Thomas Cartwright appointed Lady Margaret

Professor of Divinity in 1569

died 1603

born 1509, died 1564

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER IV

Rise of Separatism-The Puritans and the Church-Points of divergence-Early and later Puritans-All early Puritans desired uniformity Rise of Presbyterianism-Return of Refugees-Cartwright His positions stated-Founder of Presbyterianism in England-Cartwright and Whitgift-Puritan and Anglican antithesesWalter Travers—Presbyterianised State Church-Book of Discipline -Five hundred signatories-Presbyterians not Separatists-Not friendly to religious liberty-Impermanence of Presbyterianism in England.

CHAPTER IV

THE CHASM WIDENING-RISE OF PRESBYTERIANISM IN

ENGLAND

Rise of Separatism.-In this "vestiarian controversy "the resistance which the enforcement of the habits provoked Separatism originated. A most unhappy event," says Strype, "whereby people of the same country, of the same religion, and of the same judgment in doctrine, parted communion; one part being obliged to go aside into secret houses and chambers to serve God by themselves, which begat strangeness between neighbours, Christians, and Protestants." This was the beginning of the breach between the Church and the people, the breach in which Dissent and Nonconformity took its rise, and which has gone on widening ever since, till it has divided the nation into two rival religious camps, and run a line of cleavage throughout the entire strata of English society.

The Puritans and the Church.-The Puritans were not sorry to see the authority of the Queen substituted for that of the Pope, but they could not bring themselves to submit to her assumption of headship over the Church. "The Christian sovereign," said Cartwright in “An

Admonition to the Parliament," composed by himself and others, " ought not to be called head under Christ of the particular and visible churches within his dominions. It is a title not fit for any mortal man; for, when the apostle says that Christ is the Head, it is as much as if he had said, Christ and no other is Head of the Church."

"They were no enemies," says Neal, "to the name or function of a bishop, provided he was no more than stated president of the college of presbyters in his diocese, and managed the affairs of it with their concurrence and assistance. They did not object against prescribed forms of prayer, provided a latitude was indulged the minister to alter or vary some expressions, and to make use of a prayer of his own conception before and after sermon. Nor had they an aversion to any decent and distinct habits for the clergy that were not derived from Popery. But, upon the whole, they were the most resolved Protestants in the nation, zealous Calvinists, warm and affectionate preachers, and determined enemies to Popery and to everything that had a tendency towards it."

The main points of divergence between the Puritans and their opponents may be thus summarised

The ruling powers contended that every prince had authority to correct all abuses of doctrine and worship within his own territories. This the Puritans resisted as an invasion of the rights of conscience.

The rulers contended that, in spite of all apostasy and

1 Neal, vol. i. p. 398.

to demand everything.

But, as Hallam observes, this was in effect "For," he adds, "if the office could be so far lowered in eminence, there were many waiting to clip the temporal revenues and dignity in proportion."

corruption, the Church of Rome was a true Church, and the Pope held his title as Bishop of the Church by an indefeasible right; for, without admitting this, it was held that the Church of England could not establish the validity of her own orders. It is needless to say that the Puritans could not approve this contention. То them the Pope was Antichrist, the Church of Rome an idolatrous and corrupt Church.

The Court reformers held that while the Scriptures are supreme as the standard and rule of faith, their authority did not extend to questions of Church government and discipline. These were to be determined by Church rulers with sole reference to considerations of wisdom and expediency. This the Puritans of that age could not admit, holding as they did to the authority of the Scriptures, not only in matters of doctrine, but also in questions of discipline.

The rulers maintained "that things indifferent in their own nature, which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures, such as rites and ceremonies, habits, etc., might be settled, determined, and made necessary by the command of the civil magistrate; and that in such cases it was the indispensable duty of all subjects to ohserve them." It was upon this principle the bishops justified their severities against the Puritans. The unyielding attitude of the latter was due to nothing but selfwilled perversity (this was the charge commonly brought against them), and of this they must be cured by chastisement and condign punishment. To the Puritans, on the other hand, the path of duty seemed plain. Christ, they said, is the sole lawgiver of His Church, and has

enjoined all things necessary to be observed in it to the end of the world; consequently, where He has indulged a liberty to His followers, it is as much their duty to maintain it as to observe any other of His precepts. Besides, if the magistrate has a power to impose things indifferent, and make them necessary in the service of God, he may dress up religion in any shape, and instead of one ceremony, may load it with a hundred.1

Early and later Puritans.-It may be well to note at this point, though we shall have occasion to advert to it afterwards, that there was a very marked discrepancy between the views held by the early, and those held and promulgated by the later Puritans, more especially in regard to the functions and power of the civil magistrate, and in regard to the necessity of uniformity in doctrine and worship. In regard to both these, the views and sentiments of the Puritans underwent considerable modification, and this change naturally influenced their beliefs and opinions in other directions.

The two pillars on which, as we have said, the ecclesiastical system of Elizabeth rested, could not have been set up, or, at any rate, could not have proved so stable as they did, had they not been based more or less on the will and convictions of all sections of her Protestant subjects. The Act of Supremacy was welcomed by all alike, and the Prayer-Book was regarded with favour, as substituting a purer form of worship for the Breviary and the Mass. In like manner, the Act of Uniformity would have been hailed with satisfaction by the Puritans, 1 Neal, vol. i. p. 98.