PROTESTANTS AND THEIR BIBLE.

Auckland Examiner, Volume III, Issue 141, 12 March 1859, Page 3

PROTESTANTS AND THEIR BIBLE.

To Editor of Auckland Exatniner. Sir.—You will oblige me by giving insertion in your columns to the following. In publishing them, I have no wish to raise any controversy, but to merely disprove a charge made, a few weeks ago, against the Religion to which I belong. The attention of the public has been lately called to a gross slander against the Roman Catholic Church, and her Priesthood, published on the sth ultimo in the “ New Zealander.” As I have the honor to be of that Priesthood, I have anxiously awaited ,since the offence was known, some satisfactory explanation, for so uncalled for and, I think, in the present state of things, so i .judiciousan affront to the Roman Catholic body. No such explanation has, however, appeared, and the Editor of that paper, in his issue of the 2nd instant, notifies his wish to decline publishing any further communication relating to it. But the slander has since its publication been confirmed, and the injury aggravated, by the appearance of fresh correlative matter, in the same and other Auckland journals. One writer has even openly asserted that, what has been published and is complained of, is not “untrue.” Under these circumstances, therefore, although, in principle, quite opposed to the obtrusion oi religious subjects into ordinary newspapers, whose columns, I consider, should be as open as possible to secular business, I trust I shall be pardoned for requesting a place to offer a few words in my own defence, as a priest, and that of a Church, which I sincerely believe to be true, and amongst whose members I feel proud’ to be enrolled.

The slander referred to is to be found dispersed throughout a Report read at the Annual Meeting of the Auckland Auxiliary Bible Society, held at Auckland on the Ist ultimo. His Excellency, Governor Gore Browne, in the chair. From various portions of that Report, the conclusion naturally deducible is—that the Roman Catholic Church, by the agency of her priests, systematically hinders and debars her members from having or reading the Bib’.e. Deeply do I regret, that so foul a calumny, and put forth too, in such specious but truly disingenuous terms, should have ever been permitted to stamp its stigma, even by publication alone, on an Auckland Society. The charge is a falsehood ; an untruth beljnging to the enemies of Catholicity. The Catholic Church, over which her members believe that the Spirit of Truth, according to the promise of her Divine Founder perpetually hovers with guardian wings, respects and reveres the revealed Word of God, and commands all her children to hold the same, in holy reverence and awe. She has never, by any law or enactment, prohibited her members, cleric or lay, from perusing and storing up, in the mind and heart, the enlightening and consoling contents of that sacred volume. She has never, by any edict or proclamation, forbidden her children to have or to read the Bible. And those who assert that she has, either know not her doctrine, or wish to belie her. For my own part, were such her teachings, I could not believe her to be the work of God.

It is true,, however, that' about the time called in history the time of the Reformation, in consequence of many translations of the Bible being published, into which it was, not without reason, judged, that errors had crept, the fathers of the council of Trent appointed some learned and prudent persons to draw up certain regulations concerning the reading of the Sacred Scriptures, which regulations were afterwards confirmed by Pope Pius 4th. One of these regulations forbids the reading of translations,- not approved of by the Catholic Church; that is, the reading of such translations as were judged to have corrupted the Word of God.

Another regulation, stating that as, according to St. Peter, there are in the Sacred Scriptures “ some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own perdition,’’ (2 Peter 3c. IGv.) and also the inability of the Eunuch to derive benefit from the reading of ti e Scriptures, until Philip had discoursed with him thereon, (Acts 8c 27v. and 39v.) orders the faith <ful not to read them witbout the direction and guidance of their pastors. Now, where, in these regulations, which most certainly are not generally enjoined by the Church, to be carried out in full force, where let me ask, can the Christian, with an enlightened mind and a good heart, discover anything injurious? Where is the prohibition to have or to read the Bible ? Where is “ the veil of popery hiding the heavenly light from the minds of thousands?’’ Whose is the command to “ Bible-burning whenever the priest can over-awc his credulous parishioners ? ” Or, where is the ground for the “ priest’s uneasiness on the advent of a Colporteur, or for his hostility to the circulation of a Book, which he is unable to condemn when brought to him for inspection ? ” Ah ! thoughtless reporter, had you been more deeply impressed with the contents of that sacred volume, whose circulation appears to be the. wish of your heart, you would never have exposed yourself to sin so grievously, against the chosen commandment of Him whose Divine Word it contains. You have belied a Church whose communion embraces the largest body of Christians, of one denomination, on the face of the earth. You have slandered a Church and her' Priesthood, within whose jurisdiction, the pen of even a dissenting historian writes, that not fewer than 150 millions of souls can be numbered, whilst it will be difficult to shew, that 120 millions would be the amount, if all other Christian denominations united together. Regulations, such as thosejust cited, instead of being a prohibition, are in fact a command to read the Bible, but to read it, in such a manner as to be really benefitted by it. Indeed, when we consider the many clashing opinions, the endless contradictions, disputes, controversies, and vrranglings, together with the almost daily upstarts in religion, with their ephemeral fanaticisms, and at times, disedifying perversion of the sacred text, which result from'

the unguided use of the Bible, some such regulations appear to be necessary, and to carry on them the stamp uf prudence and of wisdom. The erroneous opinion entertained by dissenters from the Catholic Church of her discipline, with respect to the Sacred Scriptures, the publication of which opinion, as a Catholic tenet, constituting the present grievance, is, I think to be attributed to a want of rightly understanding her doctrine. For, an the Cathotic Church teaches, that it is the believing the dogmas, and obeying the precepts contained in the Bible, and not merely possessing and reading the Bible, that are essential to salvation; and as she holds that the commission given by Christ in St. Matthew, c. xxviii. v. 18, 20, with the coiresponding injunction in St. Luke, c. x. v. 15, are a command to her pastors to teach the faithful all things in the Sacred Scriptures necessary to salvation, and an order to the faithful to hearken unto their voice, it naturally follows that the having and the reading the Bible are not censidered by the members of the Catholic Church of the same vital importance as they are by those of different belief. On this account, then, it may happen that the Bible is frequently not present in the families of Catholics. But I think I may say, without offence, that it is quite illogical to argue its positive prohibition from its casual non-presence. With reference to Bible-burning, and priest’s oppo.fition to Bible-circulation, permit me, sir, to ask, where is the clergyman of any protestant or dissenting congregation, who would quietly assent to the introduction, into his flock, of Roman Catholic editions of the Bible and of Books of prayer ? Ido not believe a single one could be found, even amongst those who are termed “ most liberal." And why not? Because they have no confidence in the purity of such works. Well, reverse the case, and you will have the whole Roman Catholic system, in its entirety. That unchristian system, that shocking, that damnable system of Popery, which" the would-be-saintly advocates for Bible-reading and Bible--circulation, pray the Lord, most earnestly, to quickly remove from the face of the Earth ! “Oh tempora, oh mores !"

The Roman Catholic Church reveres the RevealedWord of God, too much, to bid its true copies to bo committed to the flames, or to direct her priesthood to prevent its circulation. Its doctrines are taught by her, and she, therefore, dreads not her children becoming thoroughly acquainted with its contents. And now, 1 think T may ask my protestant and dissenting brethren, how they would bear it, were it said of them ; for instance, of Protestants, that they, in common with Roman Catholics, abstain from eating meat on all Fridays in the year, except Christmas day ; that they fast during the forty days of lent, the three rogationdays, the eiober-days, and 1 on certain vigils; that they have days set apart for devotional exercises to the blessed virgin Mary, and that they observe other religious rites, which are commonly ranked in connexion with Romish superstition, and Popish idolatry ? Yet the book of common prayer would justify such inferences. .Or, again, were it said of Wesleyans, and of such others, who see no evil in the practice, that, because they occasionally bold Tea-panties in connexion with matters appertaining to religion in their places of worship, they thereby showless respect to the house of God, than did the buyers and sellers, whom the Saviour cast forth from the temple, saying—My house shall be called the bouse of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves, St. Matthew, c. 31, v. 13? The Bible teaches charity ; charity teaches truth. Let us, therefore, all who advocate the Bi-ble, learn and speak the truth, or hold our peace. In conclusion, sir, while I beg to be pardoned for having trespassed so much on your time and space, permit me to say a few words in reference to a communication in last Satin’day’a issue of your paper. In it the writer, after having contrary to the rules of ordinary international politeness, said much that might be con--demned- by a strict compliance with the divine injunctions contained in the Bible ; and also having unkindly reflected upon a foreigner, the Right Rev. Bishop Pompallier, for a grammatical error in a letter from His Lord-

ship to Governor Gore Browne, an error, into which I have known Englishmen of education, at times to fall, pronounces a prophetic denunciation of the approaching ruin of the Roman Catholic Church, and concludes by “devoutly praying” for herspeedy “downfall.’’ An idle prayer—that church has nothing to fear from any storm that may gatherabont her, iir the 19th, or any succeeding century. Long since has she verified the promise of her Divine founder, that hell’s gates should never prevail against her >St. Matthew, c. 16, v. 18. For 1800 years, she has, in each successive generation, been exposed to, and had to confront the most dreadful of foes. She was hunted, in the very days of' her infancy, to seek shelter _iii the catacombs, and since her emergence to the - fight, there has-been no ago when “ sword-power, and penpower, and tongue-power” have not been up-raised against her. She hili' seen worse days than ours, and smiled brightly through them all. There is no danger which she has not encountered, and none for which she is not prepared. And they do but bruise and maim their puny hands, who spend their little day of ’ this life in smiting her. She was great and respected, writes the historian, before the Saxon had set foot in Britain—before the Frank had passed the Rhine—when Grecian elo-i quence still flourished in Antioch—when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca ; and she may still exist, in undiminished vigor, when some traveller from New Zealand shall, amidst a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London bridge to sketch the ruina of St. Paul’s. l am, Sir, Youi’s respectfully, H. J. Fynes, Roman Catholic Priest. Howick, March 7 th - , Feast of St. Thomas of Aquin, 1859.