THE BIBLE.

Asa H. Craig, (Asa Hollister), 1847-1934

It is a prevalent belief among Protestants that Catholics are opposed to the Bible, that they do not teach it, and that the priests do not allow their members to read it. In this the Protestants are greatly mistaken. Not only do Catholics teach it and read it, but it is sacred and holy to them. While many Protestants speak jestingly of the Bible, and even attempt to belittle its divine history, the Catholics are taught to revere its pages as those of divine inspiration speaking to the conscience of men.

But someone asks, “Why are there two Bibles — the Protestant and Catholic?” And which contains the true exposition of the Word of God? If this questioner will refer to history, he can easily satisfy himself. Turn to the history of the Reformation, and you will find that until this particular time there was no such thing as a Protestant Bible, not even a Protestant manuscript of the Scriptures. There was no legend, and there were no records of any kind whatever that were Protestant. In fact, the Protestant Bible and all Protest Records in the Protestant Church begin with the Reformation, which became an organized force about 1520. Previous to that time Christianity was under one head, one Church, and that was the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Bible, and all the Holy Inspirations emanating from God, could not have been otherwise than Catholic. Had Protestantism existed from the days of Christ, or the early days of Christianity, they might lay some claim to a different line of Scripture, but when we know it to be a positive fact that all Christianity, and all divine teachings, and all recorded history of God, of Christ, and his Holy Apostles, were under the sole care and protection of the Catholic Church for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence, then it becomes a self-evident truth that when Protestantism was instituted their Bible could be none other than a Catholic Bible, or a translation of it. As there was — nor could there be — no other source from whence a Protestant Bible could be obtained, it follows as a logical conclusion that its origin must be Catholic and consequently could not be superior in its divine teachings.

And now it is our province to even go further — not that we would prejudice anyone against the Protestant Bible — and assert the fact that, if there is a difference between these two books, w£ must turn our testimony in favor of the one that had been established, that had been in existence since the first century of Christianity, and which had borne the terrible persecution of Roman despotism. No unprejudiced mind can say that a copy is more perfect than the original, and when we attempt to translate from one language to another and then condense as may seem best to the translator, we must acknowledge that such translation cannot be perfect or infallible.

But such is the condition of the Protestant Bible of today, and while we were brought up under its teachings and listened to the exposition of its divine truth, and while to us it is the Bible of our faith, yet when we search into the realm of historic facts, we are convinced that our Bible is a translation from the original, and that original was the Catholic Bible. But, after all, it should not matter to us how we obtained this Bible, only that we have the proof that from the Christian Era to this time it was preserved pure in its original instruction. No other or better evidence in support of this assertion need be adduced than the evidence of the constant martyrdom of Christian Catholics who, with unswerving faith, have guarded it with their lives.

Once a statement of this nature would have startled me, but why deny what is true? If it is true that there was no Protestant Bible until the Reformation, and that previous to that time all Christianity was Catholic, and that every form of recorded Scripture, whether written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or any tongue whatever, was the work of Catholics, then we cannot deny that for these fifteen hundred years before the Reformation there could be only this one source from which all bibles have their origin. It is, therefore, useless for any religious denomination to place its hand upon the Bible of that denomination and say that this book is a perfect divine interpretation of God’s word, and that all other bibles, and especially the Catholic, are not perfect. Such assertions might be accepted by the congregation, but they could not be substantiated by the facts of history.

But again, you say Catholics are opposed to the Bible, that they are not allowed to read it or listen to its reading by others, nor to allow its teachings in the public schools. Now, some of these statements may be true, but the first assertion is an absolute falsehood. It has no possible foundation, and there is no possible excuse for making it. If there is any one thing in the Catholic faith that is venerated more than anything else, it is the Bible. This book is treasured closest to a Catholic’s heart. He believes it to be the Word of God, and past history is full of examples of martyrdom where, rather than surrender the Bible to its enemies, Catholics would suffer the horrors of untold torments, cruelties, persecutions, and death. As proof of their fidelity, we find that even to this day Catholics venerate those noble martyrs who suffered death for refusing to surrender their sacred treasures to their enemies. Among the devout Christians who gave their lives in defense of God’s Holy Word, we find St. Felix and St. Euplius. The Church commemorates the 24th of October for St. Felix and the 12th of August for St. Euplius.

The martyrdom of St. Felix, we find, came about in this way: The Roman emperor went to him and demanded his copy of the sacred Scriptures; St. Felix positively refused to comply, and when he was informed that they must be burned, he replied: “It were better that you burn me than that you burn the Divine Scriptures, for God must be obeyed rather than man.” St. Felix was given three days in which to relent, but still remaining firm he was loaded with chains and thrown into prison. Again, and again was he taken from prison and tortured, but would ever respond: “I have the Holy Scriptures in my possession, but I will not give them up.” He was finally condemned to die by the sword, and as he bowed his head for the fatal blow he thanked God that he had preserved the Gospel.

St. Euplius was persecuted with even greater ferocity to compel him to surrender his Bible. He was cruelly tortured, but throughout his terrible agonies he thanked the Lord for strength to resist the demands of his persecutors, and when he finally failed through the extremity of pain, his lips still moved in an attempt to offer the same praise. Failing to force him to surrender the precious volume by these cruelties, St. Euplius was condemned to death and executed.

We could enumerate a whole line of martyrs from the days of Nero to the close of the Religious Wars in 1648. During these sixteen hundred years the whole Catholic faith was based upon the Holy Scriptures, and its persecution was owing to its fidelity to Christianity, its resistance to oppression, and its constancy to the Word of God. As Christianity was the result of divine instruction, so, too, was the Bible the written Word of God, which, through all these centuries of torture and persecution, was maintained in all its purity and transmitted from one period to another.

The wonderful work of the monks who, by the bigot, are considered a useless appendage to the cause of Christianity, here becomes apparent. While we may be digressing somewhat from the subject, yet it is but simple justice to mention the real connection that exists between the Church and those zealous Christians. The monk was a priest who consecrated himself wholly to the work of the Church. His life was a constant study, and until the discovery of the art of printing in the fifteenth century, all the literature, all forms of education, every rule of worship, and every copy of the Bible had to be transcribed, and in this work the faithful monks were constantly employed. In these days of rapid printing, we fail to realize the difference which exists between then and now.

We do not realize what the slow, tedious process of the pen means in the transcription of one Bible alone. With us it is not a question of time, but numbers. Every individual can have a Bible, while in the past it was the work of years to copy a full volume of the Scriptures, and yet these monks spent their lives in preparing copies of the Bible for the benefit of mankind; therefore it would be more to our honor if we praised those faithful workers for their life’s sacrifice, rather than cast calumnies upon the institution that gave them birth. Who of us, in all the congregations of the Protestant churches, would today sever his connection with the world and devote his life to the transcription of the Scriptures that others might learn from these sacred teachings? If God should say to us, as He did to Abraham before the destruction of Sodom, if you can find fifty righteous people, I will not destroy it. If you can find forty-five righteous people! Aye, if it be forty, or thirty, or even five, who will give up the pleasures of the world and work, as these monks did, for the spreading of the blessed light of truth, I will yet have compassion. Where would you find even these five who would sacrifice their lives? But those men loved to do this work for Christianity, this labor which to us would be tiresome and unremunerative. They were happy in the thought of doing something for the salvation of man, and in the conversion of nations to Christianity. Then let us honor them for their piety, their tireless labors, their Christian zeal, and not cast on them the slurs of intoleration and unjust criticism.

Thus, we find that Catholic lives are full to overflowing with love and affection for the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, the Bible, and through all these years of persecution they have defended it with their utmost vigor, with their power of understanding, and with their lives, and now to say that they are opposed to the Bible is an insult to the millions of Christians who have died for it. Nothing can be said that is more unjust, more inconsistent, or more dishonest in sentiment, than that Catholics are opposed to the Bible. It is true that they may be opposed to the Protestant Bible, and for reasons previously explained, but on the other side, are you not opposed to the Catholic Bible without any reason? I ask you in all candor, are they not right and you wrong? Is not the Catholic Bible the original source of all divine Scriptures? And is not the Protestant Bible copied from it? My friends, there can be but one answer, and that is, no matter what you have between the covers of your Bible, it must either be a copy, or the translator has rendered it into another language according to his understanding of the original. While we know that King James I, in 1607, ordered a new translation of the Bible, we must admit that it was done more because of his hate of everything Catholic, than from a desire to have a correct version of it. King James was a strong Protestant, and in the establishment of the Church of England, the Catholic form of worship was overthrown and consequently the Catholic Bible also had to be cast aside. Previous to this Henry VIII had ordered his servile follower, Bishop Cranmer, to prepare a Bible for the new Church. This version was known as Cranmer’s Bible and was the first Bible printed by authority in England and publicly used in the Churches.

The real history of this Bible, however, is to the effect that it was the translation of William Tyndall, was revised by Miles Coverdale, and then given to Cranmer for examination and approval, who added a preface to it, whence it was called “Cranmer’s Bible.” It was dedicated to Henry VIII, and by his authority became the Scriptures of the English Church. But under King James I, a new version was ordered, and fifty-four learned men employed to prosecute the work of revising it. From death, or other causes, however, seven failed to enter upon their task, but the remaining forty-seven were occupied for nearly four years in the work. They were divided into six divisions, and different portions of the Bible were assigned to each division. After this translation, or revision, the other Bibles fell into disuse, and this revision became the recognized Bible of the Protestant Churches and is today the Bible of Protestant Christianity.

Now, according to the history of Bibles, the history of the Reformation, and the history of religion, would it not be quite inconsistent for Catholics to recognize the Protestant Bible as the most complete, perfect, and directly authorized exposition of the Word of God? As the Protestant Bible came into existence during the period of Reformation, during the Church revolt of Germany, Switzerland, Holland, England, and other countries, it dates its origin from these days of persecution and intoleration. Historians inform us that while Martin Luther was under a grave sentence, and in hiding from an execution of law, he translated the Bible into the German language. Granting that he was the father of the German Bible, the question arises, from what source did he obtain his translation? Martin Luther had been a devout Catholic; he was educated for the priesthood, entered a monastery, became a renowned monk, was called to Rome, became a teacher of theology at the University of Wittenberg, wrote his ninety-five theses in opposition to the Church of Rome, and finally, in open revolt, publicly burned the Papal Bull that was issued against him, and thus forever severed his allegiance to the Catholic Church. Now, in the face of this record of Martin Luther, where could he have obtained the information which enabled him to make this translation, except from his own Catholic Latin Bible? The history of his life while a Catholic tells us of his Latin scholarship, his devotion to his Bible, and his ability to teach the Word of God. Not for a moment would I seek to insinuate that “Martin Luther did not use his best powers and his best judgment in the translation, for he loved his Bible and its divine teachings; but I would say, and that without fear of the possibility of contradiction, that the Bible he treasured so highly, the one he loved so well, was none other than the Catholic Bible, which embodied and always had embodied, the only sacred writings that were preserved through these fifteen centuries of Christian conflict.”

Now, as we turn to the Church revolt of England, we find that Henry VIII, the malicious persecutor of the Pope of Rome, paved the way for the Protestant King James to revise and retranslate England’s present Bible. While it contains the Word of God, yet, judging the work from the standpoint of the selfishness of human nature, this translation from Catholic authority, we doubt not, is more in accordance with the spirit of the Reformation than it is the exact interpretation of Catholic authority.

To sanction this version of the translation and its revision, and to sustain the position held by the Catholics that King James’ Bible is not a perfect translation, we must remember that during the days of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, and James I, nothing would be tolerated that was strictly Catholic. The acts of these rulers were ever those of the crudest persecution. Their hatred toward the Pope of Rome was a bitter hatred, and then opposition was always intolerant and unchristian.

And as we view these conditions, these inharmonious relations between Protestantism and Catholicism, must it not be accounted almost a miracle if these translations of King James should contain such purity of thought and such perfect conception of the divine truths of God, as the Catholic Bible?

And in closing this Bible controversy, let us assume that at the time of translation the following conditions existed: that the fifty-four learned men selected were all anxious to come as near to the right as was possible under the circumstances; that, while they were prejudiced against the Church of Rome, they yet felt that they must accept the Bible of that Church as the only source of information to make their own translations; that they realized, while preparing a Protestant Bible, that they were laboring in the presence of God and were handling God’s divine instructions, and for fear of blaspheming His Holy Name, they followed the dictates of their conscience, and instead of producing a distorted version of divine truth they were impressed with the great importance of their work and deeply felt their sacred obligations, and made an unprejudiced translation of the Holy Scriptures, did they not, in truth, but copy the truths of others?

While, Protestants bless the work of the servants of King James, we yet must remember that the Protestant Bible cannot be superior to that of our neighbors, neither have we any right to censure them for tenaciously holding to their own, when all evidence shows that theirs is the original, and has been jealously guarded and defended against all assaults for nearly nineteen hundred years.

As this applies to the objections of the Catholics to the Bible in general use, so, too, does it explain their objections to its use in the public schools. And now, if we should reverse the question, we would find that if the Catholic Bible were used in our schools many Protestants would raise the same objection.; therefore, if we condemn their objections we must, in return, condemn our own, for if we would not use their Bible we cannot expect them to use ours, though it is positively proven that they have the original and we a copy.

It is not my purpose, however, to generate prejudice against the Protestant Bible, but rather to drive out the absurd notion that Protestants have a monopoly of Sacred Scriptures, when for over fifteen, hundred years it was Catholic property, and became Protestant only when Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulric Zwingli, and Henry VIII, rebelled against the Church of Rome. It is this, and only this, I would raise my voice against. When you say that Catholics are opposed to the Bible please explain when, how, and where. They are entitled to a full exposition of how Bibles emanated, and who preserved these divine writings through all the trials and persecutions of Christianity. If they fought for them during those centuries of idolatrous persecutions and lay down their lives in holy martyrdom to preserve them, we should at least honor their faithful dead, honor the self-sacrificing monk who devoted his life to the spreading of the Gospel of Christ.

Now, as we stand face to face with these historic realities, let us become more consistent in our claims and denunciations, more tolerant for the rights of others, and more Christian in our own existence.

The question often arises among Protestants, “Why are Catholics not urged to read the Bible more, to diligently search the Scriptures, and not depend upon their priests, or teachers, for the interpretation of these Divine Truths?” Often Protestant ministers are loud in their denunciation of this priestly power in teaching their form of worship and the principles of faith. Once I listened to an eloquent divine, who declared that the main objection he had to the Catholic religion, was that the priests did not allow their congregation to independently study the Bible, that the priest’s interpretation must be regarded as the true exposition of faith, and no good Catholic would question it. This divine objected to these methods as an arbitrary encroachment upon individual rights. He declared that every individual should read the Bible for himself, to diligently search for truth, to be independent, to be a free moral agent, to be his own judge, and not to be governed by the decisions of others. He very eloquently described that this was not religion, it was only making a machine of the poor Catholic, who was made to follow a line of worship without comprehending either the light of faith or the blessedness of truth. The priest was the religion, and to obey and read his instructions as to obey God and his commandments.

Without doubt every Protestant in that church believed those assertions, and in his mind pitied the poor Catholic for his religious slavery. As explained it was quite convincing, but when analyzed according to the facts as they really exist, we need not spend our time in pitying. If we study this so-called Catholic slavery, we will find conditions far more favorable to a true exposition of religion than these representations indicate. In fact, this minister, in his interpretation of Catholic teaching, denied to the priest the very same power he exercised himself. With him it was wrong for the Catholic Church to say to its members that this is the instruction of Christ, when he, in the interpretation of his own text, declared that this is the correct version of the Holy Scriptures. He did not seem to understand that he was occupying the very place he condemned. He instructed his congregation that to understand divine truth we must read it as explained by him, and not as explained by others. His doctrine was infallible, and while he urged his members to read the Bible, to study it morning, noon, and eventide, yet they must form no other conclusion, or interpretation, than his own exposition. It is but another case of, I am right and you are wrong. According to his instruction, we are supposed to read and study the Bible free and independent of any human agency, but in this study, we must not fall into the errors of other denominations. We must not read it through a Methodist glass, or a Congregationalism or Universalist, but as he sees it. This is where every Protestant teacher stands. He would have you believe that it is your duty to study the Bible, to depend upon yourself, and from its teachings become a Christian of some particular denomination. Now, this is an impossibility. No man can study the Bible and discover, of his own knowledge, any particular creed. If he is ever to become a Baptist, it must be through a Baptist education. If he is to become a Catholic, it must be through Catholic teaching. The Word of God in no place specifies a particular creed. It teaches repentance, love, charity, and salvation. It declares that Christ was crucified, not for his own benefit, but for the redemption of man from sin. It authorized the Apostles, the disciples, and the priests of God, to go forth and teach the Word of God. The injunction is ever to teach, teach, teach. Religion involves the education of the soul, and in every form of education there must be a teacher. The child can never learn to read without instruction. Without this religious instruction you will grow to manhood in the darkness of Deism,’ Atheism, and idolatry. Place the Bible in the hands of a heathen and expect him to teach himself how to follow in the steps of the true Christian, and you will expect impossibilities. No heathen, no unchristian being, was aver converted to a faith in Christ without instruction. That instruction may be obtained through explanation given in religious books, pamphlets, or other lessons, but almost invariably such conversion must be by the word of mouth. While the Bible contains the inspired writings of divine instruction, yet the true interpretation must come from the Church. All churches provide priests, or ministers, to properly expound their doctrine and faith. In no other way can this be accomplished. Without these instructors the Bible becomes a barren medium of Christian Grace.

Select ten men without any particular religious convictions and give to each a Bible and tell him to search diligently, to gain wisdom through his own efforts, and no two will agree in the exact comprehension of these truths. Now, do not mistake my meaning. I do not wish to imply that the Bible is contradictory, but that if this study is left to your own wisdom, there will arise a principle of antagonism, the evil tendency of all natures to doubt, deny, seek to evade, and to trample upon your own conscience.

The author is personally acquainted with an individual who for years was an ardent and devout Christian, but by some means commenced to study the Bible and seek controversy. He soon began to rely, upon his own wisdom, and today this man believes in no Infinity, no Bible, no soul, and no hereafter. His mind is filled with that self-sufficiency which antagonizes and destroys every Christian thought of God, of Christ, or His Holy Word, and while, as the world sees him, he is an honest, upright citizen, yet spiritually he would render valueless the beautiful thought of immortality, and, like the plant, he would grow, flourish, blossom, and die, without a divine origin, a divine purpose, or a divine control.

It is to prevent these occurrences that Catholics are taught to study and heed the interpretation of the Church, to follow its wisdom, and to obey its discipline. Protestants say, read your Bible diligently, study for yourself, obey its teachings, while Catholics say, study the teachings of those who have devoted their lives to its service, obey the Church, listen to the explanation of your teachers, do these things and you cannot go astray. The Protestant professes to believe that he derives his understanding from the Bible, that he is taught by it, that it points out his creed, that it is his spiritual instructor, his adviser, and his source of inspiration. This I must positively deny. The fact is, he is taught by his Church, his ministers, by religious books, his parents, or some other means of instruction. He must be instructed in some way, otherwise, like the child, he can never comprehend the sublime truths of God. The Catholic does not profess to possess these gifts of self-inspiration, the power of individual wisdom, or the power of the Bible to be self-explanatory regarding the wisdom of God. While he loves the Bible and venerates it as the sacred truth of God, yet he does not profess to believe that it was meant to be a teacher, or that it ever has been a teacher. He believes that God simply expressed the fact of existence without the demonstration of why he so organized this existence. He believes that the world was evangelized by preachers and not by Scripture reading, or by each individual reading the Bible by himself; that no one really learns his religion from the Bible; that, as a matter of fact, it comes to him through some form of education; that he goes to the Bible to prove this education, to prove his belief, and to sustain the truth that has been revealed unto him. It is this principle of correct understanding, therefore, that is imposed more firmly on Catholics than on Protestants. While the one is granted free latitude in the acquirement of self-wisdom, the other is based upon the necessity of a direct course of education. To be a Catholic is to believe in the Bible, the Church, and those who have consecrated their lives to the study of divine truths. This, in reality, is no more than is required of any member of a Protestant Church. They must believe in the Bible, the creed of the Church, and the education of its ministers. Then why open the door of infidelity by inviting each individual to read for himself, to interpret for himself, and to educate himself? Therefore, I will say in defense of the charge made by Protestants that Catholics do not read the Bible, that it is, “not that I love Caesar less, but that I love Rome more.” Not that I read the Bible less, but that I listen to its teachings more.