The "Correspondence between the Rev. John Venn, M.A., of Hereford, and the Rev. James Waterworth, a Roman Catholic Priest of Newark," arose out of a public oral discussion which took place between those gentlemen in the above-named city. The Romish Clergyman of Hereford, a younger brother of the Newark Priest, appears to have been first in the fray, by complaining of certain expressions which Mr. Venn, as a Protestant Minister, thought fit to employ when speaking of the Church of Rome, and her myrmidons, the Jesuits. Mr. Venn very properly, and for reasons which every one may opine who is acquainted with the character of Romanists as disputants, declined entering into a private correspondence with Mr. William Waterworth, but offered to prove the charges which he had adduced in the presence of that gentleman, and of as many of his friends as he might judge proper to bring. Mr. William thought it would be degrading in him to meet Mr. Venn, one of the Prebends of Hereford, because he had had the presumption to contradict some assertion which he had made. Mr. James, an elder brother, having no qualms of that character, and being confident, as he tells the public, that "he can make the stroke aimed at himself and Church recoil on his adversary," very courageously offered to gird on his armour, and fly to the rescue of brother William, modestly informing us that, "being unfettered by the vows which, as a Jesuit, prevent my brother from acting without the consent of his 'spiritual superiors;' and having had, from circumstances and my more advanced age, some little more experience in public disputation and oral discussion than has hitherto fallen to his lot; I hereby put myself in his place, and accept the challenge! This Mr. James Waterworth is a wonderful man! The proud vaunting of Goliath of Gath sinks into insignificance before his! He says, "I have been engaged for more than two years in correcting even the minutest errors that may have crept into the work entitled, "The Faith of Catholics,'* and that, I hope, by the end of next March (1844), to be at last ready for press, after reading two or three times over all the ecclesiastical writers of the first five centuries." (!) Sharp practice, Mr. Waterworth! Credat Judæus Apella. "This will enable you" (addressing Mr. Venn) "to exhibit your patristic lore to your heart's content, without fear of the imputation of taking your adversary by surprise." Will our readers believe it? Mr. Venn was not intimidated! He, with the sling and stone of pure and unsophisticated truth, met this modern Philistine, whom we speedily saw sprawling on the ground; and, in the "Correspondence on our table, Mr. Venn has followed and completed the victory which in a considerable degree he achieved in Hereford. We gladly avail ourselves of this opportunity of directing the attention of our readers to this document, inasmuch as it bears upon the question now before us.

* Dr. Johnson observes, "Where there is shame, there may, ere long, be virtue." It was high time that the Papists washed their hands of those disgraceful misquotations which stain the pages of the volume referred to, and which were brought to the test of the originals, and their perverted character demonstrated, by the Rev. R. T. P. Pope, A.M. Seeing that Mr. Waterworth professes to be so thoroughly at home among the Fathers, and able to read over all the ecclesiastical writers of the first five centuries thrice in the course of a short time, we would recommend him, when he has satisfactorily settled the production of Kirk and Berington, in a manly way to examine and meet the charges which have been brought against his Church, in James's "Treatise of the Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of the Church of Rome, for Maintenance of Popery; " and also the work of Daillè, Du vrai Usage des Pères. This task would be in every way worthy the industry and perseverance of our Newark Priest !

Mr. Horne's work is divided into two parts, relating to the assertion which English Romanists have again and again made; namely, that they are represented as enemies to the reading and circulation of the Holy Scriptures. The first part embraces proof that the modern Church of Rome is the enemy of Scripture. Our attention is directed to the fact of divine service being prohibited in the vernacular tongue by Saint Gregory VII.; to the Scriptures being withheld by the Council of Toulouse, and by the Rules of the Index of prohibited Books; the Constitution Unigenitus ; the Rescript and Brief of Pius VII.; the Encyclical Letter of Leo XII., and of Gregory XVI. Where the Bible has free course, Popery cannot make any progress. Opposition to the circulation of the Scriptures in Austria, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and especially at Rome, Ireland, at Damascus, in South America, the West Indies, England, and particularly in London. The second part of the volume adverts to proof of the falsification of Scripture by the Papists, especially such as have taken place in the Vulgate Latin version; in the French New Testament, published in Bourdeaux, 1686; in other French versions; and in the AngloRomish version of the Scriptures.

Mr. Horne says,

One of the earliest proofs on record, that the modern Church of Rome is the enemy of Scripture, occurred in the year 1080. Wratislaus, Duke of Bohemia, had requested St. Gregory VII. (better known by the name of Hildebrand) * to permit the celebration of divine service in the Sclavonian language, which was understood by his subjects. This reasonable request was peremptorily refused by the haughty Pontiff, on the pretext that the Almighty thought fit that holy Scripture should be concealed in some places, lest, if it should be accessible to all, it should fall into contempt, and, being misunderstood, should lead the people into error.+

In the year 1229, during the pontificate of Gregory IX., a Council was held at Toulouse, in which, besides various

enactments against those who were denounced as heretics, and also against those Princes who did not extirpate all heretics out of their dominions, the laity are, by the thirteenth canon, prohibited from having the books of the Old or New Testament, unless any one, out of devotion, should wish to have a Psalter, or a Breviary for the divine offices, or the Hours of the blessed Mary. But they are most strictly forbidden to have these books in the vulgar tongue.+,

This language cannot be misunderstood. The Romish theologians, who were convened at that Council, assumed authority to deprive the people of that divine revelation which had been given to be "a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto their path." Not even such portions as might be found in a Psalter

* The whole life of this man was one unceasing and unprincipled effort to realize the universal dominion of the world, which he claimed as an appendage to the see of Rome. Against his canonization, in the eighteenth century, by Benedict XIII., every government which at that time was in communion with Rome, protested, and rejected his saintship; so that he is acknowledged and venerated only at Rome and in Ireland. (Bishop Phillpott's Supplementary Letter to Charles Butler, Esq., pp. 145-150.

+ Quia vero nobilitas tua postulavit, quòd secundum Sclavonicam linguam apud vos divinum celebrari annueremus officium; scias nos huic petitioni tuæ nequaquam posse favere. Ex hoc nempe sæpe volentibus liquet, non immerito sacram Scripturum omnipotenti Deo placuisse quibusdam locis esse occultam: ne si ad liquidum cunctis pateret, forte vilesceret, et subjaceret despectui, aut prave intellecta à mediocribus, in errorem induceret. (Greg. VII. Epist., lib. vii., Ep. 11, in Cardinal Baronius's Annales Ecclesiastici, tom. xvii., p. 496. Lucæ, 1745, fol.

Prohibemus, ne libros Veleris Testamenti aut Novi laici permittantur habere ; nisi forte Psalterium, vel Breviarium pro divinis officiis, aut Horas beatæ Mariæ, aliquis ex devotione habere velit. Sed ne præmissos libros habeant in vulgari lingua translatos arctissime inhibemus. (Labbè et Cossart, Concilia, tom. xi., part i.

col 430.

1

or Breviary were to be allowed, except in a dead language. And no wonder; "for every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works be not reproved." (AngloRomish version of John iii. 20.) The modern Church of Rome shuns the light, and shrinks from a free comparison of her doctrines and practices with the only test which God has given of a true and pure church.

Though calling itself an ecumenical or general council, the Council of Trent was wholly composed of Divines of the Roman obedience; and the histories of its proceedings prove that they were all regulated either in pursuance of orders from Rome, or in conformity with the express wishes of the Pepes. Its sittings commenced December 3d, 1545, and were continued (with interruptions, caused by suspension and removal to Bologna, from March 25th, 1547, to September 1st, 1551,) until December 4th, 1563; thus completing a period of eighteen years, during which it was under the infallible direction of Paul III., Julius II., and Pius IV.*

In the eighteenth session of the Council of Trent, it was referred to a committee to prepare an Index of Prohibited Books; but as they had not finished their labours at the close of the session, that business was intrusted to Pope Pius IV., under whose auspices the first Index was published in 1564.+ Ten rules are prefixed to this Index, which are retained in all subsequent impres

sions of it. We extract a few passages, to show the rigour with which the Romish Church, like the Pharisees of old, takes away the key of knowledge, by depriving the laity of the word of God:

"Rule IV.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 permission, he shall not 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 person 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 offence. But Regulars shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles without a special licence from their superiors." +

* An accurate analysis of the proceedings of each session of the Tridentine assembly will be found in the Rev. J. Mendham's "Memoirs of the Council of Trent, principally derived from manuscript and unpublished Records." London, 1834, 8vo.

A full account of the expurgatory and prohibitory Indexes of the Romish Church will be found in Mr. Mendham's "Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, exhibited in an Account of her Damnatory Catalogues or Indexes; (second edition, London, 1830, 8vo. ;) and in his "Index of Prohibited Books by command of the present Pope, Gregory XVI., in 1835. London, 1840. 8vo." We may add, that another edition of the Roman Index (from which our quotations are made) was published at Rome in 1841.

‡ Regula IV.—Cum experimento manifestum est, si Sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde, ob hominum temeritatem, detrimenti, quam utilitatis oriri; hac in parte judicio Episcopi aut Inquisitoris stetur, ut cum consilio Parochi, aut Confessarii, Bibliorum a Catholicis auctoribus versorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere possit, quos intellexerint ex hujusmodi lectione non damnum, sed fidei atque pietatis augmentum, capere posse ; quam facultatem in scriptis habeant.

Qui autem absque tali facultate ea legere, aut habere præsumpserit, nisi prius Bibliis Ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolutionem percipere non possit.

Bibliopola, vero, qui prædictam facultatem non habenti Biblia idiomate vulgari conscripta vendiderint, vel alio quovis modo concesserint, librorum pretium, in usus pios al Episcopo convertendum, amittant; aliisque pœnis pro delicti qualitate, ejusdem Episcopi arbitrio, subjaceant. Regulares vero, non nisi facultate a prælatis suis

That part of the preceding rule which allowed "the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors," was qualified by the following proviso of Benedict XIV. :-“But if versions of this kind of books in the vulgar tongue are approved by the Apostolic See, or are edited with annotations drawn from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic men, they are allowed." Liberal, however, as this proviso seems, real effect it has none. The slightest reflection upon its conditions will at once convince the reader, that though it might suit the Pontiff to make a demonstration of the semblance of liberality, yet the reins were kept in his hands as effectually as ever. Let any unwelcome application be made for a licence, and here are the conditions, as strait, as numerous, and as dependent on interpretation as could be desired. No such thing as the simple word of God, "which is able to make us wise unto salvation," is to be permitted!

"Rule VII.-Books professedly teaching of lascivious or obscene subjects, or narrating or teaching them......are utterly prohibited; and those who possess them shall be severely punished by the Bishop. But works of antiquity, written by the Heathens, are permitted to be read, on account of the elegance and propriety of the language; though on no account shall they be suffered to be read by young persons."+

The reader will not fail to observe the easy virtue of Rome in thus giving permission for the reading of "obscene

works of antiquity, on account of the elegance and propriety of the language;" while the infinitely purer morality of the Scriptures is prohibited to be read, because, forsooth, 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!!!" With as much reason might men be prohibited from eating or drinking, for fear they should abuse that liberty.

"Finally, it is enjoined on all the faithful, that no one presume to keep or read any books contrary to these rules, or prohibited by this Index. But if any one read or keep any books composed by heretics, or the writings of any author suspected of heresy, or false doctrine, [which are] condemned and prohibited, he shall instantly incur the sentence of excommunication; and those who read or keep works interdicted on another account, besides the mortal sin committed, shall be severely punished at the will of the Bishops."+

In addition to the ten rules of the Index, from which the preceding passages are cited, there are decrees respect ing prohibited books, not specially named in the Index. In these decrees, besides forms of prayer, calendars, martyrologies, necrologies, poems, Catechisms, and other elementary tracts on the doctrines of the Reformed or Protestant Churches, it is ordered that "all Bibles printed by Protestants, or enlarged by them with notes, arguments, summaries, scholia, and indexes," and also "metri

habita, ea legere aut emere possint. (Page 10 of Index Librorum Prohibitorum sanctissimi Domini nostri Gregorii XVI. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. Rome, MDCCCXLI. Ex Typographia Reverenda Camera Apostolicæ. Cum Summi Pontificis privilegio. 8vo.)

* Quodsi hujusmodi librorum versiones vulgari lingua fuerint_ab_ Apostolica Sede approbatæ, aut editæ cum annotationibus desumptis ex sanctis Ecclesiæ Patribus, vel ex doctis Catholicisque viris, conceduntur. Decret. Sacr. Congregationis Ind., 13 Junii, 1757. (Index Librorum Prohibitorum, p. xv. Roma, 1841.)

+ Regula VII.-Libri qui res lascivas seu obscenas ex professo tractant, aut docent......omnino prohibentur; et qui eos habuerint severe ab Episcopis puniantur. Antiqui vero, ab ethnicis conscripti, propter sermonis elegantiam et proprietatem, permittantur: nulla tamen ratione pueris prælegendi erunt. (Ibid., p. xi.)

Ad extremum vero omnibus fidelibus præcipitur, ne quis audeat contra harum regularum præscriptum, aut hujus Indicis prohibitionem, libros aliquos legere aut habere.

Quod si quis libros hæreticorum, vel cujus auctoris scripta, ob hæresim, vel ob falsi dogmatis suspicionem damnata, atque prohibita, legerit, sive habuerit, statim in excommunicationis sententiam incurrat.

Qui vero libros alio nomine interdictos legerit, aut habuerit, præter peccati mora talis reatum, quo afficitur, judicio Episcoporum severe puniatur. (Ibid., p.

cal versions of the Bible and parts thereof," are to be reckoned among prohibited books.*

Such is the universal law of the Romish Church in prohibiting the reading of the holy Scriptures; and how steadily she continues to act upon it, will be manifest from a brief review of the Bulls and Encyclical (or Circular) Letters of later Popes.

In the year 1671 the learned and pious Jansenist, Pasquier Quesnel, published a French translation of the New Testament, accompanied with excellent devout and practical annotations, which passed through numerous editions. Alarmed at the success of this work, which had produced a change in the minds of many, in favour of the doctrines of Jansenius, the Jesuits prevailed on Louis XIV. to solicit its condemnation at the court of Rome. Accordingly, Pope Clement XI., on the 8th of September, 1713, issued the famous Bull or Constitution Unigenitus ;+ (so called from the first three words, Unigenitus Dei Filius ;) in which Quesnel's New Testament was condemned, and one hundred and one propositions extracted from the notes were selected for condemnation. The six following relate to the reading of the Scriptures :

80. "The reading of the sacred Scripture is for all.

81. "The obscurity of the sacred word of God is no reason for laymen to dispense themselves from reading it.‡

82. "The Lord's day ought to be sanctified by Christians for reading works of piety, and, above all, of the sacred Scriptures. It is damnable to wish to

withdraw a Christian from this reading.

83. "It is an illusion to persuade oneself that a knowledge of the mysteries of religion is not to be communicated to women by the reading of the sacred books. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud science of men, has the abuse of the Scriptures arisen, and heresies have been produced.

84. "To take away the New Testament from the hands of Christians, or to shut it up from them, by taking from them the means of understanding it, is to close the mouth of Christ to them.

85. "To interdict from Christians the reading of the sacred Scripture, particularly of the Gospel, is to interdict the use of the light from the sons of light, and to cause that they should suffer some species of excommunication." §

Any candid reader would conclude that the doctrine comprised in the propositions was in perfect accordance with the letter and spirit of the Gospel. They were, however, condemned by the Pope; and all persons were prohibited, on pain of ecclesiastical censures and other punishments, from teaching, defending, or publishing them, or even to treat of them in disputation, publicly or privately, unless it were to impugn them. This Bull affords a full and satisfactory answer to the false assertions of Romanists, that the Scriptures are not shut up from the people. In most of the states and kingdoms of the Roman obedience it was submissively received: at first, indeed, it met with great opposition in France; but at length the majority of the Gallican Clergy received it, and finally it

*3. Biblia sacra eorum opera impressa, vel eorundem annotationibus, argumentis, summariis, scholiis et indicibus aucta.

4. Biblia sacra vel eorum partes ab iisdem metrice conscripta. (Ibid., p. xli.) + Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., cent. 18, sect. x., vol. vi., p. 12.

80. Lectio sacræ Scripturæ est pro omnibus.

81. Obscuritas sancti verbi Dei non est laicis ratio dispensandi seipsos ab ejus lectione.

§ 82. Dies Dominicus a Christianis debet sanctificari lectionibus pietatis, et super omnia sanctarum Scripturarum. Damnosum est velle Christianum ab hac lectione retrahere.

83. Est illusio sibi persuadere, quòd notitia mysteriorum religionis non debeat communicari fœminis lectione sacrorum librorum. Non ex fœminarum simplicitate, sed ex superba virorum scientia, ortus est Scripturarum abusus, et natæ sunt hæreses.

84. Abripere è Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum, seu eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os obturare.

85. Interdicere Christianis lectionem sacræ Scripturæ, præsertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut patiantur speciem quandam excommunicationis. (Cocquelines, Bullarium, tom. xi., pars i., p. 343, col. 2. Romæ, 1735, folio.

VOL. I.-FOURTH SERIES.

4 G