous d e m a n d ,

" W a s not reading of D e u t . p r e a c h i n g , " he should h a v e shewed that the reading of it is rather preaching than reading of Exodus, w h i c h he d o t h not. . . . W h e r e u p o n N e h e m . viii. he would prove reading preaching, there is not a work whereon it m a y be gathered, b u t contrariwise they are manifestly distinguished in that chap. For beside reading there mentioned, he setteth forth preaching b y all these words: that the Levites caused the people to understand

the

law, g a v e the sense of the law, caused them to understand the reading. . . . WHITGIFT (A):

A c t . xv., it is thus written: " F o r Moses

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

189

of old time hath in every city them that preach him, seeing he is read in the synagogues every sabbath-day." 76 Where he also 76

[ACTS XV: 21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach

him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.]

seemeth to call reading preaching. C A R T W R I G H T (R): H e allegeth that in the xv. of the Acts St. Luke seemeth to mean by reading preaching. But what dealing is this, upon a seeming and conjecture to set down so certainly and undoubtedly that reading is preaching! A n d then there is no one letter or syllable that upholdeth any such conjecture. For St. James saith that Moses (meaning the law), read every sabbath throughout every town, in the synagogue was also preached or had those that preached it, setting forth the order which was used in all the churches amongst the people of God, that always when they met upon the sabbath-days they had the Scriptures first read and then preached of and expounded which is that the authors of the Admonition do desire. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Surely the place of itself is evident; neither can I read any interpreter that doth otherwise understand it than of reading; and the occasion of uttering these words importeth the same. For St. James doth use this for a reason why the ceremonies of the L a w could not by and by be abolished among the Jews, because Moses was of so great authority with them, being read every sabbath-day in their churches. Therefore, having the words of the Scripture with me, I must rest in my opinion until I hear some proof of authority to the contrary. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): It maketh more for the confirmation of St. James' sentence that he was both read and preached every sabbath than if he had been only read, considering that his authority was so much the deeper settled in the hearts of the Jews. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : A n d that this is not the feeding that Christ spake of, the Scriptures are plain. 77 Reading is not feeding, but 77

For reading ministers view these places:

MAL. ii: 7. [For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.]

i go

T h e Admonition Controversy

ISA. Ivi: 10. [His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.] Z E C H . xi: 15. [And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.] M A T T , xa: 1 4 . [Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.] 1 TIM. iii: [2. A bishop then must be blameless. . . .] 3. [Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. . . .] 6. [Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Tim. iii. 3. in both the Answere and the Defense but 1 Tim. iii. 6. in the Admonition)J

it is as evil as playing upon a stage, and worse too. For players yet learn their parts without book, and these a many of them can scarcely read within book. These are empty feeders, dark eyes,78 ill workmen to hasten in the Lord's harvest,79 mesM A T T , vi: 22. [The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.] 79 M A T T , ix: 38. [Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.] P H I L . iii: [no verse given]

78

sengers that cannot call,80 prophets that cannot declare the will L U K E xiv: [16. . . . A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:] 17. [And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.]

80

of the Lord,81 unsavoury salt,82 blind guides,83 sleepy watchM A T T , xxiii: 34. [Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.] 82 M A T T , v: 13. [Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.] 83 M A T T , xv: 14. [Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.]

81

men, 84 untrusty dispensers of God's secrets,86 evil dividers of 84

ISA. hi: 10. [His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.] 86 1 COR. iv: 1. [Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.] L U K E xvi: 1 . [And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.] &c.

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

191

the word,86 weak to withstand the adversary,87 not able to con88

1 1 TIM. ii: 15. [Study to shew thyself approved unto G o d , a workman

that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] 87 X I X U S

[7. F o r

a

bishop must be blameless. . . .]

9. [Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he m a y be able b y sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.]

fute,88 and to conclude, so far from making the man of God 88

11 TIM. Hi: 1 5 . [And that from a child thou hast known the H o l y Scrip-

tures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.] 16. [All Scripture is given b y inspiration of G o d , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.]

perfect to all good works that rather the quite contrary may be confirmed. W H I T G I F T ( ^ 4 ) : For reading ministers you bid us view these places. . . . The prophet Malachi . . . doth signify that the priests ought to be learned in the law and able to instruct, which no man denieth; and if there be any crept into the ministry which are not able so to do, it is to be ascribed either to the negligence of the bishop and such as have to do therein or to the necessity of the time. But here is nothing spoken against reading for anything that I can gather; and if any man should come unto me and demand of me any question touching the law of God, I think I should better satisfy him if I did read the words of the law unto him than if I should make a long tedious discourse of mine own to little or no purpose. It is the Word itself that pierceth and moveth the conscience. I speak not this against interpreting of the Scriptures or preaching, for I know they be both necessary, but against such as be enemies to the reading of them. The places in the lvi. of Esay and in the eleventh of Zachary tend to the same purpose; they all speak against ignorant, foolish, slothful governors and pastors. There is nothing in them that condemneth or disalloweth reading of the Scriptures or reading of prayers; no more is there in the fifteenth of Matthew nor 1 Tim. iii. Read the places, and you shall soon see with how little judgment they be quoted against such ministers as use to read the Scriptures and prayers to the people. If you had said,

i g2

The Admonition Controversy

"Against dumb and unlearned ministers view these places," you had said something. For reading ministers, that is, for reading the Scriptures publicly in the church by ministers, view you these places: i Tim. iv.89 . . . Luke iv.90 . . . [i TIM. iv: 13. Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.] 90 [LUKE iv: 16. And he (Christ) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, and stood up for to read.] 89

As for that which followeth, "These are empty feeders, & c . , " and the places of Scripture quoted in the margent may be aptly spoken and alleged against wicked, ignorant, and dumb pastors, not against virtuous, godly, learned preaching, or (as you term them) "reading ministers." And therefore I leave them to you and to the papists better to be considered of. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : By this Book bare reading is good tilling, 91 9 1 1 COR. Hi: 9. [For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. (For I Cor. iii: 9., as in most editions of the Admonition, Whitgift writes I Cor. iii: 5., both in the Answere and in the Defense)]

and single service-saying is excellent building, 92 and he is 921

COR. iii: g. [For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.]

shepherd good enough that can, as popish priests could, out of their portuis say fairly their divine service. Foolishly he spake when he said he must be " a p t to teach," 93 sith every man of 931

TIM. iii: 2. [A bishop then must be blameless . . . apt to teach.]

the basest sort of the people is admitted to this function of such as Jeroboam did sometimes make his priests.94 . . . Surely our 94 11

CHRON. xiii: 9. [Have ye not cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests after the manner of the nations of other lands? so that whosoever cometh to consecrate himself with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods.]

sins are grown ripe; our ignorance is equal with the ignorance of our leaders.95 W e are lost; they cannot find us.96 W e are ISA. xxiv: 2. [And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest. . . .] 5. [The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

193

they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.] 86 ZECH. xi: 1 5 . [And the Lord said unto me, T a k e unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.] 16. [For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.]

1 7 . [Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock!] & c . [Whitgift in the Answere reprints this note as Zech. xi. 1 3 . It does not appear in the Defense: see W. W., iii. 5 3 n.]

sick; they cannot heal us. We are hungry; they cannot feed us except they lead us by other men's lights and heal us by saying a prescript form of service or else feed us with homilies that are too homely to be set in place of God's Scriptures. . . . W H I T G I F T ( / I ) : Here is much ado about bare "reading and single service-saying." Belike you lack matter to make out your volume when you iterate one thing so often. I tell you again, no honest, godly, or learned man ever hitherto, did or will disallow reading of the Scriptures in the church or a prescript order of common prayers. . . . Shew any one syllable in the Scriptures to the contrary. As for your places alleged out of the 1 Corinth, iii., vers. 5., and 1 Corinth, iii., vers. 9.— the one to prove that by the Book "bare reading is good tilling," the other that by the same Book "single service-saying is excellent building, & c . " — they shew your intolerable audacity (I will term it no worse) in abusing the Scriptures. In that place to the Corinthes the apostle saith thus: "Who is Paul then, who is Apollos, but the ministers by whom ye believed, and as the Lord gave to every man?" How can you gather hereof that by the Communion Book "bare reading is good tilling," or how can you hereof conclude (that which I think you mean) that the sole and only reading of the Scriptures is not tilling or that the Scriptures may not be read in the open congregation by the minister? What sequel call you this: Paul and Apollos be "the ministers by whom you believed, as the Lord gave to every man"; therefore the reading of the Scriptures edify not, or it is not lawful for them to be read in the church by the minister? You come too soon from the university to have any great skill in logic; but belike because there is mention made of tilling in the next verse of that chapter,

194

T h e Admonition Controversy

therefore you quote it in the margent, missing only the line; for this is your usual manner, if you have but one word in a text which you use in your book, you quote the place as though it made for your purpose. This is neither plain nor wise dealing. In the ninth verse of that chapter . . . how do you apply these words? Or how do they prove that by the Book of Common Prayers "single service-saying is excellent building" and that "he is a shepherd good enough that can, as a popish priest could, out of their portuis say fairly their divine service"? Nay, how can you possibly collect anything out of this text against a prescript order and form of prayers? If you be past shame before man, yet remember that God will call you to a reckoning for thus shamefully abusing his Holy Scriptures. But now I remember this word building is in this text, and that is enough for you. . . . Your place of the n Chronicles xiii. I have . . . shewed how unaptly you use it. For Jeroboam was reproved for making such priests as were not of the tribe of Levi, to the which tribe only the priesthood was then tied; now it forceth not of what stock or tribe he is that is admitted to the ministry so that other qualities required of a minister be in him. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : All this you have left unanswered. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then as God gave utterance they preached the Word only; 97 now they read homilies, articles, injuncJOHN vi: 38. [For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.]

W

JOHN xti: 4g. [For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.] 1 COR. xi: 23. [For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, T h a t the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.]

tions, &c. W H I T G I F T ( 4 ) : Here you quote in the margent the sixth of John, verse 38. . . . Likewise the twelfth of John, verse 49. . . . And the first to the Corinthians, xi. chapter, verse 23. . . . No man denieth but that the Word of God only ought to be preached, and that as God giveth utterance. But do you mean

Portions of the B o o k of C o m m o n Prayer

195

that we may not study for our sermons or that we may speak nothing but the very text of Scripture without amplifying or expounding the same? W h e n I know your meaning herein, you shall understand more of my mind. In the meantime, this I a m sure of, that the homilies appointed to be read in the church are learned, godly, agreeable to God's Word, and more effectual to edification than a number of your sermons, which consist in words only and intreat of little else but of cap, surplice, & c . , archbishop, lord bishop, &c., the end whereof is not edification but contention. . . . (R): Y O U know they allow studying for sermons and amplifying and expounding of the Scriptures, and why then do you ask? But by this question you would have your reader think, or at the least have the authors of the Admonition in suspicion, that they liked not of study for sermons. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): I have heard some fautors of theirs earnestly reason against "studying for sermons," and it is not long since it was almost in plain terms in the pulpit preached. I think they study for their sermons, but how diligently they study, or whether they would seem to study, or no, I know not. T h e words of the Admonition are very suspicious. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : T h e n the ministers were preachers; 98 now CARTWRIGHT

98 PHIL. it: 20. [For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. . . .]

25. [Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, m y brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.] COL. i: 7. [As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ.] LUKE ix: [1. T h e n he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.] 2. [And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.]

bare readers. W H I T G I F T ( ¿ 4 ) : Y o u r places of Scripture alleged to prove that ministers were then preachers prove not that all were then preachers. T h e place in the second to the Philippians, 20. verse . . . and in the 25. verse . . . Colossians i., verse 7. . . . quorsum hac?

196

The Admonition Controversy

How prove these places that all ministers then preached? That of Luke, chapter ix., proveth as well that they cured diseases as that they preached, and therefore out of that place you might as well conclude that all ministers ought to be curers of sicknesses as well as preachers. This I write only to let you understand your vanity and ignorance in quoting so many Scriptures to so small purpose. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Ad hcec ne verbum quidem, but only to the place of the ninth of Luke, and that out of place. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But what if the estate of the church be such as you speak of, that it will scarce yield three preaching pastors and bishops in some dioceses? M a y you therefore make reading ministers? Indeed, if the apostle had made this a counsel only and no commandment, that pastors of churches should be able to teach, then your saying might have been borne. But seeing that St. Paul hath commanded expressedly that he should be "able to teach and to convince the gainsayers," 99 991

TIM. iiii 2. [A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.] TITUS i: [7. For a bishop must be blameless. . . .] 9. [Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he m a y be able b y sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.]

I would learn of you gladly what necessity there is which can cause a man to break the moral law of God to bring in a tradition of man. Y o u may as well break any other commandment of God for necessity's sake as break this, being comprehended in the first table. And to say that these that can only read must be tolerated in the church as ministers is to say because you can have no pastors in the churches, you will have idols; for so will I not doubt to call them although, through ignorance of that which they do, some may be good men, but yet in respect of the place that they occupy they are idols, for they stand for that and make shew of that which they are not; and admit you them as often as you will, the Lord pronounceth that they shall be no ministers to him, which have no knowledge. 100 . . . HOS. iv: 6. [ M y people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be

100

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

197

no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (In the first edition of his Replye Cartwright referred the reader to "Osee vi." and gave no verse, but in the second edition he corrected this reference to "Osee iv. 6.")] WHITGIFT ( D ) : St. Paul, I Tim. iii. and Tit. i., sheweth what qualities a bishop or a pastor ought to have; but he doth not say that, if none can be found, or not a sufficient number, in whom all these qualities do concur, that then the church shall rather be destitute of ministers than have such. For there were in his time that swerved from this rule, and yet was he glad they preached. . . . There is nothing in that sixth of Osee that serveth your turn. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR.): This being a general rule, he ought to have shewed where the Lord giveth leave to take unteaching ministers contrary unto the tenor of this commandment, which he is never able to do. For the Scripture commanding the pastors should be able to teach and convince doth forthwith shut out all other, it being a general rule that it both commandeth the contrary of that it forbiddeth and forbiddeth the contrary of that it commandeth. . . . And the Doctor may as well say that in default of sober, chaste, and quiet pastors they may choose drunkards, whoremongers, swashbucklers as that in default of a teaching pastor they may take unteaching. Yea, rather may he say the one than the other, considering that sobriety, chastity, and quietness are common with him to all Christians but ability to teach and confute are his proper duties. . . . The place of Osea, which rejecteth from the ministry those that have not knowledge of the law, because it failed a little in the quotation he hath let quietly go by. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R ) : I do not use to maintain the places which are quoted, although they be truly alleged, for the causes which I have before mentioned; but yet I cannot but speak of this place of St. Luke for fear of the danger that may ensue. For if this be a good reason, that the place of St. Luke may not be used to prove that preaching is perpetually annexed to the ministry because in the same place is made mention of curing

198

T h e Admonition Controversy

of diseases 101 which is but a temporal thing and followed the LUKE ix: [1. Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.] 2. [And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. 3. And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.]

101

ministry but for a time, then the commandment of St. James that the elders of the church should pray for those that are sick 102 is now no commandment because putting on of hands JAS. 14. [Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.] 102

and anointing of them that they might recover their health hath no place. And by this means you will pull from us as many places of the New Testament as you did before of the Old. WHITGIFT ( D ) : Y o u would no doubt "maintain" all "their places" if you could; for the quotations be the substance of that book and the thing that most persuaded the reader which credited all things there written without examination and thought it must of necessity be true, being so confirmed by the Scriptures. And surely you could not have greatlier condemned the authors of that Admonition than in suffering so many quotations of theirs to pass without defence. For what wickedness can there be greater than to abuse the Scriptures in maintaining of sects and errors? T h e place of Luke is not answered. T h e words of the text be these: " A n d he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to cure the sick, & c . " 103 No man living can conclude of this LUKE ix: 2. [And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.] 103

place the one more than he can do the other, and your words be but your own. There be other places a number that be more general than this to prove preaching by. This was peculiar and proper to the disciples, as the whole circumstances of the place declare, for they are also commanded " t o take nothing with

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer them in their journey, neither staves, &c."

104

199

To preach is per-

104

[LUKE ix: 3. A n d he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.]

petual, but it cannot be gathered of this place that none ought to be admitted into the ministry but such as can preach because it was peculiarly spoken to the apostles, as the other circumstances do prove. The commandment of St. James is general; for he telleth what all sick men ought to do, and the ministers likewise that resort to the sick; and therefore though the anointing with oil, which was a sign of the gift of healing, be taken away because the gift is ceased, yet doth praying remain still and is perpetual and not only proper to some ministers of the church but common to all. Wherefore the places be not like, the one being spoken peculiarly to the disciples, the other generally to all ministers. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): His answer to the place of St. James is frivolous. . . . The place of St. James did fully confute his answer, considering that the anointing of the sick coupled with prayer by the elders of the church being temporal, the other notwithstanding is perpetual.105 And this shift that "that place 106

JAS. v: 14. [Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.]

was spoken of all ministers and the other of St. Luke of the twelve only" will not cover his shame.106 For what will he say 106

LUKE ix: 2. [And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.]

unto the rules given at the same time, that they should be simple in their ministry as doves, wise as serpents, take heed of men? 107 107

MATT, x: 16. [Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.] 1 7 . [But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues.]

Are they not spoken to the ministers now because they were spoken then to the twelve only? What unto that our Saviour

200

The Admonition Controversy

Christ commanded to go into all the world, teaching and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? 108 108

MATT, xxviii: 19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.]

Which place shaketh him out of both his rags, for that was spoken to the eleven apostles only, and the commandment of going into all the world was temporal. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : In the old time the Word was preached before they [the sacraments] were ministered; 109 now it is sup109

MATT. iii: 1. [In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea. (For Matt, iii.i., as in the Admonition, Whitgift has Matt. iii. 12.)]

posed to be sufficient if it be read. . . . W H I T G I F T (^4): To prove that the Word was preached before the sacraments were ministered, you allege the third of Matthew, vers. 12.110 . . . I understand not how you can of this 110

[MATT, iii: 12. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.]

place conclude that there must be of necessity preaching and not reading before the administration of the sacraments. If you say John preached unto such as came unto his baptism and read not unto them, therefore of necessity there must be preaching and not reading, I deny the argument; for it is a common rule that we may not conclude a general doctrine of a singular and particular example, and I am sure it is against all rule of logic. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): That which John did in that point he did it not as a singular person . . . but as the minister of the gospel, and therefore it appertaineth as well to all other ministers as unto him. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is an undoubted rule in the Scriptures that a general doctrine may not be concluded of particular examples except the same examples be according to some general rule or commandment. The apostles, in that they were ministers of the Word, preached in all places, cured diseases, wrought miracles, &c.

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

201

But it doth not therefore follow that all other ministers must do so likewise. Howbeit, if the case were now with other ministers of the gospel as it was then with John, that is, if they had to baptize only men of years and discretion and such as believed not in Christ as J o h n had, then it were most necessary that they should preach before they did baptize. But seeing the case is clean altered and there is now no occasion to minister the sacrament of baptism to any but to y o u n g infants that understand not the W o r d preached, I cannot perceive how that example of J o h n can be aptly applied; for he preached to such as were yet to be baptized. But the reader m a y note that y o u are content to pass over the unapt allegation of the Scripture used by the authors of the Admonition in this place. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): T h a t the apostles preached the W o r d they did it in that they were ministers of the W o r d , but that they preached in all places and joined therewith miracles they did it not as ministers of the W o r d but as such ministers, that is to say, extraordinary and apostles. . . . H e ought to understand that albeit the baptism be administered unto infants, which have no use of preaching, yet forsomuch as the knowledge of that ministry necessarily pertaineth to the whole assembly and particularly to those w h i c h undertake the bringing up of the infants, the necessity of preaching before the sacrament doth remain. . . . WHITGIFT (A): But how if it m a y be proved that J o h n did baptize some without preaching unto them? In that third chap, of M a t t h e w , vers. 5. and 6., w e read that " a l l Jerusalem and all J u d e a and all the region round about J o r d a n went o u t " to be baptized of him and that they " w e r e baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins"; 111 but we read not that he did 111

[MATT, iii: 5. T h e n went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all

the region round about Jordan. 6. A n d were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.]

immediately before preach unto them. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): St. M a t t h e w , after that he had shewed that he preached repentance (which the other evangelists call the "ba!ptism of repentance"), he addeth that then the people

202

T h e Admonition Controversy

were baptized of him, which also may appear by the xix. of the Acts, verse 5. 112 . . . ACTS xix: [2. He (Paul) said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.] 5. [When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.] 112

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I doubt not but that John preached unto them oftener than once or twice before he did baptize them, for else should he have baptized them being infidels; but it may well be gathered by those places of St. Matthew that he did not immediately preach unto them before baptism, which is that that I affirm. For the authors of the Admonition seem to condemn the administration of our sacraments because the Word is not always preached immediately before they be ministered.

I understand not how you can gather any such order out of that xix. of Acts, verse 5., except you call questioning preaching. For St. Paul there doth question with them, asking them whether they had received the Holy Ghost or no and unto what they were baptized; there is no mention of any sermon preached for anything that I can espy. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): St. Paul, meaning to refer the gifts of the Holy Ghost which the twelve disciples at Ephesus were to receive by putting on of hands unto the performance of the truth of the promise figured by baptism 113 and so to join the ACTS i: 5. [For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.]

113

sign with the thing signified, in the fourth verse sheweth how John preached that his disciples should believe in Jesus Christ which came after him. 114 After, in the fifth verse, he sheweth that ACTS xix: 4. [Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.] 114

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

203

those disciples of John and not, as is commonly supposed, those twelve disciples of Ephesus, having heard John's preaching and not (as is also supposed) Paul's, were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.116 . . . 116

ACTS xix: 5. [ W h e n t h e y heard this, they w e r e b a p t i z e d in the n a m e of

the L o r d Jesus.]

And, verses 1 3 . , 1 4 . , 1 5 . , it is manifest that he did baptize Christ without preaching. 116 . . . WHITGIFT (A):

116

[MATT. iii:

13. T h e n c o m e t h Jesus f r o m G a l i l e e to J o r d a n u n t o J o h n ,

to b e b a p t i z e d of h i m . 14. B u t J o h n f o r b a d h i m , s a y i n g I h a v e need to be b a p t i z e d of thee, a n d comest t h o u to m e ? 15. A n d Jesus answering said u n t o h i m , S u f f e r it to be so n o w : for thus it b e c o m e t h us to fulfil all righteousness. T h e n h e suffered h i m . ]

C A R T W R I G H T (R): And whereas you say that it is manifest that our Saviour Christ was baptized without preaching, I would know of you what one word doth declare that, whenas the contrary rather doth appear in St. Luke, which seemeth to note plainly that our Saviour Christ was baptized when the people were baptized. 117 But the people . . . were baptized immediately 117

LUKE iii: 2 1 . [ N o w w h e n all the people w e r e b a p t i z e d , it c a m e to pass

t h a t Jesus also b e i n g b a p t i z e d , a n d p r a y i n g , the h e a v e n w a s o p e n e d . ]

after they heard John preach; therefore it is like that our Saviour Christ was baptized after that he had heard John preach. And it is very probable that our Saviour Christ, which did honour the ministry of God by the hand of men so far as he would vouchsafe to be baptized of John, would not neglect or pass by his ministry of the Word, being more precious than that of the sacrament, as it appeareth by John that our Saviour Christ was present at his sermons, forsomuch as St. John doth, as he was preaching to the people, point him out with the finger and told them that he was in the midst of them which was greater than he. 118 118

JOHN i: 26. [John answered t h e m , saying, I b a p t i z e w i t h w a t e r : b u t

there standeth one a m o n g y o u , w h o m y e k n o w not.]

First, St. Matthew maketh no mention of it; neither can it be gathered by any circumstance of the place. WHITGIFT (D):

204

T h e Admonition Controversy

Secondly, L u k e doth not say that J o h n preached immediately before he baptized. But the contrary rather appeareth if St. L u k e write the story orderly. Thirdly, to w h a t purpose should he preach to Christ before he baptized him? Lastly, in the first of J o h n there is not one sentence to prove that Christ was present at any of John's sermons; for those words, " B u t there standeth one a m o n g y o u w h o m y o u know not, & c . , " do not signify that he was in that company at that present sed quod inter eos versabatur (that he was conversant amongst them). B u t if he had been present, doth it therefore follow that the sacraments m a y not be ministered without preaching? . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): W h e r e it being most boldly affirmed of the Doctor that " i t is manifest that our Saviour Christ was baptized without preaching," he ought to have shewed it by manifest reasons. H e not only set d o w n no reason but against the reasons I alleged opposeth his naked saying. For that " t h a t St. L u k e hath not that St. J o h n preached immediately before he b a p t i z e d " is unworthy of answer, as if the order of the story could not shew that without the word immediately or as if nothing might be said done immediately after another but where some such precise note of time is added. T h a t he saith " h e knoweth no purpose w h y our Saviour Christ should be at John's sermon," it was answered that he vouchsafing to be baptized of J o h n it was probable that he would honour the ministry of the W o r d with his presence, which he passeth with silence. Beside that he must learn that our Saviour Christ, growing in wisdom and stature until the time of his baptism w h e n he received the H o l y Ghost without measure, no more neglected the ordinary means of G o d whereby he received his increase of wisdom than the ordinary nourishment whereby he grew in stature. 119 . . . LW LUKE ii: 52. [And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.]

CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d this order of preaching immediately before the ministering of the sacraments is continually noted of St. L u k e throughout the whole story of the Acts of the Apostles. 120 ACTS ii: [no verse given]. ACTS viii: 12. [But when they believed Philip preaching the things con120

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

205

cerning the k i n g d o m of G o d , and the n a m e of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both m e n and w o m e n . . . .] 38. [And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they w e n t d o w n both into the water, both Philip and the e u n u c h ; and he baptized him.] ACTS ix: 17. [And A n a n i a s w e n t his w a y , and entered into the house; and putting his hands on h i m said, Brother Saul, the L o r d , even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the w a y as thou earnest, h a t h sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the H o l y Ghost.] 18. [And immediately there fell f r o m his eyes as it had been scales: a n d he received sight forthwith, and arose, and w a s baptized.] ACTS x: 34. [Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, O f a truth I perceive t h a t G o d is no respecter of persons.] ACTS xvi: [14. A n d a certain w o m a n named L y d i a , a seller of purple, of the city of T h y a t i r a , w h i c h worshipped G o d , heard us: whose heart the L o r d opened, that she attended unto the things w h i c h were spoken of Paul.] 15. [And w h e n she w a s baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If y e h a v e j u d g e d me to be faithful to the L o r d , come into m y house and abide there. A n d she constrained us. . . . 32. A n d they (Paul and Silas) spake unto him (the jailor) the word of the L o r d , and to all that were in his house.] 33. [And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and w a s baptized, he and all his, straightway.] ACTS xx: 7. [And u p o n the first d a y of the week, w h e n the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the m o r r o w ; and continued his speech until midnight.] W H I T G I F T (D): It is not denied but that men must first be converted to Christ by preaching of the Word before the sacraments be ministered unto them, and thereunto tend all those places of the Acts which be noted in the margent. But our question is whether preaching be so necessarily joined with the administration of the sacraments that neither the faithful which well understand the use of them, neither infants whose capacity will not serve to learn, may be made partakers of the sacraments without a sermon preached before.

5.

THE

"COMMUNICATION

OF

SINNERS"

ADMONITION: There was then accustomed to be an examination of the communicants, which now is neglected. W H I T G I F T (A): How prove you that there was then any examination of communicants? If there had been either commandment or example for it in Scriptures, I am sure you would

206

T h e Admonition Controversy

not have left it unquoted in the margent. St. Paul saith, i Cor. xi. . . . " L e t a man examine himself, & c . " 121 But he speaketh 1211

COR. xi: [28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that

bread, and drink of that cup.]

of no other examination; wherefore this reason of yours is altogether frivolous and without reason. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): M . Doctor asketh how it is proved that there was any examination of the communicants. After this sort: all things necessary were used in the churches of God in the apostles' times; but examination of those whose knowledge of the mystery of the gospel was not known or doubted of was a necessary thing; therefore it was used in the churches of God which were in the apostles' time. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I deny your minor: first, because no such at that time would offer themselves to receive the communion; secondly, because if any such did offer themselves, not being known, the fault is particular to themselves and toucheth them only, not the whole church; thirdly, because if it had been so necessary a thing, St. Paul would not have omitted it, especially when he had an especial cause to speak of it as he had when he spake of private examination of a man's self, 1 Cor. xi. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : In the Second Book of the Chronicles he might have read that the Levites were there commanded to prepare the people unto the receiving of the passover, 122 in place M

N CHRON. xxxv: 6. [So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and

prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses.]

whereof we have the Lord's supper. Now, examination being a part of the preparation, it followeth that there is commandment of examination. W H I T G I F T ( Z ) ) : Y o u bewray the weakness of your cause too much when you are constrained to run so far for a precept to prove the examination of communicants to be commanded and especially when you are compelled for want of other to bring out ceremonial precepts long ago abrogated. This boldness of yours is so by custom confirmed that now without blush-

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

207

ing it dare abuse any Scripture, yea, even touching the ceremonies of the Law, to prove any device of your own. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : Against that alleged of the commandment to the Levites to prepare the people to the receiving of the passover,123 which was the same with them that the holy 123 11

CHRON. xxxv:

6. [So kill the passover, and sanctify yourselves, and

prepare your brethren, that they may do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses.]

supper is with us, he excepteth, and that confidently and with reproaches, that "it is abrogated." Whose shameful dealing herein let all the world judge of, considering that by how much our sacrament is excellenter than theirs, by so much ought there to be greater care and diligence in preparing the people thereto. . . . W H I T G I F T (Z)): But what if that commandment signify no such thing? From whence then will you fetch your proof? The words of Josiah to the Levites . . . be these: "So kill the passover and sanctify yourselves and prepare your brethren that they may do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses." What one word of examining other is there in this commandment? . . . And manifest it is that neither the priests nor the Levites did ever use any such kind of examination before the eating of the passover as you would insinuate, and therefore as yet you are utterly destitute of a commandment. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : After he excepteth that "the text is that they should prepare, not examine," which is frivolous and prevented in that I added that examination is a part of preparation so that he that commandeth the whole must needs do the part. Whereunto he answereth not but affirmeth "it manifest that the Levites used no such examination," of which "manifestness" there is not a letter in the text. The contrary by all likelihood is to be intended, considering that divers of the people, newcome out of ignorance and idolatry, had need of particular trial. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : They shut men by reason of their sins from the Lord's supper; 124 we thrust them in their sin to the Lord's 124 1 COR. v: 11. [But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an

208

The Admonition Controversy

idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.]

supper. The place that you allege out of the fifth chapter of the First to the Corinthians . . . doth not particularly touch the secluding of men by reason of their sins from the communion but generally prohibiteth true Christians to have any familiarity or friendship with any such notorious offender. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): If the place of the v. to the Corinth, do forbid that we should have any familiarity with notorious offenders, it doth much more forbid that they should be received to the communion. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I will answer you as M . Calvin answered the anabaptists, objecting the same place of St. Paul . . . "But, whereas," saith he, "Paul doth forbid to eat with those that live dissolutely, that pertaineth to private conversation, not to the public communion. But some will say, 'If it be not lawful for a Christian man to keep company with him that is wicked for corporal meat, much less may he receive with them the Lord's bread.' I answer that it is in our power whether we will be familiarly conversant with the wicked or no and therefore everyone ought to fly from them. But it is not so in our power to receive the communion or not to receive it; therefore the reason is not all one." W H I T G I F T {A):

6.

THE

ADMINISTRATION

OF

THE

SACRAMENTS

a. The Communion: The Wafer, Kneeling, and the Words "Take Thou and Eat Thou" Then they ministered with common and now with wafer-cakes brought in by Pope

ADMONITION:

usual bread;

125

ACTS ii: [42. A n d they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. . . .] 125

46. [And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.] ACTS XX: 7. [And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.]

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

209

A l e x a n d e r , b e i n g in form, fashion, a n d substance like their G o d of the altar. WHITGIFT (A): T h e place y o u allege, A c t s ii. . . . m a k e t h as m u c h for y o u r purpose as it m a k e t h for the papists' half c o m m u n i o n , for they allege it to prove that the supper m a y be ministered w i t h b r e a d only. . . . It d o t h not necessarily prove that the sacrament w a s then ministered in c o m m o n and usual bread, for there is no mention m a d e of the kind of bread. T h e place alleged out of the twentieth of the A c t s speaketh of bread but not of a n y one certain kind of bread. . . . A l e x a n d e r lived anno 1 1 1 . , and was a good and g o d l y bishop. It is reported in some writers that he appointed unleavened bread to be used in the eucharist because that Christ himself used the same a c c o r d i n g to the l a w written E x o d . xii., 1 2 6 D e u t . 126

[EXOD. xii:

15. S e v e n d a y s shall y e eat u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d ; e v e n the first

d a y y e shall p u t a w a y l e a v e n o u t of y o u r houses: for whosoever eateth l e a v e n e d bread f r o m the first d a y until the seventh d a y , t h a t soul shall be c u t off f r o m Israel.]

xvi. 1 2 7 B u t that he b r o u g h t in wafer-cakes or appointed 127

[DEUT. xvi:

any

8. S i x d a y s t h o u shalt eat u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d : and on the

seventh d a y shall b e a solemn assembly to the L o r d t h y G o d : t h o u shalt d o n o work therein.]

certain f o r m of bread, y o u cannot p r o v e ; neither d o t h a n y credible author write it. WHITGIFT ( D ) : T o all this there is not one w o r d answered. . . . ADMONITION: T h e y received it sitting; 128

MATT, xxvi:

128

w e kneeling,

20. [ N o w w h e n the even w a s come, he sat d o w n w i t h the

twelve.] MARK xiv:

18. [ A n d as t h e y sat a n d did eat, Jesus said, V e r i l y I say u n t o

y o u , O n e of y o u w h i c h eateth w i t h m e shall b e t r a y me.] LUKE xxii:

14. [ A n d w h e n the hour w a s c o m e , he sat d o w n , a n d the t w e l v e

apostles w i t h h i m . ] JOHN xiii:

28. [ N o w n o m a n a t the table k n e w for w h a t intent he spake

this u n t o h i m . ]

a c c o r d i n g to Honorius' decree. WHITGIFT (/I): T h e places of Scripture that y o u q u o t e in the m a r g e n t to prove sitting at the c o m m u n i o n d e c l a r e that Christ and his disciples sat at the table, b u t that p r o v e t h nothing.

210

The Admonition Controversy

For you might as well have said: "They received after supper, we before dinner; they at night, we in the morning; they after meat, we before meat; they in a private house, we in the open church; they being all men and in number twelve, we together with women, not strictly observing the number of twelve or any other number above three or four." This your argument toucheth them as well as it doth us which receive it standing or walking. But to sit, stand, kneel, or walk be not of the substance of the sacrament and therefore no impediments why it may not be sincerely ministered. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Nothing answered. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): Considering that against that we would have the sitting of our Saviour Christ called again for remedy of the superstition, yea, idolatry, committed of some by kneeling, his instance of "celebrating the communion in the night" is insufficient. For that was upon a particular occasion which is not in our church nor hath no place in the ceremonies in controversy, seeing that . . . the celebrating of it in the night was for that time necessary. Which is also answer to that "of unleavened bread used at the same time," whereunto he can answer nothing. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : In this Book we are enjoined to receive the communion kneeling, which, beside that it hath in it a shew of papistry,129 doth not so well express the mystery of this holy M

I THESS. v: 22. [Abstain from all appearance of evil.] EXOD. xii: I I . [And thus shall ye eat it (the paschal lamb); with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord's passover.]

supper. For as in the Old Testament eating the paschal lamb standing signified readiness to pass, even so in the receiving of it now sitting, according to the example of Christ,130 we signify 130

MATT, xxvi: 20. [Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.] MARK xiv: 18. [And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.] LUKE xxii: 14. [And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.] JOHN xiii: 28. [Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.]

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

211

rest, that is, a full finishing through Christ of all the ceremonial l a w 131 a n d a perfect work of redemption w r o u g h t , that giveth 131

GAL. iv:

10. [Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.]

GAL. v: 3. [For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.] 4. [Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified b y the law; ye are fallen from grace.] 5. [For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness b y faith.] Hebrews " i n many places." [no chapter or verse given].

rest forever. A n d so w e avoid also the d a n g e r of idolatry, w h i c h was in times past too c o m m o n and yet is in the hearts of m a n y w h o h a v e not as yet forgotten their breaden g o d , so slenderly h a v e they been instructed. Against w h i c h w e m a y set the comm a n d m e n t , " T h o u shalt not b o w d o w n to it, nor worship it." 132 132

EXOD. xx:

5. [Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve

them: for I the Lord thy G o d am a jealous G o d , visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.]

WHITGIFT {A): Surely this is a sore reason: T h e Book of C o m m o n Prayers requireth kneeling at the c o m m u n i o n ; ergo, it is not to be allowed. . . . Y o u say "sitting is the most meetest gesture because it signifieth rest, that is, a full finishing through Christ of all the ceremonial law, & c . " W h a t ? A r e y o u n o w come to allegories and to significations? Surely this is a very papistical reason. N a y , then, w e can give y o u a great d e a l better significations of the surplice, of crossing, of the ring in marriage, and m a n y other ceremonies than this is of sitting. I p r a y you, in the w h o l e Scripture where d o t h sitting "signify a full finishing of the ceremonial l a w and a perfect work of redemption that giveth rest for e v e r " ? If allegories please y o u so well, let us h a v e either standing, w h i c h signifieth a readiness to pass (used also in the eating of the passover), or kneeling, w h i c h is the proper gesture for prayer and thanksgiving and signifieth the submission and humbleness of the mind. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : It is not e n o u g h that the thing signified be according to the Scripture unless the signification itself b e raised and grounded of the Scripture. So that hereby he h a t h

212

The Admonition Controversy

utterly overthrown himself not only in the signification of the apparel but also in this of the cross and that after, of the ring. For by the same reason that he misliketh "all such signification" in the one, he must needs mislike it in the other. . . . W H I T G I F T ( ¿ 4 ) : You say kneeling is a shew of evil, and for proof thereof you allege i Thess. v.: "Abstain from all appearance of evil." How followeth this: the apostle willeth us to abstain from all appearance of evil; therefore kneeling at the communion is a shew of evil? But your meaning is that because the papists kneeled at the sacring of the Mass as they called it, therefore we may not kneel at the receiving of the communion. You may as well say, "They prayed to images and saints kneeling; therefore we may not pray kneeling." There is no such peril in kneeling at the communion as you surmise, for the gospeller is better instructed than so grossly to err. . . . The places written in your margent to prove that Christ did sit at supper be needless and were used for the same purpose before, where I have also spoken my opinion of kneeling. If you cite the Galat. iv. and v. and the epistle to the Hebrews in many places to prove that sitting "signifieth rest, that is, a full finishing of the ceremonial law," you do but delude the readers and abuse the Scriptures; for there is no such matter to be found in them. If you allege them to prove that Christ is the full finishing of the ceremonial law, you take upon you to prove that which no man doubteth of and is very far from your purpose. You note also the xx. of Exodus, "Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them," to prove that we may not kneel at the communion; but how fitly every child may judge. For what sequel is there in this argument: God in the second commandment forbiddeth worshipping of images; therefore we may not receive the communion kneeling? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I only admonish the reader that sitting at the communion is not holden to be necessary, but only I think that kneeling is very dangerous for the causes before alleged. W H I T G I F T (D): An easy kind of answering and a very slender defence for the crooked handling of the Scriptures by

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

213

the authors of the Admonition. But it is wittily done, so to pass over that w h i c h y o u cannot maintain. Surely the authors of the Admonition are very little beholding to you, for in most places you leave them to answer for themselves. . . . ADMONITION: T h e n it was delivered generally and indefinitely, " T a k e ye, and eat y e " ; 133 we particularly and singu133

MATT, xxvi: 26. [ A n d as t h e y w e r e e a t i n g , Jesus took b r e a d , a n d blessed

i t , a n d b r a k e i t , a n d g a v e it to the disciples, a n d said, T a k e , e a t ; this is m y body.] MARK xiv:

22. [ A n d as t h e y d i d e a t , Jesus took b r e a d , a n d blessed, a n d

b r a k e it, a n d g a v e to t h e m , a n d said, T a k e , e a t : this is m y b o d y .

(In

b o t h passages t h e G e n e v a n translators w r i t e " g i v e t h a n k s " for " b l e s s . " A n d as a m a r g i n a l n o t e to M a r k x i v . 22. t h e y a d d , " T h e G r e k e w o r d e is to blesse, w h i c h is here t a k e n o n l y to g i v e t h a n k e s , a n d L u k . , & S. P a u l i n t e r p r e t e it, & S . M a r k e also s p e a k i n g of t h e c u p p e . " ) ] 1 COR. xi:

24. [ A n d w h e n h e h a d g i v e n t h a n k s , h e b r a k e it, a n d

said,

T a k e , e a t : T h i s is m y b o d y , w h i c h is b r o k e n for y o u : this d o in r e m e m b r a n c e of m e . ]

larly, " T a k e thou and eat t h o u . " WHITGIFT (A): Here is a high matter in a low house. . . . D o t h not the the plural number include the singular? . . . W e use the plural number when we speak to m a n y jointly, we use the singular number when we speak to one severally. A n d forasmuch as everyone that receiveth this sacrament hath to apply unto himself the benefits of Christ's death and passion, therefore it is convenient to be said to everyone: " T a k e thou, eat t h o u . " But this objection is so ridiculous that it is more worthy to be hissed at than to be confuted. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): M . Doctor still privily pincheth, or ever he be aware, at our Saviour Christ's action . . . whenas he commendeth rather this form of speaking " T a k e t h o u " than that w h i c h our Saviour Christ used in saying " T a k e y e . " A n d if it be a good argument to prove that therefore we must rather say " T a k e t h o u " than " T a k e y e " because the sacrament is an application of the benefits of Christ, then forasmuch as preaching is the applying of the benefits of Christ, it behoveth that the preacher should direct his admonitions particularly one after another unto all those which hear his sermon; which is a thing absurd; and therefore, besides that it is good to leave the popish form in those things which we m a y so conveniently do, it is best

214

T h e Admonition Controversy

to come as near the manner of celebration of the supper which our Saviour Christ used as may be. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I see no difference betwixt them but only in number, for the which I have given some reason before, whereunto you have made no answer. The similitude of preaching that you here use to improve my latter reason is very unapt, for there is great difference betwixt the means of exhibiting the benefits of Christ by his sacraments and by preaching of his Word. And yet there is none doubteth but that a man is more moved by that which is spoken to him particularly than he is with that which is spoken generally, as well to other as to himself. And therefore we may commonly note that godly and zealous preachers, even in their general exhortations, use oftentimes the singular number and second person as though they spake to every particular man severally. Therefore be the commandments given in that number and person as "Thou shalt have no other gods but me," &c. And Christ doth use the same manner of speech oftentimes in his sermon, Matt, v., vi., and vii.: "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, &c." "Agree with thine adversary quickly, &c." It is usual in all exhortations, and it is a manner of speaking that giveth every man occasion to apply that unto himself which is spoken. b. Baptism A D M O N I T I O N : And as for baptism, it was enough for them if they had water, and the party to be baptized faith, and the minister to preach the Word and minister the sacraments.134 ACTS viii: 35. [Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.] 134

36. [And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?] 37. [And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. A n d he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.] ACTS x: 47. [Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?]

Now we must have surplices . . . interrogatories ministered to the infant, godfathers and godmothers . . . holy fonts. . . cross-

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

215

ing, and such like pieces of popery, which the church of God in the apostles' time never knew (and therefore not to be used), nay (which we are sure of), were and are man's devices brought in long after the purity of the primitive church. W H I T G I F T {A): Interrogatories to be ministered to the infant be not strange, neither lately invented, but of great antiquity. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : They profane holy baptism in toying foolishly for that they ask questions of an infant which cannot answer and speak unto them as was wont to be spoken unto men and unto such as, being converted, answered for themselves and were baptized. Which is but a mockery of God and therefore against the Holy Scriptures.136 . . . GAL. vi: 7. [Be not deceived; G o d is not m o c k e d : for whatsoever a m a n soweth, that shall he also reap.] 13I

W H I T G I F T (^4): To prove that this questioning with the infant is a mocking of God, you quote Gal. vi., verse 7. . . . Paul in this place taketh away excuses which worldlings use to make for not nourishing their pastors, for no feigned excuse will serve because God is not mocked. But what is this to the questioning with infants? How folio we th this: God is not mocked; ergo, he that questioneth with infants mocketh God? Truly you mock God when you so dally with his Scriptures and seek rather the glory of quoting of many places of Scripture than the true applying of any one. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): He saith that it is a mocking of God to use the place of the Galatians . . . against this abuse; 136 and OAL. vi: 7. [Be n o t deceived; G o d is not m o c k e d : for whatsoever a m a n soweth, that shall he also reap.] 13E

his reason is because St. Paul speaketh there against those that by feigned excuses seek to defraud the pastor of his living: as who should say St. Paul did not conclude that particular conclusion, "Thou shalt not by frivolous excuses defraud the minister," with this general saying, "God is not mocked," for his reason is God is not mocked at all or in any matter, therefore he is not mocked in this; or as who should say, because our Saviour Christ saying that "it is not lawful to separate that which

216

T h e Admonition Controversy

G o d hath j o i n e d " speaking of divorce, 1 3 7 it is not lawful to use 137

MATT, xix: 6. [. . . W h a t therefore G o d hath joined together, let not

man put asunder.]

this sentence, being a general rule, in other things. . . . WHITGIFT (D): Indeed it is a very mocking of G o d thus to abuse the Scriptures; for the authors of the Admonition allege this text to prove that to question with infants is to mock G o d when there is not one word in that place spoken of questioning with infants; and therefore this text is alleged without purpose except y o u will say that it is quoted only for the phrase and manner of speaking. It is true that G o d is not mocked; but this proveth not that questioning in baptism is to mock G o d ; and therefore vainly it is applied. . . . ADMONITION: T h e y require a promise of the godfathers and godmothers (as they term them), w h i c h is not in their powers to perform. 1 3 8 . . . ROM. vii: 15. [For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. . . .]

138

18. [For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. . . .] 21. [I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.] ROM. ix: 16. [So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.]

WHITGIFT (^4): TO prove that it is not in the godfathers to perform that which they promise, you quote the saying of St. Paul to the R o m . cap. vii., vers. 15. . . . vers. 18. . . . vers. 21. . . . In all these places the apostle declareth that infirmities remain even in the faithful by reason of the flesh and that they cannot come to such perfection in this life as they do desire. But how do these places prove that godfathers are not able to perform that which they promise for the infant? T r u l y these proofs are too far-fetched for m y understanding. In the ninth to the R o m a n s the apostle . . . sheweth that the cause of our election is not in ourselves but in the mercy of G o d . But w h a t is this to the promise of godfathers made at the baptizing of infants? . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e r e is nothing answered to this. . . .

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

217

WHITGXFT ( A ) \ You may as well find fault with pulpit and church as with the fonts, and the reason is all one. In the time of the apostles they did not baptize in basins as you do now but in rivers and other common waters; neither was there in the apostles' time any churches for Christians or pulpits to preach in; and therefore you had best to pluck down churches and pulpits and to baptize in common rivers and waters. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I would know whether there was a river or common water in Cornelius' and the jailor's houses, where Paul and Peter baptized. W H I T G I F T (D): And I would also gladly learn how you can prove that they did baptize in basins there. I do not say that they always baptized in rivers and common waters but that they did so, and that most commonly, which no man can deny. But I require one syllable in Scripture to prove that they did baptize in basins, not that I did disallow it if time and place do require but because I would have you to perform that in your ceremonies which you require in ours, that is, to prove them directly by the Word of God. . . . ADMONITION: They do superstitiously and wickedly institute a new sacrament which is proper to Christ only, marking the child in the forehead with a cross "in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ." . . . W H I T G I F T {A): Concerning . . . "crossing the child in the forehead," . . . it may be left, and it hath been used in the primitive church, and may be so still, without either superstition or wickedness. Neither doth it any more make a sacrament (because it is "in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess Christ crucified") than your sitting doth at the communion in token of rest, that is, a full finishing through Christ of the ceremonial law, &c. I think you know that every ceremony betokening something is not by and by a sacrament.

c. Confirmation ADMONITION: A S for confirmation, which was in times past apostolical 139 and so called of the ancient fathers, yet as 139

[HEB. vi: 1. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.]

218

The Admonition Controversy

they use it by the bishop alone to them that lack both discretion and faith, it is superstitious and not agreeable to the Word of God but popish and peevish. As though baptism were not already perfect but needed confirmation or as though the bishop could give the Holy Ghost. . . . W H I T G I F T ( ¿ 4 ) : Confirmation, as it is now used, is most profitable, without all manner of superstition, most agreeable to the Word of God, and in all points differing from the papistical manner of confirming children. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Seeing that it hath been so horribly abused and not necessary, why ought it not to be utterly abolished? . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : If that be a sufficient reason to abolish it . . . then what shall you retain either in the church or in the common life of man?

d. Matrimony: Use of the Wedding Ring, and Festivity at the Wedding A D M O N I T I O N : As for matrimony, that also hath corruptions, too many. It was wont to be counted a sacrament, and therefore they use yet a sacramental sign to which they attribute the virtue of wedlock. I mean the wedding ring, which they foully abuse and dally withal in taking it up and laying it down. In putting it on they abuse the name of the Trinity; they make the new-married man, according to the popish form, to make an idol of his wife, saying, "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, &c." . . . W H I T G I F T ( ^ 4 ) : I know it is not material whether the ring be used or no, for it is not of the substance of matrimony, neither yet a sacramental sign, no more than sitting at communion is, but only a ceremony. . . . The second thing you reprove is because (say you) we "make the married man (according to the papistical form) to make an idol of his wife, saying, 'With my body I thee worship.' " And yet St. Peter, i Epist. chap, iii., speaking to the husbands, saith: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them as men of knowledge, giving honour unto the woman, &c." St. Peter would have the

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

219

man to give honour unto his wife, and yet his meaning is not that a man should make an idol of his wife. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It is one thing with us to worship and another thing to honour. For we honour men which we do not worship; and besides that, St. Peter speaketh of the honour of the mind whereby the husband should be moved to bear with the infirmities of his wife; and therefore it is unfitly alleged to prove that he may worship her with his body. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : To honour with the mind is more than to honour with the body; for the one is but a sign of the other; and therefore, if St. Peter mean the honour of the mind, he meaneth also the honour of the body. It is a very fond imagination to think that any man meaneth to make an idol of his wife when he saith, "With my body I thee worship." Have you known any which have offended that way? Neither be these words, neither can they be taken, in any other signification than St. Peter taketh "honour" in that place; and this word "worship," when it is spoken of one man towards another, can have no other signification than reverence and duty, which is required by the law of God, of nature, of civility. But be these matters of such weight and importance that such hurly-burlies must be raised and stirred up for them? . . . ADMONITION: Other petty things out of the Book we speak not of,140 as that women, contrary to the rule of the 140

Abuses accidental. [Adm.]

apostle,141 come, and are suffered to come, bareheaded with 1411

COR. xi: 5. [But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.]

bagpipes and fiddlers before them to disturb the congregation and that they must come in at the great door of the church, else all is marred. . . . W H I T G I F T (A)\ "Other petty things," you say, "out of the Book," which you call in the margent, "abuses accidental," as "women to come bareheaded," "bagpipes, fiddlers," "coming in at the great door, &c.," you will not speak of. Truly neither will I speak of them because, being out of that Book and mere

220

T h e Admonition Controversy

trifles, they are not within my compass. But in the mean season this is a sore reason: the ring is used in matrimony; the man saith to his wife, "With my body I thee worship"; . . .therefore you will not subscribe to the Book of Common Prayers. But this argument cannot be answered: women come to the church bareheaded, with bagpipes and fiddlers, at the great door of the church; and these things be not in the Book; therefore you will not subscribe to the Book. O how well you are occupied to make a schism in the church for such mere trifles! W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Nothing answered.

e. The Private Administration of the Sacraments: Baptism and Communion A D M O N I T I O N : Now they [ministers] are bound of necessity to a . . . Book of Common Prayer in which a great number of things contrary to God's Word are contained, as baptism by women.142 . . . MATT, xxviii: 19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.] 1 COR. xiv: 35. [And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.] 142

W H I T G I F T ( / I ) : Here is not one prayer in all the Communion Book found fault with, and yet your quarrel is against a prescript form of prayers invented by man. . . . Digressing, therefore, from prayers contained in the Communion Book, you come to other matters in the same against God's Word (as you say); and first you allege baptizing by women. I deny baptizing by women to be expressed in that Book; and when you have proved it to be necessarily gathered out of the same, then shall you hear my judgment thereof. C A R T W R I G H T (R): Master Doctor requireth that it should be proved unto him that by private baptism is meant "baptism by women." First, it is meant that it should be done by some other than the minister, for that the minister is bid to give them warning that they should not baptize the child at home in their house without great cause and necessity; secondarily, I would

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

221

gladly ask him w h o they be that are present w h e n the child is so shortly after it is born in great danger of death. . . . WHITGIFT (D): T h e Book of C o m m o n Prayer doth call it " p r i v a t e baptism" in respect of the place, which is a private house, and not in respect of the minister. . . . WHITGIFT {A): Y o u r places of Scripture alleged against it are not of sufficient force to prove your purpose. Christ, in the xxviii. of M a t t h e w , said to his disciples, " G o and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, & c . " ; ergo, women m a y not baptize. I say this argument followeth not, no more than this doth: ergo, pastors m a y not baptize. For it is manifest that an apostle is distinct from a pastor. CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e place of the xxviii. of St. M a t t h e w is as strong against women's baptizing as it is against their preaching. 1 4 3 For the ministry of the W o r d and sacraments 143

MATT, xxviii:

19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.]

cannot be pulled in sunder, w h i c h the L o r d hath joined together from time to time. For N o a h , w h i c h was a preacher unto the old world of the will of G o d , was ordained also of G o d to make the ark, w h i c h was a sacrament and seal of his preaching touching the destruction of the world. 1 4 4 A n d A b r a h a m , w h o m 1 4 4 11

PET. it: [4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned . . . ]

5. [And spared not the old world, but saved N o a h the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly . . . ] GEN. vi: 14. [Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.]

the L o r d would have to be the doctor of his church, w h i c h was then in his family, was also commanded to minister the sacrament of circumcision unto his family. 1 4 5 T h e priests and Levites, GEN. xviii: 19. [For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord m a y bring upon A b r a h a m that which he hath spoken of him.] 146

GEN. xvii: 23. [And A b r a h a m took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as G o d had said unto him.]

222

T h e Admonition Controversy

which were appointed to teach the people, were also appointed to sacrifice and to minister other sacraments in the church. Likewise the same prophets, which God stirred up to preach, he also ordained to confirm the same by signs and sacraments. The same may be also drawn throughout the New Testament, as unto every of the twelve, and afterward to the seventy, power was given both to preach the gospel and also to confirm with signs and miracles, which were seals of their doctrine. 146 And 146

LUKE ix: i. [Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.] LUKE x: i. [After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come. . . .] 17. [And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.]

St. Paul, by the commandment that our Saviour Christ gave him to preach, undertook also to baptize although there were no express words that licensed him thereunto; for he knew right well that it was the perpetual ordinance of God that the same should be the ministers of the Word and sacraments. 147 Where147

ACTS xxii: 15. [For thou (Paul) shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.] 1 COR. i: 17. [For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.]

upon it followeth that forasmuch as women may not preach the gospel, no, not by the laws of the realm, that they ought not to minister baptism. W H I T G I F T (D): M y reason alleged in my Answer to the Admonition why this place doth not make any necessary conclusion against the baptizing by women is not answered; but there is a new collection made of the same place, which is of as great force as the other; for you might as well conclude thus: ergo, pastors may not preach because pastors be not apostles. I speak of the argument, not of the thing. For I would not have the Scriptures abused to confirm, no, not a truth, lest it make men the bolder to wrest them at their pleasure, and for the confirming of error. . . . I have proved before that the administration of the sacra-

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

223

ments may be committed to some to whom the public preaching of the Word is not committed, and your examples here alleged do not prove the contrary except you will have us to ground points of doctrines upon bare examples, which if we should do, many inconveniences would follow, yea, even baptizing by women, which you so greatly mislike. . . . The example of Noah helpeth you not except you will either allegory or prove that the minister of the Word may make sacraments because "Noah made the ark." The ark cannot be properly termed a sacrament in the signification that ours be; for it had no promise of eternal life annexed unto it; neither was it any seal of God's promise but a means to save Noah and his family from perishing by the waters and a type and figure of the church of Christ, as you have . . . confessed. Your examples which follow, although some of them be very unapt, for miracles be no sacraments, neither yet every kind of signs and wonders, may, as examples, shew that the administration of the sacraments was committed to such as were preachers of the Word. But they cannot prove that it was only committed unto them and to no other. It is not required of you to prove whether he that may preach may also administer the sacraments but whether it be of necessity that none should be admitted to minister the sacraments except the same also be admitted to preach. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): T O that which was alleged out of the place of St. Matthew,148 that it maketh as much against M A T T , xxviii: 19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.] 148

baptism by women as against their preaching, he answereth that "by that reason pastors may neither preach nor baptize for that they are no apostles," which followeth not. For the pastor succeeding unto the apostles as touching preaching and baptizing in their proper churches have by the same place authority to do both. . . . I alleged that the ministry of the Word and sacraments, joined of God together, ought not to be pulled asunder and therefore cited examples wherein we observed continually that

224

The Admonition Controversy

the same were ministers of both together. Whereunto first he answereth generally that "examples prove not," which is before answered.* Then unto the particular example of the Ark he excepteth, first, that "if that were a sacrament the minister may make sacraments for that Noah made it," as if it ought to be so strange that the minister ministerially and subordinately, according to the institution prescribed of God, should be said to make a sacrament. For as it is oftentimes said that the priests made the sacrifices,149 so the minister in using the water, which 149

LEV. ix: 7. [And Moses said unto Aaron, G o unto the altar, and offer

thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself, and for the people: and offer the offering of the people, and make an atonement for them; as the Lord commanded. . . .] 22. [And Aaron lifted u p his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.] LEV. xiv:

19. [And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an

atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.] & c .

was common before, unto that use and after that sort which Christ hath appointed maketh it holy and sacramental water. . . . Secondly, he saith "it had no promise of eternal life nor was a seal of any promise," both which are untrue. For it confirmed Noah in the promise that God had given that he should not be drowned with the rest of the world. And as the promises made of temporal blessings unto the fathers extended themselves unto the everlasting, so the sacraments to confirm those promises were sacraments to confirm them in the hope of eternal life. This doth St. Peter confirm, which teacheth that the preservation of Noah in the Ark was the same to him and his which baptism is to us,150 to whom the Answerer doth in this point 160 j

PET-

[20. W h i c h sometime were disobedient, when once the

longsuffering of G o d waited in the days of N o a h , wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved b y water.] * Cartwright here refers the reader to his Second replie, " p . 155, &c.," where he makes no reference whatsoever to these examples but merely accuses Whitgift of regarding the Acts of the Apostles as " a booke of deedes which Christian men are not bound to followe." Since in the Rest of the second replie he defends only his example of the ark, he thus leads his reader to infer that the other examples have already been discussed.

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

225

2 1 . [The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

directly oppose himself. Thirdly, he addeth that "it was a figure of the church and therefore no sacrament," which followeth not. For the bread and wine in the holy supper are so a sacrament of the body and blood of Christ that they are nevertheless sacraments of the church represented thereby in that, as many corns make one loaf and many grapes one cup of wine, so many members make one body of Christ, which is the church. 151 Neither is the example 161

1 COR. x: [16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.]

of the miracles "unaptly alleged," for they be signs to confirm the Word of God as are the sacraments. Therefore whosoever can shew that ministers of the Word ought only to be ministers of the signs whereby it is confirmed sheweth that they only must be ministers of the sacraments. T o prove that the forbidding of them from the ministering of the Word is their forbidding from the ministering of the sacraments, I brought an argument of contraries, for that St. Paul being bidden to minister the Word, as in things which go together, did without further commandment minister the sacraments, which was belike as a pill that he could not well swallow, considering that he answereth nothing. And if this be not a good argument, then there is no commandment in the Scripture to bar women from being public ministers of the sacraments, for it is nowhere expressly forbidden them to minister the sacraments but only to minister the Word. If, therefore, the godly learned have judged them unmeet to minister the sacraments because the Holy Scripture hath disabled them to minister the Word, it followeth necessarily that none may have power to minister the sacraments which hath not also to minister the Word. For otherwise, if those might publicly minister the sacraments which cannot do the Word, women by reason of their

226

T h e Admonition Controversy

sex are not so shut out but that they may have entrance into that ministry. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): T h e second place you do allege is I Cor. xiv., where Paul saith "it is a shame for women to speak in the congregation." Paul saith not it is a shame for women to speak at home in private houses; for women may instruct their families, yea, and they may speak also in the congregation in time of necessity if there be none else there that can or will preach Christ; and hereof we have examples. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): When we allege the examples of all the churches of the apostles' times to prove the election of the minister by the church and in other cases which are general examples approved and executed by the apostles contrary to no commandment nor institution of God, yea, and, as hath been proved, according to the commandment of God, M . Doctor giveth us our answer in a word — that examples prove not. Now that the question is to make good women's preaching in the church, examples I will not say of all churches but of no one church, only of a few singular persons, not according to the commandment of the Word of God 162 but clean contrary to the 152

x COR. xiv:

34. [ L e t y o u r w o m e n k e e p silence in t h e churches: for it is

n o t permitted u n t o t h e m to speak; b u t they are c o m m a n d e d to b e u n d e r o b e d i e n c e , as also saith t h e l a w . ] 1 TIM. ii:

12. [But I suffer n o t a w o m a n to teach, nor to usurp a u t h o r i t y

over t h e m a n , b u t to b e in silence.]

prescript Word of God — I say now examples, and such singular examples, are good proofs and strong arguments. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Women were the first that preached Christ's resurrection; 153 a woman was the first that preached 163

MATT, xxviii:

[5. A n d the a n g e l answered a n d said u n t o the w o m e n ,

F e a r n o t y e : for I k n o w t h a t y e seek Jesus, w h i c h w a s crucified. 6. H e is n o t here: for he is risen, as he said. . . . 8. A n d

they

departed

q u i c k l y f r o m t h e sepulchre

with

fear

and

great j o y ; a n d d i d r u n to b r i n g his disciples w o r d . ] JOHN xx:

[18. M a r y M a g d a l e n e c a m e a n d told the disciples t h a t she h a d

seen the L o r d , a n d t h a t he h a d spoken these things u n t o her.]

Christ in Samaria, John iv.; 154

JOHN iv:

154

and yet undoubtedly none of

[28. T h e w o m a n then l e f t her w a t e r p o t , a n d w e n t her w a y

i n t o the c i t y , a n d saith to the m e n ,

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

227

29. Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? 30. T h e n they went out of the city, and came unto him.]

these did contrary to the prescript Word of God. Women may not speak ordinarily in the congregation nor challenge any such function unto themselves but upon occasion they may speak, as I have said in my Answer. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : His example of the "Samaritan woman, John iv." is frivolous, that she should become a "public preacher" which had not yet learned her catechism nor was scarce out of her Christian A. B. C., where it is manifest that she did nothing which belongeth not to everyone — that is, that we should exhort one another to go where the knowledge of Christ is to be had 155 — so that she did only, as it were, toll the ISA. ii: 3. [And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.]

165

bell to draw the Samaritans to our Saviour Christ that he might preach unto them. Neither doth his other example of the "women, Matt, xxviii., which preached the resurrection" help him. For if that may be called a public ministry, it hath an express commandment of the Lord by the angel,156 which com186

MATT, xxviii:

7. [And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen

from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.]

mandment as oft as midwives can shew we will acknowledge their ministry lawful; otherwise the general commandment, which we are bound to follow, is direct against their preaching,157 1671

COR. xiv: 34. [Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.] 1 TIM. ii: 12. [But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.]

which being shewed of me is unanswered by him. So that here he merely trifleth, often saying that "there is nothing against

228

The Admonition Controversy

the baptism by women" and never answering the Scriptures alleged, whereby it is generally forbidden them to deal in these matters. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Women, that may not speak in a congre168 gation, may yet in time of necessity minister the sacrament 158 1

COR. xiv: 34. [Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.] 1 TIM. ii: 1 1 . [Let the woman learn in silence and with all subjection.]

of baptism, and that in a private house. . . . W H I T G I F T ( A ) : T o prove that women may not speak in a congregation you quote 1 Cor. xiv., 1 Tim. ii., whereas you should rather have proved that women may not in time of necessity minister baptism, for that is the question and not the other. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): There is a greater difficulty than M . Doctor mentioneth in the words of St. Paul, where he saith, " a woman praying or prophesying ought to be veiled and have her head covered. 169 . . . 1591

COR. xi: 5. [But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.] W H I T G I F T ( D ) : T o what end bring you in this saying of St. Paul? I do not remember that I have at any time used it for any proof, and yet you have objected more than you can well answer. Howbeit, because it pertaineth not to improve anything that I affirm, I will not examine your answer . . . nor trouble the reader with frivolous and vain digressions. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then they were ministered in public assemblies, 160 now in private houses. MARK i: 5. [And there went out unto him (John) all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.] 1 COR. xi: 18. [For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.]

160

T h e places of Scripture whereby you prove that sacraments were then ministered in public asWHITGIFT

{A):

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

229

semblies be taken out of the first of St. Mark and 1 Cor. xi., which places of Scripture prove that John did baptize openly and that the Lord's supper was ministered in the public congregation; but neither of them both conclude that these sacraments may not also be ministered upon any occasion in private houses. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): For as of our Saviour Christ's preaching in public places and refusing private places, we do gather that the preaching of the Word ought to be public; even so of St. John's preaching and baptizing in open meetings we conclude that both preaching and baptizing ought to be in public assemblies. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I refer it to the learned reader to judge whether this be a good argument or no: John baptized openly in the river Jordan; ergo, baptism may at no time upon any occasion be ministered in a private house. And if any will judge it to be good, then will I demand of them why this should not be as good: John did baptize in Jordan; ergo, none ought to be baptized but in the river Jordan. O r this: John baptized such as confessed their sins; ergo, none must be baptized but such as are able to make a confession of their sins. . . . I do not in any respect speak against baptizing in the church but do greatly commend it as a thing most convenient, but I do not so tie the sacrament to the place or public congregation that I make it of the necessity of the sacrament so that it may not upon any occasion be ministered in a private house. . . . Christ preached both privately and publicly, in the temple and in private families, in great assemblies and severally to his own disciples, and at all times as occasion served; and therefore you cannot conclude by the example of Christ that the preaching of the gospel ought only to be public in the open congregation and at no time private upon any occasion. . . . Now if you can shew me either rule or commandment in Scripture that upon no occasion we may preach or baptize in private families, I yield unto you. But if you cannot this do, your examples prove what was then done and what in the like cause may be done now, but they make not any general and perpetual rule. . . .

2go

The Admonition Controversy WHITGIFT

161

house, Acts x.

{A)\ Baptism was ministered in Cornelius' The place is not of the substance of the sac-

[ACTS X: 21. Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? 22. And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. . . . 24. And the morrow after they entered into Csesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. . . . 34. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. . . . 44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. . . . 48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.] 161

raments. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): M . Doctor maketh not the best choice of his arguments. For St. Paul's baptizing in the house of the jailor had been more fit for him.162 For unto his place it may

162 A C X S x v i : [23. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely. . . . 26. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone's bands were loosed. 27. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. 29. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? . . .] 33. [And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.]

be easily answered that Cornelius, having so great a family as it is like he had and, besides that, divers soldiers underneath him and, further, his friends and his acquaintance which he called, had a competent number and as many as would make a congregation and as could commodiously be preached unto

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

231

in one place. But the answer to both these examples and other such like, as that St. Paul baptized in the house of Stephana, is easy.163 For, there being persecutions at that time so that it 1831

COR. i: 1 6 .

[ A n d I b a p t i z e d also the household of Stephanas.

. . .]

was not safe neither for the minister nor for the people to be seen, it was meet that they should do it in houses, which otherwise they would have done in open places; and then those houses which receive the congregation are not . . . for the time to be counted private houses. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): The example of Peter's baptizing in Cornelius' house is sufficient to prove that then it was lawful to baptize in private families. The example of Paul baptizing the jailor and his family proveth the same; but it ministereth a more ready answer to a quarreller because Paul, then being prisoner, had not such liberty to make choice of his place as Peter had. But they are both very fit examples for my purpose. The bigness of Cornelius' family or the smallness is not material to this question; for we speak of the place, not of the persons. And whereas you say that in Cornelius' house "there was a competent number and as many as would make a congregation," I answer that so it is with us when baptism is ministered in private families; for "wheresoever two or three be gathered together in the name of Christ," 164 there is a congregation. . . . M

MATT, xviii:

[20. F o r w h e r e t w o or three are gathered together in m y

n a m e , there a m I in the m i d s t of them.]

C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): Our Saviour Christ speaketh not there of the public administering of the Word and sacraments but of the proceeding in the church discipline against offences and of the part which was done privately. For after he had taught how from the admonition by one we ought to proceed unto that which is made by two or three and so to the church's, 165 16I

[MATT. xviii:

1 5 . M o r e o v e r if t h y brother shall trespass against thee,

g o a n d tell h i m his f a u l t b e t w e e n thee a n d h i m alone: if he shall hear thee, t h o u hast g a i n e d t h y brother. 16. B u t if he w i l l n o t hear thee, then take w i t h thee one or t w o more, t h a t in the m o u t h of t w o or three witnesses e v e r y w o r d m a y b e established. 1 7 . A n d if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it u n t o the c h u r c h : b u t if he n e g l e c t to hear the c h u r c h , let h i m be u n t o thee as an h e a t h e n m a n and a publican.]

232

The Admonition Controversy

having before ratified the proceeding of the church, he authorizeth also by this word the admonition which with invocation of his name was given by those two or three, promising that it shall not be in vain but have effect that way which God hath disposed of, whether it be to conversion of the party or to further making him inexcusable. If it be asked why then our Saviour Christ did not also speak of the ratifying of the first admonition by one, I answer that he spake of the effect of these two later admonitions, not that the other should be without fruit but for the excellency of the effect of these before that, which was also therefore needful to be made mention of more than the first forsomuch as otherwise upon experience of the sinner's hardness of heart in rejection of the first admonition he which gave it with the other one or two appointed for that matter through despair of his amendment might be beaten back from proceeding any further with him. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : T o your second answer of the difference of time, "because that was in time of persecution, & c . , " I say that as persecution was then a cause why baptism was usually ministered in private houses, so necessity is now the cause why the same is ministered sometimes in private families. Neither do I maintain or allow the administering of the sacraments in private families to be usual or without urgent cause but only upon extreme necessity of sickness, peril of death, and such like. In which cases, as never any learned man misliked ministering of the sacraments in such places, so are not you able to shew either Scripture, doctor, or reason to the contrary; and whatsoever you say of the time of persecution touching the matter, the same may be said of the time of necessity also. . . . 166 ADMONITION: Then by ministers only, now by midwives 166

MATT, xxviii: 19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.] 1 COR. iv: 1. [Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.]

and deacons equally. . . . W H I T G I F T {A): The xxviii. of Matt. . . . doth prove that it was a portion of the apostles' office to baptize, but in what

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

233

place, at what time, how many at once is not there prescribed. . . . 1 Cor. iv. . . . here is not one word for your purpose except you take mysteries for sacraments, which if you do, you are much deceived; for by the word "mysteries" here he understandeth the Word of God and gospel of Christ, as all learned writers do interpret it. W H I T G I F T (D): Nothing answered to the unapt allegation of the 1 Cor. iv. W H I T G I F T (A): We read in the eighth of the Acts, that Philip, a deacon, did baptize; 167 we read also that Moses' wife [ACTS viii: 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 167

38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.]

did circumcise.168 But where doth this Church of England allow [EXOD. iv: 24. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.

168

25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.]

any woman to baptize or deacon to celebrate the Lord's supper? And if it did, the dignity of the sacraments do not depend upon the man, be he minister or not minister, be he good or evil. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): He hath certain other to prove that women may baptize, whereof the first is . . . that Sephora, Moses' wife, circumcised her child; whereunto I have answered partly before that particular examples, especially contrary to general rules, are not to be followed and will further answer, if I first admonish the reader whereupon this baptism of midwives and in private houses rose, that, when we know of how rotten a stock it came, the fruit itself may be more loathsome unto us. It first therefore rose upon a false interpretation of the place of St. John: "Unless a man be born again of water and

234

T h e Admonition Controversy

of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."

169

JOHN iii: 5. [Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.]

169

Where certain do interpret the word "water" for the material and elemental water wherewith men are washed, whenas our Saviour Christ taketh water there by a translation or borrowed speech for the Spirit of God, the effect whereof it shadoweth out. For even as in another place by the fire and Spirit he meaneth nothing but the Spirit of God, which purgeth and purifieth as the fire doth; 170 so in this place by the water and the Spirit 170 MATT, iii: i i . [I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.]

he meaneth nothing else but the Spirit of God, which cleanseth the filth of sin, and cooleth the broiling heat of an unquiet conscience as water washeth the thing which is foul and quencheth the heat of the fire. Secondarily, this error came by a false and unnecessary conclusion drawn of that place. For, although the Scripture should say that none can be saved but those which have the Spirit of God and are baptized with material and elemental water, yet ought it to be understanded of those which can conveniently and orderly be brought to baptism; as the Scripture, saying that whoso doth not believe the gospel is already condemned,171 meaneth this sentence of those which can 171

JOHN iii: 18. [He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that

believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.]

hear the gospel and have discretion to understand it when they hear it and cannot here shut under this condemnation either those that be born deaf and so remain or little infants or natural fools that have no wit to conceive what is preached. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : The place in the iii. of John by you alleged hath divers interpretations and the most part of the ancient writers do take water in that place for material and elemental water, as Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril, and sundry

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

235

others, even as many of the ancient fathers as I have read upon that text. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): N O W I return to the example of Sephora and say that the unlawfulness of that fact doth appear sufficiently in that she did it before her husband Moses, which was a prophet of the Lord and to whom that office of circumcision did appertain; so that unless M . Doctor would have midwives baptize in the presence of the bishop or the minister, there is no cause why he should allege this place. Besides that, she did cut off the foreskin of the infant, not of mind to obey the commandment of God or for the salvation of the child but in a choler only, to the end that her husband might be eased and have release, which mind appeareth in her both by her words and by casting away in anger the foreskin which she had cut off. And if it be said that the event declared that the act pleased God because that Moses forthwith waxed better and was recovered of his sickness, I have shewed before how, if we measure things by the event, we shall oftentimes justify the wicked and take the righteousness of the righteous from them. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : In the 170. page of your book, you say that " G o d took the priesthood from Moses and gave it to Aaron," and now you seem to affirm the contrary in saying that "Moses was a prophet of the Lord, to whom that office of circumcision did appertain"; for hereby you do insinuate that Moses was a priest. Moreover, Moses at this time was extremely sick and therefore could not execute that office himself. And in the Geneva Bible there is this note: that it "was extraordinary, for Moses was sore sick, and God even then required it." Sephora therefore did circumcise in a point of extremity and not wilfully or of purpose, and that circumcision was a true circumcision though it were not done ordinarily; even so baptism is true baptism though it be sometimes ministered by such as be not ordinary ministers. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): T O that I alleged to prove the unlawfulness of the circumcision by Moses' wife for that she did it in presence of her husband and a prophet, which is M . Calvin's reason, he opposeth "the note of the Bible printed at Geneva" that " h e could not do it because he was sick and that the Lord

236

The Admonition Controversy

required it then." Whether he was able or no, I will not strive, but that "the Lord required circumcision," if there were no ordinary minister for it, doth not appear. For as it was an order of God that the male child should be circumcised the eighth day, so was it also his order that he should be circumcised by a minister. Now how can it be shewed by that the Lord strake Moses that he would therefore have this ordinance changed, whenas the sickness sent was a correction for the breaking of one of his orders and not a trumpet blown to call them to the breach of the other? And what if (as it cometh to pass) the Lord had, as it were, stricken Moses by sickness in the child or that the child, being of discretion, had himself willingly wanted circumcision, ought the child, therefore, by and by with the present hazard of his life have been circumcised? No, verily. But as this sickness should have instructed both father and son to repent them of the former negligence and to purpose the amendment of it when the child should be able to abide the wound, so the sickness of Moses was for that end sent that he should repent him of the former negligence and amend it when it might be according to the order appointed. To that alleged, that she did it in a choler, he answereth not. To that that Moses' recovery is no proof of the lawfulness of it, considering that when things are measured by the event the good are condemned and the wicked justified oftentimes, he answereth that "the event oft declareth the thing," which is but to waste wind. For if it do oft otherwise, it can serve for no reason or allowance of that circumcision. And if the judgment by the event be to be taken, it is there where the causes do not appear; but here the cause of circumcision, which is the institution of God, is able to try the matter. Where also appeareth how affamished he is to find "contrarieties in my book" in that he supposeth variance in this that here I call Moses a prophet and in another place say that the priesthood was taken from him and given to Aaron, which is too foul an oversight. For both there were prophets which were no priests nor of the race of priests, and the time of the deliverance over of the priesthood unto Aaron was long after the time here spoken of. . . .

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

237

W H I T G I F T (D): Against "baptizing by laymen" in time of necessity you have no Scripture. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): He hath flatly betrayed his cause in that, not able to allege one reason out of the Word of God, he placeth the strength of this cause herein, that "against baptizing by laymen in the time of necessity we have," as he saith, "no Scripture, and he hath learned men for it." For first, in that he can bring no reason out of the Word of God why a lay man or woman "in time of necessity," as he termeth it, may baptize, it is manifest that he ought not to have set it down. For this is a matter of doctrine and a matter of faith even in that narrow signification that he taketh matters of faith. This is none of the variable ceremonies which alter by the diversity of times, of countries, and of persons, and therefore by his own rule here an argument of the authority of the Scripture negatively is good, so that here it is a good argument: the Scripture commendeth not that lay men or women should baptize; therefore they may not baptize. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And forasmuch as St. Paul saith that a man cannot preach which is not sent, no, not although he speak the words of the Scripture and interpret them; 172 so I 172

ROM. x: 15. [And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!]

cannot see how a man can baptize unless that he be sent to that end, although he pour water and rehearse the words which are to be rehearsed in the ministry of baptism. W H I T G I F T (D): St. Paul . . . speaketh of the extraordinary calling to the office of preaching. . . . Wherefore, if you will ground any such reason upon this place, it must be thus: St. Paul saith that a man cannot preach which is not sent; and he meaneth of an extraordinary sending; therefore no man may preach unless he be extraordinarily called thereunto and so consequently not minister baptism except he be called in like manner. If you will reason thus, then do you confirm the baptizing by laymen, who do it not ordinarily but extraordinarily upon necessity. St. Paul doth not say "that a man cannot preach which is

238

T h e Admonition Controversy

not sent, no, not although he speaketh the words of the Scripture and interpret them." These words be so added by you that the simple and ignorant may think they be the words of St. Paul. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): To that I brought out of St. Paul, that he cannot preach which is not sent, he answereth "it is understanded of the extraordinary calling," as though it were not as well required in ordinary callings that one be sent as in the extraordinary. For although there be divers sorts of sendings, yet that the minister be sent is required of all so that although St. Paul should there draw that disputation unto the sending of the apostles, yet the rule whereby he confirmeth the apostleship is general. For a pastor can no more preach now in a particular congregation without a sending than an apostle could then in all the world. The words I added, "no not although he spake the words of the Scripture," be no such "addition" as he surmiseth, seeing they are necessarily contained in the apostle's sentence. For when himself denieth not but that one which is not sent may speak the words of Scripture and the apostle saith that the same cannot preach, it followeth that one not sent, although he speak the words of the Scriptures, cannot therefore be said to preach. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : N O W they are bound to the Book of Common Prayer, in which a great number of things contrary to the word of God are contained, &c., as private communion, &c.173 . . . 173

1 COR. xi: 18. [For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you: and I partly believe it.]

W H I T G I F T {A): St. Paul reproveth the profanation of the supper among the Corinthians by banqueting and contempt of their brethren, and he exhorteth one of them to tarry for another. But how can you apply this to your purpose? I know not what you mean by private communion: if you mean the receiving of one alone, there is none such allowed in the Book; if you mean because it is ministered sometime upon occasion in private houses, I see not how you can call it private in respect of the place if the number of communicants be suffi-

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

239

cient. You must explicate yourself before I can tell what you mean. There is nothing in the Communion Book touching the communion contrary to the place of St. Paul by you quoted, to my knowledge. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Touching the place, before is spoken sufficiently; it resteth to consider of the number. . . . The holy sacrament of the supper of the Lord is not only a seal and confirmation of the promises of God unto us but also a profession of our conjunction as well with Christ our Saviour and with God as also (as St. Paul teacheth) 174 a declaration and 1 7 4 1 COR. x: 17. [For w e being m a n y are one bread, and one b o d y : for w e are all partakers of that one bread.]

profession that we are at one with our brethren. . . . And as, if so be that we do not celebrate as we may possibly and conveniently the supper of the Lord, we thereby utter our want of love towards the Lord which hath redeemed us, so if we do not communicate together with the church so far forth as we may do conveniently, we betray the want of our love that we have one towards another. And therefore St. Paul, driving hereunto, wisheth that one should tarry for another,175 repre1 7 6 1 COR. xi: 33. [Wherefore, m y brethren, w h e n ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.]

hending that when one preventeth and cometh before another, saying that that is to take every man his own supper and not to celebrate the Lord's supper — not that so many men or women as there came, so many tables were, for that had not been possible in so great assemblies, but that they sorted themselves into certain companies and that they came scattering one after another and that instead of making one supper of the Lord they did make divers. W H I T G I F T ( Z ) ) : You cannot be ignorant that the whole drift of the Communion Book is to move all men to oft communicating, and that together, as it manifestly appeareth in the first exhortation in the Book, prescribed to be read when the curate shall see the people negligent in coming to the communion. . . . If the Book should appoint that three or four should communi-

240

The Admonition Controversy

cate together, and no more, or if it did not allow that communion best wherein most of the church do participate, then were your reasoning to some end; but seeing that it is appointed that there should not be fewer than three or four . . . there is no cause why you should take this pains. . . . But that three or four should be a sufficient number to communicate if other will not, there is good cause. For seeing the holy sacrament is a seal and confirmation of God's promises and an effectual applying of the death and passion of Christ unto us and therefore a singular comfort and relief to the afflicted conscience and mind touched with the feeling of sin, why should those that be desirous of it, being a congregation (as three or four is, according to the saying of Christ . . .),176 be debarred from their godly desire and that 176

MATT, xviii: [20. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.]

singular comfort for the carelessness, security, negligence, or lack of such feeling of others? . . . The place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi., is not aptly applied. For the apostle in that place reproveth only such as contemptuously or contentiously did separate themselves from other as well in the public feasts called "love-feasts" and then used in the church as in the supper of the Lord. But he rather meaneth of the first than of the latter. . . . ADMONITION: In this Book three or four are allowed for a fit number to receive the communion; and the priest alone, together with one more, or with the sick man alone, may in time of necessity, that is, when there is any common plague or in time of other visitation, minister it to the sick man, and if he require it, it may not be denied. This is not, I am sure, like in effect to a private Mass. That Scripture, "Drink ye all of this," 177 maketh not against this, and private communion is not 177

MATT, xxvi: 27. [And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it.] MARK xiv: 23. [And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.]

against the Scriptures. W H I T G I F T (A): How untruly these men charge the church with private communions I have shewed before. The place of

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

241

Scripture here alleged to prove that three or four be not a sufficient number to communicate . . . m a y as well be applied to prove that ten, twenty, forty is no sufficient number. . . . T h i s text proveth that all ought to be partakers of the Lord's cup, but it doth not determine any certain number of communicants. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e reason which the Admonition useth . . . is not so ridiculous as M . Doctor maketh it. For although it do neither prove that 12. or 20. or any other definite number must of necessity receive, yet it proveth that as all they which were present did communicate, so as m a n y as in the church are fit to receive the sacraments or may conveniently receive them together should follow that example in celebrating the supper together. WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e Book of C o m m o n Prayer doth greatly commend and like the receiving of the whole church together, but if that cannot be obtained . . . it secludeth not those that be well disposed, so they be a competent number. A n d the Book doth exhort those to depart w h i c h do not communicate with a warning from whence they depart so that y o u m a y well understand that the meaning of the Book is that all that be present should communicate. Neither can this place of Scripture be d r a w n to improve the decree of the church therein. For Christ had 70. other disciples and his mother with divers other which followed him that were not present at that supper as no doubt they should have been if by that example he had m e a r t to have m a d e a law that there m a y be no communion unless the whole congregation of every particular church do communicate together. CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d it is probably to be thought that if our Saviour Christ had not been restrained by the law of G o d touching the passover 178 unto his own family, being twelve and EXOD. xii: 3. [Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth d a y of this month they shall take to them every m a n a l a m b , according to the house of their fathers, a l a m b for an house.]

178

therefore a competent number to eat u p a l a m b by themselves, that he would have celebrated his supper, not only amongst his

242

The Admonition Controversy

xii. disciples, which afterward he m a d e apostles, but also amongst other of his disciples and professors of his doctrine. . . . WHITGIFT (D): This is only a conjecture, but it overthroweth your argument; for by your saying Christ had his twelve apostles there at supper because the law touching the passover did bind him thereunto, not because he would signify that there should be no communion except the whole church do communicate. T h e disciples were " m a d e apostles" before the institution of the supper and were so called, as it is evident, M a t t , x. 1 7 9 and M A T T , x: [ I . A n d w h e n he had called unto h i m his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2. N o w the names of the twelve apostles are these. . . .]

179

M a r k iii., 180 and therefore I marvel w h a t y o u mean in saying M A R K Hi: [14. A n d he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he m i g h t send them forth to preach.]

180

" w h i c h afterwards he made apostles." . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): A l l men understand that the passover was a figure of the Lord's supper and that there should be as strait bonds to bind men to celebrate the remembrance of our spiritual deliverance as there was to remember the deliverance out of Egypt. But whosoever did not then communicate with the rest at that time when the passover was eaten was excommunicated, as may appear in the Numbers. 1 8 1 . . . 181 NUM. ix: 13. [But the m a n that is clean, and is not in a j o u r n e y , and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul -shall be cut off f r o m a m o n g his people: because he brought not the offering of the L o r d in his appointed season, that m a n shall bear his sin.]

WHITGIFT ( D ) : I do not m u c h disagree from this, saving that I see no reason that three or four should be debarred from so comfortable and fruitful a sacrament either for the negligence or necessary impediments of others; except also your misunderstanding of the ix. of Numbers, for delete animam eius de populis suis is there not " t o excommunicate," as y o u interpret it, but " t o put to d e a t h " and " t o kill," w h i c h were a hard punishment for such as be negligent in coming to the communion. . . .

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

243

A D M O N I T I O N : They ministered the sacraments plainly; we pompously, with singing, piping, surplice and cope-wearing. They, simply as they received it from the Lord; 182 we, sin1821

COR. xi: 23. [For I have received of the Lord that which also I de-

livered unto you, T h a t the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.]

fully mixed with man's inventions and devices. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): When you shew your reasons against that pomp which is now used in the celebration of that sacrament, you shall hear what I have to say in defence of the same. I think that there is nothing used in the administration thereof that doth in any respect contaminate it or make it unpure. As for piping, it is not prescribed to be used at the communion by any rule that I know. Singing I am sure you do not disallow, being used in all reformed churches and an art allowed in Scriptures and used in praising of God by David. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): M . Doctor will not defend the piping and organs nor no other singing than is used in the reformed churches, which is in the singing of two psalms, one in the beginning and another in the ending, in a plain tune, easy both to be sung of those which have no art in singing and understanded of those which because they cannot read cannot sing with the rest of the church. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : The substance . . . you have left untouched, that is, whether "these things be of that weight or no that in any respect they can contaminate the sacraments or make them impure as they be now used." 7.

THE

PURIFICATION

OF

WOMEN

AFTER

CHILDBIRTH

In which Book a great number of things contrary to God's word are contained, as Jewish purifyings, &c. 183 . . . ADMONITION:

ACTS xv: 10. [Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.]

183

W H I T G I F T (A): Y o u cite . . . Acts xv., where Peter, speaking against certain of the Pharisees which believed and taught

244

The Admonition Controversy

that it was needful for the gentiles which were converted to be circumcised and to observe Moses' law, saith on this sort. . . . How anything here contained prohibiteth women, after they be delivered from the great danger and pains of childbearing, to give in the congregation thanks for their deliverance, let the godly reader judge. Surely this is no Jewish purifying but Christian giving of thanks, most consonant and agreeable to the Word of God. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): M. Doctor . . . should have considered that if it be a Jewish ceremony (as they suppose it) it is to be abolished utterly. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): The place nothing pertaineth to this purpose, neither is giving of thanks a Jewish ceremony; and therefore their supposition is but vain. . . . Indeed the punishment and danger laid upon all womankind for the disobedience is not only common but very notorious and a perpetual testimony of our subjection unto sin and therefore requireth a solemn thanksgiving at such time as it pleaseth God to shew his mercy therein and to deliver from it. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : They should first prove . . . that churching of women, coming in veils, abusing the psalm to her, " I have lifted up mine eyes unto the hills, &c.," 184 and such other PS. cxxi: [ i . I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh m y help.]

184

foolish things are agreeable to the written Word of the Almighty. W H I T G I F T {A): The cxxi. Psalm . . . teacheth that all help cometh from God and that the faithful ought to look for help at his hands, and therefore a most meet psalm to be said at such time as we being delivered from any peril come to give thanks to God. What mean you to add "and such other foolish things"? What foolishness, I beseech you, can you find in this so godly a psalm? O where are your wits? Nay, where is your reverence you ought to give to the Holy Scriptures? . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : For the Psalm cxxi. . . . it being shewed that it is not meet to have any such solemn thanksgiving, it is needless to debate of the psalm wherewith the thanksgiving should be made.

Portions of the Book of C o m m o n Prayer

245

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : A short answer and to small purpose. The psalm is most apt to that end, and thanksgiving in such cases most godly. 8.

OBSERVANCE

OF

HOLYDAYS

A D M O N I T I O N : In which a great number of things are contained contrary to the Word of God, as observing of holydays, &c. 185 . . . 186

EXOD. xx: 9. [Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.]

You mislike observing of holydays, and you allege Exod. xx.: "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work." T o observe any day superstitiously or to spend any day unprofitably is flat against not this commandment only but others also in the Holy Scriptures. . . . But to abstain any day from bodily labour that we may labour spiritually in hearing the Word of God, magnifying his name and practising the works of charity, is not either against this or any other commandment. For I think the meaning of this commandment is not so to tie men to bodily labour that they may not intermit the same to labour spiritually. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : If they were so indifferent as they are made, yet, being kept of the papists, which are the enemies of God, they ought to be abolished. . . . Whenas the continuance of them doth nourish wicked superstition in the minds of men and that the doctrine which should remedy the superstition, through the fewness and scarcity of able ministers, cannot come to the most part of them which are infected with this disease . . . it ought to be abolished. . . . If they had been never abused neither by the papists nor by the Jews, as they have been and are daily, yet such making of holydays is never without some great danger of bringing in some evil and corrupt opinions into the minds of men. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Imaginations and guesses may not go for reasons. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : I will use an example in one, and that the chief of holydays and most generally and of longest time WHITGIFT

{ A ) :

246

T h e Admonition Controversy

observed in the church, which is the feast of Easter, which was kept, of some more days, of some fewer. . . . St. Paul teacheth the celebrating of the feast of the Christians' Easter is not, as the Jews' Easter was, for certain days but sheweth that we must keep this feast all the days of our life in "the unleavened bread of sincerity and of truth" 186 by which we see that the observing 186

1 COR. z>: [7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:] 8. [Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.]

of the feast of Easter for certain days in the year doth pull out of our minds, or ever we be aware, the doctrine of the gospel and causeth us to rest in that near consideration of our duties for the space of a few days, which should be extended to all our life. W H I T G I F T (D): What! Do you condemn the feast of Easter also? Would you have it abrogated because it hath been abused? Do you not know that the apostles themselves observed it, and the church ever sithence their time? . . . The place of St. Paul, 1 Cor. v., is nothing to your purpose; for though he borrow a metaphor of the Jews' passover to move the Corinthians to pureness and integrity of life, yet doth he not abrogate the feast of Easter. If he had meant any such thing (as he did not), yet must it have been understanded of the Jews' passover, not of celebration of the memory of Christ's resurrection, which we commonly call Easter. Doth he that saith the whole life of a Christian man ought to be a perpetual fast deny that there may be any day or time appointed to fast in? A Christian man must ever serve God and worship him. Shall there not therefore be certain days appointed for the same? This is a very simple argument: St. Paul willeth us "to purge out the old leaven, that we may be a new lump, &c."; also "to keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of maliciousness, &c."; therefore we may not celebrate the feast of Easter once a year. I deny this argument. . . . W H I T G I F T (^4): This is no restraint for any man from serving of God any day in the week else. For the Jews had divers

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

247

other feasts which they by God's appointment observed, notwithstanding these words: " S i x days, & c . " . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Indeed, the Lord which gave this general law might make as many exceptions as he thought good and so long as he thought good, but it followeth not because the Lord did it that therefore the church may do it unless it hath commandment and authority from G o d so to do. As when there is any general plague or judgment of God, either upon the church or coming towards it, the Lord commandeth in such a case that they should sanctify a general fast and proclaim ghnatsarah,m which signifieth a prohibition or forbidding of 187

JOEL ii:

15. [Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn

assembly.]

ordinary works. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): W h e n you are convinced by manifest Scripture, as you are in this matter, then you fly to your newlydevised distinctions as you do in this place, saying, " T h e Lord which gave this general law might make as many exceptions as he thought good," but to no purpose, for you cannot shew in the whole Scripture where God hath made any law or ordinance against his own commandment. A n d surely in this point you have greatly overshot yourself, being content rather to grant contrariety to be in the Scripture than to yield to a manifest and known truth. T h e church, in appointing holydays, doth follow the example of God himself and therefore hath sufficient ground and warrant for her doings. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): His exception that " i t cannot be shewed in all the Scripture that God hath made any law against his own commandment" is untrue. For, not to go far, was it not a law of G o d that the Jews were bound of necessity to keep the sabbaths and other solemn feasts? A n d is it not now a law of God that, at the least, they are not so bound? His fear that God "should be thus contrary to himself" is causeless: no more than the father is to be holden unconstant which, when his son cometh to man's estate, freeth him of the obedience unto his servant, under which he cast him in his tender years, 188 or than 188

GAL. iv: [1. N o w I say, T h a t the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth

nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

248

T h e Admonition Controversy

2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.]

the physician, which, according to the state of his patient's body, prescribeth not only a divers but a quite contrary diet. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): That in the second of the prophet Joel maketh against you directly; for it sheweth that upon just occasion the church may inhibit men from labour even in the six days, notwithstanding it be said: " S i x days thou shalt labour, & c . " And to the intent no man should doubt of the liberty of the church herein or of the practice of this liberty, let the ninth chapter of Esther be perused, and therein it will appear that in remembrance of their great delivery from the treason of Haman the Jews by the commandment of Mordecai did solemnize and keep holyday the fourteenth and fifteenth day of the month Ader every year. 189 . . . 189 [ESTHER ix: 20. A n d Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far, 21. T o stablish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly, 22. As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to j o y , and from mourning into a good day: that they should make them days of feasting and j o y , and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.]

C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : T h e example out of Esther ix. of "the two days which the Jews instituted in the remembrance of their deliverance" is no sufficient warrant for these feasts in question. For, first, as in other cases, so in this case of days the estate of Christians under the gospel ought not to be so ceremonious as was theirs under the Law. Secondly, that which was done there was done by a special direction of the Spirit of God, either through the ministry of the prophets which they had or by some other extraordinary means which is not to be followed of us. This may appear by another place where the Jews changed their fasts into feasts only by the mouth of the Lord through the ministry of the prophet. 190 . . . 190

ZECH. viii: [19. T h u s saith the Lord of hosts; T h e fast of the fourth

month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love and truth and peace.]

Portions of the Book of Common Prayer

249

ADMONITION: They should first prove . . . that holydays ascribed to saints, prescript services for them, &c., are agreeable to the written Word of the Almighty. W H I T G I F T (^4): "Holydays ascribed to saints," wherein not the saints but God is honoured and the people edified by reading and hearing such stories and places of Scripture as pertain to the martyrdom, calling, and function of such saints or any other thing mentioned of them in Scripture, must needs be according to God's Word. For to honour God, to worship him, to be edified by the stories and examples of saints out of the Scripture cannot be but consonant to the Scripture. The prescript service for them is all taken out of God's Word, and not one piece thereof but it is most consonant unto the same. If there be any that is repugnant, set it down that we may understand it. . . . ADMONITION: In this Book days are ascribed unto saints and kept holy with fasts on their evens and prescript service appointed for them, which, beside that they are of many superstitiously kept and observed, are also contrary to the commandment of God, "Six days thou shalt labour," 191 and therefore 1 , 1 EXOD. xx: 9. [Six days shalt thou labour, and d o all thy work.] EXOD. xxiii: 12. [Six days thou shalt d o thy work, and on the seventh d a y t h o u shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass m a y rest, and the son of thy h a n d m a i d , and the stranger, m a y be refreshed.] DEUT. v: 13. [Six days thou shalt labour, and d o all thy work.] ISA. i: 10. [Hear the word of the L o r d , ye rulers of S o d o m ; give ear unto the l a w of our G o d , ye people of G o m o r r a h . . . . 13. Bring n o more v a i n oblations; incense is an abomination unto m e ; the n e w moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot a w a y w i t h ; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.] 14. [ Y o u r new moons and y o u r appointed feasts m y soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I a m w e a r y to bear them.] LEV. xxiii: 3. [Six days shall work be done: b u t the seventh d a y is the sabbath of rest, a n holy convocation; ye shall d o no work therein: it is the sabbath of the L o r d in all your dwellings.] n ESDRAS i: 13. [I h a v e led y o u thorow the Sea, and h a v e given y o u a sure w a y , since the beginning: I g a v e y o u Moyses for a guide and A a r o n for a Priest. (From the " A p o c r y p h a " in the G e n . ver., 1560)] ROM. xvi: 6. [Greet M a r y , w h o bestowed m u c h labour on us. (Whitgift corrects this reference to read R o m . xiv. 6.: " H e that regardeth the d a y , regardeth it unto the L o r d ; and he that regardeth not the d a y , to the L o r d he doth not regard i t . " ) ]

250

T h e Admonition Controversy

GAL. iv: 10. [Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.] 11. [I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.]

we, for the superstition that is put in them, dare not subscribe to allow them. W H I T G I F T {A): This is contained in your first reason and there answered. Your collection hangeth not together. For how followeth this: these holydays be superstitiously observed of some; therefore you may not allow them? Why should other men's superstition hinder you from lawfully using a lawful thing? . . . Y o u heap up a number of places in the margent to prove that which no man doubteth of, that is, this portion of the commandment, "Six days shalt thou labour, & c . , " the meaning of which words is this that, seeing God hath permitted unto us six days to do our works in, we ought the seventh day wholly to serve him. Every man hath not bodily labour to do but may serve God as well in these six days as in the seventh. And certainly he doth not by any means break this commandment, which abstaineth in any of these six days from bodily labour to serve God. For this is the commandment: "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath-day." As for this, " S i x days thou shalt work," is no commandment but tendeth rather to the constitution of the sabbath than to the prohibiting of rest in any other day appointed to the service of God; and it is as much as if he should say, "Six days thou mayest work"; and so do some translate the Hebrew word. T h e place alleged out of the first of Esay is far from the purpose; there is not one word there spoken of any holydays dedicate to saints, but only the Lord signifieth that their sacrifices and feast days were not acceptable unto him because they were done in hypocrisy and without faith so that he reproveth modum not jactum, their manner of sacrificing, that is, their hypocritical kind of worshipping him and not the worship or the deed done. In the second of Esdras i., in the place by you quoted, I see not one word that may serve for your purpose. T h e words you quote be these: " I have led you through the sea and have given you a sure way since the beginning; I gave you Moses for a guide and Aaron for a priest."

T h e Injunction

251

In the xiv. to the Ro. the apostle speaketh nothing of our holydays but of such as were observed among the Jews and abrogated by the coming of Christ. And yet in that place the apostle exhorteth that we which be strong should not despise them that are weak nor condemn them though they use not the Christian liberty in days and meats. T h a t in the fourth to the Galat., " Y e observe days, months, and times, and years, & c . " . . . can by no means be understood of the days observed by us and called by the names of saints' days, for they were ordained since the writing of this epistle. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : All this have you overskipped; for what cause you know best yourself.

C. T h e Injunction "Receive the Holy Ghost" in the Ordering of Ministers A D M O N I T I O N : They take upon them blasphemously, having neither promise nor commandment, to say to their new creatures, "Receive the Holy Ghost." As though the Holy Ghost were in their power to give without warrant at their own pleasure. 192 . . . It containeth manifest blasphemy; as may appear EPH. i.: 17. [That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.] m

W H I T G I F T (^4): T o use these words . . . in ordering of ministers, which Christ himself used in appointing his apostles, is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words that he used in the supper; but it is blasphemy thus outrageously to speak of the words of Christ. The bishop by speaking these words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost no more than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission of sins, but by speaking these words of Christ . . . he doth shew the principal duty of a minister and assureth him of the assistance of God's Holy Spirit if he labour in the same accordingly. . . . T h e place in that chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians proveth no such thing. . . . What sequel is there in this argument: St. Paul prayed that God would give to the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom and revelation through the knowledge of

252

The Admonition Controversy

him; ergo, this saying of the bishop, "Receive the Holy Ghost," to those that are admitted into the ministry "containeth manifest blasphemy?" Such is your usual manner of reasoning. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): M . Doctor saith he seeth nothing how the place of the Ephes. maketh anything against this manner of speech of the bishop: "Receive the Holy Ghost." And yet it maketh thus much that forasmuch as the apostles did use to pray that the grace of God might be given unto men, the bishops should not use this manner of speech which containeth the form of a commandment. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : This is far from proving the words to contain a manifest blasphemy.

D. Vestments In those days known by voice, learning, now they must be discerned from other by

ADMONITION:

and doctrine;

193

1 9 3 1 SAM. ix: 18. [Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, T e l l me, I pray thee, where the seer's house is.

19. A n d Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer. . . .] MATT, xxvi: 48. [Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. . . .] 73. [And after a while came unto him they that stood b y , and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.]

popish and antichristian apparel, as cap, gown, tippet, &c. W H I T G I F T (A): T o prove that in those days ministers were known by voice, learning, and doctrine, you cite the ninth of the First of Samuel and the xxvi. of Matthew. In all that ninth chapter of Samuel there is not one word that maketh for this purpose except you mean this, that when Saul asked of Samuel where the seer's house was, Samuel answered again that he was the seer. If this be to be "known by voice, learning, and doctrine," the ignorantest minister that is may soon be known by his voice, learning, and doctrine; for if you ask him, "Where is such a man," he can answer you, " I am he." In the xxvi. of Matthew, the first place, ver. 48. . . . the multitude that came with Judas knew Christ by Judas kissing of him; therefore in those days ministers were "known by voice, learning, and doc-

Vestments

253

trine." T h e second place in that chapter alleged, ver. 73., is this . . . Peter was suspected by his speech to be a Galilean and therefore one of Christ's apostles; ergo, a minister was then " k n o w n by voice, learning, and doctrine." Y o u m a y as well of that place gather thus: Peter preached not Christ then, but denied him; ergo, a minister must be known b y denying of Christ. Lord G o d , w h a t dare not these men allege for their purpose! I know that the chief tokens whereby a minister ought to be known is doctrine and learning, but y o u childishly abuse the Scripture and play with the same. " N o w , " y o u say, "ministers must be discerned from other by popish and antichristian apparel, as cap, gown, tippet, & c . " D o y o u think that because a minister ought to be known by his voice, learning, and doctrine, therefore he m a y not be also known by his apparel? J o h n the Baptist had peculiar apparel and was known by it; Christ had distinct apparel from other, for his coat had never a seam. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e places alleged by the Admonition, with others which m a y be cited, howsoever you deride them, are notwithstanding probable conjectures 194 that neither Samuel They were quoted by the Admonition to prove that ministers were known by voice, learning, and doctrine; and you transfer them to apparel. [J. W.]

1,4

nor the apostles nor our Saviour Christ did wear any distinct apparel from others which lived in their times. For if Samuel being then a seer had had a several apparel w h i c h was proper to the seers, it is not like that Saul would have asked of himself where his house was. 195 A n d if the apostles had worn a several 1 9 5 1 SAM. ix: 18. [Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer's house is.]

apparel from the rest, they should not have been esteemed b y so general and uncertain a note as of speaking somewhat broadly or, as I m a y term it, northernly; 196 for it had been a surer note MATT, xxvi: 73. [And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.] 196

to have said, " T h o u art one of his apostles because none weareth this apparel but his apostles"; where there was a great number

254

T h e Admonition Controversy

that spake Galilean-like w h i c h w e r e not of his apostles nor disciples neither. B u t let these go. . . . F o r w h a t an a r g u m e n t is this! O u r S a v i o u r Christ did w e a r an u n d e r g a r m e n t w h i c h could not well be parted but w i t h the spoil or m a r r i n g of it; therefore he w a r e a several a p p a r e l f r o m the rest. It is true J o h n Baptist h a d a several a p p a r e l ; 197 a n d , 197

MATT, in: 4. [And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and

a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.]

to help y o u , so h a d Elias, 1 9 8 but to this end that, both b y his 198

II KINGS i: 8. [And they answered him, H e was an hairy man, and

girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. A n d he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.]

u n w o n t e d apparel and strange diet w h i c h he used of locusts and wild honey, the extraordinariness of his ministry m i g h t be set forth. . . . B u t ministers n o w h a v e no such extraordinary functions; therefore b y that reason of yours they should not be severed f r o m other m e n b y a n y note of apparel. . . . WHITGIFT (D): T h e y be " c o n j e c t u r e s " indeed, and m e r e " c o n j e c t u r e s , " b u t w i t h o u t all s h a d o w of probability or reason; a n d if y o u will give m e leave so to " c o n j e c t u r e , " I will p r o v e anything. B u t such slender " c o n j e c t u r e s " a r g u e t h the slenderness of y o u r proofs. T h e Admonition useth those places to prove that ministers w e r e then " k n o w n b y voice, learning, a n d doct r i n e " ; w h i c h h o w they or y o u c a n c o n c l u d e of them, I confess that I c a n n o t imagine, except y o u will say that S a m u e l said u n t o Saul, " I a m the seer," and they that stood b y said u n t o Peter, " E v e n thy speech b e w r a y e t h t h e e , " therefore "ministers w e r e k n o w n b y voice, learning, and d o c t r i n e " ; w h i c h is as m u c h as t h o u g h y o u w o u l d say, " S a u l k n e w S a m u e l b y S a m u e l ' s o w n report, and a W e l c h m a n is k n o w n b y his tongue, ergo, ' m i n isters are k n o w n b y voice, learning, and doctrine.' " Is not this a proper kind of reasoning? Is this the reverence d u e to the Scriptures, thus babishly to abuse them? B u t say y o u , " I f S a m u e l h a d h a d a several a p p a r e l proper to the seers, it was not like that S a u l w o u l d h a v e asked of h i m w h e r e his house w a s . " N a y , y o u should rather h a v e said that it is like that Saul, b e i n g a rudesby a n d b r o u g h t u p only in

Vestments

255

keeping of cattle, had never seen prophet before and therefore could not know Samuel, what kind of apparel soever he had worn. And that this is true, that Saul did not know what a seer meant and that he did never see any before, it may appear in the same chapter. 199 . . . 198

[1 SAM. ix: 5. A n d w h e n they were c o m e to the land of Z u p h , S a u l said

to his servant t h a t w a s w i t h him, C o m e , a n d let us return; lest m y father l e a v e caring for the asses, a n d take t h o u g h t for us. 6. A n d he said u n t o h i m , B e h o l d n o w , there is in this city a m a n of G o d , a n d he is an h o n o u r a b l e m a n ; all t h a t he saith c o m e t h surely to pass: n o w let us g o thither: p e r a d v e n t u r e he c a n shew us our w a y t h a t w e should g o . 7. T h e n said S a u l to his servant, B u t , behold, if w e g o , w h a t shall w e bring the m a n ? for the b r e a d is spent in our vessels, a n d there is n o t a present to b r i n g to the m a n of G o d : w h a t h a v e we?]

Touching Peter, what kind of apparel soever he did wear, the matter is not great; it is the fond reason of theirs that I reprove, which is too too childish . . . and yet may it be supposed that Peter used all the means he could not to be known; and therefore whether he cast off his uppermost garment or changed it, it may be a question. Furthermore it was in the night-time. Finally, he was suspected by a maid to be one of Christ's disciples before he had spoken one word, as it appeareth, John xviii.200 200

[JOHN xviii:

16. B u t Peter stood at the door w i t h o u t . T h e n w e n t o u t

t h a t other disciple, w h i c h w a s k n o w n u n t o the h i g h priest, and spake u n t o her t h a t k e p t the door, a n d b r o u g h t in Peter. 17. T h e n saith the d a m s e l t h a t k e p t the door u n t o Peter, A r t n o t t h o u also one of this m a n ' s disciples? H e saith, I a m not.]

But to let all this pass, what kind of reasoning call you this: Peter was known by his voice; ergo, he was not known by his apparel? O r this: Peter was known by his tongue to be a Galilean; ergo, "ministers must be known by voice, learning, and doctrine"? Here you let slip without any defence at all that which is alleged by the Admonition out of the 48. verse of the xxvi. chapter of Matthew to the same purpose. No man can deny but Christ's apparel differed from the rest and that this was a rare kind of habit; else would not the evange-

256

T h e Admonition Controversy

list St. John, chap, xix., have made so particular mention of it.201 [JOHN xix: 23. Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.] 201

Wherefore that which I say is true, that even then ministers of the gospel might be known by their apparel, as Christ and John the Baptist, and therefore not to be so strange a matter that ministers should also now differ from other men in their apparel. That which you speak of John Baptist confirmeth my saying, which is that ministers of the gospel were then also known by their apparel. And if "unwonted apparel did set forth" John his "ministry and moved them the rather to inquire of his office," why may it not have the same use now in like manner? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): His plaster for all sores of a "negative argument" unto our reason that the Scripture maketh no mention of any distinction of apparel for the minister of the gospel, as in other places, so here especially it healeth not. For there is not the least thing incident unto a minister as he is a minister but it is comprehended in the Word of God, else let him give an instance or one only example; whereof also this may be a good witness, that St. John's apparel, which was several, is set forth so diligently even unto the very girdle. And seeing the apostle entered into mention of the minister's apparel when he willeth it "should be honest," 202 if he had thought it needful 202

1 TIM. iii.: [no verse given: no reference to apparel appears in I Tim. iii.]

that he should have had a mark in it to be known by, how easily could he have noted it, which was instructed by the Holy Ghost of all things profitable to advance the ministry of the gospel. . . . In his answer of our Saviour Christ's garment, for one fault he maketh two. For he saith that "St. John would not have made mention of it unless it had been a several apparel," which is a shameful saying, considering that it is manifest that he noteth it to have had no seam to shew the occasion that the soldiers took of casting lots for it, whereby both David's prophecy of him was fulfilled and he the better known to be the same of whom the prophet spake.203 Again, this garment, wherein the Answerer JOHN xix: 24. [They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be ful203

Vestments

257

filled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.]

will have the mark of our Saviour Christ's ministry, was his coat and undergarment and therefore not so fit to shew forth his ministry as he passed by the streets, considering that it was hidden by his cloak or mantle, which he wore upon it. And if our Saviour Christ had the note of his ministry in his coat, then although St. Peter (as he divineth) had put off his upper, yet they might have known him by his under garment, which was also a proper note of his ministry, unless he will peradventure say that our Saviour Christ wear the mark of his ministry upon his coat and St. Peter his upon his cloak, which in this boldness he is entered into peradventure he will not stick to do. Last of all, this judgment of "our Saviour Christ's several apparel like unto John Baptist" is contrary to the evangelists', which shew that he in his outward fashion of life took another way than St. John Baptist, namely, for that where St. John chose a path through which he separated himself from the ordinary and accustomable trade of other men,204 our Saviour Christ followed MATT, xi: 16. [Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.]

204

the common and high way that other went, 206 which, being 206 LUKE vii: 31. [And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?]

expressly mentioned of his diet, must by the same reason be understood of his apparel, considering that that was one of the two points wherein St. John sought a singularity. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : But they are as the garments of the idol, to which we should say, "Avaunt, and get thee hence." 206 T h e y ISA. xxx: 22. [Ye shall defile also the coverings of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.]

206

are as the garments of Balaamites, of popish priests, enemies to God and all Christians. . . . W H I T G I F T ( A ) : Be it so. So were all things in Hierico accursed and an abomination to the Lord; neither was it lawful

258

T h e Admonition Controversy

for the Israelites to touch anything thereof; and yet was the gold and the silver and the brazen and iron vessels carried into the treasure-house of the Lord and consecrated unto him. Josue vi.207 [JOSHUA vi: 18. And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed. . . . 19. But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall come into the treasury of the Lord.]

M

Gedeon was commanded to take and sacrifice that ox of his father's to God, which his father had fed and brought up to be sacrificed to Baal, yea, and to burn that ox with the selfsame wood that was consecrated and dedicated to the idol Baal. Judic.

vi.20S

. .

.

[JUDGES vi: 25. And . . . the Lord said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock . . . and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it; 26. And build an altar unto the Lord thy God upon the top of this rock . . . and take the . . . bullock, and offer a burnt sacrifice with the wood of the grove which thou shalt cut down.]

208

C A R T W R I G H T (R): When you shall prove that the surplice is so necessary to the service of God as gold and silver and other metal and as oxen and wood, whereof the first sort were such as without the which the temple could not be built, the other, such as were expressly commanded of God to be used in his service, then I will confess that this place maketh something for you. And yet if your copes and surplices, &c., should have such a purgation by fire as those metals had or ever the Lord would admit them into his treasure-house and should be driven to pass from popery unto the gospel by the chimney, the fire would make such wrack with them that they should need have better legs than your arguments to bring them into the church. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : That "wood," that "gold," and that "ox," &c., was not so "necessary" but that both God might have been served and "the temple builded without them," and therefore that is no answer. For although "gold, wood, oxen, &c.," be "necessary," yet the gold and silver found in Jericho, the ox reserved by Gedeon's father, and wood that was consecrated to Baal was not so necessary; for there might have been other "gold,

Vestments

259

silver, wood, oxen, & c . , " provided. In that God commanded these things to be done, you know that St. Augustine . . . doth conclude a general doctrine that things dedicated to idols may be converted to common uses and to the honour of God. . . . This place of Esay and such like are unaptly alleged against the apparel now used, being nothing of that nature that those things be whereof the prophet in that place speaketh. Y o u say "if our copes and surplices, &c., should have such a purgation by fire, & c . , " I pray you, where read you of any such "purgation by fire of those metals" before they were admitted into the Lord's treasure-house? And what "purgation by fire" could there be of wood or of the ox before they were used in the sacrifice and service of the Lord? There is no such purging of the things taken in Jericho mentioned in that chapter, but the contrary; for thus it is written: "After they burnt the city with fire and all that was therein; only the silver and gold and the vessels of brass and iron they put into the treasure-house of the Lord." 209 And in the place before, where Josua is com209

JOSHUA vi:

24. [ A n d they b u r n t the city w i t h fire, a n d all t h a t was

therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass a n d of iron, t h e y p u t into t h e treasury of the house of the L o r d . ]

manded to reserve these things, there is no commandment of any such purging. . . . ADMONITION: They serve not to edification. WHITGIFT (¿4): Y o u say also that they do not edify. If you say that they do not edify of themselves, you say truly; for only the Holy Ghost on this sort doth edify by the ministry of the Word. But if you say they edify not at all, that is, that they do not tend to edifying as other ceremonies and things used in the church, as pulpit, church, kneeling, singing, and such like, which be appointed for order and decency do, then speak you that which you are not able by sound arguments to justify. WHITGIFT (D): T o this not one word. . . . WHITGIFT (^4): W e are by due proof and experience taught that such as have worn this apparel, and do wear it, by the ministry of the Word have greatly edified and do daily. CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e . . . reason . . . that they that wear this apparel have edified and do edify . . . is as if a man

260

The Admonition Controversy

would say, " T h e midwives which lied unto Pharaoh did much good among the Israelites; 210 ergo, their lying did much good." E X O D . i: [18. And the King of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?] 19. [And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. 20. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives. . . .]

210

WHITGIFT

( D ) : Indeed, if this apparel were of that nature

that a lie is, your similitude of the "midwives" had some shew in it; and yet must you of necessity confess that their "lying" to Pharaoh "did much good" per accidens; for otherwise the menchildren of the Israelites and even Moses himself had been murdered; and you are not ignorant that divers writers in this respect excuse that doing of theirs. . . . But your similitude is not like; and if it were, yet makes it against you, for "their lying did good." . . . ADMONITION: They have the shew of evil (seeing the popish priesthood is evil). 211 . . . 211

1 THESS.

v: 22. [Abstain from all appearance of evil.]

(^4): When they were a sign and token of the popish priesthood, then were they evil even as the thing was which they signified; but now they be the tokens and the signs of the ministers of the Word of God which are good, and therefore also they be good. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( / ? ) : I will prove the names of idols to be fit and convenient names for good men to be called by. Beltshaser, Saddrake, Misacke, and Abed-nego were names of Daniel and his three companions, 212 and they were the names of good men; WHITGIFT

212

DAN. i: 7. [Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.]

therefore they are good names of men. And so the names of the Babylonian idols are by this reason of M. Doctor justified to be good names. Again, the golden calf was a sign. 213 Also it was a 213 E X O D . xxxii: [ 3 . And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.]

Vestments

261

4. [And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.]

sign of the true G o d ; therefore it was a true sign of God. . . . WHITGIFT (D): Those names, in respect of those whom they signified, were good; in respect of the idols, to whom they properly belonged, they were evil; for such external things in divers respects may be both good and evil. T h e "golden calf" was an idol made to be worshipped, no "sign of the true G o d " ; and therefore undiscreetly here brought in. . . . CARTWRIGHT (RSR): T h e example of the golden calf was well alleged, for it was to the Israelites a sign of the true God, but a naughty and a wicked sign; and so, if none but ministers of the gospel did wear the surplice, I would confess that with us it were a sign of a minister of the gospel, but yet an uncomely and inconvenient sign. . . . ADMONITION: T h e y work discord, they hinder the preaching of the gospel. WHITGIFT (^4): This is an argument a non causa ad causam; that is, whenas that is put and taken for the cause which is not the cause of the thing talked of. For it is not the apparel that worketh discord or hindereth the preaching of the gospel, no, no more than it is the Word of God that engendereth heresies or wine that maketh drunk or the sword that murdereth or the law that worketh injury, & c . But it is the sinister affection, the rebellious nature, the contentious mind of man. For who began this contention, or when was it begun? Truly, if the law for apparel were utterly abrogated, yet would not your contention cease; nay, it would burst out much more vehemently and in far greater matters, as this your Admonition declareth. . . . CARTWRIGHT {R): It is a very unequal comparison that you compare the use of this apparel with the use of wine and of a sword, which are profitable and necessary; but it is more intolerable that you match it with the Word of God. I could throw it as far down as you lift it up, but I will not do so. This only I will say: if there were no harm in it and that it were also profitable, yet forasmuch as it is not commanded of God expressly but a thing (as you say) indifferent and, notwithstanding,

262

The Admonition Controversy

is cause of so many incommodities and so abused . . . it ought to be sufficient reason to abolish them, seeing that the brazen serpent which was instituted of the Lord himself and contained a profitable remembrance of the wonderful benefit of God towards his people was beaten to powder whenas it began to be an occasion of falling unto the children of I s r a e l 2 1 4 and seeing 214

NUM. xxi: 8. [And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.] 1 1 KINGS xviii: 4. [He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it. . . .]

that St. Paul, after the love-feasts, which were kept at the administration of the Lord's supper and were means to nourish love amongst the churches, were abused and drawn to another use than they were first ordained, did utterly take them away and commanded that they should not be used any more. 2 1 6 . . . 216

1 COR. xi: 22. [What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.]

WHITGIFT (D): I do not compare "this apparel with the Word of G o d , " but by these examples I shew the unaptness of such arguments as be a non causa ad causam. Y o u have "thrown it down as l o w " as you can, and if you could cast it lower, your will is good; and therefore to say you " c o u l d " do it and " w i l l not" is as great an offence as was the mid wives' lying to Pharaoh. . . . As the case now standeth, it is rather commodious; as for abuses in it as it is now used, you have hitherto shewed none; and if it were " a b u s e d , " yet doth it not follow that therefore it is to be removed except the abuse could not be taken away without the abolishing of the thing, as it was in the "brazen serpent," which serpent though it was by God commanded to be set up, yet was it . . . but for that time wherein power was

Vestments

263

given unto it to heal and cure those that were bitten of the serpents, Num. xxi.; 216 and therefore, being but temporal and NUM. xxi: 8. [And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.] 9. [And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.]

419

thus abused, was lawfully taken away; neither would the idolatry committed unto it otherwise have ceased. But do you think that any man doth worship the apparel as the Israelites did worship the serpent? St. Paul . . . reproveth them for certain abuses about the "Lord's supper," whereof this was one of the chief, that they made it an occasion of feasting and banqueting, which manner of feasting in the church was not only borrowed of the gentiles . . . but occasion also of much contention and very unseemly for that time and place.217 . . . If you can shew the COR. xi: [22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.]

217 1

like uncurable abuse in the apparel, I will cry, "Away with it," as fast as you do. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : Although no man "worship the apparel" by falling down before it, yet he may have a damnable opinion of it and as hard to be pulled out as the other. Beside that, by how much the abuse of the serpent was greater than of this apparel, by so much was the profit of the brazen serpent, if it had been called to the right use, without comparison greater than of these ceremonies. . . . That those "love-feasts were borrowed of the gentiles" is unlike, considering that St. Peter giveth sufficiently to understand that they were used in the churches of the Jews, which abhorred from the ceremonies of the gentiles. For, writing unto the churches of the Jews, he alludeth plainly unto that of St. Jude, where these feasts are expressly named. 218 It is much more 218 n P E T ii : ¡g [And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you.]

264

T h e Admonition Controversy

probable that they were taken from the imitation of the Jews under the law, who are bidden to feast before the Lord in Jerusalem.219 . . . DEUT. xiv: 23. [And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. . . .] 219

29. [And the Levite (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.]

(R): Although I have knowledge and know that the wearing of a surplice is lawful for me, yet another which hath not knowledge is by my example edified or strengthened to wear a surplice, whereof he can tell no ground why he should wear it and so sinneth against his conscience. And for this cause St. Paul concludeth that that which a man may do in respect of himself may not be done and is not lawful to be done in respect of other.220 . . . CARTWRIGHT

1 COR. viii: 10. [For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols. . . ?] 13. [Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.] M

WHITGIFT ( D ) : It is true that in some things indifferent a man must have respect to the weakness of his brother and abstain from doing that which he might lawfully do rather than to offend his brother. But that is in such indifferent things as be not by any law commanded or forbidden but left free to every man to do or not to do: as, if "to wear the surplice" were by no law commanded but left to every man's own disposition, then surely if there were any weak offended with the wearing of it, I ought to abstain for the weak his sake; but being by lawful authority commanded to wear it, if I should refuse so to do, I should offend against the magistrate and against God, who by his apostle hath given this commandment . . . "Let every soul be subject to the higher power, &c.," 221 which is to be ROM. xiii: [1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.]

221

Nonresidences and Pluralities

265

understanded in all things that are not against God. And therefore if any man be offended with me in so doing, the offence is taken, it is not given. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Considering it being a flat commandment of the Holy Ghost that we abstain from things in their own nature indifferent if the weak brother should be offended,222 no 222

ROM. xiv: 15. [But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. . . .] 2 1 . [It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.]

authority, either of church or commonwealth, can make it void. And where the magistrate's commanding and our obedience unto him ought to be squared out first by the love of God, then of men, our brethren especially, this new carpenter, as one that frameth his squire according to his timber and not his timber according to the squire, will make our obedience to the civil magistrate the rule of the love of God and our brethren so that, instead that he should teach that we may obey no further unto the magistrate than the same will agree with the glory of God and salvation of our brethren, he teacheth that in things of their own nature indifferent we must have no further regard neither to salvation of our brethren nor to the glory of God, which in neglect of their salvation is trodden under foot,223 than will agree M

1 COR. viii: 12. [But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.]

with doing that the magistrate commandeth. . . . E. Nonresidences and Pluralities Then none admitted to the ministry, but a place was void aforehand to which he should be called.224 ADMONITION:

224

ACTS i: [24. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.] 25. [That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.]

266

T h e Admonition Controversy

(A):

prove this, you cite in the margent the first of the Acts, where it is declared how Matthias was chosen in the place of Judas to make up the number of the xii. apostles. Surely this is but a slender reason: Matthias was chosen into the place of Judas; ergo, no man must be admitted into the ministry, except a place beforehand be void to the which he should be called. . . . Matthias was chosen to be an apostle and not to any certain cure, and therefore this example proveth nothing. C A R T W R I G H T (/?): The reason is of greater force than you would seem to make it: for as the xii. place was to Matthias, so is a certain church unto a pastor or minister; and as the apostles ordained none unto that place before it was void, so ought not the bishop ordain any until there be a church void and destitute of a pastor. And as the apostles ordained not any apostle further than they had testimony of the word of God,226 WHITGIFT

228

TO

ACTS i: 20. [For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation

be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.]

as it appeareth that St. Peter proceedeth by that rule to the election, so ought no bishop ordain any to any function which is not in the Scripture appointed. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : As their reason is far from good reason, so are your similitudes far from proving the same. . . . First, there is great difference betwixt the office of an "apostle" and the office of a "pastor," as you must needs confess. Then is there also difference in the number; for the apostles, which were chosen of Christ to be witnesses of his resurrection, were twelve, and therefore the number certain; but the number of preachers and pastors is not limited, but the more the better. Thirdly, there was one chosen in the place of Judas that the Scripture might be fulfilled, as Peter saith, Acts i.; 226 but there is no such 228

[ACTS i: 15. A n d in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the dis-

ciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16. M e n and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.]

Nonresidences and Pluralities

267

thing in the election of pastors and other ministers. M o r e o v e r , it was the twelfth p l a c e in n u m b e r that M a t t h i a s was chosen unto and not a n y local place such as pastors take c h a r g e of. . . . B u t was not P a u l added to the n u m b e r of the apostles t h o u g h there were no p l a c e void? W e r e not also Barnabas, A c t s xiv., 227 227

[ACTS xiv: 14. W h i c h w h e n the apostles, B a r n a b a s and P a u l , heard of,

they rent their clothes, and ran in a m o n g the people, c r y i n g out.]

Epaphroditus, Phil, ii., 228 A n d r o n i c u s and J u n i a , R o m . xvi., 229 228

[PHIL. ii: 25. Y e t I supposed it necessary to send to y o u E p a p h r o d i t u s ,

m y brother, and c o m p a n i o n in labour, and fellowsoldier. . . .] M

[ROM. xvi:

7. S a l u t e A n d r o n i c u s

and J u n i a ,

my

kinsmen,

and

my

fellowprisoners, w h o are of note a m o n g the apostles, w h o also were in Christ before me.]

called apostles? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): T h e Answerer, i n h e a p i n g u p certain differences between the office of an apostle and pastor, answereth nothing to the matter. If this be true w h i c h is set d o w n , that they be like in this, that a certain c h u r c h is to a pastor or a minister w h i c h the twelfth place was then amongst the apostles, the reason of the Admonition is maintained. F o r then as it was not l a w f u l for t h e m to h a v e proceeded unto a n e w election if J u d a s h a d not fallen f r o m his ministry, so it is not lawful to ordain pastors so long as the place is full. Likewise if the apostles would not undertake any election but w h e r e they h a d the light and guide of the w o r d of G o d to shew t h e m the w a y , not only w h a t m a n n e r a one but w h e n he should be chosen, m u c h less is it l a w f u l for the bishops. T h e first of these being so clear, as the A n s w e r e r durst not plainly d e n y , he d o t h notwithstanding push at privily, saying that " P a u l and B a r n a b a s w e r e added a b o v e the n u m b e r of t w e l v e . " B u t he should h a v e k n o w n that they were added b y the L o r d and not b y the c h u r c h ; w h e r e he should h a v e shewed that the apostles, & c . , chose the thirteenth apostle. A n d w e d e n y not but the L o r d m a y n o w , if it seem good u n t o him, choose some minister w h i c h h a t h no certain place.

T h a t w h i c h he objecteth, of Epaphroditus, & c . , to be apostles

268

The Admonition Controversy

such as we speak of, is an absurd begging of that which is in question. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But that there be not controversy left in this point, what is a flock? St. Paul defineth it plainly when he saith, "Appoint pastors," or elders, or bishops (for these words are indifferently used), through not every shire or province or realm but "through every city or town." 230 And lest that any 230

Trrus i: 5. [For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.]

man should here take occasion to conclude that then it is lawful for one man to be bishop or pastor of a whole city such as London or York, &c., St. Luke in the Acts doth declare the meaning of this place, where he saith that "they appointed elders throughout every congregation," 231 so that if the city or town M

ACTS xiv: 23. [And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.]

be great and the professors of the gospel in it be more than will make conveniently a congregation, then there must be by the rule of God more pastors and bishops. Whereupon it appeareth that both no pastor or bishop ought to be made without there be a flock, as it were a void place, for him and that a flock is not a realm or province or diocese (as we now call a diocese) but so many as may conveniently meet in one assembly or congregation. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is manifest that St. Paul willed Titus to appoint presbyteros (for that word he useth) "in every city," for so doth he also say.232 But what can you hereof conclude? 232

Trrus i: 5. [For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.]

What sequel is there in this argument: St. Paul willed Timothy to appoint ministers in every city; ergo, "there must be none admitted to the ministry of the Word but such as have some certain cure"? Or, therefore one man may not have the oversight and direction of many cures? Indeed, if St. Paul had said

Nonresidences and Pluralities

269

to Titus, "Thou shalt appoint no ministers of the Word or seniors but to a certain cure or admit none to preach the gospel except he have some one place certainly appointed unto him," then your reason had been something. But now it hath no shew of any argument. The place, Acts xiv., tendeth to the same purpose; neither is there one word there to prove that such may not preach the Word as have no certain charge committed unto them, but the contrary rather; for Paul and Barnabas, though they did appoint in every church ministers, yet did they preach themselves also. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): What certain cure had Paul, Barnabas, Philip, Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junius? And yet they were not of the twelve apostles. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But you ask what place Paul and Barnabas had appointed them. What, mean you thereby to conclude that because Paul and Barnabas the apostles had no place appointed them, therefore a pastor or bishop should not, when this is one difference between the apostle and bishop that the one hath no certain place appointed and the other hath? . . . Likewise also you ask of Philip, which was an evangelist. And so you think that these running ministers are lawful because they are apostles and evangelists. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): It is a good reason to prove that there may be preachers of the Word which have no certain cure and doth clean overthrow your former answer to the place Acts i., for Paul and Barnabas were not chosen into any vacant place as Matthias was, and therefore that reason is no reason. I do not say a bishop or pastor should not have a place appointed unto them (for I know bishops and pastors have their cures limited), but this I say that some may be preachers and ministers of the Word which have no certain cure. Neither is this true that all such as be admitted to the preaching of the Word be either bishops or pastors. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then every pastor had his flock.233 ACTS xx: 28. [Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.]

233

270

T h e Admonition Controversy

EPHES. iv: [8. Wherefore he saith, W h e n he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. . . .] 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.] TITUS i: 5. [For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.] 1 PET. v: Q. [Feed the flock of G o d which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.] W H I T G I F T (A): T o prove this you allege the xx. of the Acts, the iv. to the Ephesians, the i. to Titus, the v. chapter of the 1. of Peter; which places declare that there were pastors which had flocks, but they prove not that every pastor had a flock. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): I could shew you how that cities besieged and flocks in danger of the wolves are watched continually night and day 234 and that there is no city so sore and so 234

LUKE ii: 8. [And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in

the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.]

continually besieged nor no flocks subject to so manifold diseases at home or hurtful and devouring beasts abroad, and that without any truce or intermission, as are the churches, the shepherds and watchmen whereof are pastors or bishops. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): T o what purpose you have quoted in your margent the ii. of Luke I know not except it be because it is there said that "the shepherds were watching their sheep in the night." The which how you can apply to your purpose I would gladly learn, for these shepherds went from their sheep and left them in great danger. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Y o u do, as you say, "dally" not with mine but with the Holy Ghost's metaphors of pastor and watchman. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Beside the preaching of the Word and ministering of the sacraments there is required of him that he should admonish privately and house by house those that are under his charge. 235 . . . 236

ACTS xx: 20. [And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto

you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house.]

Nonresidences and Pluralities

271

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : St. Paul's meaning in the xx. of the Acts is not that he daily went into their houses to exhort them but that he did so as occasion served. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Moreover, as in the Law the priests were ready in the temple to answer to all the doubts and questions that any of the people should come to ask,236 so the ministers 236

1 SAM. i: 9. [So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord.]

in their several parishes should be ready to dissolve the difficulties that either one hath with another or with himself touching the conscience, for want whereof the consciences of many, after doubtful and dangerous wrestling with the devil and with despair, are strangled. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : You do not refer me to any place where I might read that "the priests in the Law were ready in the temple to answer all the doubts and questions that any of the people should come to ask, &c. " ; and I do not remember any such place in the Scripture except you mean that which is written in the xvii. of Deut. verse 9., &c., where there is no such attendance mentioned but only the people are willed to bring their controversies to the priests and the judge. If you mean the 12. verse of that chapter 237 . . . you have also missed the 237

DEUT. xvii: [9. And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment. . . . 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.]

cushion. For the meaning of that place is that whosoever presumptuously refuseth to hearken unto the priest . . . shall die. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (57?): Here his memory serveth him not for "any place out of the Law which proveth continual residence of the pastor." I will let pass the houses built round about and joining to the temple, which, being done of Salomon as was the rest of the building, according to the word of God might declare

272

T h e Admonition Controversy

how near their charges the Lord will have the ministers of the church.238 Likewise I will not press the example which is alleged 1 KINGS vi.: [no verse given]. 1 CHRON. xxviii: 11. [Then D a v i d gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, a n d of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat,] 12. [And the pattern of all that he had b y the spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of G o d , and of the treasuries of the dedicated things:] 13. [Also for the courses of the priests and the Levites, and for all the work of the service of the house of the L o r d , and for all the vessels of the service in the house of the L o r d . . . .] 19. [All this, said D a v i d , the L o r d m a d e me understand in writing b y his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.] 238

of Eli sitting at the door of the tabernacle to espy the manners and answer the doubts of those which entered.239 I will content 239 1

SAM. i: 9. [So H a n n a h rose u p after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. N o w Eli the priest sat upon a seat b y a post of the temple of the Lord. . . .] 12. [And it came to pass, as she continued p r a y i n g before the Lord, that Eli marked her mouth.]

myself with the apostle, the best expounder of the law, who, setting forth the priest's function by that part of it which consisted in sacrifices, useth a word of great strength to bind them to a continual residence and signifieth in effect a continual sitting at their charge.240 Now, considering that the pastor's diligence 1 COR. ix: 13. [Do ye not k n o w that they w h i c h minister a b o u t holy things live of the things of the temple? and they w h i c h wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?] 240

is the same in his church that theirs was in their charge, continual presence being required of them, the same, or greater rather, if greater can be, is required of the pastor, as he which hath greater trust committed unto him. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): St. Paul commandeth that the pastor should be a pattern or example in all goodness and holiness of life unto his flock;241 and our Saviour Christ saith that when the 2411

TIM. iv: 12. [Let no m a n despise thy youth; b u t be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.]

Nonresidences and Pluralities

273

shepherd hath led forth his sheep, he "goeth before them"; 2 4 2 242

JOHN x: 4. [And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.]

but if the pastor be not amongst his flock and have not his conversation there, they cannot follow him. If they have not the example before their eyes, they cannot make the like unto it. Therefore this commandment also bindeth them to residency amongst their flocks. St. Peter willeth the pastors of the churches that they should feed the flocks.243 What flocks? Not every one, 243

1 PET. v: 2. [Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.]

but those which are committed to their faith or trust or which dependeth upon them. And St. Paul, speaking to the ministers or bishops of Ephesus, willeth them that they should "take heed unto the flocks over the which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers," where he restraineth, as St. Peter did, their oversight and watch unto their particular flock.244 St. Paul saith that he 244 ACTS xx: 28. [Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.]

took it heavily that he was separated from them but a small time.246 If, therefore, the apostle was away with grief from them 246

1 THESS. ii: 1 7 . [But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire.]

whom he had taught, whom his calling compelled to be away and would not suffer to be always there, what shall be thought of the pastors, whose calling is to be with their flocks and which are consecrated unto them even as the apostles were unto the whole world? What, I say, shall be thought of them that are away months and years? W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Christ is a pattern and an example to us in all goodness, whom we must follow; and yet we never saw him but have only heard of him by his word. St. Paul willed

274

T h e Admonition Controversy

the Corinthians, i C o r . iv. 246 and xi., 247 a n d the Philippians, 246

[i COR. iv: 16. W h e r e f o r e I b e s e e c h y o u , b e y e f o l l o w e r s of m e . ]

247

[i COR. xi:

i . B e y e f o l l o w e r s of m e , e v e n as I also a m of C h r i s t . ]

c h a p , iii., 248 to follow him, a n d y e t w a s he not 248

[PHIL. iii:

perpetually

1 7 . B r e t h r e n , b e f o l l o w e r s t o g e t h e r of m e , a n d m a r k

them

w h i c h w a l k so as y e h a v e u s f o r a n e n s a m p l e . ]

resident a m o n g them. A m a n m a y be throughly known, touching his external conversation, of those w i t h w h o m he is divers times conversant a l t h o u g h he be not a l w a y s a b i d i n g w i t h them. . . . A n d therefore this is no good a r g u m e n t , to say that " t h e pastor must be a n e x a m p l e to his flock" and therefore he must of necessity be continually a m o n g t h e m ; for he m a y so be, a n d that perfectly, if he be sundry times a m o n g t h e m a n d likewise if they hear of his good conversation in place w h e r e he r e m a i n e t h w h e n he is not a m o n g them. T h e same answer serveth for that w h i c h is alleged out of the x. of St. J o h n . St. Peter, 1 Epist. chap, v., d o t h not only exhort pastors a n d such as be addicted to some certain place b u t all other also to w h o m this word presbyter d o t h reach, as it m a y a p p e a r in that he himself saith, " q u i sum et ipse presbyter" ( w h i c h a m also myself a n elder). W h e r e f o r e it is an exhortation general to all preachers and ministers of the W o r d and not only proper to pastors. T h e words that follow be diversely e x p o u n d e d . . . . B u t howsoever it be interpreted, the m e a n i n g is that every m a n l a b o u r in teaching, instructing, and g o v e r n i n g the c h u r c h of Christ a n d the c h a r g e committed u n t o h i m faithfully and diligently. W h i c h exhortation of Peter m a y be o b e y e d of h i m that is not continually r e m a i n i n g in one place if he d o as I h a v e said before. T h e words of St. P a u l , A c t s xx., tend to the same end. A minister of the W o r d a n d pastor must be diligent in his calling, not slothful, and o u g h t to seek b y all means possible to profit the c h u r c h of Christ a n d especially in such places w h e r e u n t o he is especially called. A l l this I grant. T h e p l a c e of St. P a u l , 1 Thess. ii., is far f r o m the purpose. F o r P a u l declareth his singular good-will and affection that he

Nonresidences and Pluralities

275

had to the Thessalonians; he doth not express any duty of his ministry. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): I will not stick to confess that St. Peter wrote in those words to other elders than the pastors. Yet that he wrote to them only that were tied to particular congregations (which maintaineth the Replye) it is manifest by the words alleged out of St. Peter, wherein if I have brought the right sense he ought to have rested, else to have confuted the reasons wherewith that translation is warranted and the other which he setteth down removed and not thus confusedly to make a mash of all. And it availeth him not to seek corners in the diverse interpretation of the place whenas that of the Acts doth in plain and confessed speech utter the same that is here debated of. After he addeth "howsoever the place be expounded" yet it maketh not against him. No, if St. Peter and Paul cry never so high in this language of continual residence, yet the Doctor is deaf and will not hear. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And indeed those that feed their flocks faithfully according to the commandment of God do see what a great wisdom and mercy of God it is to appoint every flock his pastor and every pastor his flock. They can tell of a wonderful love that God worketh in them towards their flocks and in their flocks towards them. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): How can you tell? Y o u have no such experience, for you never had flock. O r what boasting pastor hath so bragged of himself? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): He asketh me how I know it, seeing I had never experience in any. I know it of the causes of love, whereof the daily conversation and delight to be together is one of the principal. . . . Likewise I know it by experience in the apostle St. Paul, which uttereth greater affections of love towards the Corinth, and Philip, and other with whom he remained longest and suffered most for than towards the other churches where he made not that abode nor took so great pains. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Again, if he will say that then they may not go forth of the town to do their necessary business for

276

T h e Admonition Controversy

their families, I desire them, in the name of God, that they abuse not his graces in devising cloaks to cover their disorders but that they would set before them the love of Christ, which shall be found to be so much as they shall shew themselves diligent in continual feeding their flocks and to fear the judgment of God, before whom no feigned or coloured excuse will stand.249 And J O H N xxi: 15. [So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.] 16. [He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.] 17. [He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.] 249

so I trust they will make no longer absence than must needs; and if upon any occasion at any time they be somewhat longer, that the same be not without the leave of their churches, whose they are and which they for the Lord his sake serve, and then also that in such rare and necessary absence they provide them of some able man to teach in the mean season, which the church by her governors will allow of. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): Now you confess that the pastor may be absent of his own private "business" if he have leave of his parish and if he "provide some able man to teach in the mean season, & c . " . . . Is not his flock in as great danger when their pastor is absent with their "leave" as when he is absent without their "leave"? Or where do you find it in Scripture that the pastor ought to ask "leave" of his parish when he hath occasion to be absent? Or how shall he get " a n able man in the mean season" to teach his flock whenas you affirm that "no man may be admitted into the ministry except he have a certain flock committed unto him" and that then "it is not lawful for him to preach out of his own cure"? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): "Whether the flock be not in like danger in the pastor's absence with leave as without" is altogether from the purpose when it is not lawful for him neither

Nonresidences and Pluralities

277

with leave nor without leave to be away with danger of his flock. . . . "Where I find in Scripture that the pastor ought to have leave of his parish" is answered in that I shewed that the pastors are belonging to their churches and are their servants, which he altogether passeth by. His last asketh "how he can in his absence have an able deputy, seeing he may not be admitted to the ministry which hath not a certain flock," as though in such necessity for so small a time the supply may not be made by the pastors hard by.

F. Permitting "Popish Mass-mongers" T o Become "Preachers of the Gospel" In those days no idolatrous sacrificers or heathenish priests were appointed to be preachers of the gospel; 260 but we allow and like well of popish mass-mongers, men ADMONITION:

HEB. v: 4. [And no m a n taketh this honour unto himself, b u t he that is called of G o d , as was Aaron.] EZEK. xliv: 10. [And the Levites that are gone a w a y far from me, when Israel w e n t astray, w h i c h w e n t astray a w a y from m e after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. . . .] 12. [Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted u p mine hand against them, saith the L o r d G o d , and they shall bear their iniquity.] 13. [And they shall not come near unto me, to d o the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to a n y of m y holy things, in the most holy place: b u t they shall bear their shame, and their abominations w h i c h they have committed.] JER. xxiiii [(no verse given): 11. For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in m y house h a v e I found their wickedness, saith the Lord.] 250

for all seasons, King Henry's priests, King Edward's priests, Queen Mary's priests, who of a truth, if God's word were precisely followed, should from the same be utterly removed. W H I T G I F T (A): The place in the fifth chapter of the Hebrews, quoted in the margent, speaketh nothing of idolatrous sacrificers or heathenish priests but only by the example of Aaron proveth that no man ought to intrude himself into the office of a bishop or priest except he be called of God. Lord, how dare these men thus wring the Scriptures? In the xxiii. of the prophet

278

The Admonition Controversy

Jeremy there is much spoken against false prophets but not one word, for anything that I see, to prove that idolatrous sacrificers may not be admitted to preach the gospel. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : T o this is nothing answered. W H I T G I F T (A): T h e places of the xliv. of Ezekiel have some shew in them, for there the Lord commandeth the Levites which had committed idolatry to be put from their dignity and not to be received into the priests' office but to serve in inferior ministries. I think you will not make this a general rule, to debar such from preaching of the gospel as have through infirmity fallen and be now with hearty repentance returned.

G. The Episcopal Hierarchy 1. NAMES AND OFFICES

treatises ye have here ensuing, beloved in Christ, which ye must read without partiality or blind affection. 251 . . . For certain men there are of great countenance, ADMONITION: T W O

2611

THESS. v: 2 1 . [Prove all things; hold fast t h a t w h i c h is good.]

JAS. i:

19. [Wherefore, m y b e l o v e d brethren, let e v e r y m a n b e swift to

hear, slow to speak, slow to w r a t h : ] 20. [For the w r a t h of m a n w o r k e t h not the righteousness of G o d . ] JAS. ti:

1 . [ M y brethren, h a v e not the faith of our L o r d Jesus Christ, the

L o r d of glory, w i t h respect of persons.]

which will not lightly like of them because they principally concern their persons and unjust dealings, whose credit is great and whose friends are many; we mean the lordly lords, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, deans, doctors, archdeacons, chancellors, and the rest of that proud generation, whose kingdom must down, hold they never so hard, because their tyrannous lordship cannot stand with Christ's kingdom. 252 . . . For they 262

MATT, xv:

13. [But he answered a n d said, E v e r y p l a n t , w h i c h

h e a v e n l y F a t h e r h a t h n o t p l a n t e d , shall be rooted u p . (In the Answere the Defense

my and

W h i t g i f t prints this reference as M a t t . x v . 23.: " B u t he a n -

swered her not a w o r d . A n d his disciples c a m e a n d besought him, saying, S e n d her a w a y ; for she crieth after u s . " ) ] LUKE xvi:

15. [ A n d he said u n t o t h e m , Y e are they w h i c h j u s t i f y yourselves

The Episcopal Hierarchy

279

before men; but G o d knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.]

whose authority is forbidden by Christ 263 will have their stroke MATT, xx: 25. [But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Y e know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.] 26. [But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister.] MATT, xxiii: 8. [But be not ye called R a b b i : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.] 9. [And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.] 10. [Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.] MARK X: 42. [But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Y e know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.] 43. [But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister.] LUKE xxii: 15. [And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. . . . 25. A n d he said unto them, T h e kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.] & c . 263

without their fellow-servants, yea, though ungraciously, cruelly, and pope-like, they take upon them to beat them, and that for their own childish articles, being for the most part against the manifest truth of God.254 . . . MATT, xxiv: 48. [But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, M y lord delayeth his coming;] 49. [And shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50. T h e lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51. A n d shall cut him asunder. . . .] 264

W H I T G I F T (Y4): One thing I must desire thee to note, gentle reader, (wherein the folly of these men marvellously appeareth) how they have painted the margent of their book with quoting of Scriptures as though all were Scripture they write whenas indeed they abuse the Scripture and thee. For

280

T h e Admonition Controversy

what one place of Scripture is in all this preface alleged to any purpose? And yet how many is there quoted! . . . T o prove that we must read these two treatises without partiality or blind affection, here is noted in the margent i Thess. v., ver. 21., Jam. i., Jam. ii. . . . And to what purpose are these places alleged? What prove they? O r what need is there to allege them? These apostles in these places speak not of railing libels but of hearing the Word of God and judging of matters of faith according to the truth and not to the persons. T o prove that tyrannous lordship cannot stand with Christ's kingdom, they allege the xv. of Matthew and Luke xvi. . . . I would gladly know how their assertion and these two texts hang together. I allow not tyrannous lordship to stand with Christ's kingdom, but it may well enough for anything in these two places to the contrary. Tyrannous lordship is not esteemed among men but hated. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): How many leaves have you wasted in confuting of the quotations, which, you say, are vain, foolish, unlearned, and to no purpose of that for which they are alleged? And if they be so, where learned you to spend so much time about them? Did you never learn that . . . " t o confute trifling things seriously is a point of those which have no judgment to know what is meet for the time and place and other such circumstances"? If I should, of the other side, now go about to maintain every place to be not unfitly quoted unto that end wherefore it is alleged and shew how unjust your reprehensions are and how small cause you have to lead them oftentimes so gloriously in triumph as you do, which I assure you I could do in the most places (as what could be more fitly alleged to induce to read the book than that they should "try all things"? what more fitly to hold men from rash condemning of things than that they should be "slow to speak"? what more fitly to move that they should not mislike of the goodness of the cause for the simplicity or base degree of them that defend it than that we should "not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in respect of persons"?) . . . if, I say, I should thus go about to make good every place, how evil should I deserve either of learning or of the truth itself in blotting of much paper whereby no profit

The Episcopal Hierarchy

281

would come to the reader! A n d if the days of a m a n were as m a n y as the days of an oak, I would neither willingly trouble nor be troubled with such strife of words. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e "confutation of the quotations" was most necessary, and it is that that doth pinch y o u most sharply. T r u e it is that they be " v a i n , unlearned, and to no purpose" and yet used as grounds of that Admonition and the doctrine therein contained. . . . If you could " m a i n t a i n every place" or many of the places, I dare say you would; but surely I commend your rhetoric. Those places that y o u would seem to give some countenance unto bewray your lack of ability to defend either them or the rest. For you answer not one word to the reasons for the which I disallow them nor to the true sense and meaning which I give of them. T r u l y , if you should thus " g o about to make them g o o d , " in so doing you should do your cause no great good. But here you have wholly omitted the xv. of M a t t h e w and the xvi. of Luke; the one whereof, though it be corrected, yet it is in a manner as far from the purpose as it was before, as it m a y appear in the "Additions and alterations, & c . , " at the end of the first book. . . . WHITGIFT ( A ) : T o prove that they whose authority is forbidden by Christ will have their stroke without their fellowservants, & c . , is quoted Matt, xx., M a t t , xxiii., M a r k x., L u k e xxii. . . . T h e conclusion that is gathered of these places is very dark and general. T h e y should have declared w h o they be that have this authority forbidden and w h a t the authority is. T o u c h i n g these places alleged in the xx. of M a t t h e w , x. of M a r k , xxii. of Luke, Musculus and divers other learned men think that they extend, not only to the apostles and men of the clergy, as we call them, but to all Christians, of w h a t state soever they be. A n d it is the common opinion of all writers that these words of Christ do not condemn superiority, lordship, or any such like authority but the ambitious desire of the same and the tyrannical usage thereof. CARTWRIGHT (R): TO come . . . unto the matter out of the places of the xx. of M a t t h e w and the xxii. of Luke, where our Saviour Christ upon occasion of the inordinate request of the

282

T h e Admonition Controversy

sons of Zebedee putteth a difference between the civil and ecclesiastical function,256 he placeth the distinction of them in two 266

This is a note of your own devising. [J. W.]

points, whereof the one is in their office, the other is in their names and titles. The distinction of the office he noteth in these words, "The kings of the gentiles have dominion over them, and the princes exercise authority over them, but it shall not be so with you." Whereupon the argument may be thus gathered: that wherein the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer doth not agree to one minister over another; but the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer by bearing dominion; therefore bearing dominion doth not agree to one minister over another. Touching their names and titles, he putteth a difference in these words: "And they are called gracious lords; but it shall not be so with you." And so the argument may be framed as before that forasmuch as they are severed in titles and that to the civil minister doth agree the title of gracious lords, therefore to the ecclesiastical minister the same doth not agree. For as it is fit that they whose offices carry an outward majesty and pomp should have names agreeable to their magnificence, so is it meet that those that God hath removed from that pomp and outward shew should likewise be removed from such swelling and lofty titles as do not agree with the simplicity of the ministry which they exercise. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): But, I pray you, tell me whereupon do you gather that Christ maketh any such "distinction" here either "of offices" or "titles"? Indeed, he would have a difference both betwixt the authority of his disciples and other Christians and the dominion of heathenish princes and also betwixt their affections in desiring the same; and therefore doth he expressly say, "The kings of the gentiles, &c." If he had meant any such "distinction of offices or titles" as you would make us believe, he would have said, "The kings and princes of the Jews, &c.," or rather, "kings and princes" without any further addition. But seeing that he saith "the kings and princes of the gentiles,"

The Episcopal Hierarchy

283

it is manifest that he forbiddeth, not only to his disciples but to all Christians, such tyrannical kind of government as the gentiles used and that ambitious desire and affection of the same which ruled in them. For Christ useth to call back those that be his from errors and corrupt affections by the example of the gentiles, as he doth in the vi. of Matthew from too much carefulness for meat and drink, and such like . . . "For after all these things do the gentiles seek," where he doth not forbid them to seek for meat, drink, and clothing but to seek for it too carefully and with mistrust of God's providence as the gentiles did. In like manner here he forbiddeth not government either in the civil or ecclesiastical state, but he forbiddeth such government as the gentiles used and such corrupt affections as they had in desiring the same. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Your translation "the kings of the gentiles," whereby you would prove that he putteth not a difference between the civil and ecclesiastical power, is faulty as that which without necessity goeth from the proper signification of the word. For it signifieth naturally not the gentiles but simply any nation, in which signification it is taken oft in the Old and New Testament; 256 and not only when the Israelites are joined 2(6

GEN. x: 3 1 . [These are the sons of S h e m , after their families, after their

tongues, in their lands, after their nations.] 32. [These are the families of the sons of N o a h , after their generations, i n their nations: a n d b y these w e r e the nations d i v i d e d in the earth after the

flood.]

DEUT. xxxii:

28. [For t h e y are a nation v o i d of counsel, neither is there

a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g in them.] PS. xliii:

1 . [ J u d g e m e , O G o d , and plead m y cause against an u n g o d l y

n a t i o n : O deliver m e f r o m the deceitful and u n j u s t m a n . ] MATT, xxviii:

19. [ G o y e therefore, a n d t e a c h all nations, b a p t i z i n g t h e m

in t h e n a m e of the F a t h e r , a n d of the Son, a n d of the H o l y Ghost.] ACTS x: 35. [But i n e v e r y nation he t h a t feareth h i m , and w o r k e t h righteousness, is a c c e p t e d w i t h h i m . ] LUKE vii: 5. [For h e l o v e t h our n a t i o n , and he h a t h built us a s y n a g o g u e . ]

together with other nations but even when the Holy Ghost speaketh of the Jews apart, he calleth them by the same word here used. Therefore it appeareth that there is neither any such meaning of the evangelists; and if there were, yet he gaineth nothing. For it is easy to answer that he therefore maketh men-

284

T h e Admonition Controversy

tion of the princes of the gentiles forasmuch as there was no king nor sovereign civil principality amongst the Jews, whereupon our Saviour was compelled to take example of princely authority from the gentiles. A n d if there were any small fragments of civil government in the Jews' hands, it was the high priests' and other ecclesiastical persons', which, beside that it was bastard and degenerate from the institution of G o d , it was both more ambitiously sought, as m a y appear by the ecclesiastical stories, and more tyrannically administered, as appeareth in Scriptures, 257 than any the most disordered government 267 ACTS iv: 5. [And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, 6. And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.] ACTS v: 1. [But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.] &c. ACTS ix: 1. [And Saul yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,] 2. [And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.]

amongst the heathen. So that if our Saviour would h a v e set forth a pattern of ambition and tyranny in government, he needed not have sought it amongst the gentiles w h e n he had it at home. . . . WHITGIFT {D): T o u c h i n g your argument, I say it hath two faults. First, it is a fallation, a petitione principii; for y o u take it as granted that " t h e civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer by bearing dominion," w h i c h I will not simply grant unto you, for that is partly our question. Secondly, your minor is ambiguous, and therefore in that respect your argument m a y also be placed in the fallation of "equivocation," for the word dominion m a y have divers significations. It m a y signify such dominion as Christ speaketh of in this place, that is, rule with oppression. It m a y also signify the absolute authority of a prince, such as is mentioned 1 Samuel viii. T h i r d l y , it m a y signify any peculiar office of superiority and government under the prince at the appointment of the prince, as the authority of a j u d g e , justice, mayor, & c . Last of all, it m a y signify any

The Episcopal Hierarchy

285

jurisdiction or kind of government. If y o u take it in either of the two first significations, your minor is true; if in either of the two latter significations, it is false. For we grant that there is great difference betwixt the dominion of kings and princes and betwixt the jurisdiction and authority of bishops. K i n g s have power over life and goods, & c . ; so have not bishops. K i n g s have authority in all causes and over all persons within their dominions without any limitation; if bishops have any such dominion, especially in civil causes, it is not in the respect they be bishops, but it is from the prince and limited unto them. . . . (SR): T h e distinction also of the magistrate and of the minister, wherein the weight of this cause lieth, is not touched. This "division of dominion" is altogether idle, for it is plain that w h e n I say the civil magistrate is severed by bearing dominion from the ecclesiastical person I meant lawful. A n d whenas I deny that the ecclesiastical person can exercise any dominion at all, w h a t place is there left to this division? For w h a t dominion soever he had proved to have been lawful for an ecclesiastical person had been sufficient overthrow of that I set down. A n d as the division is superfluous, so it is unskilful, for the two first parts —the " r u l e with oppression" and the " r u l e described 1 Sam. v i i i . " — b e all one, and the last member comprehendeth all that go before. A n d so it is not only no good division but no division at all. Neither is he any happier in applying of it, for where m y second proposition was that the ecclesiastical person is severed from the civil by bearing dominion, he saith " t h a t is true in the two first significations," whereby must follow that either it is lawful for the civil magistrate to rule with oppression or else for the bishop. For if it be lawful for neither of them, then one is not severed from the other in those kinds of dominion. . . . CARTWRIGHT

W H I T G I F T (D)\ " T o u c h i n g their names and titles," y o u say, " H e putteth a difference in these words, ' A n d they are called gracious lords, but it shall not be so with you, & c . ' " . . . T o your argument concerning " n a m e s and titles" I answer as I did to the former. Some names and titles are proper to the civil magistrate only, as the names of emperor, king, prince, duke, earl, & c . These names are not given to any of the clergy

286

The Admonition Controversy

in this c h u r c h to m y knowledge. S o m e names are c o m m o n to the civil magistrate w i t h ecclesiastical persons, as certain n a m e s of reverence, of superiority, and of office. T h e n a m e of " g r a c i o u s l o r d " is a n a m e of superiority and of reverence a c c o r d i n g to the m a n n e r of the country w h e r e it is used a n d therefore m a y well agree either to the civil or ecclesiastical persons; a n d in m a n y places divers are called b y this n a m e " l o r d " (which is in L a t i n dominus) for reverence and civility, w h i c h h a v e v e r y small dominion. A s for the n a m e of archbishop, or metropolitan, that is not proper to any civil magistrate, and therefore w i t h o u t the compass of y o u r argument. T h u s then y o u see that some titles are proper to the civil magistrate, some to the ecclesiastical, and some c o m m o n to both; w h e r e b y y o u r major is utterly overthrown. . . . T h e r e is no m a n denieth b u t that there is, and must be, great difference b e t w i x t " t h e p o m p and o u t w a r d s h e w " of a prince and the state of an ecclesiastical person b o t h in titles and other majesty, and I think that he is v e r y blind that seeth it n o t so to be in this C h u r c h of E n g l a n d . Y e t m a y the ecclesiastical person shew forth the c o u n t e n a n c e of his degree w h e r e u n t o h e is called of G o d , b y his prince, and b y the laws of that r e a l m wherein he is a subject. It is true that a n ecclesiastical minister d o t h m u c h differ f r o m a civil magistrate touching his ministry and spiritual calling; yet is he not so distinct that he m a y exercise no such civil office wherein he m a y d o good and w h i c h is a n help to his ecclesiastical function. A s the civil magistrate m a y in some things exercise jurisdiction ecclesiastical and m e d d l e in matters of the church, so m a y the ecclesiastical person in some causes use civil jurisdiction and deal in matters of the c o m m o n w e a l t h if it shall be thought expedient or necessary b y the chief magistrates. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): T o u c h i n g the place in the xxiii. of M a t thew, w h e r e Christ said unto his disciples, " B e not y o u called R a b b i , " " C a l l no m a n f a t h e r , " " B e not called masters," w h o is so ignorant to think that Christ forbiddeth b y these w o r d s one Christian m a n to call another lord, master, father? S h a l l not children call their parents father? Shall not scholars call their teacher master? A n d shall not servants call h i m master u n d e r

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

287

whose g o v e r n m e n t they are? Is it not l a w f u l for one to call another master, doctor, father, lord, & c . ? P a u l , notwithstanding these words of Christ, 1 C o r . iv., calleth himself their " f a t h e r " ; 2 6 8 268

[i COR. iv: 15. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,

yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.]

and 1 T i m . ii. he calleth himself the " d o c t o r of the gentiles." 2591

. . .

259

TIM. ii: 7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.]

W h e r e f o r e it is manifest that these names be not here prohibited, m u c h less the offices; b u t only the pharisaical, ambitious, and a r r o g a n t affection of superiority, as it is also manifest b y this that followeth: " W h o s o e v e r exalteth himself, & c . " A n d surely as Christ c o n d e m n e t h here the ambitious affection of such as ambitiously desire these names of superiority, so d o t h he in like m a n n e r c o n d e m n those w h o be so p u f f e d u p w i t h pride and a r r o g a n c y that they c o n t e m n and disdain to call m e n in authority b y the titles of their offices. F o r pride, contempt, and arrog a n c y is as well in refusing to give h o n o u r and reverence as it is in ambitiously desiring the same. B u t the chief purpose of Christ in this place is to teach us not so to depend u p o n m e n as t h o u g h it w e r e n o t l a w f u l to break their decrees or to decline f r o m their authority; for there is one only Father, L o r d , and M a s t e r to w h o m w e are so b o u n d t h a t b y no means w e m a y decline at a n y time f r o m his precepts. . . . CARTWRIGHT

( R ) : C o n c e r n i n g the exposition and sense

of that place I agree w i t h y o u and suppose that it is quoted of the authors of the Admonition rather to note the a m b i t i o n of certain w h i c h g a p e greedily at these bishoprics w h i c h w e h a v e to the end they m i g h t be saluted b y the n a m e of lords a n d honours than to prove that one minister should not h a v e d o m i n ion over another. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is manifest that they quote this same place to the selfsame purpose that they d o the other. T h e r e c a n be no mist so thick that m a y d a r k e n the eyes of m e n f r o m seeing it except they, seeing, will not see as y o u do at this time.

288

The Admonition Controversy

I am glad that you "agree with" me in the exposition of this place; surely in so doing you must also agree with me in the exposition of the other. For as Christ here doth not forbid the names but the arrogant and ambitious desire of them, so doth he not there forbid authority and superiority but the coveting of it and ambitious and inordinate desire of the same. And if you well mark the words, Christ doth here much more plainly forbid these names than he doth there those offices of superiority. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): H O W aptly that place of the xxiv. of Matthew, "But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, & c . , " is alleged, let all men judge. I think it forbiddeth not to punish such as break good laws. But, Lord, how these men are beaten, which do as they list, say what they list, and that with rejoicing thereto! . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : All this T . C . passeth over in silence, thereby, as I think, acknowledging it to be true. . . . 260 A D M O N I T I O N : Then it was painful; now gainful. Then 260

1 TIM. iii: I . [This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.]

poor and ignominious;

261

now rich and glorious.

261

PHIL. iv: i i . [Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.] II COR. vi: 4. [But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses . . .] 8. [By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true . . .] 10. [As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.] W H I T G I F T (A): It was then as it useth to be under the cross. And it is now as it useth to be when God doth bless it with peace, quietness, and godly magistrates. And yet surely even now it is more painful than gainful, more ignominious than rich and glorious; and that do those know that bear the heat of the day. But it is the more painful and ignominious for you, who cease not with railing and spiteful words in pulpits and at tables to deprave and backbite your brethren and to trouble the whole state with your factions and daily-invented

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

289

new opinions. T h e persecution of the sword ceaseth, but the persecution of the tongue is extreme hot. And we, who gain so much and be so glorious, are molested as well by you as by the papist and atheist, and therefore not very glorious. C A R T W R I G H T (R): A hundred pounds by year is taken of some benefice for which four sermons only are preached and those sometimes by another. If this be "more painful than gainful," it is because "the horseleach hath two daughters, 'Give, give, &c.' " 262 And I cannot see how they can be more PROV. xxx: 14. [There is a generation whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.] 15. [The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give. . . .]

262

glorious unless the palace were turned into a court and their chair into a throne. There are divers places that God hath blessed with peace, where the ministers take more pain and have less gain and which make less noises when they go in the streets.263 . . . MATT, xii: [18. Behold my servant, whom I have chosen. . . .] 19. [He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.] 563

(D): "Those that have such palaces and make such noise when they go in the streets, & c . , " I think verily take more pains and care in and for the church of God, profit their country more in one month, than you and all your company do in a whole year; nay, I would to God it might be said you profited. Their pomp and their palaces are by lawful authority committed unto them; and the true martyrs of God have occupied the same or the like before them, and yet martyrs too. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : And therefore titles, livings, and offices by antichrist devised are given to them, as metropolitan, archbishop, lord's grace, lord bishop, suffragan, dean, archdeacon, prelate of the garter, earl, county palatine, honour, high commissioners, justices of peace and quorum, &c. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I desire the reader that we be not thought studious of contention because we strive about the name of archbishop, &c. . . . It is unlawful for any man to take upon WHITGIFT

2 go

The Admonition Controversy

him those titles which are proper to our Saviour Christ; but the title of an archbishop is only proper to our Saviour Christ; 264 If Christ be called an archbishop, then is not the title devised by antichrist. [J. W.] 264

therefore none may take that unto him. That it is proper to our Saviour Christ appeareth by that which St. Peter saith, where he calleth him . . . "archshepherd," 265 or archbishop, 265 J PET. v: 4. [And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.]

for bishop and shepherd are all one; and in the Hebrews, where he is called "the great Shepherd of the sheep"; 266 and in the HEB. xiii: 20. [Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.] 266

Acts and Hebrews, "archleader" of life and of salvation; 267 ACTS Hi: [14. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just. . . .] 15. [And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.] ACTS v: 31. [Him (Jesus) hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.] HEB. xii: 2. [Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.] 267

which titles are never found to be given unto any but unto our Saviour Christ and are proper titles of his mediation and therefore cannot be without bold presumption applied unto any mortal man. WHITGIFT ( D ) : To contend about names when there is an agreement of the matter and substance hath always been taken for a manifest note of a contentious sophister. . . . But to come to the purpose, you say: "It is unlawful for any man to take upon him those titles which are proper to our Saviour Christ; but the title of archbishop is only proper to our Saviour Christ; therefore, &c." The minor you prove by the words of St. Peter, 1 Epist. chap. v. . . . and Acts iii., v., and xiii. to the Hebrews, &c. . . . But before I come to your minor, I must

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

291

a little better search your major; for you pass it over smoothly as though there could be nothing said unto it. I grant that those names which be proper unto God cannot be given to any other in that respect that they are proper unto God; but that they can in no other respect be attributed to any other, it is untrue and against the manifest words of the Scriptures. W h a t name is more proper unto God than is this name " G o d " ? And yet is the same also attributed unto man. Moses, Exod. vii., is called "Pharaoh's god" 268 because he was God's 268

[EXOD. vii: 1. A n d the L o r d said u n t o M o s e s , See, I h a v e m a d e thee

a g o d to P h a r a o h . . . .]

minister to speak unto Pharaoh in his name and to execute his judgments upon him. . . . In the xxii. of Exod. the judges are called "gods," 269 and in the lxxxii. Psalm magistrates are called 269

[EXOD. xxii:

28. T h o u shalt not revile t h e gods, nor curse the ruler

of t h y people.]

" g o d s " also.270 In the xxiii. of Matth. Christ speaketh of the 270

[PS. lxxxii:

6. I h a v e said, Y e are gods; a n d all of y o u are children

of the most H i g h . ]

names of " M a s t e r , " " F a t h e r , " and " D o c t o r , " as proper to himself . . . and yet no man is so ignorant that he will deny these names to be common to others though not in the same respects. . . . Christ also calleth himself a "Pastor," John x.; 271 271

[JOHN x: 14. I a m the good shepherd. . . .]

and so doth St. Peter call him "Bishop," and "Pastor," 1 Epist. ii.; 272 and so he is properly and of himself, and yet these names 272

[1 PET. ii: 25. F o r y e were as sheep g o i n g astray; b u t are n o w returned

u n t o the S h e p h e r d a n d Bishop of y o u r souls.]

be communicated with other. In the viii. of John he is called Lux mundi,273 which is a most proper name, aptly given unto 273

[JOHN viii: 12. T h e n spake Jesus a g a i n u n t o t h e m , saying, I a m the light

of the world. . . .]

him; and yet doth he himself give the same name to his disciples,

292

T h e Admonition Controversy

M a t t h . v. 274 Divers such examples m i g h t I shew for the im274

[MATT, V: 14. Y e are the light of the world. . . .]

p r o v i n g of y o u r m a j o r , but these be sufficient. T h u s , therefore, I answer in few words b o t h to y o u r m a j o r a n d minor that some names that be proper to G o d are also attributed unto m a n b u t not in the same respect; for they b e l o n g unto G o d properly and per se, to m a n per accidens and in respect that he is the minister of G o d and such other like causes. A n d therefore, a l t h o u g h this n a m e " a r c h s h e p h e r d , " or (if y o u will) " a r c h b i s h o p , " be proper to Christ in the respect that he is not only the chief Shepherd but also the only S h e p h e r d to w h o m the sheep do properly pertain and to w h o m all the other shepherds must of necessity submit themselves and in whose name, and under w h o m only, the c h u r c h is governed, yet, in the respect of the external policy of the c h u r c h and of pastors and bishops that are to be kept and directed in such things as pertain to their d u t y the same n a m e of archbishop m a y a p t l y and fitly be attributed unto h i m that h a t h the ordering and direction of the rest in the external g o v e r n m e n t of the church. . . . (SR): W h e r e the D o c t o r saith " i t is the point of a sophister to strive for names of things w h e r e there is agreement of the m a t t e r , " unto the reasons and examples I alleged to prove that the very b a r e use of certain names is unl a w f u l a l t h o u g h the things noted b y t h e m be not he answereth not a w o r d . A n d if those examples be not strong e n o u g h to obtain that at his hands, I w o u l d k n o w of him, w h i c h m a k e t h so small account of names, w h e t h e r a m a n w h i c h confesseth himself m o r t a l m a y be called b y the n a m e of J e h o v a h , & c . T h e answer to the first proposition is insufficient. I could take exceptions to the examples here alleged, as that these w o r d s " I h a v e said y o u are g o d s " are not given u n t o magistrates that they should be saluted b y the n a m e of god or that one k i n g should be called the god of E n g l a n d , another the god of F r a n c e , w h i c h w e r e not tolerable and a p p r o a c h i n g to the pride of Antiochus, but to this end that the authority w h i c h they exercise a c c o r d i n g unto G o d m i g h t b e a c k n o w l e d g e d in them. Y e t I answer generally that those speeches be therefore lawful because CARTWRIGHT

The Episcopal Hierarchy

293

the Lord in his Scripture hath communicated them with men. Wherefore if the Doctor will prove that the title of archbishop, proper unto our Saviour Christ,275 may be imparted unto a 276 j

PET

v:

^

[And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall

receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.]

mortal man, he must shew that as the name of God, "light of the world," &c., is given unto men in the Scripture, so is also the name of archbishop; which when he shall never do, it is in vain to pretend these examples. . . . W H I T G I F T (Z>): But whiles you confound the spiritual and the external regiment of the church, you confound both yourself and your reader also. In the spiritual regiment Christ is only the Pastor and all other be his sheep; in the external regiment there be many other pastors. In the spiritual regiment Christ is only the Archbishop and governeth all, to whom all other must make their account; but in the external government there be many archbishops, as the state of every church requireth. In the spiritual government Christ is only the Prince, the King, the Judge, and in respect of him all other be subjects; but in the external government there be several countries, several kings, princes, magistrates, judges. Again, in the spiritual kingdom of Christ and regiment of his church there is no respect of persons, but all be equal; in the external regiment and government there is and must be degrees of persons. To be short, in respect of Christ and his spiritual government there is neither magistrate nor archbishop, &c.; but in the respect of men and the external face of the church there are both, and that according to Christ's own order. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): The Doctor's answer unto the second proposition by distinction (the "ignorance" whereof he doth so oftentimes reproach me with) is full of disorder and hath nothing sound. First, it faulteth in that it rendeth asunder things which cannot be separated and that two ways: one, in separating the government of the church by pastors, doctors, &c., from the spiritual, for when the ecclesiastical ministry hath respect to the soul and conscience, when it is called the ministry of the spirit spiritual, when they which execute it are called ministers in the

294

T h e Admonition Controversy

kingdom of heaven, when the outward preaching, excommunication, and other discipline which they use be spiritual, 276 this 276

HEB. xiii:

17.

[ O b e y t h e m t h a t h a v e the rule over y o u , and s u b m i t

yourselves: for they w a t c h for y o u r souls, as they t h a t must give a c c o u n t , t h a t t h e y m a y d o it w i t h j o y , and n o t w i t h grief: for t h a t is unprofitable for you.] n COR. Hi: 8 . [ H o w shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?] I COR. xii:

1 . [ N o w c o n c e r n i n g spiritual gifts, brethren, I w o u l d not h a v e

y o u ignorant. . . .] 5. [ A n d there are differences of administrations, b u t the same L o r d . ] MATT, xi:

1 1 . [Verily

I say u n t o y o u , a m o n g t h e m t h a t are born

of

w o m e n there h a t h n o t risen a greater t h a n J o h n the Baptist: n o t w i t h standing he t h a t is least in the k i n g d o m of h e a v e n is greater than he.] II COR. x: 3. [For t h o u g h w e w a l k i n the flesh, w e d o n o t w a r after the flesh:] 4. [(For the w e a p o n s of our warfare are not carnal, b u t m i g h t y t h r o u g h G o d to the p u l l i n g d o w n of strong holds.)]

separation of the outward government of the church from the spiritual and making of them opposite members- doth not distinguish but destroy the government of Christ; the other is that where our Saviour Christ governeth his church spiritually, both with his spirit and word, he placeth his spiritual government only in that he toucheth the hearts of his elect by his spirit. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : T h e ministry is by the Word of God and heavenly and not left to the will of men to devise at their pleasure, as appeareth by that which is noted of St. John where the Pharisees, coming to St. John Baptist after he had denied to be either Christ or Elias or another prophet, conclude, " I f thou be neither Christ nor Elias nor of the prophets, why baptizest thou?" 277 Which had been no good argument if St. John 277

JOHN i: 25. [ A n d t h e y asked h i m , a n d said u n t o h i m , W h y baptizest

t h o u then, if t h o u be n o t t h a t Christ, nor Elias, neither t h a t prophet? 26. J o h n answered t h e m , saying, I b a p t i z e w i t h water: b u t

there

standeth one a m o n g y o u , w h o m y e k n o w not; 27. H e it is, w h o c o m i n g after m e is preferred before me. . . .]

might have been of some other function than of those which were ordinary in the church and instituted of God. And therefore St. John, to establish his singular and extraordinary function, allegeth the Word of God, whereby appeareth that as it was not lawful to bring in any strange doctrine, so it was not

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

295

lawful to teach the true doctrine under the name of any other function than was instituted of G o d . WHITGIFT (D): This is your first argument: " T h e Pharisees, coming to St. J o h n Baptist after he had denied to be either Christ or Elias or another prophet, conclude, 'If thou be neither Christ nor Elias nor of the prophets, w h y baptizest thou?' " Ergo, there m a y be no archbishops, which is your meaning. But lest y o u should think that I cavil, I will use your own conclusion, which is this: ergo, "there was no other ordinary function in the c h u r c h . " T h i s argument hath neither head nor foot, form nor matter. Is this your exquisiteness in logic? First, your antecedent is untrue and builded upon the false allegation of the Scripture. For the Pharisees do not say unto him, " I f thou be neither Christ nor Elias nor of the prophets"; but these be the words of the text, " I f thou be not the Christ nor Elias nor the prophet." N o w there is a great difference betwixt these two kind of speeches, " i f thou be not of the prophets" and " i f thou be not the prophet." For the first signifieth that they should ask him whether he were any of the prophets; the other, whether he were that prophet w h o m they looked for to be such a one as Moses was according to that which is written Deut. xviii., verse 1 5 . ; 2 7 8 DEUT. xviii: [ 1 5 . T h e Lord thy G o d will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.] M

for else J o h n would not have denied himself to have been a prophet, seeing that Christ saith he was one, M a t t h . xi. 279 MATT, xi: [7. A n d as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John . . .

M

g. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.]

Moreover, they ask him not of those ordinary functions that were then in the church but of such extraordinary persons as they looked for to come as Christ, Elias, or that prophet. Thirdly, they did not recite all the ordinary functions, as Levite and priest, which were then most ordinary and almost only at that time. So that your reason hath neither form nor truth in it. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): T h e Answerer, scoffing upon m y unskilfulness in logic, saith he can "find neither head nor foot in

296

T h e Admonition Controversy

my reason." Thus I will find both. They which deny the lawfulness of John's ministry because there was no such ministry contained in the Scriptures thought no ministry lawful not contained in them; but the scribes and Levites did so; therefore they esteemed no ministry lawful not contained in Scripture. Against this he taketh exception, first, to the translation, which is altogether frivolous, for beside that both the words may bear that signification and it is not unlike but by the article the evangelist meant not some one singular prophet spoken of in the Law beside the Messias but rather any prophet extraordinary to whom the Lord shewed himself either by vision or dream.280 NUM. xii: 6. [And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.]

280

. . . Secondly, where he saith that "if they had asked John whether he had been a prophet, he would not have denied i t " and addeth for proof thereof "our Saviour Christ said he was one," he is abused, for our Saviour saying that he was greater than a prophet and that the prophets endured until John's coming 281 denieth that he was a prophet and maketh his ministry 281

MATT, xi: g. [But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say

unto you, and more than a prophet. . . .] 13. [For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.]

a mean function between the function of a prophet and ministry of the gospel, more excellent than the first and inferior to the other. . . . Your third exception that "all the functions are not reckoned up because they ask him not whether he was a priest or Levite" is as vain as the rest, for therefore they ask him not because he taught, not being consecrated unto any of them according to the ecclesiastical order provided in that behalf, and that was one occasion of this embassage unto John. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): After the long wandering of the ark in the wilderness, when it came to be placed in Jerusalem, tell me if any besides the Levites and priests, the ordinary ministers and the prophets which were immediately stirred up of God, were found to have ordained any office or title which was not

The Episcopal Hierarchy

297

commanded or whether there was at any time anything added or enjoined to those offices of priesthood and Leviteship which was not by the law prescribed. WHITGIFT (D): Surely here is nothing but vain repetitions of that false principle . . . that the institution of an archbishop is the institution of a new ministry, as though the apostle St. Paul, when he placed Timothy at Ephesus and Titus at Creta, did institute a new ministry, because he gave them authority and jurisdiction over the rest. . . . As for names and titles and other external things variable according to divers circumstances, he [Christ] hath left them to the liberty of his church . . . which is one part of his singular goodness towards the church in that it is not so servilely tied to external things and to the letter as it was under the L a w . A n d it is evident that under the L a w there were offices and titles in the church which are not commanded in the Scripture nor whereof we read " G o d to have been the express author," as archisynagogus, M a r k v.,282 scribce, or legis doc tores, or . . . 588 [MARK V: 22. And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name. . . .]

magistrates seu duces templi, L u k e xxii., ver. 52.,283 and those [LUKE xxii: 52. Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him. . . .]

283

seniores populi, and that avviSpiov whereupon you ground your seigniory. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): It is well known that " t h e name of a scribe" was no " n a m e of any certain order and particular kind of ministry" but a general name given unto the skilful in the law of God. For although we read of some to whom it is given, which beside the ordinary function wrote something, 284 yet it 1 CHRON. xxiv: 6. [And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king. . . .] 284

m a y be easily shewed that they had that name not of writing but rather because they were expert in the law of G o d written, which as it may be proved by divers authorities of the Scripture,

2g8

The Admonition Controversy

so it doth by the authority of our Saviour Christ manifestly appear. 285 A n d when our Saviour, speaking of the times of the MATT, xiii: 52. [Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.] 286

gospel, saith he will send scribes

286

and yet never heard tell of

286 MATT, xxiii: 34. [Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city.]

that there was any certain order or particular function of scribes under the gospel, it is clear that under title of scribe there was never understanded any several degree of ministry. T h e same is to be answered unto the name of doctor of law, that it was a general name wherewith they were named which were learned or taken for learned in the law of God, which may appear for that whom St. Matthew calleth a lawyer or doctor of the law 287 MATT, xxii: 35. [Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law?]

287

St. M a r k calleth a scribe.288 MARK xii: 28. [And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?] 288

T o change the "captain of the temple" into an "ecclesiastical officer" needeth a very strong exorcism. . . . As for the "chief of the synagogue," they are the same which be called elders and ancients of the church in reformed churches, whereof in every synagogue and assembly of the Jews there was some number . . . called chief, not for that they had over the ministers but because they had the government of the people. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): All men know that the ark of N o a h was a figure of the church. N o a h was both a wise and a godly man; yet what doth the Lord leave to his wisdom whenas he

The Episcopal Hierarchy

299

appointeth the matter, the form, the length, the breadth, the height, the wood, the kind and sort of wood? 289 GEN. vi: [13. A n d G o d said unto N o a h . . . .] 14. [ M a k e thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. . . .] 22. [Thus did N o a h ; according to all that G o d commanded him, so did he.] 289

WHITGIFT ( D ) : " A l l men k n o w " how uncertain a reason it is that is grounded upon figures and types except the application thereof m a y be found in the Scriptures. For a m a n m a y apply them as it pleaseth him even as he may do allegories; and yet was there many things required to the ark, whereof there is no express mention m a d e and, namely, nails or pins to join it together; neither is it expressed whether the window was of glass or of crystal or of neither. Moreover, he is not prescribed to make a cover for it; and yet it had one, as is declared cap. viii.290 290

GEN. viii: [13. A n d . . . N o a h removed the covering of the ark. . . .]

T h e overseers and masters of the work likewise are not there appointed but left to the discretion of Noah. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): I apply not particularly the parts of the ark to the parts of the church but compare generally the building of the one with the other. . . . W h e n I ask what, I deny not but some things might have been left. . . . For "pins and nails" I would ask him how he can make a cover without them, especially for the water. . . . Whether the " w i n d o w s " were " o f glass or crystal" m a d e not to purpose; so that they gave a clear light (which the word Moses useth signified) it was enough. . . . T h e "overseer and master of this w o r k " could be no other than Noah, at whose prescript it was to be done and which was to answer if anything had been done otherwise than the commandment. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): In the tabernacle the church is yet more expressly shewed forth. Moses that was the overseer of the work was a wise and godly m a n ; 2 9 1 the artificers that wrought 291 EXOD. xxiii: [no verse given], EXOD. xxxi: 3. [And I have filled h i m with the spirit of G o d , in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.]

300

The Admonition Controversy

it. . . most cunning workmen.292 And yet observe how the Lord 292

EXOD. xxxi: 6. [And I, behold, I have given with him Aholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan: and in the hearts of all that are wise hearted I have put wisdom, that they may make all that I have commanded thee.]

leaveth nothing to their will but telleth not only of the boards, of the curtains, of the apparel but also of the bars, of the rings, of the strings, of the hooks, of the besoms, of the snuffers, and of the things, the matter, and the form.293 293

EXOD. xxxix: 42. [According to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so the children of Israel made all the work.]

W H I T G I F T (D): It is well known that the Israelites had long continued among the Egyptians, a most superstitious kind of people without any law of God written, and therefore, now being delivered from them and yet inclined to their idolatry, God (as most writers think) of his infinite wisdom did so charge them with ceremonies of his own institution that they should neither have leisure to use any other nor yet desire the Egyptiacal kind of worshipping. . . . Therefore in this figure there was only expressed what should be done in the worshipping of God and not in the external policy and government of the church. C A R T W R I G H T (R): Let us come to the temple, which as it was more near the time of Christ, so it doth more lively express the church of God which now is. Salomon, the wisest man that ever was or shall be,294 doth nothing in it, neither for the temple 294

1 KINGS iii: 12. [Behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.]

nor for the vessels of the temple nor for the beauty of it, but according to the form that was enjoined him,295 as appeareth in 295

1 CHRON. xxviii: 1 1 . [Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat,] &c. 19. [All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.]

The Episcopal Hierarchy the First of the Kings 296

296

301

and the Second of the Chronicles.297

1 KINGS vi: [no verse given].

297

n CHRON. Hi, iv, v: [no verse given; these chapters contain a detailed description of the temple].

And in the restoring of that temple Ezekiel is witness how the angel by the commandment of God doth part by part appoint all to be done both in the temple and in the furniture thereof.298 298

EZEK. xl: [no verse given; this chapter further describes the temple],

W H I T G I F T (D): These two examples of the "tabernacle" and of the "temple" tend to one end and might more aptly have been alleged in the title of ceremonies than of the government of the church because whatsoever is here spoken of either of them pertaineth to ceremonies and to the worshipping of God and not to external policy and government of the church and therefore most unaptly alleged against archbishops, &c. . . . And it is certain that both David and Salomon appointed orders, the one about the tabernacle, the other about the temple, which we read not in Scripture they were commanded to do. And David appointed degrees of officers in the temple,299 and 299 1 CHRON. xxiv: [3. A n d David distributed them, both Zadok of the sons of Eleazar, and Ahimelech of the sons of Ithamar, according to their offices in their service.]

Salomon workmen and overseers, whereof we do not read that they had any special commandment. C A R T W R I G H T (R): Now if the Holy Ghost in figures and tropes doth so carefully and, as a man may speak, curiously comprehend all things, in the truth itself how much more is it to be thought that he hath performed this! . . . And then tell me what are those times of which it was said, "The Messias when he cometh will tell us all?" 300 Is it a like thing that he, which did 300

JOHN iv: 25. [The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.]

not only appoint the temple and the tabernacle but the ornaments of them, would not only neglect the ornaments of the church but also that without the which (as we are borne in hand) it cannot long stand? Shall we think that he, which remembered

302

The Admonition Controversy

the bars there, hath forgotten the pillars here? Or he, that there remembered the pins, did here forget the master-builders? How he should there remember the besoms and here forget archbishops if any had been needful? That he should there make mention of the snuffers to purge the lights and here pass by the lights themselves? And, to conclude, that he should make mention there of the motes and here say nothing of the beams; there reckon up the gnats, here keep silence of the camels? . . . Let it be a shame to say that the chief pillar and upholder of the church is not expressed in the Scripture nor cannot be concluded of it? . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : God hath in his gospel performed and fulfilled all "the tropes and figures" of the Law whatsoever. Christ which is the Messias hath told us all things that are necessary to salvation, John xx., 301 and so is that place in the iv. of John JOHN xx: [ 2 1 . Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my father hath sent me even so send I you. 22. A n d when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.]

301

to be understanded. We make not an archbishop necessary to salvation but profitable to the government of the church and therefore consonant to the Word of God. . . . We know the church of Christ is not builded upon any man, either as upon foundations or "pillars," if we speak properly, but upon Christ himself and his Word, which remain unmoveable; we know also that the same church may stand without the external help of man. But yet hath God appointed functions in his church both ecclesiastical and civil as means to keep it in external peace, discipline, and order; and though he hath not expressed the names, yet hath he allowed the offices. Among men the chief "pillar" that upholdeth the church is the Christian prince and magistrate. And yet where have you in the gospel any such express mention made thereof as there is in the appointing of the tabernacle "of besoms, snuffers, &c."? . . . We know that all things necessary to salvation are much more plainly expressed in the gospel than

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

303

in the Law. We are also well assured that Christ in his Word hath fully and plainly comprehended all things requisite to faith and good life; but yet hath he committed certain orders of ceremonies and kind of government to the disposition of his church, the general rules given in his Word being observed and nothing being done contrary to his will and commandment therein contained. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Moreover, these ministries without the which the church is fully builded and brought to perfection and complete unity are not to be retained in the church; but without the ministries of archbishop, &c., the church may be fully builded and brought to perfection; therefore these ministries are not to be retained. . . . And that without these ministries the church may be complete it appeareth by that which is in the fourth to the Ephesians.302 . . . EPHES. iv: [8. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.] 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.] 12. [For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.] 302

W H I T G I F T (D): In that place to the Ephesians there is no mention made of deacons and widows nor of your elders, and therefore it maketh as much against them as it doth against archbishops. Moreover, it hath apostles, evangelists, and prophets, all which you seclude from the state of this church. Thirdly, it containeth those ministries only which are occupied in the Word and administration of the sacraments, not those which pertain to order and discipline, as you afterward yourself confess. And therefore I understand not how that place can help you anything at all. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : But it will be said that this argument followeth not because no mention is made here of the deacon or of the elder, which notwithstanding are both necessary in the church, and therefore that there are functions profitable in the church whereof no mention is made here. But how easily do all men know that the apostle speaketh of those functions here only

304

T h e Admonition Controversy

which are conversant in the Word and have to do with the preaching thereof and therefore made here no mention of the deacon or elder. It is said again that in the epistle to the Corinthians St. Paul speaketh only of apostles, prophets, and doctors, leaving out evangelists and pastors,303 and yet evangelists and 1 COR. xii: 28. [And G o d hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,' thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.]

303

pastors necessary; and so although archbishops are not spoken of in the place to the Ephesians, yet they may not therefore be shut out as unnecessary. But they that say so should have considered that the diversity of the matter which the apostle handleth in these two places bred a diverse kind of speech. For in the epistle to the Corinthians, going about to cpndemn the ambition of men which will thrust themselves into other men's callings and take upon them to do all themselves and to be as it were eye, and ear, and hand, and all, St. Paul proveth that the church is a body wherein there are many members, and the same diverse one from another, and that it is not one member only. And to prove that, it was sufficient to say that he placed some apostles, some prophets, some doctors without rehearsing all the kinds of functions. But in the epistle to the Ephesians, meaning to shew the liberality of our Saviour Christ in giving those which should be able by doctrine and teaching to make perfect and absolute his church, it was necessary that he should reckon up all those functions whereby that work is done. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Y o u have in this place yourself answered your former reasons touching the place to the Ephesians. For I have told you that the names of archbishops and archdeacons be names of jurisdiction and government, not of any new ministry; and therefore such bishops and ministers as be so called to have those names, not in respect of the ministry of the Word, but of order and policy. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where he saith that "the archbishopric may stand because, that place reckoning up only the ministries of the Word, that is a ministry of order and policy,"

The Episcopal Hierarchy

305

how could he forget that the archbishop meddleth with the ministry of the W o r d , and therefore it was necessary to be here mentioned if the apostle had given him any place in the church? . . . For both all ministries of the W o r d (to speak as the Doctor) separate from government and order and all occupied in the W o r d and government jointly and all principal ministries of the church are here reckoned up. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e objection m a d e of the place of the 1. to the Corinth, cap. xii. is of more weight than y o u can be able to remove with all the might you have. For the apostle there as well declareth the diversity of offices in the church as he doth in that epistle to the Ephesians, yea, and more perfectly too, as the place itself and the very order that the apostle keepeth doth declare. Y o u r distinction is but in vain invented for a shift only, against both reason and authority: against reason because, the apostle having before m a d e a perfect division of gifts in the church, it is not like but now speaking of offices he doth the same. Moreover, he doth rehearse them in order, saying, first, apostles, then prophets, thirdly doctors, & c . Lastly, he reciteth here more offices than he doth there; for here he reciteth eight, and there only five at the most. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): H e bringeth reasons of his to prove the perfection of the division without answering mine. A n d yet his be such as are unworthy answer. For in the first, beside that it is untrue that " t h e apostle m a d e a perfect division of gifts in the c h u r c h , " if he had, yet it followeth not that he made the same in offices, especially when he will needs separate offices from gifts. T h e second reason, "therefore it is a perfect division because there is added first, second, third," is as simple as the first, for those words are not put there to note the number of offices but to declare which is highest in degree and w h i c h next, & c . A n d if they did, yet I never could yet read that they were notes of a perfect division. His third, "because it hath more members than that in the Ephesians," I think he understandeth by this time w h a t strength it hath if he remember that which I answered, that the apostle's meaning to the Ephesians was not to divide the offices of the church in general but those only

306

The Admonition Controversy

which handle the Word, unless peradventure he think that he maketh a fuller partition which divideth both the hands into eight fingers than which divideth one into five. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But how cometh it to pass that St. Paul, neither in the one place, neither in the other, nor elsewhere, maketh mention of the archbishop, which is said to be the chiefest pillar and undersetter of the church? Now I hear what is said to this, that under the pastor is contained bishop. He is not contained but is the same that bishop. How then? "Forsooth," say they, "an archbishop is bishop." Well, then, of bishops some are archbishops, some are what? . . . But what an absurd thing were that to say that St. Paul comprehended an archbishop under a pastor or bishop, which neither was at that time nor certain hundred years after! . . . And how is it that they never marked that St. Paul speaketh of those functions which were in the church and not of those which should be afterward? . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : No man can deny but a bishop may aptly be comprehended under this name pastor, and archbishop under the name of a bishop; and it may as well be said that of bishops some be called archbishops and some by the name of bishops as it may be said of kings, some be called emperors, some by the common name of kings; of dukes, some archdukes, some by the common name of dukes; of justices, some chief justices, some by the common name of justices. What if the name of an archbishop were not in St. Paul's time? Doth it therefore follow that the thing signified by the name was not in his time? . . . The authority and thing whereof the archbishop hath his name was in Paul's time, and therefore the name lawful; and if it had not been in St. Paul's time, yet were both the name and the office lawful because it pertaineth to the external policy and regiment of the church, which is variable according to the place, time, person, and other circumstances. Shall not the authority that Christian princes have in matters ecclesiastical be thought lawful because there were no such princes in St. Paul's time? . . . But you shall answer yourself, for you say that "in those places St. Paul speaketh of such functions as were then in the

The Episcopal Hierarchy

307

church, not of such as should be afterward," which is true. And therefore I conclude that as all those offices (by your own confession before) are not necessary for all times in the church, so are they not only for all times of the church, but other may be brought in meet for the government of the same. I know your meaning is nothing less; yet this is my collection which I think you will very hardly answer. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I had thought before this time that the apostles had been the chief builders in setting up the church,304 304

1 COR. iii: 10. [According to the grace of God which is given unto me,

as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.]

now I perceive you made the archbishops and archdeacons the chief builders and the apostles under-carpenters or common masons to serve and to take the commandment of the archbishop and archdeacon. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Surely you wander you know not whither. . . . For where have I made this comparison betwixt the apostles and archbishops? Or what have I spoken sounding that way? I would have you to deal honestly and plainly. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It is too too unskilfully done to separate order and discipline from them that have the ministry of the Word in hand as though the church without archbishops and archdeacons were a confused heap and a disordered lump whenas St. Paul teacheth it to be without them a body consisting of all his parts and members, comely knit and joined together, wherein nothing wanteth nor nothing is too much. . . .305 ROM. xii: 4. [For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:]

306

5. [So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.] W H I T G I F T ( D ) : What if "the church without archbishops and archdeacons" were perfect in St. Paul's time and may be perfect at other times? Doth it therefore follow that the church in no time or state may have them or, rather, that they be not necessary at some time for the church? In St. Paul's time apostles, prophets, workers of miracles, gifts of healing, diversity of tongues were counted necessary and principal parts of this body, which

go8

T h e Admonition Controversy

notwithstanding you confess now to be cut o f f , and yet the body perfect. So that you see this is no reason at all, to say that the church in St. Paul's time was a perfect body without archbishops and archdeacons, ergo, they are not necessary in the church of Christ. F o r I might as well reason thus: the church of Christ in St. Paul's time was not perfect without apostles, prophets, doers of miracles, gifts of healing, diversity of tongues; therefore it is not now perfect being without them. A n d likewise: it was then perfect without Christian magistrates; ergo, Christian magistrates are to be removed from the church. This kind of reasoning, as it is unskilful because it doth not distinguish the times of the church, neither considereth necessary circumstances, so it is most perilous and openeth a door to anabaptism and confusion. Moreover, I told you before that although this name archbishop is not expressed in the Scripture, yet is the office and function, as it is evidently to be seen in the examples of T i m o t h y and Titus, yea, and in the apostles themselves, whose office of planting churches through the whole world is ceased, but their care for the good government of those churches which were planted and their authority over those pastors whom they placed doth and must remain in such places where there are churches. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (/?): Doth it not pertain to order that the apostle saith that G o d hath set "first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers"? 306 A r e not these words, " f i r s t , " " s e c o n d , " 306

1 COR. xii: 28. [And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.]

" t h i r d , " differences of order? If this be not order, surely I know not what order is. A n d yet neither archbishop nor archdeacon author of this, and it was kept also before they were hatched. 3 0 7 307 COL. ii: 19. [And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Yes, but will you h a v e the same " o r d e r " now? T h e n must you have apostles and prophets, which you deny, so that this order you see is not perpetual; wherefore f r o m

The Episcopal Hierarchy

309

time to time that "order" among the ministers of the Word must be observed that is most convenient for the state of the church. Neither is any against such order but those that will not live in order. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): N O W I will reason also after this sort out of the place of the Ephesians and Corinthians joined together. There is no function but hath gifts fit and apt to discharge it annexed and given unto it; whereupon the apostle, by a metonymy, doth call the apostles, prophets, &c., "gifts" because they have always gifts joined with them. This being granted (as no man can deny it) I reason thus: Those functions only are sufficient for the church, which have all the gifts needful either for the ministering of the Word and sacraments or for the government of the church; but all these functions reckoned of St. Paul to the Ephesians,308 with . . . the K8 EPH. in: 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.]

deacons and elders, have the gifts needful either for the government of the church, either else for the ministering of the Word and sacraments; 309 therefore these functions only are sufficient 1 COR. xii: 28. [And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.] 309

for the church. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Y o u say "there is no function but hath gifts apt and fit to discharge it annexed and given unto it." If you mean that there is no function but there is gifts meet for it which God hath in his power to bestow, it is most true; but if your meaning be that the gifts be so annexed to the function that of necessity whosoever is called to that function must also have those gifts, it is most untrue. For experience doth teach that every man hath not gifts according to his function, although he be lawfully thereunto called, touching his external calling; for the inward calling none knoweth but God himself and a man's own conscience. . . . Moreover, God doth not tie his gifts to any certain and definite number of names or titles of offices but bestoweth them

310

T h e Admonition Controversy

as it pleaseth him to the commodity of his church upon such as be meet to use them, by what name or title soever they be called. Wherefore this assertion of yours is either unadvisedly avouched, or else doth it contain some secret poison not yet uttered. . . . Your conclusion followeth not except you had said . . . that only "these functions reckoned of St. Paul to the Ephesians, &c., have all gifts needful for the ministering of the Word and sacraments and for the government of the church." . . . Although I could say unto you that all those functions have gifts necessary for them, but not only those functions because there be other not mentioned of you which have gifts necessary also and which the apostle rehearseth, i Cor. xii. So likewise could I answer that most of those functions (according to your own opinion) be not perpetual but for a time, and therefore your reason is no good reason. Likewise, that the apostle hath not made in either of these places any perfect division of offices which were even at that time in the church. For in the first to the Corinthians, the xii. chap., he leaveth out evangelists, pastors, bishops, deacons, widows; and in the fourth to the Ephesians, deacons, widows, workers of miracles, &c. So that he hath not left any perpetual pattern of offices, or names, in either of those two places. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): I say not that "every one that occupieth a ministry in the church hath gifts sufficient for his calling" but every function or ministry of the church hath gifts sufficient, &c. . . . The office of a pastor is . . . a several office from the doctor because, beside the knowledge and dexterity in teaching, the wisdom and discretion in governing, it hath also annexed the grace to move affections either to the love of good or hatred of evil. Likewise the doctor from the elder, because, beside the gift of government enough for that function, there is required . . . ability to teach. The deacon from the elder, for that, beside faithfulness and reasonable wisdom, which is sufficient for the gathering and bestowing of the church money, is required with greater wisdom a singular diligence as of him whose charge reacheth unto the whole, where the other pertaineth to the poor of the church only and which is occupied in relieving the poverties of the mind, where the other is of the body. . . .

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

311

Against this is said that " G o d tieth not his gifts to a certain number of names but bestoweth them where it pleaseth him." I spake not of all gifts but of gifts necessary to govern the church withal and those being necessarily tied unto the offices which have and ought to have those names. All other church offices are shut forth as those which are either idle or hurtful. T h a t "there are functions necessary, Corinthians xii., not mentioned to the Ephesians," and again that "the apostle did not make a perfect division in either of those places" is only to trifle out the time, forsomuch as I added expressly that I grounded my reason of both places jointly; besides that it is untrue that "deacons and widows are left out to the Corinthians," being contained in the word helps. . . . WHITGIFT (¿4): I prove that the names of metropolitan and archbishop, &c., be not anti-Christian names, that is, names invented by antichrist, but most ancient, yea, that they were in the church long before the gospel was publicly embraced by any prince or in any kingdom. Polydore Vergil . . . testifieth that the apostle Peter did in every province appoint one archbishop whom all other bishops of the same province should obey. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e Lord, when he would give laws of worshipping to his people in the things that were indifferent, of shaving and cutting 310 and apparel-wearing, 311 saith to his LEV. xix: 27. [Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.]

310

DEUT. xxii: 11. [Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.] 12. [Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture wherewith thou coverest thyself.] 311

people that they should not do so and so because the gentiles did so; yea, even in those things, the use whereof was otherwise very profitable and incommodious to forbear, he would have them notwithstanding to abstain from, as from swine's flesh, coneys, &c., 312 to the end that he might have them severed, as 312 LEV. xi: [no verse given]. DEUT. xiv: [no verse given].

312

T h e Admonition Controversy

a p p e a r e t h in St. P a u l , b y a great and h i g h w a l l f r o m other nations. 3 1 3 313

EPHES. ii: 14. [For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath

broken down the middle wall of partition between us.]

A n d therefore it is v e r y unlike that St. Peter w o u l d f r a m e the ministry of the gospel, w h i c h is no c e r e m o n y b u t of the substance of the gospel, b y the e x a m p l e of the heathenish a n d idolatrous functions. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : G o d g a v e unto the Israelites a k i n g t h o u g h other nations h a d so in like m a n n e r . A n d he ordained degrees of priests a m o n g t h e m to offer unto h i m sacrifices t h o u g h the gentiles h a d the like. A n d w h a t inconvenience could there c o m e b y placing archbishops, w h i c h should faithfully preach the W o r d of G o d and carefully govern the c h u r c h of Christ, even in those places w h e r e there w e r e archiflamines w h o did deface Christianity and persecute the Christians? F o r b y these means there could no h a r m c o m e unto t h e m as there m i g h t h a v e done to the Israelites b y using of such things of the gentiles as he f o r b a d e unto t h e m but the contrary, for this w a s a means to p l u c k t h e m f r o m all their superstition and idolatry. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): T h e L o r d ' s priests and sacrifices w e r e before the priests and sacrifices of the gentiles; therefore t h a t exception, " G o d instituted priests and sacrifices t h o u g h the gentiles h a d the l i k e , " is vain to prove that there m a y b e archbishops as there w e r e archflamines [¿ic]. A " k i n g " was necessary " f o r the Israelites" to shadow out to t h e m the k i n g d o m of our Saviour Christ; therefore that e x a m p l e is out of place. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R ) : A n d to say that Peter appointed archbishops and bishops b y the e x a m p l e of idolaters is after a sort to m a k e the l a w to c o m e out of E g y p t or B a b y l o n and not out of Sion or Jerusalem, as the prophet saith. 3 1 4 . . . 314

ISA. ii: 3. [And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let u s

go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and we will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.]

Y o u say . . . that J a m e s w a s an archbishop: if he were, he was the first and placed over the Jews.

The Episcopal Hierarchy

313

A n d a l t h o u g h St. Peter might, to g a i n the gentiles, be content to use their idolatrous functions w i t h a little c h a n g e of their names, y e t there is none so m a d to think that he w o u l d translate a n y such function f r o m the gentiles to the Jews, w h i c h w e r e never before accustomed w i t h a n y such flamines or archiflamines. A n d this I dare generally and at once say against y o u . . . that the L o r d translated divers things out of the L a w into the gospel, as the presbytery or eldership, excommunication, 3 1 5 a n d the 315

MATT, v: 22. [But I say u n t o y o u , T h a t w h o s o e v e r is a n g r y w i t h his

brother w i t h o u t a cause shall be in d a n g e r of the j u d g m e n t : a n d w h o s o e v e r shall say to his brother, R a c a , shall be in d a n g e r of the c o u n c i l : b u t w h o s o e v e r shall say, T h o u fool, shall b e in d a n g e r of hell fire.] JOHN ix: 22. [These w o r d s spake his parents, b e c a u s e t h e y feared the J e w s : for the J e w s h a d agreed a l r e a d y , t h a t if a n y m a n did confess t h a t he w a s Christ, he should be p u t o u t of the s y n a g o g u e . ]

office of deacons, as it is thought for that the Sadducees, of w h o m so often mention is m a d e in the gospel, are thought to h a v e h a d that office to provide for the poor . . . I say these and others more translated f r o m the L a w u n t o the gospel. . . . W e read in the A c t s that all the gentiles were c o m m a n d e d to c o n f o r m themselves unto the J e w s in the abstaining f r o m blood and strangled m e a t for a time, 3 1 6 b u t w e c a n never find 316

ACTS xv: 29. [ T h a t y e abstain f r o m meats offered to idols, and f r o m

b l o o d , a n d f r o m things strangled, a n d f r o m fornication: f r o m w h i c h if y e k e e p yourselves, y e shall d o w e l l . . . .]

that the J e w s w e r e c o m m a n d e d to conform themselves to the gentiles in their ceremonies. . . . WHITGIFT (D): Y o u r conjecture of the deaconship to be taken f r o m the J e w s is b u t a mere conjecture; if there h a d been a n y such office in the L a w , it w o u l d h a v e b e e n specified in one p l a c e or other of the O l d T e s t a m e n t . T o u c h i n g y o u r eldership, w e shall see w h a t y o u h a v e to say for it in place. . . . Y o u r reason w h y there should be no orders or ceremonies taken f r o m the gentiles is not sufficient, for it is a negative reason ab auctoritate. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): H e r e he h a t h at one push thrust the archbishop quite out of the c h u r c h . F o r if this be a good reason,

314

T h e Admonition Controversy

there were no deacons amongst the Jews because they were not specified in the Old Testament, then it is likewise true that forsomuch as there is no archbishop specified in the New Testament there was no archbishop in the apostles' times. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): If there should be any archbishop in any place, the same should be either in respect of the person or minister and his excellency or in respect of the magnificence of the place; but the most excellent ministers that ever were in the most famous places were no archbishops but bishops only; therefore there is no cause why there should be any archbishop; for if there were ever minister of a congregation worthy, that was James. If there were ever any city that ought to have this honour as that the minister of it should have a more honourable title than the ministers of other cities and towns, that was Jerusalem, where the Son of God preached and from whence the gospel issued out into all places. And afterward that Jerusalem decayed and the church there, Antioch was a place where the notablest men were that ever have been since, which also deserved great honour for that there the disciples were first called Christians; 317 317

ACTS xi: 26. [And when he had found him, he brought him unto

Antioch. A n d it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. A n d the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.]

but neither was that called the first and chiefest church, neither the ministers of it called the arch or principal bishops. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Y o u have not yet proved that there was no archbishops in those places or that James had not that office. . . . Y o u must understand that one Christian commonweal is but one church, as it was among the Jews; and therefore such offices of government may be such in the church as was among the Jews, and such superiority among ministers as was then amongst priests and Levites. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): These orders and policies touching the distribution of the offices of the Levites and priests and touching the appointment of their governors were done of David by the advice of the prophets Gad and Nathan, which received of the

The Episcopal Hierarchy

315

Lord by commandment that which they delivered unto David. 318 31811

CHRON. xxix:

25. [ A n d he set the L e v i t e s in the house of the L o r d

w i t h c y m b a l s , w i t h psalteries, and w i t h harps, a c c o r d i n g to the c o m m a n d m e n t of D a v i d , and of G a d the king's seer, and N a t h a n the p r o p h e t : for so w a s the c o m m a n d m e n t of the L o r d b y his prophets. (In the first edition of the Replye,

w h i c h W h i t g i f t used, t h e m a r g i n a l reference w a s

11 C h r o n . xix. I n the second edition this was corrected to x x i x . a n d

the

verse a d d e d . ) ]

And if so be that it can be shewed that archbishops and archdeacons came into the church by any commandment of the Lord, then this allegation hath some force. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : For proof hereof you quote in the margent 11 Chron. xix., where there is not one word for your purpose or signifying any such thing. Indeed, in the 11 Chron. xxix. there is affirmed the like thing. . . . In the 11 Chron. xix. which you have quoted in the margent there is a notable place against you; for there express mention is made that Jehoshaphat set in Jerusalem of the Levites and of the priests, &c., for the judgment and cause of the Lord and made Amariah the priest chief over them. Neither were they judges for the city of Jerusalem only but for the whole country.319 And 318

11 CHRON. xix:

8 . [ M o r e o v e r in J e r u s a l e m did J e h o s h a p h a t set of the

L e v i t e s , a n d of t h e priests, a n d of t h e chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment

of t h e L o r d , a n d for controversies, w h e n they returned

to

Jerusalem.]

yet we read not of any commandment that Jehoshaphat had so to do. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Galerianus Maximinus the Emperor, to the end that he might promote the idolatry and superstition whereunto he was addicted, chose of the choicest magistrates to be priests and, that they might be in great estimation, gave each of them a train of men to follow them; and now the Christians and Christian emperors, thinking that that would promote the Christian religion that promoted superstition and not remembering that it is oftentimes abominable before God which is esteemed in the eyes of men,320 endeavoured to make their 820

LUKE xvi: 1 5 . [ A n d he said u n t o t h e m , Y e are they w h i c h j u s t i f y y o u r -

selves before m e n ; b u t G o d k n o w e t h y o u r hearts: for t h a t w h i c h is h i g h l y esteemed a m o n g m e n is a b o m i n a t i o n i n the sight of G o d . ]

316

T h e Admonition Controversy

bishops encounter and match with those idolatrous priests and to cause that they should not be inferior to them in wealth and outward pomp. And therefore I conclude that, seeing the causes and fountains from whence this pomp and stateliness of bishops have come are so corrupt and naught, the thing itself which hath risen of such causes cannot be good. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It rather appeareth that Maximinus did in this point imitate the Christians, who had their metropolitans and one chief bishop in every province long before this time. . . . And I see no cause why you should say that Christians did follow the gentiles rather in providing for the ministers of the gospel sufficiently than in building of churches in every city and placing ministers in them, for Maximinus did this as well as he did the other. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Their offices, as they are strange and unheard of in Christ's church, nay, plainly in Christ's Word forbidden, 321 so are they utterly with speed out of the same to be 321 MATT, xxiii: servant.]

11. [But he that is greatest among you shall be your

12. [And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.] LUKE xxii: 25. [And he said unto them, T h e kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.] 1 COR. iv: 1. [Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.] 1 PET. v: 2. [Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;] 3. [Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.]

removed. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): They say that all these offices be plainly in God's Word forbidden, and they allege Matt, xxiii., Luke xxii., 1 Cor. iv., 1 Pet. v. The places of Matthew and Luke be answered before. . . . In the 1 Cor. iv. it is thus written: " L e t a man thus think of us as of the ministers of Christ, & c . " The ministers of the Word indeed are not to be esteemed as gods but as the ministers of God. Some among the Corinthians gloried in their ministers and

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

317

attributed too m u c h unto them. Hereof came these factions: " I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, & c . " This teacheth your adherents and disciples not to attribute too m u c h to y o u and such as you are or any other minister of G o d ' s W o r d . . I t maketh nothing against the names or authorities either of archbishop, lord bishop, or any other that y o u have named w h o be the ministers of Christ and ought so to be esteemed. T h e place of St. Peter, cap. v., is this: " F e e d the flock of G o d , & c . , not as though y o u were lords over the flock, & c . " Peter here condemneth haughtiness, contempt, and tyranny of pastors towards their flocks; he doth not take a w a y lawful government. T h e pastor hath rule and superiority over his flock, but it must not be tyrannical. These be but very slender proofs that the names and offices of archbishops, lord bishops, & c . , be plainly forbidden b y the W o r d of G o d . Surely y o u had thought that no m a n would have ever taken pains to examine your margent. CARTWRIGHT (R): TO your answer also unto the places of St. M a t t h e w and L u k e the reply is m a d e before. T h e place of the fourth of the First to the Corinthians is well alleged, for it teacheth a moderate estimation of the ministers and a mean between the contempt and excessive estimation; neither can there be any readier w a y to breed that disorder w h i c h was amongst the Corinthians as to say, " I hold of such a one, and I of such a one, and I of such another," than to set up certain ministers in so high titles and great shew of worldly honour; for so cometh it to pass that the people will say, " I will believe m y lord, and my lord archbishop, whatsoever our parson say, for they be wise men and learned," as we see it came to pass amongst the Corinthians. For the false apostles, because they had a shew and outward p o m p of speech, they carried a w a y the people. For although St. Paul saith that some said, " I hold of Paul, I hold of Apollo, I of C e p h a s , " yet as it appeareth in his fourth chapter, they held one of this brave eloquent teacher and another of that. 3 2 2 For he translated these speeches unto him and his fellows 1 COR. iv: 6. [And these things, brethren, I h a v e in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for y o u r sakes; that y e might learn in us 822

3i8

T h e Admonition Controversy

not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.]

by a figure. All that rule is tyrannical which is not lawful and is more than it ought to be. And therefore the place of St. Peter is fitly alleged, whereof also I have spoken something before. W H I T G I F T (D): The Corinthians did not burst out into these factions and parts-taking in respect of any title or office committed to any of their preachers, but it was a partial affection that they had towards their teachers in preferring them for their supposed virtue and learning before other of whom they had not conceived so good an opinion. . . . Wherefore, to take away this partial affection and judgment, the apostle saith . . . " L e t a man so esteem of us as of the ministers of Christ, & c . " 323 You I COR. iv: [ I . Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.]

M

will not, I am sure, acknowledge that at this time among the Corinthians there was any such difference of titles or degrees of superiority. Wherefore you cannot, speaking as you think, say that the apostle in this place meaneth any such matter. But well you wot that these affections which I have spoken of were rife among them, and therefore it is most certain that the apostle laboureth for the suppression of them. So that the interpretation that I have given of this place in mine Answer is true; neither have you refelled it. The rule that a bishop hath over other ministers in his diocese is "lawful"; neither is it such "tyrannical rule" as the word . . . used by St. Peter . . . doth signify, that is, to rule with oppression. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : A S the names of archbishops, archdeacons, lord bishops, chancellors, &c., are drawn out of the Pope's shop, together with their offices, so the government which they use by the life of the Pope, which is the canon law, is antichristian and devilish and contrary to the Scriptures.324 . . . 8M

LUKE xxii:

25. [And he said unto them, T h e kings of the Gentiles

exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.] 26. [But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.]

The Episcopal Hierarchy

319

1 PET. v: 3. [Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.] 4. [And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.] 5. [Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Y e a , all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for G o d resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.] MATT, xx: 25. [But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Y e know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.] 26. [But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister.] MATT, xxiii: 8. [But be not ye called R a b b i : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. . . .] 11. [But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.] 12. [And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.] GAL. it: 6. [But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: G o d accepteth no man's person:) for they w h o seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.] HEB. v: 4. [And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of G o d , as was Aaron.] LUKE xvi: 25. [But A b r a h a m said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.] EZEK. xxxiv: 4. [The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.] n COR. i: 24. [Not for that w e have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your j o y : for by faith ye stand.] WHITGIFT

(YL):

B o t h of the n a m e s a n d also of the offices

of archbishops, archdeacons, lord bishops, & c . , I h a v e spoken before sufficiently a n d f u l l y answered those places q u o t e d in this m a r g e n t s a v i n g the ii. to the G a l a t . , the v . to the

Hebrews,

E z e k . x x x i v . , 11 C o r . i.; for these places h a v e b e e n f o u n d o u t since a n d t h o u g h t m e e t n o w to b e alleged, b u t h o w discreetly b y e x a m i n a t i o n it will a p p e a r . T h e w o r d s of the apostle to the G a l a t . ii., verse 6., b e these: " A n d of t h e m w h i c h seemed to b e g r e a t I was not t a u g h t ( w h a t t h e y were in time passed, it m a k e t h n o matter to m e , G o d a c c e p t e t h no m a n ' s person); nevertheless t h e y that are the chief d i d c o m m u n i c a t e n o t h i n g w i t h m e . " T h e apostle in these words d o t h declare t h a t he received not the gospel w h i c h he p r e a c h e d of m e n , no, not of the apostles, b u t of

320

T h e Admonition Controversy

Jesus Christ, and that the gospel preached by him ought to be no less credited than the gospel preached b y them. So that in those words he declareth that the truth of the doctrine doth not depend of any man's person. H e speaketh nothing against superiority, quoad ordinem (concerning order) but doth rather acknowledge it. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): A l t h o u g h the place of the Galatians m a y be thought of some not so pregnant nor so full against the archbishop, yet all must needs confess that it maketh more against him than for him. For St. Paul's purpose is to prove there that he was not inferior to any of the ajDostles and bringeth one argument thereof, that he had not his gospel from them but from Christ immediately; and therefore, if the apostles that were esteemed most of and supposed by the Galatians and others to be the chief had no superiority over St. Paul but were equal with him, if followeth that there was none that had rule over the rest. A n d if there needed no one of the apostles to be ruler over the rest, there seemeth to be no need that one bishop should rule over the rest. WHITGIFT (D): I have set d o w n the words of the apostle as they be translated in the English Bible printed at G e n e v a , not altering one tittle; and therefore, if there be any falsehood in the translation, it is in that Bible, not in me. . . . T h i s place to the Galatians is not brought in by me to prove the authority of the archbishop (although it might well be alleged to prove degrees of honour in the ministry), but it is quoted in the Admonition fondly and foolishly to prove that the " n a m e s of archbishops, archdeacons, lord bishops, & c . , are drawn out of the Pope's shop together with their offices." A n d of this dallying with the Scriptures you speak not one word; for you care not how they be profaned, so it be for the maintenance of your o w n cause. WHITGIFT (A): T h e words in the v. to the Hebrews, verse 4., be these: " A n d no m a n taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of G o d , as A a r o n w a s . " T h e apostle here sheweth that Christ was a lawful priest because he was thereunto called by G o d , as A a r o n was. W h a t is this to archbishops, &c.? T h i s place teacheth that no m a n ought to intrude himself to any function except he be thereunto called by G o d . . . .

The Episcopal Hierarchy

321

(R): But that I run not back to that I have handled before, I will not here so much urge the place as I will not do also that of the Hebrews which followeth; and yet the argument is stronger than that M. Doctor could answer. For if the writer to the Hebrews do prove our Saviour Christ's vocation to be just and lawful because his calling was contained in the Scriptures . . . then it followeth that the calling of the archbishop, which is not comprehended there, is neither just nor lawful. . . . But I say, having before sufficiently spoken of the reasons which overthrow the archbishop, I will let pass these and other places, answering only that which M. Doctor bringeth for the establishment of them. W H I T G I F T (D): This is a cleanly and handsome shift to avoid the defence of these gross and unapt allegations of Scriptures. . . . It is not true that the apostle to the Hebrews "proveth the vocation of our Saviour Jesus Christ to be just and lawful because his calling was contained in the Scriptures"; he only sheweth by evident testimonies of the Scriptures that Christ did not intrude himself but was called of God. And if you will have no man to execute any function in the church but him that hath such special and personal testimonies of the Scriptures to shew for himself, I see not how any man can justify his calling. It is therefore sufficient if his calling be generally contained in the Scripture, as all lawful and ordinary functions are, even the offices of archbishops and lord bishops, &c. W H I T G I F T {Á): In the xvi. of Luke, verse 25., it is thus written: "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy pleasures, and likewise Lazarus pains: now therefore is he comforted; and thou art tormented." The rich glutton in his life received pleasure and therefore was after in hell tormented; Lazarus received pains and after was comforted; therefore "archbishops, &c., and their offices come out of the Pope's shop." These fellows neither care for major, minor, nor conclusion, so they say something, and vainly paint their margent with shamefully abusing the Scriptures. The words of Ezek. chap, xxxiv., verse 4., be these: "The weak nave ye not strengthened, the sick have ye not healed, neither have you bound up the broken, &c." In the which place CARTWRIGHT

322

T h e Admonition Controversy

the prophet speaketh against such kings, magistrates, and rulers as despise the people of God and use themselves cruelly towards them. This doth as well condemn kings and magistrates as it doth archbishops although indeed it condemneth no office or superiority but the abuse of the same, that is, the man abusing the office and not the office itself. In the ii Cor. i., verse 24., the apostle speaketh thus unto them: "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of your joy; for by faith you stand." St. Paul here saith that he hath no authority to alter true religion or to rule over their consciences. But how proveth this that "archbishops, &c., came out of the Pope's shop"? Paul saith that he had no power over the consciences of the Corinthians; therefore "archbishops, &c., and their offices were drawn out of the Pope's shop." . . . If you had not troubled your margent with these quotations, you had less uttered your folly. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): Not one word answered to all this. 2. INEQUALITY OF MINISTERS ADMONITION: Now then, if you will restore the church to his ancient officers, this you must do. Instead of an archbishop or lord bishop you must make equality of ministers.325 . . . n COR. x: 7. [Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's even so are we Christ's.] COL. i: 1. [Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother.] 825

PHIL. i: 1. [Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Phillipi, with the bishops and deacons.] 1 THESS. i: 1. [Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.]

WHITGIFT

(A)-. Your places quoted in the margent to

prove that there ought to be an equality of ministers sound nothing that way. 11 Cor. x., vers. 7., these be the words of the apostle: "Look ye on things after the appearance? If any trust

T h e Episcopal Hierarchy

323

in himself that he is Christ's, let him consider this again of himself, that as he is Christ's, even so are w e Christ's." H o w conclude you of these words your equality? I promise y o u it passeth m y cunning to wring out of them any such sense; rather the contrary m a y be gathered out of the words following, w h i c h be these: " F o r though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, w h i c h the Lord, & c . , I should have no shame." M . Calvin expounding these words saith on this sort: " I t was for modesty that he joined himself to their number, w h o m he did far excel; and yet he would not be so modest but that he would keep his authority safe; therefore he addeth that he spake less than of right he might have done. For he was not of the common sort of ministers but one of the chief among the apostles and therefore he saith, 'If I boast more, I need not be ashamed, for I have good cause.' " A n d a little after: . . . " A l t h o u g h the selfsame office be common to all the ministers of the W o r d , yet there be degrees of honour." T h u s y o u see C a l v i n far otherwise to gather of this place than y o u do. CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d if M . Doctor delight thus to oppose men's authority to the authority of the H o l y Ghost and to the reasons w h i c h are grounded out of the Scripture, M . Calvin doth openly mislike of the making of that name proper and peculiar to certain, which the H o l y Ghost maketh common to more. . . . A n d whereas upon M . Calvin's words, w h i c h saith that Paul was " o n e of the chief amongst the apostles," he would seem to conclude an archbishop amongst the bishops, he should have remembered that St. Paul's chiefty amongst the apostles consisted, not in having any authority or dominion over the rest but in labouring and suffering more than the rest and in gifts more excellent than the rest. WHITGIFT ( D ) : I do not "oppose men's authority to the authority of the H o l y Ghost and to the reasons w h i c h are grounded out of the Scripture," but I oppose them to your authority and to your reasons, w h o spurn against that order which the H o l y Ghost hath placed in the church and most shamefully abuse the Scripture to maintain your errors, an example whereof is this present text alleged b y the Admonition,

324

T h e Admonition Controversy

which y o u pass over in silence, condemning thereby their lewdness in abusing the same. It is y o u and yours that abuse the name and authority of the Holy Ghost; it is y o u that wring and wrest the Scriptures untolerably; it is y o u that falsify authorities of learned men, and corruptly allege them; it is you, I say, that deprave and discredit such writers as have been and be notable instruments in the church of Christ; and all this y o u do to maintain your erroneous opinions and false doctrine, wherewith y o u endeavour to subvert this C h u r c h of England. M . Calvin's words be plain, and they directly overthrow your equality of ministers and shew the fondness of the Admonition in alleging that place of Scripture to prove any such equality. . . . WHITGIFT (A): T h e place in the First to the Coloss., vers, i i s this: " P a u l an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother." Surely your mind was not of equality, I think, when you quoted these places to prove it. But it is your usual manner without all discretion and j u d g m e n t to dally and play with the Scriptures. For w h a t sequel is there in this reason: Paul calleth T i m o t h y brother; ergo, in all respects there must be equality? A s though there were not distinction of degrees even among brethren. WHITGIFT (D): Magis mutus quam piscis, and by his silence the oversight confessed. . . . T o prove equality of ministers, they have added "Phil, i., vers, i . ; i Thess. i. i . " . . . T r u l y I know not how to conclude of those places an equality of all ministers: I would to G o d y o u would set down your places and frame your arguments yourselves. . . . WHITGIFT (A): It is not to be denied but that there is an equality of all ministers of God's W o r d quoad ministerium (touching the ministry), for they have all like power to preach the W o r d , to minister the sacraments; that is to say, the W o r d preached or the sacraments ministered is as effectual in one (in respect of the ministry) as it is in another. But quoad ordinem et politiam (touching order and government) there always hath been and must be degrees and superiority among them. For the church of G o d is not a confused congregation but ruled and

The Episcopal Hierarchy

325

directed as well by discipline and policy in matters of regiment as by the Word of God in matters of faith. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): M . Doctor hath put out the mark and concealed the name of the papists, and so with a little change of words, as it were with certain new colours, he would deceive us. For the papists say that every Sir John or hedge-priest hath as great authority to sacrifice and offer for the quick and the dead and to minister the sacraments as the Pope of Rome hath, but for government and for order the bishop is above a priest, the archbishop above a bishop, and the Pope above them all. But I have declared before out of the Scriptures how vain a distinction it is.326 . . . 326

You have not yet declared it, neither can you. [J. W.]

WHITGIFT (.4): Well saith M. Calvin, in his Institutions, cap. viii.: "That the twelve apostles had one among them to govern the rest, it was no marvel; for nature requireth it, and the disposition of man will so have it, that in every company, although they be all equal in power, yet that there be one as governor by whom the rest may be directed: there is no court without a consul, no senate without a praetor, no college without a president, no society without a master." . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): That it may appear what superiority it is which is lawful amongst the ministers and what it is that M. Calvin speaketh of . . . and that no man be deceived by the name of governor, or ruler, over the rest to fancy any such authority and domination or lordship as we see used in our church, it is to be understanded that amongst the pastors, elders, and deacons of every particular church and in the meetings and companies of the ministers or elders of divers churches there was one chosen by the voices and suffrages of them all or the most part, which did propound the matters that were to be handled, whether they were difficulties to be soluted or punishments and censures to be decreed upon those which had faulted, or whether there were elections to be made or what other matter soever occasion was given to entreat of, the which also gathered the voices and reasons of those which had interest to speak in such cases, which also did pronounce according to the number of

326

The Admonition Controversy

the voices which were given, which was also the mouth of the rest to admonish, or to comfort, or to rebuke sharply such as were to receive admonishment, consolation, or rebuke, and which, in a word, did moderate that whole action which was done for the time they were assembled. Which thing we do not deny may be but affirm that it is fit and necessary to be to the avoiding of confusion. . . . And if any man will call this a rule or presidentship and him that executeth this office a president or moderator or a governor, we will not strive so that it be with these cautions, that he be not called simply governor or moderator but governor or moderator of that action and for that time and subject to the orders that others be and to be censured by the company of the brethren as well as others if he be judged any way faulty. . . . Of this order and policy of the church, if we will see a lively image and perfect pattern, let us set before our eyes the most ancient and gospel-like church that ever was or shall be. In the first of the Acts, the church being gathered together for the election of an apostle into the place of Judas the traitor, whenas the interest of election belonged unto all and to the apostles especially above the rest, out of the whole company Peter riseth up, telleth the cause of their coming together, with what cautions and qualities they ought to choose another, conceiveth the prayer whereby the help of God in that election and his direction is begged, and no doubt executed the residue of the things which pertained unto the whole action. 327 327

ACTS i:

15. [ A n d i n those d a y s Peter stood u p in the midst of the

disciples, a n d said, (the n u m b e r of n a m e s together were a b o u t an h u n d r e d and twenty.)]

In the ii. of the Acts all the apostles are accused of drunkenness. Peter answereth for them all, wipeth away the infamy they were charged with. 328 But you will say, "Where are the voices 328

[ACTS ii:

13. O t h e r s m o c k i n g said, T h e s e m e n are f u l l of n e w w i n e .

14. B u t Peter, s t a n d i n g u p w i t h the eleven, lifted u p his v o i c e , a n d said u n t o t h e m , Y e m e n of Judaea, a n d all y e t h a t d w e l l a t J e r u s a l e m , b e this k n o w n u n t o y o u , a n d hearken to m y words.]

of the rest which did choose Peter unto this?" First, you must know that the Scripture setteth not down every circumstance,

The Episcopal Hierarchy

327

and then surely you do Peter great injury that ask whether he were chosen unto it; for is it to be thought that Peter would thrust in himself to this office or dignity without the consent and allowance of his fellows and prevent his fellows of this preeminence? Undoubtedly if it had not been done arrogantly, yet it must needs have a great shew of arrogancy if he had done this without the consent of his fellows. And here you shall hear what the scholiast saith, which gathereth the judgment of Greek divines . . . "Behold, how he doth all with their common consent." And if any man hereupon will say that Peter exercised domination over the rest or gat any arch-apostleship, beside that the whole story of the Acts of the Apostles and his whole course of life doth refute that, the same scholiast which I made mention of in the same place saith he did nothing . . . "imperiously," nothing . . . "with dominion or power." Further I will admonish him to take heed lest, if he strive so far for the archbishop, he slide or ever he be aware into the tents of the papists, which use these places to prove that Peter had authority and rule over the rest of the apostles. W H I T G I F T (D): This is a rod to beat yourself with, for it is evident even by these words of yours that your device is most farthest from the apostolical form; for Peter in all such assemblies is the chief, speaketh the first and moderateth the rest. . . . To prevent subtly that question which neither you do nor can answer, that is, where it is in Scripture mentioned that at every action or at any time Peter was chosen to speak before the rest or to govern the action, you say that "first I must know that the Scripture setteth not down every circumstance, and then that I do Peter great injury that ask whether he were chosen to it, &c." To the first I answer that you ought to know how wicked and ungodly a thing it is to ground the alteration of any lawful kind of government so long continued and in the best times of the church practised upon your own fond device and conjectures without any ground of Scripture, yea, to make that your foundation which you cannot find in the whole Scripture, but the clean contrary. For shew me one piece of a text that doth but insinuate Peter to have been at any time in any action chosen to direct the action. I can shew you the con-

328

The Admonition Controversy

trary, especially in the second of the Acts where Peter suddenly answered with a notable apology in the presence of the apostles the accusation of drunkenness laid against him and them; 329 329

[ACTS ii: 13. Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. 14. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them . . . 15. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.]

neither can it be that he should expect the voices of the rest to choose him to be the chief for that time in that action. Whosoever shall well consider the first of the Acts 330 and 330

[ACTS i: 15. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said. . . .]

the xv. 331 and other places where mention is made of Peter's 331

[ACTS XV: 7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. . . .]

speaking, as he shall perceive that this was Peter's peculiar office and always appertaining unto him from the ascension of Christ to his dying day, so shall he also easily understand that he was not at any time chosen to that office by voices, much less at every particular meeting or singular action. And dare you presume upon vain conjectures without warrant of Scripture to build the foundation of your kind of government, which you before said is a matter of faith and salvation? Is not this to open a way to unwritten verities and fantastical interpretations? If your words be of such weight with the reader that because you speak them therefore he will believe them, per me licebit; but this I will assure him of, that he shall believe that that is neither grounded upon Scripture nor any learned or ancient authority. To the second, that is, that I "do Peter great injury, & c . , " I say that I do him no injury at all when I affirm that of him that the Scripture doth and presume not of mine own brain for the maintaining of an evil cause to imagine that of him which I have myself devised besides the Word of God, as you do most manifestly.

The Episcopal Hierarchy

329

Peter did not "thrust himself into any office or dignity" which was not appointed unto him by God; neither did he otherwise use himself therein than his office and duty required; and it is impiety thus to dally and trifle in God's matters. We are well assured in Scripture that Peter did this and had this pre-eminence, and therefore you must know that he was lawfully called unto it and did lawfully execute it. The Greek scholiast saith that Peter in such assemblies did conclude nothing without the consent of the rest, the which also the Scripture itself doth plainly declare. But the Greek scholiast nowhere saith that Peter was at every assembly or at any time chosen by the voices of the rest to speak first and to moderate the action, which is your assertion. For in the place by you cited he speaketh not of the election of Peter to his prolocutorship but of the choosing of Matthias to the apostleship, wherein Peter took not that pre-eminence to himself to appoint him alone but communicated the matter with the rest of the disciples. So that you have either wittingly or ignorantly applied the scholiast to a wrong matter. It is true that "Peter did nothing imperiously, nothing with dominion or power." No more doth any man that executeth lawful jurisdiction and government by law, equity, and order, no, not the king himself; for in superiority there is humility, and in rule and authority there is servitude. . . . And yet doth the Greek scholiast in the same place say that "Peter rose up, and not James, as being more fervent . . . and as having received the presidentship of the apostles." . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Whether it have ground out of the Word that Peter was chosen by the apostles, although it be not expressed, it may partly appear by that disputation upon xx. Matthew, for if all the apostles were left of our Saviour Christ in equal authority, either Peter took that upon him without calling or else he received it of the apostles. But the first is confessed untrue; therefore it hath ground of the Word of God that St. Peter was chosen of the .apostles unto the presidentship in those actions. And as it hath been shewed out of St. Matthew xx. that none of them was higher than other, so of St. Peter it

330

The Admonition Controversy

appeareth particularly in that he and St. John were sent by the college of the apostles.332 Whereas if he had been made chief ACTS viii: 14. [Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.]

332

by our Saviour and that "from the ascension unto his dying day," it had not been lawful for the apostles by making him their ambassador to have made him inferior to the residue. . . . Where he saith "it is contrary to Scripture because St. Peter, ii. Acts, so suddenly defended the apostles against the accusation of drunkenness as he could not tarry for their voices," it is ridiculous. For I would know, first, what testimony of Scripture he hath to prove it done "so suddenly." Then who is so senseless as not to understand that the eleven standing with him could not in a trice, either by voice or finger lifted up, cast that charge of speaking then upon Peter so that unless he did, as it were, take the Jews' words out of their mouth, no time could want for that matter? He saith further, "Acts i. and xv. considered, it shall appear always Peter's office to speak first and rule the action and that he was at no time chosen thereto by voices, much less at every particular meeting," which first is a gross petition of that in question. Then if we were not able to shew by the Word that our Saviour Christ did not appoint Peter chief of the rest, yet by what either sentence or word out of the Scripture is he able to shew that he was appointed governor by him over all the rest during his life? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And that it may be understanded that this moderate rule, void of all pomp and outward shew, was not perpetual nor all was tied unto one man, which were the last points of the cautions I put before, turn unto the xv. of the Acts, where is shewed how with the rest of the church the apostles and amongst them Peter, being assembled, decide a great controversy, James the apostle, and not Peter, moderated and governed the whole action whenas, after other had said their judgments, and namely, Paul and Barnabas and Peter, he in the end in the name of all pronounced the sentence, and that whereof the rest agreed and had disputed unto and the

The Episcopal Hierarchy residue rested in that judgment; 333

333

331

the which also may likewise

ACTS xv: [12. T h e n all the m u l t i t u d e k e p t silence, and g a v e audience

to Barnabas, and P a u l , declaring w h a t miracles a n d wonders G o d h a d w r o u g h t a m o n g the Gentiles b y them.] 13. [ A n d after they h a d held their peace, J a m e s answered, saying, M e n a n d brethren, hearken u n t o me.]

appear in the xxi. of the Acts. 334 334

ACTS xxi: [ 1 8 . A n d the d a y f o l l o w i n g P a u l w e n t in w i t h us u n t o J a m e s ;

a n d all the elders were present. 19. A n d w h e n he h a d saluted t h e m , he declared particularly

what

things G o d h a d w r o u g h t a m o n g the Gentiles b y his ministry.] 20. [ A n d w h e n they heard it, they glorified the L o r d , and said u n t o h i m , T h o u seest, brother, h o w m a n y thousands of J e w s there are w h i c h believe; a n d they are all zealous of the law.]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is evident by the story of the Acts of the Apostles that this function remained to Peter so long as the apostles continued together and that he did execute the same whensoever they met, and therefore it is untrue that this office was not "tied to one man." T h e xv. of the Acts helpeth you nothing, for even there Peter keepeth his accustomed manner in making the first oration; and in that place it may appear that he did it as chief in that assembly, for the text saith that "when there had been great disputation, Peter rose up and said unto them, & c . , " so that Peter, as one having authority to appease the tumult and bitter contention, "rose up and said unto them, & c . " Then spake Barnabas and Paul, after them James, not as moderator or governor of the whole action but as one having interest to speak as the rest of the apostles had; and because he had spoken that which the rest well liked of, therefore they consented to his opinion and judgment. This is no more to give pre-eminence to James in moderating that action than it is to give the speakership in the parliament to him that speaketh last in a matter and whose oration hath most persuaded, to whom also the whole house consenteth. So that Peter keepeth his prerogative still for anything that is here spoken to the contrary, which may also evidently appear by this that when there was great contention among them about the matter, the cause whereof is like to be for that they did not understand the state of the cause, Peter stood up . . . "and stood especially upon

332

T h e Admonition Controversy

this point that he might declare the state of the question," as M . Calvin saith, which is the office of the speaker or moderator; wherefore not James but Peter did moderate the action. But be it as you would have it, that "James did moderate the action," it maketh most against you; for if we believe the ancient writers and, namely, the Greek scholiast upon the xv. of the Acts, James was now bishop of Jerusalem; and therefore, the synod being within his charge, it was not unfit that he, according to his office, should moderate the same as other bishops did in their several churches. T h e xxi. of the Acts is nothing to your purpose; but Paul, coming to Jerusalem, went with certain other in unto James and told him and all the rest that were gathered together what God had wrought among the gentiles by his ministration. What is this to prove your purpose? Peter is not here, and James was now bishop of Jerusalem, as the note in the margent of the Bible printed at Geneva doth testify. T h e place in no respect proveth your assertion but the contrary, for there is no doubt but that James was the chief governor of the church of Jerusalem in all actions during his life after that he was once placed in the bishopric. Y o u talk in another place of "raking of doctors to prove my purpose"; but if these be not rakings of Scriptures gathered together to no purpose for the confirming of your fond devices, I know not what you should mean by the name of "rakings." C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where I shew that James ruled the action, Acts xv., and not Peter, considering that he pronounced the sentence whereunto the rest agreed, he saith, first, that "Peter spake before the rest," which is untrue, for there was great disputation of both sides before Peter spake; therefore it must needs be that the cause was propounded by some before. And so it is frivolous he allegeth out of Calvin to prove Peter "prolocutor" for that he stood upon this especially that he might declare the state of the question, as if the apostles' synod were so confused that a great part of it was spent or ever the company were informed of the state of the question. Whereas Calvin meaneth that St. Peter confirmed pithily the truth in that question and

The Episcopal Hierarchy

333

not that he travailed to shew wherein the question consisted, as appeareth by Peter's whole oration. So that St. Peter's oration is first set down not for that he spake first but for that he was the first amongst the apostles and elders, which St. Luke thought good to commit to writing. It is also childish that "Peter was moderator because he spake after there was great disputation," as if everyone which cometh between two parties striving to draw them to concord hath authority over them, considering that there is not a word in Peter's oration which giveth the least inkling of such authority. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I say as our Saviour Christ said, "Why do you break the commandments of God to establish your own traditions?" 335 For the one is the institution of God, and the MATT, xv: 3. [But he answered and said unto them, W h y do ye also transgress the c o m m a n d m e n t of G o d b y your tradition?]

336

other the tradition of the church. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Your whole book is grounded upon the sands, that is, upon foundations not proved, as this is. For you should first have proved that Christ hath so commanded equality of ministers in government and ecclesiastical policy that one of them may not be above the other; the contrary is to be seen in Scripture, both in words and examples. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : In the apostles' times there were schisms and heresies, but in their times there were no archbishops ordained to appease them. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Although the apostles had not this name of archbishop among them, yet they had the same authority and office. For they had the government and direction of divers churches both in matters of doctrine and discipline: they ended controversies, repressed errors, kept them in quietness, ordained them bishops, and visited them, as appeareth, Acts xiv., xv., xviii., 1 Cor. iii., iv., v., xi., and in the epistle to Timothy, and Titus. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : At Antioch there rose a great and dangerous heresy that had in a manner infected all the churches, which shaked the very foundation of the salvation of God's

334

T h e Admonition Controversy

children; that was whether faith were sufficient to justify without circumcision.336 The matter was disputed of both sides; it could ACTS xv: [i. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.] 33S

2. [When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.]

not be agreed of. What do they now? Do they ordain some archbishop, arch-prophet, arch-apostle, or any one chief to whom they will refer the controversy or upon whom they will depend? Nothing less. . . . They send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, as if the lesser towns should send to the churches of the universities and of London to desire their help in the determining of the controversy. And what is Paul and Barnabas' ambassage? Is it to desire the judgment or mind of someone? It must needs be answered with St. Luke that they came to know the resolution of the church; 337 and yet there were the apostles, whereof every 337

ACTS xv:

23. [And they wrote letters by them after this manner;

T h e apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.]

one was better able both sharply to see and to judge incorruptly without affection than any archbishop that ever was. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): It rather justifieth my assertion, for it evidently proveth that every parish within itself hath not absolute authority to end controversies but that it behoveth them in such weighty matters to resort to the chief church, as they now did to Jerusalem. This example, therefore, if you well consider it, is directly against you. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): In that they both debated the cause amongst themselves and when they could not agree decreed to send it to Jerusalem, it is sufficiently declared that they had authority to end it amongst them and that it was not wrung from them by necessity of law or pretence of higher authority but voluntarily sent up to Jerusalem, although for this place in hand it is sufficient that the deciding of controversies hung not upon the mouth of one man, were he never so sufficient, but

The Episcopal Hierarchy

335

were referred unto the assemblies of the ancients and ministers of the Word. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): For that the judgment of many is very apt either to confirm a truth or to confute falsehood, it is evident that St. Paul doth hold forth, as it were, a buckler against the frowardness of certain the authority of the church.338 . . . 1 COR. xi: 16. [But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.] 1 COR. xiv: 33. [For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.]

838

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Neither of our archbishops taketh upon him to compound controversies in doctrine by himself alone; neither is it their office to do so. The archbishop's authority in this church is to provide by lawful and ordinary means that unity be observed in the church, that contentions and schisms be cut off, that the religion and orders of the church by the whole consent of the church agreed upon be maintained, that every bishop in his province do his duty according to the same. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : Furthermore, if this distinction came up in the apostles' time and by them, how cometh it to pass that they never mention it? Nay, how cometh it to pass that even St. Paul, in that very epistle where these voices are found, " I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas," which are said to be the cause of the archbishop, ordaineth a clean contrary to this that M. Doctor commendeth? For when two or three prophets have expounded the Scriptures, he appointeth that all the rest that are there should judge whether they have done well or no.339 M I COR. xiv: 29. [Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I contend not that the name of the archbishop was in the apostles' time, but you have not yet proved that the office was not then or that there was then no superiority among the clergy, which you notwithstanding deny. Your negative reason proveth nothing. . . . The place in the 1 Cor. xiv. is far-fetched. It speaketh not

336

T h e Admonition Controversy

of government and discipline or external policy of the church but of expounding the Scriptures. And what a reason call you this? St. Paul saith . . . " L e t two or three prophets speak, and let the other j u d g e " ; ergo, he speaketh against an archbishop! . . . St. Paul in that place to the Corinthians sheweth that the hearers must judge of the doctrine of the prophets whether it be according to the Word of God or no, as those did which are commended in the xvii. of the Acts. But what is this to an archbishop? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): If he had conferred the text, he should have found that the apostle speaketh of the prophets and not of the whole church. For he biddeth that two or three of the prophets should speak and the other, that is to say prophets, should give judgment, which appeareth by the reason added: the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets. 340. . . 340 1 COR. xiv: 29. [Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other j u d g e . . . .] 31. [For ye m a y all prophesy one by one, that all m a y learn, and all m a y be comforted.] 32. [And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.]

C A R T W R I G H T (/?): And how cometh it to pass that St. Paul, being at Rome in prison and looking every day when he should give up his last breath, commended unto the church a perfect and an absolute ministry standing of five parts,341 841 EPHES. iv: 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.]

wherein he maketh mention not one word of an archbishop, and saith, further, that that ministry is able to entertain the perfect unity and knitting together of the church? . . . W H I T G I F T (D): In this place the apostle, as you confess, reciteth offices that be but temporal, as "apostle, prophet, & c . " : he leaveth out those offices which you say are perpetual, as "deacon" and "senior." Therefore it is no such perfect pattern as you would have it. And if you say that these offices are contained under the names of "pastors and doctors," then I say that "bishops and archbishops" be so in like manner. If you will have the apostles to speak of these ministries only which are

The Episcopal Hierarchy

ggy

occupied in the Word and sacraments, then I say unto you that an "archbishop" is a name of jurisdiction and government committed to a bishop, pastor, or minister of the Word as necessary for the good government of the church but not as any new ministry as you untruly, both now and also before, have surmised. But, to let all this pass, in those offices which St. Paul here reciteth is the office of an archbishop contained though it be not named, and namely, under the apostles and pastors. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): T h e apostle, a little before exhorting to unity, bringeth also this reason: "one body, one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, & c . , " 342 EPHES. iv: [4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;] 342

5. [One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6. O n e God and Father of all. . . .]

whereby appeareth that the apostle took these "ones" to be sufficient to keep the people of God in unity. And if to have an archbishop had been so necessary, the apostle should have foully forgotten himself, having so fit a place to speak of him. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : Jerusalem was a famous church; so was Rome, as the apostle witnesseth; 343 so was Antioch and others 343

ROM. i: 8. [First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all,

that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.]

where also were great contentions both in doctrine and otherwise; and yet for avoiding of contention and schism there was no one that was ruler of the rest. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : James was bishop of Jerusalem and in authority above all other ministers there. . . . Therefore you are greatly deceived in saying that there "was no one over the rest" at Jerusalem; although if there had been none, yet would it not have served your turn because, the apostles as yet being alive, this office of bishops was less needful. . . . W H I T G I F T (A)\ Paul was superior both to Timothy and Titus, as it may easily be gathered out of his epistles written unto them. . . . Titus had superiority over all the other pastors and ministers

33 8

The Admonition Controversy

which were in Creta, for he had potestatem constituendi oppidatim presbyteros, ad Tit. z.344. . . TITUS i: 5. [For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.] 344

CARTWRIGHT (R): Titus being an evangelist was superior to all the pastors in Crete, which was a degree under the evangelists. . . . WHITGIFT (D): Titus was a bishop . . . and y o u have not one word in Scripture of his being an evangelist. . . . WHITGIFT {A): T i m o t h y bare rule over all the other ministers of the church of Ephesus, for Paul saith unto him, 1 T i m . v. . . . " A g a i n s t a minister receive no accusation, unless there be two or three witnesses," in w h i c h words Paul maketh him a j u d g e over the rest of the ministers. CARTWRIGHT (R): U n t o the place of T i m o t h y . . . I answer as I have done before to the place of Titus, that is, that as the ordination of the pastors is attributed unto Titus and T i m o t h y because they governed and moderated that action and were the first in it, so also is the deposing or other censures of them and that forasmuch as he writeth his epistles unto T i m o t h y and Titus, he telleth them how they should behave themselves in their office and doth not shut out other from this censure and judgment. . . . A n d if this be a good rule that because Paul biddeth T i m o t h y and Titus to j u d g e of the faults of the pastors and to ordain pastors, therefore none else did but they, then whereas St. Paul biddeth T i m o t h y that he should command and teach that "godliness is profitable to all things" and admonisheth him to " b e an example of the whole flock," 346 by your reason he 1 TIM. iv: 8. [For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. . . .] 12. [Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.] 346

will have no other of the ministers of Ephesus or of the isle of Creta to teach that doctrine or to be examples to their flocks and an hundred such things in the epistles of T i m o t h y and Titus,

The Episcopal Hierarchy

339

which although they be there particularly directed unto Timothy and Titus, yet do they agree and are common to them with all other ministers, yea, sometimes unto the whole flock. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : These words of St. Paul indeed be not spoken to Timothy alone but to all other bishops of like authority, for that which is prescribed to Timothy is also prescribed to all other in the like function, which argueth that this authority, given to Timothy over all the ministers of the church of Ephesus, doth pertain also to all other bishops over the ministers of their several diocese. But as St. Paul in these epistles writeth only to bishops and pastors, so are the precepts given therein properly pertaining to the office of bishops and pastors and therefore not to be wrested to any other. . . . What is this but to give Timothy superiority and government over the other ministers of Ephesus to say unto him . . . "Against a minister receive no accusation, &c."? And as this authority of judgment is not only given unto Timothy but to all bishops of like calling, so that also of teaching (that "godliness is profitable to all things," &c.) pertaineth to all ministers of the Word generally and not to Timothy alone. This is only the difference, that the first is common to Timothy with all other bishops of like jurisdiction; the other, common to him with all other ministers of the Word. . . . You say that there is "an hundred such things in the epistles of Timothy and Titus"; I think that there is not one hundred several precepts in all the three epistles. 3.

DISCIPLINE

a. The Archbishop's Court What should we speak of the archbishop's court sith all men know it and your wisdom cannot but see what it is? . . . So is it the filthy quavemire and poisoned plash of all the abominations that do infect the whole realm. 346 . . . ADMONITION:

346

T o prove that the regiment of the church should be spiritual, read (Calvin in his commentaries upon these places) [(Calvin . . . places) not in the original issue of the Admonition but later added]: E P H E S . i: [ 2 2 . A n d hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.]

340

T h e Admonition Controversy 23. [Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.]

x THESS. v:

[12. A n d we beseech you, brethren, to know them which

labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;] 13. [And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. A n d be at peace among yourselves.] 1 TIM. v: 2. [The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.] HEB. x: 30. [For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. A n d again, T h e Lord shall j u d g e his people.] W H I T G I F T (J4): I think this court to be necessary for the state of this c h u r c h a n d realm; and if there b e abuses in it, either in the l a w itself or in the persons, I wish it w e r e reformed. B u t the w h o l e order of the court is not therefore to be c o n d e m n e d , no m o r e t h a n it is of other courts w h i c h c a n n o t be missed and yet h a v e abuses in them. I confess myself to h a v e little experience in such matters, and therefore I will speak the less thereof. . . .

I utterly c o n d e m n y o u r unseemly and unchristian terms, as " f i l t h y q u a v e m i r e , " " p o i s o n e d plash of all a b o m i n a t i o n s , " " f i l t h y c o u r t , " especially considering whereof they b e spoken, to w h o m , and b y w h o m : they a r g u e a scolding nature and a s t o m a c h boiling w i t h c o n t e m p t of laws and superiors. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): H e thinketh the archbishop's court necessary b u t bringeth no reason, and further confesseth himself ignorant of the estate of it, and therefore I k n o w not f r o m w h e n c e that good opinion of his should c o m e unless it be f r o m thence, that he liketh of all things, b e they never so evil, w h i c h the Admonition misliketh. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I h a v e shewed better reasons for it than y o u h a v e d o n e against it as yet. F o r it is a reason for me sufficient that the court is established b y the authority of the prince and the w h o l e realm, and fit it is that very strong reasons should be used before this reason be rejected. F o r in matters of government place must be given to the governors, lawmakers, and to the state except there c a n be shewed invincible reasons to the contrary, w h e r e o f y o u h a v e not in this place uttered one. . . . (A): Y o u bid us in the margent, " T o prove that the regiment of the c h u r c h should be spiritual read E p h e . i., vers. 23., 1 Thess. v., vers. 13., 1 T i m . v., vers. 2., H e b . x., vers. 3 0 . " WHITGIFT

The Episcopal Hierarchy

341

In the 1 Thess. v. the apostle "beseecheth them to love such for their work's sake as labour among them, are over them in the Lord, and admonish them." W h a t argument call y o u this: St. Paul moves the Thess. to love their pastors; ergo, the government of the church is only spiritual? CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d to note the distinction of these regiments civil and spiritual, the place unto the Thessa. is well alleged, for by the words " s u c h as rule over y o u in the L o r d " the apostle doth put a difference between the civil and ecclesiastical regiment. 347 For albeit that godly civil magistrates do 1 THESS. v: 12. [And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.]

347

rule over us in the Lord, yet St. Paul . . . " b y excellency" ascribeth that unto the ecclesiastical governors because that whereas the civil magistrate, beside his care for the salvation of the souls of his people, is occupied in procuring also the wealth and quietness of this life, the ecclesiastical governors have all their whole care set upon that only which pertaineth to the life to come. WHITGIFT ( D ) : T r u e it is that the civil government is distinguished from the ecclesiastical; but there is something c o m m o n to them both, as these civil offices whereof we speak. T h e place to the Thess. w h i c h the authors of the Admonition use . . . to prove that the government of the church ought to be spiritual cannot be used to make any distinction betwixt civil and ecclesiastical government. For by your o w n confession this portion " a r e over y o u in the L o r d , " w h i c h you would have to make this distinction, is as well spoken of the civil magistrate as it is of the pastor; and so it is indeed, and therefore this text is abused both by them and you. T h e apostle useth the same manner of speech, speaking of the obedience of wives towards their husbands . . . "Wives, be subject unto your own husbands, as it behoveth you in the L o r d . " 348 A n d yet y o u will not say COL. Hi: [18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.] 348

that the government of the husband over his wife is only spiritual. . . .

342

The Admonition Controversy CARTWRIGHT

( R S R ) : St. Paul . . . useth the preposition

in diversely. Where, therefore, he willeth the Thessalonians to "acknowledge those which were set over them in the Lord," he meaneth in things pertaining unto the Lord; but when he willeth the "wives to obey their husbands in the Lord," he meaneth that they should do it no further than is agreeable unto the will of God, not that he would restrain their obedience only to such things as pertain to the kingdom of heaven, as the words be taken in the other place. In saying that "although the godly magistrate ruleth in the Lord over us, yet that this title is given by excellency unto the ecclesiastical officers," I do not "dally"; it is the distinction of the Holy Ghost himself. . . . W H I T G I F T (^4): In the I Tim. v., vers. 2 . , he willeth Timothy to "exhort the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters"; whereupon you conclude thus: elder women must be exhorted as mothers, the younger as sisters, with all pureness; ergo, the government of the church must be spiritual. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (/?): Their meaning is not (as M . Doctor doth untruly surmise) to shut out the civil magistrate or to debar him of punishing the wicked but that it appertaineth not unto the ministers to deal that ways, whose correction of faults lieth partly in reprehensions and admonitions, which he speaketh of there, partly in excommunication, whereof is spoken before. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : But how aptly this place is alleged to this end, every child may understand. For what a collection call you this: St. Paul willeth Timothy to "exhort the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters"; therefore the regiment of the church is only spiritual, and an ecclesiastical person may not intermeddle with any kind of civil affairs? One Christian man must exhort another and reprove another also, as occasion requireth; therefore he may not execute any civil office. T h e reason is all one. Your defence of this place is very slender, and you might with as much credit to them have passed it over as you have done divers other. W H I T G I F T (¿4): In the place to the Ephes. the apostle saith that "God hath appointed Christ to be the head of the church, which is his body, even the fulness of him that filleth

The Episcopal Hierarchy

343

all in all things." Here we learn that Christ is the head of the church. But how proves this that the government of the church is only spiritual? Will you hereby take away civil magistrates and other governors that God hath placed in his church? It is subtly done of you to quote the places only and not to apply them nor to conclude of them; for surely, if you had laid down the words and applied them to your purpose, not wise and learned only but very children would have laughed you to scorn. C A R T W R I G H T (/?): Further, touching the place of the Ephes., forsomuch as our Saviour Christ, as he is head of his church, is the spiritual governor thereof, it is meet that their government which are appointed underneath him, as he is head, should be likewise spiritual as his is. For as for the civil magistrate, although he be appointed of Christ as he is God, in which respect there is none above Christ, yet he is not appointed of him in respect that he is head of the church, in regard whereof God is above Christ and, as the apostle saith, "the head" of him. 349 349 1 COR. xi: 3. [But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the w o m a n is the man; and the head of Christ is God.]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Christ is the head of the church and spiritually governeth the same in the conscience; but because it hath also an outward and visible form, therefore it requireth an outward and visible government which Christ doth execute as well by the civil magistrate as he doth by the ecclesiastical minister; and therefore the government of the church, in the respect of the external and visible form of it, is not only spiritual. Christ governeth by himself spiritually only and by his ministers both spiritually and externally, and therefore your reason is nothing. But why do you not answer in this place to that which I charge them with touching the civil magistrate? In the former place where I spake no such thing, you said that I untruly surmised that they "shut out the civil magistrate from punishing the wicked"; but here, when I charge them that by their application of this place "they take away civil magistrates and other governors that God hath placed in his church," you answer not one word. Indeed both you and they by your false interpretations of

344

T h e Admonition Controversy

this and such like places do altogether seclude the civil magistrate from any government of the church. . . . W H I T G I F T {A): In the x. Hebr., vers. 30., it is thus written: " F o r we know him that hath said, 'Vengeance belongeth unto me.' ' I will recompense,' saith the Lord. A n d again, ' T h e Lord shall judge his people.' " Vengeance belongeth to God, and he shall judge his people; ergo, the government of the church must be spiritual. Indeed, the anabaptists use this place to overthrow all civil government among Christian men and to take away Christian magistrates. I a m ashamed of these reasons, and so will you be likewise if you be not past shame. If you mean that the government of the church is spiritual because God by his Spirit, gifts, and ministry of his W o r d doth govern it, you say truly although these places be unaptly alleged; but if you mean that therefore there need no civil magistrates, no civil and politic laws, no external discipline, no outward ceremonies and orders, you are greatly deceived and join with the anabaptists, whose error in that point is sufficiently by divers learned men confuted. A n d therefore I will not as yet intermeddle therewith until I understand further of your meaning. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : This is left unanswered. . . . W H I T G I F T (^4): Whereas before it was thus in the margent . . . " T o prove that the regiment of the church should be spiritual, read Ephes. i. 23., 1 Thess. v. 13., 1 T i m . v. 2., Heb. x., 30.," now it is thus altered: " T o prove that the regiment of the church should be spiritual, read Calvin in his commentaries upon these places." . . . Belike because the Scriptures themselves do not sufficiently prove your assertion, therefore you would have us to leave them and to rest upon Calvin's interpretation, which is nothing else but to prefer man's judgment before the Word of God or to give M . Calvin authority to conclude that which is not determined by the Scripture. If this be not your meaning, why fly you from those places themselves to M . Calvin's interpretation upon them? But what if you now abuse M . Calvin's commentaries upon these places as you did before the places themselves? In his commentaries upon Ephes. i., verse 23., this is all that he saith touching this matter . . .

The Episcopal Hierarchy

345

" F o r howsoever Christ maketh perfect all things with his beck and b y his power, yet Paul speaketh here especially of the spiritual government of the church. A l t h o u g h that in the mean time it is no hindrance w h y thou mayest not also understand it of the universal government of the w o r l d . " These words serve little for your purpose. T h e r e is no m a n that doubteth but that Christ doth spiritually govern his church and reign in the hearts of the faithful b y his Spirit; but your meaning is that the government of the church is only spiritual, which y o u can no more gather of these words of Calvin than y o u may that the government of the whole world ought only to be spiritual. T h e same Calvin, writing upon 1 Thess. v., vers. 12., for the w h i c h y o u have noted the 13., saith on this s o r t . . . " T h i s seems to be added to note the spiritual regiment. For although kings also and magistrates do govern by the ordinance of G o d , yet because the L o r d would have the government of the church known peculiarly to be his, therefore namely they are said to rule in the Lord, which govern the church in the name of Christ and by his c o m m a n d m e n t . " Hitherto Calvin also affirmeth that which no m a n denieth, that G o d doth by the ministry of his W o r d spiritually govern his church. But this taketh not a w a y the civil magistrate, neither yet civil laws m a d e by the magistrate externally also to govern the church. In his commentaries, 1 T i m . v., vers. 2., he speaketh not one word of this matter for anything that I can perceive. U p o n the place to the Hebrews he only sheweth that G o d doth govern his church, the which I think no m a n is so wicked as to deny. Y o u must more plainly set it d o w n what your meaning in this matter is before y o u can be fully answered. For to prove that G o d doth spiritually govern his church is needless, being denied of none, either papist or protestant; but thereupon to conclude that the civil magistrate is secluded from the government of the church or that there needeth no external regiment is dangerous and savoureth anabaptism. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): H e saith that he knoweth not the meaning of the Admonition when it proveth that the government of the church is spiritual; their meaning is plain enough, and I have declared it more at large to be not only that our Saviour

346

The Admonition Controversy

Christ ruleth by his Spirit in the hearts of his elect (besides which government M . Doctor seemeth to know none) but that there is also spiritual government which is in the whole church visible and to be seen, exercised by those whom God hath appointed in his stead, called spiritual because, whereas the civil government useth the sword, this useth the Word and where the civil governor addresseth himself unto the body and hath that for special matter to work on, the spiritual governors be occupied in reforming the mind and subduing that with those punishments and corrections which God hath appointed for that purpose. Which signification of spiritual government M . Calvin doth speak of in both the places alleged by M . Doctor and especially in the latter, unto whom the Admonition sent the reader, not thereby to give more weight unto the truth but that he might have there a plainer and fuller understanding of that which is meant and could not, for that brevity and shortness which it followeth throughout, utter at large. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : Y o u reply not to my Answer, neither do you tell us why you have left out the places in Scripture before quoted and in place thereof put M . Calvin; neither have you salved their unapt and unfit alleging of M . Calvin, who is far from proving their purpose in those places which they have noted.

b. The Court of High Commission ADMONITION: And as for the commissary's court, that is but a petty little stinking ditch, that floweth out of that former great puddle, robbing Christ's church of lawful pastors, of watchful seniors and elders, and careful deacons. In this court as in the other, one alone doth excommunicate, one alone sitteth in judgment. 36°. . . 1 COR. v: 4. [In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5. T o deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.]

360

WHITGIFT (A): T o this I answer as before, I will neither justify that which is amiss nor condemn that which I know not;

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

347

only this I say, that this taunting spirit of yours seeketh rather defamation than reformation, uttereth spitefulness of stomach rather than godly zeal.

H. The Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy ADMONITION: In that they are honoured with the titles of kings and great rulers, as lord, lord's grace, metropolitan, primate of all England, honour, & c . , it is against the Word of God. 3 6 1 3 6 1 M A T T , xxiii: 8 . [But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.] &c. JOHN xiii: 15. [For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.] 16. [Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.] JOHN v: 44. [How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?] H COR. x: 16. [To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.] 17. [But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.] 18. [For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.]

Moreover, in that they have civil offices joined to the ecclesiastical, it is against the Word of God. 362 . . . 3 5 2 L U K E ix: [ 5 9 . And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.] 60. [Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.] 61. [And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. 62. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.] L U K E xii: [13. And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.] 14. [And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?] ROM. xii: 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.] I TIM. VI: [10. For the love of money is the root of all evil. . . .] 11. [But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.] II TIM. ii: 3. [Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.]

348

The Admonition Controversy

4. [No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.] W H I T G I F T (A): I mean a little to examine your places of Scripture to see if you have any better luck in applying of them than hitherto you have had in others. To prove that it is against the Word of God to honour bishops with titles of "great rulers, as lord, lord's grace, metropolitan, primate of all England, honour, &c." (for I do not remember that we call them "kings"), you first quote Matt, xxiii., which place is very oft by you iterated and sufficiently by me answered before. In the xiii. of John, which you use also for the same purpose, Christ, after he had washed his disciples' feet, took an occasion thereupon to exhort them to humility, which virtue is very necessary in all degrees of men, as well in rulers and magistrates as in inferiors. And therefore that place requireth humility in all, especially in the ministers of the Word, but it disalloweth superiority in none. When Christ addeth and saith, "The servant is not greater than his master, &c.," he armeth them against persecutions and willeth them to look for afflictions; for in the xv. chapter he addeth to the same words, "If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also." And to this are archbishops and lord bishops as well subject as other men, examples whereof we have of our own, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c. That in the v. chapter of St. John is not spoken to the apostles but to the whole company of Jews in reproof of their vainglory; for so is that place to be understood; else it were altogether unlawful for any man to receive honour, yea, even for princes themselves. To the like purpose tend the words of the apostle, 11 Cor. x., vers. 16., 17., 18. Surely both the names of archbishops, lord bishops, &c., and their offices may as well stand with these places of the Scripture as the names and offices of kings, nobles, and any other persons in estimation or dignity. Indeed, the mother of all heresies and sects, that is, vainglory and arrogancy, in all these places is utterly condemned. . . . Christ, in suppressing ambition, pride, and arrogancy and

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

349

exhorting to humility, doth not condemn superiority, neither yet titles of reverence, but requireth humbleness of spirit and lowliness of mind in all degrees of persons, especially in superiors, whom this virtue doth more adorn. The mightiest and noblest prince in the world may come nearer this admonition of Christ than the poorest slave. It is therefore the affection of the mind that Christ here condemneth, not superiority, not titles of honour and dignity. . . . T o prove that "civil offices joined to the ecclesiastical is against the Word of God," first you note Luke ix., vers. 60., 61. . . . How conclude you anything of these places against civil offices in ecclesiastical persons? Christ's meaning in this place is to teach us (I mean all Christians) that when he calleth us, we ought not to be hindered from following, and that forthwith, by any excuse of doing duty towards our friends or respect of worldly commodity or for fear of any pain or trouble; and this is spoken generally to all Christians and not alone to any one kind of men. C A R T W R I G H T (R): For the first place,353 if so be that the LUKE ix: 60. [Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.]

363

61. [And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.]

minister ought rather to leave necessary duties of burying his father and saluting his friends undone than that he should not accomplish his-ministry to the full, much more he ought not to take upon him those things which are not only not necessary duties but, as it shall appear, do in no case belong unto him. And although it may be applied to all Christians, yet it doth most properly belong unto the ministers. W H I T G I F T (D): This is no answer to that which I have said; for I say that the meaning of Christ in this place is that when we are called to eternal life by him, we ought not to protract the time nor to seek any delays but leave all and follow him; this is the meaning of Christ, and this is the sum of my answer; and to this you say nothing but make a new collection "that the minister ought rather to leave necessary duties of burying his father, &c.," which (though it be not the direct

350

T h e Admonition Controversy

sense of this place) yet I grant it to be true; for such civil offices as I allow in ecclesiastical persons are helps for them to do their duties. Wherefore, as this place is unaptly applied by the Admonition, so is it unanswered by you; and it m a y as well be used to debar any other Christians from civil functions as ministers of the W o r d . CARTWRIGHT (RSR): T h e place of St. L u k e is understanded properly of the ministers of the W o r d and not of " a l l Christians," which is manifest for that our Saviour Christ biddeth him that would have gone back for burial of his father " t o preach the kingdom of heaven," which he never commanded to " a l l Christians," so that his meaning is of the calling unto the ministry and not " o f the calling to eternal life." . . . WHITGIFT ( A ) : Secondly, for the same purpose y o u use Luke xii., vers. 14., where Christ, speaking to him that said unto him, " M a s t e r , bid m y brother divide the inheritance with m e , " answereth on this sort, " M a n , w h o made me a j u d g e or divider over y o u ? " Christ came indeed to be j u d g e d and not to j u d g e ; he came to work the work of our redemption, not to decide controversies touching lands and possessions. But will y o u therefore take from Christian men authority to judge? For this example of Christ can no more be applied to bishops than it may be to kings because the doings of Christ is a pattern for all Christians, and yet Christians m a y j u d g e matters and decide controversies amongst their brethren. Look 1 Cor. vi. 354 . . . [1 COR. vi: 4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to j u d g e w h o are least esteemed in the church.]

364

CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d as for the other place of L u k e touching our Saviour Christ's refusal to divide the inheritance between the brethren, 356 it is most aptly alleged to this purpose. LUKE xii: 14. [And he said unto him, M a n , w h o m a d e me a j u d g e or a divider over you?]

366

For although our Saviour Christ doth not there take away from men authority to j u d g e , yet he sheweth thereby sufficiently that it belongeth not unto the ministers of the W o r d to intermeddle in the j u d g m e n t of civil causes. For our Saviour Christ framed that answer, having respect to the bounds of his calling.

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

351

For as he being minister of the gospel did all those things which were pertaining to his ministry, so by refusing this office of judgment in civil causes he gave to understand that it did not appertain unto the compass of that office which he exercised, which was the ministry. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Neither do you here reply to my Answer; for I told you that Christ came to be judged, not to judge in matters of lands and possessions. I told you likewise that this example of Christ pertaineth no more to bishops than it doth to kings and therefore can no fitlier be by you applied against bishops than by the anabaptists against Christian magistrates. T o all this in effect you have said nothing. Your own collection is soon answered. First, no man giveth to bishops authority to judge in matters of inheritance; for such controversies are to be decided by law, which hath other judges appointed for it. Secondly, Christ spake this to declare that his kingdom was not of this world but of the world to come, not earthly but heavenly, not temporal but eternal; and therefore he spake it touching his own person only and not as a rule pertaining to other Christians as the anabaptists feign. Thirdly, the authority in civil matters that is committed to ministers in this church is committed unto them by the prince for the better government of the church and the fuller satisfying of their duty, consisting for the most part only in punishing and correcting sin. And, lastly, it is not made a thing incident to the ministry or as part of that office, but it is added as profitable, convenient, and necessary for the present state of the church and fuller accomplishing of the minister's duty. . . . W H I T G I F T {A)\ In the third place you allege Rom. xii., vers. 7. . . . What is this to the purpose: " H e that hath an office must attend upon his office, and he that teacheth on teaching"; therefore bishops may not have civil offices? T h e office of a bishop is as well to govern by discipline as by preaching; this is a very simple argument. C A R T W R I G H T (R): Furthermore, M . Doctor asketh what St. Paul's place to the Romans 366 . . . maketh to this purpose. ROM. xii: 7. [ O r ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.]

356

352

The Admonition Controversy

Surely, M . Doctor, very m u c h . Neither c a n there be a place more properly alleged both for the very plainness of the words and also for the circumstance of the place. For St. Paul speaketh there against those w h i c h w o u l d overreach their callings and, h a v i n g certain callings, contented not themselves w i t h them b u t would have a n oar in every man's b o a t a n d w o u l d take more u p o n them than they were able to do or the measure of their gifts would stretch unto and therefore sheweth that as the b o d y is best preserved w h e n every m e m b e r thereof d o t h his office and destroyed w h e n one m e m b e r will take upon it to d o the office of another, so the church is then best governed w h e n every ecclesiastical person keepeth himself within the limits of his calling, not m e d d l i n g with that w h i c h pertaineth unto another. But M . D o c t o r saith that the bishop governeth as well b y discipline as b y preaching; so he doth. But, I pray you, b y w h a t discipline? W h a t a reason is this: he governeth b y discipline; ergo, b y civil discipline! . . . WHITGIFT (Z)): Surely, M . T . C . , it m a k e t h nothing at all to that purpose; neither doth St. P a u l speak it to that end; but he speaketh it to m o v e every one diligently and truly to w a l k in his vocation and calling and therefore in the same place he saith, "Qui praest in diligentia." A n d as I h a v e told y o u , this civil authority that I speak of is not claimed but committed, is no hindrance b u t a n help to the ecclesiastical function. Neither is this to usurp a n y other man's vocation b u t dutifully to use that office that is given unto us b y the prince to help us forward in our o w n vocation and calling. A n ecclesiastical pastor must use that discipline that is appointed unto h i m b y the magistrate and orders of that c h u r c h whereof he is minister, b e it civil or ecclesiastical; so that if the kind of discipline used in that c h u r c h be " c i v i l , " as it is in this c h u r c h for divers crimes, then d o t h he govern b y " c i v i l discipline." . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : Against the plain meaning of the apostle, opened in flat words, verses 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8. of R o m a n s xii., here is nothing b u t your " s u r e l y " and " c e r t a i n , " w h i c h I will suffer to h a v e that credit it can get against so manifest light. . . .

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

353

W H I T G I F T ( . 4 ) : Fourthly, you cite 1 Tim. vi., vers. 1 1 . . . . Truly I think you doat or else dream, your applications of Scripture be so strange. What speaketh Paul here against civil offices in ecclesiastical persons? He only willeth them in the person of Timothy to "flee covetousness and to follow righteousness, & c . " W H I T G I F T ( D ) : This is that place that T. C. confesseth to be alleged to no purpose; and therefore here they are left to answer for themselves, as they be in the most of their quotations. W H I T G I F T (A): The last text here quoted is the 11 Tim. ii., vers. 3., 4. . . . This latter sentence is general and pertaineth to all men. The meaning is this: whosoever would be a soldier under Christ must leave all worldly things and follow him. It speaketh nothing either of civil or ecclesiastical offices. For if you will know what he there meaneth by the affairs of this life, hear what M. Calvin saith, writing upon that place . . . " B y the affairs of this life he understandeth the care of governing his family and other ordinary business." If you will learn how this place is to be applied, the same M. Calvin teacheth you likewise in these words following . . . "Now this comparation is to be applied to the present purpose that whosoever will play the warrior under Christ, leaving all worldly matters and impediments, must give himself wholly unto him." This therefore is general and pertaineth to all Christians but chiefly and especially to the ministers of the Word, who may not occupy themselves in worldly business as other men do; that is, they must not be merchants, husbandmen, craftsmen, or hinder their vocation with such like worldly affairs. As for such civil offices as be committed to them, they be rather helps to their vocation than impediments; for the office of a justice of peace, of an high commissioner, and such like is to punish vice and iniquity, to see good order kept in the commonwealth as well in matters touching religion as other common and public business. Wherefore as these offices be not mere civil but partly ecclesiastical and be for discipline and correction of sins, so in my opinion they be most meet to be committed to some of the wisest and best of the clergy to the end that such as by the word will not by convenient discipline may be compelled to do their

354

T h e Admonition Controversy

duties. Neither are such offices to be accounted worldly affairs b u t rather h e a v e n l y and spiritual forasmuch as they serve to the m a i n t e n a n c e of religion and godliness and to the suppressing of sin and wickedness. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e last place w h i c h is alleged b y the Admonition is out of the epistle to T i m o t h y , w h e r e it sheweth that f o r s o m u c h as the state of a minister is as that of a soldier and therefore as the soldier, to the end he m i g h t the better please his c a p t a i n and d o his service of warfare, quitteth all those things w h i c h he loveth and whereof otherwise he m i g h t h a v e care and m i g h t enjoy, 3 6 7 even so the minister ought to dispatch himself H TIM. ii: 4. [No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.] 367

of all those things w h i c h m a y be a n y let to the office of his ministry a l t h o u g h he m i g h t otherwise lawfully use them. A n d if so be for the performing of the ministry to the full he must quit those things w h i c h he m a y l a w f u l l y use, h o w m u c h m o r e m i g h t the Admonition conclude that he o u g h t not to entangle himself w i t h those things w h i c h (out of the places of St. L u k e a n d to the R o m a n s ) it h a d shewed to be u n l a w f u l for h i m to m e d d l e with? A n d a l t h o u g h M . D o c t o r say the sentence be general, yet it is particularly m e a n t and most properly of the ministers, w h i c h M . C a l v i n teacheth M . D o c t o r in the same place w h e r e he h a t h cited his authority twice to no purpose. F o r w h a t a l t h o u g h M . C a l v i n d o not there a p p l y in prescript words this sentence to prove that ministers ought not to m e d d l e w i t h civil offices, d o t h it follow therefore that this place cannot be used thereto? I n saying that he ought to abstain f r o m all lets w h i c h m a y hinder his v o c a t i o n and ministry, he d o t h consequently say that he o u g h t to abstain f r o m all civil offices. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h a t w h i c h is spoken of a soldier pertaineth to all Christians as well as to a minister, for every Christian m a n is a soldier. T h e s e civil functions be helps to the ministry and m a y be l a w f u l l y used, as I h a v e said before. M . C a l v i n truly interpreteth the place, and his interpretation m a k e t h fully for m y purpose and directly against y o u , as the

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

355

reader may easily perceive, so that your many words are soon with this brevity answered. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): To these reasons of the Admonition may be added that . . . the regiment of the church is spiritual and respecteth the conscience and therefore hath not to do with civil offices, which respect properly the commonwealth and the outward godly, honest, and quiet behaviour. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): The government of the church in the respect of Christ, which by his Holy Spirit ruleth in the heart and conscience of man, is only spiritual; but it is not so in the respect of the visible church and earthly members and ministers of the same, for then must you of necessity shut out the civil magistrate from all kind of government in the church, which is the matter you shoot at, cloak it as much as you can. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : The story is known in the Acts that the apostles, even during the time that they kept together at Jerusalem and taught the church there, were fain, that they might the better attend unto preaching and praying (by which two things St. Luke summarily setteth forth the office of the ministry), to give over the charge of providing for the poor unto others because they were not able to do both.368 Now, forsomuch A C T S vi: 2. [Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.]

368

as the apostles, endued with such gifts as none have been since or shall be hereafter, could not discharge together with the office of the minister that also of the deacon, how should any man be found that together with that office can discharge the office of a civil magistrate? . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is evident that the apostles from the ascension of Christ into heaven until this time did execute both the office of the apostles and the office of deacons also. Whereby it is manifest that these offices may at sometimes meet together in one and the selfsame person. And M. Calvin, upon the vi. of the Acts, saith that "they did not altogether cast off this care for the poor . . . but that they sought an easing thereof that they might be intentive unto their office." The causes, therefore,

356

T h e Admonition Controversy

that moved the apostles to leave off from executing the one, that is, the deaconship, is to be considered. One cause was the great increase of the number of Christians, which was now grown to such a multitude that the apostles could not well both make provision for the poor and give themselves also both to preaching and praying. Another cause was the murmuring and grudging of the Grecians, who thought that the apostles had more regard to provide for their own countrymen the Jews than for the Grecians being strangers unto them. Wherefore the apostles, being willing to eschew this grudging and repining, did, for avoiding the suspicion of partiality, will the whole multitude to choose them deacons; and both those causes be expressed in the beginning of the vi. chapter of the Acts. 359 [ A C T S vi: 1. A n d in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.] 359

The third cause was for that the apostles knew that they should shortly be dispersed and that their office was to go from place to place to plant churches and preach the gospel so that they could not now execute the office of deacons as they did whilst they remained together. This being so (as it cannot be denied), there can be no likely argument gathered of this place that ecclesiastical persons may not have some kind of civil functions. And if a man well consider how busy and troublesome an office the deaconship was at that time, the church being in persecution and the number of poor great, he shall easily perceive that there is no comparison betwixt the troublesomeness of that office then and the civil offices now committed to ecclesiastical persons, which be so far from hindering their ecclesiastical functions that they work the clean contrary effect. And yet it is certain that the apostle St. Paul and Titus with Luke or, as some think, Barnabas did, together with the office of preaching, make collections for the poor, 11 Corinth, viii.360 . . . 380 [n COR. viii: 3. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;

H o l d i n g of C i v i l Offices by the Clergy

357

4. Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.]

C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : He answereth "the apostles did both those charges before" and therefore that "these offices may sometime meet," where if he mean they may meet now it followeth not. For although they might meet before the Holy Ghost by the mouth of the apostles made a several office of it, yet they might not so afterward when it was otherwise determined of by the mouth of God. . . . As for that out of Calvin and 11 Corinth, viii., it is frivolous, for it never pertained to the deacon's office to exhort for the contribution of the poor but was and is the minister's of the Word, the deacon's office being to receive and to distribute it in that church where he is deacon. . . . That they "ordained others for because they should go into the world" is also nothing worth, seeing that in some of them it came not to pass divers years after and in other some never, as those which were determined there to remain when as notwithstanding all desired this release. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : And if so be that there fall out any question at any time which is to be decided by the Word of God and wherein the advice of the minister is needful, there the minister's help may and ought to be required. For thereof we have not only an example in Ezra, where the princes in a matter of difficulty came and asked the counsel of Ezra, 361 but we have EZRA ix: I. [Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, T h e people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations. . . .] 361

a plain commandment in Moses by the Lord, who commanded that the cause of perjury should be heard before the Lord in the sanctuary, at the hearing whereof the high priest should be present,362 by which commandment the Lord doth not by DEUT. xix: [16. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;]

362

17. [Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;]

358

The Admonition Controversy

18. [And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.]

bringing this cause into the sanctuary declare that the judgment thereof did appertain unto the ecclesiastical court but because, it being a matter which touched the glory of God very expressly, he would have the princes which were judges there to be the nearer touched and the deeplier affected with the glory of God, whereof they saw the sacrament before their eyes. Neither is the high priest commanded to be present to this end that he should sit as judge of that matter but that he might dissolve the difficulties, if any rose, of the understanding of the law and that he might prick forward and stir up by admonition the princes to whom the judgment appertained if so be he should see them cold and slack to revenge the injury done unto the Lord, which thing may the better appear in that the handling of the matter is there appointed not unto the priests but unto the judges or princes only. And so likewise of matrimony and divorce, although the judgment thereof appertain unto the civil magistrate, yet the minister, if there be any difficulty in knowing when it is a lawful contract and when the divorce is lawful, may and ought to be consulted with. Thus may the commonwealth and church enjoy both the wisdom and learning which is in the minister, and things may be done in that order which God hath appointed without such confounding and jumbling of offices and jurisdictions together. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): You make a fair gloss upon the xix. of Deuteronomy; but how aptly, the reader may consider if he mark the place well. The words of the text be these: " I f a false witness rise up against a man to accuse him of trespass, then both the men that strive together shall stand before the Lord, even before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition, & c . " First, here is no word of the sanctuary; for this that is said, "before the Lord," M. Calvin in his Harmony doth interpret on this sort . . . "Before Jehovah, that is, before the priests and judges which were in those days." And indeed God is said to be there

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

359

present where his true ministers are assembled; wherefore your descanting of the sanctuary is without any ground. Moreover, it doth not appear by anything in this place but that the priest had as much to do in the matter as the judge had; wherefore this place cannot serve your turn in any respect. T h e place in the ix. of Esdras maketh altogether against you: for the rulers came to complain unto Esdras that the people had married with the gentiles; and Esdras took upon him, as one having authority, to reform it and to separate them from their wives, as it evidently appeareth in the tenth chapter and 4. and 5. verse. 363 For certain of them came unto Esdras and spake unto 343

[EZRA X: 3. N o w therefore let us make a covenant with our G o d to

p u t a w a y all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of m y lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our G o d ; and let it be done according to the law. 4. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: w e also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. 5. T h e n arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. A n d they sware.]

him in this manner: "Arise, for the matter belongeth unto thee, & c . " It appeareth that you have very small care what you allege so it may seem to be something. Y o u add in the end and say, " A n d so likewise of matrimony and divorce." But the reader must take heed that he imagine not this assertion of yours to be contained in any of these two places quoted by you. It is but your own bare affirmation; you allege no authority for it. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): T h e place of Deuteronomy is faithfully alleged. T h a t "before the L o r d " in divers places signifieth before the ark, it is well known. . . . T h e weight of my allegation lieth in this, that the handling of the matter is appointed unto the judges not unto the priests, whereunto, beside his bare affirmation, he answereth nothing. Likewise is Ezra faithfully alleged, and that out of Ezra x. 4., 5., is nothing against it. For . . . to sit in judgment of them or by civil punishment to drive those which would not willingly is not shewed to pertain unto him. . . .

360

The Admonition Controversy

W H I T G I F T (A): What say you to Eli and Samuel? Were they not both priests and judges? What office did the prophet Elias execute when he killed the false prophets of Baal, 1 Reg. xviii.,36i or Christ when he whipped the buyers and sellers out 364

[1 KINGS xviii: 40. And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.]

of the temple? What office did Paul commit to Timothy when he said, "Adversus presbyterum &c."P 365 . . . 366

[1 TIM. v: 1. Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren.]

I have authority sufficient for my purpose out of both the Testaments. And, first, my testimonies out of the Old Testament be these. Melchizedec, which was a priest, was also king of Salem, as appeareth in the xiv. of Genesis,366 and therefore had 866

[GEN. xiv: 18. And Melchizedec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.]

both jurisdictions in his own hand. Aaron, being priest, did judge the whole people in temporal matters, even in causes of inheritance. Numb, xxvii. 367 In the xvii. of Deut. it is thus 397

[NUM. xxvii: (no verse given)].

written: " I f there rise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between plague and plague, in the matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise and go up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come to the priests of the Levites and unto the judge that shall be in those days and ask; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment, & c . " 368 Samuel, which was both prophet and priest, did of 368

[DEUT. xvii: 8. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; 9. And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment.]

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

361

long time j u d g e the people in matters temporal. So did Hely likewise, as it is before declared. T h e people of Israel in their captivity were altogether ruled by the priests and prophets, as by Esdras, and Nehemias, Mathathias, &c. I omit many other places and examples. These may sufficiently prove that in the O l d Testament it was no strange thing for ecclesiastical persons to have civil jurisdiction. T h e same may appear also in the N e w Testament by the example of Christ before of me noted and the words of Paul to Timothy, 1 T i m . v., "Adversus presbyterum accusationem &c." For these words, "accusation," "witnesses," &c., pertain to civil jurisdiction. There be many other places to the same effect that I omit for brevity's sake. It is manifest that a bishop may exercise the same in the church that he doth in his private family. For St. Paul saith: "Qui propria domui preeesse non novit &c." 369 But in his house he doth exercise civil jurisdiction; [1 TIM. Hi: 2. A bishop then must be blameless . . . 4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)] 369

ergo, he may do the same in the church. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : T h e Scripture teacheth that ministers ought not to meddle with civil offices. T h a t which you add out of Deut. xvii. maketh nothing for you, for they are there bidden to resort unto the priest as to the interpreter of the law . . . which is manifest in that he distinguisheth there the priest from the judges so that in such appeals he placeth the priest's and Levite's office in teaching what is the will of God and the judge's office in giving sentence accordingly, as appeareth yet more plainly in the same chapter. 370 DEUT. xvii: 11. [According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.]

370

T h e same is to be answered to that alleged out of Numbers xxvii., in which matter that the priest was present and called to consultation for the difficulty thereof to know what was the will of G o d in that behalf it is manifest in that he, being not

362

T h e Admonition Controversy

able to resolve of the matter, Moses was fain to bring it to the Lord. 371 T o let pass that it was not " A a r o n which was taken 871

NUM. xxvii: 5. [And Moses brought their cause before the Lord.]

into that consultation" but Eleazar, unless you will have " A a r o n decide controversies" after his death. The example of "Melchizedek both king and priest" is more absurdly alleged than the other, not only because he was before the law when this order of separating the priesthood from the civil government was not yet established but because he had them both that he might be a figure of our Saviour Christ, as the apostle and prophet do declare. 372 . . . M PS. cx: [4. T h e Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, T h o u art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.] HEB. v: [5. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, T h o u art m y Son, to d a y have I begotten thee. 6. A s he saith also in another place, T h o u art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.]

C A R T W R I G H T (R): As for Eli and Samuel, they are extraordinary examples, which may thereby appear for that both these offices first meeting in Melchizedek and afterward in Moses were by the commandment of God severed whenas the Lord took from Moses, being so wise and godly a man, the priesthood and gave it to Aaron and to his successors. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is not certain whether Moses were ever priest or no, for where it is said in the xcix. psalm "Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus eius," 373 the Hebrew word is doubtful and signi373

[PS. xcix: 6. Moses and Aaron among his priests . . . called upon the Lord, and he answered them.]

fieth as well a prince as a priest, and therefore upon this place it cannot necessarily be concluded that Moses was a priest. Moreover, at that time the chief rulers and men of greatest authority were called priests; but you never read that Moses offered up any sacrifices for sin, which was the proper office of the priest; neither can you tell us where he was ever consecrated priest. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): That Moses did the office of the sacrificer is certain in that he sprinkled the blood upon the altar

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

363

and people, which pertained properly unto the priest.374 Likewise 374

EXOD. xxiv: 6. [And Moses took half of the blood, a n d put it in basins; a n d half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. . . .] 8. [ A n d Moses took the blood, a n d sprinkled it on the people. . . .]

the same is confirmed by his ordaining of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood, which belongeth unto the priest in like manner.376 . . . 376 EXOD. xxix: 1 3 . [And thou shalt take all the f a t that covereth the inwards, a n d the caul that is a b o v e the liver, a n d the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.]

W H I T G I F T (D): But be it, as you say, that these two offices were distinguished in Moses and Aaron and that the priest's office, which consisteth in offering oblations and sacrifices, was taken from him; yet did he keep still his former authority in governing the church and in prescribing to Aaron what he should do even in matters pertaining to the worship of God; so that these two offices (I mean civil and ecclesiastical) are not so distinct but that they may both aptly and well meet and join together. Furthermore, you know that howsoever the priesthood and civil magistracy were divided in Moses and Aaron, yet met they both together again not only in Eli and Samuel but in Esdras, Nehemias, Mathathias, and some other, which examples prove that upon occasion these offices may meet together in one person, and they quite overthrow your allegation of Moses. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): That "Moses, after Aaron was made priest, prescribed Aaron what he should do," he did it from the mouth of the Lord and that also as the prophet of God and in a figure of the doctorship of our Saviour Christ and not simply as the civil governor of the people.376 For although the priesthood 376

ACTS vii: [no verse given],

were taken from him, yet he remained a prophet unto his dying day, and therefore that exception is insufficient. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : And this may be also easily seen for that in a manner always where there was any good and staid estate of the church these offices were ministered by several

364

T h e Admonition Controversy

persons and then met and were mingled when the estates were very ruinous and miserable. . . . W H I T G I F T (Z)): Here you confess that which hitherto in your whole book you have denied and that which is indeed the whole ground of the chief matters in controversy, that is, that the government of the church may be diverse according to the diversity of the time and state of the same, as in the time of persecution it may be otherwise governed than in time of peace, otherwise when the state is established than when it is ruinous and in decay. . . . Thus have you granted of your own accord that which hitherto you have so stiffly and stoutly denied; such is the might and force of truth. And yet the church was in good state all Samuel's time and the most part of Eli's also for anything that I can read to the contrary. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : In "Eli's and Samuel's times" it appeareth that the church was in miserable estate both by the whole discourse of the story and, namely, that there was a great dearth of the word of God. 377 . . . 1 SAM. iii: i. [And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.]

377

As for Elias killing the false prophets and our Saviour Christ's whipping out of the temple, it is strange that M . Doctor will allege them as things to be followed when he may as well teach that we may call for fire from heaven as Elias did and, being demanded, answer nothing as our Saviour did as to follow these actions, which are most singular and extraordinary. And if these one or two examples be enough to break the order that God hath set, by this a man may prove that the ministers may be fishers and tent-makers because Peter and Paul, being ministers, did fish and make tents.378 And truly CARTWRIGHT

(R):

JOHN xxi: 3. [Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.] ACTS xviii: 3. [And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.]

378

these are not so extraordinary and from the general rule as the other be. . . .

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

365

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Yet by these examples and especially by the examples of Christ it may appear that ecclesiastical persons have used corporal punishments which you call civil. I know examples make no rule, and therefore all your arguments out of the Scriptures, alleged before to prove that the election of ministers ought to be popular, receive the same answer that you give to me in this place; and yet examples, if they be not against any commandment or good order established, declare what hath been and what upon the like occasions may be done but not what of necessity ought to be done. If you can prove any order of God set down that an ecclesiastical person may by no means exercise any civil offices, I yield unto you; if you cannot do it, then do I allege no examples tending "to the breaking of any order that God hath set." I know not why the ministers of the gospel may not do as Peter and Paul did upon the like occasion. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : If the example of our Saviour Christ's whipping "do prove that a minister may meddle with civil affairs," then it proveth that he may not only sit in judgment of crimes but also be the torturer himself, which he denieth, for our Saviour Christ executed the punishment with his own hand. . . . The occasion of St. Paul's labouring with his hands was partly that he might not in that point be inferior to the false apostles, which took no stipend, partly to support the need and poverty of the churches.379 . . . If by these examples he will 379

11 COR. xi: 12. [But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.] 1 THESS. v: [no verse given].

conclude that ministers may ordinarily be called to the civil government, then it must also follow that by these examples of St. Paul and Peter the ministers may ordinarily have occupations joined with their ministries. But if the ministers may not exercise any handicraft but in like cases as the apostles did and upon like callings, then it followeth also that they may not exercise civil offices but in like time and upon like callings as those did from whom he draweth his proofs. . . .

366

The Admonition Controversy

(R): When St. Paul willed Timothy that he should not receive an accusation against an elder under two or three witnesses, he did commit nothing less than any civil office unto him. And M. Doctor himself hath alleged it before as a thing incident to the office of a bishop, and therefore he doth forget himself marvellously now that maketh this a civil office. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : I alleged it before to prove the superiority of bishops over other ministers. Now I do allege it to prove that the same bishops may exercise that jurisdiction which you call civil: for in that the judgment of such causes were committed unto him, it argueth his superiority; in that there is named accusers and witnesses, it declareth a kind of civil jurisdiction, to the which those words do pertain. So that Timothy being an ecclesiastical person had prescribed unto him that kind of proceeding to judgment that may be called civil. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : Where the thing is not manifest, there the trial must needs be either by confession or witnesses; so that if there be an ecclesiastical judgment, there must needs be witnesses and accusers. Otherwise the minister in time of persecution should take upon him civil jurisdiction without the consent of the magistrate, which is absurd and, being urged by me, is unanswered. . . . WHITGIFT (¿4): It pleaseth you to say that it is against God's Word for bishops to have prisons; but your margent is very barren of proofs, for you have not quoted one place of Scripture to prove it. . . . Did not Peter punish Ananias and Sapphira very straitly for their dissimulation? Surely far more grievously than if he had put them in prison, and yet their offence was not against any ordinary law made in the church or commonweal. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): M. Doctor must understand that this was ecclesiastical power and was done by virtue of that function which St. Paul calleth Swa/uu,380 which is one of those functions CARTWRIGHT

1 COR. xii: Q8. [And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.]

380

that the Lord placeth in his church for a time. . . .

Holding of Civil Offices by the Clergy

367

WHITGIFT ( D ) : I use this e x a m p l e of Peter to shew that it is n o t against G o d ' s W o r d for the ministers of the gospel to punish a n y b y imprisonment, for Peter b e i n g a minister of the gospel did punish w i t h death, w h i c h is m u c h more than to imprison; and as Peter did this l a w f u l l y b y a n extraordinary power, so m a y the ministers of the W o r d punish b y imprisonment, w h i c h is far less kind of punishment, b e i n g lawfully thereunto authorized b y the civil magistrate according to the orders of the c o m m o n w e a l t h and state of the church. Therefore m y reason is this: Peter punished w i t h temporal punishment, being a minister of the W o r d , and he did nothing r e p u g n a n t to his vocation; therefore it is not r e p u g n a n t to the office of a minister of the W o r d to punish w i t h temporal punishment. A g a i n , Peter punished w i t h d e a t h ; therefore the minister m a y punish w i t h imprisonment: I speak de facto (of the deed done) not de modo (of the m a n n e r of d o i n g it). A n d I d o u b t not but that, seeing it was l a w f u l for Peter to kill b y a n especial and extraordinary power, so it m a y be l a w f u l for the minister of the W o r d to imprison b y an usual and ordinary power. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d therefore I conclude that forsom u c h as both the H o l y Scriptures d o teach that ministers o u g h t not to meddle w i t h civil offices and reason and the practice of the c h u r c h do c o n f i r m it, that they o u g h t to keep themselves within the limits of the ministry and ecclesiastical functions lest, whilst they break forth into the calling of a magistrate, instead of s h e w i n g themselves . . . "overseers" they be found to declare themselves . . . " b u s y - b o d i e s " m e d d l i n g in things w h i c h belong not u n t o them. 3 8 1 . . . 3811

PET. iv: 15. [But let none of y o u suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as a n evil-doer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.]

WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e Scripture in no place c o m m a n d e t h the c o n t r a r y nor m o v e t h unto it, and y e t y o u are not ashamed to say that " t h e H o l y Scriptures d o teach that ministers o u g h t not to m e d d l e w i t h civil offices." . . . W h e r e f o r e I m a y most justly conclude t h a t — f o r s o m u c h as " t h e H o l y Scriptures d o t e a c h " that ecclesiastical persons m a y " m e d d l e w i t h civil offices," the " p r a c t i c e of the c h u r c h con-

g68

The Admonition Controversy

firmeth" the same, and reason telleth that it is convenient and seeing that such as practice them both in the manner and form before declared "break" not "forth into any other man's calling, busy" not "themselves in things which belong not unto them" but walk in their calling, occupy themselves in matters incident unto it, and do good service both to God, their prince, and their country — these offices may very aptly concur and meet together in one person and be profitably linked and joined together in one man.

II.

THE

INSTITUTION

OF " A

RIGHT

M I N I S T R Y OF G O D A N D A R I G H T GOVERNMENT

OF H I S

CHURCH

ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES SET

UP."

A. The Government of the Church 1. A U T H O R I Z A T I O N

IN

SCRIPTURE

ADMONITION: Either must we have a right ministry of God 382 and a right government of his church according to the 382 MATT, ix: 37. [Then saith he unto his disciples, T h e harvest truly is plenteous, b u t the labourers are few;] 38. [Pray ye therefore the L o r d of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.] EPHES. iv: 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers:] 12. [For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.]

Scriptures set up,383 both which we lack, or else there can be MATT, xviii: 15. [Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and h i m alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.] 16. [But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of t w o or three witnesses every w o r d m a y be established.] 17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let h i m be unto thee as an heathen m a n and a publican.] 383

369

37o

T h e Admonition Controversy

no right religion, nor yet for contempt thereof can God's plagues be from us any while deferred.384 And therefore though they PROV. xxix: 18. [Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.] AMOS viii: 11. [Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:] 12. [And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.] & c . MATT, xxi: 23. [And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?] & c . 1 COR. xi: [27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. . . .] 30. [For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.]

384

link in together and slanderously charge poor men, whom they have made poor, with grievous faults, calling them Puritans, worse than the Donatists, exasperating and setting on such as be in authority against them, having hitherto miserably handled them with revilings, deprivations, imprisonments, banishments, and such like extremities, yet is these poor men's cause never the worse 385 nor these challengers the better nor God his hand MATT, x: 16. [Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. . . .] 26. [Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.] 386

the further off to link in with his against them 386 nor you, ISA. lix: 1. [Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear.]

386

Christian brethren, must never the rather without examination condemn them.387 But thankfully take this taste which God by EXOD. xxiii: 1. [Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.] 2. [Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.] MATT, vii: 1. [Judge not, that ye be not judged.] 2. [For with w h a t judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with w h a t measure ye mete, it shall be measured to y o u again.] 387

The Government of the Church

371

JAS. iv: 11. [Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.] 12. [There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?]

these treatises offereth you and weigh them by the Word of God and do your endeavour, every man in his calling, to promote his cause.388 And let us all with more earnest prayer than we are 388

1 COR. vii: 20. [Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. . . . 27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.]

wont earnestly commend it to God his blessing.389 . . . 389

PS. I: 15. [And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.] MATT, vii: 7. [Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.] 1 TIM. ii: 1. [I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;] 2. [For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.]

W H I T G I F T (¿4): To prove that either we must have " a right ministry of God and a right government of his church according to the Scriptures set up, &c., or else there can be no right religion, &c.," is alleged the ninth of Matthew, the fourth to the Ephesians, and the eighteenth of Matthew. . . . The first place declareth that ministers of the Word are necessary in Christ's church; the second, that there is divers kinds and degrees of them; and the third sheweth an order of correcting secret sins and private offences and meddleth not with those that be open and known to other. Now therefore consider to what purpose those places be noted in the margent and how little they prove that which is concluded. As for all the rest of the places of Scripture that followeth noted in the margent of this preface, I know not to what purpose they be alleged but only for vainglory to blear the eyes of the ignorant people and to make them believe that all that which is written in this book is nothing else but Scripture itself. They

372

T h e Admonition Controversy

have dealt very subtly to quote the places only and not to set them down in plain words, for by this means they think that of the most part it shall never be understanded how unaptly and to what small purpose they be alleged. WHITGIFT (Z)): All this T . C. passeth over in silence, thereby (as I think) acknowledging it to be true. WHITGIFT (¿4): This name Puritan is very aptly given to these men not because they be pure, no more than were the heretics called Cathari, but because they think themselves to be mundiores ceteris, "more pure than others," as Cathari did, and separate themselves from all other churches and congregations as spotted and defiled; because also they suppose the church which they have devised to be without all impurity. CARTWRIGHT (R): T h e pureness that we boast of is the innocency of our Saviour Christ, who shall cover all our unpureness and not impute it unto us. And forsomuch as faith purifieth the heart,390 we doubt not but God of his goodness hath begun ACTS xv: 9. [And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.]

390

our sanctification and hope that he will make an end of it even until the day of our Lord Jesus. . . . ADMONITION: Seeing that nothing in this mortal life is more diligently to be sought for and carefully to be looked unto than the restitution of true religion and reformation of God's church, 391 it shall be your parts, dearly beloved, in this present 39111

KINGS xxiii: [no verse given], N CHRON. xvii: [no verse given]. n CHRON. xxix: 30. [Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. 31. Then Hezekiah answered and said, Now ye have consecrated yourselves unto the Lord, come near and bring sacrifices and thank offerings into the house of the Lord. And the congregation brought in sacrifices and thank offerings; and as many as were of a free heart burnt offerings.] PS. cxxxii: [1. Lord, remember David, and all his afflictions:] 2. [How he sware unto the Lord, and vowed unto the mighty God of Jacob;]

The Government of the Church

373

3. [Surely I will not come into the tabernacle of m y house, nor go up into m y bed;] 4. [I will not give sleep to mine eyes, or slumber to mine eyelids, 5. Until I find out a place for the Lord, an habitation for the mighty God of Jacob.] MATT, xxi: 12. [And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves.] JOHN it: 15. [And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables.]

parliament assembled, as much as in you lieth, to promote the same and to employ your whole labour and study not only in abandoning all popish remnants both in ceremonies and regiment but also in bringing in and placing in God's church those things only which the Lord himself in his Word commandeth 392 DEUT. iv: 2. [Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your G o d which I command you.] DEUT. xii: 32. [What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.] 392

because it is not enough to take pains in taking away evil but also to be occupied in placing good in the stead thereof.393 Now, PS. xxxvii: 27. [Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.] ROM. xii: 9. [Let love be without dissimulation. A b h o r that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.] 353

because many men see not all things and the world in this respect is marvellously blinded,394 it hath been thought good to proffer 1 COR. ii: 14. [But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.]

394

to your godly considerations a true platform of a church reformed to the end that, it being laid before your eyes to behold the great unlikeness between it and this our English Church, you may learn, either with perfect hatred to detest the one 395 and with PS. xxxi: 6. [I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the Lord.] ps. cxxxix: [21. D o not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and a m not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?] 22. [I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.]

396

374

T h e Admonition Controversy

singular love to embrace and careful endeavour to plant the other or else to be without excuse before the majesty of our G o d , w h o for the discharge of our conscience and manifestation of his truth hath by us revealed unto you at this present the sincerity and simplicity of his gospel. 396 Not that y o u should either 396

JOHN xv: 22. [If I h a d not c o m e and spoken u n t o them, they h a d not

h a d sin: b u t n o w they h a v e n o cloak for their sin.]

wilfully withstand 397

397

or ungraciously tread the same under your

II TIM. Hi: 8. [ N o w as J a n n e s and J a m b r e s withstood Moses, so d o these

also resist the truth: m e n of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.]

feet, 398 for G o d doth not disclose his will to any such end, but 398

MATT, vii: 6. [ G i v e not t h a t w h i c h is holy u n t o the dogs, neither cast

y e y o u r pearls before swine, lest they trample t h e m u n d e r their feet, a n d turn a g a i n a n d rend y o u . (Verse omitted in Parker Soc. ed.)]

that y o u should yet now at the length with all your main and might endeavour that Christ, whose easy yoke and light burden 399 we have of long time cast off from us, might rule and 399

MATT, xi: 30. [For m y y o k e is easy, a n d m y b u r d e n is light. ( A l l texts

refer to verse 3 1 . C h a p , xi., h o w e v e r , concludes w i t h verse 30., w h i c h obviously is intended.)]

reign in his church b y the sceptre of his W o r d only. . . . WHITGIFT (.¡4): Before I enter into their reasons, I think it not amiss to examine that assertion which is the chief and principal ground (so far as I can gather) of their book; that is, that "those things only are to be placed in the church which the L o r d himself in his W o r d commandeth." As though they should say nothing is to be tolerated in the church of Christ touching either doctrine, order, ceremonies, discipline, or government except it be expressed in the W o r d of G o d . . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): Whereas y o u had gathered out of the Admonition that nothing should be placed in the church but that G o d hath in his W o r d commanded, 4 0 0 as though the words were 400

DEUT. iv: 2. [ Y e shall not a d d u n t o the w o r d w h i c h I c o m m a n d y o u ,

neither shall ye diminish o u g h t f r o m it, t h a t ye m a y k e e p the c o m m a n d ments of the L o r d y o u r G o d w h i c h I c o m m a n d you.] DEUT. xii: 32. [ W h a t thing soever I c o m m a n d y o u , observe to d o it: thou shalt not a d d thereto, nor diminish f r o m it.]

The Government of the Church

375

not plain enough, you will give them some light by your exposition. . . . Is this to interpret? Is it all one to say nothing must be placed in the church and nothing must be tolerated in the church? . . . But forsomuch as the Lord God, determining to set before our eyes a perfect form of his church, is both able to do it and hath done it, a man may reason both ways necessarily: the Lord hath commanded it should be in his church, therefore it must; and of the other side, he hath not commanded, therefore it must not be. And it is not hard to shew that the prophets have so reasoned negatively: as when in the person of the Lord the prophet saith, "Whereof I have not spoken, and which never entered into my heart"; 401 and as where he condemneth 401

JER. vii: 3 1 . [And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.] 32. [Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place.]

them because "they have not asked counsel at the mouth of the Lord." 402 . . . 402

ISA. xxx: [ 1 . Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord . . .] 2. [That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!]

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I know it is one thing to say that "nothing must be placed in the church" and another thing to say that "nothing must be tolerated," but I see that they make no difference between them, neither in their writing nor yet in their practice. And I think also that there is some difference betwixt these two manner of speeches, "except it be commanded in the Word of God" and "except it be expressed in the Word of God." For I know sundry things to be expressed in the Word of God which are not commanded, as Christ his fasting forty days and his other miracles; and therefore by that interpretation I have given unto them a larger scope than they themselves require, which, if it be an injury, it is to myself and not to them. But I think you were not well advised when you said that "many things are both commanded and forbidden of which

376

T h e Admonition Controversy

there is no express mention in the Word of God, which are as necessarily to be followed or avoided as those whereof express mention is made." If you mean that "many things are commanded or forbidden" in the Word, which are not expressed in the Word, in my opinion you speak contraries. For how can it be commanded or forbidden in the Word except it be also expressed in the same? If you mean that "many things are commanded or forbidden to be done" necessary unto salvation, which notwithstanding are not expressed in the Word of God, then I see not how you differ from that opinion which is the ground of all papistry, that is, "that all things necessary unto salvation are not expressed in the Scriptures." Howsoever you mean it, it cannot be true, for there is nothing necessary to eternal life which is not both "commanded" and "expressed" in the Scripture. I count it "expressed" when it is either in manifest words contained in Scripture or thereof gathered by necessary collection. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): He chargeth me with an unadvised and a popish assertion for that I say that many things are commanded in the Scripture which are not expressed in it. . . . Alas, if he would understand his grammar and acknowledge that which simple scholars of the grammar school do well know, that there is difference between expressed and "contained," between expressed and "included," between expressed and "implied," between expressed and "gathered," he would never have troubled the reader with such follies. And as for that which I set down, I did it upon good grounds. For who is there which knoweth not that these things, that there is one essence and three persons in the Godhead, that there is in our Saviour Christ one person and two natures, are not expressed but only contained in the Word of God? . . . And where he saith that "he counteth that expressed in the Scripture when it is either in manifest words contained or thereof gathered by necessary collection," I answer that I suppose that there was never writer holy nor profane that ever spake so and that it biddeth defiance both to divinity and humanity, being forged, as it is to be feared, contrary to his own knowledge only that he might give some colour unto that absurdity which he would so gladly fasten on me. . . .

The Government of the Church

377

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : The examples that you use in the vii. of Jerem., ver. 31., 32., and xxx. of Esay, ver. 2., to prove that in external and indifferent matters we may reason negatively of the authority of the Scriptures are far-fetched and nothing to your purpose. For that which the prophet Jeremy speaketh of is a matter of great importance, even most horrible and cruel sacrifices wherein they burnt their sons and daughters, which they were not only not commanded to do but expressly forbidden,403 as it appeareth in the xviii. of Levit., ver. 21.,404 and 403

JER. vii: 3 1 . [And they have built the high places of T o p h e t , which is

in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into m y heart.] 404

[LEV. xviii: 2 1 . A n d thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the

fire to M o l e c h , neither shalt thou profane the name of thy G o d : I a m the Lord.]

the xx. of Levit., ver. 3.,406 and the xviii. of Deuter., ver. io.406 406

[LEV. XX: 3. A n d I will set m y face against that man, and will cut him

off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto M o l e c h , to defile m y sanctuary, and to profane m y holy name.] 406

[DEUT. xviii:

10. T h e r e shall not be found among you any one that

maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. . . .]

Now to reason thus —God hath commanded that you shall not give your children to be offered to Moloch, and he hath not given you any commandment to the contrary; therefore you ought not to have offered them —is affirmative, not negative, although in this case, being a matter of substance and of salvation or damnation (for to kill and murder is of that nature), a negative argument is very strong. The prophet Esay reproveth the Jews for using their own advice and seeking help of the Egyptians in the time of their adversity and not of the Lord,407 which they 407

ISA. xxx: 2. [ T h a t walk to go down into E g y p t , and have not asked at

m y mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of E g y p t ! ]

did both contrary to their own promise and also contrary to the commandment of God, Deuter., xvii., ver. 16. But what is this to prove that we may reason negatively of the authority of the Scriptures in matters of rites and ceremonies and other indifferent things? You accuse me for not alleging of Scriptures; better

378

The Admonition Controversy

it were to allege none than thus to allege them to no purpose or rather to abuse them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR.): T O the places which I alleged out of the Word of God to prove that an argument drawn of the authority of the Scripture negatively is good, he answereth that the examples which I bring be of things of great importance and forbidden in other places of the Scripture. I grant they are so, and that maketh much against him, for that the Lord, having this advantage against the Israelites of charging them that they had done contrary unto his commandment, chose rather to say after this sort, that they had done that which he had not commanded, thereby to teach his to hang upon his mouth. . . . W H I T G I F T (YL): That no ceremony, order, discipline, or kind of government may be in the church except the same be expressed in the Word of God is a great absurdity and breedeth many inconveniences. C A R T W R I G H T (R): But to the end it may appear that this speech of yours doth something take up and shrink the arms of the Scripture, which otherwise are so long and large, I say that the Word of God containeth the direction of all things pertaining to the church, yea, of whatsoever things can fall into any part of man's life. For so Salomon saith in the second chapter of the Proverbs, " M y son, if thou receive my words and hide my precepts in thee, &c., then thou shalt understand justice, and judgment, and equity, and every good way." 408 St. Paul saith PROV. ii:

[1. M y son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my

commandments with thee. . . .] g. [Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.]

that, "whether we eat or drink or whatsoever we do, we must do it to the glory of God." 409 But no man can glorify God in 409

1 COR. x: 31. [Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do,

do all to the glory of God.]

anything but by obedience, and there is no obedience but in respect of the commandment and Word of God; therefore it followeth that the Word of God directeth a man in all his actions, and that which St. Paul said of meats and drinks, that

The Government of the Church they are "sanctified unto us by the Word of God," 4101

379 410

the same

TIM. iv: [4. F o r e v e r y creature of G o d is g o o d , a n d n o t h i n g to b e

refused, if it be received w i t h thanksgiving:] 5. [For it is sanctified b y the w o r d of G o d a n d prayer.]

is to be understanded of all things else whatsoever we have the use of. But the place of St. Paul in the xiv. to the Romans is of all other most clear, where, speaking of those things which are called indifferent, in the end he concludeth that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"; 4 1 1 but faith is not but in respect of the 411

ROM. xiv: 23. [ A n d he t h a t d o u b t e t h is d a m n e d if he eat, because he

eateth not of faith: for w h a t s o e v e r is not of faith, is sin.]

Word of God; therefore whatsoever is not done by the Word of God is sin. . . . Not that we say as you charge us in these words, when you say that we say that " n o ceremony, &c., may be in the church except the same be expressed in the Word of G o d " ; but that in making orders and ceremonies of the church it is not lawful to do what men list, but they are bound to follow the general rules of the Scripture that are given to be the squire whereby those should be squared out. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e p l a c e y o u d o allege o u t of the ii.

chapter of Salomon's Proverbs doth not prove your purpose, for Salomon there teacheth the fruits and commodity of wisdom and in the person of her declareth what understanding he shall have in "righteousness, judgment, equity, and every good path" that hearkeneth unto wisdom, obeyeth her commandments, and giveth his heart to knowledge. 412 But what is this to prove that 418

P R O V . it: [9. T h e n shalt t h o u understand righteousness, a n d j u d g m e n t ,

and equity; yea, every good path.]

the Scripture hath expressed every particular ceremony or kind of government in the church? . . . Surely, except you take heed, you will wander as far out of the way in alleging the Scriptures as the authors of the Admonition did in quoting them. . . . Your other text is written in the 1 Cor. x. "Whether therefore we eat or drink, & c . " 413 Whereupon you frame this argument: " W h a t 4131

COR. x: [ 3 1 . W h e t h e r therefore y e eat, or drink, or whatsoever y e do,

d o all to the g l o r y of G o d . ]

380

The Admonition Controversy

soever we do, we must do it to the glory of God; but no man can glorify God in anything but by obedience; and there is no obedience but in respect of the commandment and Word of God; therefore it followeth that the Word of God directeth a man in all his actions." To omit the undigested form of this argument, wherein the conclusion agreeth not with the premises, this text is as far from the purpose as is the other. For what sequel is this: we must do all to the glory of God, we must obey the commandment and words of God; ergo, we must do nothing in our whole life but that which is particularly expressed in the Word of God, or therefore the Scripture expresseth every particular ceremony, order, or kind of government to be used in the church? You may as well by this place conclude that every civil action, every private action, every civil kind of government is expressed in the Word. For this rule of St. Paul is general and pertaineth to all Christians, of what state, condition, or degree soever they be. But the true meaning of St. Paul in that place is that we seek the glory of God in all things and do nothing that is against his Word and commandment. He glorifieth God in meat and drink, which acknowledgeth God to be the giver of them and then is thankful for them and useth them moderately, &c. The like is to be said of all other actions. " T h a t which St. Paul," you say, "said of meats and drinks, that they are sanctified unto us by the Word of God, &c.," 414 414

1 TIM. iv: [5. For it is sanctified b y the word of G o d and prayer.]

it is true. But to what purpose do you allege that place? The Word of God pronounceth all God's creatures to be good, and the use of them to be lawful ("for all things are clean to those that be clean"). 415 The same are to be desired by us of him, as 115 T I T U S i : [ U n t o the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.]

the author and giver of them, and when we have them we must be thankful for them. But what is this to the proof of anything that we have now in controversy? "But the place of St. Paul in the xiv. to the Romans," you say, "is of all other most clear, &c." . . . That sentence of St.

The Government of the Church

381

Paul is also general, and it is to be extended to all civil actions, as well as it is to ecclesiastical; and therefore, if it prove that all civil and politic actions and kinds of government must be particularly expressed in the Scriptures, it proveth the same in ecclesiastical matters also, else not. But the meaning of the apostle is that we should do nothing against our conscience, nothing but that which we do believe not to displease God, not to be against his Word or commandment. For "not to be of faith" hath divers significations: first, it signifieth that that is contrary to the persuasion of the faith and judgment of the conscience; secondly, it signifieth not to be taken as an article of faith. If it be taken in the first signification, then it is not true that whatsoever cannot be proved in the Word of God is not of faith; for then to take up a straw, to observe many civil orders, and to do a number of particular actions were against faith and so deadly sin because it is not found in the Word of God that we should do them. Which doctrine must needs bring a great servitude and bondage to the conscience, restrain or rather utterly overthrow that part of Christian liberty which consisteth in the free use of indifferent things neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God, and throw men headlong into desperation. For what man is able to shew the Word of God for all things he doth? If it be taken in the second signification, then it is true that that is not of faith which cannot be proved by the Word; for nothing is to be believed as an article of faith which cannot be proved by the Word of God. In this xiv. to the Romans, "not to be of faith" is taken in the first signification, that is, against the persuasion of the faith and judgment of the conscience; as though he should say whatsoever a man doth against his conscience, that is sin. And this to be the true meaning of this place, the words going before do declare; where the apostle saith, "Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth," 416 that is, whose doings are not against 416

ROM. xiv: 22. [Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.]

his conscience. This rule, I say, of St. Paul extendeth as well to civil actions

382

T h e Admonition Controversy

as it doth to ceremonies and orders of the church, and therefore what you will conclude of the one, that must you also conclude of the other. But I think you will not say that every civil action must be expressed or commanded in the Word of God; wherefore neither can you prove by these words of St. Paul that every ceremony, order, or kind of government in the church must be commanded by the Word of God. But what need I labour so much in a matter at the length confessed by yourself? For you deny that you "say that no ceremony, &c., may be in the church except the same be expressed in the Word of God but that in making orders and ceremonies of the church it is now lawful to do what men list, &c." Hold you here, and we shall soon agree. For neither doth that that I have hitherto spoken in this matter nor that which I intend to speak hereafter disagree from this. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Which rules I will here set down as those which I would have as well all orders and ceremonies of the church framed by as by the which I will be content that all those orders and ceremonies which are now in question, whether they be good and convenient or no, should be tried and examined by. And they are those rules which St. Paul gave in such cases as are not particularly mentioned of in the Scripture. The first, that they offend not any, especially the church of God.417 4171

COR. x: 32. [Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.]

The second is that which you cite also out of Paul, that all be done in order and comeliness.418 4181

COR. xiv: 40. [Let all things be done decently and in order.]

The third, that all be done to edifying.419 4191

COR. xiv: 26. [How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. L e t all things be done unto edifying.]

The last, that they be done to the glory of God.420 420

ROM. xiv: 6. [He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord;

and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

T h e Government of the Church

383

H e that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.] 7. [For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.]

So that you see that those things which you reckon up of the hour, and time, and day of prayer, &c., albeit they be not specified in the Scripture, yet they are not left to any to order at their pleasure or so that they be not against the Word of God but even by and according to the Word of God they must be established and those alone to be taken which do agree best and nearest with these rules before recited. And so it is brought to pass (which you think a great absurdity) that all things in the church should be appointed according to the Word of God; whereby it likewise appeareth that we deny not but certain things are left to the order of the church because they are of that nature which are varied by times, places, persons, and other circumstances and so could not at once be set down and established forever and yet so left to the order of the church as that it do nothing against the rules aforesaid. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): You set down four rules which you would have all orders and ceremonies of the church framed by, &c. The first is, 1 Cor. x., "that they offend not any, especially the church of God," which rule I think you take out of these words of that chapter . . . "Be such as you give no offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Grecians nor to the church of God." But truly they make little or nothing for your purpose, neither yet any other thing contained in that chapter. For the apostle there sheweth how one private man should behave himself towards another, yea, and towards the church in things that may be done or not be done; he prescribeth no general rule for the church to make orders and appoint ceremonies by. For what reason were it that the orders of the church should so depend upon one or two men's liking or misliking that she should be compelled to alter the same so oft as any should therewith be offended, which must of necessity come to pass if this your rule were general? For what church is void of some contentious persons and quarrellers, whom no order, no reason, no reformation, can please? . . . St. Paul in this place would have no just offence given to any, either faithful or infidel; for Christians

384

T h e Admonition Controversy

ought to be such at whose examples, doctrine, and life no man might justly take any offence. True it is that in all orders and ceremonies the church must take heed that there be no just offence given, but she hath not to depend upon every private man's judgment. Whereas you say "especially the church of God," you add to the words of the apostle;421 for he saith not "especially"; and 421

T . C. addeth to the text to make it serve his turn. [J. W.]

if you mark his meaning well, you shall rather find that he would have "especial" care taken that there be no offence given to such as are not yet come to the church (which some understand by the Jews and Grecians) lest they should still be withdrawn from the church whenas there is no such fear to be had of those that be already members of the same. Your second rule, 1 Cor. xiv., is a good and necessary rule, not only alleged by me but allowed and embraced as most convenient. But who shall judge what is most comely and the best order? Shall every private man or rather such as have the chief care and government of the church? This is a rule prescribed by the apostle to the church whereby she must direct her orders and government, not to every private person to pick a quarrel to disquiet the church. The third, 1 Cor. xiv., "that all be done to edifying." This sentence cannot be applied generally to all things used in the church, if we truly interpret the meaning of the apostle, but to the gift "of tongues, to prayers, and to prophecies," whereof he hath made mention before. Neither can I perceive that any learned interpreter doth take it as a general rule for all rites and ceremonies but only for the exercises of "praying, singing of psalms, interpreting, and prophesying." For of things used in the church some pertain to instruction and some to order and comeliness. For the first he giveth this rule, "Let all things be done to edifying." . . . I cannot understand out of what part of the xiv. to the Romans your last rule is taken except it be the sixth, seventh, or eighth verses, out of the which I would gladly know how you can derive any rule to frame ceremonies by, rather than all other actions of man whatsoever. . . .

T h e Government of the Church

385

CARTWRIGHT (SR): His . . . exception that I "added this word especially to the text" is a mere cavil; for although I used that word more than is in the text, yet I both kept the meaning and laid it more open unto the simple reader. And where he saith that "the apostle would have men more careful of offending those which are not yet come to the church than those which be of it," it is altogether untrue and not only against the meaning of the apostle but against the general rule of love, wherein these degrees are assigned that we, loving all men, should especially love those which are members of the same body with us. . . . T h e second rule he alloweth but admitteth no competent judges of it but such as made the orders. . . . I would know of the Answerer whether the Spirit of God is tied so either to multitude or to authority that both a few and private may not espy faults in the orders which have been devised by many and public persons. T o the third rule, that all should be done unto edifying, 422 4221

COR. xiv: [26. . . . L e t all things be done unto edifying.]

he saith that "it cannot be applied to all things generally used in the church but to prayers, tongues, &c., specified in that chapter," as if it were not the ordinary of the apostle to prove the particulars by the general and so to conclude that the exercises of praying, singing, &c., should be done to edifying because all things must so be done. And where he would seem to tie the signification of edifying only unto instruction in the church, it is manifest that the apostle, carrying it also unto things indifferent, will have this to be the rule of our private actions, much more of such public actions. . . . And the words which St. Paul useth do not require that ceremonies and orders of the church should edify (as he surmiseth); 423 it is sufficient to come ROM. xiv: 19. [Let us therefore follow after the things w h i c h m a k e for peace, and things wherewith one m a y edify another.] 423

under this rule of the apostle that they tend to edifying. And he cannot be ignorant that it is one thing to build and another thing to tend to building. For the fourth rule, which is that they be done to the glory

386

T h e Admonition Controversy

of God,424 he will acknowledge it to be no rule to direct cere424

ROM. xiv: [6. H e that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord;

and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.]

monies by "because it is a rule to guide all actions whatsoever," which is a very strange argument: that because it is a rule to guide all actions, therefore it is no rule to direct the churches. And if this be a sufficient cause of refusing it as impertinent to this purpose, then that rule (which he of these four doth only allow, as of that only which he himself brought) must also be judged impertinent to this purpose and so thrust out of the doors with her fellows. For there is nothing whatsoever a man doth, whether privately or publicly, in matters either civil or ecclesiastical, but he ought to keep this rule, that it be done in order and in comeliness. . . . W H I T G I F T 0 4 ) : The Scripture speaketh not one word of standing, sitting, or kneeling at the communion or meeting in churches, fields, or houses to hear the Word of God, of preaching in pulpits, chairs, or otherwise, of baptizing in fonts, in basins, or rivers, openly or privately, at home, or in the church, every day in the week, or on the sabbath-day only. And yet no man, as I suppose, is so simple to think that the church hath no authority to take order in these matters. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): There be examples of pulpits in Esdras,426 of chairs in the xxiii. of Matthew, where by "the chair 425

NEH.

viii:

4. [And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which

they had made for the purpose. . . .]

of Moses" our Saviour Christ, meaning the doctrine of Moses, doth also declare the manner which they used in teaching,426 of 126

MATT,

xxiii:

[1. T h e n spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,]

2. [Saying, T h e scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.]

sitting at the communion which the evangelist noteth to have been done of our Saviour Christ with his disciples,427 which ex427

MATT,

twelve.]

xxvi.' 20. [Now

when the even was come, he sat down with the

The Government of the Church

387

amples are not to be lightly changed and upon many occasions. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : "Examples of pulpits," you say, "we find in Esdras." True it is that in the viii. of Nehem. we read "Esdras stood upon a pulpit of wood" which he had made for the preaching. But the same was placed in the open street; neither did Esdras anything but read. The other persons, with the Levites mentioned ver. 7. of that chapter, did cause the people to understand the law, that is, made them give diligent ear to the reading of the law. And although there be words in the 8. verse which, as they be translated, seem to insinuate some kind of interpretation, yet the meaning is nothing so, for these be the words . . . "they were attentive to the reading," or as some translate it . . . "And they read in the book of the law of God distinctly and in such sort as they might easily understand." Hereof may I much better gather that reading is preaching than you can do that the Scripture appointeth "pulpits." For though Esdras did so, is it therefore by and by a rule to be followed? You read not of any of the apostles that did in like manner; neither is there any mention made of "pulpits" from the beginning of the New Testament to the end of the same. And this place maketh rather for "pulpits" to read in than for "pulpits" to preach in. It is most certain that by "the chair of Moses" in that place is meant the doctrine of Moses; whether it declare any place or no made for Moses to teach the people in, that is but conjectural; neither have we any example expressed either in Moses himself or in any other that may resolve that doubt. Howsoever it is, the matter is not great. For things used in the old church do not prescribe any rule to the church of Christ unless it can be shewed Christ himself and his apostles to have used the same. My meaning is that in the whole Scripture there is neither "pulpit" nor "chair" prescribed to be used in the church of Christ, but that and such other like things left to the disposition of the church as shall be thought most convenient from time to time. What though Christ sat at his last supper, doth it therefore follow that of necessity we must needs sit? Why must we not then as well be bound to receive the same after supper? I say again, that the Scripture doth nowhere prescribe whether we

388

T h e Admonition Controversy

shall sit, stand, or kneel, at the communion. If it do prescribe sitting, why do some of you use walking, other some standing, which both do more differ from sitting than kneeling doth? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR.): Where he saith "the pulpit was placed in open street," that was because of their dwelling in tents, the feast whereof they celebrated. 428 For otherwise it appeareth that 428

11 CHRON. vi: [no verse given].

such a high place in the temple, out of the which the voice of him which spake might be heard, was ordinary. T h e reason of calling the doctrine of Moses the chair of Moses by a metonymy of the subject for the adjunct I will leave to the reader to judge of. For my judgment of them I said that they are not lightly to be changed, and he disputeth against me as if I had said that "it were not lawful to change these upon any occasion." And beside this disputing against his own fancy and not against my words, he hath violently broken into the question of reading and interpreting the Word of God without any the least occasion given thereof and hath also shamefully corrupted the place of Nehemias. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Y o u make it an indifferent thing to preach the Word of God in churches or in houses, that is to say, privately or publicly. For what better interpretation can I have than of your own words, which saith by and by after of baptism that it is at the order of the church to make it private or public? For if it be in the power of the church to order that baptism may be ministered at the house of every private person, it is also in her power to ordain that the Word be preached also privately. And then where is that which Salomon saith that "Wisdom crieth openly and in the streets, and at the corners of the streets where many meet"? 429 And where be the examples PROV. viii: [1. Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?] 2. [She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.] 3. [She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.] 429

of the old church, which had, besides the temple at Jerusalem, erected up synagogues in every town to hear the Word of God

T h e Government of the Church

389

and minister the circumcision? What is become of the commandment of our Saviour Christ which willed his disciples that they should preach openly and upon the house tops that which they heard in the ear of him and secretly? 430 And how do we observe MATT, x: 27. [What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house tops.] 430

the example of our Saviour Christ, who, to deliver his doctrine from all suspicion of tumults and other disorders, said that he preached openly in the temple and in the synagogues, albeit the same were very dangerous unto him? 431 And the example 431 JOHN xviii: 20. [Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.]

of the apostles that did the same? 432 For as for the time of perACTS iii: 1. [Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.] ACTS iv: 1. [And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them.] 432

secution, when the church dare not, nor it is not meet that it should, shew itself to the enemy, no, not then is the Word of God nor the sacraments privately preached or ministered nor ought to be. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Is it all one to say that the Scripture hath not determined whether baptism should be ministered "openly or privately, at home or in the church," and to say that "the church may make baptism private or public"? . . . My meaning is that the Scripture hath not determined where or when we should baptize, at home in private families, or in public and open places, as fields, churches, &c. For we have examples in Scripture both of baptizing in houses and of baptizing in fields, Acts viii., ix., x., and xvi.433 . . . 433 [ACTS viii: 36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water: what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. . . . 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.]

390

T h e Admonition Controversy

[ACTS ix: 17. A n d Ananias went his w a y , and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18. A n d immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.] [ACTS x.'lui. T h e n Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius. . . . 24. A n d the morrow after they entered into Ceesarea. A n d Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. . . . 48. A n d he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. . . .] [ACTS xvi: 23. A n d when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely. . . . 33. A n d he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.]

And as I think that in such respects baptism may be privately administered, so think I also that in the like respects the Word may be privately preached. Neither did the apostles only preach in the synagogues and in open places but in private families and houses also, as it is manifest, Acts v., where it is said that "the apostles did not cease daily to teach and to preach Jesus Christ in the temple, and house by house." 434 Acts x., Peter ACTS V: [42. A n d daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.]

434

preached in Cornelius his house.435 And Acts xvi., Paul preached ACTS X: [25. A n d as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. . . . 34. T h e n Peter opened his mouth, and said. . . .] 436

in prison.436 And not only was the Word preached privately in ACTS xvi: [27. A n d the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself. . . . 29. T h e n he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas. . . . 32. A n d they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.] 436

respect of the place but sometimes also in the respect of the persons, as Christ preached to the woman of Samaria alone,

The Government of the Church

391

J o h n iv., 437 and Philip in the chariot to the e u n u c h , A c t s viii. 438 437

JOHN

iv:

[7. T h e r e

cometh

a

woman

of S a m a r i a

to d r a w

water:

Jesus saith u n t o her, G i v e m e to drink.] 438

ACTS viii: [35. T h e n Philip opened his m o u t h , and b e g a n a t the same

scripture, and p r e a c h e d u n t o h i m Jesus.]

Y o u r Scriptures b r o u g h t in to prove that there m a y b e " n o private p r e a c h i n g " are far-fetched, and some of t h e m v e r y strangely applied. T h a t w h i c h S a l o m o n saith, Prov. viii., proveth that G o d calleth all m e n b y his W o r d a n d b y his works to follow that w h i c h is good and fly f r o m that w h i c h is evil; a n d I think that the m e a n i n g of S a l o m o n in that place is that G o d d o t h offer his W o r d to all persons in all places so that there c a n b e no ignorance pretended. But, I p r a y y o u , h o w d o t h this a r g u m e n t follow: the W o r d of G o d is offered to all a n d openly proc l a i m e d ; ergo, it m a y not be also privately taught? A l l y o u r proofs and examples that follow b e of like effect: they prove that the W o r d of G o d o u g h t publicly to be p r e a c h e d , but they d o not take a w a y private exhortations and preachings. It is true that both Christ a n d his apostles taught in synagogues; so it is true also that they t a u g h t in private families, as I h a v e d e c l a r e d ; b u t yet I say the Scripture h a t h not appointed a n y certain place of preaching. F o r Esdras read the l a w in the streets, N e h e m . viii. 439 " W i s d o m crieth in the tops of the h i g h places, b y the 439

NEH. viii: [ 1 . A n d all the people gathered themselves together as one

m a n into the street t h a t w a s before the water g a t e ; and they spake u n t o E z r a the scribe to b r i n g the book of the l a w of Moses, w h i c h the L o r d h a d c o m m a n d e d to Israel.]

wayside, in the paths, in the gates before the c i t y , " Prov. viii. 440 440

P R O V . viii: [ 1 . D o t h not w i s d o m cry? and understanding p u t forth her

voice? 2. S h e standeth in the top of h i g h places, b y the w a y in the places of the paths. 3. S h e crieth a t the gates, at the entry of the city, at the c o m i n g in at the doors.]

Christ p r e a c h e d in the mountain, M a t t , v., 441 in the synagogue, 441

MATT, v: [ 1 . A n d seeing the multitudes, he w e n t u p into a m o u n t a i n :

a n d w h e n he w a s set, his disciples c a m e unto h i m : 2. A n d he o p e n e d his m o u t h , a n d t a u g h t t h e m . . . .]

392 Matt. iv.;

T h e Admonition Controversy 442

the apostles in the temple and in private families.443

M A T T , iv: [23. And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. . . .] 442

A C T S v: [42. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.] 443

Do not you therefore see that there is no determination of any place? Wherefore the aptness of the place and the convenience of it, likewise when the Word is to be preached publicly, when privately, is left to the judgment and ordering of the church. And therefore it is true that I have set down, that the Scripture hath not determined anything "of meeting in churches, fields, or houses to hear the Word of God or of preaching in pulpits, chairs, or otherwise." . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Against the place I alleged out of Salomon 444 he excepteth that "it is strangely applied and farP R O V . viii: [1. Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2. She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.]

444

fetched." Salomon in the chapter before had shewed how the harlot doth lie in wait for men secretly and in the night time and so, pressed with conscience of the evil which she goeth about, shunneth the light and seeketh secret corners.445 In the P R O V . vii: [6. For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, 7. And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding, 8. Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house, 9. In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: 10. And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. 1 1 . She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: 12. Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.] 446

beginning of this chapter he compareth the wisdom of God in his Word unto a noble woman whom he opposeth unto the harlot

T h e Government of the Church

393

and sheweth how she of the contrary part doth not lie in wait or seek corners or night to hide herself in or whisper in the ears of men but exalteth her voice and speaketh in the most open places and corners of streets where the greatest concourse of people is.446 Whereupon it may appear that if the Answerer's MATT, vi: 5. [And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.] 446

either will or understanding were at home and not far from him, this place had been near enough the purpose. For if the Word must be taught in such sort as it may best be conveyed unto the knowledge of most men and least be charged with the seeking of corners or the cover of the night and [if] it is manifest that that is better done when it is preached publicly than when it is preached privately, it must follow that by that saying of Salomon it is prescribed unto the church that the preaching ought to be public. And if there be not only examples of Christ and of his apostles but also a plain commandment, as I have shewed, to preach the Word openly, then it followeth that if the church have power to order whether the Word should be preached publicly or privately, it hath power to order contrary to the commandment of our Saviour Christ. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): I pray you what meant St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., after he had prescribed certain orders unto them to be observed in the church, thus generally to conclude . . . "Let all things be done decently and in order?" Doth he not there give unto them authority to make orders in the church so that all things be done in order and decently? The best interpreters do understand this as a general rule given unto the church to examine her traditions and constitutions by; and therefore without all doubt their judgment is that the church hath authority in external things to make orders and appoint laws, not expressed in the Word of God, so that this rule of the apostle be observed. W H I T G I F T (D): Here have you not answered one word to that which I have alleged out of the 1 Cor. xiv. for the justifying of my general assertion in this point nor to the interpretation of it. That therefore being granted, the rest must

394

The Admonition Controversy

needs stand in full force, that is, that the Scripture hath left many things to the discretion of the church. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): The next division, wherein he requireth answer unto the place of the Corinth, of doing all things decently and orderly, is answered in that I have shewed that the church being bound to this commandment in making her ceremonies is thereby tied not only to place nothing in the church against the commandment of God but is bound even according to the commandment to frame her orders in indifferent things. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): To prove that nothing in this mortal life is more diligently to be sought for and carefully to be looked unto than the restitution of true religion and reformation of God's church, there is noted n Kings xxiii., n Chron. xvii., n Chron. xxix., xxx., xxxi., Psalm cxxxii., Matt, xxi., John ii. In the first place it is declared how Josiah, after he had found the book of the law, reformed the church. In the second place, Jehoshaphat took away the high places and groves out of Judah, &c. In the xxix., xxx., xxxi. of the n Chron. is described the doings of Ezechias in repairing the temple and reforming religion, &c. In the cxxxii. Psalm it is declared with what care David went about to build the temple of God after that he was once established in his kingdom. In the xxi. of Matt. Jesus went into the temple and cast out all them that bought and sold in the temple, &c. The like he did in the second of John. All this is confessed to be true, and no man denieth it. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : All this is passed over with silence, and nothing said unto it, good or bad. W H I T G I F T (A): To prove that these things only are to be placed in God's church which God himself in his Word commandeth, is noted the fourth and twelfth of Deut. . . . God in the Old Law to his people prescribed perfect and absolute laws, not only moral and judicial but ceremonial also; neither was there the least thing to be done in the church omitted in the Law. And therefore for them at that time and during that state it was not lawful to add anything nor to take anything away, no, not in ceremonies and other civil laws. Now in the time of the gospel God hath left unto his church, expressed in his Word,

The Government of the Church

395

a perfect rule of faith and manners and sufficient to salvation; and cursed is he that shall add anything to it or take anything from it in that behalf, for therein it is perfect and absolute. But . . . he hath left the judicial law to the discretion of the magistrate to add thereunto or take therefrom or alter and change the same so that no law be made against the rule of faith and good manners expressed in the Word of God. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I see it is true which is said that, one absurdity granted, a hundred follow. For to make good that things ought to be done besides the Scripture and the Word of God, you are driven to run into part of the error of the Manichees, which say that the Old Testament pertaineth not unto us nor bindeth not us. For what is it else than to say that these two places served for the Jews' time and under the Law? For surely if these two places agree not unto us in time of the gospel, I know none in all the Old Testament which do agree. And, I pray you, what is here said which St. John in the Apocalypse saith not where he shutteth up the New Testament on this sort: " I protest unto every man which heareth the prophecy of this book that whosoever addeth anything to it, the Lord shall add unto him the plagues which are written in it and whosoever taketh away any thing from it, the Lord shall take away his portion out of the book of life and out of the things that are written in it"? 447 Which admonition if you say pertaineth to REV. xxii: 18. [For I testify unto every m a n that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If a n y m a n shall add unto these things, G o d shall add unto h i m the plagues that are written in this book.] 447

that Book of the Apocalypse only, yet you must remember that the same may be as truly said of any other book of the ScriptureW H I T G I F T ( D ) : My first answer to that place of Deuter. onomy is true; neither can you disprove it by any sound reason or good authority. For if you will have this precept now to be understanded of all the selfsame ordinances and laws of the which and for the which it was at that time given, then must we of necessity keep the ceremonial and judicial precepts of the Law being at that time in force. The which thing, as I suppose, no learned man will once imagine; but yet as this precept was then given to them that they should add nothing to the laws of God

396

T h e Admonition Controversy

then in force or take anything from them, so is it perpetual for us also that we should add nothing to the law of faith and manners, which is likewise perfectly prescribed unto us in the Book of God. And thus you see how far I am from "the error of the Manichees" and from thinking "that the Old Testament doth not appertain unto us." And yet I am not so Jewish to think that we are bound either to the ceremonial or judicial law, and therefore I say that that precept applied unto us doth not extend any further than to such things as God hath commanded or forbidden us that be Christians to do in his Word. How unjustly therefore you charge me to say that "these two places agree not unto us under the gospel" whenas I have plainly declared how they agree to them under the L a w and to us under the gospel, let any man judge. T h e words in the last of the Apocalypse, although they be properly and namely spoken of that book, yet I am fully persuaded that they may also be affirmed of the whole Testament. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where I have shewed the places of Deut. iv., xii. are still in force against the error of the Answerer, which, in saying that "in the time of the Jews and during that estate it was not lawful to add any thing, & c . , " giveth to understand that we are not so "straitly bound unto it at this time," he answereth that "he applied that rule unto the law of faith and manners," but he should have understanded that in restraining the rule after that sort, thereby shutting out the laws of making orders and ceremonies of the church, he still falleth into that fault whereof he is accused. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Then you are driven to say that the Jews under the L a w had a more certain direction and consequently a readier way than we have in the time of the gospel, of the which time the prophet saith that then a man should not teach his neighbour, they shall be so taught of God; 448 as if he 448 JER.

xxxi: 34. [And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.]

The Government of the Church

397

should say that they that live under the gospel should be all, in comparison of that which were under the Law, doctors. And Esay saith that in the days of the gospel the people shall not stand in the outward courts, but he will bring them into the sanctuary,449 that is to say, that they should be all for their ISA. hi: 5. [Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.] 449

knowledge as learned as the Levites and priests which only had entrance into it. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : In matters of ceremonies and judicials they had more particular rules prescribed unto them and "a more certain direction." For we have very little in these matters particularly written in the New Testament; but the moral law we have as perfect as they had, and in the law of faith, which is the law of the gospel and the rule of salvation, we do far exceed them. Other meaning than this there cannot with all the violence that you have be wrung out of my words. Your places alleged out of the prophet Jeremy and Esay improve nothing that I have spoken; for the prophet Jeremy speaketh of the elect of God, whom he doth teach and illuminate, not only with the outward preaching of his Word but by the marvellous operation of his Spirit also. The words of the prophet Esay (if you mean the 7. ver. of the lvi. chapter, for else there is no such words there) do signify that God will gather the gentiles and strangers into his church and make no distinction betwixt them and the Jews in the time of the gospel, but how you should gather of that place that the people "should be as learned as the priests and Levites" I cannot conjecture. Neither truly do I know to what purpose this text is alleged except it be a little by the way to flatter the people and to claw them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): In the places out of Jeremy and Isay it is evident that there is set forth how there shall be greater knowledge of the will of God under the gospel than under the Law. And even that which I have set down of the people which should be as learned under the gospel as the Levites and priests under the Law, beside that it containeth a manifest truth and therefore cannot be to flatter the people (as he surmiseth), may

398

The Admonition Controversy

be also gathered of the 5. verse of the lvi. chap, of Isay, where the Lord promising to bring the gentiles into a better place of his temple than the Jews had before doth not obscurely declare that which I said. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): W e have no ceremonies but two, the ceremonies or sacraments of baptism and of the Lord's supper, and we have as certain a direction to celebrate them as they had to celebrate their ceremonies, and fewer and less difficulties can rise of ours than of theirs. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : But yet is not every circumstance to be used about the celebrating of them so particularly nor so certainly prescribed unto us as was to them in their ceremonies, sacraments, and sacrifices; for they had every particular circumstance to be used about their sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies set down unto them, as it is evident Exod. xii., xxv., xxvi., &c., and in Leviticus. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : I will conclude that forsomuch as we have the same laws to direct us in the service of God which they had, besides that, a noble addition of the New Testament to make things more manifest and to bring greater light unto the Old Testament, we have also precise direction of our religion as they had; and therefore those places of Deuteronomy stand in as great force now touching the government of the church as they did then. And as for the judicial law, forasmuch as there are some of them made in regard of the region where they were given and of the people to whom they were given, the prince and magistrate keeping the substance and equity of them, as it were the marrow, may change the circumstances of them as the times and places and manners of the people shall require. But to say that any magistrate can save the life of blasphemers, contemptuous and stubborn idolaters, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, and such like, which God by his judicial law hath commanded to be put to death, I do utterly deny and am ready to prove if that pertained to this question. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Even now again do you enter into a strange and dangerous opinion in my judgment, for you would have the civil magistrate bound to observe all the judicial laws of Moses "except such as were made in respect of the region

The Government of the Church

399

where they were given and of the people to whom they were given." . . . I leave it to the consideration of those that know the laws and state of the realm and especially such as have the chief government and care of the same what lieth hid under this your opinion. First, all the laws of this land that be contrary to these judicial laws of Moses must be abrogated; the prince must be abridged of that prerogative which she hath in pardoning such as by the law be condemned to die; the punishments of death for felony must be mitigated according to Moses' law, which doth by other means punish the same, Exod. xxii.450 T o be short, 450

EXOD. xxii:

[no verse given].

all things must be transformed: lawyers must cast away their huge volumes and multitude of cases, and content themselves with the Books of Moses; we of the clergy would be the best judges, and they must require the law at our hands, Deuter. xvii., verse 8. And so, while we make them believe that we seek for equality among ourselves, we seek indeed regal dominion over them. Look Deuter. xvii., verse 12.461 But, to omit all these 461

DEUT. xvii:

8.

[If there arise a m a t t e r too h a r d for thee in j u d g m e n t ,

b e t w e e n blood and blood, b e t w e e n plea a n d plea, a n d b e t w e e n stroke a n d stroke, b e i n g matters of controversy w i t h i n t h y gates: then shalt t h o u arise and g e t thee u p into the p l a c e w h i c h the L o r d t h y G o d shall choose. . . .] 12. [ A n d the m a n t h a t will d o presumptuously, and will n o t hearken u n t o the priest t h a t standeth to minister there before the L o r d t h y G o d , or u n t o the j u d g e , even t h a t m a n shall die: and thou shalt p u t a w a y the evil f r o m Israel.]

considerations, which I leave to those to whom they do especially pertain, I will shew as briefly as I can how far this opinion is from true divinity. First, besides all those places of Scripture which make generally for the abrogation of the whole law, we have especial places for the judicial law and, namely, those where Christ maketh laws of divorcement for adultery, Matt, v.462 and xix., 453 462

MATT, v: [31. I t h a t h been said, W h o s o e v e r shall p u t a w a y his wife,

let h i m g i v e her a w r i t i n g of d i v o r c e m e n t : 32. B u t I say u n t o y o u , T h a t whosoever shall p u t a w a y his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to c o m m i t adultery: and whosoever shall m a r r y her t h a t is divorced c o m m i t t e t h adultery.]

400

T h e Admonition Controversy

463 MATT, xix: [8. H e saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9. A n d I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.]

which were altogether needless if she that is taken in adultery should of necessity be stoned to death according to the law of Moses. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): It is not (as the Answerer surmiseth untruly) that "the magistrate is simply bound unto the judicial laws of Moses" but that he is bound to the equity which I also called the substance and marrow of them, in regard of which equity I affirmed that there are certain laws amongst the judicials which cannot be changed. And hereof I gave example in the laws which command that a stubborn idolater, blasphemer, murderer, incestuous person, and such like should be put to death. . . . Where he saith that "the laws which our Saviour Christ made, Matt, v., xix., touching divorcement for adultery had been to no purpose if the adulterer should of necessity be put to death," first, he may be here justly charged with that he hath untruly surmised of me because he bringeth in our Saviour Christ " a maker of laws under the gospel," whereas he made none in those places but expounded the law of God which he had made from the beginning. T h e other refusals made by the Jews of their wives were never any laws but permissions only, and therefore in their abolishment there was no law of God abrogated. Secondly, it was necessary to use that exposition, notwithstanding that the punishment of the law by death remained, for beside that the Jews being under the government of the Romans had those civil punishments by death suspended upon the pleasure of their officers, which were often corrupted, 464 464

JOHN xviii:

3 1 . [Then said Pilate unto them, T a k e ye him, and judge

him according to your law. T h e Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.]

our Saviour Christ, foreseeing all things, did foresee what looseness would follow in this behalf. And therefore, as the office of

The Government of the Church

401

a good doctor required, he instructed the conscience and taught that albeit the magistrate failed in the execution of the law yet that, the former yoke being broken, men were at their liberty to enter into a new contract of marriage with other. Whereby he met with the corrupt opinion of those which dream that the knot of marriage is not cut asunder by adultery during the life of the parties married. . . . W H I T G I F T {A): The other places in this margent, as Psalm xxxvii., Rom. xii., 1 Cor. ii., and the rest, are not alleged to prove anything in controversy but only without judgment placed in the margent to make a shew. How aptly they be applied I leave to the consideration of the diligent reader. This one thing I cannot but marvel at, that these fellows so please themselves in the platform of their church and attribute so much thereunto that they exhort, nay, rather charge the court of parliament "with perfect hatred to detest" the present state of the church and "with singular love to embrace" that which they prescribe in this book; and to move them rather to this perfect hatred of us and singular love of themselves, they use the authority of the xxxi. and cxxxix. Psalm. In the one David saith that "he hath hated them that give themselves to deceitful vanities because he trusteth in the Lord." In the other, speaking of the contemners of God, of wicked and bloody men, and of such as blaspheme God and be his enemies, he saith, " I hate them with an unfeigned hatred, & c . " As though all such as like or allow of the present state of the church of this realm of England gave themselves to deceitful vanities, were contemners of God, wicked and bloody men, blasphemers of God, and his enemies. . . . T o the like effect they allege the xv. of John, 11 Tim. iii., Matt. vii. and xi. as though they only had the Word of God and were of the church and we contemners and rejecters of the same. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): T o this there is not one word spoken. 2. FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT (R): All the whole ecclesiastical function may be well divided, first, into extraordinary, or those that CARTWRIGHT

402

The Admonition Controversy

endured for a time, and into ordinary, which are perpetual. Of the first sort are the apostles and evangelists, which the Lord used for a time, as it were, for chief masons and principal builders of his church as well to lay the foundations of churches where none were as also to advance them to such forwardness and height until there might be gotten for the finishing of the building and house of the church fit pastors, elders, and deacons. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): Although you cannot warrant by the Scriptures this distinction of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" ecclesiastical functions, yet I think the apostolical function was extraordinary in respect that it had for the time certain especial properties, as to bear witness of the resurrection of Christ and of his ascension, which they did see with their eyes, also to plant and to found churches, likewise to go throughout the whole world. These, I say, were temporal and extraordinary, and so was the apostleship in this respect, but yet ordinary in respect of their chief function, which was to preach the gospel and to govern the churches which they had planted. Likewise evangelists have an ordinary function; neither is there any cause why it should be called a temporal office but only in respect of writing the gospel, for there is none that thinketh the office of preaching to be either extraordinary or temporal. But, I pray you, let me ask you one question, "Why should not the office of seniors be as well extraordinary and temporal as the office of an apostle or an evangelist?" For as you say that "the apostleship and evangelistship remained until there might be gotten for the finishing of the building and house of the church fit pastors, &c.," so say I that the office of seniors and elders might remain in the church until there were Christian princes and magistrates by whom the people of God might be kept in peace and quietness and the churches of Christ more perfectly governed. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): The Answerer, granting the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary ministries and yet denying that "it can be warranted by the Scriptures," pursueth his former train of shrinking the Scriptures, seeing it followeth thereupon that some truth in divinity cannot be warranted by the Word of God. . . .

T h e Government of the Church

403

C A R T W R I G H T (R): Of this sort of extraordinary functions are the prophets also, which besides a singular dexterity and readiness of expounding the Scriptures had also the gift of telling things to come. . . . W H I T G I F T ( Z ) ) : If you mean "prophets" in the respect of the gift of telling things to come, such as Agabus was,456 then 466

ACTS xi: [27. A n d in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. 28. A n d there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.]

be they temporal but yet ordinary for the time wherein they were. But if you mean prophets in respect of their dexterity and readiness in expounding the Scriptures, such as Barnabas was and Simon, Lucius, &c., and Saul,466 likewise such as Judas and 468

ACTS xiii: [ 1 . N o w there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.]

Silas, Acts xv.,467 and such as the apostle St. Paul speaketh of, 467

ACTS xv: [32. A n d J u d a s and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.]

1 Corinth, xiv.,458 I see no cause why either the calling would 458

1 COR. xiv: [1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.]

be extraordinary or the office and gift temporal except you have a liberty to make temporal and perpetual, ordinary and extraordinary, what you please. But seeing you would have all things proved by Scripture, I pray you, prove this that you have said either of the apostles, evangelists, or prophets by the Scripture, seeing you teach that of them which seemeth to be contrary unto the Scripture. C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : The ordinary and continual functions of the church are also divided into two parts, for either they are they that govern or take charge of the whole church as are those which are called elders, or they which take charge of one part of the church, which is the poor of every church, as are those

404

T h e Admonition Controversy

which are called deacons. Those again that be called presbyteri, which we term elders of the church and have to do with the whole church, are either those which teach and preach the Word of God and govern too or else which govern only and do not teach or preach. Of the first kind are pastors and doctors; of the second are those which are called by the common name of elders or ancients. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : This division also is of your own inventing; neither have you any mention of "seniors" (as you call them) or of "deacons" in that fourth chapter to the Ephesians, which you would have to be so perfect a rule of ecclesiastical functions. . . . Moreover, I see not how you can justify your division of "seniors" by the Word of God . . . I see no reason why your unpreaching and unministering "seniors" should have any perpetuity in the church more than apostles . . . neither have you yet proved that the deacons' office is only to provide for the poor. You have examples to the contrary. . . . I understand not how you can make "doctors" governors of any several parishes and churches except you will make them pastors. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( S R ) : Here . . . he trifleth with his reader whilst he supposeth that I ground the function of elders upon the iv. of the Ephes. and that I esteem that place " a perfect rule of ecclesiastical functions," whenas not only I have no syllable sounding that way but have declared the contrary in that by a long discourse in the question of the archbishop I have shewed that that place is only of the ministries occupied in the Word. . . . 469 A D M O N I T I O N : Then every pastor had his flock. 469

ACTS xx: 28. [Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.] EPHES. iv: 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.] TITUS i: 5. [For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.] 1 PET. v: 2. [Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.] W H I T G I F T (A): T o prove this you allege the xx. of the Acts, the iv. to the Ephesians, the i. to Titus, the v. chapter of

The Government of the Church

405

the 1. of Peter. . . . Nevertheless, howsoever you prove it, true it is that if he be a pastor, he must have a certain flock; for therein doth a pastor differ from the rest of the degrees of ministers in Christ's church mentioned in the fourth chapter to the Ephesians. But you must learn that there be not only pastors in the church but also apostles, prophets, evangelists, doctors, Ephes. iv.,460 1 Cor. xii.,461 who all are called ministers and have 460 [EPHES. iv: 11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.]

[1 COR. xii: 28. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.] 461

their place in the church of Christ. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): This passeth all the divinity that ever I read that there are now apostles and evangelists and prophets. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Then have you not read much "divinity"; for if it be true that the apostle St. Paul, in the fourth to the Ephesians, doth make a perfect platform of a church and a full rehearsal of the offices therein contained (as you say he doth), then can I not understand how you can make those offices rather temporal than the office of the pastors and doctors. And forasmuch as you so greatly contemn authority and would have all things proved by Scripture, let me hear one word of the same that doth but insinuate these offices be temporal. The place itself seemeth to import a continuance of these functions until the coming of Christ. For he saith: "He therefore gave some to be apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the gathering together of the saints, for the work of the ministry, &c., until we all meet together in the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age and fulness of Christ, &c." I am persuaded that you cannot shew any like place which doth so plainly import the abrogating of them as this doth make for their continuance. I have, beside that place to the Ephesians, the twelfth of the First to the Corinthians 462 4621 COR. xii: [28. A n d God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets. . . .]

406

The Admonition Controversy

and the xiv.463 where he speaketh of prophets as of perpetual min1 COR. xiv: [i. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.]

463

isters in the church of Christ. I know that there were certain things in the apostles which were proper unto themselves, as their calling, which was immediately from God, their commission to go into the whole world, the power of working miracles, to be witnesses of the resurrection and of the ascension, &c.; but to preach the Word of God in places where need requireth, though the same be not peculiarly committed to them, or to govern churches already planted, I see no cause why it should not be perpetual. Likewise the office of the "evangelist," if it be taken for the writing of the gospel, then it is ceased. But if it be taken for "preaching to the people plainly and simply," as Bullinger thinketh, or generally for "preaching the gospel," as Musculus supposeth (in which sense also Paul said to Timothy, n Tim. iv., " D o the work of an evangelist"),464 or for "preaching more [N TIM. iv: 5. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.]

464

fervently and zealously than other," as Bucer saith, then I see no cause at all why it may not still remain in the church. Moreover, prophets, if they be taken for such as have the gifts of foreshewing things to come, then be they not in all times of the church; but if they be such as St. Paul speaketh of, 1 Cor. xiv.,465 such, I say, as have an especial gift in interpreting the 1 COR. xiv: [5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.] 465

Scriptures, whether it be in expounding the mysteries thereof to the learned or in declaring the true sense thereof to the people, I understand not why it is not as perpetual as the pastor or doctor. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): I will shew my reasons why I think there ought to be none nor can be none unless they have wonderful and extraordinary callings. . . .

The Government of the Church

407

First, that they were immediately called of God, as St. Paul to the Galatians proveth himself to be an apostle because he was not appointed by men.466 466

G A L . »: 1 . [Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither b y m a n , b u t b y Jesus

Christ, a n d G o d the F a t h e r , w h o raised h i m f r o m the d e a d )

. . . .]

Then that they saw Christ, which argument St. Paul useth in the ix. 1 Cor.: " A m I not an apostle? Have I not seen Christ?" 467 467

[1 COR. ix:

1. A m I n o t an apostle? a m I n o t free? h a v e I not seen

Jesus Christ our L o r d ? are n o t y e m y work in the L o r d ? 2. If I be n o t an apostle u n t o others, y e t doubtless I a m to y o u : for the seal of m i n e apostleship are y e in the L o r d . ]

Thirdly, that these had the field of the whole world to till; whereas other are restrained more particularly as to a certain plough-land wherein they should occupy themselves; whereupon it followeth that . . . we likewise conclude against those that would have the apostles nowadays that there can be none because there is none unto whom all these three notes do agree. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I grant that in such respects as you now put down there be no "apostles," although Matthias was not immediately called by God, as it appeareth, Acts i.,468 and you 468

[ACTS i:

23. A n d

they a p p o i n t e d t w o , J o s e p h called Barsabas,

w a s surnamed Justus, a n d M a t t h i a s .

who

. . .

26. A n d they g a v e forth their lots; and the lot fell u p o n

Matthias;

a n d he w a s n u m b e r e d w i t h the eleven apostles.]

. . . have confessed; neither can you prove by the Scripture that Barnabas was so called, but the contrary rather doth appear in the xi. of the Acts,469 and yet he was an "apostle." St. 469

[ACTS xi:

22. T h e n tidings of these things c a m e u n t o the ears of the

c h u r c h w h i c h w a s in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, t h a t he should g o as far as A n t i o c h . ]

Paul in the First to the Corinth, ix. doth not say that he saw Christ to prove that he was an "apostle" but to declare that he was in that respect nothing inferior to the rest of the apostles. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where I assigned a proper note of an apostle to be called immediately of God, he setteth himself

408

T h e Admonition Controversy

to confute it. . . . His first exception is of Matthias, which he saith "was not so chosen," which is utterly untrue. Where he saith also that " I confess the same," that is an open untruth. For I shewed that the election out of those two was permitted unto lot that thereby the Lord might from heaven declare whom he would have to be an apostle, so that the church chose no apostle but only chose two, of the which one was taken by the Lord to be an apostle. His other exception is of Barnabas, "which being an apostle," as he saith, "appeareth by the xi. of the Acts not to have been called immediately," where there is not a word which confirmeth that, and therefore he durst not note the place whereof he gathered it. Where he saith "it cannot be proved by the Scripture that he was so called," he beggeth the thing in controversy, not able to answer the reasons alleged. For where he saith that "St. Paul doth not say that he saw Christ to prove that he was an apostle but to prove that he was not inferior to other apostles," he is manifestly confuted both by the words going before and following after. For having propounded this for his question, " A m I not an apostle," and not as he saith, " A m I inferior to any apostle," he addeth for a reason, " H a v e I not seen Christ?" And in the next words that follow, " I f I be not an apostle unto others, yet I am to you," 470 470 1 COR. ix: i. [Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?] 2. [If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.]

he declareth that the estate of the question is there, whether he were an apostle or no. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And although some ecclesiastical writers do call sometimes good ministers successors of the apostles, yet that is to be understanded because they propound the same doctrine that they did, not because they succeeded into the same kind of function, which they could not do. St. Paul doth use this word sometimes in his proper and native signification for him that is publicly sent from any to other, as when he speaketh of the brethren that were joined with Titus, which were sent by the churches with relief to the poor church in Jerusalem and Jewry, and where he calleth Epaphroditus an apostle. But that

T h e Government of the Church

409

is with addition and not simply, as in the first place he calleth the brethren "the apostles of the churches," 471 that is, not the 4 7 1 11

COR. viii: 23. [Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.]

apostles of all churches or sent to all churches but the apostles which certain churches sent with relief to other certain churches; and Epaphroditus he calleth not an apostle simply but the apostle of the Philippians, 472 that is, which the Philippians sent PHIL. ii: 25. [Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.] 472

with relief to Paul, being in prison at Rome, as it appeareth in the same epistle. W H I T G I F T (D): The writers of the Magdelburgica history call Epaphroditus an apostle in the same sense that they call Paul and the rest of the apostles, and M . Calvin thinketh the name of an apostle to be taken in that place generally . . . "for any preacher of the gospel." Ambrose saith . . . " H e was made their apostle of Paul whenas at their request he sent him unto them." And Theodoret in plain words doth call him an apostle because he was bishop of the Philippians. If these say true, as no doubt they do, then is not Epaphroditus called an apostle only in that signification that you say he was. In that he called them apostles with an addition "of the churches," not of all churches, he confirmeth my saying; for it argueth that there may be apostles though they have commission but for one kingdom or province only, as Epaphroditus was the apostle of the churches of the Philippians because he was sent unto them to preach. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And as for Andronicus and Junius which are by you recited belike to prove that we may have more apostles because it is said of St. Paul that they were "famous and notable amongst the apostles," 473 it cannot be proved by 473 ROM. xvi: 7. [Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.]

410

The Admonition Controversy

anything I see there whether they had any function, ecclesiastical or no. For St. Paul calleth them his kinsfolk and fellow-prisoners and doth not say that they were his fellow-labourers, but a m a n m a y be well notable and famous amongst the apostles and well known unto them, which is no apostle. A n d if the apostles would have had this order of the apostles to continue in the church, there is no doubt but that they would have chosen one into James his room when he was slain 474 as they did w h e n ACTS xii: 2. [And he (Herod) killed James the brother of John with his sword.]

474

they supplied the place of Judas by choosing Matthias; and so ever, as they had died, the other would have put other in their places. So it appeareth that this function of the apostles is ceased. W H I T G I F T (D): T h e foresaid authors of the story called Magdelburgica do also reckon these two among the apostles even as they do Paul and Barnabas. . . . A n d I can read of none that doubteth whether they had any function ecclesiastical or no as y o u do. . . . T h e r e is nothing expressed in Scriptures whether the apostles did choose any into the room of James or no; but I a m persuaded they did not, neither was it necessary. For w h o ever said that there must be continually twelve apostles and neither more nor less? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Y o u ask further that if a m a n should not preach before he have a pastoral charge, what they will answer unto Philip and Epaphroditus; whereby your meaning is belike that although they be no pastors, yet they m a y be evangelists, which go about the country here and there. But this office is ceased in the church as the apostles' is. . . . A n d that it is ceased, it m a y appear by these reasons. First, for because all those that the Scripture calleth precisely evangelists, which are only Philip and Timothy, 4 7 6 had their ACTS viii: 39. [And when they (Philip and the eunuch) were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.] i TIM. i: 18. [This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies, which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare.] 476

The Government of the Church

411

callings confirmed by miracle, and so it is like that Titus and Silvanus and Apollos and if there were any other had their vocations after the same manner confirmed. But there is no such miraculous confirmation now; therefore there is no such vocation. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ; ) : I have declared both before by Scripture, reason, and other authority that though the name of an "evangelist" be changed, yet the office remaineth. The Scripture nowhere calleth Timothy an "evangelist"; only, 11 Tim. iv., St. Paul willeth him to "do the work of an evangelist," 476 which is 476

n TIM. iv: [2. P r e a c h the W o r d . . . . 5. B u t w a t c h thou in all things, endure afflictions, d o the work of an

evangelist, m a k e full proof of thy ministry.]

to preach the gospel. . . . It passeth to see how boldly you do abuse the Scripture. Where do you read that either Timothy or Philip were ordained or confirmed evangelists by miracle? There can be no such thing imagined. In the 39. verse, Acts viii., the words be these: "And as soon as they (that is, Philip and the eunuch) were come out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more, &c." Was this the miracle that confirmed Philip an evangelist? Lord God, what mean you? This was rather done to confirm the eunuch. As for Philip, it is manifest that before this miracle he was an evangelist; for in the same chapter we read that before this time Philip had preached in Samaria and converted them, being before seduced by Simon the sorcerer, and that he had also baptized them. Moreover, he had converted the eunuch and baptized him before this miracle was shewed; wherefore it could not be a confirming of his evangelistship. That in the 1 Tim., verse 18., insinuateth that divers prophecies had gone before of Timothy whereby it was revealed that he should be a worthy minister of the church. . . . But how proveth it that he was made an evangelist by miracle? First, Timothy was now a bishop. . . . Secondly, here is no mention made of any calling to an evangelistship. Thirdly, a prophecy is not a miracle. Last of all, though this were true both in

412

T h e Admonition Controversy

Philip and Timothy (as it is in neither), yet doth it not follow that whosoever is called to be an evangelist must also be confirmed by miracle, for particular examples make no general rule. Timothy was ordained minister of the gospel . . . "by the laying on of hands," i Tim. iv.,477 n Tim. i.478 And therefore 477

i TIM. iv: [14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.] 478

n TIM. i: [6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.]

his vocation was ordinary and needed no such confirmation by miracle. C A R T W R I G H T (R): N O W again, if there should be any evangelist, who should ordain him? You will say the bishop, but I say that cannot be that the greater should be ordained of the less,479 for the evangelist is a higher degree in the church than M

HEB. vii: 7. [And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.]

is the bishop or pastor. And if he be so, why hath he not his estimation here in the church above the bishop or archbishop either, for the archbishop is but a bishop? Or why doth he not ordain bishops as Timothy and Titus did, which were evangelists, being one point of their office. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : You do but try my patience in so often offending in "the petition of the principle." For neither can you prove an evangelist to be a higher degree in the church than is a bishop, neither is it true that Timothy and Titus were evangelists and not bishops, and in that point have you all the writers both old and new, stories and other, one or two only excepted, flatly against you besides the evident reasons that may be collected out of the Scripture. I know not to what purpose you quote the vii. to the Hebrews, except it be for this text, "The less is blessed of the greater"; in which place blessing is not taken for ordaining or consecrating, for Melchizedec did no such thing to Abraham. But it is there taken as it is Num. vi., where the priests are commanded to bless the people,480 and therefore serveth not your turn for any480

NUM. vi: [22. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

T h e Government of the Church

413

23. Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, O n this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, 24. T h e Lord bless thee, and keep thee.]

thing here spoken. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR.): He answereth that "it cannot be proved that an evangelist is of higher degree than a bishop." If St. Paul's authority be not sufficient, which, setting the ministries of the Word so precisely in order, preferreth the evangelist and prophet unto the pastor or bishop 481 . . . yet the Doctor 481

EPHES. iv:

1 1 . [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and

some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.]

himself will help us, which, in appointing the gifts of prophets and evangelists greater than those of the bishop, proveth that he here denieth. . . . Therefore the absurdity remaineth still that the bishop being an inferior minister taketh upon him to make ministers which are above him. He saith that "the vii. of the Hebrews maketh not for me because blessing is not there taken for consecration to the ministry." Yet the reason is all one, for as the apostle proveth that Melchizedec was greater than Abraham because he was the minister of God to pronounce the blessing upon him in the name and authority of the Lord, so he that ordaineth, being a public minister of God to pronounce his assistance towards him that is to be admitted, ought by the same reason to be greater than he. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : Where the pastor doing his duty cannot suffice, there the Scripture hath given him an aid of the doctor, which for because his office consisteth in teaching doctrine to this end that the pastor might not be driven to spend so much time in propounding the doctrine but might have the more time to employ in exhorting and dehorting and applying of the doctrine to the times and places and persons, it is manifest that he also is tied to a certain church. For how could he be an aid unto the pastor to whose help he is given unless he were in the same church where the pastor is? . . . And Ambrose saith that there be no apostles but those which Christ himself did appoint; whereby it appeareth that of all the ecclesiastical functions that preach the Word there are but the pastor and

414

T h e Admonition Controversy

doctor only left unto us, and the same also restrained to particular charges. . . . WHITGIFT (D): But what Scripture have you to prove that "the doctor" is added to "the pastor" as "an aid" or that the doctor is tied to a certain place? You have no licence to coin new Scriptures, and in the old I am sure you cannot find it. As for your bare word, it is but a very bare proof. . . . Hierome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Musculus, and divers other upon good reason confound "pastor" and "doctor" and think them to be but diverse names of one office. And whereas you say that "the doctor's office consisteth in teaching doctrine to this end that the pastor might not be driven to spend so much time in propounding the doctrine, &c.," I would gladly know whence you learn that. . . . 3. T H E P L A C E OF T H E CIVIL MAGISTRATE IN T H E ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY ADMONITION : To these three jointly, that is, the ministers, seniors, and deacons, is the whole regiment of the church to be committed. WHITGIFT (¿4): This is only by you set down without proof; therefore I will hear your reasons before I make you answer. In the meantime, I pray you, what authority in these matters do you give to the civil magistrate? Methink I hear you whisper that the prince hath no authority in ecclesiastical matters. I know it is a received opinion among some of you. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Because he meaneth hereby to lay a bait to entrap withal, thinking that where he maketh no conscience to give he careth not what authority to princes we will be loth to give more than the Word of God will permit; whereby he hopeth to draw us into displeasure with the prince; yet, for because he shall understand we nourish no opinions secretly which we are ashamed to declare openly and for that we doubt not of the equity of the prince in this part, which knoweth that although her authority be the greatest in the earth, yet it is not infinite but it is limited by the Word of God, and of whom we are persuaded that, as her majesty knoweth, so she will not un-

The Government of the Church

415

willingly hear the truth in this behalf — these things, I say, being considered, I answer in the name of the authors of the Admonition and those some other which you speak of that the prince and civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of G o d touching his worship and touching all matters and orders of the church be executed and duly observed and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed and to punish those w h i c h fail in their office accordingly. A s for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the church, they do, where there is a constituted and ordered church, pertain unto the ministers of the church and to the ecclesiastical governors; and that as they meddle not with the making of civil laws and laws for the commonwealth, so the civil magistrate hath not to ordain ceremonies pertaining to the church; but if those to w h o m that doth appertain make any orders not meet, the magistrate m a y and ought to hinder them and drive them to better forsomuch as the civil magistrate hath this charge to see that nothing be done against the glory of G o d in his dominion. . . . T h i s distinction if M . Doctor knoweth not nor hath not heard of, let him look in the Second Book of the Chronicles in the xix. chap, and in the 8. and 11. verses; 482 he shall see that 482 11

CHRON. xix: 8. [Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. . . .] 11. [And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. . . .]

there were a number appointed for the matters of the L o r d w h i c h were priests and Levites and there were other also appointed for the king's affairs and for matters of the commonwealth, amongst which were the Levites, which, being more in number than could be applied to the use of the church, were set over civil causes, being therefore most fit for that they were best learned in the laws of G o d , w h i c h were the politic laws of that country. T h e r e he m a y learn, if it please him, that the making of orders and giving of judgments in civil and ecclesiastical, in

4i6

The Admonition Controversy

commonwealth and church-matters, pertained unto divers persons; which distinction the writer to the Hebrews doth note when he saith that the priest was "ordained in things pertaining to God." 4 8 3 HEB. v: I. [For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.] 483

W H I T G I F T (D): Yes, I both know this distinction and have heard of it, for I have read it in the books of the papists. . . . I have heard also this same place of the n Ghron. xix. alleged to confirm it. . . . But, to let this rest in the consideration of the reader, I will in few words declare that this place maketh flat against you. For who placed those Levites and priests in Jerusalem for the judgment and cause of the Lord? Or who prescribed unto them what they should do? Or who gave to them that authority? Did not Jehoshaphat? The text is plain. Jehoshaphat had chief authority and government both in things pertaining to God and in things pertaining to the comonwealth; but for better execution of them the one he did commit to be executed by Amariah the priest, the other by Zabadiah a ruler of the house of Judah even as the Queen's majesty, being supreme governor in all causes, both ecclesiastical and temporal, committeth the hearing and judging of ecclesiastical matters to the archbishops and bishops and temporal matters to the lord chancellor and other judges; neither can you any more conclude that Jehoshaphat had no authority in ecclesiastical causes because he made Amariah the priest judge in the same than you can that he had nothing to do in temporal affairs because he appointed also Zabadiah to hear and determine them. For if this reason be good, the Queen of England hath nothing to do with ecclesiastical matters because she hath made the archbishops and bishops judges in them, then is this as good, her majesty hath no authority in civil matters because she hath committed the same to the lord chancellor and other judges. Thus you see how both the papists and you are deceived in one and the selfsame reason. I will but note by the way that the Levites, being ecclesiastical persons, had to do in civil matters, as the words of the

The Government of the Church

417

text verse 11. most manifestly declare. As for your shift of the number of them "being more than could be applied to the use of the church," it is but your own and therefore too simple to answer so plain and direct a place of the Scripture. That in the fifth to the Hebrews is far from the purpose; for the apostle in the same sentence declareth what those "things pertaining to God" be, "even to offer both gifts and sacrifices for him." I think you do not so maliciously report of us as the papists do, that we give to the prince power to minister the sacraments and to preach the Word. If you do not, this place can by no means serve your turn. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): His answer . . . is that "forsomuch as Jehoshaphat the King by his authority committed both ecclesiastical and civil causes, therefore he had power himself of both." Whereunto I reply that he committed not those ecclesiastical matters unto the priests and Levites as those which he might have retained with himself or as a thing in his own discretion but used only his princely authority to put in execution that which the Lord commanded. For it is manifest that the selfsame thing which Jehoshaphat did here was commanded to be done in the Law.484 And if this prove that "the judgment of ecclesias484

D E U T . xvii: 8 .

[If there arise a m a t t e r too h a r d for thee in j u d g m e n t ,

b e t w e e n b l o o d a n d b l o o d , b e t w e e n p l e a a n d p l e a , a n d b e t w e e n stroke a n d stroke, b e i n g matters of controversy w i t h i n

t h y gates: then

shalt

t h o u arise, a n d g e t thee u p into the p l a c e w h i c h the L o r d t h y G o d shall choose.] & c .

tical causes pertaineth to the king because he confirmed by his authority the ecclesiastical judges," it proveth also that both the ordination of ministers and the preaching of the Word belong unto him, considering that this very king is said to have sent forth preachers into all Jewry.485 . . . 485

11 CHRON. xvii:

7. [Also in the third y e a r of his reign h e sent to his

princes, e v e n to B e n h a i l , a n d to O b a d i a h ,

and

to Z e c h a r i a h , a n d

to

N e t h a n e e l a n d to M i c h a i a h , to t e a c h in the cities of J u d a h . ] 8. [ A n d w i t h t h e m h e sent L e v i t e s , e v e n S h e m a i a h , a n d N e t h a n i a h , and

Zebadiah,

Adonijah,

and

and

Asahel,

Tobijah,

and

and

Shemiramoth,

Tobadonijah,

and Jehonathan,

Levites;

and

with

and them

E l i s h a m a a n d J e h o r a m , priests.] 9. [ A n d t h e y t a u g h t in J u d a h , a n d h a d the b o o k of the l a w of the

418

T h e Admonition Controversy

Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.]

T o the place in the Hebrews, that the high priest is appointed over things which appertain unto God, he answereth that "the apostle declareth that those things are to offer gifts, & c . , " which is nothing worth. For the proposition is general whereupon the apostle concludeth so much as served for the present purpose; otherwise you may as well say that it belonged not to the high priest to preach because the apostle mentioneth not that part of his office in that place. . . . That which I said of Levites used to the judgment of civil causes for that they could not all be employed to the ministry, considering that so there should have been almost for every twelve men a Levite, is barely denied, and neither the reason which I brought confuted, neither any of his set down. Whereunto may be added the reason why the Levites not occupied in the church ministry were willingly taken for assistance in civil judgments: which is because they, being better acquainted with the law of God than commonly the rest of the tribes, were consequently better seen in the judicials by which the commonwealth of the Israelites was governed. And that all the Levites were not applied unto the ministry may appear by the example of Banaias, the high priest's son, high constable or general of the host.486 486

1 KINGS to: 4. [And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the host. . . .]

B. T H E

ELECTION

OF

MINISTERS

ADMONITION: The outward marks whereby a true Christian church is known are preaching of the Word purely, ministering of the sacraments sincerely, and ecclesiastical discipline which consisteth in admonition and correcting of faults severely. Touching the first, namely, the ministry of the Word, although it must be confessed that the substance of doctrine by many delivered is sound and good, yet herein it faileth, that neither the ministers thereof are according to God's Word proved, elected, called, or ordained; nor the function in such sort so

The Election of Ministers

419

narrowly looked unto, as of right it ought, and is of necessity required. . . . W H I T G I F T ( ¿ 4 ) : To prove that the Word of God is not preached truly, they reason on this sort: "the ministers of the Word are not according to God's Word proved, elected, called, or ordained; nor the function in such sort so narrowly looked unto, as of right it ought, and is of necessity required"; and therefore the Word of God not truly preached. Here (thanks be to God) they allege not one article of faith or point of doctrine nor one piece of any substance to be otherwise taught and allowed of in this church (for not every man's folly is to be ascribed to the whole church) than by the prescript Word of God may be justified; neither can they. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Where do they reason thus, that the Word of God is not truly preached because the ministers are not rightly proved and elected whenas they have not one word of true preaching? Is it all one to say it is not purely preached and to say it is not truly preached? 487 St. Paul to the Philippians 487

A cavil. [J. W . ]

is glad that the gospel be preached although it be not purely,488 488

PHIL. i: [15. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:] 16. [The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds. 17. But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.] 18. [What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.]

but he would never have been glad that it should have been preached falsely or not truly. . . . Now certainly I will never do that injury unto them as once to go about to purge them of so manifest slanders nor never be brought by the outrage of your speeches to prove that noonday is not midnight; and therefore, as for you, I will set your conscience and you together. The reader I will desire not to think it a strange thing, for it is no other than hath happened to the servants of God even from those which have professed the same

42o

The Admonition Controversy

religion which they did, as it appeareth in the xxxvii. of Jeremy, which was accused of certain of the Israelites that he had conspired with the Babylonians, their mortal enemies, and laid to his charge that he was going to them when he was going to Benjamin. 489 . . . 489

JER. xxxvii: 12. [Then Jeremiah went forth out of Jerusalem to go into the land of Benjamin, to separate himself thence in the midst of the people.] 13. [And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took Jeremiah the prophet, saying, T h o u fallest away to the Chaldeans.] W H I T G I F T (D): I make no great difference betwixt "purely" and "truly"; neither doth it follow that the Word of God is truly preached always when the truth is preached. . . . So that your distinction betwixt "purely" and "truly" is to no purpose. Neither doth St. Paul help you anything at all but is clean contrary unto you, for in the 18. verse of the first chapter to the Philippians these be his words . . . which in the Bible printed at Geneva is thus translated: "What then? Yet Christ is preached all manner ways, whether it be under a pretence or sincerely." So you see that there is no difference made betwixt "sincerely" and "truly." . . . And though the prophet Jeremy were unjustly accused, yet doth not that improve anything that I have said; for they are not the prophet Jeremy, neither in person, office, or cause; neither yet have I accused them unjustly in anything. . . . ADMONITION: In the old church a trial was had both of their ability to instruct and of their godly conversation also.490 . . .

490 A C X S i : 2 j, [Wherefore of these m e n which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22. Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23. A n d they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, w h o was surn a m e d Justus, and Matthias. . . . 26. A n d they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.]

T h e Election of Ministers

421

ACTS vi: 3. [Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.] 1 TIM. Hi: 2. [A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . .] 7. [Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.] 8. [Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.] Trrus i: [5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:] 6. [If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.]

(.¡4): It is true that in the old church trial was had of their ability to instruct and of their godly conversation. But the place in the margent alleged out of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles maketh nothing for that purpose, being therein no mention at all of any trial made either of learning or manners but only of presenting two and of praying and casting of lots. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It maketh for the purpose which is alleged out of the first of the Acts . . . for when St. Peter saith that such a one must be chosen as hath been continually conversant with our Saviour Christ and from the beginning of his preaching until the day wherein he ascended into heaven, he meant nothing else but that such a one should be chosen which was sufficiently instructed and had been continually a scholar of our Saviour Christ and therefore fit to teach and to witness that which they had seen and whose godly conversation was notoriously known. Besides that albeit those two, Matthias and Barsabas, were therefore set up in the midst that the church in the prayer that was made for their election might by seeing them pray the earnestlier for them, yet it was also as much to say that if any could object anything against them, that he should prefer his objection. And whether they were examined or no, the matter is not great; neither when it is said that a trial should be had, it is meant that when the parties are famously known to those which have the right of election, that there should be always necessarily WHITGIFT

422

T h e Admonition Controversy

an apposing and examining. So that the sufficiency of doctrine and holiness of life, for the which cause the trial and examination is commanded, be known and agreed upon by them that chose, it is enough. And so these two, being notoriously known and consented of by the church to be fit men, might happily not be examined, but yet the words of St. Peter declare plainly that in the choice of them there was regard had to both their ability to teach and honesty of conversation. And although there be certain things extraordinary in this election, as that such a one must be chosen which had been conversant with our Saviour Christ and that there were two put up for one place and that it was permitted to lots to cast the apostleship upon one of them two as if the Lord should by the lots from heaven tell who should have it, yet it followeth not to say that the rest of the things that are there used should not be practised in ordinary callings forasmuch they will well agree with them. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): This reply standeth all by conjectures. It is certain that there was no trial had of them because they were sufficiently known, and therefore the text without discretion alleged to prove that there ought " t o be a trial of their ability to instruct, & c . " If it had been quoted to prove that such as were admitted into the function were meet for the same both for their life and doctrine, it had been to some purpose. . . . There was no other cause of presenting them than that which is expressed in the text, and it is presumption to make the Scripture serve to maintain our contentions against the express words and plain meaning. If this be a rule to be followed, it must be followed wholly. For where have you learned to add or take from any law or rule prescribed in God's Word? O r how do ye know that this example must be followed in one thing and not in another? What special revelation have you to make any such dismembering of this action? No doubt this example is extraordinary and not of necessity to be followed. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Whereas you say that "it is certain that there was no trial because they were sufficiently known,"

T h e Election of Ministers

423

first, it appeareth not by any words in the text that they were sufficiently known. And considering that, as it cometh commonly to pass in a persecuted church, there were by all likelihood some lately come to the church, they might be well unknown to them although they were well known to others. Then the question is not whether they were examined or no but whether they were set up to be tried; so that if there were a proffer of trial, although no trial followed, the place is aptly alleged. For albeit they were known to the whole company so that there needed no inquiry into their behaviour or other things which are in the compass of the church to judge of, yet that is no cause why they should not be offered to the examination. . . . Where you say "there was no other cause of presenting them than that which is expressed in the text," tell me what cause is expressed "of presenting them in the congregation." Surely none that I read. Those two which I alleged in my reply are gathered, but none is expressed. So that if there were no other cause of their presenting than that which is expressed, there should be none at all, and that action of the apostles should be to no purpose. . . . I never "learned," nor I do not use, to "add or take away from the Word of God." I expound the Scripture and gather of it, which is not to add. And in saying that something is not to be followed of us, I take nothing away, for I confess it to be so as the story reporteth. And although that part be no example to follow, yet even now and to the end it containeth a profitable doctrine. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): In the sixth of the Acts mention is made of deacons only, whom you will not allow to be ministers of the Word; and therefore this place serveth not your turn. Neither is there anything spoken of any trial, but only they are willed to look out among them seven men of honest report and full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom to be appointed deacons. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): If a trial be necessary in deacons, which is an under office in the church and hath regard but to one part of the church, which is the poor, and is occupied in the distribution of money, much more it ought to be in an office of

424

T h e Admonition Controversy

greater charge which hath respect to the whole church and is occupied in the dispensing of the Holy Word of God. W H I T G I F T (D): T h a t there should "be a trial" of such as are to be admitted to the ministry I think it most convenient . . . but I say that this place of the Acts doth not prove it, both because the office of a deacon by their opinion is altogether distinct from the office of a minister of the Word, the one pertaining to the body, the other to the soul, the one occupied about money, the other in the Word, and also for that there is in that place no mention made of any trial. T h a t place rather proveth that which before was noted Acts i., that such only should be appointed to that office as be known by good experience to be fit for such a function. Tell me one word in that text that signifieth any such "trial" as the Admonition speaketh of. Therefore I say again, as I said before, that such as be well known need no farther "trial," as both that example Acts i. and this also Acts vi. manifestly declareth. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Unto my reason . . . that if an examination be necessary for a deacon it is much more necessary for the minister (against that he said that " t h e vi. of the Acts could not serve to prove anything touching the ministers' election because it was of deacons") he answereth not but passeth by quietly and maketh no words. But his other saying, that "there is no mention made of any trial," he holdeth still for good, asking me "what one word of trial is there." I answer that albeit there be not this word try yet there is that which weighteth as much, for the Greek word look out cannot be severed from a trial. And if St. Luke had but used the simple verb which in our tongue signifieth consider, yet that of itself had force to have led the choosers to a trial of them which were to be chosen. Now, using the compound, thereby he laid upon them a greater necessity and a more careful diligence of trial of them. Where if the apostles had not meant hereby to have called the church to a diligent search and trial of those which were to be chosen, they would have contented themselves to have said " T a k e from amongst you, &c." And although the whole church had knowledge of those which were the fittest to be chosen to that office

T h e Election of Ministers

425

(which is both unlike and almost impossible, seeing there were certain thousands of late added unto the church), yet even those which are well known unto us, when they be to be chosen unto such great charges, are to be inquired into afresh. . . . W H I T G I F T {A): The rule of St. Paul in the 1 Tim. iii. and Tit. i. is to be followed. And the Book of ordering ministers and deacons set forth and allowed by this Church of England requireth that whosoever is to be admitted into the order of the ministry should so be tried, examined, and proved both for learning and life as St. Paul there requireth. Read the Book with indifferency and judgment, and thou canst not but greatly commend it. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But in the end you agree that they should be tried so that now the question standeth only how and by what means, wherein you for your part say that the Book of ordering ministers is a sufficient and good rule. I have read it, and yet I cannot commend it greatly. . . . With what judgment I do disallow it, I leave it to all men to esteem upon these reasons. . . . First, that the examination of his doctrine wholly, and partly of his life, is permitted to one man. . . . And almost there is no office of charge in this realm which lieth in election committed so slightly to any as that upon one man's report of ability all the rest which have interest in the election will give their voices so that, if we were destitute of authority of the Scripture, the very light of reason would shew us a more safe and warier way. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Your first reason is partly grounded upon bare conjectures, or rather common suppositions, that may be supposed in the most perfect government, partly upon the place, Acts i., either not understood or willingly misconstrued, nothing pertaining to the purpose. But first it is untrue that "the examination either of doctrine or life is in this church wholly committed to one man"; for the Book committeth the examination of such as are to be admitted into the ministry not only to the bishop but to the archdeacon also: to the bishop in the beginning of the Book by plain and express words, to the archdeacon because he must present them unto the bishop of his

426

T h e Admonition Controversy

knowledge, which he cannot do truly without diligent examination. But admit it be so, that the examination is committed to one man only: what then? . . . If you respect "the greatness of the charge that is committed to ministers, & c . , " who is better able to consider thereof than the bishop, which both knoweth what such a charge meaneth and hath had himself long experience thereof; to whom also divers several charges do appertain for the which it behoveth him to foresee that there be meet ministers? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR.): What is in the beginning of the Book, because you set it not down and I have not the Book to see, I will leave to everyone to consider. Howbeit the words which I allege out of it where, speaking to the archdeacons, he saith, " T a k e heed that the persons whom you present unto us be apt and meet, & c . , " declare that the bishop passeth his election upon the only examination of his archdeacon. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : But there is greater authority: for St. Luke, in the first of the Acts, sheweth that St. Peter would not take upon him to present two as fit for the place which was void but saith "they did present or set u p " ; whereby appeareth that the examination of their ability was committed to many. T h e same appeareth also in the 6. of the Acts, whenas the apostles will the church wherein there were so excellent personages to "look out seven full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, & c . " They do not there permit the discerning of their wisdom and other gifts to one but to many. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): That in the first of the Acts is nothing for your purpose, for there is no order of election prescribed but an extraordinary calling to an extraordinary office. . . . Neither did the multitude present them but only the apostles. . . . Neither were they examined . . . and therefore that place altogether impertinent. T o that in the sixth of the Acts I have answered sufficiently: it proveth not examination. . . . But, I pray you, answer me this one question. If you will make these two places, Acts i. and Acts vi., rules which we must of necessity follow in electing of ministers, how will you join them together, being in nothing like? For, Acts i., the apostles presented two to the people;

The Election of Ministers

427

Acts vi., the whole multitude did present seven to the apostles. Acts i., they cast lots; Acts vi., they laid on hands. Acts i., they prayed to God to shew whether of the two he had chosen; Acts vi., there is no such thing. Acts i. of two that were presented one was chosen; Acts vi., all were chosen that were presented. So that there is great difference in the two places and therefore no prescript rules for us to follow. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Where the apostles in the first of the Acts go before the rest of the church and direct them, that is the most convenient way for ordinary elections, as that which was both most used in the apostolical elections 491 and which is 491

ACTS i: [no verse given]. ACTS xiii: [no verse given]. ACTS xiv: [no verse given]. ACTS vi: 3. [Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . 5. A n d the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicholas a proselyte of Antioch.]

borne up by apparent reason, which is that they should shew the way to others which are likest to know it best. And whereas the people present first and then the apostles approve after, forasmuch as that rose of a particular occasion which was for that the apostles' dealing was somewhat suspected as not altogether indifferent but too much bending to the poor of their own nation, if the like case should fall, the like remedy may be used, beside that that election of the deacons might be more safely committed unto the people than that of the pastors, the people being more able to judge of their ability in disposing of the money than of the knowledge required for the preaching of the Word. The casting of the lots, forsomuch as it was to this end that the election of an apostle should be immediately from God and not by any man's voice, that consideration ceasing, the lot also in ecclesiastical elections (howsoever it seemeth otherwise to some) ought to die. In the vi. of the Acts the imposition of hands, being used in all elections by the church and having a profitable advertisement that he which is ordained is set apart from the

428

T h e Admonition Controversy

rest for the service of the church and that from thenceforth he must not serve himself and his but the church and containing also an assurance of the Lord's hand and help always ready in assisting of him, must needs be holden still for ordinary to be used in all elections. The prayer before the lot in the i. of the Acts, being expressedly used in all elections and being now by so much more necessary than it was then as the ability is less now in the choosers than it was then, must needs be thought a pattern to frame our elections by. And where you say "there was no such thing as prayer in the vi. of the Acts," it is a token you have little truth in you, which will deny that which is expressed manifestly in the text, for although St. Luke doth not declare what were the words they used, yet there being prayer made for them, there was "such a thing." 492 That in the i. Acts two were presented for one ACTS vi: 6. [Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.]

492

office, that was that way might be made to the divine election by lot. That one only was taken was because there was but one place void. That in the vi. of the Acts seven were presented was because the church was thought to have need of so many for the provision of their poor. That all were ordained was for that the apostles liked well of them all. . . . To those which are blear-eyed one light seemeth two, and therefore to M. Doctor, which hath the eyesight of his mind scattered, they seem to differ which agree well together. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Secondarily, I cannot commend it for that that one man is the archdeacon, which must examine the pastors and judge of their sufficiency. . . . For he, being the chief deacon, must needs be also a deacon himself and therefore, although the chief deacon, yet inferior to any of the pastors, and the gifts which are required in him inferior to those which are required in the pastor.493 . . . 433

1 TIM. iii: [no verse given],

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Do you think that because he is "inferior to the pastors and the gifts required in him inferior to those which are required of the pastors," therefore he is not meet to

T h e Election of Ministers

429

e x a m i n e the pastor a n d to j u d g e of his aptness? W h a t greater a r g u m e n t c a n be used against yourself? F o r if this be true, h o w c a n the people e x a m i n e the pastors or j u d g e of their aptness, b e i n g far inferior to deacons in respect of their office and in gifts not like u n t o them? O r h o w c a n y o u a d m i t y o u r seniors to the e x a m i n a t i o n or allowing of them, not only b e i n g inferior in office and calling b u t in gifts also, y e a , the most of t h e m r u d e and ignorant, for such seniors y o u must of necessity h a v e if y o u will h a v e any? Surely I m a r v e l that y o u h a v e so m u c h forgotten yourself. A d e a c o n is superior to the people, y e a , to y o u r seniors (though y o u d e n y it) and m o r e gifts required in h i m than in b o t h the other, 1 T i m . iii. . . . F u r t h e r m o r e , if none must e x a m i n e and j u d g e of the pastor b u t such as be superior or, at the least, e q u a l unto h i m and such in w h o m m o r e or as m a n y gifts are required, then truly I see not to w h o m this office m a y more orderly or safely be c o m m i t t e d than to the bishop, w h o is superior to the pastor b o t h in office and also in gifts. I t is not true that the Book c o m m i t t e t h the examination of ministers only to the archdeacons, or especially: it is otherwise in the beginning of the Book in plain words. Y o u r reason w h e r e b y y o u w o u l d prove an a r c h d e a c o n to be only a d e a c o n is no reason at all. F o r w h a t sequel is there in this a r g u m e n t : an " a r c h d e a c o n is the chief d e a c o n ' ' ; ergo, he is only a d e a c o n , as t h o u g h y o u were ignorant of the state of our c h u r c h a n d k n e w not that archdeacons m a y b e also ministers of the word? C A R T W R I G H T (R): T h i r d l y , I mislike the Book because it permitteth that the bishop m a y a d m i t the minister u p o n the credit and report of the a r c h d e a c o n and u p o n his e x a m i n a t i o n if there be no opposition of the people. . . . W h e r e c a n he h a v e that full persuasion that he d o t h well u p o n the report of others w h e n the report of his life and learning is m a d e b u t of one? A n d therefore St. P a u l ordained that the same should be the ordainers and the examiners and not to h a n g u p o n the faith or report of another m a n in things that are so w e i g h t y and whereof he m a y himself take notice. 494 . . . 494

1 TIM. iii:

[10. A n d let these also first be proved; then let them use the

office of a deacon, being found blameless. (Verse identified from reference in Second replie, p. 144)]

430

T h e Admonition Controversy

W H I T G I F T (D): Paul, I Tim. iii., declareth what qualities and conditions a bishop ought to have. But can you gather of anything there written that "the same should be the ordainers and examiners"? It is most meet it should so be I grant, but yet would I not have the Scriptures made shipmen's hose to serve our turns as it pleaseth us to turn them lest we fall into that fault ourselves which we justly reprove in the papists. But still you are contrary to yourself; for if "the same must be the ordainers and the examiners," then must the bishops of necessity be "the examiners"; for you cannot deny but that the bishops must be "the ordainers." And if you will have i Tim. iii. to serve your purpose, then must you of force confess it; for there St. Paul writeth to Timothy, being a bishop and but one man; so that this reason is directly against the first. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): For the place whereof it is said " I make shipman's hose," it shall be seen how truly you have spoken. For the declaration whereof I take the i o. verse of that chapter. For when St. Paul saith, "Let them first be tried and then minister," it is as much as he should say that he should not apply them to the ministry before they were tried. Whereupon I conclude that if that place command Timothy that he should not apply any to the ministry before trial, the same implieth that he should try them. Forsomuch as any other man's trial without his own is no trial whereupon he might proceed to the applying of them to the ministry, especially considering that otherwise he should offend against that which he forbiddeth in another place of sudden laying on of hartds.495 And if it be said I TIM. v: 22. [Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.]

M

that it is to be understanded of the deacons, the answer is that if he command that of the deacons' election, much more he requireth it in the bishops. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Fourthly, for that albeit the church is demanded whether they have any thing to object, yet that church whereof he is to be pastor and which it skilleth especially that he be fit is not demanded and which would, because it standeth them upon, inquire diligently of him.

T h e Election of Ministers

431

W H I T G I F T (D): And how would you have "that church whereof he is to be pastor demanded whether they have anything to object against him?" Would you have everyone that is to be minister first go and dwell among them that they might have trial of him? Indeed, so did Matthias and Barsabas among the apostles and the seven among them by whom they were chosen deacons. But how long shall he then remain among them? For it had need be a good time; else shall they not throughly know him nor then neither; for he may play the hypocrite. But who shall in the meantime bear his charges there and find him? For a number of parishes in England be not able sufficiently to find one, much less more. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Now by the letters commendatory of some one man, noble or other, tag and rag, learned and unlearned, of the basest sort of the people 496 (to the slander of the gospel 496

1 KINGS xii:

31. [And he made an house of high places, and made

priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.]

in the mouths of the adversaries) 497

497

are freely received. . . .

ROM. it: 24. [For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles

through you, as it is written. (Rom. ii. 14. in the Answere

and the

Defense)]

W H I T G I F T ( . ¡ 4 ) : Touching letters commendatory of some one man noble or other, it may be that the parties which give these letters be of that zeal, learning, and godliness that their particular testimony ought to be better credited than some other subscribed with an hundred hands. . . . I know no reason to the contrary, and I see no Scripture alleged why one learned, godly, and wise man's testimony may not be received in such a case; and yet the Book expresseth no such thing but requireth due examination of learning and sufficient testimonial of conversation and giveth liberty to any one particular man to object any crime against any such as are to be ordered and willeth that the party accused be kept from the ministry until he have cleared himself of the crimes objected. If "tag and rag" be admitted, "learned and unlearned," it is the fault of some, not of all, nor of the law; and if they were called and elected according to your fantasy, there would some creep in as evil as any be now, and worse too. . . .

432

T h e Admonition Controversy

Where you think that the testimony of one wise man, learned and godly, is sufficient warrant to proceed to an election of a minister, you considered not well the circumspection which St. Paul used, who, when he admitted Timothy into his company to be a companion in his journey, to cut off all occasion of evil speech, received him not but upon commendation of the brethren both in Lystra and Iconium.498 . . . CARTWRIGHT

(R):

498

ACTS xvi: 2. [Which (Timothy) was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.]

3. [Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.]

W H I T G I F T (Z)): The place of Paul and Timothy, Acts xvi., declareth how well Timothy was thought of and commended unto Paul, but it followeth not that Paul would not also have received him if he had been commended unto him but by some one. . . . Neither is the text as you report it; for the words do not signify that Paul would not have taken him with him unless they had all given such testimony of him; neither can there be any such sense truly gathered out of that place. And it is manifest that the apostles received Paul into their company at the testimony and commendation of Barnabas only.499 . . . 499 A C T S ¡x: [26. A n d when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.]

C A R T W R I G H T ( S R ) : You say that "the xvi. Acts sheweth how well Timothy was thought of" —a noble interpretation. This is always your fashion, either to corrupt the places of the Scripture or else to tell that which no man doubteth of. But for what cause doth St. Luke tell that he was so well thought of? Doth he not shew in the next verse to be the same which I have alleged? . . . I do not say that St. Paul would not have received him unless that every singular person had given testimony unto him, which was in those places. But I shewed how circumspect

T h e Election of Ministers

433

St. Paul was in taking any into any part of the ministry and how it is not to be thought that he would have upon the testimony of one proceeded unto any election, seeing that in one which he himself was not ignorant what he was, to avoid the evil speech of some, he was careful to have the testimony of the church. As "it cannot be proved that he would not have received him if all had not consented thereto," so may it easily be shewed that if the most part had not liked of him he would not have taken him. For besides that it was against St. Paul's manner to do anything of his own private authority in the church of God, it had not been advisedly done to have procured the testimony of the church for the admitting of him into his company if, the church not consenting, he would have taken him, for that would have bred a great flame of displeasure between the church and St. Paul and should have been always shot in the mouth of the adversaries against the authority of Timothy's ministry, yea, of Paul's also, unto whom he was joined, for that he had received one disapproved of the Christians themselves, all which he might (by your judgment) easily have avoided if either he would have rested in his own knowledge of him or else have addressed himself to someone for his testimony and not to have hazarded the alienation of the church by committing the allowance of Timothy unto their testimonial. . . . I would ask him how he proveth that which he saith is manifest, for it is not expressed there that "they received him upon Barnabas' report." . . . For it is said he was received, but that he was "out of hand received" or " a t Barnabas' report" it is not expressed. And if I would walk his way, I could answer that it might be that they first inquired of the truth of those things which Barnabas testified before they received him. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): You say that there be admitted into the ministry of "the basest sort of the people." I know not what you mean by "the basest sort." This I am sure of, that the ministry is not now bound to any one tribe as it was to the tribe of Levi in Jeroboam's time. Now none is secluded from that function of any degree, state, or calling so that those qualities be found in him which in that office are to be required. . . .

434

The Admonition Controversy

I marvel to what purpose the twelfth chapter of the First Book of Kings is here quoted; for Jeroboam is there reproved because he took the priesthood from the tribe of Levi, to the which only it did appertain. . . . The second chapter to the Romans is here quoted only to paint the margent. W H I T G I F T (D): All this is passed over in silence. A D M O N I T I O N : In those days no idolatrous sacrificers or heathenish priests were appointed to be preachers of the gospel; 600 but we allow and like well of popish mass-mongers, men 601 HEB. v: 4. [And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.] EZEK. xliv: 10. [And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. . . .] 12. [Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity; therefore have I lifted up mine hand against them, saith the Lord God, and they shall bear their iniquity.] 13. [And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed.] JER. xxin: [no verse given].

for all seasons, King Henry's priests, King Edward's priests, Queen Mary's priests, who of a truth, if God's Word were precisely followed, should from the same be utterly removed. W H I T G I F T (¿4): The place in the fifth chapter of the Hebrews quoted in the margent speaketh nothing of idolatrous sacrificers or heathenish priests but only by the example of Aaron proveth that no man ought to intrude himself into the office of a bishop or priest except he be called of God. Lord, how dare these men thus wring the Scriptures? In the xxiii. of the prophet Jeremy there is much spoken against false prophets but not one word, for anything that I see, to prove that idolatrous sacrificers may not be admitted to preach the gospel. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : T o this nothing answered. W H I T G I F T {A): The places of the xliv. of Ezekiel have some shew in them, for there the Lord commandeth the Levites which had committed idolatry to be put from their dignity and

The Election of Ministers

435

not to be received into the priests' office but to serve in inferior ministries. I think you will not make this a general rule, to debar such from preaching of the gospel as have through infirmity fallen and be now with hearty repentance returned. We have many examples to the contrary. Peter forswore his Master Christ, which was as evil as sacrificing to idols, and yet he was not put from his apostleship. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): What ought to be general if this ought not, to put the minister that hath been an idolater from his ministry? Is it not a commandment of God and given, not of one Levite or two but of all those that went back, not at one time but at others also when the like occasion was given, as appeareth in the Book of Kings when all the priests of the Lord that had sacrificed in the high places were not suffered to come to the altar in Jerusalem? 501 Doth not St. Paul make smaller 601

II KINGS xxiii: g. [Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, but they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren.]

causes of deposing from the ministry than idolatry? For after he hath described what manner of men the ministers should be and deacons, he addeth, "And, being tried, let them execute their functions as long as they remain blameless." 602 I think if 602 i TIM. Hi: [io. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.]

so be a man had been known to be an adulterer, although he repented him, yet none that is well advised would take him into the ministry. For if St. Paul reject him that had two wives at once, which was a thing that the Jews and gentiles thought lawful and that was common amongst them and had prevailed throughout all the world, how much less would he suffer any to be admitted to the ministry which should be an adulterer, and have another man's wife, which is condemned of all that profess the name of Christ and which is not so general a mischief as that was, and suffer him to abide in the ministry which should commit such wickedness during his function? And likewise of a murderer! Now the sin of idolatry is greater and more detestable than any

436

The Admonition Controversy

of them inasmuch as, pertaining to the first table, it immediately staineth God's honour and breaketh duty to him unto w h o m w e more owe it (without all comparison) than to any mortal man. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : It ["the place xliv. Ezek. touching idolatrous sacrificers" — marg. note] is not such a commandment as must of necessity be perpetually kept and m a d e a general rule forever, for it pertaineth to the judicial law which is not perpetual. . . . D o not the circumstances of the place best declare the meaning of it? T h e like also is to be said to that example, 11 Regum xxiii. T h e place of St. Paul, 1 T i m . iii., is untruly by y o u alleged and corruptly translated; for the words of the apostle be not as you report them, " a n d , being tried, let them execute their functions as long as they remain blameless." But thus the apostle saith, " A n d let them first be proved, then let them minister being blameless" . . . that is, if in trial they be found blameless, then let them minister. For trial may be had whether they be blameless or no but not whether they will so " r e m a i n . " M o r e over, the apostle in that place speaketh of deacons and not of ministers. I marvel w h a t y o u mean so manifestly to falsify the words of the Scripture or to w h a t purpose y o u have invented this new translation except it be to justify that error of the anabaptists that the virtue of the W o r d and of the sacraments doth depend upon the good life of the minister. Certain it is that y o u have neither Greek, Latin, nor English text that doth so translate it. Neither doth the apostle St. Paul there speak of deposing ministers or deacons but of electing them, as it is manifest. I doubt not but that a whoremonger, after he hath repented him if other things be correspondent, m a y be admitted to the ministry even as well as Peter after his denial was admitted to be an apostle or Paul after that he had been a persecutor. . . . St. Paul knew of divers wicked and ungodly preachers in the church of Philippi, yet did he not will their ministry to be taken from them but shewed himself to be very glad for their labour and travail taken in preaching the gospel. Phil, i.603 603

PHIL. i: [15. S o m e indeed p r e a c h Christ even of e n v y and strife; and

some also of g o o d will:

The Election of Ministers

437

16. T h e one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to m y bonds: 17. But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.]

True it is that idolatry is an horrible and great sin; yet doth repentance stretch unto it, which so altereth and changeth a man through the mercy of God, be he never so defiled, that it maketh him pure and clean. And shall we seclude him from ministering unto God that is pure in the sight of God? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Touching the interpretation of the words of the apostle, that the ministers being tried should execute their functions as long as they continue unblameable, I took the sense which was fit for my cause and neither against the scope of the apostle nor any grammar construction. Y o u say the Greek is "if in trial they be found blameless." . . . I grant that sense true. But why may not this also be joined, seeing both the words and scope of the apostle will bear both? . . . Forasmuch as it most justly concluded that if the ministers must be blameless before they come to the ministry, they ought much more so to be in the execution of it, considering his falls in execution of his ministry are more dangerous to the church than those before. . . . And where you say that "it is spoken in that place of deacons," it is much more of bishops. And if a deacon falling away from the truth ought to be put from the charge or honor which he had in the church, much more a bishop. But I nothing doubt but that the apostle referred this sentence unto both a bishop and deacon. For having before spoken of them both apart, he doth here join them together in that which is common to them, yea, belonging rather to the bishop than to the deacon. And it is as much as if the apostle should say, " I have set before thine eyes what be the qualities both of the bishop and deacon; look now none be permitted to come unto these offices which have not been tried before." And that this is so, it may appear for that the next verse, which is touching the qualities of wives, is not only a description what wives the deacons, but what wives also the bishops, should have.604 . . . Again, if the 10. and 11. 604 [1 TIM. Hi: 11. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

438

The Admonition Controversy

12. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.]

verses h a d been to b e understanded of the deacons' trial and their wives' only, St. P a u l w o u l d not h a v e b e g u n his 12. verse as he did b y a repetition of the n a m e of deacons. . . . A n d as for the " w i c k e d preachers in the c h u r c h of P h i l i p p o s , " first, y o u are greatly abused, for a l t h o u g h he write u n t o the Philippians, yet these preachers he there speaketh of w e r e in the C h u r c h of R o m e and not in the C h u r c h of Philip. A n d then if I should ask y o u h o w y o u k n o w that " h e did not will their ministry to be taken f r o m t h e m , " y o u r o w n m o u t h c o n d e m n e t h y o u , for b y y o u r rule it is presumption to speak a n y t h i n g that the H o l y Ghost h a t h not expressed. A n d it is not only not expressed, b u t it cannot be gathered. . . . WHITGIFT (A): G o d in that place of the prophet Ezekiel sheweth h o w grievous a sin idolatry is especially in the priests, b u t he prescribeth no general rule of secluding t h e m f r o m their ministry if they, falling, afterward repent. . . . Besides this, there is a great difference b e t w i x t the severity of the L a w and the lenity of the gospel, b e t w i x t the external regiment of the c h u r c h before Christ and the c h u r c h after Christ; neither c a n y o u m a k e the one in all points correspondent to the other; likewise b e t w i x t the declining of those priests, w h i c h was w h o l l y f r o m G o d to gentility, and the falling of ours to papistry, w h i c h confesseth the same articles of faith that w e do, a l t h o u g h not sincerely. It is one thing w h o l l y to worship false gods, another thing to worship the true G o d falsely and superstitiously. B u t a m o n g all other things I w o u l d gladly k n o w wherein K i n g E d w a r d ' s priests h a v e offended you. It is h a p p y y o u let Q u e e n Elizabeth's priests alone. I m a r v e l whose priests y o u are. CARTWRIGHT (R): W h e r e a s y o u say " t h e r e is a great difference between the severity of the L a w and lenity of the gospel," methinks I smell a spice of the error of the M a n i c h e e s . . . that there is a good and an evil, a gentle and a severe G o d , one u n d e r the L a w , and another under the gospel. . . . A t this time I will content m e w i t h the place of Z a c h a r y , w h i c h , prophesying of the k i n g d o m of Christ and of the time

T h e Election of Ministers

439

of the gospel, saith that then the father and mother of the false prophet shall cause their own son to be put to death.505 606

ZECH. xHi: 3. [And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet

prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, T h o u shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.]

W H I T G I F T (D): M y opinion touching "the severity of the Law and lenity of the gospel" is farther from "the error of the Manichees" than yours is from the Turks or Jews. I know God is as "severe a punisher of sin now as he was then," but the manner and kind of corporally punishing it is not the same now that it was then. . . . T h e place of Zachary doth not make for your purpose except you will give to the parents power of life and death over their sons and daughters and give liberty for one private man to kill another. T h e prophet in that place declareth what zeal shall be in the people against false prophets and how much they shall prefer the true religion of God before their own natural affection and rather forsake their children, yea, hate them and kill them than by their means they should be withdrawn from God. This is the true meaning of that place if you will refer it to the time of the gospel. . . . But would you indeed conclude of this place that those which have taught false doctrine must of necessity " b e put to death" though they repent, yea, that their own parents and friends must kill them or cause them to be killed and not rather receive them willingly, if they will convert, and embrace them most joyfully? Undoubtedly the prophet hath no such meaning; neither have you any example of such extremity committed by a true Christian towards a repentant idolater from the nativity of Christ unto this hour; neither is there anything in the whole New Testament whereby any such fact can be warranted. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): I concluded only of that place of Zachary (against your fond distinction) that the same severity of punishment that was used against false prophets then ought to be used now under the gospel against false teachers, comparing

440

The Admonition Controversy

one person and circumstance with another, as he that hath fallen away from God and gone about to draw others away to be handled according to the law prescribed in that chapter xiii. of Deuteronomy. If this be "bloody and extreme," I am content to be so counted with the Holy Ghost. . . . 606 A D M O N I T I O N : Then they taught others; now they must 506

1 TIM. iv: 1 1 . [These things command and teach.]

be instructed themselves, and therefore like young children they must learn catechisms. . . . W H I T G I F T ( A ) : That place of the fourth chapter of the First of Timothy doth not forbid a man to learn. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then election was made by the common consent of the whole church.607 . . . 607 ACTS i: Q6. [And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.]

W H I T G I F T (A): To prove that the election was then made by the common consent of the whole church, you quote the first of the Acts. I told you before Master Calvin's judgment of that place: there is no mention of electing by any common consent. And in the place by you quoted, which is the 26. verse, it is declared how they gave forth their lots and that the lot fell on Matthias and that he was by a common consent counted with the eleven apostles: here is no mention of any election. But when he was extraordinarily, through God's providence, by lot appointed, then they all counted him and esteemed him as one of the apostles; whereas before, some of them would have had Barsabas. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then the congregation had authority to call ministers.508 . . . ACTS vi: 2. [Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we m a y appoint over this business.]

T o prove that the congregation had then authority to call ministers, you allege the sixth of the Acts. . . . WHITGIFT ( A ) :

T h e Election of Ministers

441

It speaketh not of ministers of the Word but of deacons, which were appointed to make provision for the poor only (as you say); neither did the multitude of the disciples (for so they be called) elect them before they were willed so to do by the twelve apostles. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Then no minister placed in any congregation but by the consent of the people.609 ACTS xiv: 23. [And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.] N COR. viii: 19. [And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind.] 609

W H I T G I F T (A): T o prove that no minister was placed in any congregation but by the consent of the people, you allege the xiv. of the Acts and of the 11. to the Corinthians, the eighth chapter. In the xiv. of the Acts, verse 23 . . . it is thus written: " W h e n they (that is, Paul and Barnabas) had ordained them elders by election (for so is some translation) in every church and prayed and fasted, & c . " T h e text is plain that Paul and Barnabas did ordain them elders. C A R T W R I G H T (R): Unto these places of the first and sixth of the Acts is added, first, the place of the fourteenth of the Acts . . . against which Master Doctor taketh three exceptions. T h e first is for that it is said that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders, whereby he would conclude that the congregations had nothing to do. But how slender a reason that is, it may be considered of infinite places in the Scripture whereof I will recite two or three. In the fifth chapter of Joshua it is said that "Joshua made him sharp knives for the circumcising of the children of Israel" and, a little afterwards, that "Joshua circumcised them." 610 Shall we JOSHUA v: 3. [And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.] 510

now upon these words conclude that Joshua did make the knives himself or was a cutler or, being made to his hand, did whet them and sharpen them? O r shall we say that he did circumcise the children of Israel in his own person and himself alone whenas that was done by many and by the Levites to whom that office

442

The Admonition Controversy

appertained? No, but the Scripture declareth that Joshua procured sharp knives to be made and exhorted and commanded the people to be circumcised. In the eighteenth of Exodus it is said that "Moses did appoint unto the people princes, captains over thousands and hundreds, & c . " 6 1 1 And if any conclude thereupon that he did it himself 611

EXOD. xviii: 25. [And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.]

alone, he is by and by confuted by that which is written in Deuteronomy, where it appeareth that the people did choose them and presented them to Moses. 512 What is it then that is 612

DEUT. i: 1 5 . [So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. (Whitgift in his Defense adds verse 15., which Cartwright in the second edition of his Replye changes to 13.: " T a k e you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over y o u . " ) ]

said in Exodus, that Moses appointed them, but that Moses assembled the people and exhorted them to appoint rulers and told them what manner of men they should be and, in a word, sat as it were moderator in that election? T o come to the New Testament. In the Acts it is said that Paul and Timothy delivered unto the churches the orders and decrees of the apostles and elders, 513 and yet it appeareth in 613

ACTS xvi: 4. [And as they (Paul and Timothy) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.]

another place that the church had also to do and gave their consent unto the making of those decrees,514 so that the former 611 ACTS xv: 2 3 . [And they wrote letters by them after this manner; T h e apostles and elders and brethren send greetings unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.]

place meaneth that the apostles and elders did go before and were the chief and directors of that action. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : Those places of Scripture that you recite may prove that there are such manner of speeches in the Scrip-

The Election of Ministers

443

ture, but they prove not that this is such, and therefore you have in vain rehearsed them. The example of Joshua is far from proving this phrase to be such, for you affirm that Joshua "is said to make sharp knives and to circumcide only because he procured sharp knives to be made and commanded the people to be circumcided and not because he himself did sharpen the knives or circumcide in his own person." But it is certain that Paul and Barnabas had to do in this action and did themselves, in their own persons, ordain ministers and not command others to ordain them. Wherefore the manner of speech cannot be like except you will expound this place thus: Paul and Barnabas ordained them elders, that is, commanded the people to choose them elders, which interpretation were strange for this place and unheard of before. That in the first of Deuteronomy doth not directly prove that Moses alone did not appoint those magistrates. For although he willed the people to bring unto him "men of wisdom and of understanding, &c.," yet it followeth not that they did so, but it rather appeareth that they committed the choice of them wholly to him; for after, in the fifteenth verse of the same chapter, he saith, "So I took the chief of your tribes, wise and known men, and made them rulers, &c." 615 Manifest it is that whether 516

DEUT. i: 15. [So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known,

and m a d e them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.]

the people named any unto him or no, he appointed them and gave them their authority, so that the manner of speech is proper and without any trope or figure. . . . In the fifteenth of the Acts, verse 22. and 23., there appeareth that the whole church together with the apostles and elders did send certain chosen men of their own company to Antiochia with Paul and Barnabas, &c., and wrote letters by them containing these decrees,616 whereunto though the people sub616

[ACTS xv: 22. T h e n pleased it the aposdes and elders, w i t h the whole

church, to send chosen men of their o w n c o m p a n y to A n t i o c h with Paul

444

T h e Admonition Controversy

and B a r n a b a s ; n a m e l y , J u d a s surnamed Barsabas, a n d Silas, chief m e n a m o n g the brethren: 23. A n d they w r o t e letters b y t h e m after this m a n n e r ; T h e apostles and elders and brethren send greeting u n t o the brethren w h i c h are of the Gentiles in A n t i o c h a n d Syria a n d Cilicia.]

scribed "and gave their consent," yet it followeth not but that the apostles and elders made them, as it also appeareth, verse 2. and 6. of the same chapter.617 Everyone that consenteth to 617

[ACTS xv: 2. W h e n therefore P a u l a n d B a r n a b a s h a d n o small dissen-

sion and disputation w i t h them, they determined t h a t P a u l a n d Barnabas, a n d certain other of t h e m , should g o u p to J e r u s a l e m u n t o the aposdes and elders a b o u t this question. . . . 6. A n d the apostles a n d elders c a m e together for to consider of this matter.]

orders and subscribeth unto them doth not therefore make them. Wherefore they may properly be said to be made by the apostles and elders only, though the people allowed well of them and consented to them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): The places which I alleged prove, first, that it is usual in the Scripture to ascribe that to the principal in an action which is common to them with other; then, that although St. Luke had made no mention of the election of the church but only said that Barnabas and Paul chose, yet thereby could not be concluded that the church had no interest in the election but only this, that Paul and Barnabas were the chief in that action. If that be ascribed unto Josue which he procured only and laid no hand unto, how much more may it be ascribed unto Paul and Barnabas which they both procured and had some doing in? And therefore that example of all is most apt for that wherefore it is alleged. . . . In the 9. verse Moses had bid them choose governors; in the next verse he saith that the people accepted that commandment and thought of it as a thing equal.518 Therefore it is most untrue that they returned it 618

[DEUT. i: 9. A n d I spake unto y o u a t t h a t time, s a y i n g , I a m not a b l e

to bear y o u myself alone. . . . 14. A n d y e answered m e , and said, T h e thing w h i c h thou hast spoken is g o o d for us to do.]

into Moses' hands again, for then they would have answered that it was not meet for him to commit the election unto them but

T h e Election of Ministers

445

rather for the wisdom wherein he excelled to do it himself. . . . Those verses of the 22. and 23. of the xv. Acts, which you allege, shew who bore the sway in the making of that decree. But yet in that the letters were written in the churches and not only in the apostles' and elders' names 619 and for that the decree 619

[ACTS XV:"\ 23. [ A n d they w r o t e letters b y t h e m after this m a n n e r : T h e

apostles a n d elders a n d brethren send greeting u n t o the brethren w h i c h are of the Gentiles in A n t i o c h and Syria a n d Cilicia.]

is ascribed unto them by whom the letters are subscribed,620 it 620

[ACTS XV:~\ 25. [It seemed g o o d u n t o us, b e i n g assembled w i t h

one

accord, to send chosen m e n u n t o y o u w i t h our beloved B a r n a b a s and Paul.]

is manifest that that consent and subscription of the people occupied some room in that decree. . . . W H I T G I F T (4): In the Second to the Corinthians, viii., the apostle declareth how the churches had chosen Luke or, as some think, Barnabas to be his companion in his journey. 521 621

[11 COR. viii: 18. A n d w e h a v e sent w i t h h i m the brother, whose praise

is in the gospel t h r o u g h o u t all the churches; 19. A n d n o t t h a t only, b u t w h o w a s also chosen of the churches to travel w i t h us w i t h this grace, w h i c h is administered b y us to the glory of the same L o r d , and declaration of y o u r r e a d y mind.]

But what maketh this for electing of ministers? How followeth this argument: the churches had chosen Luke or Barnabas to be Paul's companion in his journey; therefore ministers of the Word must be elected by the people? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It followeth very well, for if it were thought meet that St. Paul should not choose himself of his own authority a companion to help him, being an apostle, is there any archbishop that shall dare take upon him to make a minister of the gospel, being so many degrees both in authority and in all gifts needful to discern and try out or take knowledge of a sufficient minister of the gospel inferior to St. Paul? And if St. Paul would have the authority of the church to ordain the minister that should aid him in other places to the

446

T h e Admonition Controversy

building and gathering of other churches, how much more did he think it meet that the churches should choose their own minister which should govern them, and which things may be also said of the election in the first of the Acts! For there the church first chose two, whereof one should be an apostle which should not be minister of that church but should be sent into all the world. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): In the argument there is no sequel at all, for it was very convenient and meet for the avoiding of suspicion of private gain or corrupt dealing that such as should have to do in gathering and distributing alms should be chosen by a common consent, and it is manifest that it was Paul's own request to have them in this business by the consent of the churches joined with him for the stopping of the mouths of such as would otherwise have been ready to suspect Paul's integrity in that money-matter. . . . It is untrue that in the first of the Acts "the church did first choose" those "two" that stood in the election for the apostleship; the apostles only did propound them to the church. . . . Neither were the apostles chosen by men but immediately by God, as all writers confess; which was the cause why Matthias was there chosen by lot and not by the voices of men. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): But I say that in the whole Scripture there is no commandment that it should so be nor any example that maketh therein any necessary or general rule but that it may be altered as time and occasion serveth. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But you say these examples are no general rules. Examples of all the apostles in all churches and in all purer times, uncontrolled and unretracted either by any the primitive and purer churches or by the rule of the Scripture, I think ought to stand. If it were a private example of one or in one place alone or if it were countermanded by any other rule of the Scripture, then the example were not always safe to follow. But what if there be commandment also? In the eighth of the Book of Numbers the Lord commandeth that the Levites, which preached the Word of God to the people in their several congregations, should be brought before the Lord and before the people and the people should lay their

The Election of Ministers hands upon the Levites' heads.

522

447

Which what other thing is it

622

NUM. viii: 10. [And thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites.]

than to declare their liking of them and by that ceremony to consecrate them and set them apart for that use of their ministry? And if you say that it were a disorder that all should lay on their hands, I grant you; but so he speaketh because the approbation was by all, and some in the name of the rest declared that by their laying on of hands. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): You do still petere principium and build upon a false ground, for I deny that you have "examples" either "of all" or of any "of the apostles" or that this kind of election hath been in "all churches" and in "all purer times, &c." And albeit for the proof of this sufficient is said before, yet will I add something now also. All the places of Scriptures that you have hitherto alleged are Acts i., Acts vi., Acts xiv., and n Cor. viii.; which places neither agree in persons that were to be chosen nor in the manner and form of choosing. For the first of the Acts is of an apostle, the vi. of deacons, the xiv. of bishops, and the II Cor. viii. of such as were joined with Paul for the collecting and distributing of alms. All men do grant that the calling and electing of an apostle is immediately from God and therefore doth differ from all other elections of pastors, deacons, &c. But to let this pass, I pray you consider the diverse manner and form used in all these places. In the first of the Acts Peter made an exhortation to the disciples; he appointed out of what company the new apostle should be taken. The apostles presented two. After prayers made, lots were given forth, and the apostle was chosen by lot and not by voice but immediately taken and reputed with the eleven apostles. In the vi. of the Acts the twelve apostles willed the whole multitude to "look out seven men of honest report, &c.," to be deacons, and the whole multitude did choose seven and presented them to the apostles, and the apostles prayed and laid their hands on them. In the xiv. of the Acts Paul and Barnabas ordained ministers in every church with praying and fasting.

448

T h e Admonition Controversy

I n the Second Corinth., eight, at Paul's request the churches appoint certain to be collectors for the poor saints with him. W h i c h of all these examples would you follow? Will y o u name them to the people, or shall the people name them to you? Will y o u have two put up together, and one of them chosen by lot? O r will y o u have the whole people for to choose, and y o u to lay on hands, or will you only have the bishops to choose? T o be short, will you pray only at the election, or will you both pray and fast? O r have y o u any commission to make a mixture of all those examples and so to make one rule whereunto all churches at all times must of necessity be bound? . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): T h e cuckoo is here come again, for look the Doctor's book and y o u shall see either the same words or at least the same matter without any addition. . . . Y o u have it set before you almost all again. T h i s is not coleworts twice, but thrice, sodden. It behooveth that he imagine a great famine of learned writings that dare thus abuse the ears and leisure of his reader. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : It appeareth that you were put to a pinch for a commandment to establish your manner and kind of electing ministers when y o u are constrained to fetch one out of the Book of Numbers, and that nothing at all pertaining to your purpose. For w h a t one word is there in that place that hath any shadow of your election? First, the people there did not elect the Levites. Secondly, they laid their hands upon them, which I a m sure y o u will not have the people to do in the ordaining of bishops for you say that " o n l y elders and ministers used to lay on their hands." So that this place of the Book of Numbers doth command that which y o u will not admit and speaketh not one word of that for the w h i c h y o u do allege it. But tell me in good earnest, will y o u bind us to the observation of the ceremonial law also as y o u have done before to the judicial? For what else is there in that whole chapter but laws touching ceremonies and in that place by you alleged especially? For there he speaketh of the manner of purifying of the Levites and of their offering; he speaketh not of any election. For G o d himself had chosen the Levites before for the first-born of the children of Israel, cap. Hi. I would to G o d men would but indifferently consider how

The Election of Ministers

449

undiscreetly you allege the Scriptures lest you should seem to be void of Scripture. You say "the people by laying on their hands did by that ceremony consecrate them." Would you have the people to consecrate ministers by laying on of hands? Do you not care what absurdities and contrarieties you speak? You make a distinction in that which followeth betwixt "ordaining and electing," and you say that "election pertaineth to the people and ordaining to the bishop" and in another place "that the imposition of hands was not by the church and people but by the elders and ministers." But if this be a "commandment" for us now to observe, then must you recant that saying. I do admit this Scripture as a portion of the ceremonial law, but I do not admit it as a perpetual commandment because I know the ceremonial law is abrogated. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): T O "fetch a commandment out of the Book of Numbers" is to fetch it out of the highest court of heaven. And I was not "constrained" unto it, for of more than half a score reasons brought, whether one of them be once moved by you, I leave it to be judged. . . . If this I have alleged of laying on of hands upon the ordained be a ceremonial law which took end by the coming of our Saviour Christ, then the apostles were injurious unto his death that translated that ceremony from the Jews under the Law into the church under the gospel. . . . Where you would prove it abrogated because "it is joined with other things which are abrogated," I have shewed how that is an engine to wrest out of the hands of the church all the moral laws that ever were written. Where you say "there could be no election of the people in the Levites for that God had chosen them," you might have understanded that although the tribe of Levi only were used to the ministry, yet all that tribe was not applied that ways but as many as were thought enough to supply that office and those also not at all adventure but by choice according to their ability. . . . And the laws of the Levitical priesthood are not only figures of our ministry but oftentimes also rules to direct it by. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): They of the church of God, although they be called sheep in respect of their simplicity and harmlessness, yet are they also for their circumspection wise as serpents

450

T h e Admonition Controversy

in the wisdom especially which is to salvation; and how vile account soever you will make of them, they are the people of God and therefore spiritual and forthwith those of whom St. Paul saith, "The spiritual man discerneth all things." 623 . . . 623

1 COR. ii: 15. [But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself

is judged of no man.] W H I T G I F T ( D ) : In ecclesiastical affairs it is much meeter that such as have knowledge, zeal, and care for the people should place over them a meet and fit pastor than that the choice of him should be committed to the multitude, which is not only for the most part ignorant but careless in such matters, yea, and oftentimes evil disposed and commonly led by affection, as friendship, hatred, fear, &c. I know that Christian men are not called "sheep" because they be void of reason. . . . And God doth at one time or other, if they be his, open his truth unto them and endueth them with the spirit of discerning betwixt true and false doctrine in those things that do pertain to their salvation. But because God doth in his good time open his truth unto them, are they therefore always void of affection and error? Or because some have this spirit of discretion, is it therefore common to all or to the most part? Indeed, if you speak of the invisible church, which is only of the elect, then is it something that you say; but if you speak of the visible church, which is a mixture of good and evil and wherein the evil are the greater number, then hath your saying no probability in it. And why may not the Pope as well reason of this place, 1 Cor. ii., that he cannot err in matters of religion as you may that parishes cannot be deceived in electing their pastors? For he doth allege this text for himself to the same purpose. But the meaning of the apostle is this: that he only which is ruled and governed by the Spirit of God hath the true knowledge of the mysteries of God and is able to discern the truth from falsehood. You can no more prove therefore by this sentence that the parishes cannot err in choosing their pastors than the Pope may do that himself, general councils, and the church cannot err. And surely, the more I consider the matter, the more I marvel what your meaning is in alleging this text. . . .

The Election of Ministers

451

C A R T W R I G H T (R): The minister that the church desireth it commonly best loveth and most reverenceth and, of the other side, hateth and contemneth him that is thrust upon them; therefore it maketh much to the profiting of the people in the doctrine of the gospel that the minister come in by their consent. Likewise the people must by St. Paul his rule follow the good example of the minister.624 But men will not likely follow their 624

1 TIM. iv: 12. [Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.]

examples whom they love not nor love them which are thrust upon them against their wills. Therefore it standeth with the good conversation and godly following of the steps of the minister that he be with the consent of the church. W H I T G I F T ( Z ) ) : This reason is builded upon a false ground; for it is certain that many pastors are dearly beloved of their flocks, which neither were elected by them, desired of them, nor known unto them before. . . . But would you that a papistical parish, such as there may be divers in England, should choose their pastor that they might "love him"? Surely then would they not choose a protestant. Or do men always continue in loving of those whom they have chosen? You know that experience teacheth the contrary: so long only do they love him as he pleaseth them and serveth their affections; which because he neither can nor ought to do, therefore their affection of love is soon quenched, and they begin to hate and to contemn him, and the rather because they did choose him. For in that respect they think him more bound to please them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Against my reasons here be bare words that "the pastors are never the worse loved that are thrust upon them," I could have as well as you alleged the experience in other places if all men could have seen it and have referred them to the manifold suits in law between the pastor and the people in our churches. How often shall I tell him that the papists are not the church nor of the church of Christ and therefore not to be suffered to have to do with the election of the minister! . . .

452

T h e Admonition Controversy

(R): And if it should happen (which may come to pass) that any church should desire or choose or consent upon by the most part some that is unmeet either for doctrine or manners, then the ministers and elders of the other churches round about should advertise first and afterward, as occasion should serve, sharply and severely charge that they forbear such election or, if it be made, that they confirm it not by suffering him to exercise any ministry. And if either the churches round about do fail of this duty or the church which is admonished rest not in their admonition, then to bring it to the next synod. And if it rest not therein, then the prince or magistrate, which must see that nothing in the churches be disorderly and wickedly done, ought to drive that church from that election to another which is convenient. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): What Scripture have you to prove that if the parishes should "choose an unmeet" minister, "then the ministers and elders of other churches" should take in hand the matter, &c., and if they will not, "then to bring it to the next synod"; if that will not serve, "then that the prince or magistrate must and ought to drive that church from that election to another more convenient"? Where have you, I say, either commandment or example of any such order in the whole Scripture? Will you of your own head and brain take upon you to prescribe a rule besides all Scripture? And dare you so boldly condemn an order taken by the common consent of so great a church as this of England is because it is not in all points correspondent to some examples in the Scripture? Men may see, if they be not blind, what your meaning is. You think, peradventure, that if this were once brought to pass, it should not be long or you were placed somewhere according to your desire. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): It is an easy thing for M. Doctor, which neither proveth nor improveth anything by Scripture to ask "by what Scripture I prove that if the parish choose an unfit minister the ministers and elders of the churches should advertise, &c." The Scripture I prove it by is that St. Paul, when he teacheth that all the faithful are members of one mystical body of Christ which ought to have a mutual care one of anCARTWRIGHT

T h e Election of Ministers

453

other, laid the foundations of this polity.625 For as in the body 625 ROM. xii: [4. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: 5. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.] 1 COR. xii: [12. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. . . . 25. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.]

of one particular church every faithful man compared with another in the same is a member one of another, so in a more general body of a whole realm every particular church compared with other is likewise member of them. Therefore as nature teacheth my hand to help the disorder which is in another part of my body, so the spirit of God out of his Word through a fellow feeling teacheth one church to stretch out her hand to put away as it can the evil which it seeth approach unto another. And therefore when the Scripture willeth that one should admonish another,628 it is not only a commandment to ROM. xv: 14. [And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.] HEB. Hi: 13. [But exhort one another daily, while it is called T o day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.] 626

every singular man towards his fellow but also to one whole company towards another society. And of this care extended so far that one church hath sent to admonish another we have example in the epistle to the Corinth., where the Macedonian churches sent their ambassadors with St. Paul's epistle both to move the Corinthians to liberality towards the poor and to receive that which was given by the church unto their use.627 And this may serve to prove 11 COR. riiii: [1. Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; 2. How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of liberality. 3. For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; 627

454

T h e Admonition Controversy

4. Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. . . .] 23. [Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.]

that one church ought to admonish another and therefore also those which are next as those which are fittest for that purpose. T h a t "from the admonition of the churches it is meet to come to synods" if the judgment of the churches be contemned may be shewed by proportion from the place of our Saviour Christ in St. Matthew. 628 For as when one brother is not moved MATT, xviii: [15. Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 628

16. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17. A n d if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]

with the admonition of two or three the matter must be referred unto the church to see whether the majesty of it will move him whom the authority of two or three would not, even so it is meet that the church that maketh light of the judgment of two or three churches should be pressed with the judgments of the diocese or province as shall be in that behalf advised. And if I were in this point destitute of the Word of God, yet the naked examples of the reformed churches ought to weigh down a popish custom. And that "the magistrate ought to lay to his hand if the admonitions take not place," it is manifest by the reason which is alleged. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : But to come to a nearer examination of this your device. First, you have forgotten yourself; for a little before you proved by that which St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. ii. . . . " H e that is spiritual discerneth all things, & c . , " that they were spiritual and therefore could not be without discretion of ordering themselves in choosing their pastor. And now you say "if any church should by the most part choose some unmeet man,

The Election of Ministers

455

&c." Whereby you confess that they may be deceived, contrary to your former words. Secondly, your order is most unperfite and full of intolerable inconveniences. For who shall complain of this election to other churches? And when complaint is made, who shall call them together? When they be called together, what order shall be taken for the avoiding of confusion and tumult? Or who shall bear their charges? Or in what place shall they meet, or how often? Likewise "if the churches round about do fail in this duty, &c.," who shall "bring it to the next synod"? Or who shall summon the synod? Or in what place shall it be kept? . . . But amongst all other things you have here appointed to the prince or magistrate a good office that he must stand and behold all this and in the end only "drive the parish to a new election"; which also you say that "he must do." Throughout your whole book you take from the civil magistrate his whole authority in ecclesiastical matters. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): Where you say that I "forget myself which suppose now the church may err that said before it was spiritual and judgeth all things," if you could forget this untrue dealing, I remembered myself well enough. These cavils which come so often without any color of truth are utterly unworthy of answer, but . . . require rather a censor than a disputer. Howbeit, because there is nothing so unsavoury which some taste may not be abused by, I have answered it before. . . . Divers of these questions (if he do not dissemble) come of want of knowledge not only of the government of the churches now but of all ancient times, for he asketh "who shall complain of the fault committed in the election to the churches by." If the elders to whom that care especially appertaineth do not, others ought whom that disorder offendeth. There needeth no "calling together" and therefore no danger of "tumult, disorder, confusion, charges." . . . It is enough that it be done by the eldership of the churches; and if it were needful to have the churches' whole consent, it might be done in ordinary meeting for the service of God without any of those things which the Doctor imagineth. . . .

456

The Admonition Controversy

It is meet the provincial synods be certain and standing as often also as may be conveniently. And it was ordained, as I think, in one of the African councils that there should be at the least two or three every year. So there shall be as speedy provision of a pastor for the church in such cases of difference as now when they be without a pastor six whole months. For the questions "who shall summon the synods and in what place they shall be holden" they pertain not to this question unless the Answerer will have no synods at all. For if he admit them, the summoner and the place which are meet for the assembly generally and for the deciding of all causes which fall into the consideration of the synod are meet also for this cause. And where he asketh "what if the prince do not his duty," then it is as if there were no godly magistrate, then it is with them as if such a disorder should happen under an unchristian prince, and then the people shall perish in their sins but their blood shall be required at his hand. . . . Where he saith I "thus appoint the Prince a good office," I have shewed that the Scripture appointeth it and not I. And it is the most honorable office which the Prince can have, to see the churches be kept in good order. Neither taketh it anything from the royal estate that he must obey and serve the Lord. And where he saith "by this means the prince must stand and look on all this while and in the end lay to his hand," I answer that whereas these ways of admonition by the churches and synod are sent before his authority, it serveth not only for the ease of the magistrate whilst that after this sort oftentimes the difference is ended before it cometh to him. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : But now to the defence of my own reasons. W H I T G I F T (A): First, because in the apostles' time the church was under the cross and therefore very few in comparison was there that embraced the gospel and commonly they kept together or at the least met oftentimes so that one of them was throughly known to another and they themselves could best judge who among them was the fittest to teach and instruct, having always divers fit for that function. Now the church is in prosperity, and therefore the number that professeth great and dispersed into divers places, and in most parishes not one fit

The Election of Ministers

457

for the ministry among them or known unto them, so that they should call they know not whom. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): In the apostles' times the church . . . was sown not only throughout all Asia, which is the greatest part of the world, but through a great part of Africa and no small portion of Europe; and now it is shut in a small corner of Europe, being altogether banished out of Asia and Africa. And therefore there are not the tithe now of those that professed the gospel then. And what a conclusion is this: the church were few in number because they were under the cross! For . . . have you forgotten that which is said in the first of Exodus, that the more the children of Israel were pressed and persecuted, the more they multiplied? 629 Then you say they EXOD. i: 12. [But the more they (the Egyptians) afflicted them (the Jews), the more they multiplied and grew. . . .] 529

kept together and met often and so, knowing one another, were best able to judge one of another. But herein you speak as one that hath small experience of persecuted churches. For in the time of persecution the Christians that were in one great city were fain to gather themselves out of all the corners and from all the ends of the city to one place, being not able to divide themselves into many parishes both for other considerations and because they were not able to maintain many ministers, and elders, and deacons, so that we read that the church which was at Antioch wrote unto the church at Jerusalem, and that of Jerusalem unto them of Antioch, and St. Paul to the church at Rome, at Ephesus, and at Philippos, &c.; which speeches do declare that by all likelihood in one great city they had but one congregation and therefore that must needs be scattered here and there and so could not have the commodity either of often meeting or of knowing one another so well as where such a city is divided into many churches. . . . WHITGIFT (D): I remember myself very well, and I also remember that no learned writer, old or new, denieth this to be true that I have said. You only say that "in the apostles' time the visible church of Christ was sown, not only throughout all Asia, which is the greatest part of the world, but a great part of Africa and no small portion of Europe"; you prove it not

458

The Admonition Controversy

either by Scripture, story, or any good writer. The gospel, I grant, was preached in all these parts of the world; yet was it not generally received in any one part of the world, no, not in any city, not at Jerusalem, where all the apostles were, not in any the least town. There were Christians at "Jerusalem," at "Antioch," at "Ephesus," at "Rome, &c."; but not the tenth part in any of these or other places in comparison to the Jews and the gentiles that were there, and not Christians. In the apostles' time the visible church of Christ at Rome was but an handful in comparison to the times that followed when the whole city was christened and professed Christ and had Christian magistrates. I speak not of the dispersing of the gospel into divers places, which I know was in the apostles' time . . . but I speak of the multitude of Christians gathered together in one place. . . . When Matthias was chosen, the whole church was gathered together in one place, and so was it when the deacons were chosen; which thing now is unpossible because of the multitude so that, though the election might be by the whole church in the apostles' time when it was together in one place, yet can it not be so now, seeing it is unpossible for any one kingdom to contain it. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): Secondly, in the apostles' time all, or the most, that were Christians were virtuous and godly and such as did sincerely profess the word, and therefore the election of their pastor might safely be committed to them; now the church is full of hypocrites, dissemblers, drunkards, whoremongers, &c., so that if any election were committed to them, they would be sure to take one like to themselves. . . . Thirdly, in the apostles' time all that professed Christ had knowledge and were able to judge who were meet to be their pastor; now the most be ignorant and without judgment in such matters. . . . Fourthly, in the apostles' time there was in the church no idolaters, no superstitious persons, no papists; now the church is full of papists, atheists, and such like. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Before you placed in the church whoremongers and drunkards as filthy swine in the Lord's courts;

The Election of Ministers

459

now you bring in papists, idolaters, and atheists, which are not only filthy but also poisoned and venomed beasts. I am not ignorant of that distinction which saith that there be in the church which are not of the church and those are hypocrites . . . but I would gladly learn of you what Scripture there is to prove that idolaters and papists and atheists are in the church when St. Paul calleth all such without the church and with whom the church hath nothing to do, nor they with the church.630 . . . 1 COR. v: 12. [For w h a t have I to do to j u d g e them also that are without? do not ye j u d g e them that are within.]

630

W H I T G I F T ( D ) : You must of necessity admit this distinction, "some be of the church" and "some be only in the church," else can you not make any visible church; for we only know who be "in the church," but who be "of the church" is known to him alone who knoweth those that be his. If they communicate with us in hearing the word and receiving the sacraments, though otherwise they be drunkards, superstitious, or infected with errors in doctrine, &c., yet must we count them in the church, until they be cut off from it by excommunication. . . . Neither is it true that only hypocrites are such as "be in the church and are not of the church." That chapter which you quote in your margent and almost the whole epistle doth declare the contrary. For the incestuous Corinthian was in the church until he was excommunicated. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): Fifthly, in the apostles' time there was no church established, being then no Christian magistrates, and therefore the state of the church was popular; now there is Christian magistrates and a church established and subject to rulers, &c. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : N O W that authority is given into the hands of the bishop alone, who by his sole authority thrusteth upon them such as they many times, as well for unhonest life as also for lack of learning, may and do justly dislike. W H I T G I F T (A): That bishops have authority to admit ministers (which is here denied), it is plain by that which is written, i Tim. v.: . . . "Lay thy hands rashly on none." 631 [I TIM. v: 22. L a y hands suddenly on no m a n , neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.] 631

460

T h e Admonition Controversy

These words Ambrose, Chrysostom, and all learned writers for the most part do say to be an admonition to Timothy that he ought to be circumspect in appointing of ministers. And to Titus, chap, i., Paul saith that he left him at Creta . . . "that he should appoint ministers in every town." 632 This Hierome and others 632 [TITUS i: 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.]

do expound of the authority that Titus had in placing ministers in every church. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): T o answer directly to the place of the fifth of the First to Timothy. I say, first, that St. Paul writeth to Timothy and therefore instructeth him what he should do for his part in the appointing of the minister. If he had written to the whole Church of Ephesus, he would likewise have instructed them how they should have behaved themselves in that business. If one do write unto his friend that hath interest in any election to take heed that he choose none but such as are meet, shall any man conclude thereupon that none hath to do in that election but he to whom that letter is written? Then I say, further, that St. Paul attributeth that unto Timothy that was common to more with him because he, being the director and moderator of the election, is said to do that which many do; which thing I have proved by divers examples both out of the Scripture and otherwise before. And even in this imposition of hands it is manifestly to be shewed for that whereas St. Paul saith in the Second Epistle that Timothy was ordained by the putting on of his hands upon him,533 in the First Epistle he saith that he was 533 n TIM. t: 6. [Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.]

ordained by the putting on of the hands of the eldership.534 So 634 1 TIM. iv: 12. [Let no roan despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.]

T h e Election of Ministers

461

that that which he in one place taketh to himself alone, in the other he communicateth with more. Again, it is a fault in you that you cannot distinguish or put difference between the election and imposition of hands. Last of all, I answer that although this might agree to Timothy alone, as indeed it cannot, yet it followeth not that every bishop may do so. For Timothy was an evangelist, which was above a bishop. . . . And it is an evil argument to say the greater may do it, therefore the less may do it; the superior, therefore the inferior. If you were at any cost with producing your witnesses, you should not be so wise to be so lavish of them as to cite Ambrose and Chrysostom to prove a thing that none hath ever denied. For who denieth that St. Paul doth not give warning to Timothy to be circumspect? If you mean to use their testimony to prove that he only made the elections, they say never a word for you; if there be anything, cite it. To the place of Titus I answer as to that of Timothy, for there is nothing there but agreeth also to this place. And as for Hierome, he hath nothing in that place, as he hath in no other, to prove that to the bishop only doth belong the right of the election of the minister. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): Touching your "direct answer" (as you call it) to the place, 1. Tim. v., thus I briefly reply that it is but devised of your own head, not grounded upon any good authority nor consonant to the circumstance of the place or course of the epistle. Both Ambrose and Chrysostom and other learned writers, as I have said, do understand it to be meant of the authority that Timothy had in ordering bishops and ministers. The whole epistle and the circumstance of this place do plainly testify that this was spoken to Timothy only in the respect that he was a bishop. The precepts that be contained in this epistle, the most of them and in this chapter especially, are such as properly pertain to Timothy in the respect that he was a bishop and a minister of the Word. To conclude, if the election of a bishop had of necessity pertained to the people, Paul would not have written in this manner to Timothy as he hath done, describing unto him what qualities he that is to be elected bishop ought to have; but he would rather have written

462

The Admonition Controversy

the same to the people or willed T i m o t h y to declare it u n t o them. Neither d o t h he a n y w h e r e in any of his epistles write to a n y c h u r c h to give t h e m any instructions in this so necessary a matter b u t only writeth of the same in those epistles to T i m o t h y and Titus, b e i n g bishops; w h i c h m a y be an a r g u m e n t that the ordering of ministers d o t h properly appertain to a bishop and that this also, " M a m s cito, &c." is spoken to T i m o t h y in that respect. " A m a n m a y write to his friend that h a t h interest in an election," b u t P a u l d o t h not only write unto T i m o t h y as to one that h a t h interest b u t as to one in w h o m the whole interest consisteth. W h e n y o u say that " P a u l attributeth that to T i m o t h y that was c o m m o n to h i m w i t h m o r e , " if y o u m e a n m o r e bishops, then it is true, for it is a rule for all bishops to follow; but if y o u m e a n other of the people, then do y o u but shift off the matter w i t h guessing. T o y o u r proofs of that phrase and kind of speech I h a v e answered before: it is b u t a starting-hole to fly unto w h e n y o u are foiled b y the plain and evident words of the Scripture. T h a t w h i c h is b y y o u alleged, ix T i m . i. and 1 T i m . iv., m a k e t h for m y purpose, for y o u h a v e before confessed that "imposition of hands was not b y the c h u r c h and people b u t b y the elders and ministers," and y o u allege these places 1 T i m . iv. and 11 T i m . i. to prove the same. A n d therefore I m u c h m a r v e l to w h a t end y o u n o w allege t h e m except it be to prove y o u r phrase, for they c a n n o t prove any election m a d e b y the people unless y o u will say and unsay at y o u r pleasure. B u t to p u t y o u out of d o u b t . . . " t o l a y on h a n d s " sometimes signifieth the c e r e m o n y only of l a y i n g on of hands and sometimes the w h o l e m a n n e r and form of ordering. A n d in this second signification it is taken 1 T i m . v. and 11 T i m . i. . . . " L a s t of a l l " y o u say that y o u " a n s w e r t h o u g h this m i g h t agree to T i m o t h y alone, & c . " If it agreed to T i m o t h y alone, it must needs follow that it m a y agree to other bishops also; for T i m o t h y was a bishop, as it shall be b y better reason proved than y o u are able to shew any to the contrary. T h i s that y o u speak of his evangelistship and of his superiority in that respect is only spoken w i t h o u t reason or authority. . , .

T h e Election of Ministers

463

A D M O N I T I O N : Then after just trial and vocation they were admitted to their function by laying on of the hands of the company of the eldership only.635 636

1 TIM. iv: 14. [Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.] W H I T G I F T (A): Of trial and vocation I have spoken before. To prove laying on of hands, &c., is alleged the First of Timothy, the fourth chapter. This is but a ceremony, and it is now used, for the bishop and other learned and grave ministers there present do lay their hands upon such as are admitted into the ministry. Now if you would know what is here meant by seniors, you may learn if you please of (Ecumenius, a learned and old writer, who expoundeth this place of Timothy on this sort . . . "By seniors he meaneth bishops." And so saith Chrysostom in like manner. C A R T W R I G H T (R): (Ecumenius and Chrysostom say that by elders he meaneth bishops, not thereby to sever those that had the government of the church together with the pastor and minister of the Word, which were called ancients, as you seem to mean, but to put distinction between those which are elders by age and elders by office. Besides that, it is before alleged that it may be that the pastor or bishop did in the name of all the elders lay on his hands upon him that was ordained. And lastly, you know and cannot deny that St. Paul in one or two places confoundeth the bishop and elder. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : The words of Chrysostom and (Ecumenius be evident, as you might have perceived if you would have taken pains to read the places. For the words of Chrysostom be these . . . "He speaketh not here of elders but of bishops . . . for certainly the elders did not ordain the bishop." How say you? Be not these words plain that he meaneth bishops and not other ministers? And M. Beza in his notes upon this place saith thus . . . "Of the eldership, that is to say, of the order of elders by which name it is likely that the company of them which laboured in the Word in the church of Ephesus are signified." . . . Whereby it is certain that he secludeth your unministering seniors. . . .

464

The Admonition Controversy ADMONITION:

Then they sought them;

638

now they seek

834

PHIL. ii: 20. [For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.] 2 1 . [For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's.]

theirs. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): It is but your pleasure thus generally to say that "then pastors sought their flocks; now they seek theirs"; for it is well known that there be pastors which seek their flocks and not theirs. . . . ADMONITION : These and a great many other abuses are in the ministry remaining, which unless they be removed and the truth brought in, not only God's justice shall be poured forth, but also God's church in this realm shall never be builded. . . . The way therefore to avoid these inconveniences and to reform these deformities is this: your wisdoms have to remove . . . bishops' authority, claiming to themselves thereby right to ordain ministers, and to bring in that old and true election which was accustomed to be made by the congregation.537 You 637 ACTS i: 26. [And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.] ACTS vi: 2. [Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.] 3. [Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.] ACTS xiv: 23. [And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.]

must displace those ignorant and unable ministers already placed and in their rooms appoint such as both can and will by God's assistance feed the flock.638 . . . Let a lawful and a godly 638

1 PET. v: 2. [Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind.]

seigniory look that they preach not quarterly or monthly but continually, "not for filthy lucre sake but of a ready mind."

The Office of Doctors

465

So God shall be glorified, your consciences discharged, and the flock of Christ purchased with his own blood 639 edified. . . . 639

ACTS xx:

28. [Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the

flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of G o d , which he hath purchased with his own blood.] W H I T G I F T {A)\ The places of Scripture quoted in this margent be answered before except that of the xx. of the Acts, which proveth nothing in controversy at this time.

C. The Office of Doctors C A R T W R I G H T (R): Those . . . that be called presbyteri, which we term elders of the church and have to do with the whole church, are either those which teach and preach the Word of God and govern too or else which govern only and do not teach or preach. Of the first kind are pastors and doctors; of the second are those which are called by the common name of elders or ancients. . . . Where the pastor doing his duty cannot suffice, there the Scripture hath given him an aid of the doctor, which for because his office consisteth in teaching doctrine to this end that the pastor might not be driven to spend so much time in propounding the doctrine but might have the more time to employ in exhorting and dehorting and applying of the doctrine to the times and places and persons, it is manifest that he also is tied to a certain church. For how could he be an aid unto the pastor to whose help he is given unless he were in the same church where the pastor is? . . . W H I T G I F T (D): But what Scripture have you to prove that "the doctor" is added to "the pastor" as "an aid" or that the doctor is tied to a certain place? You have no licence to coin new Scriptures, and in the old I am sure you cannot find it. As for your bare word, it is but a very bare proof. . . . You know that divers both ancient and late writers as, namely, Hierome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Musculus, and Bucer, &c., do confound them; and the reason that Hierome useth cannot be well denied because the apostle saith not as he

466

The Admonition Controversy

did before of the other, "aliospastores, alios doctores" (some pastors, a n d other some doctors), b u t he j o i n e t h t h e m together a n d saith, "aliospastores et doctores" (some pastors and doctors). . . . T o be short, I understand not h o w y o u c a n m a k e " d o c t o r s " governors of any several parishes and churches except y o u will m a k e t h e m pastors. . . . CARTWRIGHT (SR): It remaineth to m a i n t a i n that p a r t of the division w h i c h setteth d o w n the doctor of the c h u r c h as a several m e m b e r f r o m a pastor, w h i c h m a y a p p e a r b y that the apostle placeth t h e m b o t h to the R o m a n s and Ephes. as diverse. 640 540 ROM. xii: 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.] EPHES. iv: 11. [And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.]

Beside that, the gifts differing w h e r e b y those functions are executed and there b e i n g a p t to teach and therefore meet for the office of a doctor w h i c h h a v e no grace in exhortation or m o v i n g the affections of the hearers and therefore not so fit to be pastors, it must follow that the functions be divers. A n d w h e r e the A n s w e r e r opposeth unto us the j u d g m e n t of one or two, it is easy to shew not only m o r e authorities of private m e n b u t the use of the elder churches even f r o m the apostles' time, especially in A l e x a n d r i a , w h e r e the distinction of the bishop and doctor of the c h u r c h is so often observed b y the ecclesiastical story. . . . Neither o u g h t it to be any h i n d r a n c e to this distinction that St. P a u l " c o u p l e t h the pastor and doctor together whereas he sundered the rest that go before b y this w o r d some." F o r the conjunction d o t h not couple t h e m in signification but m a k e t h t h e m only couples of the liberality of Christ towards his church, especially considering that both this conjunction and is oftentimes a note to couple several m e m b e r s of one division a n d the apostle w o u l d rather h a v e said " o r doctors" t h a n " a n d doctors" if he h a d m e a n t to m a k e t h e m all one. . . . T h u s , in that he is called the doctor of such a c h u r c h , in part is answered the question " h o w it c a n be shewed that he is tied to a certain c h u r c h . " A n d for further answer, w h e n a s admitting that there is such an office, he cannot d e n y b u t the in-

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory stitution of it is amongst other spoken of unto Titus.

641

467 All those

641 titus i: [5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.]

ministries being appointed to a certain town and congregation, it followeth that that office is likewise. Moreover, considering that exhortation and doctrine be necessary for the entertainment of a church in the true service of God, in that St. Paul, parting these between the pastor and doctor and placing the office of the pastor especially in exhortation, ascribeth that of teaching principally to the doctor,542 it followeth that the pastor being 642

ROM. xii: [6. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;] 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;] 8. [Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation. . . .]

tied unto a place, the doctor must also. Whereby is likewise answered his other question "how it can be proved that the doctor was given in aid of the pastor," for the pastor being by the bands of his vocation especially tied unto exhortation, a supply of teaching being needful, it must be fetched at his hands whose proper profession that is. Last of all, hereby appeareth what an abuse it is in the university that they are created doctors which not only do not the office but have not so much as a certain place assigned to teach in, which, amongst other, are the two principal things I mislike as unlawful.

D. T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory C A R T W R I G H T (R): I will . . . speak of the elders or seniors which ought to be in the church; and in speaking of them I must call to remembrance that division which I made mention on before, that is, of those which have care and govern the whole congregation some there be which do both teach the Word and govern also, some which do not teach but only govern and be aiders in the government unto those which do teach. This division is most manifestly set forth in the epistle unto

468

The Admonition Controversy

T i m o t h y where he saith, " T h e elders which rule well are worthy of double honour, and especially those w h i c h labour in the W o r d and doctrine," 643 where he maketh by plain and express words 643

1 TIM. 0: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double

honour, especially they who labour in the Word and doctrine.]

two sorts of elders: the one w h i c h doth both govern and teach, the other w h i c h governeth only. These therefore are the seniors w h i c h are meant, whose office is in helping the pastor or bishop in the government of that particular church where they be placed pastors and elders. . . . WHITGIFT (D): W h a t Scripture have you to prove that such seniors as you mean . . . had anything to do in ecclesiastical discipline? . . . Y o u r division of seniors, though I know that it hath learned patrons, yet do I not understand how it agreeth with the W o r d of G o d ; for if we consider the writings of the apostles, it will evidently appear that presbyter is usually taken for episcopus or minister or pastor, as 1 Pet. v.: . . . " T h e elders w h i c h are among you, I beseech, w h i c h a m myself also an elder, & c . " " F e e d the flock, & c . " 544 A n d in the Acts St. Paul calleth 644

1 PET. v: [1. T h e elders which are among you I exhort, who am also

an elder. . . . 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you. . . .]

the same men "seniors" and "bishops" and b y seniors meaneth none other than bishops and pastors, as it is evident in that place. 645 Likewise, ad Titum i., he saith that Titus was left at ACTS xx: [17. A n d from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. 18. A n d when they were come to him, he said unto them. . . . 646

28. T a k e heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.]

Creta . . . " t h a t he should appoint elders in every c i t y . " A n d declaring what qualities they ought to have, he addeth . . . " A bishop must be unreproveable, & c . " 646 W h e r e b y it is manifest M6 X I T U S i : [5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

469

6. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God. . . .]

that he taketh them both for one. T h e only place that h a t h a n y shew for the proof of your distinction is that 1 T i m . v. . . . " T h e elders that rule well are w o r t h y double honour, specially they w h i c h labour in the W o r d and doctrine." W h e r e although St. Paul maketh a distinction of seniors, yet it is certain that under the n a m e of seniors he doth comprehend such only as be ministers of the W o r d or sacraments. A n d I h a v e before sufficiently proved that the administration of the sacraments m a y be committed to some to w h o m the preaching of the W o r d of G o d is not committed. A n d this distinction of ministers doth this place, 1 T i m o t h . v., v e r y well justify; for unless the apostle St. Paul h a d m e a n t that of ministers some preached, some only ministered the sacraments, he w o u l d not have said "maxime qui laborant sermone et doctrincf only b u t "qui laborant sermone et administratione sacramentorum," for so should he plainly h a v e declared that there were some presbyteri w h i c h did neither labour in preaching nor in the administration of the sacraments. T h i s same distinction of ministers is also justified b y that w h i c h the apostle speaketh, 1 Corinth, i.: "Non misit me Christus ut baptizarem, &c"; m e a n i n g because the W o r d was the greater, therefore he might not leave the greater for the less. N o w if all they that baptized had the gift of preaching also, w h y might not and ought not they in like m a n n e r to say, " C h r i s t sent us not to baptize, but to p r e a c h " ? . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : Observe h o w unproperly he m a k eth the apostle to speak, in giving the n a m e of government unto that wherein there is no government at all. For is it not, think you, a strong kind of government, and needeth it not a great gift of discretion and j u d g m e n t , to pour a little water upon the child's head, distribute a loaf of bread, carry the cup, and say or read a sentence, all as he is prescribed? W h e n the apostle n o w h e r e giveth this title of government unto the deacons, in w h o m notwithstanding is required no c o m m o n discretion to know to w h o m and h o w m u c h is to be given, h o w m u c h less

470

The Admonition Controversy

would he give it to such as have the only and bare administration of the sacraments! . . . ADMONITION: Instead of chancellors, archdeacons, officials, commissaries, proctors, doctors, summoners, churchwardens, and such like, you have to place in every congregation a lawful and godly seigniory. W H I T G I F T (A): That is, instead of learned, wise, and discreet men, you must place to govern the church in every congregation unlearned, ignorant, and men most unapt to govern; for such of necessity you must have in most congregations. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Let M . Doctor take heed lest, in allowing so well of the popish ceremonies not only as tolerable but as fit and then acquainting himself with the papists' manner of speaking in saying that the people be "ignorant and unlearned," he fall or ever he be aware into some worse thing. Moses in Deuteronomy 547 and Salomon in his Proverbs 848 place the 547

DEUT.

iv:

[5. B e h o l d ,

I

have

taught

you

statutes

and

judgments,

e v e n as the L o r d m y G o d c o m m a n d e d m e , t h a t y e should d o so in the l a n d w h i t h e r y e g o to possess it.] 6. [ K e e p therefore and d o t h e m ; for this is y o u r w i s d o m a n d y o u r understanding in the sight of the nations, w h i c h shall hear all these statutes, a n d say, S u r e l y this g r e a t nation is a wise and understanding people.] 648

P R O V . i: 7. [ T h e fear of the L o r d is the b e g i n n i n g of k n o w l e d g e : b u t

fools despise w i s d o m a n d instruction.]

principal wisdom in keeping God's commandments and in fearing God, and David saith that the secrets and the privy counsel of the Lord is known to those which fear him.649 And I have 648

PS. xxv: 12. [ W h a t m a n is h e t h a t feareth the L o r d ? h i m shall he teach

in the w a y t h a t h e shall choose. . . .] 14. [ T h e secret of the L o r d is w i t h t h e m that fear h i m ; a n d he will shew t h e m his covenant.]

shewed out of St. Paul that he giveth to the spiritual man great discretion and judgment of things.650 If therefore there be in 660

1 COR. ii: 15. [But he t h a t is spiritual j u d g e t h all things, y e t he himself

is j u d g e d of n o m a n . ]

every church which fear God and keep his commandments, there are both "wise and learned and discreet men" and there-

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

471

fore not to be spoken of so contemptuously as M. Doctor speaketh. And, God be praised, there are numbers in the church that are able to be teachers unto most of the chancellors in any matter pertaining to the church and are able to give riper judgment in any ecclesiastical matter than the most part of them can. W H I T G I F T (D): Who knoweth not that the people for the most part be ignorant, unlearned, and unapt to govern? . . . And yet I do not take from them sufficient knowledge in things pertaining to their salvation nor that wisdom that Salomon or David speaketh of nor yet the discretion that St. Paul meaneth, 1 Cor. ii. But is every man that shall be saved apt to rule and govern? Or doth Christ pour into them such gifts and graces miraculously as he did in the beginning of the church? Cometh learning, wisdom, aptness to govern, and such like by inspiration only and not by means? I know there are many of the people that fear God and are sober and discreet. The Lord increase the number of them! But, on the other side, you must know that some there be, and that not the smallest number, that think better of themselves than they deserve. And I suppose that no man will deny the most part to be unfit for such functions and that, even of those that are godly, many are far unmeet to govern. But if your reason be sound, then may the basest and simplest man, keeping God's commandments and fearing him, be as apt to govern as the wisest man, the most learned, and of best experience in a whole country; which is too great an absurdity and too popular an argument. True it is that to keep God's commandments and to fear him is requisite and necessary in a governor, but yet, as I say, not all those that fear God and keep his commandments be apt and meet to govern. These be the chief points of heavenly wisdom which bring salvation and which teach a man to govern himself in those things that pertain to eternal life, but there are other things also necessarily required in such as take upon them the government of others. . . . There may be therefore in every church wise, learned, and discreet men in matters pertaining to themselves and to their own salvation and yet not meet to govern others; there may be also meet men to govern others but yet peradventure by the more part, which is commonly evil-

472

The Admonition Controversy

disposed, put back from the seigniory. In a word, God hath appointed the multitude, how godly and learned soever they be, to obey and not to rule; unless, indeed, you will make the state popular, to the which all your arguments tend. CAR.TWR.IGHT (R): And besides that the choicest are to be taken to this office, this ought not to be forgotten that, seeing good success of things depend upon the blessing of God and that blessing followeth the church when the Lord's order is kept, simple men which carry no great countenance or shew will undoubtedly do more good unto the church, having a lawful calling, than those of great port which have no such calling. W H I T G I F T (D): But how will you bring it to pass that the "choicest may be taken"? For if the election go by the whole parish (as it must), then is it a thing unpossible to be brought to pass in many parishes, the most part being evil-affected, except you will use violence and compulsion, which is against the liberty that you seek for. " T h e Lord's order is kept" when due obedience is given to the civil magistrate and other that be placed under him to govern the church of God. For of this we have express mention to the Rom. xiii.,661 i Tim. ii.,552 i Pet. ii.; 853 and it is confirmed ROM. xiii: [ i . L e t every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G o d : the powers that be are ordained of God.]

661

TS21

TIM. ii: [ i . I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be m a d e for all m e n ; 2. For kings, and for all that are in authority; that w e m a y lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.] 553 j P E T ¿¿. [¡g S u b m i t yourselves to every ordinance of m a n for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14. O r unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.]

by the examples of the old church under Moses, Joshua, David, Salomon, Jehoshaphat, Ezechias, Josias, and all other godly kings and judges. Likewise the order of God is kept when, next to this supreme governor under God, we reverence and obey in the ecclesiastical state such as God hath appointed to take the chief care and government of the church under the prince, be they archbishops, bishops, or such like. And thereof also we have

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

473

express warrant in the Word of God, and that such as admitteth no other interpretation, as 1 Tim. iii.,554 Tit. i.,565 Hebr. xiii.; 556 664 1 TIM. iii: [ 1 . This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.] 666

TITUS i: [7. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God. . . .]

666

HEB. xiii: [17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.]

but as for your order of seniors and kind of government, you have no such warrant in the Word of God. And the places that you use for your purpose be doubtful and diversely interpreted by learned men, wherefore not sufficient to ground any certain doctrine upon, being of faith and of salvation, as you have said before the kind of government to be. Wherefore it is you that disturb and seek to overthrow the order of government appointed by God, and therefore in the end you must look to be overthrown yourself. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): But, I pray you, do thus much for me: first, prove that there was in every congregation such as you call seniors; when you have done that, then shew me that that office and kind of regiment ought to be perpetual and not rather to be altered according to the state and condition of the church; last of all, that those seniors were laymen, as we call them, and not rather ministers of the Word and bishops. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): The first place is in the Acts, which is that Paul and Barnabas did appoint by election elders in every congregation; 557 but it is not like they did appoint divers min557

ACTS xiv: 23. [And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.]

isters or bishops which preached in every congregation, which were not to be had for such a number of congregations as were then to be preached unto; therefore in every congregation there were besides those that preached other elders, which did only in government assist the pastors which preached. And what

474

The Admonition Controversy

should we follow conjectures here, when St. Paul doth in the place before alleged declare what these elders are? 558 668

i TIM. v: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.]

WHITGIFT (D): If you have no stronger place to confirm your seniors by than this, they will fall flat to the ground. For it is most certain that Luke in this place by presbyteros doth only mean pastors and preachers of the Word, as he doth also through the whole Acts speaking of Christians; and it is a strange matter that you dare be bold to ground any point of government or doctrine upon so simple and slender conjectures. For what reason call you this: " P a u l and Barnabas did appoint by election elders in every congregation, &c., but it is not like they did appoint divers ministers or bishops which preached in every congregation, &c.; therefore in every congregation there were besides those that preached other elders, &c." ? First, I say that this argument doth consist only upon a vain conjecture, for it might be that the number of preachers were such that every congregation where Paul and Barnabas had to do might have more preachers than one. . . . For how can you conclude by anything here spoken that Paul and Barnabas did ordain more than one pastor or presbyter in one congregation? For this that is said, that they ordained "elders or ministers in every congregation," doth not import that they ordained more than one in every congregation but that they ordained for divers congregations divers ministers, that is, for every congregation a pastor. . . . So that this place of the Acts speaketh not one word of your seniors. And therefore you cannot expound it by that in the i Tim. v. though it served your purpose, as it doth not. For Luke, to my remembrance, nowhere in the Acts doth take this word presbyter for any other than such as have authority to preach the Word and minister the sacraments except he meaneth the elders of the Jews. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : I may say that forsomuch as St. Luke did not use the particular word of bishop but the word elder, which containeth both bishop and other elders, that his meaning was not that the bishops only should be meant. And

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

475

surely, whenas the word elder doth so agree to bishops that it doth much more properly . . . agree to the seniors, it were hard to understand bishops and shut out seniors, to whom that name doth most properly pertain, especially there being no circumstance in that place whereby that should be of necessity tied to the pastor only. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Concerning seniors, not only their office but their name also is out of this English church utterly removed. Their office was to govern the church with the rest of the ministers, to consult, to admonish, to correct, and to order all things appertaining to the state of the congregation.669 668 ACTS xv: 4. [And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.] 1 COR. xii: 28. [And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.]

W H I T G I F T (A): To prove that the office of seniors "was to govern the church with the rest of the ministers, to consult, to admonish, to correct, and to order all things appertaining to the state of the congregation," you allege Acts xiv. [sic\ and the 1 Corinth, xii. In the xiv. of the Acts it is written that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders at Antioch in every church, but there is not one word spoken of their office; and therefore that text serveth not your purpose. You have alleged this selfsame place twice before to prove that no minister of the Word ought to be placed in any congregation but by consent of the people and that the election of ministers ought to be by the congregation; now you allege it to prove the office of your seniors. Can it both be meant of seniors and of the ministers of the Word, being, as you say, distinct offices? Will you thus dally with the Scripture and make it a nose of wax, as the papists term it, to wrest and writhe it which way you list? Here you must needs confess either contradiction in yourselves or falsification. C A R T W R I G H T (R): But M. Doctor saith that there is no mention made of the office of such an elder; therefore that place maketh nothing to prove that there should be such elders in every congregation. So M. Doctor write, he careth not what he

476

The Admonition Controversy

write. Belike he thinketh the credit of his degree of doctorship will give w e i g h t to that w h i c h is light and pith to that w h i c h is froth, or else he w o u l d never answer thus. F o r then I will, if this be a good reason, say that forsomuch as St. L u k e d o t h n o t in that place describe the office of the pastor or bishop w h i c h p r e a c h e t h the Word, 5 6 0 therefore that p l a c e proveth n o t t h a t ACTS xiv: 17. [Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. ( A y r e in his edition of the Defense calls this marginal note " p r o b a b l y an error for 23.")] 560

in every congregation there should be a bishop or a pastor. . . . WHITGIFT (¿4): I n the 1 Corinth, xii. St. P a u l saith t h a t " G o d h a t h ordained in the c h u r c h first apostles, then prophets, thirdly teachers, then t h e m that d o miracles, after that the gifts of healing, helpers, governors, diversities of tongues." H e r e is not one w o r d of the office of seniors, neither y e t of their names, for this w o r d governors teacheth us that Christ h a t h ordained in his c h u r c h some to bear rule and govern, b u t whether one in every congregation or more, whether ministers of the w o r d or other, w h e t h e r magistrates or seniors, it is not here expressed; howsoever it is, it m a k e t h n o t h i n g for y o u r purpose. CARTWRIGHT (R): A n d whereas M . D o c t o r saith that the place of the Corinths m a y be understanded of civil magistrates, of p r e a c h i n g ministers, of governors of the w h o l e church, and not of every particular church, and finally, a n y t h i n g rather t h a n that whereof it is indeed understanded, I say, first, that he still stumbleth at one stone, w h i c h is that he cannot put a difference between the c h u r c h and c o m m o n w e a l t h and so between the church-officers w h i c h he there speaketh of and the officers of the c o m m o n w e a l t h , those w h i c h are ecclesiastical and those w h i c h are civil. T h e n that he m e a n e t h not the minister w h i c h p r e a c h eth, it m a y appear for that he h a d noted t h e m before in the w o r d teachers. A n d last of all, he cannot m e a n governor of the w h o l e c h u r c h unless he should m e a n a pope. . . . T h e r e f o r e it r e m a i n e t h that it must be understanded of this office of elders. WHITGIFT ( D ) : H e r e h a v e y o u manifestly falsified m y book and greatly abused me. F o r I h a v e n o t these words, " o f

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

477

governors of the w h o l e c h u r c h and not of every particular c h u r c h , " neither a n y t h i n g sounding that w a y . T h e reader h a t h m y words before his eyes. L e t h i m consider w h e t h e r y o u h a v e reported t h e m truly or no. Surely, if there were n o t h i n g else, y o u r oft leasings m i g h t sufficiently convince your doctrine of mere v a n i t y and forgery. . . . I a m fully persuaded . . . that there is no such distinction b e t w i x t the c h u r c h of Christ and a Christian c o m m o n w e a l t h as y o u and the papists d r e a m of. A n d therefore there is n o cause w h y the apostle m a y not in this place u n d e r this w o r d governors c o m p r e h e n d as well civil magistrates as ecclesiastical. . . . M o r e o v e r , the apostle m a y m e a n in that place bishops or pastors, of w h o m he m a d e no mention before. F o r y o u will not h a v e the office of a pastor and of a doctor c o n f o u n d e d ; wherefore y o u forget yourself in saying that " i n this w o r d teachers he m e a n e t h the minister that t e a c h e t h , " that is, the pastor, for of h i m I a m sure y o u m e a n . L a s t of all, I h a v e n o w h e r e said that he m e a n e t h one " g o v e r n o r of the w h o l e c h u r c h " . . . and I see no cause . . . w h y in this place of the apostle this w o r d governors m a y not either signify the Christian magistrates or ecclesiastical, as archbishops, bishops, or whatsoever other b y l a w f u l authority are appointed in the c h u r c h ; neither is there any reason to be shewed w h y he should rather m e a n y o u r seniors than a n y other m a g istrates. . . . H o w s o e v e r it is, the place being doubtful, it cannot establish the office of y o u r seniors as perpetual. . . . CARTWRIGHT (RSR): T h a t " t h e place being d o u b t f u l it c a n n o t serve to establish the seniors" is dangerously spoken and smelleth of popery, as if the Scripture should lose her authority because m e n agree not of the understanding of it, although, I suppose, there are few places of Scripture wherein things are spoken of so shortly that h a v e so full consent of learned interpreters of our time as this p l a c e h a t h for that signification of seniors w h i c h w e use it for. A n d indeed, w h e n the apostle m a k e t h it a distinct office f r o m the ministers of the W o r d , w h i c h notwithstanding h a v e the g o v e r n m e n t of the church, it must needs be a n office occupied in g o v e r n m e n t alone; otherwise it should not be severed f r o m their office. . . .

478

The Admonition Controversy ADMONITION: Instead of these seniors in every church, 6 6 1

ROM. xii: [6. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith. . . .] 8. [Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.] 661

the Pope hath brought in, and yet we maintain, the lordship of one m a n over sundry churches, yea, over m a n y shires. . . . WHITGIFT (A): I know not how this gear hangeth together or to w h a t purpose you should allege that place. It neither proveth that in every church there was elders, neither that in place of them the Pope hath brought in the lordship of one m a n over many churches. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : If this be a good argument: St. P a u l ad Rom. xii. saith, " H e that ruleth must do it diligently," ergo, every particular congregation must of necessity be governed b y seniors; or this, the aposde, 1 Cor. xii., saith that " G o d hath placed in his church governors," ergo, every parish must have a seigniory; or this, Paul and Barnabas in every church ordained pastors, therefore in every church there must be a company of seniors, to w h o m the whole government of the parish is to be committed—if, I say, these be good and sure arguments, then have I corruptly interpreted those places. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): I come therefore to the second point wherein the question especially lieth, w h i c h is whether this function be perpetual and ought to remain always in the church. A n d it is to be observed, b y the way, that whereas there are divers sorts of adversaries to this discipline of the church, M . Doctor is amongst the worst. For there be that say that this order m a y be used or not used now at the liberty of the churches, but M . Doctor saith that this order is not for these times but only for those times when there were no Christian magistrates. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : I say so still, and I a m able to defend m y saying against all that you have shewed to the contrary. . . . T h i s I a m well assured of that in a monarchy and in a kingdom such as this realm of England is it cannot be practised without untolerable contention and extreme confusion except y o u could

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

479

devise to make every several parish a kingdom within itself and exempt it from all ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction of prince, prelate, and whomsoever. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (i?): The cause why these seniors or ancients were appointed in the church is to be considered, which must needs be granted to be for that the pastor, not being able to oversee all himself . . . might be helped of the ancients. . . . Seeing that the pastor is now, in the time of peace and under a Christian magistrate, not able to oversee all himself . . . it followeth that as well now as in the time of persecution, as well under a Christian prince as under a tyrant, the office of an ancient or senior is required. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): I say there may be seniors in the time of persecution when there is no Christian magistrate, not that there ought of necessity to be. God hath provided the civil magistrate and other governors to punish and to correct vice and other disorders in the church, who hath his officers and deputies in every place for that purpose; neither may the pastor or any other to whom that charge is not committed by the civil magistrate usurp that office unto themselves. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): But whenas the ancient neither did, nor by any manner might, meddle with those things which belonged unto a magistrate no more under a tyrant than under a godly magistrate, there is no reason why, the magistrate entering into the church, the elder should be therefore thrust out. For the elder's office was to admonish severally those that did amiss, to comfort those which he saw weak and shaking and to have need of comfort, to assist the pastor in ecclesiastical censures of reprehensions, sharper or milder as the faults required, also to assist in the suspensions from the supper of the Lord until some trial were had of the repentance of that party which had confessed himself to have offended, or else, if he remained stubborn, to assist him in the excommunication. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): I would gladly know by what place of Scripture you can justify this office that you here appoint unto seniors. In so weighty a matter, in my judgment, you should have done well to have used some authority of Scripture or other ancient writer. . . .

480

The Admonition Controversy

(RSR): Where he asketh "how I shew out of the Scripture that those are the duties of the elders which I have assigned," I answer that forasmuch as St. Paul appointeth them governors of the church, together with the teaching governors, placing the difference only in teaching and consequently in public prayer and administration of sacraments, which are joined with it or comprehended under it,662 that therefore the CARTWRIGHT

1 TIM. v: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they w h o labour in the w o r d and doctrine.] 662

rest remain common between them to be done as well of these as of them. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : But . . . what have you spoken of the office of seniors which is not either proper to the pastor or common to all Christians or such as may be much better brought to pass by the authority of the civil magistrate than by the ignorance, simplicity, and rudeness of the most of your seniors? . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : That without the which the principal offices of charity cannot be exercised is necessary and always to be kept in the church; but the office of ancients and elders are such as without which the principal offices of charity cannot be exercised; therefore it followeth that this office is necessary. That the principal offices of charity cannot be exercised without this order of ancients, it may appear for that he which hath faulted and amended not after he be admonished once privately and then before one witness or two cannot further be proceeded against according to the commandment of our Saviour Christ 663 MATT, xviii: 15. [Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell h i m his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.] 663

unless there be in the church ancients and elders; therefore this principal office of charity, which tendeth to the amendment of him which hath not profited by those two former admonitions, cannot be exercised without them. For it is commanded of our Saviour Christ that in such a case, when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings, it should be told the church. Now I would ask who be meant by the church here? If he say by the church are meant all the people, then I will ask how a man

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

481

can conveniently complain to all the whole congregation or how can the whole congregation conveniently meet to decide of this matter? . . . Well, if it be not the people that be meant by the church, who is it? I hear M . Doctor say it is the pastor; but if he will say so and speak so strangely, he must warrant it with some other places of Scripture where the church is taken for one, which is as much to say as one man is many, one member is a body, one alone is a company. And besides this strangeness of speech, it is clean contrary to the meaning of our Saviour Christ. . . . Seeing then that the church here is neither the whole congregation nor the pastor alone, it followeth that by the church here he meaneth the pastor with the ancients or elders. . . . And as for this manner of speech wherein by the church is understanded the chief governors and elders of the church, it is oftentimes used in the Old Testament, from the which our Saviour borrowed this manner of speaking, as in Exodus it is said that Moses wrought his miracles before the people when mention is made before only of the elders of the people whom Moses had called together.664 And most manifestly in Josue where it is said 864

EXOD. iv:

29. [ A n d M o s e s and A a r o n w e n t a n d gathered together all

the elders of the children of Israel:] 30. [ A n d A a r o n

spake all the words w h i c h

the L o r d

had

spoken

u n t o Moses, a n d did the signs in the sight of the people.]

that he that killed a man at unwares shall return unto the city until he stand before the congregation to be judged, 665 where 665

JOSHUA xx:

[2. S p e a k to the children of Israel, saying, A p p o i n t out for

y o u cities of refuge, whereof I spake u n t o y o u b y the h a n d of Moses: 3. T h a t the slayer that killeth a n y person unawares a n d u n w i t t i n g l y m a y flee thither: and they shall be y o u r refuge f r o m the a v e n g e r of blood.] 4. [ A n d w h e n he t h a t d o t h flee u n t o one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the g a t e of the c i t y , and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of t h a t city, they shall take h i m into the city u n t o them, and g i v e h i m a place, t h a t he m a y d w e l l a m o n g them. . . .] 6. [ A n d he shall d w e l l in that city, until he stand before the congreg a t i o n for j u d g m e n t , and until the d e a t h of the high priest t h a t shall b e in those days. . . .]

by the congregation he meaneth the governors of the congregation, for it did not appertain to all to judge of this case. Likewise

482

T h e Admonition Controversy

in the Chronicles

666

and divers other places. And therefore I

666

1 CHRON. xiii: 2. [And David said unto all the congregation of Israel, If it seem good unto you, and that it be of the Lord our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren every where, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us. . . .] 4. [And all the congregation said that they would do so: for the thing was right in the eyes of all the people.]

conclude that forsomuch as those be necessary and perpetual which are spoken of in those words tell the church and that under those words are comprehended the elders or ancients, that the elders and ancients be necessary and perpetual officers in the church. W H I T G I F T (D): Here are many words without matter and a great thing pretended to no purpose, for "the principal point of charity" both hath been and may be well "exercised" without your seniors. The place Matt, xviii. doth in no respect prove the contrary, for it only teacheth an order how to proceed charitably in private offences and not in public. . . . Moreover, to "tell the church" is either publicly to reprove those that have been privately in that manner admonished and will not repent or else to complain unto such as have authority in the church. . . . And herein you join with me in that you take "the church" there "for the chief governors of the church," though we differ in the persons. For you will have it only meant of the pastor and seniors, and I think it signifieth more generally any which are lawfully appointed to govern the church. But whether it be one or more that hath this authority committed unto him, it is more to tell him than it is to tell twenty besides because he being in authority doth bear the office of a public magistrate, who hath power publicly to correct that which was privately committed, and therefore he that telleth one such may well be said to tell the church because he telleth such a one as hath authority in the church and is a public person. . . . But admit that more than one is understanded by the name of the church (which I also confess), yet doth it not follow that it should be your seigniory, which you would have in every congregation to consist of the pastor and some other of his parish,

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

483

but rather such as Chrysostom calleth "prelates" and "presidents," which are bishops and such other chief governors. . . . Truth it is that the place of Matthew may be understanded of seniors, but it may as well be understanded of any other that by the order of the church have authority in the church. And seeing that it admitteth divers interpretations (as it doth), there can no such platform of necessity be grounded upon it. Moreover, when Christ said, "Die ecclesia," there was no Christian church established, but he speaketh according to the state of the Jews' church that then was under the heathenish magistrates, as he also doth when he saith, " I f thy brother trespass against thee, &c., leave thine offering before the altar, &c. 667 . . . MATT, v: [22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council . . . 23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.] 667

That . . . which he citeth out of Matthew v. is flat against him, for although our Saviour Christ useth manner of speeches drawn from the service of God, which then in use be not so now, yet the commandment he there giveth under that kind of speech is perpetual. And as whatsoever is abrogated of that precept, Matthew v., is abrogated by the prescript Word of God, which teacheth us that offering of calves upon the altar and other ceremonial laws are done away, so if he will have this ordinance of God abrogated, he must shew us some place of Scripture where our Saviour Christ repealed it. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : Furthermore, St. Paul having entreated throughout the whole First Epistle to Timothy of the orders which ought to be in the church of God and of the government, as himself witnesseth in the third chapter of that epistle when he saith he wrote that epistle to teach Timothy how he should behave himself in the house of God, and having set forth both bishop and elder and deacons as ministers and CARTWRIGHT

(RSR):

484

The Admonition Controversy

officers of the church, in the shutting up of his epistle he for the observation of all the orders of that epistle adjureth Timothy and with the invocation of the name of God straitly chargeth him to observe those things which he had prescribed in that epistle.568 . . . 668

1 TIM. vi: 13. [I give thee charge in the sight of G o d , w h o quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, w h o before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;] 14. [ T h a t thou keep this c o m m a n d m e n t without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.]

(D): All this is but to blind the eyes of the reader, being indeed without all pith and ground. For, first, where hath the apostle in all that epistle spoken one word of the office of your seniors, which you distinguish from a minister of the word? Where doth he give any such commandment concerning his office? Where doth he prescribe any such form or kind of government? If he keep silence in this matter through the whole epistle, how dare you presume to say that to be commanded which is not mentioned and to make so much ado about nothing? Surely, if this kind of government had been so necessary and forever to be observed, St. Paul would not have omitted it in this epistle especially. You say that he hath "set forth" in that epistle "the office of an elder"; if by an elder you mean a bishop or a pastor, it is true. If you mean your own elder, such as must govern only and neither preach nor minister the sacraments, it is very untrue, and you have no conscience in speaking untruth; for he speaketh not one word of that senior or of his office. . . . Secondly, you cannot extend these words of the apostle to the whole epistle as though it were given generally of the whole and of everything therein contained, for then must you of necessity bring in widows and their office into the church again because the apostle doth not only describe their office in that epistle but also giveth direct precepts of them,669 and so doth he not of your seniors. Likewise his precept WHITGIFT

649

[1 TIM. v: 3. Honour widows that are widows indeed. . . . 9. Let not a widow be taken into the number under three-score

years old, having been the wife of one man.]

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory of drinking wine, which he giveth there also, 670

670

485

must of necessity

[1 TIM. iii: 2. A bishop then must be blameless . . . 3. Not given to wine. . . .]

be observed of all ministers which have the like infirmity. These and such other gross absurdities must of necessity follow if you will have all things in that epistle necessarily forever to be observed. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : To the place of Timothy requiring a necessary observation of things comprised in that epistle 571 671

1 TIM. vi: 13. [I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession: 14. That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.]

he answereth, first, that "these elders are not there comprised nor their office." I have shewed that both they and their office be there, which is the same with the bishops. . . . Further in the word deacons . . . the apostle comprehendeth both the elders and those which had the alms to dispose, which may appear in that, describing the qualities of the deacons, he noteth there no special quality of him that hath the order of the church's treasure but those qualities only which are common as well to the elder as to him that disposed the church money.672 672

1 TIM. iii: 8. [Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.]

After, he saith that "those words cannot be extended unto all the precepts," first, because "the office of widows should be then necessary." But he doth not consider that St. Paul ordaineth them not simply but upon condition. If he had instituted the eldership with condition, if he had ordained that office rather for the maintenance of the persons themselves than for the service of the church, if he had left so small choice of those to this office as to that, namely, that none might be chosen but poor, none but destitute of all friends, none under the age of sixty years, then he had said somewhat. And even now the perpetuity of that commandment touching widows remaineth

486

The Admonition Controversy

in that sort it was given, that is, upon condition. Then he saith that "so ministers which have such infirmities as Timothy should of necessity drink wine." By "wine" the apostle meaneth not only the blood of the grape but strong drink also and whatsoever might be apt against Timothy's infirmities. And so it is a plain commandment not only to Timothy but to all ministers in his case that they should use such remedies against their diseases whereby they might be more able to do their ministry. . . . W H I T G I F T {A): I know that in the primitive church they had in every church certain seniors to whom the government of the congregation was committed, but that was before there was any Christian prince or magistrate that openly professed the gospel and before there was any church by public authority established or under civil government. I told you before that the diversity of time and state of the church requireth diversity of government in the same. It cannot be governed in time of prosperity as it is in time of persecution. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Thus he saith but sheweth no reason, bringeth no proof, declareth not how nor why prosperity will not bear the elders as well as persecution, neither why they may not be under a godly prince as well as under a tyrant, unless this be a reason that because the godly prince doth nourish the church as a civil magistrate, therefore the ancients may not nourish it as ecclesiastical overseers. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : My reason why it may not be governed under a Christian prince as it may under a tyrant is this: God hath given the chief authority in the government of his church to the Christian magistrate, which could not so be if your seigniory might as well retain their authority under a Christian prince and in the time of peace as under a tyrant and in the time of persecution. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): If . . . St. Paul would charge the churches then with maintaining the elders, which, being poor, were not sometimes able to live without some relief from the church because they were compelled oftentimes to leave their own affairs to wait on the affairs of the church, 573 how much 673

1 TIM. v: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.]

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

487

more o u g h t there n o w to be seniors w h e n the churches b e in peace and therefore not so poor a n d w h e n there m a y be chosen such for the most part throughout the r e a l m as are able to live without c h a r g i n g the c h u r c h a n y w h i t ! . . . A n d if St. Paul, that w a s so desirous to h a v e the gospel . . . free and w i t h o u t charges as m u c h as is possible 574 and so loth 674 1 COR. ix: 18. [ W h a t is m y reward then? V e r i l y that, w h e n I preach the gospel, I m a y make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not m y power in the gospel.]

to l a y any b u r d e n u p o n the churches, especially those w h i c h were poor, did notwithstanding enjoin the m a i n t e n a n c e of the elders unto the churches poor a n d persecuted, h o w m u c h m o r e shall w e think that his m i n d was that the churches w h i c h live in peace and are rich and m a y h a v e this office w i t h o u t c h a r g e o u g h t to receive this order of ancients! WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h i s is a poor and feeble reason: the c h u r c h found seniors in the time of persecution; ergo, there o u g h t rather to be seniors under a Christian prince than in the time of persecution. O r this: the c h u r c h is n o w better a b l e to find seniors; ergo, it o u g h t n o w rather to b e governed b y seniors. Y o u m a y m a k e the same reasons also for w i d o w s and deaconesses and as well i n d u c e the necessity of them. . . . T h e p l a c e of St. P a u l , 1 T i m . v., is u n t r u l y alleged for y o u r purpose, for the apostle m e a n e t h of the minister in every congregation and not of any n u m b e r of seniors, as I h a v e before d e c l a r e d . Neither h a v e y o u one p l a c e of Scripture to w a r r a n t y o u r interpretation or application of that place. G o d h a t h m u c h better provided for his c h u r c h b y p l a c i n g in it civil and Christian magistrates, whose authority is so a m p l e and large, than b y p l a c i n g seniors; wherefore w h e r e Christian magistrates be, the g o v e r n m e n t of seniors is superfluous, and the c h u r c h m a y not be b u r d e n e d w i t h unnecessary and unprofitable charges; neither m a y the authority w h i c h G o d h a t h g i v e n to the Christian magistrate be w r i t h e n out of his h a n d b y a r u d e c o m p a n y of seniors in several parishes. CARTWRIGHT (R): M o r e o v e r , those that be learned k n o w that the g o v e r n m e n t of the c h u r c h w h i c h was in the apostles' times, b e i n g p a r t l y in respect of the people that h a d to d o in

488

T h e Admonition Controversy

the elections and other things popular, partly in respect of the pastors and ancients aristocratical, that is, the rule of the best, I say that they know that these governments do easily decline into their contraries; and by reason thereof both the government of those which were most virtuous might easily be changed into the government of few of the richest or of greatest power, and the popular estate might easily pass to a confused tumult. . . . Therefore, now we have a godly civil magistrate which both will and ought to remedy such declinations and conversions of good government into evil, it followeth that this estate and government by ancients is rather to be used under a Christian prince than under a tyrant. W H I T G I F T ( Z > ) : "Those that be learned know that the government of the church" is neither "popular" nor "aristocratical" . . . but a monarchy. For in every particular church where there is a Christian magistrate he is chief and principal over the rest; and you yourself confess that the pastor is the chief of the seigniory, which ought not to be if the state were either "popular" or "aristocratical." . . . I shall not need to will the reader once again to mark how you bend your force against a monarchy. For your principle is that "the government of the commonwealth must be framed according to the government of the church"; and therefore it may not be a kingdom but rather a popular estate, or aristocratical, because the government of the church (as you say) is so. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And I say, further, where we have an express commandment laid upon us to do a thing, there all disputations must cease, of hardness, of impossibility, of profit, or else of peace. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : These be but words, of course, to no purpose. For, first, you should have proved that the office of your seniors is commanded, which I utterly deny. Then should you have declared that the same commandment is perpetual; for many things are commanded in the New Testament which be not perpetual, as the washing of feet, John xiii.,676 to abstain W5 JOHN

xiii: [14. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your

feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.]

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

489

a sanguine et suffocato, A c t s xv., B 7 6 to elect and choose w i d o w s to 676

ACTS xv: [20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from

pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.]

minister in the c h u r c h , 1 T i m . v., 877 and such like. S o that y o u 677

1 TIM. v: [3. Honour widows that are widows indeed.]

h a v e craftily passed over t w o principal points and those w h i c h o u g h t to be the grounds of y o u r cause. First, therefore, I d e n y that this office of seniors is c o m m a n d e d a n y w h e r e in the N e w T e s t a m e n t ; then I say that if it w e r e c o m m a n d e d , y e t is it b u t a temporal c o m m a n d m e n t . T h o s e t w o points not b e i n g b y y o u p r o v e d , the words y o u utter are b u t in v a i n . . . . CARTWRIGHT (RSR): O f the w i d o w s h a t h been answered. T h e decree of the blood 578 was never a simple prohibition after 678 LEV. xvii: 11. [For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement of the soul.]

our S a v i o u r Christ, whose blood that did shadow, h a d finished his oblation, b u t only to the support of the Jews, so t h a t even then, w h e n that decree was m a d e , the faithful, b o t h of the J e w s or gentiles, m i g h t h a v e eat it, so they did it w i t h o u t offence of those w h i c h w e r e w e a k . . . . A s for the " w a s h i n g of f e e t , " c o m m a n d e d unto the apostles, it is n o t h i n g b u t a trope or b o r r o w e d speech, w h e r e b y our S a v iour Christ willeth t h e m a n d , in them, us all, not for a time, b u t to the end of the w o r l d , that for help one of another e a c h should submit himself to other, even unto the d o i n g of the basest offices, w h i c h m a y a p p e a r in that he p l a c e t h perfect blessedness in the obedience to that c o m m a n d m e n t , 6 7 9 w h i c h he w o u l d never h a v e 679

JOHN xiii: 17. [If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.]

d o n e in the w a s h i n g of the feet, so that this c o m m a n d m e n t m i g h t well be of t h e m (as of us) fulfilled w i t h o u t that particular action of w a s h i n g e a c h another's feet. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R ) : Besides that, I answer, wheresoever there is a church, there are the riches of the Spirit of G o d , there is w i t h k n o w l e d g e discretion and wisdom, and there are such as

490

T h e Admonition Controversy

St. Paul calleth wise and can discern and judge. 680 And we see 680

i COR. x: 15. [I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.]

that when men are called to a lawful and profitable calling and especially to a public calling, God doth pour on his gifts of that person which is so called so plentifully that he is, as it were, suddenly made a new man; which if he do in the wicked as Saul was,681 there is no doubt but he will do it in those which are 681

1 SAM. x: [1. Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his (Saul's) head, and kissed him and said . . .] 6. [And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.]

with the testimony of the church and with experience of their former godly behaviour chosen to such offices of weight. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): This lacketh proof, for sometimes the church of God is where there is neither good pastor nor meet governor as in the time of Elias. And though God sometimes "bestow his gifts upon the person that is called to a lawful and public function as he did upon Saul," yet doth not he alway so. God doth not of necessity tie his graces to offices; for as he in the beginning of his church miraculously bestowed his gifts, so doth he now leave the same by outward means in part to be obtained, as by education, learning, instruction, reading, studying, &c., which means being neglected, God doth of his justice permit evil magistrates and officers, which he also sometime doth for the offences of the people. . . . Surely if this were true that you here so boldly without proof affirm, then should it not much skill what kind of men were chosen to be either pastors or magistrates; for howsoever they were before furnished with gifts, yet when they be once called, God will miraculously pour upon them gifts necessary though they be the rudest and ignorantest men in a whole country. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): I could have brought other examples of David, Salomon, &c., but that one of Saul was more pressing, the force whereof noted by me you clean pass by. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It is true that we ought to be obedient unto the civil magistrate which governeth the church of God in that office which is committed unto him and according to that

The Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

491

calling. But it must be remembered that civil magistrates must govern it according to the rules of God prescribed in his Word and that as they are nurses so they be servants unto the church and as they rule in the church so they must remember to subject themselves unto the church, to submit their sceptres, to throw down their crowns, before the church, yea, as the prophet speaketh, to lick the dust of the feet of the church. 682 . . . 682

ISA. xlix: 23. [And Kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens

thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.]

These words would be well considered, for they contain the overthrow of the prince's authority both in ecclesiastical and civil matters. . . . T h e second point to be noted is when he saith that Christian princes "must subject themselves to the church, submit their sceptres, throw down their crowns before the church, & c . " ; the which kind of speech the Pope himself useth and under the same pretence hath trodden kings under his feet. And although T . C. seems to mislike this excessive using of authority by the Pope, yet would he have the same jurisdiction to remain to his seniors still, whom he understandeth by the name of the church, as appeareth in that which he spake before of these words of Christ, "Die ecclesia," so that he would have the prince subject herself to the seniors of the church and throw down her crown before them, that is, to be content to be ruled and governed, to be punished and corrected, to be excomrtiunicated and absolved by their discretion and at their pleasure. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : What a shameful slander it is which he surmiseth of me that I "would have princes throw down their crowns before the seniors of the church, & c . , " which I precisely prevented with plain words because I knew with whom I had to do. Albeit that "princes should be excepted from ecclesiastical discipline" and, namely, from "excommunication," as he here and otherwhere signifieth, I utterly mislike. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): Neither is there any authority in the whole Bible that enforceth or prescribeth that kind of government as necessary or convenient for all times, no more than there is to WHITGIFT

(D):

492

The Admonition Controversy

prove that in the church there must be always such as have power to work miracles, or that have the gift of healing, and such like, which offices notwithstanding are mentioned as well as governors in the first to the Cor. xii.883 . . . 663

[I COR. xii: ¡28. A n d God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.] CARTWRIGHT

(R): Doth not M. Doctor know that al-

though some things be extraordinary and for a time, yet other some things are ordinary and to endure always? Will he say for that the gifts of miracles and of healing are extraordinary, therefore the teachers which are there reckoned together with the gift of working miracles and of healing are extraordinary? Hath he forgotten that he (indeed untruly) made before the office of apostles and prophets and evangelists a perpetual office? And yet they are there joined with those gifts which were but for a time; and therefore it is a very absurd argument to say that for that something reckoned with governors is for a time and extraordinary, therefore the governors also be so. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : And how prove you that the office of seniors is more ordinary or of longer continuance than the office of "apostles, prophets, the power of working miracles, and of healing," which be in that place recited as well as those governors be whom you call seniors? You ought to have proved the office of seniors to be perpetual for that I deny and shew my reason that it cannot be proved out of that place because other offices mentioned in that place to the Corinthians be temporal. But this being most material, you pass it over, because you are not able to prove it. I have told you before in what sense there may be both "apostles, prophets, and evangelists." And if I cannot necessarily conclude that the office of seniors is temporal because it is rehearsed among those offices and gifts that be temporal, much less can you conclude that it is perpetual, the most of the offices and gifts with it expressed being temporal. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : It is sufficient now to admonish you that although it be granted that the government of one be the best in the commonwealth, yet it cannot be in the church. For the prince may well be monarch immediately between God and

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

493

the commonwealth; but no one can be monarch between God and his church but Christ, which is the only Head thereof. Therefore the monarchy over the whole church and over every particular church and over every singular member in the church is in Christ alone. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : If you mean the universal church, only Christ is the Head; neither hath he any vicegerent to supply that universal care over the whole church. But if you speak of particular churches, as the Church of England, the Church of Denmark, &c., then as the prince is chief governor and head of the commonwealth under God, so is he of the church likewise. . . . T . C. doth but glance at the magistrate because he dare not speak plainly; but such licentious speeches, though void of all reason and ground, may peradventure sink deeper into the heart of the subjects. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): And so also is answered the third question, that forsomuch as they were church-officers and over the people in matters pertaining to God and such as watched over the souls of men 684 that therefore although they were not 684

HEB. xiii: 17. [Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.]

pastors to preach the Word, yet were they no laymen, as they term them, but ecclesiastical persons.585 . . . 685

The place Heb. xiii. is quoted only for the phrase; for it proveth nothing in question. [J. W.] WHITGIFT

( D ) : Those that be called presbyteri in the

Scriptures be ecclesiastical persons, for they be ministers of the Word and sacraments. And M. Calvin . . . saith that all the seniors were ministers of the Word. . . . But how can you make your seniors ecclesiastical, seeing your seigniory must consist of noblemen, gentlemen, merchantmen, husbandmen, handicraftsmen, as tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, &c., even such as the most part of the parish will choose? . . . ADMONITION : Now, on the one side, either hatred against some persons carrieth men headlong into rash and cruel judg-

494

T h e Admonition Controversy

ment, or else favour, affection, or money mitigateth the rigour of the same, and all this cometh to pass because the regiment left of Christ to his church 686 is committed into one man's hands, 586 MATT, xviii: 17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the c h u r c h : b u t if he neglect to hear the church, let h i m be unto thee as an heathen m a n and a publican.] 1 COR. xii: 28. [And G o d h a t h set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.]

ROM. xii: 8. [ O r he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.]

1 TIM. v: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted w o r t h y of double honour, especially they w h o labour in the w o r d and doctrine.] ACTS xv: 2. [ W h e n therefore P a u l and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that P a u l and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should g o u p to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders a b o u t this question. . . .] 4. [And w h e n they w e r e come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that G o d had done with them. . . .] 6. [And the aposdes a n d elders c a m e together for to consider of this matter. . . .] 22. [ T h e n pleased it the apostles and elders, w i t h the whole church, to send chosen m e n of their o w n c o m p a n y to A n t i o c h with P a u l and Barnabas; n a m e l y , J u d a s surnamed Barsabas, a n d Silas, chief m e n a m o n g the brethren:] 23. [And they w r o t e letters b y them after this m a n n e r ; T h e apostles and elders and brethren send greeting u n t o the brethren w h i c h are of the Gentiles in A n t i o c h and Syria and Cilicia.]

whom alone it shall be more easy for the wicked by bribing to pervert than to overthrow the faith and piety of a zealous and godly company, for such manner of men indeed should the seniors be.687 . . . 687 EXOD. xviii: 21. [ M o r e o v e r thou shalt provide out of all the people able m e n , such as fear G o d , men of truth, hating covetousness; a n d p l a c e such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, a n d rulers of tens.] DEUT. i: 13. [ T a k e y o u wise men, and understanding, a n d k n o w n a m o n g your tribes, and I will m a k e them rulers over you.]

W H I T G I F T (^4): You say "all this cometh to pass because the regiment left of Christ to his church is committed unto one man's hands"; and for the proof of this you note in the margent

T h e Office of Elders, or the Seigniory

495

the xviii. of Matt., the xii. of the First to the Corin., the xii. to the Rom., the v. of the First to Timoth., the xv. of the Acts; which places being examined, let the discreet reader judge how aptly they serve for your purpose. In the xviii. of Matt. . . . it is by the consent of all interpreters manifest that Christ prescribeth a rule of correcting private and secret sins and not of such as be open and known to others. For he would not have private and secret sins blazed abroad and publicly reprehended before the party offending be in this order first privately admonished. This maketh nothing for your purpose; it taketh away authority of judging and condemning from private men and not from public magistrates. In the xii. of the First to the Corinth., verse 28 . . . the apostle declareth that Christ hath left in his church governors, and thereof you may well conclude that in the church there must be some which should have authority over the rest. The apostle doth not here say that in every particular congregation Christ hath left many governors no more than he saith that he hath left many pastors for one flock, but in his church he hath ordained governors. . . . In the xii. to the Romans it is thus written: "He that ruleth with diligence." What maketh this for your purpose, or how can you wring it to your assertion? In the v. of the 1. to Timothy . . . Paul sheweth in these words that such are worthy their stipend and reward which rule well in the church and do their duties diligently. But what is that to your assertion? The places alleged out of the fifteenth of the Acts be of the like sort. Wheresoever mention is made in the Scriptures of governors or elders, that you allege to improve the government of one man, wherein you shew a great want of judgment. . . . Your meaning is that Christ left the whole government of his church to the pastor and to some four or five of the parish besides, which you are not able to prove, and your places of Scripture alleged signify no such matter. . . . In the xviii. of Exodus, which place you quote to prove that seniors ought to be zealous and godly, Jethro giveth Moses counsel not to weary himself in hearing all matters that be

496

The Admonition Controversy

brought unto him but rather to commit the hearing and determining of smaller matters to others. . . . This maketh nothing for seniors: Moses here was chief; these were but his underofficers placed by himself. This place serveth well for the government of one prince over one whole realm and giveth him good counsel what under-officers he ought to choose. To the same effect and purpose is that spoken and written which you cite out of the first of Deutero. verse 13. C A R T W R I G H T (R): The rest comprehended in these sections is answered before, being matter which pertained unto the archbishop. W H I T G I F T (D): Very little of it pertaineth to the archbishop. The authors of the Admonition bring in all these places of Scripture to prove the government of your seniors, but how aptly it appeareth in that you cannot salve their follies in so unapt allegations. There be other things that require answer, but you have shifted of all in saying that "they pertain to the archbishop and be answered before" whenas neither of both is true, for they pertain to your seniors and be nowhere as yet answered. But I leave it to the reader here to consider why you have not set down my book in your Replye.

E. The Office of Deacons ADMONITION:

their deacons.688

In the old church every congregation had

PHIL. i: 1 . [Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.] JOHN xiii: 27. [And after the sop Satan entered into him (Judas). Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.] ACTS vi: [2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . .] 5. [And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and 588

T h e Office of Deacons

497

Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch.] 1 TIM. in: 8. [Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to m u c h wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.]

WHITGIFT (A): O how aptly you have alleged the Scriptures to prove that every congregation had their deacons! In the first to the Philip. . . . Paul and Timotheus salute the bishops and deacons which are at Philippi; therefore in those days every congregation had their deacons. A strange kind of reasoning! Y o u might well have thus concluded: ergo, at Philippi there was deacons. But surely this argument is too m u c h out of square: there was deacons at Philippi; therefore every congregation had their deacons. In the xiii. of St. John, verse 27 . . . after supper Satan entered into Judas, and Jesus said unto him, " T h a t thou doest, do q u i c k l y " ; therefore every congregation had their deacons. N o marvel though your margent be pestered with Scriptures when y o u take liberty to make ex quolibet quidlibet. Peradventure y o u mean that Judas was a deacon (as he was not but an apostle) because he carried the b a g and that some of the apostles thought that Christ had bid him give somewhat to the poor: belike whosoever giveth a penny to the poor at his master's commandment is with you a deacon. In the sixth of the Acts we learn that there were chosen seven deacons, but there is not one word to prove that every congregation had their deacons. In the third of the First to T i m o t h y St. Paul sheweth w h a t qualities and conditions a deacon ought to have, but not one word of deacons being in every congregation. This is great audacity thus manifestly to wring the Scriptures without all colour or shew of reason. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): T h a t there were deacons in every church . . . is well proved of the Admonition both by the place of the Philippians and of the Acts; for although it be not there said that the deacons were in every church, yet forsomuch as the same use of them was in all churches w h i c h was in Jerusalem and at Philippos and for that the apostles (as hath been before

498

The Admonition Controversy

t o u c h e d ) , l a b o u r i n g after the uniformity of the church, o r d a i n e d the same officers in all churches, the proof of one is the proof of all, and the shewing that there w e r e deacons in one c h u r c h is the shewing in all. T h e p l a c e w h i c h they allege o u t of the first of T i m o t h y is of all other the most proper; for St. P a u l , there describing not h o w the C h u r c h of Ephesus but simply and generally h o w the c h u r c h must be governed, reckoneth there the order of deacons. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : A n d I say a g a i n that they be most u n a p t reasons, for the deacons's office was not so troublesome b u t that the deacons of one city m i g h t serve all the churches a n d congregations belonging u n t o the same. N e i t h e r h a v e y o u read either in Scripture or a n y ancient writer . . . that deacons w e r e placed a n y w h e r e b u t in cities, and yet it is not to be t h o u g h t b u t t h a t there were churches also in m e a n e r towns. A n d surely no m a n w i t h o u t blushing c a n defend this a r g u m e n t : there w e r e deacons at J e r u s a l e m and at Philippos; ergo, there w e r e in every c o n g r e g a t i o n deacons. It is like u n t o this: there b e preachers in C a m b r i d g e and L o n d o n ; therefore in every parish in E n g l a n d there b e preachers. T h i s is also untrue t h a t " t h e apostles ordained the same officers in all c h u r c h e s . " F o r in chief and principal cities they ordained bishops to g u i d e and g o v e r n the rest of the ministers w h i c h w e r e in towns b e l o n g i n g to those cities — a s it is manifest b y the examples of J a m e s , T i m o t h y , a n d T i t u s — b u t they d i d not o r d a i n a n y such bishops in every congregation. . . . T h e First to T i m o t h y , the third, is as violently wrested to serve their purpose. F o r St. P a u l d o t h not speak one w o r d there of deacons b e i n g in every c o n g r e g a t i o n ; only he telleth w h a t m a n n e r of m e n they o u g h t to be. A n d y o u are not able to shew . . . b y the practice of the c h u r c h that there were deacons in every congregation. . . . B u t a m o n g all these slender defences of yours y o u leave out the xiii. of St. J o h n , vers. 27. Belike the authors of the Admonition must answer that themselves as they must d o m a n y other places w h i c h y o u b y silence pass over u n t o them. . . . ADMONITION: T o u c h i n g deacons, t h o u g h their names be r e m a i n i n g , y e t is the office foully perverted and turned upside

The Office of Deacons

499

down; for their duty in the primitive church was to gather the alms diligently and to distribute it faithfully, 689 also for the sick ROM. xii: 8. [Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.] 589

and impotent persons to provide painfully, having ever a diligent care that the charity of godly men were not wasted upon loiterers and idle vagabonds. 690 Now it is the first step to the ministry, 11 THESS. Hi: 10. [For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.] 590

nay, rather a mere order of priesthood. W H I T G I F T {A): In the whole xii. chapter of the epistle to the Romans there is not one word to prove the office of a deacon to consist in gathering alms and distributing the same; neither yet doth he speak there of the office of a deacon. No more doth he in the third chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalo. Lord God, what mean you thus to play with the Scriptures? . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Whereas M . Doctor crieth out of dallying with the Scriptures for alleging the 8. verse of the twelfth unto the Romans to prove deacons, affirming that there is no word of them, truly I can find no words to set forth this so gross ignorance. And had it not been enough for M . Doctor to have uttered this ignorance, but he must also with an outcry proclaim it and, as it were, spread the banner of it? What do these words note " h e that distributeth in simplicity" but the office of the deaconship? For in that place St. Paul reckoneth up all the ordinary and perpetual offices of the church, as the office of the doctor, of the pastor, of the deacon, of the elder, and leaveth not out so much as the widow, which he noteth in these words "shewing mercy." . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I think rather this clause " h e that distributeth, let him do it with simplicity" is spoken to such as be able to help the poor that they should do it willingly and simply for Christ's sake, not for vainglory or any other like respect. For the whole scope of that chapter is to move such as believe in Christ to good life and conversation; neither doth the apostle

50o

The Admonition Controversy

speak of the ministers of the church only but of all Christians, of what vocation or calling soever they be. And therefore, this sentence being general and spoken to all of ability, it may also include deacons; but I see not how it can be particularly restrained to them. . . . You say that "Paul reckoneth u p here all ordinary and perpetual offices of the church"; but you speak it only, you prove it not. H e speaketh here of prophesying, and you deny the office of a prophet to be perpetual. You say he speaketh here of widows, and I deny their office to be perpetual. Moreover, it is certain that he speaketh in this place of gifts profitable to the church and some of them common as well to civil as to ecclesiastical persons. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : T h e apostle here maketh a partition as it is manifest by the words and articles, which are instruments to part with. Now if he will have one member in this partition bigger than all the rest and to contain them all, he maketh the Holy Ghost (which is to be detested) an evil and an uneven parter. Hereupon it cometh that when he speaketh of the duties which belong to all alike, he beginneth with another form of speech. 691 691

[ROM. xii:] g. [Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.]

Last of all, it is not to be omitted that he useth the word of distributor rather than the word giver. For although it be taken sometime for the giver, yet that is but by a trope forsomuch as the same is often the distributor, which is the giver, so that the proper signification, being to dispose that which was given of others, agreeth unto the deacon and not unto one which giveth of his own. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : And as Master Doctor's ignorance appeareth in this place, so his mind, not desirous of the truth but seeking to cavil, doth as manifestly shew itself. For all men see that the Admonition allegeth not the place to the Thessalonians to prove the office of deacons but to shew that idle vagabonds might not have any of that relief which belongeth unto those which be poor indeed, which thing appeareth both by the

The Office of Deacons

501

placing of the quotation over against that allegation and by the letter which directeth thereunto. WHITGIFT (D): Belike that place was only quoted for the phrase; else I see not to what end it serveth except it be to prove the office of a deacon. For to what purpose should they note it to prove that idle vagabonds should have none of that relief, seeing that is not denied nor yet in question? . . . ADMONITION: Then [the sacraments were administered] by ministers only; 892 now by mid wives and deacons equally. . . . MATT, xxviii: 19. [Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.] 1 COR. iv: 1. [Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.]

694

WHITGIFT (¿4): We read in the eighth of the Acts that Philip, being a deacon, did baptize. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Deacons . . . ought not to minister the sacrament. . . . I would gladly ask M. Doctor how he is able to prove that that was Philip the deacon and not rather Philip the apostle, seeing that St. Luke, when he speaketh of Philip that was the deacon, speaketh of him with that title and addition of deaconship, and there is a great doubt amongst writers which Philip that was that St. Luke mentioneth in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. But let it be that Philip that was the deacon. I answer that he was no deacon then; for the Church of Jerusalem, whereof he was deacon, being scattered, he could be no more deacon of it or distribute the money that was collected for the poor of that church. And further, I answer that he was afterward an evangelist and therefore preached not by virtue of his deaconship (whose calling is not to preach) but by that he was an evangelist, whose office put upon him a necessity of preaching. WHITGIFT ( D ) : In the beginning of that viii. chap, of the Acts St. Luke declareth that all the apostles did still remain at Jerusalem; 593 wherefore it could not be Philip the apostle which [ACTS viii: 1. And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. . . ; 593

502

T h e Admonition Controversy

4. Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the Word. 5. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. . . . 12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.] was now at Jerusalem, but it must needs be Philip the d e a c o n that was dispersed with the rest and c a m e to Samaria, where he n o w preached and baptized. A n d of this j u d g m e n t is M . Calvin.

. . . T h a t this Philip still remained deacon and that

he was called an evangelist in respect that he preached the gospel t h o u g h he were b u t a deacon, it appeareth, A c t s xxi., where St. L u k e speaketh of h i m in this manner: " A n d w e entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, w h i c h was one of the seven, &c."

694

A n d further, that he still remained deacon,

although

694 ACTS xxi: [8. And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.]

he was n o w departed from Jerusalem, M . Gualter declareth. . . . WHITGIFT (A):

It is true that in the primitive church the

office of a deacon was to collect and provide for the poor, b u t not only; for it was also their office to preach and to baptizes For Stephen and Philip being deacons did preach the gospel, A c t s vi., vii., viii. 595 A n d Philip did baptize the eunuch, A c t . [ACTS vi: 2. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 3. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . 5. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen . . . and Philip. . . .] [ACTS vii: 1. Then said the high priest, Are these things so? 2. And he (Stephen) said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; T h e God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, (etc.)] [ACTS viii: 5. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.] 635

viii. 696 . . . 696 [ACTS viii: 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.]

The Office of Deacons

503

C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : A s I did n o t before deny, so n o w I confess h i m to h a v e been Philip the evangelist and not Philip the apostle, w h i c h is mentioned A c t s viii., and hold as before that he p r e a c h e d b y virtue of his evangelistship and not b y virtue of his deaconship, w h i c h was then ceased for that the c h u r c h w h e r e u n t o he served was scattered, against w h i c h answer his authority out of the A c t s xxi. " t o prove that he was still d e a c o n " is quite contrary to himself. F o r it affirmeth of the time past that he was before Paul's arrival unto Caesarea deacon, not that he was so w h e n he arrived. F o r then the interpreters w o u l d h a v e turned the participle, w h i c h serveth b o t h for the time past and present according to the circumstance of the place: " w h i c h is one of the s e v e n " and not " w h i c h was." S o that here w e h a v e the c o m m o n consent of all interpreters flatly against the D o c t o r , n a m e l y , that Philip was not then d e a c o n w h e n St. P a u l c a m e to Caesarea but h a d been before. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : U n t o the e x a m p l e of Philip he addeth St. Stephen, w h i c h w a s one of the deacons, w h i c h he affirmeth to h a v e preached. B u t I deny it, for all that l o n g oration w h i c h he h a t h in the seventh of the Acts is no sermon but a defence of himself against those accusations w h i c h were laid against him, as M . B e z a d o t h very learnedly and substantially p r o v e in his annotations upon those places of St. Stephen's disputations and defence. N o w to defend himself, being accused, is lawful not for the deacons only b u t for a n y other Christian; and w e read n o t h i n g that S t e p h e n did there, either touching the defence of his cause or the sharp r e b u k i n g of the obstinate Pharisees and priests, but that the holy martyrs of G o d , w h i c h w e r e no deacons nor ministers, h a v e done w i t h us w h e n they h a v e been convented before their persecutors; and whereas he saith that Philip baptized, I h a v e shewed before b y w h a t authority he did it, that is, not in that he was a d e a c o n b u t for that he was an evangelist. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : T h e accusations are contained in the 13. and 14. verse of the vi. chap. 5 9 7 L e t the reader c o m p a r e his 697

[ACTS vi: 12. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the

scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council. 13. A n d set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

504

T h e Admonition Controversy 14. For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall

destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.]

sermon with them and judge whether he spake in the way of preaching or of defending himself. Although a man may make his apology in preaching and answer accusations in a sermon — and surely that sharp and severe reprehension that he concludeth with, beginning at the 51. verse,698 doth evidently declare that 698

[ACTS vii:

51. Y e stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.]

it was a sermon — moreover, it was in the synagogue which was called the synagogue of the Libertines, &c. The end of it was to prove true religion and the true worshipping of God to be affixed neither to the temple nor to external ceremonies but to consist of faith in God. And yet I do not deny but that Stephen also did use this sermon as an answer to those matters whereof he was accused, but he answered in the way of preaching and not of pleading. . . . I cannot find in M. Beza his annotations any such thing as you here affirm. Although if it were so, yet doth it not improve this to be a sermon; for then was the oration of Peter's no sermon, Acts ii., wherein he answered to those that accused the apostles of drunkenness; neither can Paul be said to have preached, Acts xxiv., if this be true that an apology may not be made by the way of preaching. If it be lawful thus to invent distinctions to shift off" so manifest examples of Scriptures, then it is an easy matter to shift off anything that shall be proponed. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Now it is the first step to the ministry, nay, rather a mere order of priesthood. W H I T G I F T (^4): It may well be counted the first step to the ministry as it hath been from the apostles' time, and St. Paul joined them together, 1 Tim. iii.699 . . . 689 [1 TIM. iii: 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. . . .

8. Likewise must the deacons be grave. . . .]

C A R T W R I G H T (R): But what reason is this: to be a deacon is the first step to the ministry; therefore the deacon may preach

The Office of Deacons

505

and minister the sacraments whenas the contrary rather followeth? For if it be a step to the ministry, then it is not the ministry but differeth from it and so ought not to do the things that belong to the minister. . . . WHITGIFT ( D ) : T h e words of the Admonition be these: " N o w it is the first step to the ministry, nay, rather a mere order of priesthood." T h e which words I answer in this manner: " I t m a y well be counted the first step to the ministry as it hath been from the apostles' time, and St. Paul joineth them together, 1 T i m . iii." N o w let the reader consider whether I use this for an argument or no to prove that a deacon may preach and minister the sacraments. . . . CARTWRIGHT (R): But I deny that it is or ought to be always a step to the ministry. I know . . . that there be very many which interpret the place of St. Paul, where he speaking of the deacons that behave themselves well, that they get themselves . . . a degree to be a minister or a bishop. But I will shew a manifest reason w h y it cannot so be understanded, w h i c h is for that as the functions of a deacon or a minister are diverse, so are the gifts also whereby those functions are executed likewise diverse, and therefore there m a y be some men for their wisdom and gravity, discretion and faithfulness, and whatsoever other gifts are required in him that should do this office of providing for the poor and to be a good deacon, which, notwithstanding, for some impediment in his tongue or for want of utterance shall never be able as long as he liveth to be a good minister of the W o r d ; and therefore, the gifts being diverse wherewith those offices must be executed (although it is neither unlawful nor unmeet to make of a deacon a minister if he have gifts for that purpose), yet I deny that St. Paul appointeth that the deaconship should be, as it were, the seed or fry of the ministers or that he meaneth by those words that the deaconship is a step to the pastorship. W h i c h m a y yet also further appear by the phrase of speech which the apostle useth, for he doth not say that " t h e y that do the office of a deaconship w e l l " shall come to or get a good standing, but he saith that in so doing they do " g e t themselves a good standing," that is, they get themselves authority and estimation in the church whereby they m a y be

506

T h e Admonition Controversy

both the bolder to do their office and whereby they may do it with more fruit whereas when they live naughtily, they neither dare do oftentimes that which they should do nor yet that which they do well taketh so good effect because of the discredit which cometh by their evil behaviour. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): It is not necessary that everyone which is a deacon should be preferred to the ministry, for it may be that he shall so evil use himself in that function that he be thought unmeet further to be preferred. . . . St. Paul doth not make much difference betwixt the gifts that are to be required in a bishop and the gifts that are to be required in a deacon, as it appeareth i Tim. iii.600 And indeed, if you 600

[i TIM. iii: 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. 4. O n e that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. . . . 8. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre. . . . 1 2 . L e t the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.]

respect the gifts required in them both, there is not much difference between them; and therefore your reason is not so strong as you make it. Moreover, I never heard that an "impediment in the tongue or some want of utterance" were sufficient causes to debar a man otherwise meet from the ministry. Indeed, St. Paul requireth that he should be "aptus ad docendum," which he may be though he hath some impediment in speech. For St. Paul doth not mean by these words volubility of tongue but wisdom, discretion, and order in teaching. If you mean such a one as either cannot speak at all or not utter his mind in such sort as he may be understood, him I think neither to be fit for to be minister nor a deacon, but as I told you before, it is not necessary that whosoever is deacon should after be minister, no more than it is that a bachelor of art should be a master of art or a bachelor of divinity a doctor, for there may be just causes to stay them from proceeding any further. . . .

The Office of Widows ADMONITION: The deaconship must not be confounded with the ministry, nor the collectors for the poor may not usurp the deacon's office,601 but he that hath an office must look to 601

1 TIM. iii: 8. [Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre.]

his office,602 and every man must keep himself within the bonds 602

ROM. xii: 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching.] 1 COR. vii: 20. [Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.]

and limits of his own vocation. WHITGIFT (¿4): Neither do we confound them, and yet Paul in the place by you quoted in the margent speaketh not one word of confounding or not confounding these offices. So the poor be provided for, it forceth not whether provision be made by deacons or by collectors: by the one it may be well done, by the other it cannot be done in all places as the state is now. But shew any Scripture to prove that the poor must only be provided for by deacons, else not. WHITGIFT ( D ) : Nothing answered to this.

F. The Office of Widows (R): Of those whose charge was over the poor . . . some had charge over the poor strangers and those poor which were sick only, and those St. Paul calleth in one place deaconesses 603 and in another place widows.604 . . . The CARTWRIGHT

603

ROM. xvi: i. [I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea.] 604

1 TIM. v: [9. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,] 10. [Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.]

widows did employ their labours to the washing of the feet of the strangers and attending upon the poor which were sick and had no friends to keep them.

508

The Admonition Controversy

WHITGIFT (D): There is no great matter in all this, saving only that I would gladly learn where the office of "widows and deaconesses" is restrained to "poor strangers only and such as be sick," seeing that the other poor that be neither strangers nor sick may need their help in sundry things as well as they and seeing also that neither in the xvi. to the Rom. nor in the i Tim. v., which you quoted in the margent, there is any such restraint made or to be gathered but the contrary almost in express words. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : His question "where the office of widows is restrained to the poor which are sick and strangers" I pass as impertinent, especially when he doth not assign any other to whom their attendance belongeth. That "the contrary doth appear almost in express words" is but his accustomed boldness of untrue speaking. . . . CARTWRIGHT (/?): The widows . . . were godly poor women in the church above the age of threescore years 608 for 606 1 TIM. v: g. [Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.]

the avoiding of all suspicion of evil which might rise by slanderous tongues if they had been younger. These, as they were nourished at the charges of the church, being poor, so did they serve the church in attending upon poor strangers and the poor which were sick in the church whereof they were widows. Now although there is not so great use of these widows with us as there was in those places where the churches were first founded and in that time wherein this order of widows was instituted, part of the which necessity grew both by the multitude of strangers through the persecution and by the great heat of those east countries whereupon the washing and suppling of their feet was required, yet forsomuch as there are poor which are sick in every church, I do not see how a better and more convenient order can be devised for the attendance of them in their sickness and other infirmities than this which St. Paul appointeth that there should be, if there can be any gotten, godly poor widows of the age which St. Paul appointeth, which should attend upon

The Office of Widows

509

such. For if there be any such poor widows of that age destitute of all friends, it is manifest that she must needs live of the charge of the church and, seeing she must needs do so, it is better she should do some duty for it unto the church again than the church should be at a new charge to find others to attend upon those which are sick and destitute of keepers, seeing that there can be none so fit for that purpose as those women which St. Paul doth there describe; so that I conclude that if such may be gotten, we ought also to keep that order of widows in the church still. I know that there be learned men which think otherwise, but I stand upon the authority of God's Word and not upon the opinions of men, be they never so well-learned; and if the matter also should be tried by the judgment of men, I am able to shew the judgment of as learned as this age hath brought forth, which thinketh that the institution of widows is perpetual and ought to be where it may be had and where such widows are found. Indeed, they are more rare now than in the apostles' times. For then by reason of the persecution those which had the gift of continency did abstain from marriage after the death of their husbands, for that the sole life was an easier estate and less dangerous and chargeable when they were driven to fly than the estate of those which were married. W H I T G I F T (D): Here you are taken in your own trap and fain you would wring yourself out if you could tell which way; for if all things contained in St. Paul his First Epistle to Timothy be perpetual, and must be kept under the great charge that he gave unto Timothy in the sixth chapter, as you have before affirmed, then of necessity the church must needs still retain widows. You know not in the world how to avoid this absurdity, and therefore sometimes you say that "now there is not so great use of them with us as there was in those places where the churches were first founded, &c.," and by and by you begin to call that back and say that you "do not see how a better and more convenient order can be devised for the attendance of them in their sickness and other infirmities, &c.," and in the end you "conclude that if such may be gotten, we ought also to keep that order of widows in the church still." Surely if it be an order

510

The Admonition Controversy

appointed of God to be perpetual and contained under that denunciation to Timothy in the sixth chapter, these "ifs" and "ands" can take no place, for there are widows good store in this realm of England, so that that excuse will not serve. But it is a world to see what you dare avouch, be it never so untrue, contrary both to the practice of all reformed churches that I can hear of and judgments of all learned men that I have read of this matter. But if the institution of widows be so necessary, why should they not be in every congregation as well as deacons, for the apostle speaketh as directly of them in his epistle to Timothy as he doth of deacons? Again, if this be a sufficient excuse why the church hath no widows, to say that they cannot be gotten or there is none meet, why will not the excuse serve the church for lack of your seniors also, &c.?

G. Ecclesiastical Discipline A D M O N I T I O N : Let us come now to . . . ecclesiastical discipline. The officers that have to deal in this charge are chiefly three: ministers, preachers, or pastors, of whom before; seniors or elders; and deacons. . . . W H I T G I F T (A): What Scripture have you to prove that such seniors as you mean and deacons had anything to do in ecclesiastical discipline? I think the only discipline that we have in the whole New Testament (except you will make admonition and exhortation a part of it) is excommunication, and the execution of that is only committed to the ministers of the Word: Matt, xvi.,606 John xx.607 Examples hereof we have i Cor. v.,608 408

[MATT, xvi: 19. A n d I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.] 607

(JOHN xx: 23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.] 608

[1 COR. v: 4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Ecclesiastical Discipline

511

5. T o deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.]

1 Tim. i.,

609

and ad Titum iii.610 . . .

[1 TIM. i: 18. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; 608

19. Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: 20. O f whom is Hymeanaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.] 610 [ T I X U S iii: [o. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11. K n o w i n g that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.]

C A R T W R I G H T (R): M . Doctor . . . should understand that beside that part of private discipline which is ordinarily and daily to be exercised by every one of the pastors and elders, as admonition and reprehension, there are three principal parts which are exercised of them jointly and together, whereof the first is the election or choice and the abdication or putting out of ecclesiastical officers. T h e second is in excommunication of the stubborn or absolution of the repentant. T h e third is the decision of all such matters as do rise in the church either touching corrupt manners or perverse doctrine. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : I speak of the public discipline of the church, not of private admonition and reprehension which may be called by the name of discipline; but neither are they properly nor usually so called except you will also say that public preaching and reading of the Scriptures is discipline. These be things annexed to discipline but unproperly termed by the name of discipline. Your partition of discipline into those three parts, in my poor judgment, is very unskilful, for discipline consisteth in punishing and correcting of vice. Election of ministers is no correcting of vice; neither yet is the deciding of controversies in matters doubtful properly called discipline; for discipline is exercised in punishing and correcting the persons, not deciding the causes. Wherefore I think you have forgotten yourself and instead of the part have divided the whole; that is, you have made a division of government whereas you took upon you to

512

T h e Admonition Controversy

divide discipline, which is but a part of ecclesiastical policy or government. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): As touching the election and consequently the throwing out . . . the eldership hath the principal sway. For the decision of controversies when they rise it may appear in the xv. of the Acts that the presbytery or eldership of the church hath to determine of that also.611 . . . [ACTS XV: ST. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.] 611

W H I T G I F T (£)): "For the decisions of controversies when they arise" it may appear in the xv. of the Acts that the best way is to call synods and councils of learned men as it was there practised and not to commit such matters to the pastor of every several parish and certain of his neighbors whom you call the seigniory. For if it had been so, what needed Paul and Barnabas have taken so long a journey from Antioch to Jerusalem for the deciding of their controversies, seeing that they and the seigniory, if there had been any such, might have ended the same at home in Antioch? This place undoubtedly overthroweth your seigniory except now you will take it, as it is in ecclesiastical writers oftentimes taken, for a synod or convocation of bishops and priests; so that not your seigniory which is in every parish but general or provincial councils and synods must have the deciding of controversies. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Ecclesiastical discipline . . . is an order left by God unto his church whereby men learn to frame their wills and doings according to the law of God by instructing and admonishing one another, yea, and by correcting and punishing all wilful persons and contemners of the same.612 Of this disv: 16. [Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.] MATT, xviii: 15. [Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.] 16. [But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.] , 1 J JAS.

Ecclesiastical Discipline

513

17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]

cipline there is two kinds: one private, wherewith we will not deal because it is impertinent to our purpose; another public, which, although it hath been long banished, yet if it might now at the length be restored, would be very necessary and profitable for the building up of God's house. The final end of this discipline is the reforming of the disordered and to bring them to repentance and to bridle such as would offend. The chiefest part and last punishment of this discipline is excommunication by the consent of the church determined if the offender be obstinate. . . . In the primitive church it was in many men's hands; 613 613 1

COR. v: 4. [In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together and m y spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5. T o deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.]

now one alone excommunicateth. In those days it was the last censure of the church and never went forth but for notorious crimes;614 now it is pronounced for every light trifle. Then ex614 1

COR. v: 11. [But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.] 11 THESS. iii: 14. [And if any m a n obey not our word by this episde, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.]

communication was greatly regarded and feared; now because it is a money matter, no whit at all esteemed. Then for great sins severe punishment and for small offences little censures;616 616 1

TIM. i: 20. [Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; w h o m I have delivered unto Satan, that they m a y learn not to blaspheme.] 1 COR. v: [4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and m y spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5. T o deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.]

now great sins either not at all punished, as blasphemy,616 LEV. xxiv: 14. [Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. . . .]

616

514

The Admonition Controversy

16. [And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.] NUM. xv: [32. And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.] 34. [And thy put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.] &c. usury, 617 & c . , or else slightly passed over with pricking in a D E U T . xxiii: 19. [Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:] 20. [Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.] 617

blanket or pinning in a sheet, as adultery, 6 1 8 whoredom, drunk618

LEV. xx: 10. [And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.] D E U T . xxii: 22. [If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.] enness, & c . WHITGIFT (A): Where you speak truly and uprightly, there I join with you. Indeed excommunication, which is the last and greatest punishment in the church, because it is commonly used and in every trifling matter, it is also commonly neglected and contemned. I pray G o d it may be restored again to the first purity. But that excommunication was then in many men's hands the place by you alleged out of the 1 Cor. v. proveth not. . . . A n d although there be some defect in the church touching this part of discipline, yet is not the church void of all discipline; for besides divers profitable and godly laws made for the correcting of divers vices, there is a commission for causes ecclesiastical, which both have done and, being accordingly used, will do singular much good in this commonweal. . . .

Ecclesiastical Discipline

515

W H I T G I F T (A): The Scripture hath not appointed what time or where the congregation shall meet for common prayer and for the hearing of the Word of God, neither yet any discipline for the correcting of such as shall contemn the same. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Where was your judgment when you wrote that the Scripture hath appointed no discipline nor correction for such as shall contemn the common prayers and hearing the Word of God? What church-discipline would you have other than admonitions, reprehensions, and if these will not profit, excommunications? And are they not appointed of our Saviour Christ, Matt, xviii.? 619 There are also civil punishments 619

MATT, xviii:

15. [ M o r e o v e r if t h y brother shall trespass against thee,

g o and tell h i m his f a u l t between thee and h i m alone: if he shall hear thee, t h o u hast gained t h y brother.] 16. [But if he will n o t hear thee, then take w i t h thee one or t w o more, t h a t in the m o u t h of t w o or three witnesses every w o r d m a y be established.] 17. [ A n d if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the c h u r c h : b u t if he neglect to hear the church, let h i m be unto thee as an

heathen

m a n and a publican.]

and punishments of the body likewise appointed by the Word of God in divers places: in the xxii. of Exodus 620 . . . and in 620

EXOD. xxii:

20. [ H e t h a t sacrificeth unto a n y g o d , save unto the L o r d

o n l y , he shall be utterly destroyed.]

the xix. of Deuteronomy.621 . . . The execution of this law ap621DEUT.

xix:

[16. If a false witness rise u p against a n y m a n to testify

against h i m t h a t w h i c h is w r o n g . . .] 19. [ T h e n y e d o u n t o h i m , as he h a d t h o u g h t to h a v e done u n t o his brother: so shalt thou p u t the evil a w a y f r o m a m o n g you.]

peareth in the xv. chap, u Chron. by King Aza, who made a law that all those that did not seek the Lord should be killed.622 622

11 CHRON. xv:

13. [ T h a t whosoever w o u l d n o t seek the L o r d G o d of

Israel should be p u t to death, w h e t h e r small or great, w h e t h e r m a n or woman.]

And thus you see the civil punishment of contemners of the Word and prayers. . . . W H I T G I F T ( D ) : You mislike that I should say "the Scripture not to have appointed discipline or correction for such as

516

The Admonition Controversy

shall contemn the common prayers and hearing the Word of God." And you ask me where my "judgment" was? But I have more cause to demand of you where that learning and skill is which you so much brag of, seeing that you so unskilfully allege the Scriptures against their true meaning and sense? For where have you learned that Christ in the xviii. of Matthew doth appoint any general rule for public offences such as negligence and contempt in frequenting public prayers and hearing of the Word of God is? The very words of Christ "If thy brother trespass against thee, &c.," do teach that he meaneth not there of open and known but of secret and particular sins. The which thing also the note that is in the margent of the Bible printed at Geneva 623 might have taught you if you had been as well [MATT, xviii: (Gen. ver.) 15. Moreover, if thy brother trespace against thee, go, and tell him his faute betwene thee & him alone. (On the passage "if thy brother trespace against thee" the Genevan translators comment as follows: "Wherewith thou maist be offended: he speaketh of secret or particular sinnes, & not of open or knowen to others.")] 628

disposed to have followed the same in this place as you seem to have done in other places. . . . You must therefore seek for some other place than this if you will prove that the Scripture hath appointed any discipline and correction for such as shall contemn the common prayers and hearing of the Word. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( S R ) : Against that which I said of ecclesiastical discipline instituted in the xviii. of St. Matthew for contemners and neglecters of the Word and common prayers, it is said and said with great words that "that place is to be understanded of secret and particular faults and not of open and known." Whereas it is more than manifest that if the Scripture giveth authority to reprehend private faults, it doth much more authorize to rebuke public faults. And if those faults which are done against one man, much more those which are done against the whole church. And if those which are done against the profit of men, much more those which are done against the glory of God. And if upon refusal of admonition in those particular and secret cases he will have the church proceed to excommunication, how much more will he that that proceeding be observed in these open faults? And it is too childish thus continually to

Ecclesiastical Discipline

517

stumble at this, that the words of the Scripture should have no farther reach than to that special case whereof express mention is made in the text and to leave no place to arguments of like, of more to the less, of less to the more, of contraries, &c. . . . W H I T G I F T (D): To prove that "there are also civil punishments and punishments of the body for contemning common prayers and hearing of the Word" appointed by the Word of God, you cite xxii. of Exodus, xix. of Deuteronomy, &c. But before I come to the answering of these places, I pray you, let me ask of you these questions. First, whether you would have both ecclesiastical and civil punishment for the selfsame fault? Secondly, whether you would have negligence or contempt in frequenting of "common prayers and hearing of the Word" punished with death or no? For that punishment is appointed in those places by you alleged. Last of all, whether you think the judicial laws to be perpetual and to bind the civil magistrate to the observing of them and to restrain him from making any other as shall be thought to him most convenient? For except you will have two kinds of punishments for one and the selfsame offence, except you will punish with death such as be negligent in coming to public prayers, to be short, except you will have the civil magistrate bound of necessity to practise these judicial laws of Moses (which indeed you affirm afterwards in your book), those places make nothing for your purpose. So that you are yet as far to seek for Scripture that appointeth any certain kind of discipline for these matters as ever you were. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): Now let us see what revel he maketh with the civil discipline appointed by the law of God, where before he can give one answer he must ask three questions. The first is answered before in the beginning; the last is handled afterward. . . . And as for that part of the second question which with other his sayings following surmise that I would have the neglect of the Word punished by death, it is directly against my express words, which, having shewed the punishments that should be executed upon contemners, add that there are other punishments for those which neglect the Word, &c. And as to

518

The Admonition Controversy

that part of his question, which is whether contemners of the Word ought to be put to death, it is as his other questions be, of things not only affirmed and set down but disputed of both parts. For this is that which we plainly affirm and bring arguments to prove. And when he that despiseth the Word of God despiseth God himself, the equity of this must needs appear unto all those in whom there is but a corn of the zeal and love of the glory of God or rather in whom there is not some pleasure to see the glory of God trodden under feet. . . . WHITGIFT (D): T h a t it may be understood how unreasonably you wring and wrest the Scriptures to make them serve your turn, I will in one word or two declare the meaning of those places and set open the might of your arguments. In the xxii. of Exodus, the place by you alleged, the punishment of death is appointed for idolaters; 624 whereupon you 624

EXOD. xxii: 20. [He that sacrificeth unto any god, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.]

would ground this argument: God in the xxii. of Exodus appointeth death as a punishment for idolaters; ergo, the Word of God appointeth a certain kind of punishment for such as be negligent in frequenting public prayers and contemn the hearing of the Word. I say there is no sequel in this argument unless you will make all those that be negligent in coming to public prayers and contemn to hear the Word idolaters, and this to be a perpetual law. In the xix. of Deuteronomy there is nothing tending to any such purpose; only in the latter end of the chapter there is a punishment appointed for him that beareth false witness, 626 625

DEUT. xix: [16. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong . . . 19. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.]

whereupon these words " S o thou shalt take evil away from the midst of thee, & c . , " by you here alleged, do follow. Now if you will thus conclude: God in the xix. of Deuteronomy appointeth a punishment for a false witness; ergo, the Scripture hath appointed discipline for such as neglect to come to public prayers,

Ecclesiastical Discipline

519

&c., then indeed you may prove anything; and it is but in vain to strive with you. But, Lord, what gibing and flouting would there be if I should happen to fall into so manifest and open absurdities! In the 11 Chron. xv. Aza made the same punishment for idolatry 626 that is mentioned in the xxii. of Exodus, and there626

11 CHRON. xv: [13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.]

fore the same answer serveth that place. Truly I think you take yourself to have free liberty to apply the Scriptures at your pleasure; else would you never thus abuse them without all judgment or reason. . . . You say that "there are other punishments for such as neglect the Word of God, &c.," but you neither tell us what they be nor where to find them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (SR): He saith that "the place of Moses of putting idolaters unto death 627 maketh nothing to prove this." 627

EXOD. xxii: [20. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.]

The reason whereof he assigneth to be because contemners are not idolaters. This is his ordinary fault, that he cannot understand that if an idolater ought to die, much more a contemner of the Word. For contempt—although it be not in an action which doth utterly overturn the service of God, as idolatry, but in one which staineth or cracketh it only, as is the breach of the sabbath—is yet shewed to be so displeasant unto the Lord and so detestable that that which of itself was not deadly only by this circumstance of contempt was punished with present death, which may appear in him that gathered sticks on the sabbath day.628 . . . And if because the law doth not say in 628

NUM. xv: 30. [But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.] 3 1 . [Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.]

520

The Admonition Controversy

32. [And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . 35. And the Lord said unto Moses, T h e man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.]

thus many words that a contemner shall die, it be not lawful to conclude that he ought to be put to death, what will the Answerer say unto the writer unto the Hebrews, which saith that he that despiseth the law of Moses under two or three witnesses was put to death without mercy? 629 . . . 629

HEB. x: 28. [He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.]

Touching "the place of Deuteronomy," which he saith is "only understanded of false witness," it is apparent that although it follow immediately the law of putting a false witness to death, yet it is a general sentence and hath regard unto all the crimes which are capital.630 For if false witnesses be put to death and 830

DEUT. xix: [16. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong . . . ig. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.]

idolaters or contemners remain, how is the land purged of the evils which draw the wrath of God upon it? Or how is a terror stricken into the rest whereby they may be kept from the infection of that sin? And if no punishment but death be able to give a sound full enough to strike a sufficient terror of the sin of false witness in such a case, how much more is it needful that there be as brim and as audible a punishment against idolaters and contemners of the Word to the engendering of that fear in others whereby the rest may be kept in the fear and true worship of the Lord? The place of the Chronicles is not answered, for it is more general than the Answerer taketh it and is an exposition of the law. 631 For where the law saith that he that serveth strange gods 631

11 CHRON. xv: [13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.]

shall die, this place saith that he shall die which seeketh not the Lord, wherein are comprehended not only idolaters but atheists

Ecclesiastical Discipline

521

and mockers and contemners of God, which is that which I had to prove. . . . In the end he findeth fault that I, saying there are other punishments for such as neglect the Word of God according to the fault, do neither tell what they are nor where they be to be found. I thought that the mouth of his understanding had not been so narrow but it could easily comprehend that if contempt be by the Word of God to be punished by death, that the neglect of it ought not to escape the civil punishment, either in body or goods, &c. Why I did not reckon them up, I assigned sufficient cause in that the varying according to the quantity of the fault, more or less, could not be set down. And if he will see in general what punishment the law of God alloweth of in such cases, he may read in Ezra, where, beside the punishment of death against the transgressors of the law, there be also appointed banishment, loss of good, or imprisonment as the quality of the fault required.632 . . . 632

EZRA vii: 26. [And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.] ADMONITION : Then the sentence was tempered according to the notoriousness of the fact.633 . . . 633

1 TIM. i: 20. [Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.]

Then it was said, "Tell the church";

634

now it is spoken,

634

MATT, xviii: 17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.]

"Complain to my lord's grace, primate and metropolitan of all England, or to his inferior, my lord bishop of the diocese; if not to him, shew the chancellor or official or commissary or doctor." . . . W H I T G I F T (A): In that place of Matthew—as all learned interpreters, both old and new, do determine—"the church" signifieth such as have authority in the church. Therefore when you complain to my lord's grace, lord bishop of the diocese, or

522

The Admonition Controversy

their chancellors, commissaries, &c., you tell the church, that is, such as be appointed to be public magistrates in the church according to the very true sense and interpretation of that place. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It may be the clearlier understanded that the presbytery or eldership had the chief stroke in this excommunication if it be observed that this was the policy and discipline of the Jews and of the synagogue, from whence our Saviour Christ took this and translated it unto his church, that when any man had done anything that they held for a fault, that then the same was punished and censured by the elders of the church according to the quality of the fault as it may appear in St. Matthew. 635 . . . And if the fault were judged very great, MATT, v: 22. [But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.]

635

then the sentence of excommunication was awarded by the same elders, as appeareth in St. John. 636 And this was the cause why 636JOHN ix: 22. [These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.]

our Saviour Christ spake so shortly of this matter in the xviii. of St. Matthew without noting the circumstances more at large, for that he spake of a thing which was well known and used amongst the Jews whom he spake unto. W H I T G I F T ( D ) : It is very unlike that our Saviour Christ would borrow any such manner or form of government from the Jews, seeing the same was neither before prescribed unto them by God nor yet at that time rightly used but most shamefully abused. And yet, if it were so, it quite overthroweth your purpose; for the Jews' seigniory was only at Jerusalem, yours must be in every parish. Besides that, there is a great difference in the persons. Howbeit, I do not understand how you can draw the place in the v. of Matthew to your purpose; for if you mean these words . . . " H e that calleth his brother Raca shall be in danger

Ecclesiastical Discipline

523

of a council," as I am sure you do, Christ doth not there prescribe any form of government or order of punishing, but he declareth the degrees of uncharitable dealing towards our brethren and the increase of punishments according to the same. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : Unto the reason I alleged why the word council in St. Matthew is taken for the eldership of the church, he answereth nothing. Whereunto add that in other places of the New Testament where it is oft mentioned, it is always so taken. 637 . . . 637 ACTS v: 21. [And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.] ACTS vi: 12. [And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council.]

ACTS xxiii: [28. A n d when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought h i m forth into their council. . . .] 30. [And w h e n it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the m a n , I sent straightway to thee, and g a v e c o m m a n d m e n t to his accusers also to say before thee w h a t they had against him. Farewell.] C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : And that this was the meaning of our Saviour Christ in those words, it may appear by the practice which is set forth in the Epistles to the Corinthians. For it is certain that St. Paul did both understand and observe the rule of our Saviour Christ. But he communicateth this power of excommunication with the church, and therefore it must needs be the meaning of our Saviour Christ that the excommunication should be by many and not by one and by the church and not by the minister of the church alone. For he biddeth the church of Corinth twice in the First Epistle, once by a metaphor, another time in plain words, that they should excommunicate the incestuous person: by metaphor saying, "Purge out your old leaven"; in plain and flat words when he saith, " T a k e away that wicked man from amongst you." 638 And in the Second 638

1 COR. V: 7. [Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye m a y be a new l u m p , as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. . . .] 13. [But them that are without G o d j u d g e t h . Therefore put a w a y from a m o n g yourselves that wicked person.]

524

T h e Admonition Controversy

Epistle, understanding of the repentance of that man, he entreateth them that they would receive him again, shewing that he was content to release the bond and chain of his excommunication so that they would do the same; 639 and therefore, con638

H COR. ii: io. [To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.]

sidering the absolution or reconciliation of the excommunicate doth pertain unto the church, it followeth that the excommunication doth in like manner appertain unto it. . . . W H I T G I F T (Z)): St. Paul did publicly excommunicate in the presence of the whole church and used them as witnesses of his just dealing, but his words be plain that the right and power of excommunication remained in himself. When St. Paul saith unto the Corinthians . . . "Purge out the old leaven," he speaketh not of the incestuous Corinthian but exhorteth them to newness of life. . . . Lord, how careless you are in perverting the true sense and meaning of the Scripture that you may violently draw them to your purpose! When he saith, " P u t away that wicked man from among you," he doth not will them to excommunicate him but to shun and avoid his company and not to suffer him to come among them because he was excommunicate. And, as he in this place moveth them to a detestation of him, so in that place of the II Cor. ii. after his repentance and receiving again into the church he exhorteth them to embrace him and to love him. This may and ought to be done, the authority of excommunication resting in one, for the people without such exhortations will hardly conceive a good opinion of him whom they have known to be so grievous an offender. Wherefore the apostle here moveth them to forgive him and to love him; he doth not give them any authority to deliver him from the bond of excommunication, for that he did himself, as it may evidently appear by the circumstance of the place. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R S R ) : You are compelled to expound these words of the apostle, "Take away the wicked man amongst you," that is, "shun his company," which is not only a wresting

Ecclesiastical Discipline

525

of words but also unfitting to the comparison with the leavened bread, which St. Paul useth to set forth excommunication by. For it was not enough for the Israelites not to touch or use any leavened bread in the celebration of the passover, but they were bound to put it out of their houses, to provide that no leavened bread were found in their houses and not to kill the passover before they had rid their house of it.640 EXOD. xii: 15. [Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.] 19. [Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.] EXOD. xxiii: 18. [Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.] EXOD. xxxiv: 25. [Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.] 640

Like violence he useth touching the receiving of the excommunicate. For where St. Paul useth the same word of forgiving or, as it is called, absolving, as well to note his own release as the church's,641 he will have that the same word in the same verse in n COR. W: 10. [To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.] 641

one and the same cause to be taken diversely and that, referred to St. Paul, it shall have the proper signification "to remit" but, referred to the church, to signify "the effects and signs of the remission or absolution." . . . ADMONITION: Again, whereas the excommunicate were never received till they had publicly confessed their offence, 642 642 n COR. ii: [6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.] 7. [So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.]

526

The Admonition Controversy

now for paying the fees of the court they shall by master official or chancellor easily be absolved in some private place. . . . And this is that order of ecclesiastical discipline which all godly wish to be restored to the end that everyone by the same may be kept within the limits of his vocation and a great number be brought to live in godly conversation. 643 643 1 COR. vii: 20. [Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.]

If chancellors, commissaries, &c., do as you here charge them, they do that which by God's law they cannot justify. But I acknowledge my lack of experience in such matters, and therefore I can say little in them. Let them answer for themselves; they be of age sufficient. A D M O N I T I O N : Not that we mean to take away the authority of the civil magistrate and chief governor, to whom we wish all blessedness 644 and for the increase of whose godliness WHITGIFT

(¿4):

ROM. xiii: [1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.]

644

we daily pray.646 . . . 1 TIM. ii: [1. I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;] 2. [For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.] 646

will not speak what I think. Your former assertions agree not with this protestation. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : Amend therefore these horrible abuses and reform God's church, and the Lord is on your right hand. Y o u shall not be removed for ever,646 for he will deliver and defend WHITGIFT (A): I

PS. xvi: 8. [I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.] 646

you from all your enemies, either at home or abroad, as he did faithful Jacob 647 and good Jehoshaphat. 648 Let these things alone; GEN. xxxv: 5. [And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.] 647

11 CHRON. xvii: 10. [And the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.]

648

Ecclesiastical Discipline

527

and God is a righteous judge. H e will one day call you to your reckoning. W H I T G I F T (.¡4): The greatest abuse that I know in this church is that you and such as you are be suffered to do as you do and with your schisms to trouble the peace of the church and to contemn those that be in authority. Other abuses that be in the same I doubt not but that they shall by due order be reformed. I read in the fifth chapter of the First to the Corinthians that the incestuous Corinthian was excommunicated publicly in the presence of the whole congregation. But I read neither of senior nor deacon called as officers to the same. St. Paul himself saith . . . " I truly, as absent in the body but present in the spirit, have determined as present that he &c.," which manifestly argueth that ius excommunicandi was in Paul and not in the rest. But all is scripture that you speak how far soever it is from the true meaning and sense of the Scripture. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): It is as much as if he should say St. Paul as much as lay in him excommunicated, therefore St. Paul excommunicated; or St. Paul excommunicated, therefore the church did not. For what if St. Paul did excommunicate him so much as lay in him, should he therefore have been excommunicated if the Church of Corinth and the minister there would have admitted him to the supper and not abstain from familiar companying with him? . . . And yet St. Paul did not excommunicate the incestuous person but so much as lay in him and as far as his right stretched. Not being therefore yet excommunicated by St. Paul, it followeth that the church had a stroke in the excommunication. W H I T G I F T ( D ) \ St. Paul did excommunicate him; and if the Church of Corinth had kept him in amongst them notwithstanding, yet had he been excommunicated before God, and they should have shewed themselves to have been a stubborn and rebellious people. . . . If by excommunication you understand binding in heaven, as you ought to do, then had the incestuous person been truly excommunicated though both the minister and the people had said the contrary. Wherefore it is true that the right of excommunicating remained in Paul though

528

T h e Admonition Controversy

the people did give their consent unto it by secluding him from their company and from the sacraments. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): It is most untrue that it is enough to make the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication that " a man be bound in heaven" whenas our Saviour Christ noteth it in that he is taken of the church for a publican and a sinner and in that there is an actual secluding from the sacrament.649 For MATT, xviii: 17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: b u t if he neglect to hear the church, let h i m be unto thee as an heathen m a n and a publican.]

649

otherwise, as soon as such wickedness is committed and withal so long as it is unrepented, the sinner is bound in heaven and in right shut out from the communion of the sacrament although no man excommunicate him, which being alleged of me is unanswered. . . . C A R T W R I G H T ( R ) : To prove that the church hath nothing to do with excommunication, it is not enough to say that St. Paul had the right of excommunication. But you should have shewed that he only had it; and then you are manifestly convicted by St. Paul's own words which joineth the church with him in that excommunication, saying that he had decreed that the doer of that fact by his spirit and them gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ and by his power should be given to Satan. And if the right of excommunication were only in St. Paul . . . why doth he chide with the church that they had not already excommunicated him before he wrote unto them to signify his will to excommunicate? Or if it were in the minister of the church only, why doth St. Paul chide and sharply rebuke the church for that the incestuous man was not cast forth? Why doth he charge the Corinthians with that which was the only fault of the minister? W H I T G I F T (D): Nay, you should rather prove that the people ought to be companions with him in the right of that discipline, for the words that I alleged be sufficient to prove that which I affirm. The people he would have gathered together that, the sentence being pronounced in their hearing, they might avoid his company and be terrified from the like offence; wherefore the apostle used them as witnesses, not as ministers of that

Ecclesiastical Discipline

529

discipline which only belongeth to the ministers of the Word of God. . . . St. Paul "did chide with the Corinthians" because they did not complain of the incestuous person nor sought for his punishment but suffered him to remain among them as though they had made little account of his grievous crime. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): T o that I alleged, that St. Paul joineth the Corinthians with him in the excommunication,650 he 1 COR. v: 4. [In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .]

660

answereth that they are "joined as lookers-on or as witnesses not as doers in that action." But who hath taught him thus to play with the Word of God whenas St. Paul ascribeth the same cause of the corporal assembly of the church for that action which he doth unto that presence wherewith he saith his spirit should be after a sort there. If, therefore, St. Paul's spirit were, after a sort and as it might, there "to look on and to be witness only," then the church was also. Else let him shew us with what words St. Paul declareth that his spirit should be there for one thing and the Corinthians for another. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): Another objection M. Doctor hath out of the xvi. of St. Matthew and the xx. of John, in which places because he giveth power to the twelve to bind and to loose, M. Doctor will conclude that they only have power to bind and to loose. . . . If this be not to abuse the Scriptures, I know not what is to abuse them; for to let pass that some and of the ancient writers do expound the place of St. Matthew of every member of Christ and of as many as have faith to confess Christ to be the Son of God and so by that means to have power of excommunication, I say, to let that go, M. Doctor might easily know if he would that in that place our Saviour Christ speaketh of the binding and loosing which is by the preaching of the Word of God standing in threats and promises; and therefore that binding pertaineth only unto the ministers, to whom the preaching doth only belong. But in the xviii. of St. Matthew, where he speaketh of the binding and loosing by excommunication and receiving to the church again, there he attributeth this power unto the church.

53°

The Admonition Controversy

WHITGIFT (Z>): Chrysostom saith that Christ in these words g a v e unto Peter p o w e r to forgive sins, m e a n i n g thereby p o w e r to e x c o m m u n i c a t e and to absolve. Neither d o I understand w h y this place and that also in the x x . of J o h n should not as well be understanded of e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n as that in the xviii. of M a t t h e w : the words be all one; and our S a v i o u r Christ speaketh to the same persons in all these places, even to his apostles. . . . H e giveth that p o w e r in the xviii. of M a t t , to his disciples, to w h o m he speaketh the same words in that place that he d o t h in the xvi. of M a t t h e w , and in the x x . of J o h n ; b u t this y o u slide over as t h o u g h it were even so w h e n a s indeed it d o t h agree both in words and matter w i t h the other t w o places. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R S R ) : A s for his reason to prove t h e m all one " b e c a u s e they were all spoken to the apostles," it is frivolous, seeing our S a v i o u r Christ did not only instruct t h e m of things belonging to their ministry b u t also of those that touched their private life and of the duties of the w h o l e church. O f the same sort is that " t h e same words are used in all three places," w h i c h is all one as w h e n the prince ordaining that one chest m a y be opened and shut b y one only, one other not so but b y others w i t h him, he should conclude that all h a v e p o w e r alike because keys w i t h p o w e r to lock and unlock be given to all. F o r this manifest difference is in the m a n n e r of speech: considering that, M a t t h e w xvi., he speaketh of one in the singular n u m b e r , in J o h n xx., a l t h o u g h he speak in the plural, yet he understandeth it distributively, that is, that every one of the ministers b i n d e t h and looseth b y preaching; but in St. M a t t h e w xviii., those words b e i n g added to authorize the church's e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n , w h i c h w o r d church is a n o u n collective, they c a n n o t be d r a w n to the particular person of the minister. . . . CARTWRIGHT ( R ) : H e h a t h another objection out of St. P a u l to T i m o t h y w h e r e , foi; that it is said that St. P a u l did exc o m m u n i c a t e H y m e n e u s and A l e x a n d e r , he c o n c l u d e t h after his old m a n n e r that therefore he only e x c o m m u n i c a t e d . B u t forsom u c h as I h a v e proved that b o t h the rule of Christ and the p r a c tice of St. P a u l a c c o r d i n g to that rule be otherwise, it c a n n o t be that St. P a u l did e x c o m m u n i c a t e himself alone those persons.

Ecclesiastical Discipline

53i

F o r then h e should disagree b o t h w i t h our S a v i o u r Christ and w i t h himself. B u t as I h a v e shewed before in other ecclesiastical actions a n d exercises of discipline that one m a n is said to d o that w h i c h w a s d o n e of m a n y for because one was m o d e r a t o r of that action or exercise; so St. P a u l here saith that he did e x c o m m u nicate, n o t that he did it b y himself alone b u t because he was president and chief in that action. A n d a l t h o u g h it should b e granted ( w h i c h cannot) that St. P a u l did e x c o m m u n i c a t e himself alone, b e i n g an apostle or for one time, yet it neither followeth that the bishop or minister m a y d o that w h i c h the apostle did or that he m a y d o continually that w h i c h was done b u t once a n d extraordinarily. A s for the p l a c e of T i t u s the third, it m a k e t h n o t h i n g to e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n unless y o u w o u l d c o n c l u d e that for that St. P a u l b i d d e t h T i t u s to trouble himself no m o r e w i t h confuting a n obstinate heretic, therefore he biddeth h i m e x c o m m u n i c a t e an heretic b y himself. WHITGIFT ( D ) : I must needs conclude as the very words of the text lead m e ; and f o r a s m u c h as the apostle d o t h neither contrary to a n y rule of Christ nor to his o w n practice but according to the commission given unto h i m and to the other apostles b y Christ, M a t t , xvi., xviii., J o h n xx., a n d seeing the words b o t h in the 1 C o r . v. and in this p l a c e also be so direct a n d manifest, I think it great folly for a n y m a n to withstand them. A s for that imagined shift so often used b y y o u to avoid manifest authorities, to wit, that " o n e m a n is said to d o that w h i c h w a s done b y m a n y because one was moderator of that a c t i o n , " I h a v e shewed before the v a n i t y of it. If such startingholes m i g h t be admitted against the manifest authority of the Scripture, there is nothing so plain a n d evident for the d e c i d i n g of a n y controversy that m i g h t not easily b e avoided or rather deluded. If St. P a u l alone for one time did e x c o m m u n i c a t e , then is there no rule to the contrary prescribed b y Christ; for certain it is that St. P a u l w o u l d break no prescript rule of Christ. If this be no good reason, the apostle did it, ergo, w e m a y d o it; m u c h less is this, the apostle did it, ergo, w e must do it; w h i c h is the strongest kind of reason that y o u h a v e hitherto in most matters

532

T h e Admonition Controversy

used. But I stick not only upon this example of Paul, I add unto it the words of Christ, his own former practice in the Church of the Corinthians, and the commandment given to his scholar Titus.661 TITUS iii: io. [A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.] 651

The apostle saith in that place to Titus, "After one or two admonitions avoid an heretic," whereby he noteth in what order he would have a bishop to proceed with an heretic before he do excommunicate him. And that he meaneth here excommunication Master Calvin plainly affirmeth. . . . But you think your own word to be a sufficient warrant against all men. You may well study the words of the Scripture, but methink you do not greatly pass for the right understanding of them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (RSR): Forsomuch, then, as the apostle willeth that the minister should avoid him as one utterly perverted and notwithstanding willeth otherwhere that the excommunicate should be holden for a brother until such time as it appeareth how that medicine of excommunication will work with him and for that also it appertaineth unto the minister especially even then privately to call upon him when he is excommunicate,662 it seemeth that this cannot be understanded 662 n thess. iii: 15. [Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.]

of one to be excommunicated but of a desperate enemy whom excommunication hath not cured but rather is, through the poison in him, hardened. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : In that the lord bishops, their suffragans, archdeacons, chancellors, officials, proctors, doctors, summoners, and such ravening rabblers take upon them, which is most horrible, the rule of God's church, spoiling the pastor of his lawful jurisdiction over his own flock given by the Word,663 663 MATT, xviii: 17. [And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.] 18. [Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.]

Ecclesiastical Discipline

533

ACTS xi: [29. T h e n the disciples, every m a n according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:] 30. [Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.] ACTS xv: 2. [When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go u p to Jerusalem unto the aposdes and elders about this question. . . .] 4. [And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. . . .] 6. [And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.] & c . ROM. xii: 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;] 8. [Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.] PHIL. 1: 1. [Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.] 1 COR. xii: 28. [And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.] 1 THESS. s: 12. [And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;] 13. [And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. A n d be at peace among yourselves.] 1 TIM. iv: 14. [Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.] 1 TIM. v: 17. [Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.]

thrusting away most sacrilegiously that order which Christ hath left to his church and which the primitive church hath used, they shew they hold the doctrine with us but in unrighteousness, with an outward shew of godliness but having denied the power thereof, entering not in by Christ654 but by a popish and unlawful JOHN x: i . [Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other w a y , the same is a thief and a robber.] 664

vocation. We speak not how they make ministers by themselves alone 685 and of their sole authority and that in secret places, 666 ACTS vi: 3. [Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, w h o m w e m a y appoint over this business.]

534

T h e Admonition Controversy

4. [But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.] ACTS xiv: 23. [And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.] ACTS xx: 28. [Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. . . .] 30. [Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.] &c. ROM. xii: 6. [Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;] 7. [Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;] 8. [Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.] 1 COR. ix: 16. [For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!] 17. [For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.] of their election and probation, that it is of h i m to w h o m b y no right it belongeth. . . . WHITGIFT (A):

A n d first y o u shew yourself greatly of-

fended that " t h e pastor is spoiled of his l a w f u l jurisdiction over his flock"; and therefore y o u burst out into these words of heat, " r a v e n i n g rabblers," "horrible," "sacrilegiously," and such like. It had been well if y o u h a d told us w h a t that " l a w f u l jurisdiction of the pastor over his flock given b y the W o r d " h a d been, for the places of Scripture w h i c h y o u quote for that purpose d o not plainly e n o u g h set out that matter. I n the xviii. of M a t t h e w , vers. 17., after certain admonitions in private offences Christ saith: " D i e ecclesia"

(tell the church), in w h i c h place, as I told

y o u before, " t h e c h u r c h " d o t h signify such as h a v e authority in the c h u r c h or else public reprehension in the open c o n g r e g a tion b y such as be called thereunto. I t giveth not a n y peculiar jurisdiction to the pastor for a n y t h i n g that I c a n learn. A n d in the same chapter, 18. verse, where Christ saith, " W h a t s o e v e r y e bind on earth shall be b o u n d in heaven, & c . , " according to your j u d g m e n t uttered before it is m e a n t of the whole c h u r c h

Ecclesiastical Discipline

535

and not of the pastor only. Y o u have before denied that one man can excommunicate, and therefore this place maketh nothing for your assertion. In the xi. of the Acts, vers. 30., mention is made how the disciples which were at Antiochia did according to their ability send succour to their brethren which dwelt in Judea and that they sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul. But what is this to the jurisdiction of the pastor? This declareth that the disciples of Antiochia trusted the elders which were in Judea with the distribution of their alms. T h e xv. of the Acts, in the places by you noted, sheweth how Paul and Barnabas were sent to the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem about the deciding of a certain question moved by certain of the sect of the Pharisees touching circumcision. This declareth the use of councils and openeth the next and readiest way to determine controversies, but it speaketh nothing of the jurisdiction of the pastor. T h e xii. to the Roma., vers. 7., 8., hath been sundry times by you alleged to no purpose at all even as it is now in like manner. T h e apostle there willeth every man that hath an office to attend upon his office, &c. But he speaketh not of any peculiar jurisdiction of the pastor over his flock. In the first to the Phil., vers. 1., Paul and Timothy salute the bishops and deacons which be at Philippi. How gather you thereof any jurisdiction pertaining to the pastor? T h e 1 Cor. xii., vers. 28. T h e apostle saith that God " h a t h placed in his church first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, & c . " What is this to your purpose? O r what jurisdiction of pastors do you gather hereof? You may here learn that there is in the church divers degrees of persons. 1 Thessa. v., Paul exhorteth them to know and love such as labour among them; he describeth no peculiar kind of jurisdiction. 1 Timoth. iv., vers. 14., St. Paul willeth Timothy not to despise the gift given unto him by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the company of the eldership. And in the 1 Tim. v., vers. 17., he saith, " T h e elders that rule well are worthy of

536

The Admonition Controversy

double honour, & c . , " which place cometh the nearest to your purpose, for here is mention made of ruling and of ministers, but yet it is not declared what kind of rule this was except you will expound it by the words following, "specially they which labour in Word and doctrine." And this kind of rule remaineth to the pastor still. Thus you see with how little discretion and less learning you heap up Scriptures in your margent only to deceive the simple and ignorant who are by you too much deluded, believing whatsoever you speak or write without any further examination. If they would mark these words of yours well, they might soon understand that you seek as great jurisdiction over them as any of those persons whom you have here named. You say, " T h e y hold the doctrine with you but in unrighteousness, with an outward shew of godliness but having denied the power thereof, entering not in by Christ but by a popish and unlawful vocation." This is but your vein of railing and your usual manner of extolling yourselves and condemning other. B u t . . . your words be no slander; neither will I in words contend with you but therein give you the upper hand, only I must still let you understand of your foolish applying of Scriptures. For wherefore have you here quoted the tenth of John, vers. 1.? Belike because Christ saith there that "he which doth not enter in by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way is a thief and a robber," therefore all such as be placed in this Church of England (yourselves excepted) enter in by a popish and unlawful vocation. You had gone orderly to work if you had first proved that we have not come into the sheepfold by Christ. If you thus omit the proof of your minor, you may conclude what you will and quote Scriptures at your pleasure. But wise and learned men will lament your folly and laugh at your unskilfulness. Of making of ministers I have spoken before and answered the places Acts vi., xiv., and xx. sufficiently. As for the other two places, Ro. xii., vers. 6., 7., 8., and 1 Cor. ix., vers. 16., 17., I muse why you note them, they nothing at all pertaining to the making of ministers; they something touch their office, and yet not that directly. But you must be borne with lest you should have seemed to your disciples to have said nothing. . . .

Ecclesiastical Discipline

537

CARTWRIGHT (R): H e speaketh of this thing afresh but hath no new matter but maketh a bare rehearsal of the places of the Admonition, asking, after his accustomed manner of confuting, w h a t maketh this or w h a t proveth that. . . . I cannot pass b y that which Master Doctor saith, that forsomuch as the authors of the Admonition had alleged the words tell the church to prove the interest of the church in excommunication, that therefore they could not use the same to prove the interest of the pastor, as who should say that the pastor is not one of the church. But of the absurdity of this I have spoken sufficiently before and how all men do see the vanity of this reason that because the people have an interest by this place, therefore the pastor hath none. WHITGIFT (D): I do indeed speak of this matter there again after a sort, for I a m driven unto it by the order of the Admonition. But in all those words there by me uttered touching excommunication I do not once ask w h a t maketh this or w h a t maketh that as you charge me, although I might justly use these kind of questions as sufficient answers to such unskilful quotations as they paint their margent with; and sometimes indeed I made such demands, but it is to shew the fondness of their allegations. . . . T h e place in the eighteenth of St. M a t t h e w is understanded of those to w h o m the discipline of the church is by the authority of the church committed, that is, in this C h u r c h of England the bishop. A n d therefore that place cannot prove that there is any injury done to the pastor or that he is spoiled of his lawful jurisdiction; and this is the effect of m y answer, whereat you only cavil as your nature is. I say indeed that this place was before alleged in the Admonition to prove that the whole church should excommunicate and not one m a n only; and therefore I see not how the same place m a y aptly be alleged " t o prove any jurisdiction of the pastor over his flock," seeing it giveth to the flock equal jurisdiction with the pastor and not to the pastor any superiority over them if the interpretation used in the Admonition be true. L e t the reader consider the words of m y Answer to the Admonition and try whether there be any such absurdities in them

538

The Admonition Controversy

or no. Surely it is a fault both in you and the Admonitors to make the Scripture so pliable to your fancies and the same place to serve as many turns as you list.

Conclusion A D M O N I T I O N : Y O U may not do as heretofore you have done, patch and piece, nay, rather go backward, and never labour or contend to perfection.656 But altogether remove whole 656

HEB. vi: 1. [Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.]

antichrist, both head, body, and branch, and perfectly plant that purity of the Word, that simplicity of the sacraments, and that severity of discipline which Christ hath commanded and commended to his church. . . . W H I T G I F T ( ¿ 4 ) : The Lord make us thankful and continue this reformation we have and grant peace to his church and either convert the hearts of those that be enemies unto it or remove them. . . . C A R T W R I G H T (R): The Lord will have us . . . stir up ourselves with the admonition that our Saviour Christ stirred up his apostles, that oftentimes those that are first are not forwardest but are overrun of others that come after.657 . . . He 667

MATT, xx: 16. [So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.]

[Whitgift] should have . . . put us in remembrance of God's scourges which hang over us and of God's great patience that still tarrieth for our repentance. . . . Finally, he would have rather put us in remembrance of the sermon which our Saviour Christ maketh, where he sheweth that those cities are not always the greatest sinners or those whom God is most angry with which have the heaviest judgments executed upon them 658 but that thereby the Lord calleth M

LUKE xiii: 2. [And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilasans, because they suffered such things?

Conclusion

539

3. I tell y o u , N a y : b u t , e x c e p t y e repent, y e shall all likewise perish.] &c.

us to repentance, otherwise that we shall likewise perish. . . . A D M O N I T I O N : And here to end, we desire all to suppose that we have not attempted this enterprise for vainglory, gain, preferment, or any other worldly respect. . . . But thereby to declare our good-wills towards the setting forth of God's glory and the building up of his church, accounting this as it were but an entrance into further matter, hoping that our God, who hath begun in us this good work, will not only in time hereafter make us strong and able to go forward therein but also move other upon whom he hath bestowed greater measure of his gifts and graces to labour more thoroughly and fully in the same.659 669

PHIL. i:

6. [Being confident of this v e r y thing, t h a t he w h i c h

hath

b e g u n a g o o d work in y o u will perform it until the d a y of Jesus Christ.] WHITGIFT

(A): God grant that you may become builders,

and not destroyers. I think indeed you have but "begun." I know there is other opinions among you which be not yet commonly known, and truly I doubt that you will never end but from time to time coin new devices to trouble the church until you have brought that heavy plague of God upon us which the like kind of men through their schisms and heresies have brought upon all those places almost where any of the apostles preached and where the gospel was first planted. And commonly before ruin and destruction cometh inward discord and domestical dissension. T h e Lord make us thankful for the purity of his gospel that we by his mercy enjoy! The Lord root out schisms and factions from among us and either convert or confound the authors of them! T h e Lord of his singular goodness continue our gracious Queen Elizabeth unto us and give us faithful and obedient hearts to his Word and to her majesty! Amen.

Notes for Part One PREFACE 1 T h e evidence for identifying Martin as Penry appears in m y article " T h e R e a l M a r t i n Marprelate," PMLA, lviii (1943), 84-107. I Nashe's imitation of Martin's style is discussed in m y article, "Nashe's Share in the Marprelate Controversy," PMLA, lix (1944), 958-61. 3 R . B . M c K e r r o w , The Works of Thomas Nashe (London, 1903-10), i. 221-26. See also M c G i n n , " T h e Allegory of the 'Beare' and the 'Foxe' in Nashe's Pierce Penilesse," PMLA, lxi, 2 (June, 1946). 4 T h i s vivid epithet appears as the " h o t e gospelars" in the pamphlet To my louynge brethren that is troublyd abowt the popishe aparrell, two short and comfortable Epistels, probably written by Anthony Gilby in 1566—sig. A 4 T — a n d as the " w h o t t e gospellers" in " A godly and zealous letter written by M a i . A . G . 1570," again doubtless Anthony G i l b y — A parte of a register, p. 15. 6 The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I (1558-1625) (London, 1911), p . 182. 6 For example, W . H . W o o d w a r d , in his chapter "English Universities, Schools, and Scholarship in the Sixteenth C e n t u r y , " makes the unconfirmed statement that " W h i t g i f t , the strongest force in the university [Cambridge], knew no G r e e k " — iii. 482. If, indeed, Whitgift knew no Greek, there is no evidence of it in his writings against Cartwright, in which time and again he argues over Greek grammar and syntax and quotes extensively from Greek authors: cf. The Works of John Whitgift, D.D., ed. for the Parker Society by the R e v . John A y r e , M . A . (Cambridge, 1851), i. 345-51, 487-88; ii. 275, 294, 309-14, 4 1 0 - 1 1 , etc. ''Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism 1535-1603 (Cambridge, 1925), pp. 58 ff. 8 The Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D. (Oxford, 1822), i. 54 if. 9 The Development of Religious Toleration in England from the Beginning of the English Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth (Cambridge, 1932), i. 1 3 7 - 5 1 . 10 Reprinted by J o h n O . Choules (New Y o r k , 1844). II Chicago, 1939. 12 N e w Y o r k , 1938. 13 N e w Y o r k , i g 4 i , i . 688.

CHAPTER I The Rise of Puritanism (New Y o r k , 1938), p. 3. D . Neal, History of the Puritans, ed. b y J . O . Choules (New Y o r k , 1844), i. 30. 3 W . H . Frere, The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I (1558-1635) (London, 1911), pp. 148 ff. 4 H e n r y G e e and William J . H a r d y , Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London, 1910), p p . 243-44. 5 Ibid., pp. 303 ff. 6 The Two Liturgies, A.D. 154g, and A.D. 155s: with other Documents set forth 1

2

541

542

The Admonition Controversy

by authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, ed. for the Parker Society by the Rev. Joseph Ketley, M.A. (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 2 ff. 7 Ibid., p. 98. (The italics are mine.) 8 Neal, op. cit., i. 47. 9 Ibid., i. 52. 10 The Two Liturgies, p. 283. 11 Ibid., pp. 282-83. M Ibid., p. 97. 13 Ibid., p. 92. 14 Ibid., p. 279. (The italics are mine.) 16 Ibid., pp. 332, 341: cf. pp. 162, 170; p. 343: cf. p. 174; p. 350: cf. p. 182. 16 Ibid., p. 349: cf. p. 179. 17 Ibid., p. 353: cf. p. 185. 18 Ibid., p. 98. (The italics are mine.) 19 Ibid., p. 283. (The italics are mine.) 20 Gee and Hardy, pp. 385 ff. 21 Neal, op. cit., pp. 63-4. 22 Ibid., i. 66. 23 A Briejf discours of the troubles begönne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini '554 (i575)» P- c x i i i i 24 Ibid., cxviii. 26 Ibid., cxiiii—cxv (incorrectly numbered cv). 26 Ibid., cxvii. 27 Ibid., p. xiii. 28 Ibid., p. xxi. 29 Ibid., p. xxxv. (The italics are mine.) 30 The Works of John Knox, ed. by D. Laing (Edinburgh, 1895), iv. 164* 31 Op. cit., i. 68. 32 An Admonition to the Parliament (1572), sig. A 2 T . 33 Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism 1553-1602 (Cambridge, 1925), p. 7. 34 Gee and Hardy, op. cit., pp. 442-58. 36 Ibid., p. 449. See ante., p. 4. 36 D'Ewes, The Journal of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth . . . (London, 1682), p. 12. 37 Troubles begönne at Franckford, p. xxxvi. 38 The Two Liturgies, p. 233. Cf. Liturgies and Occasional Forms of Prayer set forth in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. for the Parker Society by Rev. William Keatinge Clay, B.D. (Cambridge, 1847), p. 70. 39 The Two Liturgies, p. 283: cf. Liturgies and Occasional Forms of Prayer, p. 198. 40 Ibid., p. 195. (The italics indicate the additions from the first Edwardine Book.) 41 Ibid., p. 32. 42 Gee and Hardy, op. cit., pp. 458-67. 43 Ibid., pp. 417-42. 44 Ibid., p. 428. 46 Op. cit., p. 42. 46 Ibid., p. 54. 47 Ibid., p. 98. 48 Rurich Letters, ed. for the Parker Society by the Rev. Hastings Robinson (Cambridge, 1842), p. 134. 49 Frere, op. cit., p. 113. 60 Ibid., p. 114. See also Strype, Life and Acts of Matthew Parker (Oxford, 1821), i. 427. 61

Gee and Hardy, op. cit., p. 467; Frere, op. cit., p. 115.

Notes for Part One

543

" Op. cit., pp. 19, 23. 63 Gee and Hardy, op. cit., pp. 4 6 7 - 7 5 . 64 Frere, op. cit., pp. 1 1 8 - 1 9 .

CHAPTER II I

An answerefor the tyme to the Examination (1566), p. [8]. * A briefe discourse, sig. A s *. 3 The italics in each text are mine. * See ante., p. mi. 6 A briefe discourse, sig. A 4 * . 8 Ibid., sig. A 7 T . 7 Ibid., sig. B 2 T . 8 An answerefor the tyme, p. 65. This nonconformist tract, which is a reply to the Briefe examination, reprints the original Episcopalian argument: see post., p. 19. »Ibid., p. 66. 10 Ibid., p. 32. II Ibid., p. 66 (incorrectly numbered 74). 12 Ibid., pp. 6 7 - 8 (p. 67 incorrectly numbered 75). 13 Ibid., p. 68. " Ibid., p. 29. u Ibid., p. 28. 18 Ibid., p. 151 (incorrectly numbered 153). (The italics are mine.) 17 Ibid., p. 106. "Ibid., p. [13]. 19 In the entry of the tract Whether it be mortall sinne in the Short Title Catalogue, No. 22572, A briefe a. lamentable consyderation etc. appears in parentheses after the main title. The Catalogue of the British Museum records two copies: one containing the second tract, the other, labeled incomplete, without it. The copies at the Folger Shakespeare Library, the University of Chicago, the American Antiquarian Association (Worcester, Mass.), the Boston Public Library, about which I have inquired, also lack the second tract. From the Library of Congress, which possesses a perfect copy according to the description in the Short Title Catalogue, I have obtained the microfilm of the additional material for my present study. 20 Whether it be mortall sinne, p. 108. S1 Ibid., pp. 1 1 2 - 1 7 . 22 Ibid., pp. 1 2 0 - 2 2 . 23 Ibid., pp. 125 ff. 24 Ibid., pp. 1 2 7 - 2 8 . 26 To my louynge brethren, sig. B 2. 26 A parte of a register, contayninge sundrie memorable matters, written by diuers godly and learned in our time . . . (1590), p. 12. 27 Gee and Hardy, op. cit., pp. 4 3 6 - 3 7 . 28 Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 7554-1640 A. D., ed. by E. Arber (London, 1875), i. 145. 29 D'Ewes, op. cit., pp. 123, 1 3 1 - 3 2 . 30 Ibid., p. 132. The "little Book" represents an attempt made in 1562 to complete the revision of the code of canon law begun in Henry's time and actually drafted during Edward's reign. It was later revised under Parker's direction and published in 1571 by John Foxe under the title of Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum. Cf. Frere, op. cit., pp. 1 6 3 - 6 5 ; Gee and Hardy, op. cit.,

pp. 476-7731

D'Ewes, op. cit., pp. 184-85.

544

The Admonition Controversy

Ibid., pp. 156-57. Regarding the bill concerning the residence of pastors D ' E w e s is not quite clear, for he first records that on M a y 16, 1571, it was " u p o n the Division of the House dashed"—ibid., p. 184—and then on the next page he states that on M a y 17 it was passed and sent to the Lords—ibid., p. 185. Consequently Frere reports that this bill was "rejected at the third reading in the C o m m o n s " —op. cit., p. 162. 34 D ' E w e s , op. cit., pp. 145, 186. 36 Gee and H a r d y , op. cit., pp. 477-80. 36 D'Ewes, op. cit., p. 213. 37 Puritan Manifestoes, A study of the Origin of the Puritan Revolt. . . (London, 1907), p. vii. Concerning the authorship of this tract see Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, p. 59. 38 The Works of John Whitgift, D.D., ed. for the Parker Society by the R e v . John A y r e (Cambridge, 1851), i. 80 (hereafter referred to as W. W.). See also A . F . Pollard, History of England from the Accession of Edward VI to the Death of Elizabeth, 1547-1603 (London, 1923), p. 364. 39 Thomas Cartwright, pp. 58-9. 40 W. W., i. 80. (The italics are mine.) 41 Ibid., iii. 508. 42 Ibid., i. 141. Regarding the origin of the epithet, indeed, there has been m u c h conjecture. Pearson, for example, quotes Fuller as dating it in 1564, H e y l y n in 1565, and Froude in 1585. H e himself has " f o u n d it in prominent use from c. 1572 onwards" — {Thomas Cartwright, p. 18). Similarly the compilers of the New English Dictionary, rejecting Stowe's date of 1567, accept 1572 and, as evidence, cite two passages: the one from the Admonition here quoted, the other from J . Jones, Bathes of Bath, iii. 24, also written in 1572. A s a matter of fact, the authors of the Admonition had repeated their demand for purity, both in preaching the W o r d — F r e r e and Douglas, op. cit., pp. 9, 19 —and in administering the sacraments — ibid., pp. 14, 37. Hence, it is not surprising that the name should have appeared at about the same time, for the Admonition merely expressed in print the ideas preached from the pulpits of the nonconformists. 43 W. W., i. 1 7 1 - 7 2 . (Except for the Latin the italics are mine.) 44 William Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts (London, 1911), p. 18. 46 Ibid., p. 19 n. 45 An Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts (London, 1908), p. 52. 47 Ibid., pp. 47-8. Cf. J . A . Froude, English Seamen of the Sixteenth Century (New Y o r k , 1911), pp. 196, 198, 2 1 1 - 1 4 . 48 Ibid., p. 48. 49 Ibid., p. 49. 32

33

C H A P T E R III 1 Introduction to T h o m a s Cooper's An Admonition to the People of England, The English Scholar's Library, No. 15 (Birmingham, 1882), p. viii. (The italics are mine.) Arber's marked Puritan sympathies, however, color his judgment: though he admits that "for much of our brighter Literature, our Shakespearean Quartos and other similar plays, our Poetical Miscellanies, our Arcadia, our Madrigals, our Satires, and w h a t not; w e are indebted to the Bishops"— An Introductory Sketch to the Martin Marprelate Controversy, The English Scholar's Library, No. 8 (London, 1879), p. 2 7 — h e insists that, " a s a w h o l e , " the Puritans were " i n the right"—ibid., p. 14. Consequently the dispute between the bishops and the Puritan clergy he terms the conflict of authority with reason, with

Notes for Part One

545

Whitgift the exponent of authority and Cartwright of r e a s o n — A d m o n i t i o n , p. viii. Similarly, J . Gregory writes: " H e [Whitgift] showed himself Cartwright's inferior in dialectical skill, but the balance was redressed by the exercise of arbitrary power; or, as Fuller puts it, 'if Cartwright had the better of his adversary in learning, Whitgift had more power to back his arguments, and by this he not only kept the field, but gained the victory' "—Puritanism in the Old World and in the New (London, 1895), p. 71. 2 Shakespeare, Man and Artist (Oxford, 1938), i. 198. 3 Ibid., i. 199. But since these epithets were derisively cast at Cartwright by the anti-Puritan, anti-Martinist, and decidedly anti-Cartwrightian T h o m a s Nashe, Fripp's failure to appreciate the irony of the author of An Almond for a Parrat— R . B . M c K e r r o w , The Works of Thomas Nashe (London, 1904-10), iii. 356, 360 (see also M c G i n n , "Nashe's Share in the Marprelate Controversy," PMLA, lix, 4, 952-84) —betrays his bias. Furthermore Fripp immediately contradicts his own statement concerning Cartwright's " l o v a b i l i t y " by giving two illustrations of the stern discipline of the Master of W a r w i c k Hospital: first, " M a s t e r Henry Chaplin of W a r w i c k , " w h o had a fit as a result of a rebuke from Cartwright for "scandalous practices" and died a few hours afterward; secondly, Cartwright's "manservant who was whipped about the Market Place . . . for fornication with Mistress Cartwright's maid, the girl being set in stocks 'very great' with child" — op. cit., i. 199. 4 Ibid., i. 150. Y e t since Fripp even tries to make Shakespeare a Puritan, much of his animosity toward Whitgift must be attributed to prejudice. Shakespeare, insists Fripp, was neither convivial nor jovial: " T h e r e is no evidence to connect him with the M e r m a i d Tavern and Jonson's confreres. Probability is against it, if on no other ground than incompatibility of temper. Whatever the ' w i t combats' as imagined by Fuller, and the respect and affection inspired by the greater in the less, Shakespeare and Jonson could not have been boon companions" —ibid., i. 238-39. According to Fripp, all Shakespeare's drunkards are either villains or fools: "Drinkers suffer at his hands." T h o u g h Angelo with his insistence on the death penalty for adultery is the only puritanical character in Measure for Measure, Fripp calls Isabella " t h e beautiful Puritan g i r l " —ibid., ii. 615. A n d he pictures the Poet as a young man, sitting in the Guild Chapel w i t h his Puritan father at Cartwright's feet —ibid., i. ig8. H e even imagines Shakespeare apologizing for the unpuritan elements in his plays—his "liberal doctrine and broad humour," which " h o w e v e r welcome and reverent in the eyes of Q u e e n Elizabeth, Hooker, Bacon, John Stephens, and others, would give offence to the religiously strict and matter-of-fact, then as n o w " —ibid., i. 228. T h e words for Shakespeare's imaginary apology Fripp borrows from Martin Marprelate's defence in Hay any Worke for Cooper: " M y purpose was and is to do good." Hence the reasons for Fripp's partiality toward Cartwright and his dislike for Whitgift are fairly clear. W. W., i. 436. An Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, pp. 1 1 1 - 1 2 . 7 Ibid., p. I I I . ^Ibid., p. 114. 9 Ibid., p. 53. 10 Indeed a distinguished American editor of Shakespeare recently assured me that he regarded Whitgift as only slightly less evil than Beelzebub. 11 History of the English Church, p. 304. 12 Ibid., pp. 305-306. 13 Thomas Cartwright, p. 24. 14 C . H . and T . Cooper, Athenae Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge, 1861), ii. 360-66. See also J . V e n n and J . A . V e n n , Alumni Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge, 1922) and Pearson, Thomas Cartwright. 5

6

5 46 16

The Admonition Controversy

Athenae Cant., ii. 369-79. See also Strype, Life and Acts of John Whitgift (Oxford, 1822). 16 Athenae Cant., ii. 370; cf. Strype, John Whitgift, i. 46. 17 "Statutes of Trinity College, Cambridge," Documents Relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge (London, 1852), iii. 441-42: Caput xix . . . "Porro statuimus et ordinamus, ut Socii qui Magistri Artium sunt, post septem annos in eo gradu plene confectos, Presbyteri ordinentur." 18 See ante., p. 30. 19 Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, p. 19. 20 The Remains of Edmund Grindal, D.D., ed. for the Parker Society by the Rev. William Nicholson, A.M. (Cambridge, 1843), p. 324. 21 W. W., ii. 1. 22 Church and State: Political Aspects of Sixteenth Century Puritanism (Cambridge, 1 2 9 ® ) > P- 7°23 Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, pp. 26 ff. 24 G. Paule, Life of . . . John Whitgift (London, 1612), p. 10. 26 State Papers Dom. Eliz-, lxxi, No. 1 1 . See also Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, p. 28. 26 Ibid., pp. 28-9. 27 Remains of Edmund Grindal, pp. 323-24. See also P. Dom. Eliz-, lxxi, No. 23. 28 Remains of Edmund Grindal, p. 324. (The italics are mine.) 29 S. P. Dom. Eliz-, lxxi, No. 27. See also Thomas Cartwright, p. 30. 30 Remains of Edmund Grindal, p. 305. See also S. P. Dom. Eliz-, lxxi, No. 58. 31 Strype, John Whitgift, iii. 16-7. See also S. P. Dom. Eliz-, lxxiv, No. 29. 32 Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, p. 32. 33 Ibid., p. 40. 34 J.B. Mullinger, St. John's College (London, 1901), pp. 66-7. 36 Pearson, Thomas Cartwright, pp. 42-3. 36 Ibid., p. 45. 37 Strype, John Whitgift, i. 42-3. 38 Thomas Cartwright, p. 46. 39 Ibid., p. 63. 40 See ante., p. 33. 41 W. W., iii. 323. (The italics are mine.) 42 Ibid., i. 123. (The italics are mine.) 43 "Statutes of Trinity College, Cambridge," op. cit., iii. 430: caput xii. 44 W. W., iii. 396. (The italics are mine.) 46 Ibid., iii. 506-507. (The italics are mine.) 46 Ibid., iii. 324. (The italics are mine.) 47 Strype, John Whitgift, ii. 462. 48 Thomas Cartwright, p. 63. 49 Strype, John Whitgift, i. 96. (The italics are mine.) 60 Second replie, sig.)( )(2-2 T. (The italics in the second and third passages are mine.) 61 For an explanation of this oath see Pierce, Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, pp. 80-3. 62 Strype, John Whitgift, ii. 78. In reporting the contents of the manuscript containing the account of the proceedings before the High Commission, Strype expresses the belief that Cartwright himself had drawn up this account for the "perusal and information of the Lord Treasurer"—ibid., ii. 74. 63 Thomas Cartwright, pp. 97-8. See ante., pp. 35-6. 64 Ibid., iii. 5 1 1 . 66 p. 297. es y,/. W., i. 7. Cartwright's contempt for both the "degree" and the

Notes for Part One

547

"person" is perhaps most strikingly exhibited in his sarcastic reply to Whitgift's refusal to admit certain scriptural passages as evidence for the office of elders in the "primitive church": "But M. Doctor saith, that there is n o mention made of the office of such an elder; therefore that place maketh nothing to prove that there should be such elders in every congregation: so M. Doctor write, he careth not what he write. Belike he thinketh the credit oj his degree of doctorship will give weight to that which is light, and pith to that which is froth, or else he would never answer thus— ibid., iii. 157. (The italics are mine.) 67 Ibid., iii. 469. 68 Ibid., iii. 470. (The italics are mine.) "Sig.)( )(2V. 60 See ante., pp. 35-6. 61 pp. 1 6 - 7 . (The italics are mine.) In spite of Pearson's conviction that Cartwright was not the author of the Second Admonition —Thomas Cartwright, p. 74 —the similarity between the ideas expressed in it and those in Cartwright's acknowledged writings, along with its obscure, involved style, strongly suggests Cartwright's pen. With this viewpoint Frere and Douglas —Puritan Manifestoes, p. xxiii—and Piercz—Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, p. 42 —are in agreement. 62 Strype, John Whitgift, i. 454. 63 Ibid., i. 454-5 8 64 Ibid., i. 455. (The passage in brackets was inserted by Strype.) 66 According to Whitgift's first biographer Paule, Cartwright's release from prison in 1591 was largely due to Whitgift's efforts— op. cit., p. 53. Pearson, who does not wholly agree with Paule, ascribes Whitgift's intervention to "pressure of circumstances" — Thomas Cartwright, p. 357. This uncertainty, however, does not justify Pierce's flat assertion that "there is no record of a single case where motives of pity or compassion moved Whitgift to relent in his persecution of Nonconformists; or evidence that he ever forgave a m a n who once openly opposed h i m " —Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, p. 123. 66 ly^ jy^ ii. 342-43. 67 Ibid., ii. 344. C H A P T E R 1

IV

See ante., p. 34. Church and State, p. 139. 3 W. W., i. 290. 4 Ibid., i. 175. (The italics are mine.) 6 See P a r t T w o for the Puritan arguments against the Established Church and for the Episcopalian defense. 6 See P a r t T w o for the proposed Presbyterian reorganization and for the Episcopalian criticism of it. 7 W. W., iii. 68. 8 Ibid., iii. 132. ' Thomas Cartwright, p. 74. (The italics are mine.) 10 See ante., p. 45 n. 11 Second Admonition, p. 15. Calvin, likewise claiming scriptural precedent, divides his ecclesiastical polity into four orders: pastors, doctors, seniors or elders, and deacons. T h e office of the pastor, who in the Scriptures is termed a " w a t c h m a n " and a "minister," is " t o declare the worde of god, to teache, to admonyshe, to exhorte, to reproue as wel publikly as priuatly, to minister Sacraments, & to doe brotherly correctyon with the elders" — The Lames and Statutes of Geneva . . . trans, by Robert Fills (London, 1562), sig. A 1 T . N o min2

548

The Admonition Controversy

ister could "thrust him selfe into this office" without being called. T h e office of the doctor is " t o teache the faithefull with sounde doctrine, to the ende that the puritye of the gospell be not corrupted by ignorance or wicked opinions" —ibid., sig. A 7. T h e office of the senior or elder is " t o take hede and to watche of the demeanour and behauour of all and euery of the people, to admonishe louingly those which they see fall or leade a dissolute lyfe, or yf it be nedeful to make the reporte, or to doe brotherly correction" —ibid.., sig. A 8 — A 8 T . T h e office of the deacon is twofold: first, " t o receyue, to delyuer and conserue the goods of the poore," and secondly, " t o fede and ouersee the sicke, and to minister the portion of the poore" —ibid., sig. B 1 T . 12 See ante., p. 44. 13 The Institution of Christian Religion, written in Latine by maister John Caluine, and translated into Engltshe according to the Authors last edition, by T. N. [Thomas Norton] (London, 1562), Book I V , chapter iii, Fol. 350-51. T h o m a s Becon in his Catechism (1560) also describes the office of widows—Parker Society ed. (Cambridge, 1844), pp. 365-66. " W. W., iii. 281. 16 Ibid., iii. 292. Here Cartwright unconsciously reveals the weakness of the entire Puritan position: though he insists that " t h e word of God containeth the direction of all things pertaining to the church" —ibid., i. 190—he never hesitates to reject any part of Scripture that does not conform to his own scheme of things. Relative to his uncertainty regarding the office of widows, the reader might be interested in Whitgift's ironical rejoinder—see post., pp. 5 0 9 - 1 0 — w h i c h brings out the contrast between Cartwright's theorizing and Whitgift's common sense and also contradicts Pierce's description of Whitgift as a " d u l l man, devoid of a sense of humour" —Historical Introduction to the Mar prelate Tracts, p. 83. 16 jpr. y y ; 292 93* 17 Ibid., i. 176. 18 Ibid., i. 176-77. (The italics are mine.) 19 Ibid., 177-78. T h e passage which I have italicized is the standard Episcopalian rebuttal to the Puritan argument from scriptural authority. 20 Second replie, p. 45. 21 Ibid., p. 46. 22 W. W., i. 180. 23 Ibid., i. 191. 24 Ibid., ii. 523, 538. 25 Ibid., i. 201. 26 See ante., pp. 18 ff. 27 W. W., i. 191. (The italics are mine.) 28 See ante., pp. 18-9. 29 W. IV., i. 190. (The italics are mine.) 30 1 COR. x . 32: " G i v e none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of G o d . " 31 1 COR. xiv. 40: " L e t all things be done decently and in order." 32 1 COR. xiv. 26: " . . . Let all things be done unto edifying." Cf. ante., p. 17. 33 ROM. xiv. 6 - 7 : " H e that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. H e that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth G o d thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 34 W. W., i. 195. 36 Ibid., i. 196. 36 Ibid., i. 6.

Notes for Part One

549

Church and State, pp. 120-21. For a similar, but much less open-minded, evaluation of the arguments of the two men, see Neal, op. cit., i. 123. 38 W. W., ii. 272. 38 Ibid., ii. 272. 40 Queen Elizabeth (New York, 1934), pp. 306-307. (The italics are mine.) 41 W. W., i. 175. 42 Ibid., i. 6. 43 Ibid., i. 17. 44 Second replie, p. 87. 46 e.g., Ibid., pp. 285, 497, 502, etc. 46 W. W., ii. 182. 47 Second replie, p. 509. 48 Ibid., p. 510. 49 W. W., ii. 444, 449, 535; ill- 252. 60 Ibid., iii. 252. 61 Second replie, pp. 549-50. 62 W. W., i. 324; iii. 254, 369, 415. 63 Ibid., i. 441; ii. 253, 388; iii. 201. 64 Ibid., i. 408; ii. 177, 451. 66 Ibid., ii. 360. 66 Ibid., i. 4 1 1 . 67 Ibid., ii. 168. 68 Ibid., i. 530; iii. 445. 69 Ibid., ii. 456-58. 60 Rest of the second replie, p. 120. (The italics are mine.) 61 Church and State, pp. 123-24. (The italics are mine.) 62 Ibid., p. 124. (The italics are mine.) 63 Ibid., p. 124. M Ibid., pp. 124-25. (The italics are mine.) 37

CHAPTER V See ante., p. 62. In order to complete the accounts of the individual interchanges between Whitgift and Cartwright, it is occasionally necessary to quote from one or the other of Cartwright's two later Replies. A detailed discussion of these two tracts, however, is reserved for a separate chapter. 3 Works of Thomas Nashe (London, 1903-10), iv. 70. 4 W. W., i. 45. (The italics are mine.) 6 Ibid., i. 16. • Ibid., i. 46. 7 Ibid., i. 434. 8 Ibid., iii. 466-67. * Ibid., iii. 555-60. 10 Ibid., i. 369. 11 Ibid., i. 489. 12 Ibid., i. 369. 13 Ibid., i. 435. 14 Ibid., iii. 531. 16 Ibid., iii. 533. 16 Ibid., ii. 224-25. 17 Ibid., i. 435. 18 Ibid., i. 419. 19 Ibid., i. 398. (Except for the Latin, the italics are mine.) 20 Second replie, p. 252. 1

2

550

The Admonition Controversy

» W. W., i. 441. Ibid., i. 443. 23 Ibid., i. 442-4324 Ibid., i. 444. (Except for the titles the italics are mine.) 26 Ibid., i. 448-49. 28 Second replie, p. 277. 27 Ibid., p. 278. 28 i. 449. (The italics are mine.) 29 Second replie, p. 281. 30 W. W., iii. 62. 81 The rest of the second replie, p. 107. 32 W. W., i. 530. 33 Ibid., i. 531. 34 Second replie, p. 357. (The italics are mine.) 86 W. W., ii. 315. 36 Ibid., ii. 317. ™ Ibid., ii. 318. 3SIbid., ii. 320-21. 39 Second replie, p. 628. 40 W. W., ii. 132. (The italics are mine.) 41 Second replie, p. 479. 42 W. W., ii. 268. 43 Ibid., ii. 249 ff. 44 Second replie, p. 596. 46 W. W., ii. 131. 48 Ibid., i. 541. 47 Ibid., i. 542. 48 Ibid., ii. 56. 49 Ibid., i. 62-4. 60 Ibid., i. 365. 61 Second replie, p. 216. 62 W.W., i. 18. 63 Ibid., i. 503. 54 Ibid., i. 471. 66 Ibid., i. 474. 68 Ibid., i. 503-504. 67 Ibid., i. 66, 502. MIbid., i. 363. 59 Ibid., i. 142-43. 60 Ibid., i. 58, 60. 61 Ibid., i. 58. 62 Ibid., i. 140. 63 Ibid., i. 143. 84 Ibid., iii. 249. 66 Ibid., iii. 114. (Except for the Latin the italics are mine.) 86 Ibid., iii. 115. 67 Ibid., i. 58. (The italics are mine.) ^ Ibid., i. 144-45. 69 Ibid., i. 58. 70 Ibid., i. 145. 71 Ibid., i. 543. 72 Ibid., i. 59-60. 73 Ibid., i. 58. 74 Ibid., i. 407-408. 75 Second replie, p. 257. See post., pp. 96 fF. 22

Notes for Part One

55 1

W. W., iii. 19. Ibid., iii. 20. (The italics are mine.) 78 Second replie, p. 350. 79 Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, p. 48. 80 W. W., ii. n o . 81 Ibid., ii. 1 1 0 - 1 1 . 82 Second replie, pp. 460-61. 83 W. W., i. 475-76. 84 Ibid., i. 477-78. 85 Ibid., i. 5 1 1 . 86 See ante., p. 54 n. 87 W. W., i. 5 1 1 - 1 2 . 88 Second replie, p. 336. (The italics are mine.) Cf. ante., p. 88. 89 W. W., iii. 2. 90 Ibid., iii. 3. Another example of Cartwright's homely metaphors appears in his definition of prayer, much praised by his modern admirers: " P r a y e r being, as it were, a bunch of keys, whereby to g o to al the treasures and storehouses of the Lord; his buttries, his pantries, his cellars, his wardrobe, and whatsoever was needful either for this, or for the life to come; it is a Christian wisdom in you to enquire after the skil and knowledg of i t " — Strype, John Whitgift, iii. 316. 91 Pierce, The Marprelate Tracts, pp. 18, 43, 215. 76 77

C H A P T E R VI See ante., pp. 64-5. See ante., pp. 46-7. 3 A Survay of the Pretended Holy Discipline (London, 1593), p. 379. 4 Pearson calls the Second replie " a long verbose answer to Whitgift's Defence" and remarks that it "adds nothing material to the contents of the first Reply"; moreover, he admits that "there is indeed some truth in Whitaker's criticism, which was sent to Whitgift to dissuade him from attempting a rejoinder" — Thomas Cartwright, p. 145. 6 Second replie, pp. 590-91. •Ibid., sig.)( )( )( i v 2. 7 See ante., pp. 68 ff. B Second replie,vsig.)( )( )( 2. 9 See ante., p. 72. 10 Second replie, p. 278. 11 W. W., ii. 267-68. 12 Ibid., ii. 268-69. (The italics are mine.) 13 Second replie, pp. 605-606. 14 W. TV., i. 274, 329-31; ii. 522. wIbid., ii. 125, 128, 137, 148, 150, 170, 219, 220; iii. 375. 16 Second replie, p. 606. (Except for the indirect quotations the italics are mine.) 17 Actually the only difference between this and the definitive edition of 1559 is that of arrangement. As James Mackinnon writes, " I n all essentials the theology of 1559 is the theology of 1536 [the earliest editon]" —Calvin and the Reformation (London, 1936), p. 215. Cf. H . Y . R e y b u r n , John Calvin His Life, Letters, and Work (London, 1914), p. 33; Williston Walker, John Calvin (New Y o r k and London, 1906), pp. 229, 368; Henry Beveridge ed., Institutes of the Christian Religion (Edinburgh, 1845), i. xlv. 18 Second replie, p. 400. 19 W. W., i. 29. 1

2

552

T h e Admonition Controversy

Ibid., i. 30. Second replie, p. 8. (The italics are mine.) 22 Ibid., pp. 9-10. 23 Ibid., p. 15. 24 W. W., iii. 14. 26 Ibid., iii. 15. 26 Cf. Pearson, ante., p. 63. 27 W. W., iii. 445. 28 Ibid., iii. 445-46. (The italics are mine.) 29 Rest of the second replie, pp. 23-4. 30 W. W., ii. 530. 31 Rest of the second replie, p. 140. 32 W. W., i. 469. 33 Second replie, pp. 304-305. 34 Rest of the second replie, p. 40. Earlier, in the Replye, Cartwright on at least one occasion uses this same trick of multiplying references instead of answering his opponent's arguments. W h e n Whitgift tells the authors of the Admonition that Christ's words to the disciples, Matthew xxviii. 19., " G o and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc.," cannot be cited to prove that women m a y not baptize in an emergency, Cartwright in turn merely asserts that this place "is as strong against women's baptizing as it is against their preaching" — ^ . W., ii. 497. T h e n , without explaining w h y it is "as strong," he adds nine new references—11 Peter ii. 5., Genesis vi. 14., xviii. 19., xvii. 23., L u k e ix. 1., L u k e x. 1., 17., Acts xxii. 15., 1 Corinthians i. 1 7 . — i n support of his statement. T h u s he evades a debate over M a t t h e w xxviii. 19. 35 Second replie, p. 33. 36 Ibid., p. 551. * Ibid., sig. )( 4. Ibid., sig. )( )( )( )( 2. (The italics are mine.) 39 Rest of the second replie, pp. 78-9. 40 " B u t I say unto you, T h a t whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, R a c a , shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, T h o u fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." 41 W. W., iii. 227. " I b i d . , ii. 535. 43 Rest of the second replie, p. 132. 44 Second replie, p. 346. 46 W. W., i. 368; iii. 367. 48 W. W., ii. 519. 47 Rest of the second replie, p. 124. (The italics are mine.) 48 W. W., iii. 147. 49 Second replie, p. 28. 60 W. W., i. 190. 61 Ibid., i. 191. 62 Ibid., i. 191-92. 63 Second replie, p. 57. 64 A full and plaine declaration, sig. b i Ibid., p. 6. 66 T h e passage—"Ergo ex his quae diximus, satis apparet, honestam atque commodam viuendi rationem Episcopis diuina ordinatione deberi, quo liberius in vocationem suam incumbant" (Ecclesiastics Disciplina, p. 86 v ) — is translated "Therefore it is plaine enoughe off that which hathe bene saide that Bishoppes that is to say the mynisters/ought to haue an honest reasonable and comodious 20

21

Notes for Part One

553

liuinge to mainteine them/that they m a y more freely applie them selues to ther vocation and c a l l i n g e " — A full and plaine declaration, p. 113. Similar are the following translations: "Episcoporum," Eccl. Disc., p. 83, to "bishoppes and ministers," Full and plaint decl., p. n o ; "Episcopis," Eccl. Disc., p. 83 v , to "bishoppes and ministers," Full and plaine decl., p. n o ; "Episcopos," Eccl. Disc., p. 83 T , to "bishops that is so [to] say ministers," Full and plaine decl., p. n o ; "Episcopos," Eccl. Disc., p. 90, to "Bishopes and ministers," Full and plaine decl., p. 118; "Episcoporum," Eccl. Disc., p. 91, to "bishops and ministers," Full and plaine decl., p. 119. 67 "Episcopos," Eccl. Disc., p. go T , to "minister," Full and plaine decl., p. 119; 68 Thomas Cartwright, p. 129.

C H A P T E R VII See ante., p. 20. 2 T h e best exposition of the political doctrines of sixteenth-century Puritanism appears in Pearson, Church and State, from which I freely quote. 3 W. W., i. 190. (The italics are mine.) Cf. ante., pp. 56 ff. 4 Ibid., i. 192. (The italics are mine.) iIbid., i. 412. 6 Ibid., iii. 189. 7 Ibid., iii. 187. ( T h e italics are mine.) 8 Ibid., iii. 187-88. (The italics are mine.) • M. Derings Workes More at large then euer hath heere-to-fore been printed in any one Volume (London, 1597), sigs. G 2 — 2 v . In Dering's "godly and comfortable letters, full of Christian consolation," published December 6, 1572, the same year as the Admonition, he condemns "Phylosophie," or secular learning, as " a vaine and curious searching of Gods misteries, or mesuring things reuealed according to our vnderstanding, with which tentations whilst our Fathers were ouercome, they became foolish in theyr owne imaginations"— ibid., sig. A 7 v . A g a i n , in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he writes: " I would w e that are preachers, could learne and beleeue this, it would make vs leaue our vaine babling and much talke of philosophic and prophane thinges, and fill our mouthes onely with the woorde of the Lordc" —ibid., sig. T 4 v . 10 Ibid., sig. A a 4 \ 11 W. W., i. 32. (The italics are mine.) 12 Ibid., i. 43. 13 Ibid., i. 33. 14 Ibid., i. 33 marg. note. u Ibid., iii. 167. 16 Ibid., iii. 189. 17 Church and State, pp. 9-40. 18 W.W., iii. 295-96. (The italics are mine.) 18 Ibid., iii. 189. 80 Ibid., iii. 189. T h e " p r o p h e t " to whom Cartwright refers is Isaiah (xlix: 23-)21 Rest of the second replie, p. 93. 22 W. W., iii. 189-90, 554. 23 Church and State, p. 115. 24 Ibid., pp. 37-8. 26 Ibid., pp. 6 1 - 2 . 26 Ibid., p. 63. A s proof that this picture is not exaggerated, Pearson adds that he is merely describing w h a t in two instances actually occurred: " T h e behaviour of the Separatists w h o carried Cartwright's two-kingdom theory so far as to separate Church and State altogether shows what might have hap1

554

The Admonition Controversy

pened on the left wing of the new Church, and the facts of the civil war and the rebellion in the seventeenth century show what might have taken place in the sixteenth, if the Puritans had then secured the power they wanted"— ibid., p. 64. Consequently he concludes that Puritanism was "too individualistic" to give peace and unity to the State that allowed it scope, and therefore "would breed captious critics and troublesome cranks"—ibid., p. 68. 27 Ibid., pp. 127 ff. 28 W. W., iii. 301. 29 Church and State, p. 107. 30 W. W., i. 270. 31 Second replie, p. 117. 32 Ibid., p. 95. (Except for the first passage the italics are mine.) 83 Ibid., p. 96. 34 Ibid., p. 115 36 W. W., i. 200. 36 Ibid., i. 201. 37 Second replie, pp. 68-9. (Except for the indirect quotation the italics are mine.) 38 W. W., i. 273. 39 Ibid., i. 23. 40 Pierce, however, with customary perverseness regards them as sincere: "All through their contest with the Bishops, those who were 'seekers after Reformation' professed to be, and undoubtedly were, fervent and unquestioning in their loyalty to Elizabeth"— Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Controversy, p. 95. (The italics are mine.) Another Puritan apologist, Thomas Carter, who tried to make Shakespeare a Puritan, writes that Elizabeth "won the Puritan almost entirely over to her side, and among her subjects she could reckon no more earnest and enthusiastic supporter" —Shakespeare Puritan and Recusant (Edinburgh and London, 1897), p. 24.

CHAPTER VIII 1 Introductory Sketch to the Martin Marprelate Controversy, p. g. (The italics are mine.) 2 Op. cit., v. 40. 8 Church and State, p. 115. (The italics are mine.) 4 See ante., pp. 26-7. I Second replie, sig. )( 4 v. 6 Church and State, p. 37. ''Ibid., p. 106. 8 Ibid., pp. 113-14. (The italics are mine.) ® See ante., pp. 119-20. 10 Thomas Cartwright, p. 61. II History of the English Church, p. 175. 12 W. W., iii. 320. (The italics are mine.) In passing, we might also point out that Whitgift's plea for conformity in return for peace, which to some readers might seem like a sort of bribe, was no more than what Cartwright himself demands: "As the wisdom of God hath thought it the best way to keep his people from infection of idolatry to make them most unlike the idolaters; so hath the same wisdom of God thought good that, to keep his people in the unity of truth, there is no better way than that they should be most like one to another, and that, as much as possibly may be, they should have all the same ceremonies" —ibid., ii. 450. (The italics are mine.) As a matter of fact, at this time diversity of religious opinion was generally believed to be heretical: cf. W.K. Jordan,

Notes for Part One

555

The Development of Religious Toleration in England ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass., 1932), p . 24. 13 History of the English Church, p . 174. 14 H e b r e w s x. 1. 16 W. W., i. 2 3 1 . 16 Ibid., i. 2 3 4 - 3 5 . 17 Ibid., i. 235. 18 Ibid., i. 363. 19 Ibid., i. 368. 20 Ibid., i. 270. T h e " p l a c e s of D e u t e r o n o m y " to w h i c h C a r t w r i g h t refers a r e t h e following: iv: 2. Y e shall n o t a d d u n t o t h e w o r d w h i c h I c o m m a n d you, n e i t h e r shall ye diminish o u g h t f r o m it, t h a t ye m a y keep t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s of t h e L o r d your God which I c o m m a n d you. xii: 32. W h a t t h i n g soever I c o m m a n d y o u , observe to d o it: t h o u s h a l t n o t a d d thereto, n o r diminish f r o m it. 21 Ibid., i. 2 7 1 - 7 2 . 22 Second replie, p . 95. 23 Ibid., p. 117. 24 Church and State, p p . 111-12. 25 w. W., ii. 440. ( T h e italics a r e m i n e . ) 26 History of the English Church, p p . 149-50. Cf. J o r d a n , op. cit., p . 1 1 8 : " N o people h a v e ever faced a m o r e difficult intellectual choice." 27 J o r d a n points o u t t h a t t h e English G o v e r n m e n t " d e m a n d e d of its subj e c t s only their a d h e r e n c e to t h e general f r a m e w o r k of d o g m a w h i c h b o t h Protestants a n d Catholics r e g a r d e d as infallibly t r u e " — ibid., p . 123. T h i s a t t e m p t " t o define t h e b o d y of d o c t r i n e w h i c h m u s t b e believed as a m i n i m u m in o r d e r to assure i m m u n i t y f r o m prosecution for h e r e s y " h e calls " a notew o r t h y a d v a n c e t o w a r d s t o l e r a t i o n " — ibid., p p . 1 2 3 - 2 4 . 28 E v e n Pierce a d m i t s Whitgift's severity as Bishop of Worcester w i t h t h e R o m a n Catholics in his diocese: " O n his a p p o i n t m e n t as Bishop . . . W h i t g i f t soon f o u n d t h a t his business lay chiefly w i t h R o m a n recusants. I n this a n d in t h e general a d m i n i s t r a t i v e w o r k of his See h e displayed g r e a t energy a n d ability of t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c o r d e r . H e was sleepless in r o u t i n g o u t t h e secret conclaves of t h e C a t h o l i c s " —Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, p. 67. 29 W. W., ii. 440-41. 30 Ibid., iii. 499. 31 Rest of the second replie, p. 173. 32 W. W., iii. 397. 33 Ibid., iii. 399. 34 Rest of the second replie, p. 74. ( T h e italics a r e m i n e . ) 36 W. W., iii. 3 5 1 . 36 Ibid., iii. 350. 37 Ibid., iii. 3 5 1 . 38 Ibid., iii. 352. 39 Ibid., iii. 477. 40 Rest of the second replie, p. 264. 41 W. W., i. 3 1 7 . 42 Ibid., i. 3 1 8 - 1 9 . 43 Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, p. 53. 44 W. W., i. 320-21. 46 Ibid., i. 3 2 1 - 2 2 n. 46 Ibid., i. 386. ( T h e italics a r e m i n e . ) 47 J o r d a n points o u t t h a t W h i t g i f t " a p p e a r s h e r e in a n a w k w a r d fashion to p r o n o u n c e a liberal theory of c o m p r e h e n s i o n " — op. cit., p . 147.

556

T h e Admonition Controversy

Church and State, p. 110. Thomas Cartwright, p. 406. (The italics are mine.) 50 Ibid., pp. 91 if. (The italics are mine.) 51 For the O l d L a w of justice the N e w Testament substitutes the N e w L a w of love. Moses' commandment that as a man hath done, so shall it be done to him (Leviticus xxiv. i g ) is superseded by Christ's words of loving-kindness: " A s ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to t h e m " (Luke vi. 31). T h o u g h the T e n Commandments require both love of G o d and love of neighbor, the definition of the word neighbor among the Israelites, as among the Puritans, became restricted to designate a "chosen people." In the N e w Testament, however, in the parable of the Good Samaritan the word is redefined so as to include all mankind. Herein is enunciated the Christian doctrine of brotherly love. Indeed, the most important change that took place in St. Paul as a result of his conversion was the displacement of hatred b y love. 62 See ante. p. 47 n. 48 49

CHAPTER IX 1 Paule, op. cit., p. 44. According to Paule, Barrow specifically attributed his opinions to the influence of Cartwright: cf. ibid., p. 50. 2 W. W., iii. 263-64. 3 A full and plaine declaration, p. 153. "Ibid., p. 155. 6 Ibid., p. 159. 6 A briefe and plaine declaration, pp. 104-105. Cf. ante., pp. 53-4. 7 Thomas Cartwright, pp. 416-18. 8 M c K e r r o w , op. cit., iii. 359. 9 Nashe's accusation that Cartwright's doctrines were hostile to education seems to a certain degree justified. Y e t since the authors of the Admonition complained that the Episcopalian ministry was made u p of " t a g and rag, learned and unlearned, of the basest sort of the people" — W. W., i. 296—and since these writers demanded a more learned clergy, the notion has grown up that the nonconformist ministers were better trained than those of the Established Church. Pierce, for example, writes that "vitally connected with the Episcopal policy of exacting a narrow conformity in external things, and sequestrating large numbers of able and effective preachers and pastors, was the crying evil of filling the pulpits, which were not annexed by the pluralists, with men unworthy for various reasons to occupy t h e m " —Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, pp. 108-109. According to J.B. Mullinger, however, at St. John's College, Cambridge, in particular, where the Puritans had an opportunity to institute their so-called reforms in education, the "standard of learning and morality" greatly declined after 1560, when the College began to acquire its nonconformist bias—op. cit., p. 55. N o w these graduates of St. John's and of the Universities in general, represented the best of the Puritan clergy, but as the Puritan doctrine of the "inner light" promulgated by Cartwright, that any man, no matter how ignorant, could interpret the Scriptures, spread throughout England, the intellectual quality of their clergy rapidly deteriorated. T h e falling-off from the standard of preachers like Cartwright and Dering, and other university graduates to the rank and file of Puritan ministers is described by Haller as follows: " A s university graduates and ordained clergymen, the preachers still insisted upon intellectual culture and academic learning as necessary for the preaching of the word. But for the understanding of the word, for conversion to the faith, they were equally insistent that nothing was required but the natural capacities of the lowest, most ignorant, and least gifted of men. T h e light of nature could not in itself save,

Notes for Part One

557

but w h e n aided by the light of faith as revealed in scripture, which everybody should therefore read, and in preaching, which everybody should therefore attend, it was all that any man needed. T h e limitations placed upon the light of nature were essentially important in the minds of the preachers. T h e y grew rapidly less important to minds that could boast of little else. T h e common mind leapt to the conclusion that the common mind was enough, that indeed, because it was uncorrupted by vain human knowledge, it was more likely to apprehend truth. Learning, therefore, might be, should be, dispensed with, even learning in preachers, finally even preaching itself, since every man had common reason and the b o o k " — op. cit., pp. 169-70. As a result, in spite of a center "solidly respectable and firmly enough disciplined," Puritanism, Haller tells us, deployed " i n most varied and fantastic extravagance at its p e r i p h e r y " — ibid., p. 175. T h e numerous individuals at this periphery, imbued with the doctrine of " G o d ' s immediate concern in the individual soul" and " t h e individual's aptitude for understanding what the Holy Spirit revealed through the spoken and the printed w o r d " were encouraged to " t h e idea that they need trust nothing so much as their own untutored notions even in defiance of sense and sound l e a r n i n g " — ibid., p. 175. In 1574 Whitgift had foreseen this decline in the calibre of the Puritan clergy. In fact, he warns the authors of the Admonition that "such as will take upon them in church-matters to pluck down that which is already builded and to prescribe a new platform" must " b e certain of their cunning, expert in their doings, grounded in learning and experience" — W. W., iii. 469. These qualifications, in Whitgift's opinion, the Puritan writers lacked. His criticism of the original Puritans became even more applicable to their successors. In 1583, when he was made Archbishop of Canterbury, he found the standards of education among the non-subscribing clergy very low indeed; cf. Strype, John Whitgift, i. 245. Doubtless in order to improve them he rephrased the requirements for admission to orders as stated in the Subscription A c t of 1571 in order to emphasize the need for university training; cf. Gee and Hardy, op. cit., pp. 480, 483. 10 Nashe, always on the lookout for a cleverly turned phrase, occasionally borrows from Whitgift. For example, Whitgift writes: " T h e s e men apply to their purpose quicquid in buccam venerit, although it be never so far fetched" — W.W., i. 143. Cf. Nashe: " I write Quicquid in buccam venerit, as fast as my hand can t r o t " — M c K e r r o w , op. cit., i. 195. Again, Whitgift addresses Cartwright: " Y o u , who under pretence of zeal overthrow that which other men have builded, under the colour of purity seek to bring in deformity, and under the cloke of equality and humility would usurp as great tyranny and lofty lordlikeness over your parishes as ever the pope did over the whole church" — W. W., i. 121. Cf. Nashe writing against Puritanism: " A common practise it is now adaies, which breedes our common calamitie, that the cloake of zeale, shoulde be vnto an hypocrite in steed of a coate of Maile; a pretence of puritie, a pentisse for iniquitie; a glose of godlines, a couert for all naughtines" — M c K e r r o w , op. cit., i. 22.

W. W., ii. 268. See ante., p. 300. 13 See ante., pp. 127 fF. 14 W. W., ii. 221. 16 Ibid., ii. 244-45. 16 Ibid., ii. 245. 17 Ibid., ii. 248-49. 18 Second replie, p. 587. 19 W. W., ii. 441. 20 Ibid., ii. 441-42. 21 Rest of the second replie, p. 174. 11

12

558

T h e Admonition Controversy

22

W. W., il. 442-43. Ibid., iii. 444. (Except for the Latin the italics are mine.) Ibid., ii. 272. 26 Ibid., iii. 189. 26 See ante., p. 57. 23

24

Notes for Part Two P. 145,11. 24-6: W.W., i. 175.

P. 146, 11. 1-2: ibid., i. 176. I. 5: see ante., p p . 49-63. II. 16-7: W.W., i. 146. 11. 17—8: ibid., i. 543. 11. 18-22: ibid., i. 146. P. 147,1. 6: e.g.,1 " a lawful and public function"— ibid., iii. 187—for " a lawful and a publike function"— Defense (1574), p. 645; "yet doth not he alway so" — W.W., iii. 187—for "yet doth he not alway so" —Defense (1574), p. 645; " n o one" — W.W., iii. 198 — for " n o man"— Defense (1574), p. 650. 1. 8: cf. Frere and Douglas, op. cit., pp. xxviii et seq. I. 20: cf. W.W., i. 203, 294; ii. 13, 26, 277, 410, 524; iii. 81, 228, 514. P. 149, 1. 5—p. 151, 1. 21: ibid., ii. 438-41. P. 151, 1. 2 2 - p . 152, 1. 3: ibid., ii. 450. P. 152,11. 4-7: RSR, p. 182. II. 8-11: W. W., ii. 466, 565; Admonition bears marginal note, "Damasus the first inventor of this stuff, well furthered by Gregory V I I . " 1. 1 2 - p . 153, 1. 11: ibid., ii. 589-90. P. 153, 1. 1 3 - p . 154, 1. 31: ibid., ii. 460-63. P. 154,11. 32-8: RSR, p. 187. P. 155,11. 1-27: W.W., ii. 466-67. 1. 29—p. 158, 1. 6: ibid., ii. 487-90. P. 158, 11. 7-36: ibid., ii. 492. 1- 3 7 - P - 159. L ii-RSR, p. 212. P. 159,11. 13-23: W.W., iii. 513 n. 1. 24—p. 160, 1. 32: ibid., iii. 5 1 3 - 1 7 . P. 160, 1. 34 —p. 161, 1. 30: ibid., iii. 383-85. P. 161, 1. 32—p. 162, 1. 15: ibid., iii. 362-63. P. 162, 1. 16 —p. 164, 1. 16: ibid., iii. 365-71. P. 164,1. 17—p. 165,1. 7: ibid., iii. 374-75P. 165, 11. 8-26: ibid., iii. 380. I. 28 —p. 167, 1. 38: ibid., iii. 350-52. P. 168, 11. 1-9: ibid., iii. 477. II. 12-20: ibid., iii. 73; the "introits" of the First Edwardine Book of Common Prayer were replaced by the Lord's Prayer in the Second Edwardine a n d Elizabethan Books. 1. 22—p. 16g, 1. 5: ibid., iii. 74. P. 169, 1. 7—p. 170, 1. 17: ibid., iii. 338-40. P. 170,11. 18-22: SR., p p . 392-93 (p. 392 incorrectly numbered 391). 1. 23—p. 172,1. 15: W.W., iii. 340-42. P. 172,1. 16—p. 173,1. 26: SR, p p . 393-95. P. 173,1. 2 7 - p . 174,1. 13: W.W., iii. 343-44P. 174,1. 1 4 - p . 175,1. 2: SR, p. 396.

Notes for Part Two

559

3-32: W.W., iii. 1. 3 3 - p . 176,1. 22: ibid., iii. 3-4. 23-34: ibid., iii. 6-7. 35 ~ P - '77.1- IO = ibid., iii. 29-30. 11 —p. 178, 1. 12: ibid., iii. 32-3. 13-34: SR, pp. 378-79. 3 5 - P - 179> 1- 22: W.W., iii. 34. 23-34: SR, p. 379. 3 5 - p . 180,1. 36: W.W., iii. 35. 1 - 9 : S R , p. 381. 10-14: W.W., iii. 35. 15-25: SR, p. 381. 26—p. 182,11. 3-9: W.W., iii. 36-7. 10-34: ibid., iii. 40. 3 5 - p . 183, 1. 9: ibid., iii. 337. 10-26: ibid., iii. 41-2. 27-8: ibid., iii. 337; Whitgift explains that his statement refers to most of the material in the Answere between pp. 151 and 171. 29-38: ibid., iii. 40. 1 —p. 185, 1. 18: ibid., iii. 42-3. 1 9 - p . 186,1. 2: SR, pp. 387-88. 3-4: W. W., iii. 40. 5-37: ibid., iii. 43-4. 3 8 - p . 187, 1. 23: SR, pp. 387-88. 24-7: W.W., iii. 40. 28—p. 188,1. 28: ibid., iii. 44. 29-39: SR, p. 389. 40—p. 189,1. 27: W.W., iii. 44-5. 28-32: SR, p. 391 (incorrectly numbered 392). 3 3 - p . 192,1. 9: W.W. iii. 48-50. 10—p. 194, 1. 16: ibid., iii. 52-4. 17-23: ibid., iii. 56-7. 2 4 ~ P - 195. 2 I : ibid., 74-622—p. 196, 1. g: ibid., i. 538. 1 0 - p . 197,1. 13: ibid., i. 541-42. 14-31: SR, pp. 367-69. 3 2 - p . 199,1. 16: W.W., i. 543-4433-4: cf. post., p. 281. 1 7 - p . 200,1. 7: SR, pp. 369-70. 8—p. 201, 1. 13: ibid., iii. 14-6. 14-24: SR, p. 349. 25—p. 202,1. 26: W.W., iii. 16-7. 2 7 - p . 203, 1. 6: SR, p. 350. 7 —p. 204, 1. 11: ibid., iii. 19-20. 12-32: SR, pp. 350-51. 3 3 - p . 205,1. 35: W.W., iii. 21-2. 37 —p. 207, 1. 2: ibid., iii. 78-81. 3-14: RSR, pp. 149-5°15-24: W.W., iii. 81. 25-34: RSR, p. 150. 35—p. 208,1. 24: W.W., iii. 101-102: 28—p. 209,1. 25: ibid., iii. 82-4. 2 6 - p . 210,1. 11: ibid., iii. 88-9. 12-21: RSR, p. 235. 22—p. 211,1. 36: W.W., iii. 92-4.

560

T h e Admonition Controversy

P. 211, 1. 37—p. 212,1. 4: RSR, 227-28. P. 212, 11. 5-33: W.W., iii. 95-6. 11. 17-9: cf. ante., pp. 209-10. 1. 34—p. 214,1. 22: W.W., iii. 96-8. P. 214, 1. 4: cf. ante., p. 213. I. 24 —p. 215, 1. 7: ibid., iii. 109. P. 215, 1. 8 —p. 216, 1. 13: ibid., iii. 114-15. P. 216,11. 14-39: ibid., iii. 118-19. P. 217, 11. 1-19: ibid., iii. 122-23. II. 20-32: ibid., iii. 128-29. 1- 3 4 - P - 218,1. 15: ibid., iii. 358-59. P. 218, 1. 5: for textual variants of this passage cf. ibid., iii. 357-58. 11. 18-30: ibid., iii. 353. I. 31 - p . 219, 1. 22: ibid., iii. 355-56. P. 219, 11. 23-32: ibid., iii. 353. 1- 3 3 - P - 2 2 0 > !• I O : ibid -> iü- 357P. 220,11. 13-20: ibid., ii. 466, 495. 1. 21 - p . 223,1. 24: ibid., ii. 495-99P. 222, 1. 39 —p. 223,1. 1: cf. ante., p. 61. P. 223, 1. 14: cf. post., p. 298. I. 25— p. 226, 1. 2: RSR, pp. 116-19. P. 226, 1. 3 —p. 227,1. 7: W.W., ii. 499-500. P. 227,1. 8—p. 228,1. 3: RSR, pp. 122-23. P. 228,11. 4-15: W.W'., ii. 501. II. 16-28: ibid., ii. 504-505. I. 29—p. 229,1. 32: ibid., ii. 508-509. P- 229, 1. 3 3 - p . 231, 1. 25: ibid., ii. 511-13. P. 231,1. 26—p. 232,1. 16: RSR, pp. 217-18. P. 232,11. 17-29: W.W., ii. 513. II. 30-5: ibid., ii. 519. 1. 3 6 - p . 233, 1. 2: ibid., ii. 516. P- 233, 11. 3-28: ibid., ii. 519. 1. 29—p. 235, 1. 2: ibid., ii. 521-22. P. 235, 11. 3-33: ibid., ii. 524. I. 3 4 - p . 236,1. 38: RSR, pp. 125-27. P. 237,11. 1-2: W.W., ii. 527. II. 3-18: RSR, p. 127. 1. 19—p. 238,1. 4: W.W., ii. 530-31. P. 238,11. 5-22: RSR, pp. 140-41. 1. 2 3 - p . 239,1. 7: W.W., ii. 540-41. P. 239, 1. 8—p. 242, 1. 18: ibid., ii. 546-50. P. 242,11. 19-37: ibid., ii. 552-53. P. 243, 11. 1-27: ibid., ii. 106-108. I. 2 9 - p . 245, 1. 3: ibid., ii. 559-62. P. 245, 1. 5—p. 246, 1. 36: ibid., ii. 565-68. P. 246, 1. 3 7 - p . 247, 1. 26: ibid., ii. 572-73. P. 247, 1. 27— p. 248, 1. 4: RSR, p. 190. P. 248,11. 5-24: W.W., ii. 573. II. 25-40: RSR, pp. 193-94. P. 249,1. i - p . 251,1. 12: W.W., ii. 591-95. P. 251,11. 15-22: ibid., iii. 280. 11. 23-32: ibid., i. 489. 1. 33 —p. 252, 1. 12: ibid., iii. 486-87. P. 252, 1. 1 4 - p . 256, 1. 13: ibid., ii. 9-14.

Notes for Part Two

561

P. 256, II. 14-28: RSR, p. 245. 1. 29—p. 257, 1. 28: ibid., pp. 247-48. P. 257,1. 2 9 - p . 259, 1. 23: W.W., ii. 52-4. P. 259, II. 24-33: ibid., ii. 56. 1. 34—p. 260, 1. 18: ibid., ii. 58-9. P. 260, 1. 19—p. 261, 1. 10: ibid., ii. 67-9. P. 261,11. 11-6: RSR, p. 261. 1. 17—p. 263, 1. 22: W.W., ii. 69-72. P. 263,1. 23—p. 264,1. 11: RSR, pp. 261-62. P. 264,1. 12—p. 265,1. 3: W.W., ii. 4-6. P. 265,11. 4-27: SR, pp. 403-404. 1. 29—p. 267,1. 14: W.W., i. 469-70. P. 267, 1. 15—p. 268,1. 2: SR, pp. 294-95 (p. 295 incorrectly numbered 296). P. 268,1. 3 - p . 269,1. 11: W.W., ii. 478-79. P. 269, 11. 12-34: ibid., i. 483-84. I. 3 5 - p . 270, 1. 15: ibid., i. 491-92. P. 270, 11. 16-30: ibid., i. 511-12. II. 31-3: SR, p. 336. 1. 3 4 - p . 271,1. 3: W.W., i. 512-13. P. 271,11. 4-33: ibid., i. 515-16. I. 3 4 - p . 272, L 34'- SR, p. 342. P. 272, 1. 3 5 - p . 275, 1. 2: W.W., i. 518-19. P. 275,11. 3-18: SR, p. 344. II. 19-27: W.W., i. 520. 11. 28-36: SR, pp. 345-46. 1. 37—p. 276,1. 36: W.W., i. 527. P. 276,1. 3 7 - p . 277,1. 9: SR, pp. 355-56. P. 277,11. 30-1: "King Edward's priests" in first ed. of Admonition only. 1. 12— p. 278,1. 12: W.W., i. 317-18. P. 278, 1. 1 5 - p . 279, 1. 37: ibid., i. 140. P. 279, 1. 3 8 - p . 283, 1. 14: ibid., i. 142-50. P. 281,11. 20-1: in commenting on the "Additions, detractions, and alterations in the first part of the Admonition," Whitgift writes: "In the margent, for the 'xv. of Matthew, vers. 23.' they have quoted the 'xv. of Matt. vers. 13.,' to prove that tyrannous lordship connot stand with Christ's kingdom: the words be these: 'But he answered and said, Every plant which my Father hath not planted shall be rooted up,' meaning that such as be not by free adoption and grace grafted in Jesus Christ shall be rooted up. But this proveth not their proposition: I do not allow tyrannous lordship, but I disallow such unapt reasons"— ibid., iii. 470. P. 283, 1. 15—p. 284,1. 26: SR, p. 421. P. 284,1. 27—p. 285, 1. 10: W.W., i. 150-51. P. 285,11. 11—31 : SR, pp. 422-23. 1. 32—p. 286,1. 31: W.W., i. 151-53. P. 286, 1. 3 2 - p . 288, 1. 17: ibid., i. 168-71. P. 288, 1. 18—p. 289,1. 34: ibid., ii. 77-9. P. 289, 1. 3 5 - p . 292, 1. 19: ibid., ii. 81-3. P. 292,1. 2 0 - p . 293, 1. 9: SR, pp. 408-409. P. 293,11. 10-28: W.W., ii. 83-4. 1. 29—p. 294,1. 24: SR, pp. 409-10. P. 294, 1. 25—p. 295,1. 36: W.W., ii. 87-8. P- 295,1- 3 7 - P - 29 6 . 32: SR, pp. 43 6 -37-

T h e Admonition

562 p. 296, P- 297. p. 298, p. 299, P. 3°4> P- 3°5> P. 306, P- 3°7i P- 309, P. 310, P. 311, P. 312, P- 313, P- 3H. P- 3'5> P. 316, P-3'7. P. 318, P- 319, P. 320, P. 322, P-

324.

P- 325. P. 326, P- 329. P- 33°. P- 332, P- 333.

P- 336, P- 337> P- 338, 339. P- 340, P- 342, P- 344.

'

Controversy

33 "P- 297.1- 25: W.W., ii. 90-1. 26-p. 298,1. 32: SR, pp. 443-44. 33-P- 299. '9 : W.W., ii. 92. 20-31 : SR, pp. 444-45. 3 2 - p . 304,1. 33: W.W., ii. 93-101. 3 4 - p . 305,1. 7: SR, p. 450. 8-21: W.W., ii. 101. 2 2 - p . 306,1. 3: SR, pp. 451-52. 4—p. 307,1. 7: W.W., ii. 102-103. 8—p. 309, 1. 4: ibid., ii. 105-109. 5 —p. 310, 1. 22: ibid., ii. 113—16. 2 3 - p . 311,1. 13: SR, pp. 462-63. 14-21: W.W., ii. 118. 22—p. 312, 1. 20: ibid., ii. 123-24. 21-7: SR, p. 470. 28—p. 313, 1. 36: W.W., ii. 125-27. 36: cf. post., p. 332 ff.

3 7 - p . 314,1. 4: SR, pp. 470-71. 5-28: W.W., ii. 139-40. 2 — 9 P- 315, 1- 27: ibid., ii. 349-5128 —p. 316, 1. 14: ibid., ii. 391-92. 15-32: ibid., ii. 79. 3 3 - p . 318, 1. 28: ibid., ii. 395-97. 35-6: cf. ante., pp. 281 ff. 20: cf. ante., pp. 281 ff. 5: cf. ante., pp. 273, 275.

29—p. 320,1. 23: W.W., ii. 408-10. 33-6: cf. ante., pp. 281 ff., 317 ff.

24-p. 322,1. 17: W.W., ii. 412-15. 19-32: ibid., ii. 401. 33-P- 324, 1- i3 : ibid-> »• 403-4°523-4: ibid., ii. 408. 25-9: ibid., iii. 474. 3 0 - p . 325, 1. 13: ibid., ii. 265. 14-21 : ibid., ii. 267.

22—p. 326, 1. 7: ibid., ii. 269. 8 —p. 329, 1. 27: ibid., ii. 271-75. 28—p. 330, 1. 26: SR, pp. 607-608. 27-P- 332, 1- 25: W.W., ii. 275-77. 26-p. 333,1. 10: SR, pp. 611-12. 11-33: W.W., ii. 227-30. 34"P- 334,1- 3°: ibid; 232-33. 3i_ - P - 335.1- 2: SR, p. 575. 3 P - 336,1- 9: W-W., ii. 233-35. 10-20: SR, p. 576. 21 - P - 337. 1- 8: W.W., ii. 235-36. 9-19: SR, p. 576. 20-32: W.W., ii. 252-53. 33—p. 338,1. 10: ibid., ii. 281-82. i 1 "P- 339. 25: ibid., ii. 286-87. 28-p. 340, 1. 36: ibid., iii. 276-79. 3 7 - P - 341.1- 37= ibid-, iii. 416-17. , 1-13: RSR, p. 7. 14—p. 344,1. 22: W.W., iii. 418-21. 24: ci. post., pp. 5 1 1 ff.

23—p. 346,1- 23: ibid., iii. 483-85.

Notes for Part Two

P.

P-

P.

563

25—p. 347,1- 3 -> "i- 279-80. 5 _ P - 35°, 1- 6 : ibid-> i»- 405-408. 9-11: cf. ante., pp. 281 ff. , 7 - 1 3 : RSR, p. 1. ! 4 - p - 352, 1- 33 : W.W., iii. 408-12. 34-8: RSR, p. 6. 352. 353. 1 — P- 355> ' 4 : W.W., iii. 4 1 2 - 1 6 . 355» ' 5 - P - 357,1- 2: ibid., iii. 422-23. 357. , 3 - 1 9 : RSR, pp. 10-1. 20—p. 359,1. 28: W.W., ii. 425-28. 29-38: RSR, pp. 13-4. 36°. 1—p. 361,1. 2 1 : W.W., iii. 439-41. 3 6 t , 22—p. 362,1. 17: RSR, pp. 27-8. 18-35: w.w:, ii. 442-43. 3 62 » 3 6 - p . 363,1. 10: RSR, p. 21. 363, , 11-25: W.W., iii. 443. , 26-33: RSR, p. 21. 3 4 - p . 364,1. 15: W.W., iii. 443-44. 364, . 16-22: RSR, p. 22. 2 3 - P - 365> 1- ' 6 : W.W., iii. 445-46. 365. , 17-38: RSR, pp. 23-4. 366, 1 - 1 6 : W.W., iii. 446. , 17-23: RSR, p. 24. 24—p. 367,1. 2 1 : W.W., iii. 447-48. 367, . 20-34: ibid., iii. 453-54. 3 5 - P - 3 6 8 , 1- 9: ibid-, iii- 456. 369, 8—p. 371,1. 22: ibid., i. 140-41. 37'» 23—p. 372, 1. 2 1 : ibid., i. 1 7 0 - 7 1 . 372» 2 2 - p . 376, 1. 17: ibid., i. 175-78. 376, . 18-39: SR, pp. 45-6. 377, I—p. 378,1. 2: W.W., i. 179-80. 378, , 3 - 1 2 : SR, p. 48. 1 3 - p . 384,1. 38: W.W., i. 190-98. 385, 1 —p. 386,1. 16: SR, pp. 62-4. 386, 13: fellows appears as follows in original. 17-24: W.W., i. 201. 2 5 - p . 388,1. 3: ibid., i. 205-207. 388, . 4 - 1 9 : SR, p. 71. 20—p. 392,1. 13: W.W., i. 207-11. 392, 1 4 - P - 393,1- 23: SR, pp. 73-4. 393, 24—p. 394,1. 2: W.W., i. 212. 3 - 1 0 : SR, pp. 75-6. 394, II—p. 396,1. 19: W.W., i. 262-65. 20-9: SR, pp. 92-3. 396, 30—p. 397,1. 3 1 : W.W., i. 265-66. 24-5: Cartwright omitted the verse in his first edition of the Replye. 397, T h e seventh verse, to which Whitgift assumes his opponent to refer, is as follows: "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." 1. 3 2 - p . 398, 1. 4: SR, p. 93. 398,11 5 - 3 5 : W.W., i. 269-70. 3 6 - p . 400,1. g: ibid., i. 272-73. 346, 347, 348, 35°.

P-

: ibid

564

The Admonition Controversy

P. 400, 11. 10-8: SR, p. 95. I. 19—p. 401, 1. 7: ibid., pp. 104-105. P. 401, 11. 8-33: W.W., i. 289-90. II. 8-9: Parker Soc. ed. prints Ps. xxvii for Ps. xxxvii; cf. also ante., PP- 373"743 5 - P - 402,1. 32: W.W., i. 471-72. P. 402, 11. 33-8: SR, p. 295 (incorrectly numbered 296). P. 403,1. 1 - p . 404,1. 19: W.W., i. 472-74. P. 404,11. 20-7: SR, p. 295 (incorrectly numbered 296). 11. 2 4 - 7 : cf. ante., p p . 3 0 3 ff.

1. 2 8 - p . 406, 1. 33: W.W., i. 491-93. P. 406,1. 34—p. 407» L 35 : ibid-> i- 495-9 6 P. 407,1. 26: cf. post., pp. 421-22. 1. 36 —p. 408,1. 28: SR, pp. 303-304. P. 408, 1. 2 9 - p . 413, 1. 4: W.W., i. 497-502. P- 413. n - 5-24: SR, pp. 323-24. I. 2 5 - p . 414,1. 14: W.W., i. 503-504. P. 414,1. 17—p. 415,1. 18: ibid., iii. 295-96. P. 415, 1. 19—p. 417, 1. 1 1 : ibid., iii. 301-303. P. 417, 1. 12 p. 418, 1. 25: RSR, pp. 153-54. P. 418,1. 27—p. 422, 1. 36: W.W., i. 290-98. P. 422, 1. 3 7 - p . 423,1. 28: SR, pp. 122-23. P. 423, 1. 29— p. 424,1. 18: W.W., i. 298-99. P. 424,1. i g - p - 425. L 4= SR, pp. 127-28. P. 425,1. 5 - p . 426,1. 9: W.W., i. 299-301. P. 426,11. 10-6: SR, pp. 128-29. II. 17-26: W.W., i. 300-301. 1. 27—p. 427, 1. 7: ibid., i. 303. P. 427, 1. 8—p. 428,1. 26: SR, pp. 138-39. P. 428, 1. 2 7 - p . 430,1. 14: W.W., i. 304-307. P. 430,11. 15-32: SR, p. 144. 1- 3 3 - P - 43 1 > '2: W.W., i. 307. P. 431, 11. 13-20: ibid., i. 296. 1. 21 —p. 432, 1. 30: ibid., i. 314-16. P. 432, 1. 31 - p . 433,1. 24: SR, pp. 154-55P. 433, 11. 25-31: ibid., p. 160. 1. 32—p. 437, 1. 9: W.W., i. 316-21. P. 437, 1. 1 0 - p . 438,1. 5: SR, pp. 163-65. P. 438, 11. 6 - 1 4 : ibid., p. 169.

! 5 - P - 439» ' 3 : W.W., i. 327-29. P. 439,11. 14-33: ibid., i. 331-32. 1. 3 4 - p . 440, 1. 5: SR, p. 115. P. 440,11. 6 - 1 1 : W.W., i. 336. 1. 12—p. 444, 1. 18: ibid., i. 339-44. P. 444,1. 1 9 - p . 4 4 5 » ' 4 : SR, pp. I97-99p - 445» ' 5 - P - 446,1- 22: W.W., i. 354-57P. 446, 1. 2 3 - p . 448, 1. 1 1 : ibid., i. 363-65. P. 448, 11. 12-8: SR, p. 216. 1. 1 9 - p . 4 4 9 » ' 4 : W.W., i. 366-67. P. 449,11. 15-36: SR, pp. 220-23. 1- 3 7 - P - 451» 1- a 8 : W.W., i. 372-75. P. 451,11. 29-37: SR, pp. 229-30. P. 452,11. 1-30: W.W., i. 375-76. 1. 31 —p. 454,1. 3 1 : SR, pp. 231-32. P. 454,1. 3 2 - p . 455,1. 17: W.W., i. 376-77-

Notes for Part P- 455» p. 456, P. 458, PP. P. P. P.

459. 461, 463. 464, 465.

P. 466, P. 467, P. 469, P. PPPP. PP. P.

470, 473. 474> 475. 476, 477, 478, 480,

P. 483, P. 485, P. 486, P. 487, P. 488, P. 489, P. 490, P. 491, PPP. PP. P.

492. 493. 496, 497. 498, 500,

P. 501, P. 502, P. 503.

T w o

565

1 8 - p . 456,1. 28: SR, pp. 232-34. 2 9 — p . 458,1. 22: W.W., i. 377-80. , 23-9: ibid., i. 382. 3 0 - p . 459,1. 24: ibid., i. 384-87. . 25-9: ibid., i. 389. 30—p. 461,1. 21: ibid., i. 425-27. 22—p. 462, 1. 38: ibid., i. 430-32. . 1-38: ibid., i. 487-88. 1 - p . 465,1. 5: ibid., iii. 7-9. . 6 - 8 : ibid., iii. 12; cf. ante., pp. 175, 268-69, 274, 317, 421, 422, 423- 2 4, 426-27, 440-41. , 10-6: W.W., i. 473; cf. ante., pp. 401-402, 413-14. 17-31: W.W., i. 503: the office of doctor was first described in the Second Admonition (1572); cf. ante., pp. 44-5. 3 2 - p . 466,1. 6: W.W., i. 474. 7 —p. 467, 1. 27: SR, pp. 295-97 (p. 295 incorrectly numbered 296). 29 —p. 469, 1. 27: W.W., iii. 150-52. . 3 1 - 2 : cf. ante., pp. 403-404. . 1 1 - 3 : cf. ante., pp. 195 ff. 28 —p. 470, 1. 2: RSR, p. 33. 3 - P - 473,1- 18: W.W., iii. 273-76. P- 474.1- 33 : ibid -> "i- 1 54 _ 563 4 ~ P - 475. 6 : R S R > PP- 3 6 -77 - p . 476,1. n : W.W., iii. 156-57. 1 2 — p . 477, 1. 25: ibid., iii. 159-61. . 26-37: RSR, p, 38. 1 —p. 479,1. 38: W.W., iii. 161-67. . 1—11: RSR, p. 51. 1 2 - p . 483, 1. 20: W.W., iii. 167-71. , 2 1 - 3 1 : RSR, pp. 53-4. 32—p. 485,1. 7: W.W., iii. 171-74. 8 - p . 486,1. 8: RSR, pp. 54-5. 16-7: cf. ante., pp. 483-84. 9 - 3 1 : W.W., iii. 175-77. 32—p. 488,1. 26: ibid., iii. 179-81. 25-6: cf. ante., p. 469. 2 7 - p . 489,1. 12: W.W., iii. 186-87. 13-33: RSR, p. 62. 34—p. 490,1. 31: W.W., iii. 187-88. 32-4: RSR, p. 63. 3 5 ~ P - 49i. 1- 28: W.W., iii. 189-91. 29-35: R S R > P- 653 6 - p . 492, 1. 34: W.W., iii. 194-95. 3 5 ~ P - 493.1- i 5 : ibid~> '9816—p. 496,1. 21: ibid., iii. 205-209. 23—p. 498, 1. 36: ibid., iii. 286-88. 3 7 — P - 498,1- 1: cf. ante., p. 151. 3 7 — p . 500,1. 13: W.W., iii. 281-84. 14-30: RSR, p. 100 (incorrectly numbered 90). 31 —p. 501, 1. 7: W.W., iii. 284. 8-13: ibid., ii. 519. 14—p. 502, 1. 20: ibid., iii. 58-9. 21-43: ibid., ii. 61-2. 1 - 1 6 : RSR, p. 103 (incorrectly numbered 93). 1 7 — p . 504,1. 27: W.W., iii. 62-3.

566

The Admonition Controversy

P. 504,11. 19-20: Cartwright admits his error in quoting Beza—ibid., iii. 63 n. 1. 28 —p. 506, 1. 38: ibid.., iii. 68-71. P. 507, 11. 1-20: ibid., iii. 291-92. 1. 22—p. 508, 1. 9: ibid., iii. 281. P. 508, 11. 10-5: RSR, p. 99 (incorrectly numbered 89). 1. 16—p. 510,1. 15: W.W., iii. 292-94. P. 509, 11. 27-8: cf. ante., pp. 483-86. P. 510, 1. 17—p. 514, 1. 41: ibid., iii. 220-24. P. 515, 11. 1-36: ibid., i. 200-201. L 3 7 - P - 5 l 6 . L 2 3: ibid., i. 203. P. 516,1. 24—p. 517,1. 4: SR, p. 66. P. 517,11. 5-28: W.W., i. 203-204. 1. 2 9 - p . 518,1. 9: SR, p. 68. I. 32: in answer to Whitgift's question whether the same fault should be punished both by the church and by the state, Cartwright here refers the reader to the following statement from the Replye: "If it be shewed that this is necessary for the church, it cannot be but profitable for the commonwealth: nay, the profit of it may easily appear, for that by the censures and discipline of the church, as they are in this Book described, men are kept back from committing of great disorders, of stealing, adultery, murder, &c.; whilst the smaller faults of lying, and uncomely jesting, of hard and choleric speeches, which the magistrate doth not commonly punish, be corrected— W.W., i. 21. II. 32-3: cf. ante., pp. 398 ff. P. 518, 1. 10—p. 519,1. 16: W.W., i. 204-205. P. 519,1. 17—p. 521,1. 21: SR, pp. 68-70. P. 521,11. 22-5: W.W., iii. 206. 1. 26—p. 523,1. 4: ibid., iii. 225-27. ?• 5 2 3. H- 5 - 2 i : RSR, PP- 78-91. 2 2 - p . 524,1. 35: W.W., iii. 229-31. P. 524,1. 3 6 - p . 525,1. 32: RSR, pp. 79-80. P- 525.1- 3 3 ~ P - 528,1. 2: W.W., iii. 231-33. P. 528,11. 3-15: RSR, p. 80. 1. 16—p. 529,1. 6: W.W., iii. 234. P. 529,11. 7-20: RSR, pp. 80-1. 1. 21 - p . 530,1. 13: W.W., iii. 235-36. P. 530, 11. 1 4 - 3 1 : RSR, p. 83. 3 2 - p - 532, 1. 14: W.W., iii. 237-38. P. 531, 1. 28: cf. ante., pp. 325 ff. P. 532, 11. 15-27: RSR, p. 84. 1. 28—p. 538,1. 3: W.W., iii. 246-52. P- 534.11- 35-6: cf - ante -> PP- 5 2 ' - 2 2 . P. 536,11. 32-3: cf. ante., pp. 423-24, 440-41, 274, respectively. P. 538,11. 5 - 1 4 : W.W., iii. 314. 1- ! 5 - P - 539> L 33= tbtd., iii. 316-19.

INDEX

A a r o n , 162, 166, 172, 19a, 224, 235, 236» 2 5°> 277» 319. 32°. 3 6 2 , 363. 413, 434. 481 Abner, 164 A b r a h a m , 165, 221, 3 1 9 , 3 2 1 , 412, 4 1 3 Absolution, 23, 526 Abstaining a sanguine et suffacato, 488-89 Act for Abolishing Diversity of Opinions, etc. (Six Articles), 5 Act of 1571 (Subscription Act), 557 Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth), 12 Act of Supremacy (Henry V I I I ) , 4 Act of Uniformity, 13, 14 Acts of t h e Apostles, lectured on by Cartwright at Cambridge, 34, 49; the n a m e of "priest" in, 130; contains no specific form of prayer, 157; other references, 168, 204, 224n., 474; see also Bible Admonition Controversy, vii, viii, 29, 147 Admonition, private, 270 Admonition to the Parliament, An, brief description in Cambridge History of English Literature, viii; first open attack on Episcopal government, 25 ff.; aimed at people rather than Parliament, 25-6; contains doctrines already expressed by Cartwright, 35, 49; defended by Cartwright, 50; recommends reform of C h u r c h of England, 50 ff.; condemns Book of Common Prayer, 50-1; insists upon scriptural authority, 54; demands return to primitive church, 60, 538; reprinted by Whitgift, 65, 66; accused of abuse of Scripture, 81 ff., 170, 180, 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 343, 348, 350, 353, 3 7 1 - 7 2 , 475. 496 ff-> 527. 536, 537. 538; uses marginal note for rhetorical purpose, 83; accused of exaggeration, 123; condemns n a m e of "priest," 129-30; condemns repetition of Lord's Prayer, 160;

gives no scriptural authority for objection to burial service, 161-62; condemns mourning apparel, 163-64; ineffectually defended by Cartwright, 198, 201, 2 1 3 , 253-55; accused of misquoting Calvin, 344-45, 346; boasts of power of revelation, 374; protests loyalty to civil magistrate, 526; accused of abusiveness, 534; other references, x, 27, 28, 85, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 103, 106, 134, 145. 147. 169, 189, 190, 192, 195, 200, 202, 241, 261, 267, 287, 320, 323, 324. 34°. 354. 355. 374-75. 379. 424. 500, 505. 542. 544. 552. 556, 557. 558 ffAdmonition to the People of England, see Cooper, T h o m a s Adonijah, 4 1 7 Adultery, punishable by death, 118; obstacle to ministry, 435 Advertisements, see Articles, Parker's Agabus, 403 Ahasuerus, 248 Ahimelech, 301 Alexander (excommunicated), 511,513, 521. 53° Alexander, Pope, 208-209 Alexander (relative of Annas), 284 Almond for a Parrot, An, 136-37, 545 Alumni Cantabrigiensis, see Venn, J . and J.A. Amariah, 315, 416 Ames, William, 62 Amos, see Bible Anabaptists, 99, i n , 344, 345, 3 5 1 , 436 Ananias, 205, 284, 366, 390 Andronicus, 102-103, 267, 269, 409 Angelo, see Measure for Measure Annas, 284 Answere for the tyme, An, attacks vestments, crossing at baptism, private baptism, 19; requires scriptural prec-

568

Index

edent for administration of sacraments, 19-20; resembles later Puritan pamphlets, 20; demands limitation of power of magistrate, 1 1 0 ; other reference, 543 Answere to a Cerlen Libell, first use of puritan, 26; terms Cartwright's criticism perjury, 39; condemns Puritan attitude toward university degrees, 43; scholarly, 65; not reprinted by Cartwright, 65, 103, 104; misinterpreted by Cartwright, 66-7; other references, 27. 54. 134» 137. ' 4 5 . ' 4 7 . ' 9 ° . ' 9 2 , 193, 222, 278, 3 1 8 , 346, 3 5 1 , 4 3 1 , 537, 55? _ . . Anti-Martinists, directed by Whitgift, 109; echo Whitgift, 137 Apocalypse, see Bible Apocrypha, 1 6 9 - 7 1 , 185, 249 Apollo, 3 1 7 , 335, 4 1 1 Apostle, extraordinary function of, 79, 336, 402, 406-10; differs from pastor, 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 , 266-67; preached before ministering sacraments, 200-205; excluded from Puritan church, 303, 308-309; election, 326, 427, 4 3 1 , 447; identified with archbishop, 3 3 7 ; identified with minister, 405, 408-409; other references, 307, 348, 3 5 5 - 5 7 , 497» 498, 538 Apparel, see Vestments Apparel, mourning, disapproved by Puritans, 163-64 Arber, E., ed., 29, 1 2 1 , 543, 544, 554 Archbishop, name condemned, 35-6, 286, 304, 308, 348 ff.; office condemned, 278-79, 289 ff., 322; scriptural authority for, 333-39, 472-73! authority in the Church of England, 3 3 5 ; identified with doctor, 336; with pastor, 336, 337; with apostle, bishop, minister, 337; court condemned, 3 3 9 46; relation to evangelist, 4 1 2 ; other references, 75-6, 138-39, 404, 477, 496 Archdeacon, office condemned, 3 5 - 6 , 278-79» 289, 3 1 8 , 320, 470; name condemned, 304; duties, 425-26, 42829; other references, 23n., 307, 308, 532 Aristotle, 106 Ark, Noah's, see Noah Articles, Archbishop Parker's, 15, 16 Articles, Six, see Act for Abolishing Diversity of Opinions, etc. Asahel, 4 1 7

Athtnae Cantabrigiensis, see Cooper, C . H . and T . Auricular confession, 9 Ayre, J . , ed., Works of John Whitgift, viii, 145-47» 54'» 544» 546 ffAza, King, 5 1 5 , 5 1 9 B a c o n , F., 545 Bancroft, R . , 42, 1 3 7 , 551 Baptism, in First Edwardine Prayer Book, 6; in Second Edwardine Book, 8, 9; restricted to minister, 14; crossing in, 14, 1 5 , 19, 24, 2 1 7 ; sponsors in, 14, 2 1 4 - 1 6 ; scriptural authority for, 18, 233 ff.; use of Roman Catholic rites attacked, 5 1 ; method of administration left to church, 56; interrogatories in, 82-3, 2 1 4 - 1 5 ; preaching before, 85-6, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 , 200-205; prefigured by circumcision, 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; fonts in, 2 1 7 ; forbidden to women, 2 2 2 - 2 3 ; time and place of ceremony, 228-32, 386, 388, 389-90; requires calling, 237; recognized as sacrament by Cartwright, 398; other references, 76, 153» 5 0 1 » 5 ° 3 Baptism by laymen, see Baptism, private Baptism by women, see Baptism, private Baptism, private, attacked, 14, 19, 22, 23; in Old Testament, 106-108; in Book of Common Prayer, 220 ff.; occasion for, 232; permitted by Scripture, 388, 389-90; other references, 6 1 , 552 Barrow, H., 1 3 4 - 3 5 , 556 Barsabas, 403, 407, 420, 4 2 1 , 4 3 1 , 494 Baruch, 185, 186; see also Bible Basel, 9, 1 1 Bathes of Bath, see Jones, J . Becon, Thomas, 548 Beelzebub, 545 Benaiah, 418 Benefices, 24, 25 Benhail, 417 Beveridge, H., ed., see Calvin, J . , Institutes Beza, T . , 73, 78, 126, 463, 503, 504, 566 Bible, contains essentials for salvation but not for church government, 56, 302-303; interpretation by inner light, 1 1 2 - 1 3 ; other references, 54, 182, 491 ; see also Scriptures Genesis, vi. 13., 299; vi. 14., 2 2 1 , 299, 552; vi. 22., 299; viii. 13., 299; x. 3 1 .

Index 283; X. 32., 283; xiv. 18., 360; xvii. 23., 221, 552; xviii. 19., 221, 552; xxv. io., 165; xxxv. 5., 526 Exodus, i. 12., 457; i. 18., 260; i. 19., 260; 1. 20., 260; iv. 24., 233; io. 25., 233; IK. 26., 233; iv. 29., 481; iv. 30., 481; vi. 12., 185; vii. I., 291; xii., 398; xii. 3., 241; xii. 11., 210; xii. 15., 209, 525; xii. 19., 525; xviii. 21., 494, 495; xviii. 25., 442; xx. 3., 377; **. 5., 2 1 1 , 212; XX. 9., 245, 249; xxii., 399; xxii. 20., 119, 5 1 5 , 517, 518, 519; xxii. 28., 291; xxiii. I., 370; xxiii. 2., 370; xxiii. 12., 249; xxiii. 18., 525; xxiv. 6., 363; xxiv. 8., 363; xxv., 398; XXvi., 299, 398; xxix. 13., 363; XXX. 29., 170; xxxi. 3., 299; xxxi. 6., 300; xxxii. 3., 260-61; xxxii. 4., 260-61; xxxiv. 25., 525; xxxix. 42., 300 Leviticus, ix. 7., 224; ix. 22., 224; xi., 150, 3 1 1 ; xiv. 19., 224; xvii. II., 489; xviii. 3., 150; xviii. 10., 377; xix. 27., 150, 3 1 1 ; xx. 3., 377; xx. 10., 514; xxi. 1., 162; xxi. II., 162; xxiii. 3., 249; xxiv. 14., 5 1 3 ; xxiv. 16., 514; xxiv. 19., 556 Numbers, m., 448; vi. 22., 412; »«. 23-, 4 1 3 ; 24-. 4 ! 3 ; 10., 125» 447. 448, 449! »*• '3-> 242; i., 1 7 1 ; x. 2., 1 7 1 ; x. 8., 172; xii. 6., 296; xv. 30., 519; xv. 31., 519; xv. 32., 514, 520; xv. 33., 514; xv. 34., 514; xv. 35., 514, 520; xxi. 8., 178, 262, 263; xxi. 9, 262, 263; xxvii., 360; xxvii. 5., 3 6 1 62 Deuteronomy, i. 9., 444; i. 13., 442, 494, 495. 496; i• 14-. 444; «'• >5-. 442, 443; iv. 2., 3 7 3 , 3 7 4 , 3 9 4 , 3 9 5 - 9 6 , 5 5 5 ; iv. 5., 470; iv. 6., 470; v. 13., 249; xii. 32., 373, 374, 394, 396, 555; xiv., 150, 3 1 1 ; xiv. 23., 264; xiv. 29., 264; xvi. 8., 209; xvii. 8., 360, 399, 417; xvii. 9., 271, 360; xvii. II., 361; xvii. 12., 271, 399; xvii. 16., 150; xviii. 10., 377; xviii. 15., 295; xix. 16., 357-58, 5 1 5 , 517, 5 ' 8 , 520; xix. 17., 357-58; xix. 18., 357-58; xix. 19., 357-58, 5 1 5 , 5 ' 7 , 5 ' 8 , 520; xxii. 11., 150, 3 1 1 ; xxii. 12., 150, 3 1 1 ; xxii. 22., 514; xxiii. ig., 514; xxiii. 20., 514; xxxi. 10., 187-88; xxxi. 11., 187-88; xxxii. 28., 283 Joshua, v. 3., 441, 443; vi. 18., 258; vi. 19., 258; vi. 24., 259; xx. 2., 481; xx. 3., 481; xx. 4., 481; xx. 6., 481

569

Judges, v. 14., 47, 4711.; vi. 25., 258; vi. 26., 258 I Samuel, i. 9., 271, 272; i. 12., 272; iii. 1., 364; viii., 284, 285; ix. 5., 255; ix. 6., 255; ix. 7., 255; ix. 18., 252, 253; «*• ig-, 252; *. 1., 490; 6., 490; xix. 19., 47, 4811. II Samuel, i. 17., 164; iii. 32., 164; iii. 33., 164 I Kings, iii. 12., 300; iv. 4., 418; vi., 272, 301; xii. 31., 431, 434; xviii. 40., 360 II Kings, i. 8., 254; ii. 3., 47, 48n.; ' 520; xvii., 372, 394; xvii. 7., 417; xvii. 8., 417; xvii. g., 417; xvii. 10., 526; xix., 315; xix. 8., 3 1 5 , 4 1 5 17; xix. 11., 4 1 5 - 1 7 ; xxix. 25., 3 1 5 ; xxix. 30., 372, 394; xxix. 31., 372, 394; XXX., 394; xxxi., 394; xxxv. 6., 206, 207; xxxv. 25., 164 Ezra, vii. 26., 521; ix. 1., 357, 359; 3-, 359; 4-, 359; 5-, 359 Nehemiah, vii. 17., 99; vii. 18., 99; viii. 1., 188, 391; viii. 2., 188; viii. 4., 386, 387; viii. 5., 188; viii. 7., 188, 387, 388; viii. 8., 188, 387, 388 Esther, ix. 20., 248; ix. 21., 248; ix. 22., 248 Psalms, xvi. 8., 526; xix. 7., 171; xxv. 12., 470, 471; xxv. 14., 470, 471; xxvii. 27., 564; xxxi. 6., 373, 401; xxxvii. 27., 373, 401, 564; xliii. 1., 283; I. 15., 3 7 1 ; Ixxxii. 6., 291; xcix. 6., 362; ex. 4., 362; exxi. 1., 244; exxxii. I-, 372, 394; exxxii. 2., 372, 394; exxxii. 3., 373, 394; exxxii. 4., 373, 394; exxxii. 5., 373, 394; cxxxix. 21., 373, 401; exxxix. 22., 373, 401 Proverbs, 1. 1., 171; 1. 4., 1 7 1 ; i. 7., 470, 471; ii. 1., 107-108, 378, 379; ii. 9., 107-108, 378, 379; vii. 6., 3 9 2 93; "ii. 7., 392-93; »"• 8-, 392-93; vii. 9., 392-93; "ii. 10., 392-93; vii. II-, 392-93; »«• I 2 ' , 392-93; v i "- '•> 388, 3 9 ' , 392; »««'. 2., 388, 391, 392;

57°

Index

viii. 3., 388, 391, 392; xxix. 18., 180, 370; XXX. 14., 289; XXX. 15., 289 Isaiah, t. 4., 184; i. 10., 249, 250; i. 13., 249» 2 5 ° ; H; 249. 250; ii. 3., 227, 312; xxiv. 2., 192; xxiv. 5., 192-93; i., 375, 377; xxx. 2., 375, 377; 22., 257, 259; xlix. 23., 491, 553; 5-. 397» 398; M. 7., 397, 563; Ivi. 10., 190, Igì ; Iviii. 1., 172; lix. 1., 37° Jeremiah, oiï. 31., 375, 377; »¡ï. 32., 375. 377; **»"•> 434; **»'"• 1 1 277-78; 34., 396, 397; ***z>i. 4., 185; xxx vi. 5., 185; xxxvi. 6., 185; xxx vii. 12., 420; xxxvii. 13., 420 Ezekiel, xxxiv. 4., 319, 321-22; xl., 301; xliv. 10., 166, 277-78, 434-35. 436, 438; xliv. 12., 166, 277-78, 434-35, 43 6 . 4 3 8 ; xliv. 13., 166, 277-78, 4 3 4 35. 436, 438 Daniel, 1. 7., 260 Hosea, iv. 6., 196-97 Joel, ii. 15., 247 Amos, viii. i i . , 370; viii. 12., 370 Malachi, ii. 7., 184, 189, 191 Zechariah, viii. 19., 248; xi. 13., 193; xi• 15-. 1 9 ° . ' 9 1 . >93! xi. 16., 193; xi. 17., 193; xiii. 3., 439 Baruch i. 3., 185 II Esdras, i. 13., 249, 250 Matthew, iii. 1., 200; Hi. 4., 254; iii. 5., 201; iii. 6., 201; iii. 11., 234; iii. 12., 200; iii. 13., 85, 203; iii. 14., 85, 203; iii. 15., 85, 203; 1». 23., 392; v., 214; v. I., 391; v. 2., 391; v. 13., 190; V. 14., 292; V. 22., 105, 313, 483, 5 2 2 23. 552; v. 23., 483; v. 24., 483; v. 31 •. 399. 4 0 ° ; v. 32., 399, 400; vi., 168, 214, 283; vi. 5., 393; vi. 7., 159; vi. 22., 190; vii., 214; vii. i., 370; vii. 2., 370; vii. 6., 374, 401; vii. 7., 371; ix. 23., 163; ix. 24., 163; ix. 37., 369, 371; ix. 38., 190, 369, 371; I., 242; *. 2., 242; 16., 199, 370; 17., 199; *. 26., 370; *. 27., 389; xi. 7-, 295; xi. 9". 295. 296; xi. II., 294; xi. 13., 296; xi. 16., 257; xi. 30., 374, 401; xii. 18., 289; xii. 19., 289; xiii. 52., 298; XV. 3., 333; XV. 13., 278, 280, 281, 561; XV. 14., 190, 191; XV. 23., 278, 280, 281, 561; xvi. 16., 153; xvi. I9-. 510, 529, 530, 531 ; xviii., 529-30, 531; xviii. 15., 231, 369, 371, 454, 480, 482-83, 512, 515, 516; xviii. 16., 231, 369, 3 7 ' . 454. 512, 515. 516; xviii.

I7-. 231, 369, 371. 454. 494. 495. 5 ' 3 . 515. 516, 521-22, 528, 532, 534-35. 537; xviii. 18., 532, 534-35; xviii. 20., 231, 240; xix. 6., 216; xix. 8., 400; xix. 9-, 400; XX., 329; 16., 538; XX. 25., 279, 281-82, 319; **. 26., 279, 281-82, 319; xxi. 12., 373, 394; xxi. 23., 370; xxii. 35., 298; xxii. 36., 298; xxiii. I., 386, 388; xxiii. 2., 386, 388; xxiii. 8., 279, 281, 286, 319, 347, 348; xxiii. 9., 279, 281, 286; xxiii. IO., 279, 281, 286; xxiii. II., 316, 317, 319; xxiii. 12., 316, 317, 319; xxiii. 34., 190, 298; xxiv. 48., 279, 288; xxiv. 49., 279, 288; xxiv. 50., 279, 288; xxiv. 51., 279, 288; XXV. 22., 176; XXV. 23., 176; XXV. 24., 176; xxv. 25., 176; xxvi. 20., 209, 210; XXvi. 20., 386; xxvi. 26., 213; xxvi. 27., 240; xxvi. 39., 160; xxvi. 42., 160; xxvi. 44., 160; xxvi. 48., 252, 255; XXvi. 73., 252, 253; xxvii. 7., 165; xxviii. 5., 226, 227; xxviii. 6., 226, 227; xxviii. 7., 227; xxviii. 8., 226, 227; xxviii. 19., 182-83, 200, 220-21, 223, 232-33, 283, 501, 552 Mark, 1. 5., 228, 229; i. 23., 152; i. 24., 152; iii. 14., 242; iv. II., 112; V. 22., 297; viii. 29., 153; X. 42., 279, 281; x. 43., 279, 281; xii. 28., 298; xiv. 18., 209, 210; xiv. 22., 213; xiv. 23., 240; xvi. 15., 182-83 Luke, ii. 8., 90-91, 270; ii. 52., 204; iii. 21., 85-6, 203; iv. 16., 192; iv. 41., 152; VI. 31., 556; Eli. 5., 283; vii. 31., 257; ix. i., 195-96, 197-98, 222, 552; ix. 2., 195-96, 197-98, 199; ix. 3-. '97-98. 199; ix. 59., 347; ix. 60., 347, 349-5°. 354; ix- 61., 347, 349-5°. 354; ix- 62., 347; i . , 222, 552; 17., 222, 552; xii. 13., 347; xii. 14., 347, 350-51, 354; xiii. 2., 538; xiii. 3., 539; xiv. 16., 190; xiv. 17., 190; xvi. i., 190; xvi. 15., 278-79, 280, 281, 315; xvi. 25., 319, 321; xviii. I., 160; xxii. 14., 209, 210; xxii. 15., 278, 281-82; xxii. 25., 278, 281-82, 316, 317, 318; xxii. 26., 278, 281-82, 318; xxii. 52., 297; xxiv., 126; xxiv. 32., 180 John, i. 25., 294; i. 26., 203, 294; i. 27-, 294; ii. 15., 373, 394; iii. 5-, 233-34; Hi- I4-. 177. 178; i". 18., 234; iv. 7., 391; iv. 25., 301, 302; iv. 28., 226; iv. 29., 227; iv. 30., 227;

Index ». 44., 347, 348; vi. 38., 194; viti. 12., 2 9 1 ; ix. 2 2 . , 3 1 3 , 5 2 2 ; X . I . , 5 3 3 , 5 3 6 ;

4-, 2 7 3 . 274; 14-, 2 9 1 ; xi. 3 1 . , 163; xii. 49., 194; xiii. 14., 488; xiii. I5-. 347» 348; xiii. 16., 347, 348; xiii. 17., 489; xiii. 27., 496, 497, 498; xiii. 28., 20g, 2 1 0 ; XV., 348; XV. 22., 374. 4 0 1 ; xviii. 16., 255; xviii. 17., 2 5 5 ; xviii. 20., 389; xviii. 3 1 . , 400; xix.

23.,

256;

18.,

226;

XX.

xix.

24.,

XX.

23.,

302,

xxi.

3.,

364;

xxi.

15.,

182-83,

276;

xxi.

17.,

21.,

302;

510,

XX.

256-57; XX.

22.,

529,

531;

4 8 9 ; xv.

16., 276

Acts, «., 63, 78, 427, 428, 446, 447; I. 5 . ,

i.

202;

15.,

420,

421,

424,

21.,

205;

22.,

17.,

J52;

i.

23.,

420,

421,

424,

425,

426-27;

407,

420,

421,

424,

425,

24., 265-66,

i.

26.,

27.

407,

440,

326, II.

328,

15.,

420, 421,

464;

»•>

330;

328,

11. 4 6 . ,

11. 330;

III.

284;

iv.

15.,

13-»

503-504;

6.,

71,

428,

13., 330;

208-209;

iv.

I.,

I

389;

IP.

5.,

12., 5 0 3 - 5 0 4 ; 14-.

4') iv

-

503-504;

!•> 284; V. 21., 523; v.

42.,

vi.

447; 464,

423,

426-

11.

328,

42.,

iv.

290;

284;

290;

440-41, 421,

ti.

i.

269;

'•> 3 8 9 ;

24-. 158-59; 31.,

425,

504;

14., 326,

208-209;

290;

v.

424,

204,

432;

426-27;

2 6 9 ; i. 2 5 . , 2 6 5 - 6 6 ,

390,

I.,

392;

356;

496-97,

424,

vi., vi. ¡t.,

502;

426-27,

63, 355,

vi.

440-41,

3., 464,

4 9 6 - 9 7 . 502, 533. 536; Vi. 4., 534, 536;

vi.

4 2 8 ; vi.

5.,

427,

496-97,

9 . , 4 7 , 4 8 1 1 . ; vi.

502;

vi.

12., 503,

6., 523;

fi- I3-. 503; »»'• I4-. 504; "ii., 7 3 , 3 6 3 ; vii. 1., 5 0 2 ; vii. 2 . , 5 0 2 ; vii. 5 1 . , 5 0 4 ; viii., 5 0 1 ; viti, i . , 5 0 1 ; viii. 4., 502; vili. 5 " . 5 0 2 , 5 0 3 ; viii. 1 2 . , 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 , 5 0 2 ; viii. 1 4 . , 3 3 0 ; viii. 2 6 . , 181-82; viii. 2 7 . , 1 8 1 - 8 2 ; viii. 2 8 . , 1 8 1 - 8 2 ; viii. 3 0 . , 1 8 1 - 8 2 ; viii. 3 1 . , 1 8 1 - 8 2 ; viii. 3 5 . , 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 2 1 4 , 3 9 1 ; viii. 3 6 . , 2 1 4 . 389; Viii. 37., 2 1 4 , 233, 389; o i i ' i . 3 8 . , 2 0 4 - 2 0 5 , 2 3 3 , 3 8 9 ; viii. 3 9 . , 410, 411; IX. I . , 2 8 4 ; ix. 2 . , 284;

ix.

17.,

205,

X. 2 4 . ,

230,

390;

25-. 390; X . 3 4 . , 2 0 5 , 2 3 0 , 3 9 0 ; x. 2 8 3 ; x. 4 4 . , 2 3 0 ; x. 4 7 . , 2 1 4 ; X . 23°. 39°; X I . 2 2 . , 4 0 7 , 4 0 8 ; X I . 27.,

403;

XI.

28.,

403;

X.

35.,

15.,

16.,

152;

xvi.

xvi.

18.,

xvi.

23.,

230,

230,

390;

403;

85;

152;

xvi.

26., 230;

xvi.

442;

230;

27.,

29.,

230,

xvi. xvi.

2., 14.,

390;

4 6 8 ; XX. 2 0 . , 2 7 0 - 7 1 ; XX. 2 8 . , 273,

274,

404,

465,

468,

18.,

269-70,

534,

536;

XX.

30.,

534,

536;

XXI. 8 . ,

502,

503;

xxi.

18., 3 3 1 ,

332;

xxi. 19.,

331,

332;

XXI. 2 0 . , 3 3 1 , 3 3 2 ; XXII. 1 5 . , 2 2 2 ,

552;

xxiii. 28., 523; xxiii. 30., 523; xxiv., 504

Romans, 1. 8., 337; i. 13., 187; 1. 15., 186;

1.

16.,

169-70;

ii.

14.,

431;

11.

vii. 1 8 . , 2 1 6 ; vii. 2 1 . , 2 1 6 ; viii. 26., 155; IX. 24-.

43'.

434;

16., 2 1 6 ; x.,

xii.,

63;

453;

xii.

xii.

»»•

14.,

J5-.

216;

1 7 6 - 7 7 ; X. 1 5 . ,

xii.

3., 352;

4., 307,

xii.

5., 307, 352, 453;

6.,

237; 352, 352,

467. 468, 534. 536; xii. 7 . , 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 5 2 , 3 5 4 , 4 6 6 , 4 6 7 , 507. 533. 534. 536; xii.

8., 352,

467,

478,

494,

495,

499,

500; xiii., 2 1 ; xiii.

xii. 9 . , 3 7 3 , 4 0 1 , 1., 264, 472, 526;

xiv.

382-83,

500, 533. 6.,

xiv. 385;

534. 536;

249,

xiv.

548;

8.,

251,

7.,

383,

xiv.

384;

xiv.

21.,

384,

15.,

XV.

508;

16.,

xvi.

6.,

384, 409,

265;

xiv.

265;

2 3 - . 3 7 9 . 3 8 0 - 8 2 ; XV.

xiv.

386, 548; 19.,

22., 381;

xiv.

1 4 . , 4 5 3 ; XB.

15.,

186-87; 249;

xvi.

xvi.

I.,

7.,

267,

4097-10

I Corinthians, 1., 113, 469; t. 16., 231;

48.,

«.

26.,

113;

XI.

443-44,

XX. 7 . , 2 0 5 , 2 0 8 ; XX. 1 7 . , 4 6 8 ; XX.

507,

230;

22.,

230;

230,

3 9 0 ; X. 2 2 . ,

13., 149,

xvi. xvi. 3 2 . , 2 0 5 , 3 9 0 ; xvi. 3 3 . , 205, 230, 390; xvii., 336; xviii., 333; xviii. 3., 364; xix. 2., 202; XIX. 3., 2 0 2 ; XIX. 4 . , 2 0 2 ; xix. 5 . , 2 0 2 , 203; 30.,

2 7 . , 4 3 2 ; X. 2 1 . ,

18.,

xv. 20.,

xvi., xvi. 4 . , 2 0 5 ; xvi.

32.

xvi.

186-87;

IX.

xv.

3., 432;

28.,

390;

ix.

XI.

390;

xvi.

205,

390;

IX. 2 6 . , 4 3 2 ;

314;

313;

328,

i.

20., 266;

331-32; 149;

2 1 . , 1 7 3 , 1 8 9 ; xv.

i.

i.

425,

326,

12., 19.,

445. 494. 495; xv. 2 3 . , 3 3 4 , 4 4 2 , 4 4 3 44.445. 494. 495; xv. 25., 445; xv. 29.,

426-27;

266,

xv. xv.

xv. xvi. xvi.

154,

3 3 0 ; l. 16., 8 l , 2 6 6 ;

243;

331-32;

xxi.

182-83,

10.,

302;

530,

276;

571 29-. 533. 5 3 5 ; XI. 30., 533. 5 3 5 ; xiii., 427; xiii. 1., 403; xiii. 15., 1 7 3 ; xiv., 8 5 . 3 3 3 . 4 2 7 . 4 4 7 ; xiv. 1 4 . , 2 6 7 ; xiv. 1 7 , 4 7 6 ; xiv. 2 3 . , 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 , 4 4 1 , 4 6 4 , 473. 474. 475. 534. 536; xv., 3 3 3 ; XV. 1 . , 3 3 4 ; XV. 2 . , 3 3 4 , 4 4 4 , 4 9 4 , 4 9 5 , 5'2, 533. 5 3 5 ; XV. 4 . , 4 7 5 , 4 9 4 , 4 9 5 , 533. 535; xv. 6 . , 4 4 4 , 4 9 4 , 4 9 5 , 5 3 3 , 5 3 5 ; xv. 7 . , 3 2 8 , 3 3 0 ; xv. 9 . , 3 7 2 ; xv.

17.,

ii.

222, 14.,

552; 373,

1.

18., 401;

454. 470. 47i; "'•> 333;

169-70;

it.

15.,

ii., 450,

5-» 192»

Index 572 193; iii. 6., 179, 180; iii. 9., 19a, 193; 336, 369» 371. 404» 405, 413. 466; iii. 10., 307; iv., 333; iv. I., 182-83, iv. 12., i8n., 303-306, 369, 371 190, 232-33, 316-18, 501 ; «». 6., 3 1 7 Philippians, i. 1., 322, 324, 496, 497, 18; iv. 15., 287; iv. 16., 274; v., 333; 533» 535; 6., 539; i. 15., 419, 436v. 4., 346, 510, 513, 529, 531; v. 5., 37; i. 16., 419, 436-37; i. 17., 419, 346, 5 " . 513; 7-» 246, 523-25» 436-37; 18., 419, 420; ii. 20., 195, 527-29; v. 8., 246; ». 11., 207-208, 464; ii. 21., 464; ii. 25., 195, 267, 513; v. 12., 459; '3-> 523-25. 527409; iii., 190; iii. 17., 274; ii). ii., 288 29; vi. 4., 350; vii. 20., 371, 507, 526; Colossians, i. 1., 322, 324; i. 7., 195; ii. 19., 308; iii. 18., 341 vii. 27., 371; »iff. 10., 264; oiïi. 12., I Thessalonians, i. 1., 322, 324; ii. 265; viii. 13., 264; viii. 14., 330; ix. I., 17., 273, 274; iv. 13., 163; »., 159, 407, 408; ix. 2., 407, 408; ix. 13., 365; ». 12., 340, 341-42, 345, 533, 272; ix. 16., 534, 536; ix. 17., 534, 535; 13., 340, 341-42, 344» 345» 536; ix. 18., 487; *., 57; 15., 490; 533» 535; o- 21., 82, 278, 280; ». x. 16., 225; *. 17., 225, 239; *. 31., 22., 210, 212, 260 378-79; 32., 382, 383-84, 548; II Thessalonians, iii. 10., 499, 500xi., 333; '•» 274; xi. 3-. 343; xi. 501; iii. 14., 513; iii. 15., 532 5., 219, 228; xi. 16., 335; xi. 18., 228, I Timothy, i. 2., 155, 340; i. 18., 410, 229, 238, 240; xi. 22., 262, 263; xi. 4 1 1 , 5 1 1 ; i. 19., 5 1 1 ; i. 20., 5 1 1 , 513, 23-, r94> 243; xi. 24., 213; xi. 27., 521, 530; ii. i., 155, 160-61, 371, 370; xi. 28., 206; xi. 30., 370; xi. 33., 472, 526; ii. 2., 155, 371, 472, 526; 239; xii. i., 294; xii. 5., 294; xii. 12., ii. 3., 160-61 ; ii. 4., 160-61 ; ii. 7., 453; xii. 25., 453; xii. 28., 304-305, 287; ii. 11., 228; ii. 12., 226, 227; 308-11, 366, 405, 475, 476, 478, 492, iii., 256, 428, 429, 483; iii. i., 288, 494» 495» 533» 535! xiv., *T> xiv. i-> 403, 406; xiv. 5., 406; xiv. 16., 158, 473; iii. 2., 184, 190, 191, 192, 196, 161; xiv. 26., 18, i8n., 382, 384, 385, '97. 361, 421, 425, 485» 504» 506; 6 548; xiv. 29., 335-3 ; "iv. 31., 336; iii. 3-» 190, 191, 485» 506; iii. 4., 361, xiv. 32., 336; xiv. 33., 335; xiv. 34., 506; iii. 5., 361; iii. 6., 190, 191; iii. 226, 227, 228; xiv. 35., 220, 226; xiv. 7., 421, 425; iii. 8., 421, 425, 485-86, 40., 382, 384, 385, 393-94, 548; xvi. 497» 498, 504» 507; ««. 10., 429-30, 1 I.» I5 435» 436, 437-38; Hi. ii-, 437-38; iii. 12., 437-38, 5°6; iv. 4-» 379; iv II Corinthians, i. 24., 319, 322; ii. 5-» 379» 380; iv. 8., 338; iv. ii., 440; 6., 525; ii. 7., 525; ii. 10., 524, 525; iv. 12., 272, 338, 451, 460, 462; iv. 13., ii. 15., 178; ii. 16., 179; iii. 8., 294; 192; iv. 14., 412, 463, 533, 535; ». i., ». 20., 174; vi. 4., 288; vi. 8., 288; vi. 360, 361; ». 2, 340, 342, 344, 345; 10., 288; viii., 447, 448; viii. i., 453; viii. 2., 453; viii. 3., 356-57, 453; viii. 3-» 484» 489; 9-> 484» 507-10; 4-» 356-57» 454; "iii. 'S-» 445; »"«• ». 10., 507-10; ». 17., 468, 469, 474, >9-» 441» 445; 23-, 409» 454; 480, 486, 487, 494, 495, 533, 535-36; *• 3-» 294; *. 4., 294; 7., 322-24; ». 22., 430, 459-62; vi. 10., 347; vi. "6., 347, 348; *. 17., 347, 348; *. "•> 347» 353; »i- I3-» 484. 485» 50918., 347, 348; xi. 12., 365; xiii. IO., 1 7 10; vi. 14., 484, 485, 509-10 Galatians, i. 1., 407; ii. 6., 319-20; II Timothy, f. 6., 412, 460, 462; ii. iv. i., 247-48; iv. 2., 247-48; iv. 10., 3•» 347» 353-54; »• 4•» 348, 353-54; 2 1 1 , 212, 250, 251; iv. 11., 250, 251; ». 15., 179, 191; iii. 6., 169-70; iii. iv. 14., 174; ». 3., 2 1 1 , 212; ». 4., 8-, 374» 401; "i- I5-» '9 1 ! Hi- 16., 2 1 1 , 212; v. 5., 2 1 1 , 212; vi. 7., 82-3, 169-70, 191; iii. 17., 169-70; iv. 2., 175. 4 " ; «'»• 5-» 406, 411 215 Titus, i. 3., 460, 461; i. 5., 268, 270, Ephesians, i. 17., 251; i. 22., 339; i. 23., 338, 404» 421, 425» 460, 467, 468; 340, 342-43» 344-45; »• I3-» 150; i. 6., 421, 425, 469; i. 7., 191, 196, ii. 14., 150, 3 1 1 ; ii. 22., 17, I7n.; 197, 469, 473; i. 9., 191, 196, 197; iv., 17, 35; 4-» 337; 5-» 337; »'»• i. 15., 380; iii. 10., 5 1 1 , 531, 532; 6., 337; iv. 8., 47, 48, 270, 303-306; iii. 11., 5 1 1 , 531 ir. il., 47,48, 270,303-306, 309-311,

Index

573

ments, 149 if.; epistles and gospels, 149; prescript forms of prayer deiv. 1 5 . , 1 3 0 , 1 6 7 ; v. 1 . , 1 6 6 - 6 7 , 4 1 6 , fended, 155; specific portions at4 1 7 , 4 1 8 ; v. 4 . , 2 7 7 , 3 1 9 , 320-21, tacked, 168 if.; permits preaching, 4 3 4 ; »• 5 - > 3 6 2 ; -> 130, 166-67, 183; kneeling at communion, 2093 6 2 ; vi. 1 . , 2 1 7 , 5 3 8 ; vii. 7 . , 4 1 2 ; 11; proper number for communion, Vtii. 4 . , 1 7 2 ; Bill. 5 . , 1 7 2 ; t'x. I I . , 1 6 6 2 3 8 - 4 2 ; purification of women, 2 4 3 67; I-» 555; *• a8-> 5 2 0 ; X. 3 0 . , 3 4 0 , 45; recognizes holy days, 245 if.; order344; xii. 2., 290; xiii. 17., 294, 473, ing of ministers, 4 2 5 - 2 6 ; other ref493; xiii. 20., 290 erences, 192, 193, 194, 219, 220, 221, James, i. 19., 82, 278, 280; i. 20., 82, 43'. 542 2 7 8 , 2 8 0 ; ii. 1 . , 8 2 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 0 ; iv. 1 1 . , Book of Common Prayer, Elizabethan, 3 7 1 ; iv. 1 2 . , 3 7 1 ; v. 1 4 . , 1 9 8 , 199; approved by Parliament, 13; changes v. 1 6 . , 5 1 2 from Second Edwardine Book, 13; I Peter, ii. 9., 130, 167; ii. 13., 472; attacked in Parliament, 24 ff.; refii. 1 4 . , 4 7 2 ; ii. 2 5 . , 2 9 1 ; iii. 7 . , 2 1 8 - 1 9 ; ormation forbidden by Queen, 25; Hi. 2 0 . , 2 2 4 - 2 5 ; iii. 21., 224-25; iv. condemned by Admonition, 50—1; other I5-. 3 6 7; I-» 4 6 8; v. 2 . , 1 7 5 , 2 7 0 , 273» 274. 275. 316-17, 404, 405, 464, references, 135, 558 Book of Common Prayer, First Ed4 6 8 ; v. 3 . , 3 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 1 9 ; v. 4 . , 2 9 0 , wardine, relation to Missal, 5-7; ele293. 319; 5-. 3 ' 9 ments inserted in Elizabethan Book, II Peter, i. 1 9 . , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; i. 2 0 . , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; 13; approves use of vestments, 14; 1. 2 1 . , 1 6 9 - 7 0 ; 11. 4 . , 2 2 1 ; ii. 5 . , 2 2 1 , other references, 9, 558 5 5 2 ; ii. 1 3 . , 2 6 3 Book of Common Prayer, Second EdApocalypse, see Revelations wardine, changes from First Book, 7-9; Revelations, v. 10., 1 3 0 , 1 6 7 ; xxii. condemned by Calvin, 10; under fire 18., 395. 396 at Frankfurt, 10-11; replaced by Bible, Genevan, 12, 78, 147, 159, 160, Genevan Book, 11; reviewed by Eliza185, 2 1 3 , 235, 249, 320, 332, 420, 5 1 6 beth, 12; approved with certain Bible, King James version, 147 changes, 13; other reference, 558 Bishop, reform of office urged by Cartwright, 35-6; authority to ordain, 66- Book, little, 24, 543 7, 266 if.; misrepresented by Puritans, Bridges, J., echoes Whitgift, 137 Brief discours off the troubles begonne at 1 2 3 - 2 4 ; required to preach, 1 8 4 ; and Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554, pastor, 268, 270, 290, 306, 336, 463; 542 and elder, 2 6 8 , 4 6 3 , 4 6 8 - 6 9 , 474-75. Briefe and lamentable consyderation, of the 485; office condemned by Puritans, apparell now used by the Cleargie oj 2 7 8 - 7 9 . 2 8 9 , 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 , 3 2 2 ; differs England, etc., A, reviews and denies all from magistrate, 285; and minister, previous arguments against vestments, 3'4. 473. 483, 552-53; pomp and 21-2; defends holy days, 22; other stateliness, 3 1 5 - 1 6 ; authority, 3 1 8 , reference, 543 3 5 1 - 5 2 ; and doctor, 3 3 6 ; names and offices, 347 if.; and apostle, 409; and Briefe and plaint declaration, A, 136, 556 evangelist, 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 - 1 3 , 4 6 1 ; and Briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and ministering garmentes of the prophet, 413; authorized to examine popishe church, A, inspired by vestiarian minister, 4 2 5 - 2 6 , 4 2 9 - 3 0 , 4 5 9 - 6 2 ; and dispute, 17; demands scriptural audeacon, 4 3 7 - 3 8 , 5 0 6 ; scriptural authority, 18; limits power of magistrate, thority for, 4 4 7 , 4 7 2 - 7 3 ; right to 18, 20; other reference, 543 ordain, 464; power of excommunication, 532, 537; other references, 31, Briefe examination for the time, etc., A, defends use of vestments, 18; recog6 4 . 7 1 . 75. 76, 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 , 3 3 2 , 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 , nizes scriptural authority for doctrine 497. 498, 5 1 2 , 5 2 1 , 5 3 2 , 5 4 4 but not for polity, ig; designates Blasphemy, punishable by death, 118 magistrate head of church, 56 Bonner, E., 9 Book of Common Prayer, name of British Museum Catalogue, 543 priest, 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; Roman Catholic ele- Brownists, 11 Hebrews, iii. 13., 453; iv. 14., 130, 167; 6

574

Index

Bucer, M., 5, 21, 80, 406, 465 Bullinger, H., 15, 21, 406 Burial, see Book of Common Prayer Burial, place of, 165 Caesar, Claudius, 403 Caiaphas, 284 Calling, required for ministry, 237-38; immediate sign of apostle, 407; gifts attached to, 489-90 Calvin, John, his ecclesiastical polity imitated at Frankfurt, 9-10; condemns Second Edwardine Book of Common Prayer, 10; criticism of Roman Catholic rites and ceremonies, 12; imitated by Cartwright, 30, 33, 135; influence on Whitgift, 30, 33, 137-38; definition of deacon and widow, 52-3; regarding archbishop, 139; quoted by Cartwright, 178; quoted by Whitgift, 208; misquoted in Admonition, 339, 344—45; calls elders ministers, 493; ecclesiastical polity, 547-48; other references, 95, 99, 126, 235-36, 323-24, 325, 332, 353, 354» 355. 357. 358, 409, 440, 502, 532; see also Walker, Williston Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 52-3, 96-8, 137, 325, 548, 551 Calvin and the Reformation, see Mackinnon, James John Calvin, His Life, Letters, and Work, see Reyburn, H . Y. Cambridge History of English Literature, viii, 541 Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, ix Cambridge University, new statutes for election of vice-chancellor, 37; orders attacked by Cartwright, 39; Whitgift's activities there ridiculed by Cartwright, 39; degrees criticized by Cartwright, 42; refuses doctorate to Cartwright, 44; Cartwright's activities there satirized by Nashe, 136-37 Capital punishment, recommended by Cartwright, 117-20 Carter, Thomas, 554 Cartwright, Thomas, like Wycliff, 4; preacher at Cambridge, 15, 27, 32, 34; follower of Calvin, 21, 30, 33, 52-3; accepts title of puritan, 27; defends Admonition, 27, 81; considered victor in Controversy, 28, 545; idealized by Puritan scholars, 29 flf.; education at

Cambridge, 32; Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, 32; fails to complete requirements for ministry, 33; defines office of doctor, 33, 47; compromises on vestments, 34; censured for criticism of Church of England, 35; forbidden to read at Cambridge, 36; refused doctorate, 36, 47; popularity in Cambridge alarms authorities, 37, 41; disciplined for nonconformity, 37-8; accused of unfairness in demanding public disputation, 37-8; dismissed from University, 38 ff.; demands complete academic freedom, 39-40, 41-2; refuses to take oath ex officio mero, 42; ridicules Whitgift's doctorate, 43, 104, 342, 352, 354, 413, 452, 475-76, 478, 537, 546-47; explanation for nonconformity at Cambridge, 47-8; attacks polity of Church of England in Cambridge lectures, 49; named arch-puritan, 49, 50; author of Second Admonition, 52, 547; excludes from church everything not commanded in Scripture, 54; evades Whitgift, 55-6, 74-5; scriptural authority for Presbyterian system, 56 ff., 63, 38283; ambiguity in argument, 57, 60 ff., 284; demands return to primitive church, 58-60, 141; accused of rationalizing regarding primitive church, 58-60, 64, 92, 548; maintains apostolic authority for discipline, 60; denies authority of apostolic church, 61-2; accused of abusing Scripture, 62-3, 67-8, 78 ff., 177,198, 206-207, 237-38, 242, 291, 295, 327, 328, 332, 341, 378, 379, 384-85, 39i, 4 " , 422, 43°, 432, 436, 447. 448, 449, 484, 495, 5 ' 6 , 5 l 8 , 5*9, 524, 532, 538; initial disadvantage in controversy, 64; apologizes for incompleteness of Replye, 65-6; accused of dishonesty, 66-7, 72-3, 284; accused of careless scholarship, 67 ff., 92; defends own indifference to scholarly authority, 68-9; ridicules Whitgift, 68, 76-8, 83-4, 102-103, 199, 207, 280-81, 296, 330, 357, 376, 428, 432, 499, 500, 508, 516-17, 530; accused of misuse of secondary sources, 70-2; accuses Whitgift of misinterpreting Augustine, 72; acknowledges debt to Illyricus, 72; admits misinterpretation of Jerome, 72, 75-6, 96; admits misusing authority, 73; misleads reader, 73; ac-

Index cused of inaccurate translation, 74; admits inaccurate translation, 74; accuses Whitgift of vague reference, 75, 96-8; appeals to primitive church, 76; imitated by M a r t i n Marprelate, 78; Presbyterian system not in Scriptures, 79-80; considers marginal note rhetorical as well as scholarly, 83; resents accusation of inaccuracy, 85; awkward literary style, 86 if., 92; uses similitudes, 88 ff., 172, 177, 214, 260, 266, 270, 5 5 1 ; unaffected by Whitgift's Defense, 94 ff.; deliberately confuses issues, 94 ff.; accuses Whitgift of unscholarly use of sources, 95 if.; omits Whitgift's text, 96 if.; vague reference, 99; admits abuse of Scripture, 99-100; accuses Whitgift of abusing Scriptures, 99-100, 529; technique of exegesis, 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 ; ineffectiveness of two last Replies, 103, 1 0 7 - 1 0 8 ; abusiveness, 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 ; accuses Whitgift of failure to reply, 104; justifies omission of Whitgift's writings, 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 ; misinterprets sources, 1 0 5 - 1 0 6 ; denies authority of O l d Testament, 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; cites contradictory evidence, 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; inaccurate translation of Ecclesiastica Disciplina, 108-109; fanatical, 109, 545; attacks magistrates as well as bishops, n o f f . , 265, 4 1 4 - 1 5 ; political philosophy based on scriptural authority, i i o f f . ; believes in gifts attached to callings, 111; believes in divine illumination of Scriptures, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 397-98; maintains authority of elders over civil magistrate, 114-17; would revive Hebrew punitive laws, 117-120, 398; desires establishment of national Presbyterian church, 1 2 2 - 2 3 ; maintains permanent authority of O l d Testament, 124-25, 133. 395 ff-. 4 0 0 - 4 0 1 . 4 3 8 - 4 0 , 4 4 9 ; considers New Testament addition to Old, 126, 398; desires segregation of Puritans, 126 ff.; hatred of R o m a n Catholicism, 127 ff., 134-35, i 3 8 . I 4 ° , ' 4 1 , 4 5 1 ; condemns name of "priest," 1 2 9 - 3 0 ; condemns former R o m a n Catholic priests, 1 3 0 - 3 1 , 435 ff.; discounts necessity of following Christ's example, 1 3 1 ; demands conformity to Presbyterianism or death, 1 3 1 - 3 2 ; plans for Presbyterian reform, 134-36, 1 3 9 - 4 1 , 452-56; extent of influence, 1 3 5 - 3 7 ; attacks power of archbishop,

575

138-39; questions importance of marginal references to Scripture, 146, 281; accused of envy, 156; accused of advocating return to Judaism, 162-63; accused of being illogical, 174, 200, 447; concedes reading where preaching is impossible, 180; accused of levity, 186; accuses Whitgift of R o m a n Catholicism, 325, 470, 477; admits general teaching of Scriptures, 326; concedes diversity in church government, 364; accused of R o m a n Catholicism, 376; compares circumcision to baptism, 388-89; accuses Whitgift of error of Manichees, 395-96, 438-39; accused of flattering the public, 397; recognizes only two sacraments, 398; lacks scriptural authority in argument, 452; calls persecution salutary for church, 457; condemns university doctorate, 467; advocates popular government in the church, 470-72, 487-88; accused of attempting to overthrow Church of England, 473; accused of misquoting Whitgift, 476-77; concedes abrogation of Jewish ceremonial laws, 483; accused of attacking monarchy, 488, 491, 493; divides ecclesiastical offices into extraordinary (temporal) and ordinary (perpetual), 492; accused of failing to defend marginal references in Admonition, 496, 498; befriended by Whitgift, 547; translates episcopus as minister, 5 5 2 - 5 3 ; demands uniformity of worship, 554; effect of doctrine of inner light on clergy, 5 5 6 - 5 7 ; other references, viii, ix, 20, 93, 142, 541, 544. 555. 563. 566 Cathari, Puritans compared to, 372 Cecil, Sir William, 15, 34, 3 5 - 6 , 46 Cecils, The, 3 Celestinus, Pope, 168 Celibacy of clergy, approved by Henry V I I I , 4, 5; opposed by Parliament, 9 Centuries, Book of, 70, 75 Cephas, 317, 335 Chaderton, William, 35 Chancellors, condemned as antichristian, 35-6, 278-79, 318, 470, 522, 526, 532 Chaplin, Henry, 545 Choules, J o h n O., see Neal, Daniel Christ, Jesus, distinctive apparel »53 ffChronicles, I, II, see Bible

of,

576

Index

Chrysostom, see St. John C. Church, details of polity left to church, 19, 56; Fathers quoted by Cartwright, 92; attack on government accompanied by attack on magistrate, 11 o if.; paramount authority, 1 1 4 ; defined by Cartwright as Presbyterian, 116; separated from state, 282-83, 415; polity variable according to times, 306-308, 456-59; government differs from civil government, 341, 342, 346, 355; functions of government divided into "ordinary" and "extraordinary," 402 ff.; government not concerned with administration of sacraments, 469; dangers from popular government, 470-71 Church and State: Political Aspects of Sixteenth Century Puritanism, see Pearson, A.F.S. Church, apostolic, see church, primitive Church, Christian, authority in Scriptures, 298-302; outward marks of, 418 Church of Corinth, 151 Church of England, via media, 4, 134, 141; importance of Admonition Controversy to, viii, 5 1 , 134; attacked by Cartwright, 30, 34-6, 49, 58-9; office of deacon, 5 1 ; answer to attack on rites and ceremonies, 56; lacks preachers, 76; influenced by Whitgift, 1 3 7 4 1 ; resemblance to Roman Catholic church, 149 ff.; administration of sacraments in, 233; subverted by Cartwright, 324; hated by Puritans, 373, 401; excommunication in, 5 1 3 - 1 4 ; accused of abuse of absolution, 526; other references, 65, 84, 93 Church, primitive, in Puritan reform, 24-5, 60-3, 64; perfect in form, 141, 375; election of ministers, 420-25, 430, 446-47 Churchwardens, condemned by Admonition, 470 Circumcision, prefigures baptism, 233, 235-36, 388-89; other reference, 244 Civil magistrate, differs from ecclesiastical officer, 282-83, 285 ff. Clay, W. K . , ed., 542 Cole, Robert, 16 Collects, 13 Colossians, Epistle to, see Bible Commissaries, 470, 522, 526 Communion, in one kind only 4, 5, 209; changed from sacrifice to com-

memoration, 7-8; kneeling at, 13, 15, 77, 209-12, 386; directions for administration not specified in Scriptures, 18; examination of communicants, 205-208; type of bread, 208209; prbper posture, 209 ff., 386, 38788; minister's words, 2 1 3 - 1 4 ; private, 238 fr.; prefigured by passover, 242; recognized as sacrament by Cartwright, 398; other references to communion, 6, 9, 14, 76, 77, 225 Communion Book, see Book of Common Prayer Confession, auricular, approved by Henry V I I I , 4, 5 Confirmation, in First Edwardine Book of Common Prayer, 6; condemned in Admonition, 5 1 ; place in church, 2 1 7 18; see also Book of Common Prayer Cooper, C. H. and T., 545-46 Cooper, Thomas, 544 Corinthians, I, II, Epistle to, see Bible Cornelius, 217, 230-31, 390 Council, African, 61 Council of Antioch, 61 Council of Carthage, 70 Council of Carthage, Second, 61 Council of Nice, 70, 73 Council of Nice, First, 61, 73 Council of Nice, Second, 61, 73 Council of Toledo, 70 Court, archbishop's, see Archbishop Court of High Commission, established by Parliament, 12; controls printing and publishing, 24; condemned by Puritans, 346-47; other reference, 133 Cox, Richard, 1 0 - 1 1 Cranmer, Thomas, 5, 9, 348 Creed, Nicene, condemned by Puritans, 168; scriptural basis, 169 Cross, sign of, retained in First Edwardine Prayer Book, 6; omitted in Second, 9 Crucifix, retained by Elizabeth, 12, 13 Damasus, 97, 558 Daniel, 260; see also Bible David, 164-65, 1 7 1 , 243, 256, 272, 300,

301, 314-15. 372. 4°i. 47°, 471» 47a,

482, 490 Deacon, demanded by Cartwright and Wycliff, 4; duties, 10, 5 1 , 135-36; definition of office, 35, 36, 52, 78 ff., 135-36, 547-48; identified with elders,

Index 53, 485; scriptural authority for, 79, 303-3 0 5. 3 " ; baptism by, 232-33; differs from elder, 310; in Old Testament, 3 1 3 - 1 4 ; omitted in Scripture, 336; election, 356, 423-24, 427-29, 436, 437> 44°~4 r . 447> 458; ordinary function of government, 402, 403-404, 414; differs from ministers, 423-24, 505-507; not included in church government, 469; identified with minister, 483; first step to ministry, 499, 504505; right to preach, 502 ff.; differs from bishop, 505-507; gifts of bishop, 506; shares in discipline, 510; other references, 141, 325, 346, 355-57, 430, 496 ff., 527, 533, 535 Deaconess, see Widow Dean, 36, 278-79, 289 Defense of the Aunswere to the Admonition against the Replie of T.C., importance in study of controversy, 64-5; presents both sides of controversy, 94; other references, 27, 67 ff., 99, 103, 104-105, 109, 134. 137. 145, 147» 190, 192, 193, 278, 374, 43_i. 442, 476, 558 Degrees, university, condemned by Cartwright, 35-6, 42 Dering, M., Workes, 112, 553, 556 Deuteronomy, 125; see also Bible Development of Religious Toleration in England from the Beginning of the English Reformation to the Death of Queen Elizabeth, see Jordan, W. K . D'Ewes, Simon, 542, 543, 544 Die ecclesitt, see Matthew, sami. 18. Discipline, civil, used by ecclesiastical minister, 352 Discipline, ecclesiastical, outward mark of church, 50, 418; exercised by elders, 468; officers in charge, 510; definition, 511, 5 1 2 - 1 3 ; in primitive church, 513 ff.; authority in Scripture, 515 ff.; other references, 231-32, 566 Discipline, private, 511 Dispensations, 23 Doctor, duties, 10; definition, 33, 35-6, 44-6, 47, 79, 547-48; Puritan attitude toward degree, 46; first reference to, 52; identified with pastor, 80, 405, 414, 466; in Presbyterian system, 1 3 5 36, 141; identified with elder, 136; condemned as antichristian, 278 ff., 470; title of Christ, 291, 400-401; differs from pastor and elder, 310; identified with deacon, elder, bishop,

577

archbishop, 336; teaching elder, 404, 465, 466; authorized as aid to pastor, 413-14, 465, 467; attached to certain church, 465, 466-67; office of, 465 ff., 565; other references, 293, 499, 532 Doctor of divinity, Cartwright's objection to doctorate excused by Pearson, 42; condemned by Cartwright, 467 Documents Illustrative of English Church History, see Gee, H. and W. Hardy Documents Relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge, 546 Donatists, 370 Douglas, C. E., see Frere, W. H. and C. E. Douglas Dudleys, The, 3 Easter, feast of, condemned by Puritans, 246 Ecclesiastics Disciplina, Cartwright's Preface, 94; inaccurately translated by Cartwright, 108-109; differs from Cartwright in definition of deacon, I35-3 6 ; o t h e r references, 552, 553 Edward VI, King, 5, 12, 277, 434, 438, 543. 544. 561 Egyptians, 127, 128, 149-51, 300, 377 Elder, duties, 10, 51, 414, 452, 455, 468, 475, 480-82, 510, 547-48; first reference to, 20—1 ; in Second Admonition, 52 ; subdivided into elders and deacons, 53. 465, 467-68, 480; scriptural authority considered insufficient, 63, 3 0 3-305. 336, 468-69, 473 ff.; scriptural authority for, 78-9, 473 ff.; place in Presbyterian system, 78 ff., 135-36, 141, 402, 403; considered temporal by Whitgift, 80; derived from Old Testament, 103, 313; called ignorant, simple, and rude, 114, 470-71, 480, 493; superior to magistrate, 114-17; different from deacon, 135-36, 310; no longer administers extreme unction, 198-99; identified with bishop, 268, 274. 463. 468-69, 474-75, 485; identified with minister, 268, 274, 468-69, 474-75. 483. 485; more inclusive than minister, 274-75; identified with Jewish synagogue, 298, 522; different from doctor, 310; unqualified to examine minister, 429; election of, 441 ; admitted ministers in primitive church, 463; perpetual office, 478, 483 ff.; assists civil magistrate, 479, 488; does

578

Index

not preach, 493; not open to corruption, 494; powers, 512; other references, 4, 64, 87, 325, 346, 467 ff., 499, 527. 533. 535 Eleazar, 301, 362 Eli, 271-72, 360 ff. Elias, 101-i 02, 254, 294-95. 3 6 ° . 364. 490 Elijah, see Elias Elishama, 417 Elizabeth, Queen, creates protestant nobility, 3; seeks religious peace in first Parliament, 12; demands kneeling at communion, 13; contends with nonconformists, 13-4; forbids Parliament to interfere in matters of religion, 25; authority to be subordinated to church, 2 5> 414; befriends Whitgift, 3 1 ; friendly to church, 56; attacked by Cartwright, n o f f . , 488; reaction to Puritanism, 116-17, 554i tolerant of R o m a n Catholicism, 127; other references, 11, 17, 416, 438, 539, 541, 544, 545 Elmer, Bishop, 29 Emden, 10 English Church in Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, see Frere, W . H . English Seamen of the Sixteenth Century, see Froude, J . A. Epaphroditus, 102-103, 267, 269, 408, 409, 410 Ephesians, Epistle to, see Bible Episcopacy, first attacked, 20-1, 25; attacked by Cartwright, 135 Episcopalian, position clarified in Admonition Controversy, vii, 134, 137; political sympathies, 3; fundamental defense, 19, 49; polity first attacked in Admonition, 25; hierarchy attacked, 5 1 , 87, 278 ff., 288-89, 347 ff.; theory of magistrate as head of church, 56; arguments in Defense, 65; more tolerant than Puritan, 124; hated by Puritans, 134, 373, 401; difference with Puritans, 146, 147; discipline, 339 ff.; other references, 28, 547, 548 Epistle and gospel, selections in Book of Common Prayer condemned, 50, 149, 168; see also Book of Common Prayer Epistle to the Hebrews, Commentary on, see Dering, M., Workes Epistle to the Terrible Priests, see Martin Marprelate Erasmus, 74-5

Esay, see Isaiah Esdras, 99; see also Bible Esther, see Bible Eucharist, see Communion Eusebius, 72-3, 75 Evangelist, extraordinary function of government, 79, 402, 4 1 1 - 1 3 ; excluded from Puritan church, 303; identified with minister, 405, 4 1 1 ; identified with bishop, 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 - 1 3 ; confirmation of, 4 1 1 - 1 2 ; relation to pastor, 413; superior to bishop, 461 Excommunication, in Church of England, 23, 5 1 3 - 1 4 ; in Presbyterian system, 5 1 ; includes civil magistrate, 1 1 5 - 1 7 ; derived from O l d Testament, 313, 522; power of minister in New Testament, 510-11; other references, 22, 294 Exodus, 187, 188, see also Bible Extreme unction, 6, 9, 198-99 Ezechias, see Hezekiah Ezekiel, 301, see also Bible Ezra, 100, 188, 357, 359, 361, 363, 386, 387, 391; see also Bible F a g i u s , P., 5 Fast days, 18 Fathers, church, see Church Fathers Field, J . , 25, 26, 60; see also Admonition to the Parliament, An Fills, R., tr., 547-48 Forme of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, &c., used in the Englishe Congregation at Geneva, The, see Genevan Prayer Book Foxe, J o h n , 11, 96, 97, 98, 543 Frankfurt, 9 - 1 3 Frere, W . H., stresses importance of Admonition Controversy, vii-viii; scores destruction of church property, 14; considers Whitgift victim of Puritan propaganda, 3 1 ; charges Puritan writers with untruthfulness, 123, 124; explains dilemma of English R o m a n Catholic, 127; other references, 541 ff., 554, 555 Frere, W . H . and C. E. Douglas, 544, 547; see also Admonition to the Parliament, An Fripp, E. I., 29-30, 545 Froude, J . A., 544 Full and plaine declaration of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, 108-109, 552> 553. 5 5 6

Index Fuller, T., 544, 545 Funeral service, in First Edwardine Book of Common Prayer, 6; condemned by Puritans, 161 ff. G a d , 314-15 Galatians, Epistle to, see Bible Galerianus Maximinus, 3 1 5 - 1 6 Gardiner, S., 9 Gedeon, 258 Gee, H., and W. J . Hardy, 541 ff., 557 Genesis, see Bible Genevan Prayer Book, 1 1 , 12, 135 Gifts, attached to ecclesiastical office, 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 309-11 Gilby, A., 22-3, 541, 543 Godly and zealous letter written by Mai A. G., see Gilby, A. Goodman, C., n Gospel, pure preaching of, 20; relation to Puritan theory of inner light, 1 1 3 ; see also Bible, Scriptures, Testament (New) Government, civil, 341, 346 Gratian, 70, 75, 97 Green, J . R . , 132, 133 Greenwood, J . , 134 Gregory, J . , 545 Gregory V I I , Pope, 558 Grindal, E., informs Cecil of Cartwright's nonconformity, 34; disciplines Cartwright and followers, 35-6; forbids doctorate to Cartwright, 44; other references, 10, 14, 47 Grindal, Edmund, The Remains of, see Nicholson, W., ed. Gualter, R . , 2 1 , 502 H a d d o n , W., 10 Haller, W., origin of Puritanism, 3n.; describes intellectual decline in Puritan ministry, 556-57; other references, viii, 541 Haman, 248 Hananiah, 420 Hannah, 271, 272 Harding, T., 95 Hardy, W. J . , see Gee, H. Hay any Workefor Cooper, 545 Hebrews, Epistle to, a n , 212; see also Bible Henry V I I I , 3, 4, 5, 12, 50, 277, 434, 543

579

Herod, 410 Heylyn, P., 544 Hezekiah, 372, 472 Hierome, see St. Jerome High Commission, Court of, see Court of High Commission Historical Introduction to the Marprelate Tracts, An, see Pierce, W. History of England, etc., see Pollard, A. F. History of the Puritans, see Neal, D. Holy days, demand for abrogation, 15, 5 1 ; answer to Puritan attack on, 22, 245 ff. Holy water, 4 Homilies, reading attacked, 50-1, 169 ff.; reading defended, 76, 173, 174, 176, 186, 187-89, 193 Honorius, 209 Hooker, R., pronounced greatest Elizabethan theologian, 29; influenced by Whitgift, 109, 137-38; defends Christianity of Roman Catholic Church, 138; other reference, 545 Hooper, J . , 5, 7, 21, 348 Hosea, see Bible Hosius, S., 95 Hot gospellers, vii, 18 Howards, The, 3 Humphrey, L., 15 Hymenaeus, 5 1 1 , 513, 521, 530 Idolatry, punishable by death, 118-20, 5 1 8 - 2 1 ; obstacle to ministry, 434-40 Illyricus, 70-2 Images, 4 Impropriations, 23 Injunction at ordination, see Ministers, ordering of Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, 13, 14, 23, 23n. Inner light, 556-57 Inquisition, 133 Institution of Christian Religion, see Calvin, J . , Institutes Introit, discontinued, 8, 558; attacked, 50, 168 Invocation of saints, 4 Irijah, 420 Isabella, see Measure for Measure Isaiah, 181, 184, 377, 397; see also Bible Ishmael, 415 Ithamar, 301

5

8O

Index

J a c o b , 172, 373, 526 Jairus, 297 Jehonathan, 417 Jehoiada, 418 Jehoram, 417 Jehoshaphat, 117, 315, 415, 416, 4 1 7 , 472,526 Jeremiah, 164-65, 184-85, 186, 377, 420; see also Bible Jeroboam, 192, 194, 433 Jerome, see St. Jerome Jesuits, 122 Jethro, 495 J e w e l , J . , 14, 137 Jews, synagogue model for Presbyterian discipline, 126; separated from gentiles in rites and ceremonies, 1495 1 ; burial customs, 162 ff.; observance of holy days, 245-48, 251; permitted bigamy, 435; other references, 127, 128, 189, 282, 283, 284, 298, 312, 313, 3 i 4 . 330. 348. 377. 396, 397. 400. 449. 474. 483. 489, 522, 523 Joel, see Bible John (relative of Annas), 284 Jonathan, 164 Jones, J . , 544 Jonson, B., 545 Jordan, W . K . , viii, 541, 555 Joshua, 99, 259, 441, 443, 444, 472; see also Bible Josiah, 164-65, 187, 207, 47a Journal of . . . Parliaments during Reign of Qjieen Elizabeth, see D'Ewes, Simon Judaism, see Jews, Testament, O l d Judas Iscariot, 252, 265-66, 267, 326, 410, 496, 497 Judges, see Bible Junia, 102-103, 267, 269, 409 Justinian, 70, 75 K e t l e y , J . , ed., 541-42 Kings, I, I I , see Bible K n a p p e n , T . W . , viii K n o x , J . , i o , 11, 12 Knox, John, Works of, see Laing, D . L a i n g , D . , 542 Last Supper, see Communion Latimer, H . , 5, 9 L a w , O l d , see Testament, O l d Lawes and Statutes of Geneva, see Fills, R . , tr.

Laws, judicial, revival recommended, 118; abrogated by N e w Testament, 399-400, 436, 438, 449; still in force, 398, 400-401 Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, see Hooker, R. L a w y e r , 298 L a y i n g on of hands, 463 Lazarus, 163, 319, 321 Learned Discourse of Ecclesiasticall Government, A., see Briefe and plaine declaration, A Learned Discourse of Justification, see Hooker, R . Lever, T . , 10 Levites, 415 if., 446 ff. Leviticus, 398; see also Bible Liturgies and Occasional Forms of Prayer • • • °f Qjieen Elizabeth, see C l a y , W . K . , ed. Lollards, 4 Lord, title unscriptural, 347, 348 Lord's Prayer, see Prayer, Lord's Love-feasts, i i , 240, 262, 263-64 Lucius of Cyrene, 403 L y d i a , 205

] V i ackinnon, James, 551 M a g d a l e n College, Oxford, 15 Magdelburgica History, 409, 410 Magistrate, civil, authority subordinated to church, 18, 5 1 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 , 265, 3 5 1 - 5 2 ; authority in church, 20, 56, 114, 116, 138-41, 302, 308, 342-45, 4 1 4 - 1 5 , 452, 454, 455, 456, 472, 4 7 6 77. 479. 480. 482, 486, 490-91; significance of disobedience to, 21; place in O l d Testament, 312, 395-96, 399, 5 1 7 ; concerned with affairs of this world, 341, 346; needs assistance of elder, 479; Admonition protests loyalty to, 526 Malachi, 184; see also Bible Malchion, 61 M a n a e n , 403 Manichees, 395-96, 438-39 M a r g i n a l reference, rhetorical use by Puritans, 180, 193-94, 501; see also Scriptures M a r i a n exiles, 12, 33 Marprelate Tracts, The, see Pierce, W . Marriage, see matrimony M a r t i n Marprelate, names Cartwright victor over Whitgift, 28, 92; writings

Index attributed to Whitgift's harshness, 30; imitates Cartwright's invective, 78, 104; pamphlets popularized Cartwright's doctrines, 136; other references, vii, 541, 545; see also Penry, John Martin Marprelate Controversy, viii, 541» 545 Martin Marprelate Controversy, Introductory Sketch to, see Arber, E., ed. Martyr, P., 5, 21, 103 Mary Magdalene, 226 Mary, Queen, 9, 277, 434 Mary (sister of Lazarus), 163 Mass, approved by Henry V I I I , 5; public renunciation of, 14; origin of 800k of Common Prayer, 50; condemned by Cartwright, 129; introit in, 168; other references, 212, 240 Mathathias, 361, 363 Matrimony, festivities at, 22, 219-20; ring in, 51, 211, 218, 220; customs attacked, 218-20; and divorce, 358 M a y » J-» 35. 36,37 McGinn, D. J., 541, 545 McKerrow, R . B., 64, 121, 541, 545, 549» 556, 557 Measure for Measure, 545 Melanchthon, P., 21 Melchisedec, 166, 167, 360, 362, 412, 413 Mermaid Tavern, 545 Metropolitan, condemned as antichristian, 289; title considered unscriptural by Puritans, 347, 348 Michaiah, 417 Midwives, baptism by, 232-33, 235 Minister, differs from elder, 21 ; elimination of careless, 22; ordination, 24-5, 51, 251-52, 265 ff., 417, 463, 464; election of, 34, 35-6, 63, 66-7, 74-5, 78,80, 125, 322 ff., 418 ff., 440 ff., 51 r ; position in church, 51, 135-36, 141, 342-43» 346, 353» 414; in Second Admonition, 52; compared to shepherd, 88 ff.; position in civil government, 101-102, 350-51, 353-54» 357» 358; impeded by Book of Common Prayer, 220, 238; administration of sacraments, 221-25, 501; residence of, 27277» 544; differs from apostle, 266-67; identified with bishop, 268, 270, 314; identified with elder, 274, 468-69, 474; duty of private admonition, 270 ff.; differs from magistrate, 285-

581

86, 293-94; equality in preaching and ministering the sacraments, 324 ff.; identified with archbishop, 337; identified with apostle, prophet, evangelist, doctor, 405, 408-409; differs from deacon, 423-24, 505-507; incompetence in Church of England, 431-40, 459-62, 464, 556-57; treatment of unmeet, 452-56; not authorized to discipline, 481; power of excommunication, 510-11, 528; aided by elders in excommunication, 510, 523; should avoid excommunicated man, 532; Calvin's definition, 547-48; used as translation of episcopus, 552-53; other references, 17, 87, 153-54, 348, 355, 473» 476, 484» 487» 498, 499» 500» 533» 535» 536, 537; s" also Pastor Ministry, instituted according to Scriptures, 79, 197, 294; admission to, 265 ff.; deacon first step to, 499, 504506; intellectual decline of Puritan, 55 6 -57; obstacles to, 435-40 Moderator, 325 ff., 531 Mordecai, 248 Mosaic law, see Testament, Old Moses, 118-20, 171, 173, 177, 178, 185, 187, 188, 189, 207, 224, 235-36, 249, 250, 260, 262, 263, 291, 295, 299, 357, 362-63, 374, 386, 387, 388, 391, 398401, 412, 442, 443, 444, 470, 472, 481, 495» 496, 504» 5 "9. 52°» 556 Mullinger, J. B., 546, 556 Musculus, 71-2, 80, 96, 97, 98, 281. 406, 414, 465 Music with sacraments, 243 N a s h e , T . , vii, 136-37, 541, 545, 549, 556» 557 Nathan, 314-15 Neal, D., viii, 7» 9» 54'» 542» 549 Neale, J. E., 60, 549 Nehemiah, 361, 363; see also Bible Nethaneel, 297, 417 Nethaniah, 417 Nevilles, The, 3 New English Dictionary, 544 Nicanor, 427, 497 Nicene Creed, 50, 168-69 Nicholas, 427, 497 Nicholson, W., ed., 546 Noah, 221, 223, 224, 283, 298-99 Nonconformist, reply to Episcopalian accusation, 17; reliance on scriptural authority, 18; other reference, 547

582

Index

Non-residences, 22, 23, 5 1 , 265 IF. Norton, T . , tr., see Calvin, J . , Institutes of Christian Religion Numbers, see Bible Obadiah, 417 Ochino, B., 5 (Ecumenius, 463 Offices, civil, relation with ecclesiastical in Scriptures, 347, 349-68 Offices, ecclesiastical, described in Scripture, 303-306; combined with civil in Scriptures, 360-68; divided into extraordinary and ordinary, 492, 499-500 Officials, ecclesiastical, condemned by Admonition, 470; election and discharge, 5 1 1 - 1 2 ; other reference, 532 Ornaments, ecclesiastical, 1 3 P a r k e r , M . , 15, 16, 4 1 , 543 Matthew Parker, Life and Acts of, see Strype, J o h n Parliament, approves Book of Common Prayer, 7; repeals anti-papal legislation, 9; creates Court of High Commission, 1 2 ; passes Act of Supremacy, 12; approves Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer, 1 3 ; makes kneeling at communion obligatory, 1 3 ; urged to reform Church of England, 372-73 Parmenas, 427, 497 Parte of a register, A, 23, 543 Passover, prefigures communion, 242; other references, 246, 525 Pastor, duties, 9 - 1 0 , 465, 466, 467; residence, 24-5; in Presbyterian system, 78 ff.; identified with doctor, 80; differs from apostle, 1 0 2 - 1 0 3 ; defined as elder, 136, 336, 404, 465; successor of apostle, 223; title of Christ, 2 9 1 , 293; differs from doctor, 3 1 0 ; identified with archbishop, 336, 3 3 7 ; identified with deacon, 336; ordinary function of government, 402; related to evangelist and prophet, 4 1 3 ; assisted by doctor, 4 1 3 - 1 4 ; identified with bishop, 336, 463; other references, 325, 3 4 1 , 346; see also Minister Paule, G., 1 3 4 - 3 5 , 546, 547 Pearson, A . F. S., dates Cartwright's first attack on episcopacy, 1 5 ; calls Admonition true appeal to Parliament,

26; analyzes attitude of Puritan clergy regarding vestments, 34; paraphrases Cartwright's statement of plan for reformation, 35; concerning Cartwright's fellowship oath, 4 0 - 1 ; excuses Cartwright's objection to academic degrees, 42; names Cartwright leader of Puritans, 49; denies Cartwright's authorship of Second Admonition, 52; questions Cartwright's consistency regarding primitive church, 58-9, 62-4; records Whitgift's accusation against Cartwright, 6 2 - 3 ; praises Defense, 109; explains Cartwright's theory of relation between church and state, 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 - 1 7 ; condemns Cartwright's demand for capital punishment, 1 1 7 , 1 3 2 ; questions Puritan contribution to religious tolerance, 1 2 1 - 2 2 ; comments on harshness of Puritan tracts, 123; considers Puritans Hebraic rather than Christian, 126; apologizes for Cartwright's intolerance, 1 3 2 - 3 3 ; evaluates Cartwright's influence, 136; discusses Puritan threat to monarchy, 5 5 3 - 5 4 ; other references, viii, ix, 12, 32» 54i ffPenance, commutations of, 25 Penry, J . , vii, 4, 5 4 1 ; see also Martin Marprelate Percys, The, 3 Perne, A., 46-7 Peter I, I I , Epistles of, see Bible Phebe, 507 Philippians, Epistle to, see Bible Pierce, W., names Cartwright victor, 28; condemns Whitgift, 3 0 - 1 , 9 1 , 1 3 1 ; praises Cartwright's style, 86-7; considers Puritans loyal to Crown, 554; other references, 29, 544 ff. Pighius, A., 95, 96 Pilgrim Fathers, influenced by Cartwright, 136 Pilgrimage, 4 Pius V , Pope, 127 Pluralities, 22, 23, 5 1 , 265 ff. Pole, R . , 32 Polity, ecclesiastical, see Church Pollard, A. F., 544 Polydore Vergil, 97, 3 1 1 Pontius Pilate, 400, 484, 485 Pope, 4, 58, 1 1 6 , 129, 138-40, 149, 3 1 8 , 320,.322, 325, 450, 476, 478, 491 Pope Celestinus, 168 Pope Pius V , 127

Index Prayer, for dead, 4, 6, g; prescript forms, 50, 155 ff., 220; by congregation, 157-59; repetitions, 159-60; for salvation of all men, 160-61; private, 161 Prayer, Lord's, only specific prayer in N e w Testament, 157; recommended by St. Paul, 159; repetition, 160; other references, 168, 558 Prayer Book, Genevan, 1 1 , 12, 135 Prayers, short, 155-57; punishment for contempt of, 5 1 5 ff. Preacher, see Minister Preaching, careless, 22; more important than vestments, 34; outward mark of true Christian church, 50, 418; and administration of sacraments, 85-6, •97-99. 200-205, 469; place of, 1 5 3 54, 229, 386-87, 388-93; in Scripture, 156; main part of service, 169 ff.; forbidden to women, 222, 225-26, 227; requires calling, 237-38; by ministers only, 270, 529; private, 390-92; in C h u r c h of England, 418, 464; forbidden to deacons, 501 ff.; by deacons, 502 ff.; other references, 87, 294, 4 1 7 , 5" Presbyters, see Elders Presbyterianism, urged by Puritans, vii, 27, 51 ff.; Calvinistic, 30; in primitive church, 34, 54, 60, 62, 78 ff., 92; urged by Cartwright, 50, 122-23, 135; rational not scriptural, 59, 63, 64, 7 9 - 8 1 ; division of offices, 87; antagonistic to absolute monarchy, 116— 17; intolerant, 132; other reference, 547 Press, censorship, 23-4, 23n. Priest, name condemned, 50, 165-68, 260; derivation of word, 129—30, 166-67; other reference, 362-63; see also R o m a n Catholicism Primate, title unscriptural, 347, 348 Primitive church, demand for return to, 3» 9. 24. 5 8 . i o 3> ' 4 1 j 538; main issue in controversy, 4, 60, 146; baptism in, 5 1 , 214 ff.; definition, 58, 60 ff., 84, 107, 142; rationalized into existence by Cartwright, 59, 62, 76, 79 ff.; identified with Apostolic Church, 61, 141; without scriptural authority, 63; model for Presbyterian system, 78 ff., 92, 135—36, 326; model for state, 110; form of prayer in, 1 5 5 - 5 7 ; ministers in, 463; elders in, 463, 486; both popular and aristocratical, 488, 492-93; dea-

583 cons in, 496 ff., 499; ecclesiastical discipline in, 513 ff.; other references,

68, 547 Prochorus, 427, 497 Proctors, 470, 532 Prophesying, 112 Prophet, excluding by Puritans, 303, 308-309; temporal office, 336; extraordinary function of church government, 403; identified with minister, 405; relation to pastor and bishop, 413; other references, 294 ff. Protestant, 345; see also Episcopalian, Nonconformist, Presbyterian Proverbs, see Bible Psalms, see Bible Punishment, civil, for ecclesiastical offenses, 5 1 5 ff. Purgatory, 4, 6 Purification of women, 5 1 , 243-44 Puritan, citizens of London, 3; demand for primitive church, 3, 103; political theories, 3, 1 1 6 - 1 7 , I 2 0 > 554! dialectic based on St. Paul's Epistles, 17; demand for public disputation, 21; first use of name, 26-7, 370, 372; ecclesiastical polity, 27, 134; rationalization regarding vestments, 34; misuse of Scriptures, 49, 62, 63, 81 ff., 92, 112; four scriptural rules for reforming church, 5 6 - 7 , 382-83; appeal to primitive church, 60; argument completely reprinted by Whitgift, 65; intolerant, 121 ff., 141, 373; differences with Episcopalians, 146, 147; complaint of mistreatment, 123-24, 370; decline of clergy, 5 5 6 - 5 7 ; other references, vii, 4, 20, 28, 85, 138, 547, 548; see also Admonition to the Parliament and Cartwright, T h o m a s Puritan Manifestoes, see Frere, W . H . and C . E. Douglas Puritanism, origin, 3 - 4 ; different from Reformation, 4 - 5 ; romantic aspect, 59-60; other reference, viii Puritanism in the Old World and in the New, see Gregory, J . Puritans, consider Cartwright victor, 28; preeminence of Cartwright among, 49; oppose magistrate as head of church, 49, 56; illogical argument, 84, 262; cause dissension, 123, 288-89, 340, 347; "chosen people" of the New L a w , 126 ff.; other reference, 544

584

a

Index

Sabbath, breach of, 519-20 Sacrament, definition of, 217; inspiration to civil magistrate, 358 Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, see Sacraments, seven retained by Henry V I I I , 4; in First Edwardine Book of Foxe, J . Common Prayer, 6; preceded by readReplye to an answere, 27, 34, 43, 50, 53, ing of homilies, 50-1; prefigured in 57-8, 60, 65-6, 74, 77, 85, 99, 102Old Testament, 223-25; not mysteries, 103, 105, 106-107, 109, 118, 134, 145, 147, 197. 275. 315. 442. 496, 552. 563. 233; two recognized by Cartwright, 566 398; exclusion of sinners from, 528; Residence, 272-77 other reference, 538 Responses, 161 Sacraments, Administration of, scripRest of the second replie, 27, 50, 94, 1 0 1 - tural precedent, 20, 501; more important than vestments, 34; sign of 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, 130, 134, 145, true Christian church, 50, 418; private, 147, 224n., 549 ff., 558 ff. Revelations, see Bible 5 1 , 220 ff.; by non-preachers, 61, Reyburn, H. Y., 551 469; preceded by preaching, 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 , Ridley, N., 9, 348 200-205; by minister, 221-25, 270; Rise of Paritanism, see Haller, W. forbidden to women, 225; pomp in, Rites and ceremonies, at Frankfurt, 9; 243; not explicitly described in Scripcondemnation of, 50 ff., 127-28, 140tures, 398; not part of ecclesiastical 41, 145, 149-51; not explicitly degovernment, 469-70; by midwives, scribed in Scriptures, 77; other ref501; by deacons, 501 ff.; other refererence, 2 1 1 ences, 208 ff., 228-31; see also Book of Robinson, H., ed., 542 Common Prayer Roman Catholic, rites and ceremonies St. Ambrose, 95, 234, 409, 413, 460, condemned, vii, 9, 25, 5 0 - 1 ; political 461 views, 3, 120, 416, 417, 477; ritual in St. Augustine, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75, 80, First Edwardine Book of Common 95. 96, 97. 106, 234, 259, 414, 465 Prayer, 5-7; clergy restored by Queen St. Barnabas, 103, 267, 269, 330, 331, Mary, 9; dilemma in Elizabethan 334. 356, 43. 4°7. 4°8, 4io, 432, 433, England, 127, 555; priests condemned 44i. 443-44. 445. 447. 473. 474. 475. as idolaters, 132, 260, 434; priests to be removed from ministry, 277-78, 478, 494. 512, 533, 535 434-40; hierarchy similar to EpiscoSt. Cyprian, 61 palian, 325; recognizes God as spiritual St. Cyril, 96, 97, 98, 234 head of church, 345 St. James, 189, 312, 314, 329 ff., 337, Roman Catholicism, elements retained 410, 498 St. James, Epistle of, see Bible by Henry V I I I , 4-5; symbolized by vestments, 7; Puritan demand for St. Jerome, 61, 67, 71-2, 75-6, 80, extirpation, 58; hated by Cartwright, 96. 138, 414, 460, 461, 465-66 127 ff., 134, 139-41, 245, 451, 459; St. John the Baptist, 85-6, 101, 200tolerated by Church of England, 138, 204, 229, 253, 254, 256, 257, 294-96, 140-41; efficiency, 139; Cartwright 420 accused of, 376; Whitgift accused of, St. John Chrysostom, 74, 80, 95, 96, 95. 325. 47°. 477; other reference, 64 97. 234. 414. 460, 461, 463. 465. 483. Roman Catholics, considered Christian 53° by Whitgift, 127-28, 150-51, 438; St. John the Evangelist, 61, 158, 330, numerous in England, 451; perse3 8 9. 395 cuted by Whitgift, 127, 555; other refSt. John, Gospel according to, see Bible erences, 430, 458, 533 St. John's College, 15, 33, 46, 556 Romans, Epistle to, see Bible St. John's College, see Mullinger, J . B. Rousseau, J . J . , 59-60 St. Luke, 157, 159, 180, 189, 204, 3 3 3 aten Elizabeth, see Neale, J . E.

Index 34. 3 5 5 . 3 5 6 , 424. 426, 428, 444-45» 474» 4 7 6 , 5 0 1 St. Luke, Gospel according to, see Bible St. M a r k , Gospel according to, see Bible St. M a t t h e w , 201, 298 St. M a t t h e w , Gospel according to, see Bible St. Matthias, 78, 102-103, 266, 267, 269, 329, 407-408, 410, 420, 421, 431, 44o, 45 8 » 464 St. Paul, 60, 66, 74, 87, 101-103, 124, 14 1 ) i 5 ' - 5 2 , 158, 159» i 6 7 . ' 7 5 , i 7 6 . 177, 179, 180, 184, 186, 193, 202-203, 205, 206, 208, 215, 216, 222, 225, 226, 230-31, 237, 238, 239, 262, 263, 267, 268, 269, 271 ff., 284, 287, 297, 3043°8, 3 1 7 . 320, 322, 323, 330, 331, 332, 334 ff., 341-42, 343» 345» 348, 352» 353, 35 6 » 3 6 ° . 3 6 >, 3 6 4 , 3 6 5> 3 6 6 » 378, 380-85, 390, 403, 405 ff., 413, 416, 418, 419, 420, 425, 429, 430, 432-33, 435, 436-37, 44i ff-, 4 5 ° ff-, 457» 459, 460-63, 466 ff., 473 ff., 478, 480, 483 ff., 490, 494 ff., 512, 523, 524, 525, 52 7 ff-, 535» 5 5 6 St. Peter, 4, 101-102, 130-31, 153, 154, ' 5 8 , 175» 182-83, 205, 2 1 8 - 1 9 , 224, 230-31, 243-44, 252 ff-. 257, 263, 266, 273» 274» 275» 290, 291, 3 1 1 - 1 3 , 317, 318, 326-33, 364 ff, 389, 390, 421, 422, 426, 435, 436, 447, 504, 530 St. Peter, I, I I , Epistles of, see Bible St. Philip, 181-82, 204-205, 233, 269, 389, 410, 4 1 1 , 412, 427, 496, 501-503 St. Stephen, 73, 97, 427, 496, 502, 5 0 3 5°4 St. T i m o t h y , 66, 75, 268, 297, 308, 322, 333» 337-39, 342, 353, 360, 361, 366, 410, 4 1 1 , 412, 430, 432-33, 442, 46062, 483, 484, 485, 496, 497, 498, 533, 535 St. Titus, 67, 74, 75, 268, 269, 297, 308, 333, 337-39, 356, 408, 409, 4 1 1 , 412, 460, 462, 498, 5 3 1 , 532 Sampson, T . , 15 Samuel, 252 ff., 360 ff., 490 Samuel, I, I I , see Bible Sandys, E., 14, 137 Sapphira, 284, 366 Satan, 496, 497, 5 1 1 , 513, 528 Saul, i n , 164-65, 252 ff., 490 Scholiast, Greek, 74, 327, 329, 332 Scribe, 297-98 Scriptures, authority for church, 18, 49, 298-302; administration of sacra-

585

ments, 20, 229-31; authority for primitive church, 59, 135-36, 141-42, 146; abused by Puritans, 63, 194, 212, 2 1 5 16, 221, 222, 233, 240, 244, 253-54, 266, 270, 274-75, 277, 279-80, 288, 3 i 7 , 320, 321, 324, 348, 350, 353, 3 7 1 - 7 2 , 401, 415, 495 ff., 527, 534., 536» 537» 538; abused by Cartwright, 67, 78 ff., 177, 198, 206-207, 237-38, 242, 247, 291, 295, 327, 328, 332, 341, 375 ff., 384-85, 391, 4 1 1 , 422, 425, 43°, 432, 436, 447» 448, 449» 484» 516, 518, 519, 532, 538, 552; no explicit directions for rites and ceremonies, 77; election of ministers, 80, 419 ff., 4 4 1 56, 464; insufficient authority for marginal references to, 81 ff., 343, 3 7 1 - 7 2 , 536, 537; rationalized by Cartwright, 59, 62, 63, 92, 323-24, 369 ff.; abused by Whitgift, 99-100, 529; Cartwright's exegesis compared with Whitgift's, 100-102; references in Admonition left undefended by Cartwright, 102 ff, 201, 496, 498; authority extended to politics, n o f f . , 284; divine calling in, m - 1 2 , 114; interpretation through divine illumination, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , ' 7 « , 374» 397-98; authority for ecclesiastical discipline, 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 5 1 5 ff.; diversity of commandments, 124; prayer, 1 5 6 - 5 7 ; burial service, 162 ff.; name of "priest," 167; edification of, 168; no reference to homilies, 169 ff.; authority for reading, i 7 o f f . , 192; duties of minister, 197-99; error in basing doctrine on example, 200; examination of communicants, 205-208; no rules for administering communion, 209-11, 386, 387-88; baptism, Q15 ff., 232 ff., 386, 388, 389-90; exclusion of women from ministry, 225-26; examples of preaching by women, 226-28; private baptism, 232, 237; music in service, 243; holy days, 2 4 5 - 5 1 ; vestments, 252 ff.; authority for absence of pastor, 276-77; offices and titles, 296 ff.; inclusiveness, 299, 326, 374 ff.; no authority for episcopalian rule, 318; preeminence of Peter, 326-33; authority for archbishop, 333; no prescribed, place of meeting, 386, 388-92, 5 1 5 ; no prescribed place for preaching, 386-87, 388-91; authority lacking in Cartwright's argument, 4 0 1 - 1 4 , 452;

5 86

Index

appoints doctor as aid to pastor, 4 1 3 14; refutes theory of spread of church by persecution, 457-58; authority for episcopal appointment of ministers, 459-62; authority for doctor, 465-67; authority for elders denied, 468-69, 474 ff.; authority for civil magistrate as head of church, 472; authority for elders, 473 ff.; authority for deacon, 496 ff., 502 ff.; no prescribed time for worship, 5 1 5 ; rejected by Cartwright, 548; other references, 4, 19, 33» 54 ff-» 107-108, 293, 325, 511 Second A c t of Repeal, 9 Second Admonition, supplements Admonition, 27» 52; condemns university doctorate, 42; defines office of doctor, 44-5; written by Cartwright, 49-50, 52, 547; other reference, 565 Second Council of Nice, 73 Second replie, 27, 42, 44, 50, 94 ff., 9 9 100, 104, 107-108, 109, 118, 134, 145, 147, 224n., 429, 546 ff., 558 ff. Seigniory, see Elders Seniors, see Elders Separatists, 11 Sephora, 233, 235-36 Sermons, see Preaching Sermons, funeral, 164-65 Service, reading of, 15; place for, 1 5 3 54 Shakespeare, W . , 545 Shakespeare, Man and Artist, see Fripp, E. Shakespeare Puritan and Recusant, see Carter, T . Shelemiah, 420 Shem, 283 Shemaiah, 297, 417 Shemiramoth, 417 Shepheardes Calender, see Spenser, E . Short Title Catalogue, 543 Silas, 205, 230, 390, 403, 494 Silvanus, 322, 411 Simeon, 403 Simon (the sorcerer), 411 Similitude, use of, 88 ff., 172, 177, 214, 260, 266, 270, 551 Six Articles, see A c t for Abolishing Diversity of Opinions, etc. Solomon, 1 7 1 , 180, 181, 271, 272, 300, 301, 388, 391, 392, 470, 471, 472, 490 Spenser, E., 29 Star C h a m b e r , 24 State Papers Dom. Eliz., lxxi ( 1 1 , 23, 58), Ixxiv (29), 546

Stationers' C o m p a n y , 24 Stephana, 231 Stephens, J . , 545 Stowe, J., 544 Strasbourg, 9, 10 Strickland, M r . , 24 Strype, J., viii, 46, 541, 542, 546, 547, 551» 557 Subscription A c t of 1571, see A c t of I57I Suffragans, 278-79, 289, 532 Summoners, 470, 532 Surplice, 211 \ see also Vestments Survay of the Pretended Holy Discipline, see Bancroft, R . Suspensions, 23 Synagogue, 298 Synod, 78, 135, 332, 452, 454, 455-56, 512 Tabernacle, prefigures Christian church, 299-300 " T a k e ye, and eat y e , " see Communion Teachers, see Doctors T e m p l e , prefigures Christian church, 300 Tertullian, 61 Testament, N e w , authority for primitive church, 60, 141; Puritan interpretation prejudiced, 62; source of Presbyterian system, 92; relation to O l d , 106, 124-26, 313; name of "priest," 130, 166-68; contains only one specific prayer, 157; abrogates O l d , 206, 556; ministry inseparable from sacraments, 222; definition of gentiles, 283; prefigured by O l d , 302; clearer than O l d regarding salvation, 302-303, 397; contains no reference to pulpits, 387; leaves judicial law to civil magistrate, 395; addition to O l d , 398; more lenient than O l d , 438; election of minister by popular consent, 442, 464; not all commandments perpetual, 488-89; ecclesiastical discipline, 5 1 0 - 1 1 ; other reference, 198 Testament, O l d , authority for elder, 103, 481-82; repudiated by Cartwright, 106-107; authority for divine illumination, 112—13; magistrate subordinated to church, 116, 1 1 7 ; revival of punitive laws of, 117-20, 398; permanent authority, 124-26, 132, 395 ff.; burial service, 162 ff.; abrogated by

Index N e w , 163, 167, 206, 556; ministry inseparable from sacraments, 221-22; holy days, 248; duties of priest, 2 7 1 72; definition of gentiles, 283; names and titles, 297; prefigures N e w , 302; relation to N e w , 3 1 3 - 1 4 ; more explicit than N e w , 394-95, 397; more severe than N e w , 438; election of ministers by popular consent, 441-42; other references, 189, 198, 417 Theodoret, 70, 74, 75, 409 Thessalonians, I, I I , Epistles to, see Bible Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism, 1535-1603, see Pearson, A . F . S . T i m o n , 427, 497 T i m o t h y , I, I I , Epistles to, see Bible Titles, civil, for clergy contrary to Scripture, 347, 348-49 Titus, Epistle to, see Bible T o b a d o n i j a h , 417 T o b i j a h , 417 Tolerance, 555 To my louynge brethren . . . two short and comfortable Epistels, see Gilby, A . T o t quots, 23 Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers, see Arber, E., ed. Trinity College, Cambridge, 33-4, 38, 39 Transubstantiation, denied by W y c l i f f and Cartwright, 4; subscribed to by Henry V I I I , 4, 5; denied in Second Edwardine Book of C o m m o n Prayer, 8; not denied in Elizabethan Book of C o m m o n Prayer, 13 Troubles at Franckford, see Brief discours off the troubles begönne at Franckford, etc. Tudor Puritanism, see K n a p p e n , T . W . T u r k , 127-29 Two Liturgies, A.D. 154g, and A.D. 1552, The, see K e t l e y , J . , ed.

U n i v e r s i t y , commencement scorned by Cartwright, 44; scriptural basis for, 47-8

V e n n , J . and J . A . , 545 Vestiarian Controversy, 7, 17 ff., 33-4, 49» i 1 0 Vestments, first become issue, 7; forbidden in Second Edwardine Book

587

of C o m m o n Prayer, 9; retained by Elizabeth, 12; reference in "ornaments" rubric, 14; debated by clergy, 15; condemned, 17 if., 252 ff.; indifferent things, 18, 21; arguments for and against, 22; in administration of the sacraments, 243 Via media, 4, 134, 141 Volateran, 97

W a l k e r , W., 55! Washing of feet, 11, 488-89, 507, 508 Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse ciuil lawes, 21, 543 Whitaker, W . , 46-7, 94 Whitgift, J o h n , petitions Cecil on behalf of vestiarians, 1 5 - 1 6 ; first uses epithet puritan, 26; accuses Admonition of causing dissension, 26, 288, 340, 347, 534; replies to Cartwright at Cambridge, 27; censured by modern scholars, 29-31, 545; attitude toward Calvinism, 30, 137-38, 208; Elizabeth's "little black husband," 3 1 ; education and honors at Cambridge, 32-3; analysis of Puritan attack, 36, 145-46; consents to private written disputation with Cartwright, 37; disciplines Cartwright for nonconformity, 37-8; justifies Cartwright's expulsion from Cambridge, 38; relief at Cartwright's expulsion, 4 1 ; explains Cartwright's scorn for doctorate, 43-4; considers doctorate essential to member of university faculty, 46-7; approves conformity {o university statutes, 48; denies authority for Cartwright's "primitive c h u r c h , " 54 ff., 141; ridiculed by Cartwright, 55, 78, 83-4, 106-107, 296, 33°. 342. 352, 357. 3 7 6 . 413. 428, 432, 499, 500, 508, 5 1 6 - 1 7 , 530, 537; maintains authority of civil magistrate over church, 56, 114, 116; unable to find prescribed ecclesiastical polity in Scriptures, 56, 62, 77, 107-108, 375 ff.; indicates weakness of Cartwright's dependence on scriptural authority, 57; summarizes Cartwright's argument, 5 7 - 8 ; defines limits of primitive church, 6 1 ; cites practice of apostolic church in baptism, 6 1 - 2 ; denies scriptural authority for Presbyterian discipline, 63, 79-80, 118; initial advantage, 64;

588

Index

excellence of Defense, 64-5, 109; rebukes Cartwright for failure to print Episcopalian argument, 66 ff.; accuses Cartwright of abusing Scriptures, 67, 78 ff., 177, 198, 206-207, 237-38, 242, 291, 295, 327, 328, 332, 341, 378, 379, 3 8 4-86, 391, 4 1 1 , 422, 430, 432, 43 6 , 447, 448, 449, 484, 495, 5 l 6 , 5 l 8 , 5 ' 9 , 524, 532, 53 8 ; accuses Cartwright of careless scholarship, 67 ff.; defends use of scholarly authority, 68-9; apologizes for recrimination, 69-70; accuses Cartwright of misuse of secondary sources, 70-2, 73, 75; accused of misrepresenting sources, 72, 74, 95 ff.; accuses Cartwright of ambiguity, 72-3, 87, 284; condemns Second Council of Nice, 73; accuses Cartwright of levity, 75, 76-8, 186; accuses Cartwright of disrespect for authority, 76; quotes Beza, 78; questions marginal references of opponents, 81 ff., 170, 180, 2 1 5 - 1 6 , 343, 348, 35°, 353, 371-72, 475, 496 ff., 527, 536, 537, 538; emphasizes importance of Puritan references to Scripture, 84, 281; corrects Cartwright's typographical errors, 85; clear literary style, 87; condemns Cartwright's use of similitudes, 88 ff., 172, 177, 214, 260, 266, 270; humor, 91, 548; condemns Cartwright's indelicacy of metaphor, 92; advised to ignore Second replie, 94; accused of plagiarism, 95; accused of R o m a n Catholic sympathies, 95, 470; meticulously acknowledges sources, 96 ff.; defends reference to Calvin, 96-8; accused of abusing Scripture, 99-100, 529; technique of exegesis, 100-102; differentiates between apostle and pastor, 102; arguments unanswered by opponent, 103; doctorate ridiculed by Cartwright, 104, 342, 352, 354, 413, 452, 475-7 6 , 478, 537, 547; accused of refusing to answer Cartwright, 105; denies scriptural authority in politics, 11 o ff. ; substitutes education for miraculous callings, h i ff.; opposes revival of punitive laws, 120, 438; accuses Admonition of exaggerating mistreatment, 123-24; maintains abrogation of O l d Law by New, 124-26, 396-97, 399-400, 438-40, 449; attitude toward R o m a n Catholicism,

127-28, 140-41, 438, 555; tolerance, 128, 131, 133, 555; defends n a m e of "priest," 129-30; defends Episcopalian clergy formerly R o m a n Catholic, r 30-31 ; establishes via media, 134, 141; influence on Church of England, 1 3 7 - 4 1 ; considers homilies sermons, 173, J 74, 176, 179, '83, 184, 193 ff.; accuses Admonition of illogical argument, 174, 261-62; notes rhetorical use of marginal references, 180, 1 9 3 94, 501 ; commends preaching and interpreting Scripture, 191; accuses Admonition of abusing Scripture, 194, 348, 35°, 353, 3 7 1 - 7 2 , 4 0 1 , 4 7 5 , 4 9 6 ff-, 527, 536, 537, 5 3 8 ; questions scholarship of Puritan preachers, 195; accuses Cartwright of illogical argument, 200, 447, 452; permits administration of sacraments by non-preaching ministers, 222-23; admits equality of ministers in preaching and administering sacraments, 324; accuses Admonition of misquoting Calvin, 34445; accused of error of Manichees, 395-96, 438-39; accuses Cartwright of demagoguery, 397; questions Cartwright's division of church government, 402, 403, 405-13; insists no scriptural example be made a general rule, 446 ; insists government of church in time of persecution differs from that in time of peace, 456-59, 479, 486, 487; condemns popular government in the church, 470-72; accuses Cartwright of attacking church, 473; accuses Cartwright of misquoting, 47677; denies separation of church and state, 477, 482; accuses Cartwright of attacking monarchy, 488, 491, 493; denies perpetual nature of certain commandments in New Testament, 488-89; accuses Cartwright of failure to defend Admonition, 496, 498; ridicules office of widows, 509-10; befriends Cartwright, 547; efforts to improve clergy, 557; style imitated by Nashe, 557; other references, viii, ix, 28, 93, 142, 541, 544 ff. Life of John Whitgift . . . , see Paule, G. Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D., see Strype, J . Works of John Whitgift (Parker Society), see Ayre, J . , ed.

Index Whittingham, W., 10, 12-3 Widows, first reference to, 52; definition, 53. ' 4 ' ) 508-510; Cartwright's uncertainty regarding, 53-4, 548; in Scripture, 79, 303, 3 1 1 ; office defended, 136; office not perpetual, 489; other references, 484, 485, 487, 499, 5?o, 507 Wilcox, T., 25, 60; see also Admonition to the Parliament Woodward, W. H., 541

Worship, time and place for, 515 WyclifT, J., 4

589

Z a b a d i a h , see Zebadiah Zadok, 301 Zebadiah, 415, 416, 417 Zechariah, 417; see also Bible Zipporah, see Sephora Zurich, 9, 10 Zurich Letters, see Robinson, H., ed.