directly at issue. The Protestant avows as a fundamental principle, as the foundation of all his convictions, and of all his hopes-THAT THE BIBLE, IS THE ONLY TRUE, AND AUTHORISED RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE IN ALL MATTERS OF RELIGION. The Romanist on the other hand, denies the sufficiency of Holy Scripture as a rule of faith, and opposes to its authority that of the church; not only in her decrees and councils, but in her oral traditions. Consistantly with this avowal the church forbids the reading and examination of the Scriptures by the laity, except under the direction of a priest. The bare statement of this difference of sentiment, shows the vast importance with which the subject is invested. It is not a mere matter of opinion, on some topic of subordinate and temporary interest. It is at once practical, vital, and essential. It relates to the soul-to eternity. It involves the solemn inquiry-from what source am I to learn the character of the divine Being? Where has he revealed his will to sinful man? By what light am I to be guided in the way to reconciliation with God-to holinessto salvation-to heaven?

In pursuing our subject it will be desirable to adduce evidence to show that the church of Rome does deny the exclusive authority of the word of God as a rule of faith. This is the more needful because the fact is frequently denied by Romanists.

Such is the facility with which the infallible church can adapt her policy to circumstances that in Protestant countries and at particular periods, a more liberal use of the sacred volume is allowed; but in all such cases the permission is restricted to versions published under her own authority; whilst in Catholic countries the Bible is almost invariably a prohibited book. We are not however left to determine a matter of doubtful history or report; we appeal at once to her own authoritative decisions.

66

Seeing," saith the Fourth of the decisions of the Council of Trent, concerning prohibited books, "seeing it is manifest from experience, that if the Holy Book be permitted to be read everywhere without difference in the vulgar tongue, more harm than good results thence by the rashness of men, let it therefore be at the pleasure of the bishop or inquisitor, with the advice of the parish clerk or confessor, to grant the reading of the Bible, translated by Catholic authors, to those, who in their opinion, will receive thereby an increase of faith and piety. This license let them have in writing; and whoever shall presume to read or possess such Bibles, without permission, cannot receive absolution of sins till he has returned them to the ordinary. But all booksellers who may sell, or in any other manner supply Bibles, written in the vulgar dialect, to any person not possessed of the aforesaid license, shall forfeit the price of the books, to be applied to sacred purposes by the

Bl

Bishop, and submit to other punishment at the will of the said Bishop, according to the nature and degree of their fault. But let no one buy or read these Bibles without the permission of their pastor." Hear the same Council of Trent in its decree concerning the use of the sacred Books: "Besides," says the decree, "for restraining petulant wits, it decrees, that no man, leaning to his own understanding in matters of faith and morals pertaining to edification of the Christian doctrine, twisting the holy Scriptures to their own sense, dare 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 and does hold, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, though those interpretations were never intended to be published. Those who contravene this statute shall be reported by the ordinary, and punished by the pains ordained by law." If it were designed by this discussion merely to excite indignation, and stir up hostile feelings against the members of the Church of Rome, we might follow these quotations with a fearful catalogue of the names of those, who suffered the loss of property, liberty, and who endured even the pains of martyrdom, because their love of the word of God was stronger than their fear of persecution. When we refer to decrees of the ancient councils as expositors of Catholic doctrine, we are told that

we are not to judge the Catholicism of the present age by the history of the past. We are told that since the time when her prohibitory statutes were enacted, great changes have taken place, and that now the appeal to Scripture is allowed by the church. If we admit this, we may fairly inquire how the possibility of such change can be reconciled with the asserted infallibility of the church? But although it might be expected, that in a church where there is so much boast of unity of faith and profession, there would be no difficulty in ascertaining the exact nature of its creed at all times, and in all lands; yet it is notorious that for purposes of disputation, the enactments of councils and the decrees of Popes, have when it has been found convenient, been flatly contradicted even by eminent Romanists. In this case, however, we have the evidence of the chief representative of the Papacy in this country. Dr. Wiseman, tells us in his lectures, speaking of the test of doctrine of the Catholic church, "that they allow of no authority but the word of God, written or unwritten; and maintain that the control so necessary over the latter exists in its depositary, that is, in the Church of Christ." And again, in the same lectures, we are told (and this is the constant statement of Roman Catholic writers) that the Bible itself is not sufficient, but that the teaching, the traditions of the church, must be bound up with it to give it its great sanative influence, to produce

its great sanative effects." The Catholic judge in controversies," says Bishop Chaloner, "is the church of God, from whose decisions no appeal is allowed to the dead letter of scripture." They endeavour to sustain the paramount authority of the church, on the ground that we are indebted to her for determining the canon of Scripture. Who, say they triumphantly, declared the books of Scripture canonical? Was it not the testimony of the church that established this authority? Hence they conclude, that there must exist in the church a power to determine the authority, and ascertain the sense of Scripture to which we ought invariably to appeal. Now, were we to admit the right of the Church of Rome to determine what books should be regarded as canonical, we must accept the whole of the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of Esther and Daniel, these being expressly mentioned in a decree, in which the council of Trent decreed the divine authority of the Apocrypha! and in which it is declared concerning these whole books, with all their parts, that whosoever rejects them as not canonical is accursed! But we deny that the church of Rome, or any council convened by the authority of that church did first determine the canon of Scripture. The canon of the Old Testament was settled long before the hierarchy of Rome existed, and no catalogue of those of the New Testament is to be found in the decrees of the early