eternal life and of eternal death. Hell yawns to receive us; Christ has died to redeem us; we must believe or perish. The offended king speaks pardon and peace; the majesty of Heaven commands, "give ear O earth," "give ear all ye inhabitants of the world," and who is this that steps forward and gives permission to the "earth” and "all the inhabitants of the world" to hear what the mighty God would say! Jehovah commands "give ear O my people," but who is this that interferes and gives permission to the Almighty, the Omniscient God, to speak to his creatures? who permits Him to speak to those only who are in no danger of being injured or led astray by his communications? Impious presumption! High-handed rebellion against the sovereign of the Universe!

Will Papists deny that their church claims the privilege of permitting the common people to read the Bible? Will they deny that she claims the right to forbid their reading it? This is what we charge upon them; and if this be not a principle of their church, I call upon them to say what is a principle of their church? What constitutes a principle, if infallible decrees do not? If they deny that their church claims any such privilege or any such right, let them explain the import of the order of the council of Trent; of the 4th rule of the Expurgatory Index, and of the addition. by Clement; and let them explain the bull of Pope Pius VII., issued in 1816, enforcing the order of the council of Trent, prohibiting the Bible to be read by all. This principle of the Romish church has been well compared to a case where a sovereign, some of whose subjects are in a state of rebellion, issues a proclamation of a pardon on condition of submitting and returning to him. And the magistrates of the riotous town assemble to consult as to the

propriety of publishing that proclamation to the rebel citizens. Now does not every one see that even if they agreed to publish it, their act of consultation and formal agreement to publish the proclamation, would be putting their authority on an equal footing with that of the Sovereign! Who does not see that such conduct would be presumption and rebellion?

If the church of Rome does not prohibit the promiscuous reading of the Bible, how does it come that so many of their writers have so formally and so gravely defended the propriety of such a prohibition? Is it not a notorious fact that the controversy with the most of Romish writers on this subject, has not been about the fact of prohibition, but about the propriety of it?

If the church of Rome has so much regard to the people's right to read the scriptures, how does it come that there was no vulgar translation in use when Wickliffe arose! and why did his translation excite such great commotion in the church, and bring down upon him the vengeance of Popes and Councils?

"Wickliff's translation alone,” says Milner, “sufficed to render his name immortal. The value of it was unspeakable; and his unwearied pains to propagate the genuine doctrines of revelation among mankind, indicated the steady zeal with, which he was endowed; while the rage with which the hierarchy was inflamed against a work so undeniably seasonable, demonstrated that the ecclesiastical rulers hated the light, and would not come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. * *Milner's Ch. Hist. iv. 91.

Note.-Wicliffe, in his prologue to the translation, informs us of the method in which he proceeded, notwithstanding the op. position he met with, and the clamors that were raised against him on the account. 1. He with several who assisted him, got together all the Latin Bibles they could, which they diligently

When Sixtus V., who was a whimsical Pope, published an Italian version of the scriptures in 1589, it produced a great excitement in Romish Christendom, some of the cardinals expostulated with him very freely on the subject, and said it was scandalous as well as dangerous, and bordered very nearly on heresy! But Papists say they have translations of the scriptures: there is the Doway Bible and the Rhemish translation. Inasmuch as both these translations contain the fundamentals of the gospel plan of salvation, if they were stripped of their cumbersome load of notes, we should be glad to see them in general circulation rather than none at all: but as to the Doway Bible, it is a well known fact that papists will not sell a protestant a genuine edition, if they can help it, and the common edition, sold in our cities, is a spurious edition: and as to the Rhemish translation, its quantity of notes renders its general circulation altoSee his life, 8vo. p. 562.

collated and corrected, in order that they might have one Latin Bible near the truth. In the next place, they collected the ordinary comments, with which they studied the text so as to make themselves masters of its sense and meaning. Lastly, they consulted the old grammarians and ancient divines, respecting the hard words and sentences. After all this was done, Wickliff then set about the translation, which he resolved, should not be a literal one, but so as to express the meaning as clearly as he could. Milner's Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 398.

A specimen of Wickliff's New Testament, in the old English of his time, may be pleasing to the reader.

John x. 26-30. "Ye beleven not, for ye ben not of my scheep. My scheep heren my vois, and I knowe hem, and thei suen me. And I gyve to hem everlastynge life, & thei schulen not perische, withouten end; & noon schal rauysche hem fro myn hond. That thing that my Fadir gaf to me, is more than alle thingis; & no man may rauysche from my Fadirs hond. I & the Fadir ben oon."

F

gether impracticable. The papists object to the circulation of our translation professedly because it is an heretical translation: but let any one take the pains to visit the Romish communion, especially the poor, to whom there are express injunctions to us to preach the gospel, and see how many copies, even of the Romish translation of the scriptures, he would find among them. Is it a fact that papists do circulate even their own translations among the people? No: their objection to the circulation of the scriptures is too obvious to be concealed. But lest it should seem we were too harsh, we will give their opinion of the necessity of such a circulation in their own words.

The Rhemish translators in their preface say, (speaking of their own work,) "which translation we do not, for all that, publish upon erroneous opinions of necessity that the holy scriptures should always be in our mother tongue: or that they ought or were ordained of God to be read indifferently of all, or could be easily understood of every one that readeth or heareth them in a known language: pernicious and much hurtful to many: or that we generally and absolutely deem it more convenient in itself and more agreeable to God's word and honour: or edification of the faithful to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the ecclesiastical learned languages: not for these nor for any such like causes, do we translate this sacred book, but upon special consideration of the present time, state and condition of our country, unto which divers things are either necessary or profitable and medicinable now, that otherwise in the peace of the church, were neither more requisite, nor perchance wholly tolerable." (See preface to the Rhemish translation of the N. T. 2d paragraph.) Let not papists

boast of this translation being made for the people; for we here see in their own words, the reason of it. It was not because such a translation was necessary, not because the scriptures should be read by all, nor because God commands them to be read by all, ("search the scriptures;") not because they were necessary to edification, or even agreeable to the word and honour of God; but because in these times, (soon after the reformation) the people seem anxious and determined to have them, and if we do not give them a translation, some one else will, and if we do not guard our translation with notes and comments, to prevent their speaking differently from what the church teaches, they will get one without such interpreters; so that we are now driven in self-defence to let the people take a peep into the last will and testament of their Lord and Master. Before the reformation, when the church was in peace, it was not requisite or even tolerable to have the Bible in the vulgar tongue, lest it should be read by all who pleased; but now it seems necessary, for they will have it, and we must submit. The people are beginning to have too much light; they are beginning to understand their rights. It is a lamentable thing. But alas! alas!!

Papists may still boast that they permit the common people to read the scriptures, but I ask upon what condition are they permitted to read them? This is the condition, viz: that they will not understand them to teach a different doctrine from that which they have heard from the church! Here is the proof contained in the following extract from the decree of the infallible Council of Trent, concerning the edition and use of the sacred books. "Besides, for restraining petulent wits, it decrees that no man leaning to his own understanding in matters of faith and morals, pertaining to the edifica