rather wished than believed the doctrine to be true." 1 An abortive attempt was soon made to obtain "a general subscription throughout the land, not only of the ministry, but of all whatsoever bear any public office, that the authority of bishops was lawful by the Word of God. It was brought to the Lord Treasurer to subscribe to it, who should snub it, saying that it was lawful by the positive law, but to say that it was lawful by the Word of God, that was another matter.' And so there the matter stayed. How long it will there rest," added our deponent, "God knoweth." Prophetic!2 The reasoning of Sir Francis Knollys was sound, that, if such bishops as were in his day derived their authority from divine appointment, then, in exercising their jurisdiction, they were independent of the civil magistrate, and above the law of the land. And, as Dr. Bancroft stated in reply to Sir Francis,3 the same reasoning holds good touching the Presbyterian system of government. The same, also, touching the Independent or Congregational system. The only questions which arise are, whether God in his Word has appointed any particular system of government for his Church? and whether to its officers or members he has deputed any but powers purely spiritual? Being Protestant in the largest sense, we look with indifference upon the disagreement between Dr. Ban croft and Dr. Rainolds about the opinions of ancient and modern Fathers, except that the carelessness and blunders of the prelatic champion are so conspicuous and significant. And, however uninteresting this topic may be to the general reader, yet when we consider that it was at the time a grand subject of controversy between the Puritans and the Precisians, and when we consider the high ground assumed by ultraists of the latter class at the present day, it is a matter of some historical interest and importance to collate evidence so clear, that in the young years of the reformed English Church "the divine right" was not only denied by the Puritan, but by all, or nearly all, the laity, the common clergy, and the prelates who denounced him, for other matters, as a schismatic. On this point, "the common judgment" of his country was with him, and "the common judgment" of the Reformed Churches abroad. The range within which ordination was considered valid in the Church of England in Elizabeth's daya topic involved in Bancroft's doctrine- we have before shown.1 1 Ante, Vol. II. pp. 98-113; Vol. III. pp. 59–61. CHAPTER X. CARTWRIGHT AND THE NEW DISCIPLINE. THE RHEMISH TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.-THOMAS CARTWRIGHT SOLICITED TO CONFUTE IT.- HIS RETURN TO ENGLAND. HIS ARREST, IMPRISONMENT, AND RELEASE. INTERVIEW BETWEEN CARTWRIGHT AND WHITGIFT. CARTWRIGHT PREFERRED TO THE HOSPITAL AT WARWICK.SUMMONED TO ANSWER CHARGES. — DISMISSED WITHOUT CENSURE.-FORBIDDEN TO PURSUE HIS CONFUTATION OF THE RHEMISH TESTAMENT. -PERSISTS IN IT AT INTERVALS. HIS CONNECTION WITH THE PURITAN "BOOK OF DISCIPLINE.". THE SUBSCRIPTION TO THAT BOOK.-SUBSCRIBERS TO IT; MANY OF THEM CONFORMISTS. THE NATURE AND DOINGS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN "ASSEMBLIES." 1585-1589. In the year 15821 the Romanists, annoyed by the influence of the Bible in the English tongue, and finding it impossible longer to withhold it from the common people, published an English version of the New Testament. But this was not a translation from the original Greek, which they pretended had been corrupted,2— but a translation of a Latin translation called the Vulgate, containing, as every Biblical scholar knows, many corruptions and defects. The object of issuing this English 1 Horne's Introduction, II. 246. * Strype's Annals, VI. 289. The original of the Vulgate version of the entire Scriptures was probably made in the second century. But before the close of the fourth century it had become much corrupted by the errors of transcribers. About that time Jerome undertook to correct these errors by translating from the original languages of the Bible into the Latin. His version, far superior to all preceding ones in the Latin tongue, version - called the Rhemish translation, because issued from the English Seminary at Rheims 1 was to bring the Protestant English version into disrepute, and to insinuate, not only by its inaccurate text, but by its marginal annotations, the corruptions of the Church of Rome. It was evident that the errors and sophistical comments of this book ought to be fully and publicly exposed. Queen Elizabeth requested Beza then residing at Geneva as Calvin's successor received the approbation of Pope Gregory I. about the beginning of the seventh century; since which time it has been adopted by the Romish Church, under the name of the Vulgate Version. A decree of the Council of Trent declared it "authentic," a vague term,― and ordered that no other version should be read in public or be appealed to as authority. "Upon this ground," says Bishop Lowth, "many contended that the Vulgate Version was dictated by the Holy Spirit; at least was providentially guarded of all error; was consequently of divine authority, and more to be regarded than even the original Hebrew and Greek texts. And in effect, the decrees of the Council, however limited and moderated by the explanation of some of their more judicious divines, has given to the Vulgate such a high degree of authority that. . . . the translation has taken place of the original." In process of time Jerome's version became exceedingly corrupted by the errors of transcribers, so that it was found necessary to publish a corrected edition. This was done by several divines of Louvaine, who published their version in 1573. But even this corrected edition from which the Rhemish translation was made—was pronounced incorrect by Pope Sixtus V., who ordered a new revision, to which he also devoted much labor himself, and the proofs of which he read when published in the year 1590. He pronounced this edition to be the authentic Vulgate; and ordained its adoption as such by the whole Church. But Pope Clement VIII. declared it to be exceedingly incorrect, suppressed it, and published another authentic Vulgate in the year 1592. Thus different infallible Popes have pronounced different editions of the Vulgate to be correct; which editions have differed largely from each other, in additions, omissions, contradictions, and other points. Still the Vulgate has been undeservedly depreciated by Protestants; for "it is, in general, a faithful translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of Scripture with greater accuracy than the more modern versions." (Horne's "Introduction," II. 196 - 202.) 1 Strype's Annals, VI. 287. Middleton, II. 364, 365. to prosecute the task. But he declined it, replying that one of her own subjects, Thomas Cartwright, was far better qualified for it than himself.1 Sir Francis Walsingham then wrote to Mr. Cartwright, an exile from his country since the order for his arrest in 1573,2 urging him to write a Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, sending him from his own purse one hundred pounds for the purchase of books and for other expenses of the work, and assuring him of such further aid as might be necessary. This was in the year 1583; and it is intimated that the Secretary's action was with the knowledge and approval of the queen. At the same time Mr. Cartwright was solicited to the same work "by the most learned men of the University of Cambridge," and by the clergy of London and Suffolk. Before being thus addressed, Mr. Cartwright was well aware of the importance of the undertaking proposed, and was doubtless Rhemish Testament." The copy of this work from the Preface to which I have made the above extract is of the first edition ever published. It was printed in the year 1618, thirteen years after Mr. Cartwright's death. It is the only copy which I have been able to find, and has been furnished to me by the voluntary courtesy of the Rev. George Allen, of Worcester, being one of the volumes of his choice private library. It is a folio of 778 pages, very compactly printed; and is the best specimen of the typography of those times which I have seen. |