VI. Battle Over Douay Rheims Catholic Bible Notes

The Protestant versions of the Bible, and the argument that Rome was keeping the Word of God from the people, drove the English Catholics to make their own translation. Sir Edwin Sandys said that the Protestant cry that the “Lord of Rome was no other than that imperious bewitching Lady of Babylon,” together with the dissatisfaction of their own members, led to the Catholic translation. ^{48SIR EDWIN SANDYS (1561-1629), son of Archbishop Edwin Sandys, was a member of Parliament, and one of the leaders of the Virginia Company. In 1599 he wrote Europae Speculum. Or, A Survey of the State of Religion in the Westerns Parts of the World, from which (1638 edition, p. 164) this statement is taken. The authorship of this anonymous treatise is identified in the British Museum Catalogue.} The Roman Catholic English College of the University of Douay, France, put out its English version of the New Testament at Rheims in 1582, and the complete Bible in two volumes at Douay in 1609 and 1610. The full significance of the marginal notes, which started a battle royal, may be profitably noted, and briefly compared. There is essential agreement with the Protestant interpretation of the four world powers of Daniel 7. The basic difference comes over the interpretation of the Little Horn. The general note at the beginning of the chapter reads, “Prophetical visions of Christ and of Antichrist,” and note c states that the “foure beastes do signifie the foure Monarchies of the Chaldees, Medes and Persians, the Grecians, and the Romanes.” ^{49Holie Bible Faithfully Translated in English Out of the Authenlical Latin (Douay, 1609, 1610), Daniel 7, margin, vol. 2, pp. 790, 791.} Notes d, e, f, g give additional detail concerning the four kingdoms named, while h says:PFF2 549.3

“The litle home becoming so great and strong, as to overcome al the other, signifieth Antichrist; whose outragious furie shal continue but a shorte time.” ^{50Ibid., p. 792.}PFF2 549.4

The ram and “buckgoote” of chapter eight symbolize the Persians and Grecians.” ^{51Ibid., p. 793.}PFF2 550.1

There was sharp discussion and criticism of the Catholic notes, as seen from George Wither’s A View of the Marginal Notes of the Popish Testament (1588). Wither follows a three fold progression, giving the text, Catholic note in italics, and then the Protestant answer in bold type. Thus he quoted the Douay note to Apocalypse 12:14 which denies the year day prin ciple citing two Protestants in rebuttal:PFF2 550.2

“This often insinuation that Antichrists reigne shall be but three yeeres and an halfe, Daniel 7.25. Apocalipse 11.2.3. and in this chapter v.6.c.13.5. prooveth that the heretikes be exceedingly blinded with malice, that hold the pope to be Antichrist, who hath ruled so many ages.” ^{52George Wither, A View of the Marginal Notes of the Popish Testament, Translated into English by the English Fugitive Papists reliant at Rhemes in France, p. 296.}PFF2 550.3

William Fulke published in 1589 a parallel New Testament with a Protestant translation from the original Greek (the “Bishops’ Bible”) paralleling the Rheims translation from the Latin, and with accompanying notes. The issues are exemplified in the contrasting notes on Matthew 24:29 :PFF2 550.4

“RHEM.8. 29. Immediatly. If the latter day shall immediatly follow the persecution of Antichrist, which is to endure but three yeres and a halfe, as is aforesayd: then is it meere blasphemy to say, Gods Vicar is Anti christ, and that (by their owne limitation) these thousand yeeres almost.PFF2 550.5

“FULKE.8. You have sayd, that the persecution of Antichrist, should endure but three yeeres and a halfe, but you are never able to prove it of vsuall yeeres, therefore it is no blasphemy to say, the Pope is Antichrist, though his tyrannic hath continued almost a thousand yeeres. But rather it is blasphemy, to say the Pope is Gods Vicar: for that importeth God and Christ to be absent from his Church, Otherwise the holy Ghost supplieth the want of his bodily presence, untill he come againe to Judgement.” ^{53William Fulke, annotation on Matthew 24:29 in The Text of the New Testament of lesus Christ, p. 88.}PFF2 550.6

Considerable space is devoted to Paul’s Antichrist ^{54Ibid., on 2 Thessalonians 2, also Revelation 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, pp. 658 ff., 882 ff.} and also to the prophecies of the Apocalypse. It is well to keep the mod ern Catholic interpretation in mind, as attested in the Challoner revised editions of the Douay Version. For example, the interpretation of the everlasting kingdom of Daniel 2: “A kingdom. Viz., the kingdom of Christ in the Catholic Church, which can not be destroyed.” ^{55Douay Bible, note on Daniel 2:44.}PFF2 550.7

The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 are considered but literal, and are confined to Antiochus. Thus:PFF2 551.1

“Unto evening and morning two thousand three hundred days. That is, six years and almost four months: which was the whole time from the be ginning of the persecution of Antiochus till his death.” ^{56Ibid., Daniel 8:14.}PFF2 551.2

The seventy weeks of Daniel 9, however, are properly recognized as “of years.” ^{57Ibid., on Daniel 9:24, 25.}PFF2 551.3

On 2 Thessalonians the Catholic comment is ingenious:PFF2 551.4

“Ver. 3. A revolt. This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be under stood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by the means of Mahomet, Luther, and c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of Antichrist Ibid. The man of sin. Here must be meant some particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek aritcle “ho”, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the adversary or opposer, “ho antikeimenos” It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.PFF2 551.5

“Ver. 4. In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the east.” ^{58Ibid., on 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.}PFF2 551.6

The Babylon of Revelation 17 is expounded in alternatives, with bias toward pagan Rome:PFF2 551.7

“Babylon. Either the city of the devil in general; or, if this place be to be understood of any particular city, pagan Rome, which then and for three hundred years persecuted the church; and was the principal seat both of empire and idolatry.” ^{59Ibid., on Apoc. 17:5.}PFF2 551.8

On Satan’s binding and the two resurrections in Revelation 20 this is the Douay teaching:PFF2 551.9

“The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament: but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.” ^{60Ibid., on Apoc. 20:2.}PFF2 551.10

The divided front of doctors of the Roman church is clearly admitted and the conflicting schools of Futurism and Preterism recognized:PFF2 552.1

“As to the time when the chief predictions should come to pass, we have no certainty, as appears by the different opinions, both of the ancient fathers and late interpreters. Many think that most things set down from the 4th chapter to the end, will not be fulfilled till a little time before the end of the world. Others are of opinion, that a great part of them, and particularly the fall of the wicked Babylon, happened at the destruction of paganism, by the destruction of heathen Rome, and its persecuting heathen emperors. Of these interpretations, see Alcazar, in his long commentary; see the learned Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, in his treatise on this Book.” ^{61Ibid., on Apoc. 22:10. (It is to be remembered that both Alcazar and Bossuet were Fret-erists.)}PFF2 552.2