(From the “Rambler” of July, 1859.)
The Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture
In attempting to trace the history, and to ascertain the present state, of the text of the Rheims and Douay version of Holy Scripture, we cannot avoid availing ourselves of the elaborate work on the subject, recently published by a dignitary of the Irish Establishment. We mean Archdeacon Cotton’s Attempt to show what has been done by Roman Catholics for the Diffusion of the Holy Scriptures in English, published at the Oxford University Press in 1855.
Not that it needs any apology for using the investigations of a learned Protestant, or for feeling grateful to him, so far as he has anticipated the necessity of researches of our own, by such minute, exact, and persevering diligence as he has taken in a subject-matter which could not be of any the slightest personal interest to himself. But, painful as it is to say it, in spite of his stating in his preface, that “the design of his book is not controversial but literary,” he has made it the vehicle of so much incidental insinuation, sometimes unfair, sometimes ignorant, always ill-natured, to the disadvantage of Catholic ecclesiastics, that we are unable to regard him with that unmixed respect, and to use him with that ready and unfaltering confidence, which would be natural in those who, like ourselves, have long known his claims, both as a gentleman and a scholar, on public estimation. Perhaps, however, it is well that he should have allowed his animus against the Catholic Church to appear so distinctly; otherwise, from admiration of the long and patient pains with which he has prosecuted an irksome labour, we might have been led to such full reliance on his statements as it is never right to place on any writer whatever, much less on one who, whatever his personal worth, is naturally open to the prejudices of his creed and party. As things stand, while we shall use him in the following pages, we are warned at the same time to verify his various statements, as far as may be, and where this cannot be done, not to adopt them without distinct reference to him as our authority. At the same time, in so difficult and intricate an inquiry, we have no right to anticipate that, whatever be our care, we shall succeed, whether we use him or not, in guarding against inaccuracies and errors of our own in matters of detail.
§ 1. Rheims and Douay Bible
The circumstances under which the existing Catholic translation of Holy Scripture was made are rendered familiar to us by Mr. Tierney’s edition of Dod’s History, not to refer to other authorities. The College or Seminary of Douay had been founded in 1568 by the exertions of Cardinal Allen, some time fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. A few years afterwards, its members were obliged, by the political troubles of Flanders, to migrate for a time to France, and to establish themselves at Rheims. One of their first works in the service of their countrymen was an English version of Holy Scripture. The divines chiefly concerned in the translation of the New Testament were the aforesaid Dr. William Allen, afterwards Cardinal; Dr. Gregory Martin, of St. John’s College, Oxford; Dr. Richard Bristow, of Christ Church and Exeter; and John Reynolds, of New College. Martin translated the text, and the rest revised; the Annotations were written by Bristow and Allen. Martin was also the translator of the Old Testament, the notes to which were written by Dr. Worthington, who, according to Dr. Cotton, eventually joined the Oratory. This, however, was not the case; for we find his name in Alegambe’s Script. Soc. Jes. p. 438. He joined the Society “ætate jam grandævus,” dying in 1626. Martin died of an illness, the consequence of his labours, in the very year in which his New Testament made its appearance.
The reasons which actuated them in their work are detailed in the Prefaces with which both Old and New Testaments are introduced to the reader. “Now since Luther’s revolt also,” says the preface to the New Testament, “diverse learned Catholics, for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sects, and for the better preservation or reclaim of many good souls endangered thereby, have published the Bible in the several languages of almost all the principal provinces of the Latin Church, no other books in the world being so pernicious as heretical translations of the Scriptures, poisoning the people under colour of divine authority, and not many other remedies being more sovereign against the same (if it be used in order, discretion, and humility) than the true, faithful, and sincere interpretation opposed thereunto … We, therefore, having compassion to see our beloved countrymen, with extreme danger of their souls, to use only such profane translations and erroneous men’s mere fantasies, for the pure and blessed word of truth, much also moved thereunto by the desires of many devout persons, have set forth for you, benign readers, the New Testament to begin withal, trusting that it may give occasion to you, after diligent perusal thereof, to lay away at least such their impure versions as hitherto you have been forced to occupy.”
The preface to the whole Bible speaks to the same effect: “Now since Luther and his followers have pretended that the Catholic Roman faith and doctrine should be contrary to God’s written word, and that the Scriptures were not suffered in vulgar languages, lest the people should see the truth, and withal these new masters corruptly turning the Scriptures into diverse tongues, as might best serve their own opinions, against this false suggestion and practice, Catholic pastors have, for one especial remedy, set forth true and sincere translations in most languages of the Latin Church.”
The translation was made, as we have noticed, soon after the establishment of the college; but, owing to a “lack of means,” as the preface says, in their “poor estate in banishment,” “to publish the whole in such sort as a work of so great charge and importance” required, it “lay by them,” the New Testament till 1582, the Old till 1609-10. At these dates the versions of the New and Old Testaments were respectively published in quarto; that of the New at Rheims, that of the Old at Douay, whither they returned in the course of the year. The Old Testament came to a second edition (quarto) in 1635, without alterations or corrections. The New Testament came to a second edition (quarto) in 1600, with some few alterations and corrections; to a third (16mo) in 1621; and to a fourth (quarto) in 1633. After these there was no new edition of either Old or New Testament for above a hundred years, when at length, in 1738, the fifth was published (folio) of the New Testament. In this reprint the spelling is modernised, and the text and annotations have a few verbal alterations, but in substance it is the edition of 1600 and 1633. A sixth edition of the New Testament (folio) was published fifty years afterwards (1788) at Liverpool, with the original preface and annotations, after the edition of 1738.
In 1816-1818 an edition, or editions, of the whole Bible were published in Ireland, in which, as regards the New Testament, the Rhemish text and annotations were mainly adopted. This edition was printed in different places, with duplicate sheets, and various cancels; and the Old Testament follows mainly, both in text and notes, Dr. Challoner’s revision, which will be described lower down. This may be considered the seventh edition of the original Rhemish version of the New Testament.
An eighth edition, both text and notes, was published in New York, in octavo, in 1834, by a Protestant party, which hoped to make use of it as a weapon in controversy against Catholics. It professes to be “exactly printed from the original volume.”
Such is the history of the Rheims and Douay Bible, of which there have been two editions of the Old Testament, 1609-10 and 1635, and eight (including the New York Protestant reprint) of the New, 1582, 1600, 1621, 1633, 1738, 1788, 1816-1818, and 1834. This version comes to us on the authority of certain divines of the Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the University of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent indirect recognition of English, Scotch, and Irish bishops, and by its general reception by the faithful. It never has had any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it received any formal Approbation from the Holy See.