Does it get altered in its character? Can anything which is infallible in Italy become fallible in England? I cannot believe this. Has your Holiness nothing else to give me?" His Holiness will say, of course, there is a General Council. Can I get at it? It is 300 years since it sat, but you can see its canons. I obtain them: but if it be perplexing to get the sense of the Bible, it seems to me ten times more perplexing to get the sense of the canons of the Council of Trent. I wish you, Sir, good morning, his Holiness will reply, for you seem to me a very intractable and unmanageable subject. What do I infer from this? That to talk of the sense which Holy Church has held and does hold is a gross and flagrant deception. It is drawing you within her pale under a promise which she cannot perform.

But this is not all: the Roman Catholic also says, "Nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Now I have got the Benedictine edition of the Fathers. I have dug and bored in the Fathers for ten years past, and I have found there much that is beautiful, much that is instructive, mingled with a prodigious amount of error. The Fathers were not inspired-they were not delegated to give the sense of the Spirit of God. Many of the Fathers are lost; and Delahogue, a very celebrated Roman Catholic Divine, makes the remark, that we have not the writings of the best of the Fathersthat they were more engaged in preparing their people for martyrdom than in writing for the use of after ages. Suppose a poor Roman Catholic being told that he must interpret the eighth of Romans only according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The very first thing indicated in that is, that he learns where the Fathers are to be found. He is told that the nearest place where he can find them is in the British Museum. He gets an order from Sir Henry Ellis. He goes into the reading-room, and seats himself at a table, and asks for the Fathers. Four or five able-bodied porters march into the room, each bearing a groaning

load of from twelve to fifteen folios on his back. These are set down on the table. The poor Roman Catholic, anxious to get the meaning of God's word, is surprised and amazed; and says within himself, "When shall I be able to get through all these? But nothing that is possible shall be impossible to me." He opens one of them. It is written in a crinkamcrankum character. It's not English, and it's not Irish either, he's sure of that. He does not know what it is. It is Greek. This Father is Origen. He opens another, which is written in the English character, but it is in a language which he cannot make out. This is St. Chrysostom. But suppose he masters Greek and Latin: after all his researches he will find there is no such thing as unanimity among the Fathers at all. I have myself looked through all the Fathers, and collected the opinions of a great number of them on the first three or four clauses of the Lord's Prayer,— "Our Father, which art in heaven." Three Fathers say, that "in heaven," means, in the Church, in opposition to the world; five say, that "in heaven," means, in the souls of the faithful, in opposition to the souls of the unbelievers. The rest of the Fathers say, that it means literally, "in heaven," just as much as "in earth," means literally, "in earth." Mr. Sibthorp, when he joined the Church of Rome, said he would not take any interpretation of the Scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. But he does not yet understand his Paternoster.

Now you see that the Church of Rome, if she gives the Bible to her people at all, gives it them with such restrictions that it is absolutely worthless. She tells them, I have a fountain that is full of refreshing springs, but there is a stone on it that cannot be rolled away. I give you a basket filled with nutritive bread, but it is padlocked, and the priest keeps the key. I give you the Bible that you may tell Protestants they lie, when they say you have not the Bible, but you yourselves know that though you have the Bible, for all practical purposes you must be

I have thus, then, shown you how the Roman Catholic is hampered in the interpretation of that Bible; let me now go on to point out the errors in her translation of that Bible.

First of all, I may mention to you that the Church of Rome introduces into the Bible certain parts which the Church Articles of the Church of England very properly and justly rejects. The Bible-that which we call the Bible-is the holy Word of God inspired by his Spirit; but the books called the Apocrypha are not to be quoted to support any doctrine, -that is, they are not inspired, but only the expositions of some of them good men, some of them bad men, and all of them fallible men. In order to point out to you that the Apocryphal books are no part of the Bible, I will just very briefly submit to your consideration the following points-First. They are not found in the Hebrew type like the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures (with the exception of part of the book of Daniel, which is in Chaldee). Secondly. They were never recognised or admitted by the Jews, to whom was intrusted the care and guardianship of the Old Testament Scriptures, and they have never failed or flinched in the execution of their sacred trust. In the third place, if the Jews had acted improperly in not recognising them, is it not probable that our Lord, who rebuked them for their omission and neglect of Scripture, and for perverting it by their tradition, never once supposed them to have left out so large a portion as that called the Apocrypha? And, in the last place, I may mention that the two books of Maccabees, at least, were recognised and expressly declared to be uninspired by Gregory the Great in the seventh century; while Pius IX., in 1847, says that they are inspired. Such is the unity of the Roman Catholic Church! I think, also, that the author of the Book of Maccabees ought to be no mean evidence as to whether he was

inspired; for he says, "which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but

if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.' (2 Mac. xv. 39.) Now, could you conceive an inspired apostle asking pardon for the mistakes, errors, or failures in the execution of his work? This is evidence, by implication, that the writer was not inspired. I might quote from this book, instances of immorality. But there is one text which makes this book particularly dear to every Roman Catholic." It is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the souls of the dead." But there is in it error of a very deadly description, and that is, suicide is commended in it. It is spoken of one who fell on his sword, choosing rather to die nobly, than to fall into the hands of the wicked." (2 Mac. xiv. 42.) That is not like the language of inspiration.

66

ii.

There is another instance in John

You recollect that touching incident in which our Lord's first miracle, at Cana, in Galilee, when Mary came and said unto him, "They have no wine." The reply of our Lord to Mary, on this occasion, is, in our translation, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." We very easily understand the meaning of it; it was this -as if he had said, "Mary, I was subject to thee as a son to his mother according to the flesh, but now my mysterious and awful ministry is begun. I must now tread the winepress alone, where not even a mother can be with me. The tears of Mary must not mingle with the blood of Jesus. I must suffer alone-I must accomplish all my resolves-I must deserve the intended glory, and I alone." But the Church of Rome was fearful lest it should damage the invocation that she pays to the Virgin Mary; in the Roman Catholic version the words are these, "Woman, what is to me and to thee;" which is absolutely unintelligible. That is not the meaning of the language. Suppose, now, that the Church of Rome is right in rendering it, however unintelligible it may be, "What is to me and to thee?" has she been consistent in doing so throughout the Bible? It happens that the Greek words, rí èpoì καὶ σοι, occur thirteen times in the course of the Septuagint version, and

of the New Testament. And in twelve of these instances the Church of Rome translates them just as we do, "What have I to do with thee?" and it is in the thirteenth instance only that she does not. Are we not, then, forced to the conclusion that she is driven to one of these two alternatives,—either to raise her worship to the lofty standard of inspired truth, or to bring down that standard to the level of her own worship; and that she rejects the first of these, and adopts the last?

In Acts we have the expression μeтavoia, repentance. The Church of Rome renders it in every instance but one, "penance." For example: when Peter addressed the converts, in Acts ii. 38, "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you." The same expression occurs in chap. v., "Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give (the very same Greek word) repentance to Israel."

I shall notice one other instance of mis-translation. We have in Heb. xi., “And Jacob worshipped, leaning on the top of his staff." But the Church of Rome alters it; and she says, "worshipped and adored the top of his rod." You look at the note (for in this Bible the Pope has taken care that the Roman Catholics shall not understand Scripture without the aid of his spectacles); he has added certain notes at the bottom of each page, and the note here given is to the following effect:-" Some translators, who are no friends to this relative honour, have corrupted the text by so translating it ́he worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff:' as if this circumstance of leaning upon his staff were any argument of Jacob's faith, or worthy the being thus particularly taken notice of by the Holy Ghost." The argument, you will perceive, as to leaning on the top of his staff, is that it was too trifling a point to be recorded by the sacred penman. You will just compare this with a note on Tob. xi. 9 (a book which the Pope holds to be part and parcel of the Bible). "Then the dog which had been with them in the way ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail." Upon this passage

there is the following note:-" This may seem a very minute circumstance to be recorded in sacred history, but we learn from our Saviour (St. Matt. vi. 8) that there are jots and tittles in the Word of God: that is to say, things that appear minute, and which have indeed a deep and mysterious meaning in them." It seems, then, that the patriarch leaning on the top of his staff was too minute to be taken notice of by the Holy Spirit, but the dog coming in and wagging his tail is full of deep and mysterious meaning.

Really, if this be a specimen of the light or focus of the Pope's spectacles, I am quite sure we are better off with our own private judgment than with any such aids and assistances as these.

There is another translation towards the close of St. John's Gospel, in that very passage which has been adduced to show the corrective power of the Word of God over tradition. "Then this saying went abroad among the brethren, that this disciple should not die; but Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Now the Church of Rome, in her translation, following the Vulgate, has, "So I will have him to remain till I come, what is that to thee?" shows how little infallibility there is with the Pope. The origin of this error is, that the Latin for if is si, and the Latin for so is sic; and by some blunder in copying, when there was no printing, a e was added, and the Pope and his followers have been misled by it for ages. "So I will have him to remain till I come;" which is just the contrary of what was intended to be expressed.

Now such then is a specimen of the translation of the Roman Catholic Bible. And this should only make us the more admire our own beautiful version. I suppose nothing can approach it in excellence. I believe that if there ever was a miracle in modern times it is the authorized translation of the Word of God. I must say that if all its flaws were corrected, and its expressions strengthened where they might be strengthened, there would only revolve in greater splendour, and greater and more vivid beauty, the grand truths of Evangelical and scrip

tural Christianity. Let us thank God for a Bible inspired-let us thank him for a Bible written-let us thank him for a Bible preserved - and let us thank him and let all England thank him-for a Bible translated so obly and so preciously as ours has been. And when the Church of Rome irges that because (if it were so) she has given us the Bible, she has the power and the right of interpreting it, I will show you, by a plain and simple illustration, the absurdity of such a pretension. Suppose a will is introduced into the Court of Chancery, and the dispute is about,—first, its genuineness, and, secondly, its contents. Certain parties are introduced into court as witnesses, and they attest the genuineness, the signature, the reality, and identity of the document. The decision of the Court, therefore, is, that the evidence of the witnesses is entire and complete, and the will is therefore genuine. Suppose any one who, having seen the signature affixed, and attested that signature, were to stand up and say, I will now give you the contents of the will. The Judge would say, Sir, you were called into court for a very important purpose, namely, to be witness to the genuineness of the will; that witness you have now given, and we beg that you will go to your own business another party claims the right of interpreting the will. Just so it is with the Church of Rome; and when Roman Catholics urge that we Protestants differ among ourselves the moment we attempt to explain_or define the Word of God, I answer that the differences which exist among Protestants, taking them altogether such as you find them, are as nothing when compared with the tremendous differences that exist in the Church of Rome. And when the Church of Rome says that it is our reading of the Bible that originates our differences, I answer, it is not the Bible that does it, but the wicked and wayward hearts that come to read the Bible that are to be blamed for it. We ought not, my dear friends, to pray to God to give us new Bibles, but new hearts to read the old Bibles. It is not a supplement to the book that we need, but light in our minds, and grace in

our hearts. And when persons blame the book for the diversity of interpretation, they forget plain analogies that must show them the fallacy of their deduction. Suppose now a Bill has passed the House of Commons, where it has been canvassed and discussed by the House clause by clause. The Bill is then taken to the House of Lords. There, again, it is canvassed and discussed, and rendered as plain as words can make it, and pronounced at length to be a right measure; and it then receives the Royal assent. Would you not say that if it were possible to construct a document incapable of dispute, it would be a document which had passed through such an ordeal. Wait twelve months, and what do you hear of but that there is a dispute in the Court of Chancery about the construction of that document. What was the reason? Not that the document was not plain enough, but that A had an itching palm; and B said that he ought to have a larger sum; and C protested that he had not obtained his right. And so it is with the Word of God. Do not blame the book, my dear Roman Catholic friends, but blame the hearts that come to read the book. If you ask me what you are to do with this book, I answer, present it to him who wrote and can explain the book,-bring it to God, who alone can regenerate and renew the heart, and he will illumine all that is dark and perplexing with a fulness of light all but inaccessible and full of glory. I am sure, that if I address a Roman Catholic, he will see the common sense of the course which I prescribe, when I say, Go to God himself for the meaning of God's own word. If I had written a book, and that book contained some chapter exceedingly misty and obscure, which you wished to understand, you would perhaps come to my friend Mr. Hambleton, and he would give you the best meaning he could; but if you heard that I was to be in this room at a certain day and at a certain hour, would you not bring the book to me, and say, You wrote the book, and it is most likely that you understand the book, and probably I should be able to tell you.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1847. Sir, - It has often been matter of surprise from whence the money could be derived to build the number of Romish chapels and monasteries now established in England, which in 1846 had increased to 622 chapels and eight monasteries, with 818 priests; whereas, in 1792, it is stated that there were only thirty-two chapels. The mystery is now explained. It appears from works published under Romish authority, that whereas about twenty years ago, there was subscribed to the Catholic Association at Lyons, only £900; in the year 1844, there was subscribed £161,000. Óf this sum, in the year 1823, there was not a farthing expended in England; in 1825, there were £60 expended; in 1833, about £980; but in 1844, this sum had increased to £40,865! This money was expended in building chapels, monasteries, &c., and otherwise promoting the spread of the Romish religion. Thus we see that the Church of Rome is now employing her wealth to corrupt the minds of our people, and to bring this country again under her galling and Antichristian yoke.

MR. HORSMAN ON ENGLISH
BISHOPRICS.

SEPTEMBER, 1847.—Mr. Horsman is very jealous respecting the money expended by the Ecclesiastical Com

missioners upon English Bishoprics. But he takes no notice of the immense sums which have been advanced out of the public treasury year after year, for sending out Romish bishops and priests to the colonies, and maintaining them there. I hope that some Member of the new Parliament will be patriotic enough to move for the returns. I believe the practice is, to place Protestants and Romanists on the same footing in the colonies, and to divide grants equally betwixt them. As for Mr. Horsman, he strongly advised in the last Parliament diplomatic relations with Rome, and therefore he has no title to be listened to as a Reformer

of our Protestant Established Church.

MISCELLANEOUS.

ROME.— Accounts received from Rome confirm the report formerly given of the resignation of Cardinal Gizzi. Cardinal Ferretti, Legate of Pesaro and Urbina, had been appointed his successor, the Pope having announced to him his nomination in an autograph letter. Cardinal Ferretti, who belongs to a noble family of Ancona, is fifty-two years of age. He was very intimate with the Pope before his election to the Pontifical chair, and has made himself remarked in the legation which he governed. He is the brother of the Major Ferretti who, in the time of Napoleon, was considered one of the bravest officers of the Italian army, and who lately refused the Grand Mastership of the Order of Malta. The Pope convoked on the 8th a congregation of cardinals, to take into consideration the municipal law, and other urgent measures.

CABINET.

PROSPERITY too often has the same effect on a Christian that a calm sea hath on a Dutch mariner, who frequently, it is said, in those circumstances, ties up the rudder and goes to sleep.-Bishop Horne.