It is to me one of the strongest proofs that the Bible is the Word of God, that the mind of the most ignorant cannot come into contact with it without becoming elevated thereby:—The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple:—The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
But a second reason for the non-circulation of the Written Word by the Church of Rome, is that she does not regard it as the alone standard of faith and practice. Hear one of her champions. You will not find that the Church of Rome repudiates Dr. Wiseman. He plainly says—“The Protestant asserts, and the Catholic denies, that God intended the Scriptures to be the rule of faith.”
Hear also the decree of the Council of Trent—
“Having constantly in view the removal of error and the preservation of the purity of the gospel in the church, which gospel promised before by the prophets in the sacred scriptures, was first orally published by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who afterwards commanded it to be preached by his Apostles to every creature, as the source of all saving truth and discipline, and perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained both in written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, either received by the Apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted by the hands of the same Apostles under the direction of the Holy Spirit, following the example of the orthodox fathers, this Council doth receive and reverence, with equal piety and veneration, all the books, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, the same God being the author of both; and also the aforesaid traditions, pertaining both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession.”
Thank God for the contrast which we can present between Rome and our Protestant Church! What then is the language of our own Church?—“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”—Article vi. And then again in the XXth Article she says—“The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,”—(the word “authority” is rendered in the Latin Articles not by a word signifying imperial, absolute, authority, but weight, influence,)—“and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”
Men and Brethren beloved! let this be distinctly impressed upon your minds—that the universal right of the laity—yes, of the uneducated part of the laity—to the Word of God, in their own tongue, is a distinctive principle of the blessed Reformation. As it was the Bible which contributed mainly to enlighten and emancipate the mind of the great Luther, so have the translation and circulation of the Bible in the vulgar tongue been co-extensive with the progress of true religion in this country, since the Reformation. From the time when the large Bible stood in the Parish Church, with its chain to secure it; when the multitudes who wanted to read the Word of God had to flock there and to wait in turns to get to the sacred treasure, or one had to be the reader for the rest; from that time down to the present, when the Christian Knowledge Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and other Institutions have successively given their aid, the Word of the Lord has had free course and been glorified.
And now I submit that I have proved, my case against the Church of Rome. I have shown that the act which, notwithstanding the explanation of the Priests, has excited the astonishment and indignation of Protestants throughout this town, does not stand alone. And more, that even the version which is authorised by the Romish Church is not permitted to be generally read, without the permission of a Priest or authorised person.
Without saying one word which is not entirely consistent with Christian charity, I now ask of you, whether that Church is more in accordance with the will of God, which tells you that, before you read his Word in private, you must have the written permission of the Priest—or that Church which, without exception or reserve, puts into the hand of her every member the written Word of God? What, I would ask, was the language of David? He was not a Priest—“O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.” The poor Romanist, unless he has the written permission of his Priest cannot, amid his troubles and his sorrows, say with David, “Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage.”—(Psalm cxix. 54.) Remember too what is said of the Bereans, when they heard Paul preach—“These were more noble than those in Thessolonica, in that they received the word with all gladness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether these things were so.”—(Acts xvii. 11.) No Romanist will assert that his Priest is superior to St. Paul. But what did the Bereans do when Paul preached to them? They “SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY” to see whether he was preaching truth. And I tell you that if St. Paul himself, yea, if an angel were to preach to me, I would do the same. But what would be said to a poor Irishman who should go to his Priest and say “I have been looking to my Bible to see what is said there about what you told us yesterday, and I find that what you taught us is not according to the Word of God?” And what does St. Paul say when warning Timothy in his second Epistle (iii. 14, 17) against “perilous times” and evil men? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that”—Who? the priest?—the scholar?—No!—“That the man of God”—whether priest or layman, whether scholar or no scholar—“may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” And contrast his language to Timothy with the case of the little girl from the Industrial School—“From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”—There were no Bible-burners in St. Paul’s days. The little girl in Birmingham receives a Testament, and it is not only taken away, but is burnt by the Priest. We read in the Epistle for this morning’s service “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” It is evident therefore that they were not written to be kept back from the people, but that they were “written for their learning.” [15] Yet the Church of Rome which arrogates to itself the title of the only true Church puts the Bible into the Index of prohibited books. One more example which the Scriptures furnish—the example of the Ethiopian Eunuch. (Acts viii. 27, &c.) He was sitting in his carriage, reading his Bible, and God sent his minister to him saying—“Understandest thou what thou readest?” Beautiful illustration of a minister’s place! It is to explain the Scriptures. He did not say “You cannot understand them—You ought not to be reading Esaias the prophet.” If he took it out of his hands, it was not to throw it either into the fire or into the water, but he took the book from him and “began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus.” And this is our office now, not to stand between the people and the Bible, but to open up the Bible to them, grounding our every sermon, our every lecture, our every lesson, upon it.
I proceed, Brethren beloved, to draw from this mournful occurrence practical lessons, and, in doing so, I trust I shall not violate the rule which, in perfect sincerity, I laid down at the commencement. Of course, the Romanist will think I am violating it, as will some latitudinarian Protestants.
But, I urge, learn from this transaction in our town the true unaltered character of Popery. Yes—though many haply do not like that statement, I repeat it—the true unaltered character of Popery. We are bigots forsooth! which was the bigot?—the man that gave the Bible or he that burnt it?