the said translation of the Bible aforesaid, a bigger and ' a less...both which are now extant and ready1. There is no evidence to shew how far this new effort was successful in securing exclusively for the Bishops' Bible public use in churches. The revision did not at least gain any such hold upon the clergy as to lead even them to adopt it alone privately; and when Martin assailed the English versions (1582) he takes the Great Bible, or the Bishops' or the Genevan indifferently; and Fulke in his answer does not claim absolute precedence for any one of them. But while the Genevan Bible held its ground, there can be no doubt that the Great Bible was soon entirely displaced by the Bishops'; and no edition of it appears to have been printed after 1569. § 9. THE RHEIMS AND DOWAY VERSION. The wide circulation and great influence of the reformed versions of the Bible made it impossible for the Roman Catholic scholars to withstand the demand for vernacular translations of Scripture sanctioned by authority in their churches. The work was undertaken not as in itself either necessary or generally desirable, but in special consideration of the circumstances of the time2. So it came to pass that 'since Luther's revolt... 'divers 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... 'published the Bible in the several languages of almost 'all the principal provinces of the Latin Church' in the seventeenth century. The design of an English Ver 1 Cardwell, Documentary Annals, II. 31 f. 2 Preface to the Rhemish Testa- ment. Chap. ii. The Great placed by the Bishops'. Bible dis Vernacular the Bible Versions of made by Roman Catholics. Chap. ii. The English The object of the sion formed part of the systematic plan for winning back England to the Papacy, which was shaped and guided by the energy and skill of [Cardinal] Allen. The centre of Allen's labours was the seminary which he first established at Douai (1568), and afterwards transferred temporarily to Rheims (1578). And it was in this seminary that the Rhemish Version, as it is commonly called, was made. The history of the Rhemish Version has not yet been traced in contemporary records1; but the prefaces to the Old and New Testaments explain with perfect clearness the objects and method of the translators. They protranslators. fessed to find the cause of the troubles of England in the free handling of the deep mysteries of Scripture which led men to 'contemn or easily pass over the 'moral parts.' 'If our new ministers had had [that sense 'of the depth and profundity of wisdom...], that all 'other wise men have and ever had, our country had 'never fallen to this miserable state in religion and that 'under pretence, colour, and countenance of God's word; 'neither should virtue and good life have been so pitifully 'corrupted in time of such reading, toiling, tumbling, 'and translating the book of our salvation...". The text of these new translations, they plead, was full of alterations, transpositions, new pointings; the authorship and authority of whole books were questioned; old terms and forms were abandoned; the language was dealt with as freely as if it were the language ‘of Livy, 'Virgil, or Terence.' 'We therefore,' they continue, 'having compassion to see our beloved countrymen, 'with extreme danger of their souls, to use only such 1 Collections for the bibliographical history of the version have been made by Dr Cotton in his Rhemes & Doway...Oxford, 1855. 2 Preface to the Rhemish New Tes tament. profane translations and erroneous men's mere phanta'sies, for the pure and blessed word of truth, much also 'moved thereunto by the desires of devout many persons, 'have set forth for you (benign readers) the New Testa'ment to begin withal, trusting that it may give occasion 'to you, after diligent perusing thereof, to lay away at 'least such their impure versions as hitherto you have 'been forced to occupy'.' Chap. ii. The New tations. A controversial commentary formed a necessary part The Annoof the undertaking. It was pleaded that 'though the ‘text, truly interpreted, might sufficiently, in the sight of 'the learned and all indifferent men...control the adver'saries' corruptions...yet...somewhat to help the faithful 'reader in the difficulties of divers places, we [the editors] 'have also set forth reasonable large annotations, thereby 'to shew...both the heretical corruptions and false de'ductions, and also the apostolic tradition, the expositions of the holy fathers, the decrees of the Catholic Church 'and most ancient Councils; which means whosoever trusteth not for the sense of holy Scriptures but had 'rather follow his private judgment or the arrogant 'spirit of these sectaries he shall worthily through his 'own wilfulness be deceived..."." lators and The names of those who performed the work are The transnowhere given in connexion with it, but internal evidence annotators. leaves no doubt that the chief share in the translation was undertaken by Gregory Martin, sometime fellow of St. John's College, Oxford, a scholar of distinguished attainments both in Hebrew and Greek. Upon renouncing Protestantism Martin had studied for some years at Douai and then after an interval of travel settled at Rheims as one of the readers of divinity in the English College there. Other scholars were probably Chap. ii. The Old associated with Martin in the task of translation or in the composition of the notes. It is said that Dr. Allen himself, Dr. R. Bristow, formerly a fellow of Exeter College, and Dr. J. Reynolds, formerly a fellow of New College, among others, assisted Martin in revising his translation. More particularly also the notes on the New Testament have been attributed to Dr. Bristow, and those on the Old Testament to Dr. Worthington. However this may be, Martin clearly identified himself with the work in a treatise which he published on the 'Manifold corruptions of the Holy Scriptures by the heretics' (Rhemes, 1582), very shortly after the appearance of the first instalment of the new version'. Yet it may be concluded from a comparison of the annotations with this treatise that Martin's work lay in the version and not in the commentary. His labours, as it seems, proved fatal to him. He died in the same year in which the books appeared to which he had devoted his life. When the New Testament was published the whole version had been 'long since' finished though the publication was delayed 'for lack of good means". This 'one general cause,' 'the poor estate [of the favourers of the version] in their banishment," delayed the appearance of the Old Testament till 1609-10 (Douai). The complete work cannot have had an extensive circulation. It was reprinted in 1635 (Rouen) and then not again for one hundred and fifteen years when it was revised by Dr. R. Challoner (1749–50); and this revision has formed the basis of the later editions.* 1 The priority of the publication of the New Testament is shewn by a reference to it in the Preface to the Discovery of the manifold corruptions ...(p. 63 Parker Soc. reprint). On the other hand the Discovery was already composed when the Preface 2 Preface to the New Testament. Chap. ii. External answer to New The New Testament, as might have been expected, attracted more attention. It was reprinted at Antwerp in 1600 and 1621, and again (at Rouen?) in 1633, though not afterwards for more than a hundred years1. But it obtained a still larger circulation by the help of its opponents. The annotations called for an answer. A powerful party in England urged Cartwright to prepare one2. Difficulties however were interposed in his way and his reply was not published in a complete form till 1618, fifteen years after his death. In the meantime Fulke, who answered Martin's book on the 'Corruptions Fulke's of Holy Scripture,' answered his edition of the New the Rhemish Testament also (1589). He printed the Rhemish and Testament. Bishops' (revised 1572) version in parallel columns, and added to the Rhemish notes, which he gave at length, the refutation or qualifications which they seemed to require. This book became very popular, and the Rhemish Testament gained in this way a wide currency which it would not otherwise have enjoyed. But questions of scholarship or textual criticism are wholly subordinated in this examination to larger topics of controversy. At the same time the scriptural vocabulary was, as we shall see afterwards, insensibly increased, and even Bacon goes aside to praise 'the discretion and tender'ness of the Rhemish translation' which ever distinguished the Christian grace 'charity' (άyáπη) from 'love' ("pws)*. ard edition is said to be that 'revised and corrected' under the sanction of Dr Troy, 1791. 1 In the mean time two other Roman Catholic translations of the New Testament from the Vulgate were made, one by Dr Nary (1718, see Dr Cotton, .c. pp. 37 ff.); and the other by Dr Witham (1730, see Dr Cotton, l.c. pp. 41 ff.). 2 Strype, Whitgift, i. 482. Annals III. i. 287 ff. 3 Other editions of this book were published in 1601, 1617, 1633. In the account of Fulke prefixed to the Parker reprint of his answer to Martin an edition is assigned also to the year 1580 by a surprising mistake. 4 In his tract Concerning the Liturgy. This reference I owe to Mr Plumptre. |