Popery Opposed to the Bible
Taken out of the book entitled Popery, 1854
Nothing can be more decided that the opposition of the Church of
Rome to the free use and circulation of God’s Word. She is
opposed to the Bible, simply because the Bible is opposed to her.
Christ said. “Search the Scriptures,” (John v. 39) but
Rome places her members under such restrictions as to the use of
the Word of God, as amounts to an absolute prohibition. We shall
now give our various authorities, and establish our assertion by
indisputable evidence.
I. The Council of Toulouse, A.D. 1229, passed the following
decree:
“We prohibit also the permit-ting of the laity to have the
books of the Old or New Testament, unless any one should wish,
from a feeling of devotion, to have a psalter or breviary for
divine service, or the hours of the blessed Mary. But we strictly
forbid them to have the above-mentioned books in the vulgar
tongue.” —
Labbey and Cassort’s Councils, part I., tom. ii. Paris,
1671.
This decree was passed in the time of the Waldenses, and strictly
carried out.
II. Quesnel, a pious and eminent Roman Catholic,
in the beginning of the 18th century, published a work which
proved very distasteful to the Church of Rome. Accordingly,
Clement XI, issued a bull, commonly entitled the bull Unigenitus,
in which he condemned certain propositions contained in the above
work. See Chap. IX, on the canon law. Amongst the propositions
condemned were the following:
“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.
The reading of the Holy Scriptures is for all men.”
These propositions, so scriptural and truthful, with others of a
similar kind, the bull condemns as —
“Seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and
savouring of heresy itself; favouring,
moreover, heretics and heresies, and also schisms; as erroneous,
nearly allied to heresy, often condemned, and finally, even
heretical.”
The bull Unigenitus is of the highest authority. Roman-ists
unblushingly admit it to be in full force even in the British
kingdom. Dr. Murray, Romish Archbishop of Dublin, gave evidence
before the Committee of the House of Commons, in 1828, as
follows:
“Is the bull Unigenitus received in Ireland? It Is.”
See Report, P. 647.
III. Saint Alphonsus Liguori, the high authority
of whose works we have already pointed out in Chapter II., says,
“The Scriptures and books of controversies may not be
permitted in the vulgar tongue, as also they cannot be read
without permission.”
The Saint refers with approval to the 4th rule of the Index, to
which we shall call attention.
IV. The second article with approval of Pope
Pius’s Creed amounts to a prohibition of Scripture:
“I also admit the sacred Scriptures, according to the same
sense which the holy Mother, the Church, has held, and does hold,
— to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and
intrepretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever take and
interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent
of the Fathers.”
Here the Romanist promises to understand Scripture only according
to the sense of the Church, and the unanimous consent of the
Fathers. But the Church has never given an au-thorized sense or
commentary of Scripture; and the unanimous consent of the Fathers
is a non entity, these ancient writers being divided on almost
every point. Therefore, the conclusion irresistibly follows, that
the Scriptures are not to be understood at all.
V. The fourth rule of the Index of the Council
of Trent, distinctly prohibits the use of the Scripture to the
member of the Church of Rome, unless he can obtain the license or
permission of his superior. The rule is as follows:
“Inasmuch as it is manifest, from experience, that if the
Holy Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, be
indiscrimi-nately 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 permission, he shall
receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible to
the ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell, or otherwise
dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any persons not having
such permission, shall forfeit the value of the books, to be
applied by the bishop to some pious use, and be subjected to such
other penalties as the bishop shall judge proper, according to
the quality
of the offense. But regulars shall neither read nor purchase such
Bibles without a special license from their superiors.”
— See Canons and Decrees of Council of Trent. Paris, 1832.
Here several points are observable.
1. It is taken for granted that the
indiscriminate reading of Holy Scripture will “do more harm,
than
good”!
What! The reading of the inspired volume do harm! Yes; such is
the deliberate teaching of the Church of Rome.
2. The bishop or inquisitor, not the parish
priest, may give license to certain parties to read the Bible.
3. These parties are those who, it is
ascertained, will derive no harm therefrom; that is to say, who
are so thoroughly imbued with Romish sentiment and feeling, that
nothing can shake their adherence to Popery.
4. The licence must be given in writing.
5. The person who possesses a Bible without such
written license, must deliver up the Bible to the Church
authorities.
6. If he does not give up the Bible, he cannot
receive absolution.
7. Booksellers who sell Bibles in the vulgar
tongue to persons not possessing the license, must lose the value
of the books, and be subject to other penalties, according to the
pleasure of the inquisitor.
8. Even the clergy are not to read or buy such
Bibles without the permission of the prelates.
Such then are the principles and discipline of the Church of
Rome, in reference to the Bible and its use.
This 4th rule is binding even at the present day. Dens says,
“According to Styaert, the law has been received, and
hitherto observed, (with some variation, according to the
character of the countries,) in by far the greatest part of the
Catholic world; only where they lived amongst heretics, a greater
indulgence was allowed.” — p. 103, vol. II. Dublin,
1832.
The Bible is sometimes possessed by Romanists in England, and
Protestant countries; nay, it is even studiously paraded in the
Roman Catholic bookshops, but Dens explains the reason,
“Where they (Catholics) lived among heretics, a greater
indulgence was allowed.” The object is evident; even to lead
Protestants to suppose that the Church of Rome is not the foe of
the Bible.
We cannot do better than quote a passage from Venn’s
excellent letters to Waterworth, in which he shews that the 4th
rule of the Index if referred to in the most recent bulls of the
Pope as of the highest authority.
“(1.) Pius VII., in a letter to Ignatius,
Archbishop of Quesn, Primate of Poland, dated June 29, 1816,
alarmed at the progress of the Bible Society in that country,
thus writes:
“‘We have been truly shocked at this most crafty
device, by which the very foundation of religion are
undermined.’...‘We again and again exhort you, that
whatever you can achieve by power, provide for by counsel, of
effect by authority, you will daily execute by the utmost
earnestness.’ And then he repeats the rules of the Index,
Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and the Decree of Benedict XIV.
“The same Pope, in his letter to the Archbishop of Mohilow,
dated September 3, 1816, reproves him for having sanc-tioned the
Bible Society and adds, ‘You ought carefully to have kept in
view what our predecessors have already prescribed, — viz.
that if the Holy Bible, in the vulgar tongue, were permitted
everywhere, without discrimination, more injury than benefit
would thence arise.’ He afterwards proceeds to quote the
bull Unigenitus,as expressing the opinion of the Church; and in
another passage of his letter, he reproves the Archbishop for
quoting the first part only of Pius VI.’s celebrated letter
to Martini, which is prefixed to the stereotype edition of the
Rheimish New Testament, published at Belfast, 1839, (which is so
often appealed to by English Romanists as a proof that their
Church is favourable to the free circulation and reading of the
Scriptures,) and says, ‘That most wise Pontiff, for this
very reason, commends a version of the Holy Scriptures made by
that prelate, because he had abundantly enriched it by
expositions drawn from traditions, accurately and religiously
observing the rules prescribed by the sacred congregation of the
Index.’
“In the year 1820, Pius VII. approved of the decrees of the
sacred congregation of the Index, which condemned and proscribed
two editions of the New Testament translated into Italian by
Martini.
“These editions appear to have been exact reprints from the
original work of Martini, but without any notes. The original
work, consisting of 23 quarto volumes, needed no proscription.
(Martini’s edition of the Bible needs no proscription,
because it consists of 23 quarto volumes, and therefore cannot be
purchased by the masses.)
“(2.) Leo XII., in his encyclical letter,
dated May 3, 1824, says, and I adopt the translation by the Roman
Catholic bishops in Ireland.
“‘Our predecessors published many ordinances; and, in
his later days, Pius VII., of blessed memory, sent “two
briefs,” (from which I have just quoted.). . . .
“‘Reprove, beseech, be instant in season and out of
season in all patience and doctrine, that the faithful entrusted
to you, (adhering strictly to the rules of our congregation of
the Index,) be persuaded, that if the sacred Scriptures be
everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage
will arise thence, on account of the rashness of men. . . .
“‘The power of temporal princes will, we trust, in the
Lord, come to your assistance,’
“in the year 1825, Leo XII. issued a mandate, dated March
26, and published in the last Index, in which all patriarch,
archbishops, bishops, &c., are charged to remember those
things which are set forth in the rules of the Index, and in the
‘observance’ and ‘addition respecting the fourth
rule.
“(3.) Pius VIII., in his encyclical letter,
dated May 24, 1829, writes to the same effect as Leo XII. had
done in the year 1824.
“(4.) Neither has his successor, Pope
Gregory XVI., been less earnest in this matter than his
predecessors. “A decree was passed by the scared
congregation of the Index, dated January 7, 1836, to which a
notice is subjoined, and in that notice it is said, ‘Those
regulations are especially to be insisted on (omnino insistendum)
which were set forth in the fourth rule of the Index.’
“In the Index of prohibited books, published at Rome in
1841, not only does the 4th rule appear without any intimation of
is even having been suspended; but the notice enjoining the
strict observance of it is placed among the prefatory and
recognized documents.
“The encyclical letter, dated the 25th of May last, (1845,)
and addressed to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops,
is chiefly directed against the Bible Society, and not only are
the tranlations of that Society condemned, but the principle
itself, of free circulation and reading of the Scriptures, is
likewise condemned, and the observance of the 4th rule of the
Index enjoined. The following are extracts from it.
After mentioning the efforts made at the time of the Reformation
to promote its doctrines, he says,
‘Therefore, in those rules which were drawn up by the
Fathers, chosen by the council of Trent, and
approved by Pius IV, and prefixed to the Index of prohibited
books, it is read, established by general sanction, that Bibles
in the vulgar tongue should not be permitted to any but those
whom the reading of them should be judged profitable, to the
increase of faith and piety.’ (Here a reference is made to
the 3rd and 4th rules of the Index. ‘To this same rule,
which was afterwards made more stringent by a new caution, on
account of the persevering fraud of the heretics, the declaration
was at length added, by the authority of Benedict XIV., That the
reading of versions in the vulgar tongue, which have been
approved of by the Apostolic See, or published with notes taken
out of the holy Fathers of the Church, or learned and Catholic
men, should be held henceforth permitted,’ ( i.e. permitted
to those having a license; not to all, as is proved by the
context.) The pope then goes on to attack the Jansenists and
Quesnelists, who held the Protestant doctrine respecting the
reading of the Bible, and observes, that their audacity is
rebuked in the solemn judgment passed against their doctrines,
with the applause of the whole Catholic world, by two Popes,
—
viz. Clement XI., in the bull ‘Unigenitus,’ and Pius
VI., in his constitution ‘Auctorem Fidei,’ — that
very Pius VI. who wrote to Martini on his translating the Bible
and who is so often ignorantly quoted as a friend to the free
circulation and reading of the Holy Scriptures’” p. 10,
letters — Hereford, 1845.
Thus the Church of Rome, by her highest authorities, prohibits
the circulation of the Bible in the vulgar tongue.
It is true, that English Roman Catholics deny this; but their
very denial of it only proves either that they are kept in
ignorance of the laws of the Church, or that they are willfully
deceived. We believe that the former alternative is the case, at
least in most instances.
The Church of Rome, in her rulers, is the deceiver; she prohibits
the Bible, and yet denies the existence of that prohibition; and
thus adds hypocrisy to her other sins.
How can Britons, who are characterized for honesty and love of
the Bible, countenance such a system of fraud and hostility to
God’s Word as this? And yet the nation actu-ally sanctions
the exclusion of the Bible from its own, (the national,) schools
in Ireland, and the education of the youth of that enlightend
country in ignorance of the Bible. Need we wonder that insulted
Providence permits Ireland to be England’s difficulty, and
that evils overwhelm the sister isle. The remedy is to give to
its people that blessed book, which the Lord has given for all,
to be a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path, Psalm
cxix. 105.