Protestantism and the Bible

Front matter

-gX^H'

Shelf...

UNITED STATES OF AMEEICA.

Contents

LECTURE FIRST.

PAGE

The Pretensions of the Protestant Reformers in regard to

I

The pretensions of the Reformers may be reduced to these three : first, that the Holy Scriptures were generally unknown to the people, and even to the priesthood ; secondly, that the Catholic Church had suppressed them and prevented their use ; and, thirdly, that on the ignorance of the written word of Grod was built the Papal authority with its whole system of faith.

Let us consider these pretensions, one by one, as they were made the pretext of religious and civil revolution.

1. It is a standing assertion, disproved many times, but still as often reasserted, that the discovery of the Bible led to the Reformation. Martin Luther, the leader among his fellows, was the happy man who I made this discovery. He was a student of the University of Erfurt, where he had been two years, when "one day," says D'Aubigne, "he was opening the books in the library, in order to know the names of the authors. Books were then rare, and it was to him a great privilege to profit by the treasures united in this vast collection. One volume which he opened in its turn struck his attention. Up to that moment he had never seen anything like it. He read the title. It was a Bible — a rare book, and unknown at that

Pretensions of the Reformers.

time. His interest was vividly excited . He is filled with astonishment at finding more in this volume than those fragments of the Gospels and Epistles which the Church had selected to be read to the people on the Sundays of the year. Till then he had thought that they were the whole word of God ; and behold ! here are so many pages, chapters, and books of which he had no idea." * "The Bible that had filled him with such transport was in Latin. He read and re-read, and then, in his surprise and joy, went back to read again. The first gleams of a new truth arose in his mind. Thus has God caused him to find His holy word ! For the first time, perhaps, this precious volume has been removed from the place that it occupied in the library of Erfurt. This book, deposited on the unknown shelves of a dark room, is soon to become the book of life for a whole nation. The Reformation lay hid in that Bible." f The English historian Milner repeats the same story, and in nearly the same words: u In the second year after Luther had entered into the monastery, he accidentally met with a Latin Bible in the library. It proved to him a treasure. Then he first discovered that there were more Scripture passages extant than those which were read to the people ; for the Scrip-

* D'Aubigne, Vol. I. p. 197.

First Lecture.

tures were at that time very little known in the world." *

The Rev. Dr. Maitland, a Protestant clergyman, thus writes: "I believe that the idea which many persons have of ecclesiastical history may be briefly stated thus : that the Christian Church was a small, scattered, and persecuted flock until the time of Constantine ; that then, at once, and as if by magic, the Roman world became Christian ; that this universal Christianity, not being of a very pure, solid, or durable nature, melted down into a filthy mass called Popery, which held its place during the dark ages, until the revival of pagan literature and the consequent march of intellect sharpened men's wits and brought about the Reformation, when it was discovered that the Pope was Antichrist, and that the saints had been in the hands of the little horn predicted by the prophet Daniel, for hundreds of ye^rs, without knowing so awful a fact or suspecting anything of the kind." f

In connection with this common view of the middle ages among Protestants is the almost universal opinion that the Bible was nearly unknown, and that, discovered by their religious progenitors, it is in a special sense their property. They brought it

* Milner, Vol. IV. p. 324. f Maitland, " Dark Ages," p. 188.

Pretensions of the Reformers.

into light, and made it the rule of faith and practice. But for the labors of the Reformers it would have long slumbered in obscurity. So says Martin Luther in his 6 'Table-Talk" : "Thirty years ago the Bible was an unknown book ; the Prophets were not understood : it was thought they could not be translated."

2. The inference from these assertions is that the Catholic Church, so long the custodian of the Scriptures, had suppressed them and prevented their use. The principal versions of the Bible were in the Latin tongue, and the conclusion is drawn that the people were not allowed to have recourse to them, and that even the priesthood were restricted in their use. The Church was afraid of the Bible and unwilling to expose its dogmas to its light. Moreover, the Papal authority had by special edict prohibited the common reading of the inspired word. Such were the constant accusations of the Reformers, while they professed, in opposition to Catholic tradition which they despised, to rely upon the Holy Scriptures alone as interpreted by every individual man. They even claimed that the sacred text was free from any obscurity and intelligible to every reader. " Should any one," says Luther, "attack you, saying that the Bible is obscure, or that it should be read with the aid of the commentaries of the Fathers, you will reply : This is not true, for there never existed on earth a book more

First Lecture.

easily intelligible than the Bible." Tyndale, one of the most prominent of the English Reformers, declares " that the abbots took the Scriptures from their monks, lest some should bark against them ; and set up such long service and singing withal, that they • should have no time to read in the Bible but with their lips." The following language from a popular Protestant sermon is quoted by Maitland in his " Dark Ages" : " Sunk in the lowest state of earthly depression, pressed by every art and engine of human hostility, by the blind hatred of the half -barbarian kings of feudal Europe, by the fanatical furies of their ignorant people, and, above all, by the great spiritual domination, containing in itself a mass of solid and despotic strength unequalled in the annals of power, vivified and envenomed by a reckless antipathy unknown in the annals of the passions, what had the Scriptures to do but perish? " * There is no need to dwell upon this point, inasmuch as the Bible was confessedly in the hands of the Church, and the responsibility of the alleged suppression of the same must be laid at her door. It is even asserted that the Papal authority had prohibited the general reading of the Scriptures, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and that this was the natural expression

* Maitland, p. 203.

Pretensions of the Reformers.

of the hostility of the Holy See to the study and knowledge of the inspired word. Such allegations have been , made in the ears of all Protestants since their childhood, and have been almost universally received.

3. On this ignorance of the sacred writings, which was so carefully provided for, the whole fabric of priestly domination was built. Fearful to meet the light of the inspired text, the Pope of Rome hid the Bible in the cells of monasteries, or chained it to the desks of the churches, where there could be no danger of the dissemination of its life-giving truths. The alleged suppression of the Scriptures could have naturally no other motive. Rome trembled for her dominion, and, when the unlucky discovery was made by Luther, hastened up all her forces and fought for her life, seeing that her hour was come. With the free and unrestricted reading of the word of God came the hour of liberty from the despotism of priests ; and Antichrist, so vividly portrayed in the Apocalypse, was forced to flee before the unsheathed sword of the Spirit. Nations fell away from the Catholic Church. Priests and religious embraced the new gospel, and the bright light which beamed from the sacred text shone upon a restored Christianity in its primitive purity.

First Lecture.

II

We are now to examine in detail these assertions and pretensions which not even the disasters of three centuries have dissipated. Let us see what the real truth is. There is neither time nor space here for a full demonstration, but a few words of unquestioned history will suffice.

1. Before the date of the Reformation the Holy Scriptures were not generally unknown to priests and people, but, considering the circumstances of the times, were well known and carefully studied.

Martin Luther was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, in the year 1483. He made his profession at the Augustinian Convent at Erfurt in 1507, and was ordained priest. Let us look at the facts in regard to the Scriptures before the date on which he is said to have made his great discovery of the unknown word of God. The invention of printing took place in a.d. 1438. Before that time the sacred books were all preserved in writing. First they were copied on skins duly prepared. Then they were transcribed on parchment, which was first in the shape of rolls, and afterwards in the more convenient form of a book. There were three celebrated and principal manuscripts : the Alexandrine, the Latin, and the Byzantine. The arrangement of the Bible in chapters was made by Cardinal

Pretensions of the Reformers.

Hugo in the thirteenth century. The celebrated Septuagint version of the Old Testament was begun in the year 285 before Christ. The Latin Vulgate version, which is approved by the Church, dates from the year 405.

Now, before the date of printing, the cost of copying the canon of Scripture on parchment was no inconsiderable sum. It is estimated that the thirty-five thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven verses which it contains would make twelve thousand seven hundred and eighty-three folios. This would fill four hundred and twenty-seven skins of parchment on both sides. The parchment alone would cost about four hundred dollars, while the copying would result in an expense of six hundred dollars, making the complete Bible cost at least one thousand dollars. This great expense would prevent the universal dissemination of the Scriptures as at the present day. In spite, however, of all this expense, the sacred word was carefully copied and in constant use. Perhaps we may say it was more reverenced and better understood than even at this day. Merryweather observes : " The Bible, it is true, was an expensive book, but it can scarcely be regarded as a rare one ; the monastery was indeed poor that had it not, and, when once obtained, the monks took care to speedily transcribe it. Sometimes they possessed only

First Lecture.

detached portions, but when this was the case, they generally borrowed of some neighboring and more fortunate monastery the missing parts to transcribe, and so complete their own copies." *

Kings and nobles offered the Bible as an appropriate and generons gift, and bishops were deemed benefactors to their Church by adding it to the library. We need only refer to the works of Griesbach, Bentley, Michaelis, Mill, Simon, Kennicott, Wetstein, Blanchini, and Scholz, on the numerous manuscripts of the Sacred Scripture.

The collections of the Bible in the Vatican, Ambrosian, and Magliabecchian libraries in Italy, and those which France possesses in the Mazarin, St. Genevieve, and Royal libraries of Paris, bear witness to the wonderful zeal and toil displayed in copying, circulating, and interpreting the sacred word. To these collections, so celebrated, are to .be added those of Venice, Vienna, Stuttgart, Gottingen, as well as the Bodleian and British Museum. Nor were these copies of the Scriptures wholly in the Latin Vulgate. "In 807 Charlemagne caused the whole Bible to be translated into French ; in 820 Otfrid, a Benedictine monk, composed in the same language a harmony of the Four Gospels ; in the same century a version of

* Merry weather's * 6 Bibliomania in the Middle Ages,'* p. 24 the Psalms in French was made by the order of Louis le Debonnaire ; in the twelfth century translations of the Four Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Psalms, the Book of Job, and some other portions of the Bible were made in the diocese of Metz ; in the fourteenth century Jean de Yignay translated the Epistles and Gospels in the Missal at the request of the Queen of France. By command of Charles V. a French version of a portion of the Bible was made, a copy of which is preserved among the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum.

" In the Bibliotheque du Eoi at Paris are several old French versions; of the twelfth century three copies of the Psalms, and of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries nearly sixty different versions, comprising translations of the entire Bible and of different books. Among the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum we find a copy of the Gospels in French verse, and a harmony of the Gospels which belonged to Canute; and among the Haiieian MSS. in the same collection are two copies of a French translation of a portion of the Bible, from Genesis to the end of the Psalms, and five French versions of the Psalms, two of which are accompanied by English translations.

" Versions in Anglo- Saxon were made by various hands. King Alfred is said to have translated the whole Bible. Aldhelm translated the Psalms ; iElfric

First Lecture.

rendered the first seven books of the Old Testament and part of Job ; and Beda translated the whole Bible, having completed his task but a few moments before he expired."* Buckingham, in his account of the Bible in the middle ages, gives notice of the translation of the Scriptures into sixteen modern languages, all made between the fourth and the fifteenth century, and these must have been made for the use of the laity, since the Scriptures were invariably read by the clergy in the Latin tongue, then the universal language of learned Christendom.

After the invention of printing in 1438 the editions of the inspired writings became very numerous. Hallam proves that the Bible was the first book printed, and it was soon published in nearly every language, f The learned Protestant bibliographer, Dibdin, says : " From the year 1462 to the end of the fifteenth century the editions of the Latin Bible may be considered literally innumerable, and, generally speaking, only repetitions of the same text." X He enumerates the following editions : at Mentz in 1455 ; at Bamberg, 1461 ; at Rome, 1471 ; Venice, 1476 ; Naples, 1476 ; in Bohemia, 1488 ; in Poland, 1563 ; in Iceland, 1551 ; in Russia, 1581 ; in France, 1475 ; in Holland, 1477 ;

* Buckingham, " Bible in the Middle Ages," pp. 40-44.

f " History of Literature," I. 96.

X Dibdin's " Library Companion," p. 15.

Pretensions of the Reformers.

in England, 1535 ; in Spain, 1477. Celebrated editions appeared at Bologna in 1482 ; at Soncino in 1488 ; at Brescia in 1494 ; and at Bamberg in 1518. The edition of Brescia is the one which Luther is said to have used. Cardinal Ximenes undertook the expensive and unprecedented task of printing a polyglot. This work was begun in 1504 and terminated in 1517. This polyglot contains an independent Hebrew text, which became the basis of several other editions, as also the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and a Chaldee paraphrase. The New Testament contains the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate. This great work was dedicated to Pope Leo X. and is in six folio volumes. The Antwerp Polyglot appeared in 1569, in eight volumes folio, at the expense of Philip II. of Spain. The Parisian Polyglot, in seven languages, appeared in 1645.

As to the translations into the modern languages to which we have already referred, it may be well to resume here that, after the invention of printing, nearly every country in Europe soon possessed an edition in its vernacular.

In Germany the first printed Bible extant is that of Nuremberg, in 1447, and a second appeared in 1466. The edition of 1466 was so frequently and rapidly reprinted that, prior to the publication of Luther's Bible, it had been issued no fewer than sixteen times,

First Lecture.

once at Strasburg, five times at Nuremberg, and ten times at Augsburg. Three distinct editions also appeared at Wittenberg in 1470, 1483, and 1490, so that before Luther was heard of, or even born, the Bible must have been well known and well read.

In France the " Bible Historiale" of Des Moulins was published about 1478, and was reprinted sixteen times prior to 1546. Lefevre published an edition of the Scriptures in 1512. According to Simon, edition after edition appeared, among which are the well-known translations of Be Sacy, Corbin, Amelotte, Maralles, Godeau, and Hure.

In the Flemish language the first printed Bible is that published at Cologne in 1475. It was reprinted at least seven times before 1530.

In Spain the translation ascribed to St. Vincent Ferrer was printed at Valencia in 1478 with the formal permission of the Inquisition, and reprinted in 1515, and of it numerous editions were published at Antwerp, Barcelona, and Madrid.

In Italy, in 1290, Jacobus a Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa, published the entire Bible in Italian. Another translation, prepared by the Camaldolese monk Nicholas Malermi, w T as printed at Venice in 1471, and again in Rome in the same year. It was so eagerly purchased that before the year 1525 no fewer than thirteen editions of it had issued from the press.

Pretensions of tee Reformers.

They were all published with the permission of the Inquisition, as were also eight other editions which were printed before 1567.

In England the translations of the Protestants, Tyndale and Coverdale, bear the date of 1535. The edition called the " Bishops' Bible" appeared in 1568. In 1582 the New Testament was published at Kheims, and the Old Testament was completed at Douay in 1609. This is the authorized English translation among the Catholics of England and the United States. Since that date the editions of this Bible, with various corrections and emendations, have been very numerous.*

The version of King James, published 1611, is the one generally used among Protestants.

We have, then, conclusively proved that the Bible was generally known and circulated before the time of Luther, not only in the original and Latin text, but also in the vernacular of the principal countries of Europe. Any one must have been lamentably ignorant who did not know the Scriptures and their principal lessons. These lessons were taught to the people constantly, and impressed with authority upon their hearts. As for Martin Luther, he was instructed by intelligent and pious parents, and is said to have made

* Waterworth, " English Ref orraation, " chap. x.

First Lecture.

great proficiency in his studies at Magdeburg and Eisenach, and at the University of Erfurt. There he applied himself to learn the philosophy of the middle ages in the writings of Occam, Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Bonaventure. " These writings," to use the words of Dr. Maitland, "are made of the Scriptures. These writers not only constantly quoted the Scriptures, and appealed to them as authorities on all occasions, but they thought and spoke the thoughts, w^ords, and phrases of the Bible as the natural mode of expressing themselves."* One can hardly understand these great writers without a certain familiarity with the sacred text. Moreover, Luther had made his vows as an Augustinian monk, and was ordained priest. The preparation for the sacred office of priesthood, not to speak of his obligations as a religious, required patient and laborious study of the inspired word. In addition to this, the breviary, which he was bound to recite, consists almost entirely of the Psalms of David and other quotations from the sacred books. Ignorance, therefore, of the Scriptures in his case was impossible, and is only a false pretence, too baseless to be accepted or repeated by any intelligent mind. The most wonderful expositions of the word of God were written before the Reformation, and we must admit that in deep and devout study the middle ages

* Maitland, p. 470.

Pretensions of the Reformers.

have exceeded onr own. Luther, by position and education, had especial advantages which are not the portion of every one, even in onr own age.

Even Zwingiius, who made many false boasts for himself, says to Luther: " You are unjust in putting forth the boastful claim of dragging the Bible from beneath the dusty benches of the schools. You for get that we have gained a knowledge of the Scriptures through the translations of others. You are very well aware, with all your blustering, that previously to your time there existed a host of scholars who, in Biblical knowledge and philological attainments, were incomparably your superiors."*

2. In face of these facts it seems hardly necessary to reply to the accusation that the Catholic Church had suppressed the Bible and prevented its general use. To the care and zeal of the Church, as we have seen, the Sacred Scriptures owe their preservation in the midst of all dangers, wars, conflagrations, and torrents of barbarian and Moslem fury. We have briefly given testimony of the patient labor and anxious solicitude with which her priesthood and religious devoted themselves to the copying of the inspired writings, and the study and exposition of their meaning. In her seminaries the candidates for the

* Alzog, III. 49.

First Lecture.

sacerdotal office were diligently trained in the knowledge of the divine word, and her monasteries were the homes of sacred learning. Careful selections from the Bible were read to the people on every Sunday and festival during the year.

There is no* possible denial of these facts, and therefore the advocates of the Reformation resort to two assertions which are plain evasions of the truth.

They say that the Bible was preserved in the Latin tongue only, and that the Church, by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, had prohibited its general use. Inconsistent as these accusations are with the whole policy of the Apostolic See, they yet deserve here a brief notice.

We have already seen how carefully, by the solicitude of the Church, the original manuscripts were preserved and copied. These manuscripts were of course in the language in which they were written. The preservation of this text was in the highest degree necessary. The translation into the Latin tongue was made while that language was a living one, and well known among all the educated classes. Even to the reign of Charlemagne, in the beginning of the ninth century, the Latin language was that which was most generally understood and spoken in Europe. Down to the sixteenth century, and even afterwards, it was the only language of literature, of theology, of medicine, and of legislation. Tlie common people of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France could understand it without difficulty. Most of tlie modern languages of Europe were formed from it, and in Hungary it had been spoken by the people for many centuries. It was taught in every school in Christendom, and was the medium through which other branches of learning were made known. Under these circumstances the publication of the Bible in the Latin tongue was the very best way to make it generally known and uniformly understood. No language so universal as the Latin then existed, either among scholars or among those w r ho possessed the rudiments of education.

But we have already seen that long before Luther's time the Scriptures were translated into the living tongues of Europe. Almost every nation possessed a version in its own vernacular. 6 ' Before the publication of Luther's translation there had appeared in Germany no less than three distinct versions of the whole Bible, the last of which had passed through at least seventeen different editions. Add to these the three editions of Wittenberg, and- we find that the Bible had already been reprinted in the German language no less than twenty times before the version of Luther appeared."* Comment on these facts seems

* Abp. Spalding, "Ref.," Vol. I. p. 296.

First Lecture.

superfluous. There were at least seventy editions of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongues before Luther had circulated one copy of his German Bible. Yet lie says in his " Table-Talk 55 : " Thirty years ago the Bible was an unknown book ; the Prophets were not understood ; it was thought that they could not be translated. I was twenty years old before I saw the Scriptures. 55

But notwithstanding these facts, "the Church, after all this labor to preserve and make known the inspired word, had by decree prohibited its use 55 ! This would be a singular contradiction, and, if it could be true, would convict the Church of the most stupid folly. Why did the ecclesiastical authorities permit and encourage the publication of a book not allowed to general use ? What became of all the editions in the vernacular of different nations ? They were not for the use of priests exclusively, who were accustomed to the study of the Latin Vulgate. For whom, then, were these different translations, unless for the people, who must have paid for their publication 1 And where is this decree prohibiting the reading of the Bible ? Let us look at the facts of the case. There is nothing to be gained by misrepresentation or falsehood. First, it was the care of the ecclesiastical authorities to guard against the circulation of erroneous or inaccurate editions. It will be admitted by

Pretensions of the Reformers.

every one that any corruption or mistranslation would be a very serious matter. The change of a word even might alter the whole sense of a phrase. The publication of an incorrect translation would not be the publication of the word of God. The Church was therefore bound, as far as was in her power, to provide against this great evil. Secondly, as far as any decree prohibiting the general reading of the Bible is concerned, there is nothing in all history that bears any semblance of the same before the close of the Council of Trent in 1563. Then a rule of discipline was established which 66 permits the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongues by Catholic authors to those only whom the bishop, with the advice of the parish priests or confessors, shall judge that such reading will prove profitable unto an increase of faith and piety." The reason assigned for this rule was " that experience had made it manifest that the permission to read the Bible indiscriminately in the vulgar tongues had, from the rashness of men, produced more harm than good." This regulation of discipline was temporary, and designed to meet the evils existing during the confusion of the times. It was a rule " which was not everywhere received in practice, and which has long since ceased to be of binding force on any part of the Catholic Church. The present discipline requires only that the version

First Lecture.

be approved, and illustrated by commentaries from the Fathers and other Catholic writers. Pope Pius VI., in a letter written April 1, 1778, to Anthony- Martini, the translator of the Italian version, praises him for his undertaking, and adds these words, ' ' The Scriptures are the most abundant sources, which ought to be left open to every one to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine." * At the time of the Reformation, people inflamed with the infection of the times, seemed to be seized with a religious madness, and simple persons were in constant danger from fanatical teachers who, in their enthusiasm, perverted the sacred text to the destruction of all faith and piety. Preachers and apostate monks appeared in the public places, exciting revolution and leading away the unwary. As an illustration of what so often disgraced the whole Protestant movement, " Caiistadt, at Wittenberg, went about at the head of a mob demolishing altars, overturning statues, and destroying pictures and sacred images, and, to put the crown on all his sacrilegious conduct, administered the Lord' s Supper to all who chose to approach. Prophets arose on every side, and the Anabaptists made their followers wild with frenzy and illusion. Carlstadt carried his zeal against human science so far that he cast

* Archbishop Spalding, I. 305. Archbishop Kenrick, " Theol. Dog.," 1.429.

into the flames the text-books brought him by students from all quarters, saying that henceforth the Bible alone should be read among men. Under pretext of this principle, that the Bible alone was sufficient, he went through the streets of Wittenberg with the Scriptures in his hand, stopping the passers-by, and entering the shops of the mechanics, to ask the meaning of difficult passages, as from persons whose minds had not been warped by the sophistry of science. The students passed beyond the control of the authorities, and it was feared the university would be closed. Even the heresiarchs were startled at the excesses to which their teachings had led, and began to grow uneasy, lest they might serve as a pretext to the Duke of Saxony for putting a stop to any further attempts at reforming the Church." * The Protestants themselves were forced in self-defence to admit the evils which sprang from their doctrine, and attribute to. the false interpretation of the Bible the controversies and fanaticism which threatened the foundations of society. "We thought,'' says a learned Protestant, "that we were gaining a victory over the Eoman Church by the free circulation of the Bible. But the Church herself has conquered by its careful prohibition of the common reading of the ver-