There is at present a manifestly uneasy and uncomfortable feeling among a certain class of Roman Catholics as to the hostility of the Church of Rome to the reading of the word of God. It is said by Roman Catholic controversialists to be an unfounded charge, and a refuted calumny; and so whenever either shame or policy makes it desirable to do so, the charge made against her of being opposed to the circulation of the scriptures, and that she prohibits the laity to read them, is very warmly and indignantly denied. Further, it is attempted to sustain this denial by adducing testimony which is entirely short of the true standards and creeds of the Church of Rome.
In the November issue of the Nineteenth Century, there is an article entitled, “Catholicism in America,” by Mr. Badley, in which he describes a sermon by Cardinal Gibbons, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, on the subject of “Reading the Bible.” In the sermon the Cardinal quotes St. Charles Bonomeo, who speaks of the Bible as being “the garden of the priest,” and the Archbishop adds, “I say it ought to be the garden of the laity, too. What is good for us is good for you.” Now this testimony is supposed to be quite conclusive as to disposing of this so-called calumny against the Church of Rome as to her treatment of the scriptures. But is it really conclusive in this direction? Whatever may be Cardinal Gibbons’ sentiments as to the Bible being “the garden of the laity,” he, as well as all faithful Roman Catholics, must abide by the standards of their church, it is to these all true appeal must be made for any correct and authoritative statement of the doctrines of their church. The object, therefore, of the present paper is to place before my readers some of the decrees of these standards respecting the Holy Scriptures, so that all may judge in the light of facts, what the true doctrine of the Church of Rome is.
At the Synod of Toulouse, A. D. 1229, the Pope’s legate set forth forty-five orders with the view of extirpating heresy.
The fourteenth order runs thus:
“We likewise prohibit the permitting of the laity to have the books of the Old and New Testaments, unless, perhaps, any one should wish, from a feeling of devotion, to have a psalter or breviary for divine service, or the hours of the blessed Virgin. But we strictly forbid them to have the above- named books translated in the vulgar tongue”[Labbaeus et Cossarte, tom. 11, part 1, p. 430].
It may interest my readers to know that the Church of Rome declared the Vulgate to be the only authentic version of the scriptures, still she did not determine what particular edition of the Vulgate should be received; consequently there have been rival editions emanating from the highest authority, but differing from each other. Prior to the Council of Trent in 1546, there were several editions in print, and after it closed, others appeared. Sixtus V., A.D. 1590, set forth an edition which he himself had with great care revised, and by a bull declared it the authentic edition, and ordered under pain of the heaviest anathemas that not the smallest alteration should be made in it. But ten years afterwards Clement VIII. declared this very edition of Sixtus V. to be corrupt, commanded its disuse, published another of his own which differed from the former in no less than two thousand places. The Council of Trent having decreed that the Latin Vulgate was the only authentic version of the scriptures, determined it should remain a sealed book from the people. A rule was adopted which forbad the laity to read even the Romish version in the vulgar tongue, without obtaining a distinct permission in writing from their confessors to do so. The fourth rule concerning prohibited books is as follows:
“Since it is manifest by experience, that if the Holy Scriptures be allowed everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more harm than good will 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 Catholic versions of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue to those whom they have ascertained can derive no loss, but an increase of faith and piety from such reading, which permission they must have in writing; But whoever shall presume, without such permission, either to read or have them, must not receive absolution of sin unless the Bible shall first have been delivered to the ordinary” [Regula IV. de Libris Prohibitis].
Further evidence as substantiating the foregoing is found in the year 1693, when Quesnell published a remarkable book under the title of “Moral Reflections” on the New Testament. This book immediately attracted attention, and called forth from Clement XI., A.D. 1713, the famous bull, “Unigenitus,” in which he anathematises Quesnell’s book, and all who should read it. In order that all who read may understand what it was that drew forth the severe condemnation of Pope Clement XI. I will give a few propositions collected from Quesnell’s Reflections: 79. “It is useful and necessary, at all times, in all places, and for persons of every class, to study and to know the spirit, piety and sacred mysteries of the scriptures” (1 Cor. 14:55I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:5)).
84. “To take the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or shut it up from them, by taking from them the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth of Christ to them” (Matt. 5:22And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, (Matthew 5:2)).
85. “To forbid Christians the reading of holy scripture, particularly of the gospel, is to prohibit the use of light to the sons of light, and to make them suffer a kind of excommunication” (Luke 11:3333No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. (Luke 11:33)).
My readers will form their own conclusions when they hear that these propositions were condemned by the bull, “Unigenitus.” But further evidence of this fact is forthcoming in “Dens’ Theology,” where we find this bull quoted in order to prove that it is not necessary for all to read the scriptures. In Dens’ we find the following “Is the reading of the sacred scriptures necessary, or commanded for all?”
“ANSWER.—That it is not necessary, or commanded for all, appears from the practice and doctrines of the universal Church. Wherefore in the bull, ‘Unigenitus,’ the 79th proposition upon the matter is condemned, ‘It is useful and necessary, &c., to which add the 80th, 81st, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, and 85th propositions in the same bull.” But further Dens asks:
“Is the reading of the sacred scriptures lawful for all?” He says: “The church does not prohibit by any decree the reading of the sacred scriptures in the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongue, even to the laity themselves.” [Dens’ Tractatus de Virtutibus, N. 64 de Sect. Scrip. S., vol. 2 Pp. 101, 102]
How wonderfully kind and benevolent the Church of Rome is! The poor peasant is not positively forbidden to read the New Testament in Greek, or the Old Testament in Hebrew. This is assuredly worthy of the Jesuitical stratagems of popery, but its effect is to chain the word of life to men, to put an effectual extinguisher on that light, of which it is so beautifully and touchingly written
This lamp which from the everlasting throne
Mercy took down . . . Beseeching men, with tears
And earnest sighs, to read, believe, and live.”
But I may be met with such a statement as this: How can you so write and contend, remembering that the Church of Rome has published an English version of holy scriptures, and further, in Ireland, the Roman Catholic bishops have put forth an authorized edition of that version?
I reply, it is perfectly true that such is the case, but it is an unwilling concession wrung from the Church of Rome by Protestantism and this version of the scriptures. viz., the New Testament translated into English at Rheims, A.D. 1582, and the Old Testament at Douay, A.D. 1609, is the result of being so circumstanced in a Protestant country as to make it impossible for Roman Catholics to be kept in total ignorance of the word of God; hence under this pressure this version came forth, but its false translations and corrupt notes neutralize as far as is possible the power of the word of God. But moreover it is plainly intimated that the issue of this version was an unwilling concession and not at all a true relaxation of the rule of the Council of Trent, for Dens speaking of this rule says that it is observed in Catholic countries, but among heretics there is some relaxation! [See Dens’ De Lectione Scripturae, S. N. 64, vol. 2, p.103.]
And further evidence is furnished as to this by the preface of the Rheims translators, viz.:
“Which translation we do not for all that publish upon erroneous opinion of necessity that the holy scriptures should always be in our mother tongue; or that they ought or were ordained of God to be read indifferently of all, or could be easily understood of every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language: pernicious and much hurtful to many: or that we generally and absolutely deemed it more convenient in itself, and more agreeable to God’s word and honor, or edification to the faithful, to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the ecclesiastical learned languages: not for these, nor any such like causes, do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state and condition of our country, unto which divers things are either necessary or profitable, or medicinable now, that, otherwise, in the peace of the church, were neither much requisite nor perchance wholly tolerable.”
The admission in this is without all doubt very clear and distinct. But further, the testimony of Cardinal Bellarmine is in the fullest sense confirmatory. He says:
“What we contend for is, that the scriptures ought not to be read publicly in the vulgar tongue, nor allowed to be read in the vulgar tongue indifferently by all.” [Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, lib. ii., cap. 16, sec. 32.]
But he also assigns his reason for this as follows:
“If the common people should hear read in the vulgar tongue from the Song of Songs, ‘Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, and his left hand under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me’; and that of Hosea, ‘Go, and take to thee children of fornication’; also the adultery of David, the incest of Thamar, the lie of Judith, and how Joseph made his brethren drunk, how Sarah, Leah, and Rachel gave their maids to their husbands for concubines, and many other of those things which are mentioned in the scriptures, with approbation, they would either be incited to imitate the like, or they would despise the holy prophets, as the Manicheans formerly did, or think that there are untruths in scripture. And when they would see that there are so many apparent contradictions in scripture, and would not be able to reconcile them, there would be a danger, lest at length they might believe nothing.
I have heard from a person worthy of credit, that when the 25th chapter of Ecclesiasticus was read in a church by a Calvinist minister in England, in which many things are said of the wickedness of women, a certain female rose up, and said, ‘Is that the word of God? Yea, rather it is the word of the devil.’” [Bellarmine, De Verbo Dei, lib. 2, cap. 15, sec. 31, 32, tom. 1 p. 66.]
Now what blasphemy, I ask, can be more unblushing than this? Is the Church of Rome more pure and holy than the eternal God Himself, whose word she thus wickedly yet covertly traduces and maligns? Has the blessed God erred in giving man His word?
But further, the Church of Rome, when she speaks of scripture, does not mean the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, but the Vulgate Latin edition, or the Douay and Rheimish translations, embracing also the Apocrypha. This is the Bible of the Church of Rome, and together with tradition is the rule of faith; the language of the Council of Trent is plain as to this, for it is asserted that “all the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God, which includes scripture and tradition.” [Catechism of the Council of Trent.]
Further note the following:
“If we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which both the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.” [Note of the Roman Catholic version on 2 Tim. 3:1616All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16).]
And in entire concord with this hear Dr. Milner in his “End of Controversy”:
“The Catholic rule of faith is not merely the written word of God, but the whole word of God, both written and unwritten, in other words scripture and tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church. This implies that we have a two-fold rule or law, and that we have an interpreter or judge to explain it, and to decide upon it, in all doubtful points. [Milner’s “End of Controversy,” Letter 10, p. 53.]
It is very evident from a study of the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. 4 Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis; also Decretum de editione et usu Sacror. libr. also De Libris prohib., reg. 4) that the original scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, are not of authority in the Church of Rome, for we find them omitted in the decree, and a translation is substituted for them: also the intelligent reader will carefully note how that every Protestant translation of the scriptures, such as Luther’s translation and the English Bible are prohibited. Further, the word of God is degraded by placing along with it the Apocrypha as a part of God’s revelation; and both written and unwritten tradition is added to scripture; and not only this, but is placed in equal authority to it. Then according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, the reader of the word of God is not permitted to exercise his or her own unfettered judgment as to it, but is bound to understand its blessed utterances according to the way the clergy view them, as well as according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Even if a scant permission be given to read the scriptures, all provided against by this iniquitous system, the very genius of which is to intrude itself in every way between the soul and God. Every person is bound, according to the teaching of the Church of Rome, not to exercise an unfettered judgment in matters relating to faith and morals, the holy word of a holy God according to the tenets of the Roman faith is not a full, plain, safe rule of faith and practice. It is not a little remarkable that at all periods in the history of Christianity, its enemies have ever set themselves in opposition to the doctrines of holy scriptures, judging that thereby they were assailing Christianity, knowing no other repository of it, or store-house from whence it was set forth and proclaimed to man.
There is another fact of striking force and point. It is well and aptly thus expressed: “Fanatics, such as the Mormons, Southcottians, and others, add to the scriptures their respective new revelations. They pronounce the scriptures to be imperfect, a dead letter, obscure, unsafe, &c. The Roman doctors say the same things both in the same and similar words. From this principle, as adopted by the fanatics, the most monstrous errors proceed, and the greatest crimes are countenanced and perpetrated. For, supplying the insufficiency of scripture by their inward word, or their new revelation, they can be the subjects of no discipline, are not to be met with any argument, and hence arise a number of inconsistencies. From the very same principle of supplying the defects of scripture, the Romanists derive an imperious, interested and tyrannical religion. For as the fanatics supply the insufficiency of scripture by their new revelations, so do the Roman Catholics by the authority of their church. Thus the one and the other impose on consciences their additions to God’s law. For these evils there is no remedy but scripture, which is the proper standard by which to try the pretensions of each. The one supplies the deficiency of scripture by the inward word or new revelation; the other, by the Pope’s word, uttered ex cathedra: and the inward word and the Pope’s word shall rule and determine everything, and the scriptures shall pass for nothing; but as under the pretense of an additional revelation, every new thing shall pass for the word of God, so shall it also under the Roman pretense. For not he that makes the law, but he that expounds the law gives the proper standard. It follows from hence, that nothing but the scriptures’ sufficiency can form a proper limit to the flood of evils which may enter from each of these parties relying on the same false principle.”
But it is of great importance that we should plainly state here what is the genuine Christian’s rule of faith and practice. Let us state it then plainly and openly:
“It is the word of God as contained in the holy scriptures, not as understood by every man of sound judgment, but as holy men of God wrote them, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” The word of God is immutable and infallible truth itself. It is both false and absurd to say that any private interpretation of scripture is the rule of faith of Protestant Christians. If it were true that their rule was the word of God as understood by each person, it would present the ridiculous truth as to Protestants is, that their one only rule of faith is the Bible and the Bible alone. Their cry as to everything is, “To the law and to the testimony.”
Now the interpretation of scripture is the use of the rule, but not the rule. It is said in reply to this, “But see how men have abused the scriptures!” We return answer, man has abused everything. If he has abused and perverted the volume of revelation, so has he abused and perverted the book of creation. Men have gazed at the heavens, and become worshipers of the sun, moon, and stars, instead of learning there concerning an all wise and beneficent Creator. What would be thought of men in consequence being forbidden any more to look at those heavens, or if they did so by permission, it was only under the special eyes of their teachers?
I have no hesitation in adopting the proposition of another in the following words: “That the Bible ought to be read by all will be as evident to many, as that God is its author; and to admit its divine origin, yet question its right to be universally heard will be proof of insanity.”
But there is even a more serious aspect of this question, and it is this, that in order to acquire credit and prestige for what is called the church, Romanism takes practically the same ground as infidels in respect of the scriptures. The Church of Rome instills into the mind doubts and questions as to the authority of the scriptures, in order that she may extol herself in the eyes of men as that which alone can accredit the scriptures. This, no doubt, is her object, but to attain this, she takes the same ground as the infidel. Further, it is most solemn blasphemy, for it is asserting, that when God has spoken to men His word has no certain authority of itself over their consciences. This system of Romanism, on one side deprives the soul of certainty in the word of God, and on the other side it deprives the word of God of its authority over the soul. What can be said of this, but that it is wicked in the extreme, for the Church of Rome does not dare openly to deny that the scriptures are the word of God. If the Church of Rome, if the priests of Rome, believe it to be the word of God, why not forthwith take it and see what it says? Ah, they dare not it is too plainly condemnatory of the whole system. For example, the scriptures say, “there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:1313From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews 10:13)); whereas the Church of Rome is bound by the Council of Trent, Sess. 22, Canon 3, as follows:
“If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made upon the cross, and that it is not propitiatory, or that it profits only the receiver, and that it ought not to be offered, for the living and the dead, for their sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities: let him be accursed.”
Further, in Dr. Butler’s “General Catechism,” the Church of Rome teaches as follows, pp. 59, 60: “Q. What is the sacrifice of the new law?
A. The mass.
Q. What is the mass?
A. The sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which are really present under the appearance of bread and wine; and are offered to God by the priest for the living and the dead.
Q. Is the mass a different sacrifice from that of the cross? A. No: because the same Christ who once offered Himself a bleeding victim to His heavenly Father on the cross, continues to offer Himself in an unbloody manner, by the hands of His priests on our altars.”
I bring this forward to show that Romanism and scripture must be antagonistic; that Rome dare not submit to be judged by scripture; hence it serves her end to join hands with infidels and sceptics in order to obtain influence for herself as a system over men’s consciences, by leading them to doubt the divine nature of scripture, so that she alone may be set forth as the one who can give certainty as to them.
But returning to the decree of the Council of Trent for a little, observe the absurdity of Dr. Butler’s Catechism asserting that a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice are the same! Further, how can the sacrifice of the mass be a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, when Jesus said as he died, “It is consummated?” If they are the same sacrifice, as the Church of Rome says they are, how can one be the application of the other? And how can an unbloody sacrifice be the application of a bloody one?!
But let me produce one further instance and witness of the absurd contradictions and inconsistency of Romish teaching with itself. In a stereotype edition of the New Testament, printed by R. Coyne, Dublin, 1850, and having on the back of the title an approbation in Latin, approving of this edition of the New Testament, and of the Short Notes it contains, as “agreeable to Catholic verity” (Catholicae veritati consentaneas). The following note occurs on Rom. 4:7, 87Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:7‑8): “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.”
“NOTE.—Covered, &c. This covering, and not imputing, means that our sins are quite blotted out by the blood of the Lamb, who taketh away the sins of the world; so that we are no longer to be charged with them, because they are no more.” This is true and in accordance with the word of God, and moreover it leaves not a stone for the Romish system to stand upon, but entirely demolishes the whole structure. Now what will be thought of that which I am about to adduce? In an edition of the New Testament, published by Duffy, Dublin, 1851, that is, a year after that just cited, with the approbation of Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, dated August 17th, 1851, the note on the same passage, Rom. 4:7, 87Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:7‑8), is as follows: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. That is, blessed are those who by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered, that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity.”
Now here are two New Testaments equally accredited, having each a note on Rom. 4:7, 87Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:7‑8), but flatly contradicting each other. It does not require very great erudition to understand that such a statement as “there is no more offering for sin” upsets a system which is founded upon offering one continually. Roman priests, doctors, and canons may quote fathers of every name to prove that there ought to be a continual sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead; or for the matter of that, they may quote them to prove that there was one, but if the word of God has authority, I defy them to assert there is one according to the authority of God.
But further observe well, my reader, how the fact as to the offering of Christ having value, in the non-repetition of it, is proved; the apostle, writing by the Holy Ghost, quotes the testimony of the written word of God, as the witness given by the Holy Ghost (see Heb. 10:1515Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, (Hebrews 10:15)); that is, what we have got here is the efficacy of this one offering testified of by the Holy Ghost Himself.
Now that is exactly what as poor sinners we want, and which we get only by this truth; and the person who is taught of God knows this with a certainty and blessing which no power of devil or man can shake.
I would now turn for a moment and discuss the reason given why the scriptures are not permitted to be in the hands of all.
About the year 1874, Cardinal Manning preached a sermon at Belmont, Hereford, in which he says that, what Christ was in the synagogue at Nazareth in His day, the church now is; and he places the church instead of the Holy Ghost as the author and power of faith. The whole teaching of Cardinal Manning in this sermon sets aside Christ and the Holy Ghost for the church. In page 15 of his sermon, Dr. Manning says that the church is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever; the word of God says Christ is: further, the testimony of scripture is clear, as to the Spirit that quickeneth, and that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ are spirit and life. Cardinal Manning asserts that the letter of scripture without the church kills, but that with the living voice of the church it quickens. How fearful to think of Dr. Manning setting up his church on the ruins of both scripture and Christianity. It is false and absurd to contend as Roman Catholics do, that the scriptures were placed in the hands of one set of people to be used by them for another set. The scriptures were sent by God through inspired persons to those who were to use them: they were exactly what they wanted, and those to whom they were so sent by God were bound to use them and submit to them, and responsible for not doing so if they did not. The theory and system of Romanism is to displace the authority of God by His word over the conscience by the so-called church, whose history is of the very vilest and most abominable evil ever preserved in record! Let me be very plain as to this, Romanism and the clerical system have taken the word of God out of the hands of men; and what was the result—the dark ages, a condition of things which, under the name of church, had never been equaled by the horrors of heathenism itself. Now mark this well, and it is a full and complete reply to the wicked assumption of the Church of Rome. The apostles, and others sent of God, preached to the heathen, they at least owned no church. The grace of God and His Spirit accomplished all the work without any church at all.
The Jews had the Old Testament scriptures, but there was no church to interpret them; further, the Jews did not own either the apostles or the church, but when grace had wrought in their souls they did search the scriptures to see if the testimony rendered by the apostles was true. How plain it is that it is in those who hear, that grace acts, and there is not a shadow of proof, nor a thought of any interpretation with authority. Then as to Christians, the word of God, as already said, was sent direct to them, and was the expression of the Divine mind which they were bound to follow. Not a trace is there in the sacred writings of the system of Rome, Dr. Manning’s church. But let me enquire where is this church, this infallible guide and interpreter? In reply, I will adopt the words of another:
“But is Rome the whole church of God? I will answer with Jerome, referring to Rome, major orbis quam urbis. Dr. Manning tells us of a living organization with two heads, Christ in heaven and the Pope on earth, the whole hierarchy of the church uniting it. But what does living mean? None of the hierarchy, they admit, are necessarily alive in Christ, neither is the Pope. Popes have been deposed for mortal sin; popes have been heretics; popes have been infidels; not one of this living organization is necessarily alive. Besides history makes known, nor are facts wanting now to confirm it, though not so glaring as before the Reformation—that this pretended living organization was the most vile, wicked, corrupt, immoral body that ever existed—sunk in profligacy of every kind and of the worst kind—cruel, persecuting and ambitious, and notoriously worse than the heathen whom it supplanted. Is that the living organization of which Christ is the Head? It is impossible to defile one’s pages with the habitual course of conduct of what Dr. Manning refers to as taking the place of Christ, and as a living organization under Christ as its Head, and I speak on the authority of their own historians. Baronius, their great historian, a cardinal, and a Jesuit, declares that for a century, he cannot own those who filled the See of Rome as legitimate popes—put in, as they were, by the mistresses of the Marquis of Tuscany, and not chosen by the clergy or even approved by them. It is well people should know, that never was any body of people on earth so depraved as Dr. Manning’s living organization, and the human head on earth, at the head of the depravity; often fighting for this seat of power, and, if one turned another out, declaring all the consecrations and ordinations null and void, so that a book had to be written to show there were still sacraments—all was in such confusion, and often two and even three popes at a time, and Europe divided as to who was the true one, each excommunicating the other and all that owned him. There is no such history in the world for iniquity and confusion as that of Rome. I dare Dr. Manning to deny it, or if bold enough to do it, to disprove it from history. In- deed, the evil state of what is called the church began before Rome’s supremacy, though it ripened under it. Let any one read Salbian’s ‘De Gubernatione Dei,’ accounting for the judgment coming on the Roman Empire, declaring that virtue was to be found among the heretics and heathen, and nowhere among Christians; Cyprian’s ‘De Judicitia,’ or Chrysostom’s ‘Two Discourses on the Virgins,’ both showing the extent of depravity already existing in what was afterwards matured in the Roman system, in the boasted holiness and real depravity of monks and nuns. The assistance of God the Holy Spirit is always with His church and people; but is that a reason for taking the chief leaders in debauchery and wickedness—and such were the popes and clergy, I defy denial—as the vessels of that Spirit to interpret the scriptures with authority as Christ did?”
It is sad and heart-breaking in the extreme to witness the strides which a bold and daring infidelity is making on every hand, but I am bound to bear my witness that popery and clericalism have beyond all else contributed to produce it. It is well known to the careful student of the human heart that when the profession of religion sinks below the level of natural conscience, it produces infidelity.
Further, it is perfectly true, as has been said, that “religions as a profession wear out. Old heathenism did, and infidelity supplanted it; Brahmanism is wearing out in India, and again infidelity supplants it. What is truth? says Pilate. Romanism had done this for professing Christendom. At the Reformation God’s word brought in faith in the word in large districts.
Now all is worn out as a system and infidelity believes nothing. Christianity met the case when Grecian and Roman heathenism had lost their hold. When Romanism had made Christian profession worse than heathenism, the Reformation partially met the case. Now judgment only, and the coming of the Son of man, awaits professing Christendom.”
What then is our security and stay amid the rockings and heavings of the vessel of professing Christendom? Is the Christian left amid the fury of the storm without a sheet anchor or harbor of refuge? Not so, thank God. There are two grand realities left for us in scripture.
First, we are warned by scripture to expect perilous or difficult times; we are distinctly told that the church so-called would become a moral wreck, as bad as, if not worse than, heathenism. In the midst of such a state of things as this, the voice of God in scripture to the Christian sounds distinct and clear (see 2 Tim. 3:55Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:5)), “from such turn away.” Then, a little further down in the same chapter, the Christian is turned to the scriptures (see vv. 15, 16), to these he is exhorted to adhere, to continue in them. Further, we find in Rev. 2 and 3 the history of the church, given us by God Himself; there we have the Lord Jesus Christ revealed as judging the state of the church and the individual Christian is called to hear what Christ says. From this it is very evident that the church cannot have authority over the Christian, for he is called to hear what the Lord Jesus Christ says, when sitting in judgment on the church, “He that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
The next great sheet anchor for the Christian is in hearing the apostles themselves, “We know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” See 1 John 4:66We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6). It is not denied by any that we have in their various epistles what the apostles said; therefore we are bound to hear the scriptures, or we are not of God. “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” How solemn; this responsibility rests on every individual Christian, and escape from it, he cannot. We are not told to listen to what the fathers or traditions say, as if thus nearer to the source; the fact is we have the source itself for we have what the inspired teachers themselves taught. The Apostle Paul warns the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20, that after his decease both grievous wolves and perverse men would arise; and in very truth this is the only apostolic succession that I can trace in the divine record; he does not commend them in view of this coming storm to the shelter of an apostle who was to follow him, but says, “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (v. 32). And fully in consonance with this is the testimony of the Apostle John, “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son and in the Father” (1 John 2:2424Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. (1 John 2:24)). We have got in scripture that which assuredly is from the beginning; there is much written elsewhere which may or may not be in accordance with scripture, yet it is not from the beginning, so that a Christian can judge by it; scripture alone is that, and to its test and judgment all must be brought.
I have done, and I claim to have proved, beyond all question, the charge against the Church of Rome, of being an enemy to scripture. I believe from the very depths of my soul, that the attitude of Rome towards the Bible is aptly set forth in the words of our blessed Lord to the lawyers in His days, viz.: “Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in you have hindered” (Luke 11:55And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; (Luke 11:5) Douay version). The Roman Catholic priests and hierarchy are the lawyers of the moment, they are the undoubted enemies of the word of God, they are opposed to its free circulation in the world; their great aim and object is to keep men in ignorance of the scriptures, in order to their being more readily and easily held in spiritual subjection and thralldom. The Church of Rome dreads the scriptures. She well knows how it sheds its own pure light upon her doctrines and her claims. She knows well how hostile scripture is to her interests, and hence her effort has ever been to silence its testimony. Whether this blessed light has shone to cheer the solitary desolation of a cloister, or whether it glimmered in the Waldensian valleys, or burst forth in its splendor in the Reformation, or even shed its own pure heavenly rays upon the rugged mountains of Connemara, or amid the wilds of Kerry, or the glens of Antrim, Rome arrays herself in all her opposition to it, has ever sought to quench and hide this only “kindly light.” Right gladly do I adopt as my own the beautiful words of another, and say
“There is not a throne in Europe whose pillars are not more firmly established by the Bible. There is not a tribunal in Europe whose decisions are not rendered more just by the Bible. There is not a prison in Europe whose dungeons are not rendered less dreary by the Bible. There is not a home in Europe whose privacy is not rendered more sacred by the Bible. It has waged successful war with tyranny and oppression. It has burst the captives’ chains, and checked the power of the tyrant. It has made liberty sweet, and bondage endurable; and lifting up its voice above the world in thrilling and commanding tones, it cries, ‘Man must be free!’”
Dear readers, let us prize, cherish, and enshrine this blessed book in our hearts, believe, submit to, and obey its precious utterances.