Now I have no doubt that two objections to my sermon will arise in many
minds. First, I can quite imagine that some persons who are here, and
many more perhaps who are absent to-night, may be disposed to say, “Is it
not unfair”—(I am now speaking of an objection which might have been
urged previous to the published statement of the Priests,) “Is it not
unfair to charge a whole body with the act of a solitary individual?
Would it be fair to the Church of England to identify her, as a body,
with the indiscretion or sin of any one of her ministers?”
If it were true that there were nothing in the doctrines or laws of the
Church of Rome to identify her with this act, then I should acknowledge
the force of the objection; I should fully acknowledge that it would be
grossly unfair to charge on any body the act of an isolated individual,
unless there were something in the principles, in the laws, or in the
practices, of that body which accorded with it.
But a still stronger objection may occur to your minds, after the
acknowledgment of the Romish Priests. You may say, “Is not this document
signed by the priest who burnt the Testament? Would it not therefore be
more generous and more Christian, when he who has done wrong acknowledges
his error and expresses his sorrow, to accept his apology and be silent?”
This objection, I feel, must be answered.
Now with regard to the reply of the “Catholic Clergy” as they style
themselves, it admits the fact, namely, that a New Testament was burnt.
And in candour we are to take it for granted that the Priest expresses
his regret for having said he would burn other Bibles at any future time.
You will remark however, by the way, (though I shall not now dwell upon
it,) that there is not a word of regret for the utterance of the threat
of scurrilous and abusive language. Not one word is said in reference to
this point—that a man calling himself a minister, not of _a branch_ of
Christ’s Church, but of _the Catholic_ Church, tells a Protestant
Clergyman, in the precincts of his own parish, in the house of one of his
parishioners, that though he shall not advise any to resort to violence
against his person, he shall encourage them to use scurrilous and
insulting language towards him, if he attempts to pass the door.
But to return to the burning of the Testament.
Making every allowance for the members of a Church who regard the
Protestant version as erroneous, I am prepared to show you that this is
not a solitary instance of such proceedings in the Romish Church. And
therefore it is that, notwithstanding the public expression of regret now
read to you, I feel justified in dwelling upon this point. During the
past week I received a visit from a Protestant Clergyman from Ireland. I
was mentioning this incident to him, and he began to narrate to me one or
two other facts of a similar kind. I appeared interested in the subject,
and, without any solicitation on my part, yesterday morning, as I was
reading the apology of the Priests, the post brought me a letter from
this gentlemen, wherein he narrates the circumstance which occurred in
the parish of which he was once Curate. I should say, that I have the
names of place and persons in my hand and am quite prepared to give them
up if necessary. He says—
“When I was curate in the parish of —, diocese of Cork, my esteemed
rector the — established a scriptural school in the parish of — which
was attended by a considerable number of Roman Catholic children. A
Father — the parish priest, visited the house of a man named
Sullivan, whose daughter went to our school. Mr. — asked how the
little girl was improving, and said he wished to hear her read. She
brought him her Bible, which he no sooner saw than he made a rush at
her, snatched it out of her hand, called in the neighbours to warm
themselves by the light of a “Bible fire,” and then burned it, and
heaped the fire to make the blaze the brighter.”
If any person present wishes to see the names he is perfectly at liberty
to do so to-morrow morning at my house. I merely mention the
circumstance, to show that the Bible-burning in St. Peter’s district is
not a solitary instance.
Before however I go to the main line of argument which I shall endeavour
to pursue, I will mention a fact which occurred in my own parish, not a
hundred yards from this spot, the truth of which a person present is
prepared to substantiate on oath. One of my Scripture Readers, in the
course of his visits among the poor Irish, found a considerable number of
them almost or entirely unable to read. He came to me (though teaching
them to read was no part of his duty, but merely to read to them) to ask
whether I should have any objection to his teaching them to read as they
seemed willing to learn. I allowed him to purchase a few elementary
reading Books; not Testaments or Bibles. He went three or four Sundays,
and some of his scholars seemed willing and thankful to avail themselves
of the privilege. At last he found they began to look somewhat shy on
him. He told them to show the Priest the books from which they were
learning to read. The books were produced, and the priest said there was
no harm in the books themselves but _they would lead to the Bible_. And,
as if to form a complete counterpart to the case in St. Peter’s district,
as if scurrility and insult were to be added to the burning of God’s
Word, my Scripture Reader was actually kicked, not by a Priest, but by an
Irishman, as he went out of the Court, who used the strongest language,
and exclaimed “Break his neck!” “IT WOULD LEAD TO THE BIBLE!” And these
poor Irish are doubtless still unable to read, though had my Scripture
Reader been permitted to pursue his labours, there is no doubt that by
this time they would have been fully able to do so.
Before I pass on to the views and conduct of the Church of Rome in
reference to her own versions, I would bring before you the language in
which Rome speaks of _our_ endeavours to circulate our Scriptures.
You are invited to-night by a seasonable coincidence, to attend a Bible
Meeting in the School Room of the very District in which the circumstance
which gives rise to this discourse occurred; and I trust if any of you
are lukewarm about the Bible Society, you will feel that it is high time
for us to meet to circulate the Word of truth, when Priests are burning
it. Now what is the language of Rome towards the Bible Society?
Pius VIIth calls the Bible Society “a most crafty device by which the
very foundations of religion are undermined—a pestilence—a defilement
of the faith most imminently dangerous to souls.”
Leo XII. declares of it “That it strolls with effrontery through the
world, contemning the traditions of the Holy Fathers, and contrary to
the well-known decree of the council of Trent, labours with all its
might and by every means to translate or rather pervert the Holy
Bible into the vulgar language of every nation, from which proceeding
it is greatly to be feared that what is ascertained to have happened
to some passages may also occur with regard to others: to wit that by
a perverse interpretation the gospel of Christ is turned into a human
gospel, or what is still worse into the gospel of the DEVIL.”
To the same effect is the language of the present Pope in one of his
Encyclical Letters. {8}
But I acknowledge that all this does not apply to the main point which I
desire to urge this evening. The question that now presents itself is
“what is the practice of the Church of Rome in reference to the
possession of the Scriptures by their people, even in their own received
versions.” And one of the reasons why I am not satisfied with this
document issued by the Romish Priests, is, that it would seem to imply—(I
acknowledge it is not _stated_, but I ask any man of common sense what
would be the impression produced on his mind on reading this
acknowledgment) that the Church of Rome does circulate the Scriptures
generally? I ask any candid man, would not you conclude and infer from
their words, that the only objection of the Romish Church is to the
circulation of _what they consider erroneous versions_, _but that they
are endeavouring to circulate their own_? I appeal to your judgments
whether what I say is not a fair and legitimate inference from their
language. I believe, in my conscience, that it is intended to convey
that impression.
Now let us examine carefully—and I earnestly crave _your_ attention to
this point, my Roman Catholic hearers—what is the language of your
Church? You shall not have _my_ words. I will give you the words of
_your own Church_. And I presume I am not saying anything which a member
of the Church of Rome will deny. Nor am I relying on an authority which
the Church of Rome can now repudiate. For before I read the extract
which I am about to read to you from an Italian writer, it is necessary
that I should prove to you that the writer is one fully recognised and
endorsed by the Church of Rome. It appears that on the 26th of May,
being Trinity Sunday, 1839, Alphonsus Liguori was canonised at Rome, that
is to say, he was admitted into the muster roll of the Saints of the
Roman Catholic Church. On the 18th of May, 1803, Pius VII confirmed the
decree of the sacred College of the Jesuits, which declared that all the
writings of St. Alphonsus had been most rigorously examined, and I beg
you to mark what follows—“That not one word” (after this rigorous
examination) “_not one word had been found worthy of censure_.” I think
then what I can bring forward from writings thus examined, from writings
which have been thus broadly endorsed and declared free from censure,
from the writings of a man who has been recently canonised, may safely be
dealt with as recognised by the Church of Rome.
Many of you are aware that certain books are prohibited to her people.
There is a congregation called the “Congregation of the Index,” appointed
to examine books to put them into the class of prohibited works. Will
you believe the fact that “THE WORD OF GOD”—Protestants! Romanists! let
it sink deeply into your hearts—THE WORD OF GOD!—not in the Protestant
translation, not in a heretical version, but the WORD OF GOD as received
by the Church of Rome—is IN THE ROMISH INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS! I do
not ask you to take my word for a fact so incredible. Rome shall speak
for herself. Here are the words of the Index.—
“Since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bibles are
allowed everywhere without difference in the vulgar tongue, more harm
than good would arise from it on account of the rashness of men. Let
the judgment of the Bishop or inquisitor be abided by in this matter,
so that with the advice of the parish priest or confessor _they may
grant_ the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, translated by
Catholic authors to those whom they shall have ascertained to be
likely to derive no harm, but rather an increase of faith and piety
from this sort of reading, _which permission they must have in
writing_; _but if any one shall presume to read or possess them
without such permission_, _he may not receive absolution of his sins
unless he first deliver up the Bibles to the ordinary_.
From Pope Pius 4th, we have the following cautionary rule—That since
it is manifest from experience that if the Bible be indiscriminately
permitted in the vulgar tongue, more injury than benefit will result
through the rashness of men, the use of Catholic versions _shall be
granted_ by the voice of the priest or confessor to those alone who
it is understood will not be hurt by the reading of them, but will be
advanced in faith and piety.”
—“_they may grant_”—“_shall be granted_!”—Man giving permission to read
the Bible! That is, on Romanist principles, if one of you, my
parishioners, wants to read the Bible, he must come to me, as his Rector,
for permission—for a written certificate!
Mark also the _condemnation_ by Pope Clement XI of a proposition made by
an eminent writer (Quesnel) of the Romish Church.
“It is useful and necessary in every time, in every place, and for
every degree of persons, to study and to know the spirit, and piety,
and mysteries of the Sacred Scriptures.”
This was laid down by Quesnel, and Pope Clement condemned it.
But I ask “Is it a fact that in this very town, where we have a
considerable number of Romanists, the Scriptures are disseminated _in the
Romish version_?” One of the excuses which might be urged for the Priest
is, that the Testament which was burnt by him was not the authorised
version. Two or three weeks have elapsed since he burnt that one, but
has he given, in its place, one of his own Testaments? He had not done
it up to yesterday morning. What! has he burnt the Testament of a little
child without the slightest restitution? Had I taken away what I deemed
an erroneous version, at least I should have gone to the first Bible
depository and should have said “At any rate, if I take away what I
consider erroneous _I must supply what I think is right_.” On his own
showing, he was bound to have given the child a New Testament _according
to the Romish version_.
But it will be said, “There are many towns where you can buy the Romish
version of the Scriptures at their booksellers.” I can attribute this to
nothing else than that Rome skilfully accommodates herself to
circumstances of time and place. This remark will be deemed uncharitable
by many. Brethren, it is not very easy to avoid the appearance of
uncharitableness when speaking of the practises of the Church of Rome.
“Dr. Dens, having given the Fourth Rule of the Index, and stated that
it is strictly binding in Romish countries, says—‘Yea, rather
according to Steyaeret, the law (4th rule of Index) was received and
hitherto observed (with some variety, according to the peculiar
genius of nations), in by far the greatest portion of the Catholic
world, nay, in the whole of that part of the world which is
completely Catholic: _it was more dispensed with only where Catholics
lived among heretics_.’” {11a}
Where the Protestant Bible is extensively circulated, there you will find
the Romish Scriptures may be purchased.
But, in the face of the hundreds here to-night, I state it as a fact
which may be substantiated by superabundant evidence, that the Church of
Rome is still, as by her own showing she is not ashamed to own, opposed
to the general circulation of the Word of God in the vernacular tongue,
even according to her own received version. {11b} And now let us inquire
into the reasons for this conduct. The first is, as the words just
quoted bear me out in asserting that _they consider that danger and
mischief would arise from the general circulation of the Word of God
among the masses of the People_. Men and Brethren! I desire to put a
bridle on my spirit and on my tongue to-night, but when I hear a man
telling me that the Word of the living God—that that revelation which our
Heavenly Father has graciously given to us his fallen sinful creatures,
to tell us of his love, to make known his will, and to declare the way of
salvation—that this is to be denied to the masses of the people, I feel
within me (I trust a _holy_) indignation. Why is it not the very glory
of the Word of God—is it not one of the best evidences of its adaptation
to the wants of man—that while there are mysteries which neither a Bacon,
nor a Newton, nor a Locke could fathom, and into which even an archangel
can but desire to look—there are lessons which the simplest can fully
understand, which a Timothy may learn at his mother’s knees. Is it not a
blessed and irrefragable proof of the fact that God intended _all_ to
have the Bible—that the Bible in its great and vital truths (I do not say
its every mystery) is open, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not
merely to the Priest or to the scholar, but to the most ignorant of men?
And I will venture to assert that, so far from the Bible being above the
comprehension of an uneducated man, whenever you find such an one become
a humble, prayerful, reader of the Bible, it expands and strengthens the
powers of his mind. Yes! You will find in the courts and alleys of this
vast town, many a man who could not discourse to you of this world’s
lore, but his eye would kindle, his mind would be all intelligence, and
his tongue all fluency, as he began to talk of the wondrous themes of the
Word of God.
It is to me one of the strongest proofs that the Bible is the Word of
God, that the mind of the most ignorant cannot come into contact with it
without becoming elevated thereby:—_The testimony of the Lord is sure_,
_making wise the simple_:—_The entrance of thy words giveth light_; _it
giveth understanding unto the simple_.
But a second reason for the non-circulation of the Written Word by the
Church of Rome, is that _she does not regard it as the alone standard of
faith and practice_. Hear one of her champions. You will not find that
the Church of Rome repudiates Dr. Wiseman. He plainly says—“The
Protestant asserts, and the Catholic denies, that God intended the
Scriptures to be the rule of faith.”