tion of Christian doctrine, twisting the holy scriptures to their own sense, dare to interpret the holy scriptures contrary to the sense, that the holy mother church (to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the holy scriptures) hath holden or does hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, though these interpretations be never intended to be published. Those who contravene this statute shall be reported by the ordinary, and punished by the pains ordained by the law."

Here then we see the condition on which the people are permitted to read the scriptures; they are to give up their own sense and judgment in return for this permission; they are to forego all the advantage that could possibly accrue from a reading of the scriptures, by way of an equivalent for the privilege of reading them. To what purpose does a man read the scriptures, who has determined before hand not to understand them differ

ently from the church! To what purpose does a man appeal to the law and to the testimony, who has pledged himself before hand to believe that all the testimony is in favour of a particular church? Is not this trifling with the word of God? Is it not measuring the scriptures by the church, rather than judging of the church by the scriptures? Most assuredly it is; and this is not denied, but taught explicitly by the Rhemish translators.

But in order to exhibit as clearly as possible the contrast between the text and the comment, I shall put them in separate columns. In their comment upon Acts xvii. 11, they say

"The heretics use this place to prove that the hearers must try and judge by the scriptures, whether their teachers and preachers' doctrine be true, and so reject what they find not in the scriptures: as though here the sheep were made judges of their pastors: the people of their priests and men and women of all sorts even of St. Paul's doctrine itself; which were the most foolish doctrine in the world."

Now can papists consistently use such language as this, and at the same time circulate the scriptures? Of what use are they, if we are not allowed the use of our sense and reason in understanding them? Suppose an honest reader of the Bible should understand it differently from the Romish church; suppose he should not understand Christ as saying that the bread which he held in his hand at the supper with his disciples, and which he called bread, after he had blessed it, was his real body, blood, soul and divinity; suppose he should not understand the Bible as saying that Christ eat up his own body, and that each of his disciples also eat up his whole body, and yet he remained with them entirely whole, talking and eating himself with them all the time, and the next morning died on the cross: suppose he should not understand the Bible as teaching this, what is to be done with him? why, unless he disbelieves his own senses, takes leave of his wits, and believes that which he sees to be an absurdity, he must be "reported by the ordinary, and be punished by the pains ordained by the law" for daring to understand the scriptures differently

from the church! Is not this virtually withholding the scriptures from the people? For if the book is not withheld, their senses are, and of what use is the one without the other? So that the whole parade of papists about permitting the scriptures amounts to this; if you will retain your senses, you shall not have the Bible, and if you will have the Bible, you shall not have your senses; therefore take your choice. This dilemma is a real one: it is founded on the decree of the Council of Trent, and recognized by the Rhemish translators.

So fearful are papists, notwithstanding this decree, that the people will exercise their private judgment in the interpretation of scripture, that they have resorted to the last remaining expedient to prevent it, by influencing the judgment with such numerous and extensive notes accompanying the text. If papists do circulate the scriptures at all, it is never without their notes, as if they could not trust the Bible to speak for itself; but lest God in his communications to his people should err, they stand by to correct him. But why will not the Romish Church permit (for they have assumed the prerogative of permitting to themselves,) God to speak to his creatures without their officious interference? Is it difficult to assign the reason? Is there not some danger that he would speak decidedly against them! The following has been stated as an analagous case. Suppose a court of justice would not allow a witness to give in his testimony in his own words, but should cause it to pass through the prisoner or his council. Let it receive .all their polish and gloss before it reached the jury, and what would be the consequence? Would the naked truth appear? would strict impartial justice be administered? Then why put the gloss of popery on the word of God before it can be trusted to speak to the people! Now from all that has been said, can the candid mind

get away from the conclusion, that let papists deny what they will, it is clearly a principle of the Romish church, to withhold the scriptures from the common people! The people feel that their rights are invaded; they feel that they are treated with shameful neglect; their souls are as precious as the Pope's, and it requires the same price to redeem, and the same cleansing blood to purify the one as the other: they have an equal right to all the means of grace: and the Bible is their treasure as much as that of the church: it is to be a lamp to their feet and a light to their path, as much as to those of the Councils. And to throw the odium off themselves which in this enlightened and enquiring age, they feel to be great, papists positively deny the point, we have been endeavouring to establish; but it is in vain; the records and decrees of the church speak for themselves: and suppose papists do not now actually adhere to what we have clearly shown to be the authorized practice of the church, what does it prove? Why, that they are perjured men! They bind themselves by a solemn oath to approve and carry into effect all the decrees of Councils, especially of the Council of Trent: and where, let me add, is their infallibility? that clinching power, that fastens upon modern Romanism all the abominations and superstitions of the darkest ages; and forever binds that church to the practice of sanctioned rites, however cruel and arbitrary, and however opposed to the light and genius of the present day, and revolting to the spirit of enlightened christianity, and to the enlarged and liberal feelings of the nineteenth centúry in America!

CHAPTER V.

THE PROPRIETY OF WITHHOLDING THE SCRIPTURES.

"The different parts of Luther's German translation of the Holy Scriptures, being successively and gradually spread abroad among the people, produced sudden and almost incredible effects, and extirpated, root and branch, the erroneous principles and superstitious doctrines of the Church of Rome, from the minds of a prodigious number of persons."

Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 60.

It has now, I think, been clearly shown, to be a principle of the Romish church to prohibit the general reading of the scriptures by the common people. And if it be asked whether this principle be really acted upon by the Romish priests in this country, we have two answers: The one is, that if it be not really acted upon, we call upon papists to reconcile their practice with their principles we call upon them to show how their disregard of an express prohibitory decree, and of the almost unanimous opinion of Romish writers, since that decree, concurring with it, comports with the claim to infallibility, and to unity of sentiment and practice: The other answer is, that if any one will take the pains to visit the Romish communion, even in this country, or listen to the reiterated statements of agents engaged in the distribution of the Bible, he will be convinced of the mournful fact that the principle of prohibition is acted upon as strictly as possible.

Considering it, therefore, as manifest that the general reading of the Bible is prohibited, we shall now proceed to examine the propriety of such a prohibition. And indeed until lately this was the only controversy on this