asserting that they were full of errors, corruptions, and abominable heresies. Tonstal, bishop of London, gave out, in a sermon, about the year 1529, that he had found no less than two thousand faults in an English Testament; which, he said, Tyndal had translated from Luther's German version.

Now it was not true that Tyndal translated from the German of Luther. He was a sound scholar, versed in the Greek language, and made his translation directly from the Original Text. And as to the imputed corruptions' and 'heresies,' &c., we may judge how groundless and contemptible such accusations were, by Tyndal's remark on the conduct of his opponents, in that matter of finding faults; where he says, 'There is not so moch as one i therin, if it 'lacke a tytle over his hed, but they have noted it, and nombre it 'unto the ignorant people for an heresy.' (Preface to his Pentateuch, edit. 1530.)

At the period of the Reformation, that struggle for possession of the Holy Volume, which had long been going on in various quarters, came to its full height. No principle was more earnestly contested. For both the parties well knew, that nothing had so powerfully contributed to detach men from their implicit allegiance to Rome, as the perusal of God's inspired Word. And therefore the Reformers put forth all their energies in endeavours to render the Scriptures accessible to every person; and the priests and prelates of Rome spared no means within their reach, to prevent translations of the Bible into Vulgar Tongues, and to impede the multiplication of copies by means of the Press.

It is painful, but sometimes almost ludicrous, to see some of the shifts to which Roman Catholics have been reduced, in order to justify their Church's refusal to permit vernacular translations of the Bible. One very curious reason for it was assigned by Dr. Kellison, one of the learned professors of Douay: namely, that because the inscription on our Saviour's Cross was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; therefore the Bible was only to be circulated in those three languages: Because Christ sanctified three tongues with 'the title of the Crosse, to witt, Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin,-there'fore the Church would have God's Word not to be written com'monly in any other tongue, then one of those three sanctified tongues.' (Answer to Sutliffe, 8°. Rhemes, 1608, p. 197.) That reasoning appears to be about as inconsequential as that of Antoninus, in his Summa;' stating, that 'the Host or Wafer is made 'round, after the manner of a penny, because Judas sold Christ for

'thirty pence!' or, as that of Durandus, who writeth thus: "The 'Hoste is formed rounde, because the earth is the Lord's, and all that is therin, the rounde world and all that dwell in it: that the outward fashion thereof maye signifie him that wanteth both begynning and ending.' (Becon's Relikes of Rome, 18m0. 155–.)

How shall we excuse this case of the blind leading the blind? What respect could those priests have had for the common sense of the laity, if they believed that such arguments would be sufficient to satisfy their minds?

It would be tedious to trace the practice as to permission of reading the Bible, from the period of the Reformation down to the present day. Though I am not aware of the issue of any Bull or Brief in modern times removing the ancient restrictions; yet, in these countries at least, we have continually found Ecclesiastics boldly denying the exercise of such authority, and professing to be offended that such a charge should ever be brought against them. The Rev. Peter Gandolphy affirmed, that he never interfered with nor 'expressed the smallest objection to any individual's practice of reading the Scripture;' and that three other priests whom he questioned on the subject told him, that 'in their opinion, there is 'not a priest living in England who has ever prohibited any one.'This was in 1812. (Second Letter to the Rev. H. Marsh.)

The right Rev. Dr. Doyle stated, before a committee of the House of Lords, in 1825, That we have no aversion to the reading of the Bible, and to the possession of it by the laity of our Church, is 'best proved by the great many editions it has gone through in Ireland, under our express sanction; and to which editions there 'is affixed a rescript of Pius the Sixth, directed to a prelate in Italy called Martini, who had translated the Bible out of the 'Vulgate into the Italian language. We prefix this rescript of Pius 'the Sixth to our editions in English of the Bible, in order to shew that not only we, but the Head of our Church is joined with us in 'exhorting the faithful to read the Word of God. We have not only procured editions of the Bible; I believe three by Coyne, 'two by O'Reilly, and one by Cross (perhaps it is two); but this very year we have procured a stereotype edition of the Bible, of a 'small print and low price, to circulate among all so that, of all 'the things said of us, there is not anything said of us more opposed

b I have some remarks to offer on this point, which will be found in a subsequent part of the volume.

c There were two sizes of paper: one was sold at 12s. 6d.: the other for one pound sterling.-H. C.

'to truth, than that we are averse to the circulation of the Word ' of God.' (Phelan's Digest of Evidence, &c., I. p. 221.)

And the Right Rev. Dr. Milner wrote as follows, in the year 1808 : With respect to the Laity, she never interdicted the Bible to them, 'as Protestants suppose: but, at a time when coblers and tailors 'were insulting Heaven with their blasphemies, and convulsing the earth with their seditions, all grounded upon the misapprehension ' of the Bible, she enjoined that those who took this mysterious 'book in hand should have received such a tincture of learning as to be able to read it in one or other of the learned languages, 'unless their pastor judged, from their good sense and good dis'positions, that they would derive no mischief from reading it in 'the vulgar tongue. At present, however, the Catholic prelates do 'not think it necessary to enforce even this restriction; and ac'cordingly you may find in the shops of all the principal booksellers 'in Ireland, Bibles in folio, in quarto, and in octavo, which are 'indiscriminately offered to sale with the entire approbation of 'those prelates.' (Tour in Ireland, Letter xviii.)

I leave it to any person, acquainted with this country, to say what proportion of the peasantry of Ireland are or were likely to avail themselves of the liberty supposed to be given in the above sentences: but, with respect to the bold statement about the abundance of Bibles, in all sizes, to be found in the booksellers' shops of Ireland, I assert deliberately, that at that time the only editions procurable were, One, in large folio, Dublin 1794, published at about four pounds: One in quarto, Dublin 1791, published at £3. 88. 3d.:-and the remnants of two editions published at Edinburgh, in 1796 and 1805, in five large duodecimo volumes; the latter of which editions was advertised by R. Coyne of Dublin, with new Title-pages, at the price of £1. 12s. 6d. in boards; a few 'copies on fine paper, hot-pressed, price in super-extra binding, 'three pounds eight shillings and three pence.' Now, what is the real value of Dr. Milner's vain-glorious boast?

But that same Dr. Milner could give ready utterance to sentiments of an exactly opposite character, whenever he saw a fit occasion and had fit hearers and could not only avow, but justify, the restrictions placed on the perusal of the Scriptures. Acute and active as he was, his warmth of temper occasionally betrayed him into the open expression of sentiments which his usual prudence would have suppressed. Surely he had forgotten his habitual discretion, when he declared, in print, that the cancelled part of bishop

-

Challoner's Notes upon the New Testament-(meaning those portions which a more liberal minded Vicar Apostolic, Dr. Poynter, had directed to be omitted, as being justly offensive to the feelings of Protestants) were 'precisely the part which is wanted at the present day to render an English translation of the Sacred Text 'safe and profitable in the hands of the British laity.'-(Letter, in The Orthodox Journal, Vol. VII, 1819.) And again, when he disclosed the real ground of the clergy's opposition to the privileges of the laity, by admitting that substituting the dead letter of the Text for the living voice of the Church, was the ready means of undermining the Catholic Faith.' (Supplementary Memoirs of English Catholics, p. 244, 1820. 8o.)

Now there was no man living in England or Ireland at that time, who knew, better than Dr. Milner, what was serviceable to the interests of his Church and Order, and what was injurious to them. So that this deliberate expression of his opinion, upon the effects likely to arise from the free perusal of the Word of God, must carry great weight with all those who are deeply interested in that important question.

Indeed, to do him justice, Dr. Milner did not stand alone in his public utterance of such sentiments. Another eminent Roman Catholic, of warm temperament, and ready eloquence, the late Richard Lalor Shiel, made a very remarkable admission at Cork, in September 1824, in his speech at a public meeting of the Ladies' Auxiliary to the Munster School Society. He said, 'there was one 'point which he would concede to those whom he opposed. If it were a triumph, they might have it. He would confess, that READING THE BIBLE WAS SUBVERSIVE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.' (Report of the Discussions, &c., 8°. 1825, p. 40.)

Such candid admissions, made before Protestants, were very uncommon a few years ago: and the general language used to them. was, that the Roman Catholic clergy were not in the least afraid of the Bible being read by their flocks. But very recently, a remarkable change of sentiment upon this subject seems to have come over the minds of the ecclesiastical authorities: and I suppose that we may fairly collect their present views and intentions upon this question, from the language put forth by Cardinal Wiseman, in his late tract, The Catholic doctrine on the use of the Bible.' 12o. 1853.

'If therefore we be asked, why we do not give the Bible indifferIently to all; and the shutting up (as it is called) of God's Word

'be disdainfully thrown in our face: we will not seek to elude the ' question, or meet the taunt by denial, or by attempts to prove 'that our principles on this subject are not antagonistic to those of 'Protestants. THEY ARE ANTAGONISTIC AND WE GLORY IN AVOWING 'IT.' p. 20.

1. 'We answer, therefore, boldly, that we give not the Word of 'God indiscriminately to all, because God himself has not so given 'it. He has not made reading an essential part of man's constitution, nor a congenital faculty, nor a term of salvation, nor a con'dition of Christianity. But hearing He has made such; and then ' has told us, that "Faith cometh from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God." He has not made "paper and ink" the badges of His Apostle's calling, but the keys of his kingdom.' Ibid. 2. We further say, that we do not permit the indiscriminate ' and undirected use of the Bible, because God has not given to his Church the instinct to do so. As He did not furnish her with 'the means, nor with the command, so has He not instilled into 'her that spontaneous impulse that guides her to new duties, in 'favour of this mode of propagating the faith. He founded her upon a principle of subordination, and gave her, first Apostles, 'secondly prophets, thirdly doctors. The questions could at all 'times have been answered negatively till now," Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all doctors?" But surely this principle of 'her organisation would have been at an end much sooner, if she had taught, what she never has taught, that every one has to be 'his own Apostle, prophet and doctor.-Yes, this is the result of 'universal license not only to read but to judge of Scripture. Wherever it prevails, Church government declines, insubordination ' of judgment springs up, and a spirit of self-sufficiency takes the 'place of religious humility and docility.' p. 21.

Again: But though the Scriptures may be here permitted, we 'do not urge them on our people: we do not encourage them to read 'them: we do not spread them to the utmost among them. Certainly ' not.' p. 26.

More of the same kind might be added. But perhaps the foregoing extracts may be sufficient, to shew the tone of the pamphlet, and the animus of the highest officer of the Church of Rome within this empire at the present day.

Let us return to our observations on the state of these things during the exciting years of the Reformation.

C