Monseign. de Salignac de la Mothe Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray; translated from the original French, by the Rev. Edward Peach, Pastor of St. Chad's Chapel, Birmingham; to which is subjoined an Approbation by the Right Rev. Dr. John Milner, Bishop of Castabala, Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District. London, 1816, printed and published by W. E. Andrews.

The Archbishop says further, in this letter to the BISHOP OF ARRAS," It was the dread of these evil consequences that induced the Faculty of Theology at Paris, in the year 1527, to censure certain propositions of Erasmus; the purport of which was, that if his opinion were to be adopted, labourers, masons, and other artisans should read the Holy Scripture, and that it should be translated into every language.' The Faculty, on the contrary, declared thus: 'The Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the Turlupins, have taught us what danger there is in allowing to all, indiscriminately, the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, &c.; and although it may be profitable to some, it ought not to be put into the hands of every one without exception.' The Faculty adds, with respect to Laics, The Church does not forbid the reading of certain books of Scripture, which may contribute to the improvement of men's morals, with an explanation sufficiently clear to make them understand it. Lastly, it remarks, that the Holy See has, long ago, forbidden the Laity to read those books, &c.'”

FENELON again quotes with approbation the language of the Clergy of France, and of St. VINCENT DE LERINS: Namely, that "the Holy Scriptures had been called the book of Heretics, on account of the artful sophisms by which they endeavour to turn the texts against the authority of the Church;" and that it was the familiar use of the sacred volume" which gave rise to the sects of Protestants."

A great deal more is adduced by him to the same purpose; so that we cannot now be startled to find, "that not

only the letter of INNOCENT III. but also the Bulls of PIUS IV. CLEMENT VIII. BENEDICT XIV. and the famous Bull Unigenitus by CLEMENT XI." are appealed to by the present Pope Pius VII. as if they refuted the scriptural views of Jansenists and Protestants!

The new Conflict, therefore, which at present subsists, is exactly the same as our Reformers had to maintain in the days of LUTHER and CRANMER: one party declaring with the Psalmist, that "God's word giveth light to the understanding, and wisdom to the simple;" but, the other party affirming, and still continuing to affirm, in a tone of ridicule,

"By paraphrasing this, they mean

To make the simple people keen
For BIBLES; as if ev'ry clown,

Or whistling cobler in the town,
Young girls, old wives of eighty year,
When they the SCRIPTURE read or hear,
Could ev'ry one the sense on't tell,
And ev'ry text expound as well
As Austin, Hierom, or Aquine:
Thus ev'ry fool may turn DIVINE,
And judge of all the SCRIPTURE saith,

Or pick from thence what they call faith!"

(Vide Ward's first Canto, reprinted at Manchester in 1815.)

We see that the same weapon, "the Sword of the Spirit," with which our forefathers conquered the powers of darkness in the sixteenth century, must still be wielded by ourselves for a similar purpose: and we may certainly expect, that a degree of success proportioned to our fidelity, will follow the use of such means for enlightening mankind. Though no well-instructed Christian will put the written word and the preached word in opposition to each other, or suppose that the former can supersede the latter; yet it is certain, that the neglect of God's recorded Truth occasioned the long reign of Papal darkness, prior to the

4

Reformation, and that the mist of ignorance then prevalent was dispelled chiefly by diffusing its beams over Europe.

Sir, what says the ruling Pontiff? and how does he address the Archbishop of Mohilow, in his Bull of September 3d, 1816? His Holiness declares that "he is worn down with poignant and bitter grief at hearing of the pernicious design entered into" (by the Russian and Polish Bible, Societies)," to disperse the Holy Books every where in the vernacular tongues." He then pronounces this practice to be "contrary to the rules of the Church;" and especially repugnant to a "well-known Decree of the Council of Trent," which affirms " that more injury than benefit would thence arise to mankind." He charges these "Heretics" (such as we Protestants are), with forming "corrupt and destructive machinations," tending to ruin souls; and dissuades that Archbishop from following their "pernicious designs," by quoting the Decretal Epistle of Pope INNOCENT III.

The name and deeds of so bloody a tyrant strike Protestants with the utmost horror: for, it was HE who wasted the riches of whole kingdoms,-laid this and other nations under a dreadful interdict,-excited the most murderous crusades against the peaceable Waldenses and Albigenses,appointing merciless Inquisitors to propagate the religion of Christ by brutal violence and barbarism! This man was fit, indeed, to set an example to all future Pontiffs; and his ecclesiastical discipline has been therefore admired in the Church of Rome, ever since the infamous Councils of Lateran and Toulouse..

The great LATERAN Council acted on the principle, so clearly recognised by the more modern annotators of Douay and LONDON; viz. that of deciding all controversies "without appeal from the Church guides," and " punishing with death such as proudly refused to obey their decisions." The subsequent Council of TOULOUSE, held A. D. 1229, absolutely forbade the Laity to possess any of the sacred books,

ម ១

either of the Old or New Testament, in the vulgar tongue, and most strictly prohibited the translation of them; and yet Bishop MILNER has the assurance to say, that, "with respect to the Laity, SHE (the Church) NEVER INTERDICTED THE BIBLE FROM THEM, AS PROTESTANTS SUPPOSE." But, the Sorbonne Doctors expressly declared, at the beginning of the Reformation, that "the Holy See had long ago forbidden the Laity to read the books of the Scriptures."

We here perceive, then, what is intended by Prus VII. to be the uniform rule of conduct for all modern Roman Catholics, in whatever kingdom they exist!

Perhaps our Protestant Governors and Magistrates may think such injunctions a little arbitrary, and encroaching on the civil rights of society: though it is, indeed, pretended by Roman Catholics, that the Pope's power does not at all extend to things temporal or worldly! But would not, for instance, Mr. CHARLES BUTLER Consider it an infringement of his civil rights, if the censures of a Vicar Apostolic were to deprive him of half his heterodox library; or to put him under an Excommunication (which might ruin his character and fortune), for disobeying the laws prescribed by the Congregation of the Index?

It is also well known that in Ireland, where the Romish Priests bear rule more imperiously, the excommunicated person is cut off from all intercourse with his neighbours; and loses his trade, business, or profitable employment, of whatever kind, till his spiritual Usurper chooses to remove this dreadful interdict!!!

If such rapid and progressive encroachments of Popery, within these few years, do not excite some feeling of alarm; yet, at least, they may tend to enliven the zeal of Protestants, or awaken them from that lethargic state into which too many of them have unhappily fallen. It is time, surely, to arise and shake off the careless habits of the age; lest our feet, accustomed to walk with indifference over the trea

cherous surface of a Papal Volcano, should, in a moment of unconcern, sink down to rise no more! If the noxious smoke and exhalations of the labouring mountain do not now disturb our repose, it may be too late hereafter to escape from the fatal explosion when it suddenly bursts upon the Christian world!

LETTER XXIV.

SIR,

I PERCEIVE, from a recent letter of BISHOP MILNER in the Orthodox Journal, published on the first day of this month (April), that he is extremely apprehensive lest the secular power and influence of his Church should be abridged in our empire! He mentions the proposed Relief Bill of 1813, then attempted to have been carried through the House of Commons, in terms of horror and indignation ;calling it "that most infamous Bill, the like of which was never devised by Cecil, or Shaftesbury, or Robespierre himself. This Bill," he says, " was contrived with a heart and malice which none but the spirits of wickedness in high places, mentioned by St. Paul, could have suggested, to undermine and wither the fair trees of the English and Irish Catholic Churches." He proceeds, p. 105: "We are, Mr. Editor, precisely in the situation we were in at this season six years ago; the very same men, and that calamity of our Church in particular, are at work, foreseeing the same kind of Bill for oppressing and ruining our Holy Religion."

These sad complaints, Sir, may perhaps be either without sufficient cause, or greatly disproportionate to the real occasion. However, you may think it is high time to clip the