THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. 305

mother and mistress of all churches, she is invested with supreme authority in matters of religion. I ask, what is the basis of this authority? What, on her own showing, is the ground on which it rests? The answer is obvious; on the decision of Private Judgment ! This is the

Atlas that supports the heaven of Romanism. What a proud superstructure to be raised on such a foundation! Yet so it is, provided, be it observed, that she has sustained her claim. This is a question which we must now examine.

Protestants contend that the Bible, and the Bible alone, without note or comment, or any authoritative exposition whatever, is the Rule of Faith. This position the Roman Catholic Church denies, asserting that there are certain unwritten traditions of equal authority with the "Scriptures of truth;" and that God's Revelation to man is not a safe guide without her infallible interpretation. But let us hear her own deliberate assertions and solemn decisions :

“All saving truth is not contained in the Holy Scripture, but partly in the Scripture, and partly in unwritten traditions, which, whosoever doth not receive, with like piety and reverence as he doth the Scriptures, is accursed ! No one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of

them, contrary to that which hath been held, and is still held by holy mother Church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Writ, or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. If any disobey, let them be denounced by the ordinaries and punished according to law." (Conc. Trid.

Sess. 4.)

In the same Session a curse was uttered against all who refuse to receive the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon. And in the Index of Prohibited Books, prepared by order of the same Council, we have the following passage:

"Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, it is on this point referred to the judgment of the bishops or inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the Priest or confessor, permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety they apprehend will be augmented and not injured by it; and this permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess it, without such written per

THE PRESENT POPE.

307

mission, he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers who shall sell, or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be applied by the bishop to some pious use, and shall be subject to such other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper! (Index, Rule 4.)

So spake the Church of Rome in the celebrated Council of Trent. Does she speak now in a different tone? Has "the pressure from without" compelled her yet to grant to her subjects liberty of conscience? As well might she be expected to grant her heart's blood!

The letter of the present Pope, from which I have already quoted, is an authentic exposition of Romish principles at the present day. Gregory XVI. writes as follows:

"This matter also occupied very much the atattention of the Fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy to so great an evil, by publishing a most salutary decree for compiling an Index of Books in which improper doctrine was contained. For the matter of error will never be effectually removed, unless the guilty elements of depravity be consumed in the flames."*

* In justification of this persecuting principle, he quotes Acts xix. 19, where, he says, the Apostle Paul burned a

"So that by this continual solicitude, through all ages, with which this Holy Apostolic See has ever striven to condemn suspected and noxious books, and to wrest them forcibly out of men's hands (et de hominum manibus extorquere); it is most clear, how false, rash, and injurious to the said Apostolic See, and fruitful of enormous evils to the Christian public, is the doctrine of those who not only reject the censorship of books as too severe and burdensome, but even proceed to that length of wickedness, as to assert that it is contrary to the principles of equal justice, and dare deny to the Church the right of enacting and employing it."

The freedom of the press, Gregory designates as "that most vile, detestable, and never-to-be sufficiently execrated liberty of booksellers,* namely, of publishing writings of whatever kind they please; a liberty which some persons (Mr. O'Connell, for instance) dare with such violence of language to demand and promote."

Thus have you heard the Church of Rome herself putting forth her lofty claims-claims

great number of books. The Pope is either very ignorant or very disingenuous! for the people themselves voluntarily burned the books, when convinced of their errors. Deterrima illa et nunquam satis execranda libertas artis librariæ." Sanctissimi Domini nostri Gregorii Epis. Encyc.

#66

PAPAL CLAIMS.

309

for the maintenance of which she has not scrupled to trample on all laws human and divineimprisoning, torturing, burning, and slaughtering myriads of pious and upright members of society, simply because, in the spirit of Christian meekness, they contended for liberty of conscience!

Our Lord says, If a man bear witness of himself, his witness is not true. The Church of Rome bears witness of herself; and as she is so deeply interested in the controversy, are we not warranted to demand other evidence than her bare assertion? The Greeks, the Turks, and various Heathen nations, are equally confident in maintaining the authority of their respective churches. How shall we settle their claims? Suppose the Pope, the Mufti, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, were each to address a heathen with a view to convert him. The Bishop of Rome would loudly assert his supremacy and universal lordship, as the Vicar of Christ; the Patriarch would extol the ancient glory and purity of his church, and accuse his Roman brother of departing from the faith; while the successor of Mahomet would denounce them both as "Christian dogs," totally unenlightened and unsanctified. Then would burst forth from each of the parties a torrent of curses,