3. Return to England
1In last month’s article we considered Cartwright’s contribution, from the Puritan side, to ecclesiastical controversy in England. This resulted in a warrant for his arrest and in his flight to the Continent, where he began to minister to the English merchants in Antwerp, and later in Middelburg, in the Netherlands.
Before he left Antwerp, Cartwright was asked to undertake a refutation of the writings of the English Jesuits and, in particular, a translation of the New Testament, produced by them at their English College, in the French city of Reims. This translation was accordingly known as the Rhenists’ Translation and became part of the Douay Bible. However, in 1586, Archbishop Whitgift ordered him not to proceed any further – the reason being a fear on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities that some of Cartwright’s arguments against the Roman Catholics would apply also to certain practices in the Church of England. It was not until 1618 that Cartwright’s work saw the light of day; it was published in Leiden under the title, A Confutation of the Rhenists’ Translation, Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament, so far as they contain manifest Impieties, Heresies, Idolatries, Superstitions, Profaneness, Treasons, Slanders, Absurdities, Falsehoods and other evils. By occasion whereof the true Sense, Scope and Doctrine of the Scriptures, and human Authors, by them abused, is now given. . . . By that Reverend, Learned, and Judicious Divine, Thomas Cartwright, some time Divinity Reader of Cambridge.
The Douay translation was based on the Latin Vulgate, to which Cartwright naturally opposed “the royal value of the original Greek”. One should not be surprised to find Cartwright declaring the Pope to be the Antichrist and describing the Council of Trent as a conspiracy of which “we make no account” (p 207). He argues against such doctrines as purgatory, Mariolatry, monasticism, confession to a priest, and the worship of saints; he spends considerable time refuting the doctrine of the mass and, on the other hand, expounds fully the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But his comment that the Lord had provided prophesying “for the more plentiful nourishment of the faithful in all times” (p 208) was exactly the sort of remark that neither the Queen nor the Archbishop would wish to see in print.
In writing his Confutation, while Cartwright was making an effort to avoid turning an anti-Roman polemic into a defence of Presbyterianism, he could not altogether avoid bringing in his own views on church order. Bishops, whom he identifies as pastors and elders, he sees as the highest officers in the Church, and he indicates his belief that the principal service of the pastor is to preach. He describes both kinds of elders, taken together, as a senate or an eldership. Yet here he includes under the general heading of deacons, not only “those that have the care of the poor and sick of the Church”, but also “the elders that govern only and teach not” (p 209).
In 1583 Cartwright’s opponent, John Whitgift, had been elevated to the see of Canterbury in place of Grindal, who had died. The Puritan movement was in danger of dividing into two parties, according to their views on how far they ought to go in conforming to the new regime, which, under Whitgift, was determined to impose uniformity within the Church at all costs. There was a feeling that the movement needed wise leadership, and Edmund Chapman took the initiative; he was minister of the parish of Dedham in Essex, a place famous for its Conference, which originally gathered for “prophesying”, (meetings for the exposition of Scripture) but was now developing into a presbytery, yet with only informal authority. Chapman wrote to Cartwright, the obvious leader, in late 1584, requesting a long letter of advice as to how best to procure peace. In any case, by that time, Cartwright was suffering from serious ill-health and was anxious to return to England.
Accordingly in early 1585 Cartwright applied to the Privy Council for permission to return. This permission was granted, but Cartwright seems to have sailed back to his native land before he received it. Among his successors in Middelburg was John Forbes, the Aberdeenshire minister, who was Moderator of the General Assembly held in 1605 in Aberdeen, which James VI forbade to meet. In consequence of the meeting going ahead, to the extent that those present appointed the date of the next meeting, Forbes was banished from Scotland, along with John Welsh of Ayr.
Back in England, Cartwright followed up his petition to the Privy Council with a private appeal to Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer, whom we previously met as William Cecil and who had since been ennobled. Cartwright knew that he was suspected of disloyalty and was in danger of arrest. On the basis of his five years’ service to the Church of England on the Continent, but especially because of his ill-health, he was appealing to Burghley to win the Queen’s favour for him. But already Bishop Aylmer of London had issued a warrant in the Queen’s name for his arrest; as a result Cartwright was committed to prison. However, some of Elizabeth’s courtiers, probably including Burghley, interceded on Cartwright’s behalf. Cartwright was set free and the Queen made Aylmer feel her displeasure for his action – though her displeasure was probably political rather than sincere.
At the end of 1583 Whitgift had made it known that, if Cartwright “would return and live in the peace of the Church, he would not find a better friend than myself” (p 231), although the Archbishop made it clear that he was not repenting of the stance he took when he wrote against Cartwright’s views. No more had Cartwright altered his mind on Church polity; he still longed for a day when the Church of England might become Presbyterian, but he felt a fundamental loyalty to that Church, a loyalty which may well have been strengthened through controversy with Brownists (English separatists) in Holland.
Cartwright seems to have accompanied the English armies on a military expedition in the Netherlands in 1585 under the Earl of Leicester. But he was back in his own country by early 1586 and soon afterwards was appointed Master of the Leicester Hospital, effectively a home for the infirm, which was established by the Earl of Leicester in Warwick. Cartwright’s duties included praying with the men in the Hospital twice each day and catechising them twice a week; he was granted this position for life and it was not subject to the authority of the bishops, which left him some freedom to conduct the worship according to his own views. The post also provided him with a comfortable salary although that was not to last, as Leicester died before he had finalised the legal arrangements.
It seems that Cartwright used to preach, particularly in his later days in Warwick, at 7 am each Sabbath in one of the churches and in another in the afternoon, “when he could be suffered”. In this second church he also preached a lecture on Saturday afternoons, “in which”, says a sixteenth-century writer, “he went over a great part of the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes with singular judgement and profit; and this he did of his own free will without demanding or receiving one penny for his pains. And whereas he was sometimes suspended by the bishops from preaching in the churches, his manner was at those times to preach in the Hospital, whither many resorted to hear him, though they were sure to be brought into the Bishops’ courts for the same.” No wonder this writer commented that Cartwright “was a man of a very laborious and indefatigable spirit” (pp 299-300).
When Cartwright came to Warwick, the minister of the first of these churches was a Humphrey Waring, described as having “some knowledge, little discretion; he preacheth sometimes, but negligently; he is thought to be unsound in some points of Christian religion; loveth the alehouse well”. However his successor, Hercules Morrell, while described as no preacher, was “yet honest and zealous, and daily profiting and expounding to the people” (p 299). Clearly there was much need for the efforts of a man such as Cartwright, who had both the ability and the grace to preach effectively.
Meanwhile a Book of Discipline was being produced, no doubt influenced by the First and Second Books of Discipline in Scotland. The main moving force behind it was Walter Travers, though Cartwright probably had some input in the latter stages of its preparation and may have been responsible for translating it from Latin into English. However, the translation did not appear in print until 1644, when the Westminster Assembly was sitting. Yet by 1587 the Puritan movement was adopting some of the features of the Book of Discipline. The conferences were becoming known as classes (corresponding to our presbyteries). In Northamptonshire, for instance, there were three classes, which generally met in private houses every three weeks or so, and two representatives from each of the classes met in Northampton as a synod every six or eight weeks. There was also a Warwickshire Synod which met near the town of Warwick in 1588. Cartwright was one of those who subscribed to the Book of Discipline, but only in a limited way: only “as far forth as the same might stand with the peace of the Church now established in England and the laws of the land, and no otherwise or further” (p 262).
From 1586 onwards, Cartwright took a prominent place in the leadership of the Presbyterian movement. Richard Bancroft, who was eventually to become Archbishop of Canterbury, complained of how much attention was being paid to Cartwright: “If he be in prison, prayers are made for his deliverance; if he be delivered, great thanks are publicly given unto God for the same. . . . When great matters are to be handled, he must needs be . . . in every place: country, Cambridge, London etc.” However, by 1590 the Presbyterian movement had almost collapsed. One factor was that, while the danger of a Spanish invasion had continued, the authorities were afraid to move too strongly against such strong Protestants, who provided a counter-balance against Roman influence. But after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Anglican hierarchy knew that they could safely move against them because Roman Catholics no longer posed a danger to the throne.