vii. JUNK s, loci.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
451
It goes on to say, " It is feared few will read
it, but it will be critisced by those who do not
read it"; and this is emphasized by " whereof
we have had too much experience in the former
- Admonitions.' " Now if any doubt existed as
to the meaning of the first personal pronoun, and the introduction of " we" in the body of the reasons for the absence of an author's name, it is clearly removed by the " we " italicized by myself, because the second 'Admonition' here spoken of is admitted by MR. ARNOTT to be, and unquestionably was, the production of Cartwright.
Let me now turn to Archbishop Whitgift's answer to 'An Admonition' (1572, p. 141), from which it appears that when he had ended the answer, a new edition of the same 'Admonition' was received by him, for he writes, " After I had ended this confutation of the 'Admonition,' there comes to my hande a newe edition of the same, wherein some things be added, some detracted and some altered, I thought good here breefly to set downe and examine " Here we have evi- dence that more than one edition of 'An Admonition' was published. In the same book, 1572, under the heading " An answer to the second e parte of the libell called 'An Admonition to Parliament,'" p. 146, is the following : " You complayne much of unbrotherley and uncharitable entreating of you, of removing you from your offices and places, &c." This can only apply to Cart- wright. In Whitgift's 'Defense of the Answer to the Admonition ' (1574, p. 38) he writes :
"You deny that you saye, there is no lawful or no ordinary e calling of Ministers in England, which is strange to mee, for whereunto then tendeth all that which is wrytten in your book touching the election and calling of Ministers, or that which is written in the fyrst ' Admonition.' "
If Cartwright did not pen the first 'Admoni- tion,' or was in no way responsible for it, why should Whitgift here, in his criticism of the second, complain to Cartwright of the first? Is it not clear evidence of the fact that Whit- gift was perfectly acquainted with who was accountable for all the ' Admonitions "?
Again, Cartwright wrote an ' Epistle dedi- cated to the Church of England,' and in 'An Answer' to it (p. 1), Whitgift writes, "I doubte whether you meane good faith or no, when you would make us beleeve that you take us for heathen, for surely that doth not appeare either by the first or 2 'Admonition,' or by this your booke." I submit to the impartial reader that here alone is incontrovertible evidence that Cartwright wrote or inspired all the 'Admo-
nitions'; and to tell me that certain "authori-
ties " say the opposite is merely stamping
them as either unreliable or uninformed
persons persons who have not investigated
the matter thoroughly.
There cannot be a shadow of doubt that Whitgift was kept well informed of every movement and action of Cartwright's ; and if further proof of this was wanting, we have it on p. 807 (1574) :
" But to satisfye your desire that would so gladly know what a libell is, I will tell you in few words, an infamous libell is that, that is written in verse or prose, to ye infamy and slander of any man to ye which the author dare not set his name. This is an infamous libell and it most aptly agreeth to ye booke called 'An Admonition to ye Parliament.'
Here we have "a home thrust" no " stab in the dark," but an unmistakable pointing to Cartwright's libel in publishing the first
- Admonition to Parliament,' for it could not
refer to the second, which was known to be by Cartwright.
Then with respect to the diction of both 'Admonitions,' the similarity is so marked that it could hardly be doubted they were inspired by the same individual ; and if this is not plain to the casual reader, it was evidently quite patent to the archbishop, as shown by an extract from his ' Defense of the Answer to the Admonition ' (p. 38) :
Bothe the 'Admonitions' saye (that it is scarce
of a Church ryghtly
reformed), and the seconde ' Admonition ' addeth
come to the outwarde face of a Church
(that the truthe in thys Churche dothe in a manner
but peepe oute from b'ehynde the screene)."
And further on Whitgift writes : "I omitte to recite the particular phrases of the fyrste 'Admonition' and your modest speaches in this booke."
More need not, I opine, be produced to satisfy an unbiassed mind, and yet I cannot ref rain fromaddinga quotation from Whitgift's ' Defense of the Answer to the Admonition ' (1574, p. 280). Here we have Cartwright's words, "that the two Treatises called the 'Admonition' were written by diverse per- sons, the one not knowing the other's doings." To which Archbishop Whitgift replies :
"It cannot be true* for both the partes have one title, they bee in one volume, they were printed in one letter, at one tyme by one and the same prynter, and came abroade together, neyther were they ever separated that I knowe or can under- stande. Moreover this bewrayeth all, and con-
,th
no conscience in
demneth you, the one that hat
wryting untruths, that in the beginning of the
'Admonition' mention is made of both ot thes(
treatises in these words. Two treateyses you have
here ensuying (beloved in Christe), whyche yee
must read, &c."
To me it is clear, from my personal invest;-
