THE BIBLE UNVEILED
By M. M. Mangasarian
1911
When I seriously believe a thing, I say so in a few words, leaving the
reader to determine what my belief is worth. But I do not choose
to temper down every expression of personal opinion into courteous
generalities. Let us learn to speak plainly and intelligibly first, and,
if it may be, gracefully afterwards.--John Ruskin.
|TO make it possible for a man to be as honest in his religion as he
would like to be in his business; to make him as unafraid in church as
he aims to be anywhere else, and to help make him as impatient of a lie
on Sunday as he is on any other day of the week, is the object of these
studies on the bible. I wish to be able to kindle in the breast of every
free citizen of this free country the love of truth, irrespective of
whether it helps or hurts; I wish to shame cowardice and cant out of
every man and woman who speaks the English language.
CONTENTS
An Extraordinary Book
A Word with the Reader—Protestant and Catholic
A Word with the Jews
PART I.
I. The Neglected Book
What Makes a Book Inspired?
The Sects and Their Bibles
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
Catholics Make Their Own Bible
PART II.
I. The Tercentenary of the English Bible
Some Lay Defenders of the Bible—Bryan's Challenge
Bryan's Defense of the Bible
II. Roosevelt on the Bible
III. "Let Them Produce It"
What Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?
IV. How to Test a Book
Speak According to Knowledge
PART III.
I. The First Chapter of the Bible
The First Verse of the Bible
Theologians Discover That Six Days Means Six Periods
The Great Tragedy
II. Taboo and Totem.
The Totem
III. The Bible and Magic
The Unbelievable in the Bible
IV. The Strangest Story in the Bible
PART IV.
I. God and His Book
The Deity Demands Human Flesh
II. The Portrait of God in the Bible
A Bible Saint
III. The Bible and Judaism
IV. Bible and Talmud
V. The Masterpiece of the Bible—Solomon's Temple
PART V.
Contradictions in the Bible
Serious Discrepancies in the Story of Jesus
One Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What Another Made Him Deny
PART VI.
I. What Was The Bible Meant to Teach?
II. The Bible and Religion
III. Does the Bible Teach Morality?
IV. Righteousness in the Bible
V. The Ten Commandments
VI. The Commandments Broken
VII. Thou Shalt Despise Women
VIII. The Sermon on the Mount
IX. The Parables of Jesus
PART VII.
I. A Better Bible
Conclusion. The Book of God and the Book of Man
An Extraordinary Book
|A BOOK which claims infallibility; which aspires to absolute authority
over mind and body; which demands unconditional surrender to all its
pretensions upon penalty of eternal damnation, is an extraordinary book
and should, therefore, be subjected to extraordinary tests.
Neither Christian priests nor Jewish rabbis approve of applying to the
bible the same tests by which _other_ books are tried.
Why?
Because it will help the bible?
It can not be that.
Because it might _hurt_ the bible?
We can think of no other reason.
But why devote so much space and time to the discussion of a book in
which the educated world no longer believes? Why not take up issues that
are more alive and more useful? I am of the opinion that the people who
leave the bible alone do so, not because they think the book has ceased
to hurt, but because they are still afraid of it, or its clientèle. The
generality of reformers would rather fight giants than the great _paper_
idol of the churches--because it is _safer_.
Clergymen with liberal tendencies seek to dull the edge of all criticism
against the bible by admitting in advance the conclusions of scholarship
in reference to it, but still pretending to find a unique use for the
book as "literature." Indeed! And since when has the bible, from being a
divine revelation, fallen to the level of mere letters? If the bible is
mere literature, would the mails accept it in its present form? Would it
be tolerated in the homes of the people? And why should there be a paid
army of men in the service of a book which is only literature? Why so
many priests and rabbis to do its bidding, and why should so many costly
and untaxed temples and cathedrals be built for a book which is no more
than any other literature? Why should missionaries be maintained to push
the sale of this one book if it is nothing but literature? Why is the
world broken up into sects and creeds without number in the name of this
literature? Peculiar literature, this!
_The veil lifted!_ I am not going to give new names to the bible, or
find new _hidden_ meanings in it. That is not my profession. Occultism,
which enables a reader to find in any book whatever he is seeking, has
never commanded my respect. By lifting the veil, I mean a very simple
thing--showing up the bible.
All idols are veiled. The _veil_ is the idol. Uncovered, they scare
nobody. I shall try to do to the great idol of Christendom what the sun
does to the earth--coax it into the light.
A Word with the Reader--Protestant and Catholic
|LET me assure the prospective Catholic and Protestant readers of this
volume that I do not harbor a single feeling toward them which is not
of the kindest and the most respectful. I have no quarrel whatever with
individuals, or with parties. It is altogether foreign to my nature to
take pleasure in giving pain to others. If the truth gives pain, it is
not the fault of the teacher, nor of the reader who hears it for
the first time, but of error, which stabs and stings before it will
surrender its victims.
Having been a Christian believer myself, I have the warmest sympathy for
all who still wear the yoke of superaturalism. But I have no pity for
error. I will not consult its pleasure. I will not spare it. Before any
of my readers condemn me for speaking openly, and without reservation,
I trust they will think of something else I could have said about the
bible which would have been better than the truth. And as I am going to
make the bible speak for itself, I am sure no one will charge me with
misrepresenting the facts.
But I have no business to be concerned about either pleasing or
displeasing anybody. I am going to tell the truth, even if it hurts. If
telling the truth hurts me, it is I, and not the truth, that has to get
out of the way; if it hurts _you_, it is you, and not the truth, that
has to be sacrificed.
Not "truth for truth's sake," but "truth for humanity's sake," is the
better motto, argue certain teachers; but is there a better way of
serving humanity than through truth? Even as "Art for art's sake" will
give humanity the highest art, "Truth for truth's sake" will give to the
world the only bread it can live by.
A Word with the Jews
|AS the bible is the work of Jewish authors, and as I say quite a little
about Jews and Judaism in this book, I wish to take the pains to explain
my position in advance. Rationalism is much indebted to the educated
Jew. Even more is the Jew indebted to Rationalism. The only miracle
in the history of Israel was performed by Rationalism. All the bible
miracles are nothing in comparison. Rationalism has saved the Jew from
his greatest enemy--the bible. It is to the great credit of the Jew that
he has survived his "holy" book. No people have suffered more from it
than the chosen people. The bible has made the Jew a wanderer and an
alien in every country. When thinking of the martyrdom of this race
through the centuries, the poet Heine exclaimed: "Judaism is not a
religion; Judaism is a misfortune." * The same poet congratulates
himself upon the hastening departure of Jehovah: "It is the old Jehovah
himself that is preparing for death. Hear ye not the bells resounding?
Kneel down, they are bringing the sacraments to a dying God."
* Heine: _Philosophy and Religion in Germany._
The great strides which the modern Jew has made in culture as well as in
commerce, he owes to his emancipation from the influence of the bible.
The more he disobeys the bible the more universal he becomes in his
sympathies and tastes. With the crushing load of the bible taken off his
shoulders, the Jew is swift in responding to the most beneficent
influences of environment. Away from Judaism lies the salvation of the
Jew. It was in Europe and America, among the Gentiles, and not in
Palestine, that the Jew discovered himself. Not until he turned his back
upon Jehovah and his book did the Jew leap forth to conquer in art, in
literature, in science, and in all the graces that help to make genius
and virtue attractive. I do not say that all persecution and prejudice
will end when Jew and Christian cease to follow the teachings of the
bible, but surely the most formidable obstacles to the fraternization of
the races shall be removed. It is a service to humanity to try to free
the Jew from the rabbinical yoke, and the Christian from that of the
priest. The rabbi is as much a schismatic as the priest. The parent of
both is the bible.
Once for all, I beg the readers of this book to know that I do not
believe for a moment that the Jews ever taught the absurdities, or
practiced the atrocities, with which the bible credits them. I do
not believe they ever started on an expedition to murder babes and
sucklings, or to capture girls for their harems, for which acts the
bible praises them. Like the Catholics and the Protestants, the Jews,
inspired by these same scriptures, have committed many follies through
the centuries, but I am positive in my own mind that the terrible Old
Testament picture of the Jew is a libel against humanity, as well as
against the Jews.
Not until the Jew has completely parted with bible and Talmud; not until
he has completely surrendered to Rationalism in mind and _body_--for as
long as he practices the Abrahamic rite upon his children as a religious
duty he will continue to be an alien in every land--will the Jew end his
wanderings in the wilderness and enter the land of promise.
The Messiah of the Jew, as well as of the Christian, is come. It is
Rationalism. And what is Rationalism? The authority of Reason.
PART I.
I. The Neglected Book
|THE bible is a sort of national pet in this country. We are taught from
the cradle to revere, and almost worship it. In time, the bible comes to
be as near and dear to us as our own mothers. When anybody praises it,
we applaud him; when anybody criticizes it, we feel toward him as we
would toward one who has betrayed his country, or insulted the national
flag.
When, recently, President Taft praised the bible by saying that "Our
laws, our literature and our social life owe whatever excellence they
possess largely to the influence of this, our chief classic," he was, I
am sure, quite sincere. But, evidently, all he knows about the bible is
what was taught him in the nursery, the Sunday-school, or the church.
The majority of people who exalt the bible above all other books have
not studied the book--not even read it, except a chapter here and a
passage there. If the bible had been a smaller book, people would have
been more familiar with its contents, but being a book of ponderous
size, the generality of people have only a _dilettante_ acquaintance
with its contents. Really, the size of the book has been its best
protection. There is scarcely any other book which is more reverenced,
and less known, than the bible.
The bible societies, however, claim that for long centuries the bible
has been the best seller. About twenty million copies a year have been
disposed of during the past three hundred years. But selling a book, and
getting it read, are not the same thing. There are reasons which explain
the enormous traffic in bibles. A great deal of money is expended every
year to push its sale. Great legacies are devoted to the translation and
dissemination of the bible in every country. Powerful corporations
exist all over Christendom to introduce the bible into new territories.
Besides, the book is sold at a nominal price, often below cost, which is
made possible by large endowments and legacies.
Another reason which explains the vogue of the bible is the fact that it
is protected against all competition. The king is behind the book; the
press is behind it; and a halo of divinity is thrown about it to scare
people from examining their own holy book with the same freedom that
they examine the holy books of other countries. What other book has ever
received the patronage which the bible commands, even to-day? And what
would have been the fate of the bible had no more been done for it than
has been done for Shakespeare, for example? Not until all artificial
helps and props have been removed, will we be in a position to say
whether the bible sells on its own merits, or whether it is indebted for
its popularity to special privilege.
But, as already intimated, notwithstanding these enormous sales, the
bible is read so little by the present generation that it may well be
called _The Neglected Book_. To prove this, we are not going to quote
Rationalists, but clergymen. The complaint from every pulpit is that the
bible is being ignored by the people more and more every day. The Rev.
Lyman Abbott read, at one of his lectures, a chapter from the bible,
without, however, mentioning the name of the book to his hearers. He was
addressing an _élite_ audience; on the platform were judges, bankers and
the "first citizens" of the town. At the conclusion of his lecture two
of the gentlemen on the platform, one of them a judge, asked him for the
name of the book he had read from. Lyman Abbott himself tells this and
other similar stories to show how ignorant the American public is of
the contents of the book they venerate so piously and gush over so
spectacularly.
The very people, however, who are so ignorant of the bible, would be the
first to throw up their hands in horror should the least criticism be
directed against its contents. The same complaint, namely, that people
are neglecting the study of the bible, is made by other clergymen. In
schools and colleges, even, great ignorance has been discovered among
the pupils about the bible. Professor Hamilton reports that, in visiting
certain schools in New York, he found among pupils preparing for
college, and nearly of an age for entrance, whole classes that could not
answer the easiest questions about the contents of the bible.
It is my opinion that the complaining clergymen themselves are not so
well acquainted with the bible as they should be. Of course, no harm
is done either to science or ethics by this general ignorance of the
stories in the bible; personally, I am pleased at the indifference of
the public to a collection of writings which has to be labeled "holy" to
command respect.
The above facts are quoted only to prove that, despite its enormous
sales, the bible is a stranger in the home, the school, the study, the
shop, and in all the assemblies of the people. But the less some people
are acquainted with the bible, the more they seem to believe in
it. Indeed, ignorance of the bible is indispensable to faith in its
inspiration. Moreover, it is this ignorant veneration which makes it
dangerous for any one to read and tell the truth about it. Formerly,
when the church had the power, such a man was either hacked to pieces,
or burned to cinders; to-day, even, he is persecuted as much as public
opinion will permit. It is a matter of history that in the name of
this Jewish-Christian volume, which people do not read and are but
superficially acquainted with, nearly a hundred millions of lives have
been destroyed in Europe alone. Could anything be more appalling? In
modern times, the church can no longer do to the unbelievers in the
bible what it did to them for over seventeen hundred years, but it does
to them as much as public sentiment will allow.
The reader will be interested in examining with me the book in the
defense of which, I regret to say, nearly every imaginable crime has
been committed. It gives me pain to say this, but who can hide the
truth? Moreover, my sole purpose in telling the plain truth is not to
offend, or give pain, but to encourage everybody to approach the book
without fear. I am not going to praise the bible; but I am not going to
denounce it either; I am going to explain it.
It is my desire not so much to talk about the bible--when, and where,
and by whom, it was compiled; how it was lost and discovered; burned in
the destruction of the temple, and later restored by the scribe Ezra;
how it has been edited and revised again and again * --but to lift the
veil and show the book to the world.
* These questions are discussed in the author's pamphlet,
_How the Bible Was Invented._
What Makes a Book Inspired?
|BEFORE proceeding to read the book, may I explain that an _inspired_
book must be different from uninspired books. If it has excellences and
defects like other books, then it is in no sense different from any of
the works of man. An inspired book must be a perfect book, else what
advantage is there in being inspired? Again, an inspired book must
contain original matter, to justify its inspiration. If the bible
needed the help of inspiration to say what other books have said without
inspiration, then, instead of being a greater, it must needs be a more
ordinary book. Is there anything in the bible which can not be found
elsewhere? While there is not a single idea in the bible which was not
known before, there are many glorious truths of science and philosophy
in other books which can not be found in the bible. Wherein, then, is
the bible inspired?
Let me also explain that an argument, or the presentation of important
facts, produces an impression only upon the unprejudiced. The soundest
reasoning will no more convince a partisan than the most copious shower
will give nourishment to the sand. But an argument is never addressed to
a biased mind. The appeal of reason is to the fairminded and the free.
When, for instance, it is shown that certain passages are in one bible,
and not in another; or how passages, regarded as divine at one time,
have been dropped or altered in more recent revisions, a telling point
is made against an infallible book, in the opinion of all honest minds.
Or, when it is shown that the bible positively teaches falsehood and
immorality, the question of inspiration is at once closed for all
self-respecting and impartial judges. But, as intimated, nothing can
satisfy prejudice, or conquer wilful ignorance. Prejudice on the one
hand, and stupidity on the other, are as impervious to argument as a
duck's back is to water.
The present book is not for minds that are closed. When we go to court
to have a case tried, the value of the evidence we present does not
depend upon the appreciation of our adversary's counsel. However
convincing our testimony, he will never admit that it proves his client
guilty. It is the impartial judge, and it is, again, the open-minded
jury, that must pass upon the evidence. In the same way, what we say
here about the bible will not convert the priests or the rabbis. We do
not write for them. Our book will have no effect upon the pope; it is
not meant to change _his_ views. This book is for those who can afford
the truth.
In conclusion, the bible is a very _delicate_ subject to handle. The
material in hand is so prodigious, and of such a nature, that I am at a
loss to know what to say and what to omit. There are many things in the
bible to which I would like to call attention but which
I am debarred from so doing because good taste will not allow it. Yet
not to be able to refer to these matters places me in the position of an
attorney who has his best witnesses and evidence thrown out by a ruling
of the court. The church people are permitted to go on and print in
every language the texts and stories of the bible which I am not allowed
even to read in public--much less to comment on them. They can sell the
book by the millions, containing absurdities and atrocities which, by
order of the court (that is to say, of public opinion, or of good
taste), I am prohibited from referring to in my argument against the
authority of the book. The reader can have no idea what a protection
that is to the bible. The defendant, as it were, has gagged the
prosecution. It needs no effort to realize how much the bible is
indebted to this fact for its being tolerated at all in the twentieth
century. Courtesy prevents the exposure which would completely change
the world's opinion of the book.
But one can be a little freer in a book than on a public platform. Many
of the texts quoted in this volume could not have been read from the
platform. But there are numerous passages in the bible which would cause
even cold print to blush. We shall not disturb those.
The Sects and Their Bibles
|THE Jews deny that the second half of the bible is inspired; the
Christians admit that the first part of the bible is not as binding as
the second part.
The Jew fails to observe that, in denying inspiration to the New
Testament, he is also depriving the Old of its inspiration. The
arguments by which he disproves the New Testament are the same which
disprove the Old, and all other "inspired" documents.
The Christian, by admitting that the Old Testament is no longer as
binding upon the conscience of man as it was at one time, or as the New
Testament is now, surrenders the whole question of inspiration. If the
Old Testament has been superseded, the New might be, too. If what God
says in one part of the book can be ignored by the Christians, what he
says in another part of the book may just as reasonably be ignored by
the Jews, and--this is important--what God says in either part of
the book may be ignored by the _Rationalist_. In other words, the
Rationalist agrees with the Christian that the Old Testament is
_passé_, and with the Jews, that the New Testament is nothing more than
ecclesiastical literature. The Rationalist uses the arguments of the Jew
against the New Testament, and the arguments of the Christian against
the Old, with the result that practically both Testaments fall by the
blows of the sectarians themselves. Both Jew and Christian seem to be
unable to perceive, or if they do, they are unwilling to admit, that not
only has each destroyed the position of the other, but also his own.
All the objections which the Jew brings against Christianity are equally
valid against his own Judaism. Does he object to the Christian trinity?
There is a trinity also in his religion. In Genesis we read that
the Lord appeared unto Abraham in three persons. He entertained and
worshiped the three men as one Lord. * Does the Jew object to the dogma
of incarnation? In the Old Testament, God repeatedly appears in flesh
and blood. Is it the immaculate conception that the Jew can not accept?
In Judaism, too, that miracle was of frequent occurrence. Maidens in
the Old Testament, as in the New, see an angel of the Lord and become
pregnant. Is it the doctrine of hell to which the Jew objects? Jesus,
in all probability, borrowed it from the Talmud. Is it an exclusive
salvation that the Jew rejects? But the _extra ecclesia non est solus_
of the Catholic is but another version of the "Outside Israel there
is no salvation" of the Old Testament. Is it the doctrine of blood
atonement in the New Testament which offends him? The Old Testament is
as _red_ as the New. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is
one of name, largely. Is it not remarkable how people will subscribe
to the very doctrines which they reject, if presented to them under a
different name? Jew and Christian have persecuted one another in the
past. Why? Only for a name. The pity of it! Judaism is Christianity,
and Christianity is Judaism. They are called by different names--that is
all.
To the Jew we say: "You will not take upon you the yoke of the New
Testament; cast down also the yoke of the Old." And to the Christian we
say: "You have already emancipated yourself from the authority of the
Old Testament to a great extent; free yourself also from the authority
of the New."
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
|THE Catholics do not believe in the Protestant bible; the Protestants
do not trust the Catholic bible. Each tells the truth about the bible of
the other, but not of his own.
As in the case of the Jew and the Christian, neither the Catholic nor
the Protestant seems to realize that in condemning each other's bible as
untrustworthy, or as a manipulated copy, they are condemning also each
his own bible. If the Catholics have tampered with the Word of God, as
the Protestants claim they have; and if the Protestants have a defective
bible, as the Catholics charge, then the claim that God has preserved
his revelation from human error falls to the ground. If God did not
protect the Protestant bible from corruption, he is liable to be equally
unconcerned about the Catholic bible, from which it follows that the
Word of God can be, and has been, corrupted, which, if true--and both
Catholics and Protestants say it is--then there is no incorruptible Word
of God.
The Rationalist shares with the Catholic the latter's opinion of the
Protestant bible; and of the Catholic bible, it doubts its reliability
just as the Protestants do. Putting what the Protestants and Catholics
say of each other's bible side by side, the Rationalist arrives at the
conclusion that both bibles are untrustworthy.
Let us now consider another phase of the Catholic-Protestant position
on the bible. The Protestants are apparently very anxious to make
the reading of the bible in the home and the school imperative; the
Catholics, on the other hand, seek to make it equally imperative _not_
to read the bible. It is well known that the popes of Rome, as heads of
the church and vicars of Christ, have repeatedly forbidden the reading
of the bible by the people. An index of forbidden books is kept in Rome
for the guidance of the faithful, and, surprising as it may seem,
the bible was placed upon this _Index Expurgatorius_ by the popes
themselves. The bull of Pius IV. reads: "Whosoever shall dare to own a
copy of this book (bible) and read it without having procured a special
dispensation shall not receive absolution for his sins."
Similar prohibitions were given by Pius VI., Leo II, XII., Gregory XVI.,
Pius IX. in his Syllabus, and Clement XI. in his famous bull,
_Unigenitus_. In the _Index_ of forbidden books of Pope Innocent XI.,
1704, one of the books forbidden is "the bible in any of the popular
languages."
This prohibition was not against the Protestant bibles only, for the
fourth clause in the _Index_ is a warning against Catholic bibles as
well, _"bibliorum Catholicis autoribus versorum_."
My sympathies in this matter are with the Catholics; if the bible is
an infallible book, we ought to have an infallible reader. To say that
everybody may interpret the bible as he pleases is to say that the bible
has no meaning at all, except what the readers themselves _read_ into
it. But if it has an infallible meaning, only an infallible interpreter
can pronounce upon it. And when it is remembered that an erroneous
interpretation might be the means of damning the souls of many, it
becomes a positive duty not to read the book for one's self. The Pope
may read it, because being infallible, he can not misread it. I admire
the logic of the Catholic church in this respect. Grant the premises
that the bible is a special revelation--and infallible--and all the
arguments of the Protestants against the Catholic position shatter to
pieces, like the waves against a rock.
But, as already intimated, the Protestants believe in putting the
bible in every house, hotel and school. They want every man to carry
a pocket-bible; and if women had pockets they would be urged to do the
same. From all this one would suppose that they were very anxious to
get everybody acquainted with the contents of the bible. The different
ministerial assemblies, at their annual gatherings, recently attacked
by official resolutions the decision of the Supreme Court of
Illinois, which made the reading of the bible in the public schools
unconstitutional. The Protestant churches do not seem to care at all
about the constitution--they want the bible in the schools, constitution
or no constitution. In the twentieth century the supreme court rules the
bible out of the people's schools! Had not Greece fallen before the wave
of Asiatic mysticism, the bible would have been ruled out of Europe two
thousand years ago. The Supreme Court of Illinois is doing now what
the supreme court of Europe should have done in the year one.
Notwithstanding protests to the contrary, I am of the opinion that the
Protestants are at heart as opposed to the reading of the bible as the
Catholics. Indeed, they would have everybody read the bible, but they
must not read it with their own eyes, but as Calvin, or Wesley, or
Luther read it. But that is not different from the Catholic position
that the Pope must read the bible for the people. If the Protestants
really permit each to read and interpret the bible according to his best
thought, why are there heresy trials among them? That is a searching
question. Heresy trials prove beyond a doubt that the Protestants do not
wish anybody to read the bible for himself. See what the church did to
me for reading the bible with my own eyes. At the age of twenty-five,
myself, my wife and baby were dispossessed of church, position and
support. What was done to me for reading the bible with my own eyes has
been done to thousands of others?
"Let _me_ read the bible for you," says the Catholic.
"Read the bible with _my_ eyes," says the Protestant.
What is the difference?
Catholics Make Their Own Bible
|ONE of the significant facts about the bible is that no two copies of
it are exactly alike. There are nearly as many versions of it as
there are sects. The most important variations are to be found between
Catholic and Protestant bibles. As I write I have before me a copy of
the Catholic "Holy Bible," on the title-page of which are these words:
````HOLY BIBLE.
```Translated from the Latin Vulgate.
`_This edition of the Holy Catholic Bible, having been duly
```examined, is hereby approved of._
Then follows a long list of the names of bishops and archbishops. It
is thus intimated that no bible is the "Word of God" unless it has the
endorsement of these Catholic dignitaries. Only after these men have
examined the bible and given it their sanction does the book become
"divine." No layman can tell for himself, unaided by a priest, the "Word
of God" from the word of man. In fact, it is the priest who changes the
word of man into the "Word of God" by the same process that he converts
ordinary bread into a God.
There is given also in the "Holy Catholic Bible," before me, a list of
the books which are pronounced to be "inspired" by the Council of Trent.
To introduce into the bible any book not contained in this list, or to
exclude from the bible any one of the books which the Council of Trent
has decided to be "inspired," is to be guilty of blasphemy. This is what
it says:
_Now if any one reading over these books in all their parts, as they
are usually read in the Catholic Church... does not hold them sacred and
canonical... and does industriously contemn them let him be anathema._
To be _anathema_ means to be accursed. In other words, there is no
choice; it is the Catholic bible or a curse. No man has any right
to choose for himself, or decide according to his own conscience and
knowledge, which is the "Word of God," or how much in the various
bibles is actually "the Word of God." He must, then, choose between
the priest's bible or--his curse. To try to prove a book "inspired" by
threatening to _curse_ all those who may tell the truth about it, is a
sure sign that the makers of the bible themselves do not believe in
its inspiration. It is impossible to think that if the priests really
believed the bible to be "divine," they would have undertaken to hedge
it about with anathemas. But they curse to conceal their own unbelief.
There is not another book that had to curse its readers to make them
believe in it.
The most effective argument against the bible is furnished by the church
itself. For nearly fifteen hundred years it hanged and burned people
alive to make them believe in the bible. That is a good way to prove
one's unbelief, not one's faith. It shows what little confidence the
Catholics had in the ability of "the Word of God" to defend itself
against a Giordano Bruno, when they burned him at the stake; and how
dubious the Protestants were of _their_ bible, when they burned Michael
Servetus at the stake. The long list of terrible crimes committed in
defense of the bible is a conclusive proof, first, of the unbelief of
the Christians themselves in the ability of the bible to win men by the
beauty and truth of its teachings; and, second, of the evil influence of
the book upon those who accepted its authority.
The preface to the Catholic bible offers a further proof of the lack
of confidence of Christians in "the Word of God." It forbids people,
as already shown, to read the Word of God without first securing the
consent of a priest. It is a heinous thing, according to the church
authorities, to undertake to read the bible on one's own responsibility.
"To prevent and remedy this abuse" (namely, that of reading the bible,
and interpreting it for one's self), says this same preface, "it was
judged necessary to forbid the reading of the scriptures in the vulgar
tongues." Of course, ''there is no prohibition against reading it
in Latin, or Hebrew, or Greek, or in any language that one does not
understand, but it is forbidden to read it in the _vulgar_, that is
to say, in any language that the reader is familiar with, "without the
advice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides whom God has
appointed to govern his church." To prove this authority of the priest
to forbid the reading of the bible, the following text is quoted: "He
that will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the
publican." *
* Matthew xviii, 17, Catholic Bible.
The church _must_ be obeyed. The commandment says nothing about
obeying the church only when she is in the right, or only when she is
reasonable, or even only when she is scriptural--she must be obeyed
because she is the church. And this, too, is quite consistent with the
claims of an infallible revelation. If everybody is to be given the
liberty to decide when the church is right, reasonable, or scriptural,
and when she is not, then it is not the church, but the individual, who
is infallible. If the bible is "inspired," there is no escape from the
conclusions of the Catholic church. Did not Jesus say to the Apostles,
and, therefore, to the priests: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven"? * Does not this make everybody the slave of the
church?
* Matthew xviii, 18, Catholic Bible.
The Catholic bible contains nearly a dozen more "inspired" books than
the Protestant bible, and many of the texts in the books which are
common to both are differently translated. By comparing the list of
books in the Catholic bible with the books in the Protestant bible, we
find that the Protestants are "accursed" by the decision of the Council
of Trent, inasmuch as they deny the inspiration of, and exclude from
their bible, about twelve of the books in the Catholic bible. Now, what
is a layman to do when infallible churches disagree? We are commanded
by the bible to hear the church, but which church? If we could decide
ourselves which is the true church, we would then be greater than the
church, as it would need our approval before it could exercise any
authority over us. But if we can not decide which is the true church,
what are we going to do? This is an important question, because unless
we belong to the true church we can not have the true bible.
The Catholics "curse" the Protestant bible. This is the literal truth.
The Protestants, on the other hand, call the Catholic bible "a popish
imposture." While they are wrangling about it, what becomes of the Word
of God?
But the most interesting part in the preface to the Catholic bible is
the warning which the church gives to the reader of the bible, not to be
shocked, or scandalized, by the immoral and impossible stories contained
therein. The reader is cautioned against applying to the bible the
standard of morality by which other books are judged. To scare the
reader into praising in the bible what he would unreservedly and
sweepingly condemn in other books, the following biblical text is
quoted:
_My thoughts are not as your thoughts, neither are my ways as your ways,
saith the Lord; for as the heavens are exalted above the earth even
so are my ways exalted above your ways and my thoughts above your
thoughts._ *
Well, of course, that being the case, the reader shall start with his
mind made up that he must not understand anything he reads. The better
and much safer thing to do is not to read the bible at all. And that is
honestly what both Catholics and Protestants would like to say, if
they could. The Catholic bible in its preface comes as near giving that
advice as it dares, as the following will show:
_How then shall any one, by his private reason, pretend to judge, to
know, to demonstrate, the incomprehensible and unsearchable ways of
God?_
What is the use of reading an "incomprehensible" and "unsearchable"
book? The Word of God could not have been meant for man. Let it pass.
* Isaiah lv, 8-9, Catholic Bible; same in Protestant bible.