“When I was curate in the parish of —, diocese of Cork, my esteemed rector the — established a scriptural school in the parish of — which was attended by a considerable number of Roman Catholic children. A Father — the parish priest, visited the house of a man named Sullivan, whose daughter went to our school. Mr. — asked how the little girl was improving, and said he wished to hear her read. She brought him her Bible, which he no sooner saw than he made a rush at her, snatched it out of her hand, called in the neighbours to warm themselves by the light of a “Bible fire,” and then burned it, and heaped the fire to make the blaze the brighter.”
If any person present wishes to see the names he is perfectly at liberty to do so to-morrow morning at my house. I merely mention the circumstance, to show that the Bible-burning in St. Peter’s district is not a solitary instance.
Before however I go to the main line of argument which I shall endeavour to pursue, I will mention a fact which occurred in my own parish, not a hundred yards from this spot, the truth of which a person present is prepared to substantiate on oath. One of my Scripture Readers, in the course of his visits among the poor Irish, found a considerable number of them almost or entirely unable to read. He came to me (though teaching them to read was no part of his duty, but merely to read to them) to ask whether I should have any objection to his teaching them to read as they seemed willing to learn. I allowed him to purchase a few elementary reading Books; not Testaments or Bibles. He went three or four Sundays, and some of his scholars seemed willing and thankful to avail themselves of the privilege. At last he found they began to look somewhat shy on him. He told them to show the Priest the books from which they were learning to read. The books were produced, and the priest said there was no harm in the books themselves but they would lead to the Bible. And, as if to form a complete counterpart to the case in St. Peter’s district, as if scurrility and insult were to be added to the burning of God’s Word, my Scripture Reader was actually kicked, not by a Priest, but by an Irishman, as he went out of the Court, who used the strongest language, and exclaimed “Break his neck!” “It would lead to the Bible!” And these poor Irish are doubtless still unable to read, though had my Scripture Reader been permitted to pursue his labours, there is no doubt that by this time they would have been fully able to do so.
Before I pass on to the views and conduct of the Church of Rome in reference to her own versions, I would bring before you the language in which Rome speaks of our endeavours to circulate our Scriptures.
You are invited to-night by a seasonable coincidence, to attend a Bible Meeting in the School Room of the very District in which the circumstance which gives rise to this discourse occurred; and I trust if any of you are lukewarm about the Bible Society, you will feel that it is high time for us to meet to circulate the Word of truth, when Priests are burning it. Now what is the language of Rome towards the Bible Society?
Pius VIIth calls the Bible Society “a most crafty device by which the very foundations of religion are undermined—a pestilence—a defilement of the faith most imminently dangerous to souls.”
Leo XII. declares of it “That it strolls with effrontery through the world, contemning the traditions of the Holy Fathers, and contrary to the well-known decree of the council of Trent, labours with all its might and by every means to translate or rather pervert the Holy Bible into the vulgar language of every nation, from which proceeding it is greatly to be feared that what is ascertained to have happened to some passages may also occur with regard to others: to wit that by a perverse interpretation the gospel of Christ is turned into a human gospel, or what is still worse into the gospel of the DEVIL.”
To the same effect is the language of the present Pope in one of his Encyclical Letters. [8]
But I acknowledge that all this does not apply to the main point which I desire to urge this evening. The question that now presents itself is “what is the practice of the Church of Rome in reference to the possession of the Scriptures by their people, even in their own received versions.” And one of the reasons why I am not satisfied with this document issued by the Romish Priests, is, that it would seem to imply—(I acknowledge it is not stated, but I ask any man of common sense what would be the impression produced on his mind on reading this acknowledgment) that the Church of Rome does circulate the Scriptures generally? I ask any candid man, would not you conclude and infer from their words, that the only objection of the Romish Church is to the circulation of what they consider erroneous versions, but that they are endeavouring to circulate their own? I appeal to your judgments whether what I say is not a fair and legitimate inference from their language. I believe, in my conscience, that it is intended to convey that impression.
Now let us examine carefully—and I earnestly crave your attention to this point, my Roman Catholic hearers—what is the language of your Church? You shall not have my words. I will give you the words of your own Church. And I presume I am not saying anything which a member of the Church of Rome will deny. Nor am I relying on an authority which the Church of Rome can now repudiate. For before I read the extract which I am about to read to you from an Italian writer, it is necessary that I should prove to you that the writer is one fully recognised and endorsed by the Church of Rome. It appears that on the 26th of May, being Trinity Sunday, 1839, Alphonsus Liguori was canonised at Rome, that is to say, he was admitted into the muster roll of the Saints of the Roman Catholic Church. On the 18th of May, 1803, Pius VII confirmed the decree of the sacred College of the Jesuits, which declared that all the writings of St. Alphonsus had been most rigorously examined, and I beg you to mark what follows—“That not one word” (after this rigorous examination) “not one word had been found worthy of censure.” I think then what I can bring forward from writings thus examined, from writings which have been thus broadly endorsed and declared free from censure, from the writings of a man who has been recently canonised, may safely be dealt with as recognised by the Church of Rome.
Many of you are aware that certain books are prohibited to her people. There is a congregation called the “Congregation of the Index,” appointed to examine books to put them into the class of prohibited works. Will you believe the fact that “the Word of God”—Protestants! Romanists! let it sink deeply into your hearts—the Word of God!—not in the Protestant translation, not in a heretical version, but the Word of God as received by the Church of Rome—is in the Romish Index of prohibited books! I do not ask you to take my word for a fact so incredible. Rome shall speak for herself. Here are the words of the Index.—