( 165 )
165)

Epistle of St. James an Epistle of Straw, that ought to be thrown in the Elbe "! but omits the reference.

The passage purported to be quoted occurs in a part of the preface to the German New Testament, published in 1522, printed by Walch, vol. xiv., p. 105, but was omitted from the editions subsequently to 1524. Luther was pointing out the value of the Gospel of St. John above the other three, and concludes: "St. John's Gospel and the 1st Epistle, the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter's 1st Epistle, these are the books which set Christ before you, and teach you everything necessary and salutary for you to know, even though you were never to hear or see any other book or doctrine. Therefore the Epistle of St. James is quite an Epistle of Straw by the side of these." Thus it will be seen that the expression is not used positively, but relatively, and in comparison with other books of the New Testament, in which the special doctrines of the Gospel are brought forward more fully and explicitly. To take this expression apart from the context is to give it the force that is desired--but why not quote honestly? It is nevertheless a fact that the Epistle of St. James, notwithstanding its excellency, was not received as canonical during the first ages of the Church. Again, Luther is represented as rejecting Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. The utmost that can be extracted from Luther is that he questioned whether this epistle was written by Paul. But what is the tradition of the writers claimed by the Roman Church as orthodox on this head? Irenæus, who flourished in the second century, expressly said that it was not written by St. Paul. Such was the opinion of Hippolytus in the third century. It has been attributed to St. Luke, and it was a question in debate until the time of Eusebius and Jerome. Where was the sin of Luther? Such an opinion does not show a doubt on the acceptation or rejection of the Epistle itself-as inspired. The

Church of Rome rejected the whole of the Apocrypha down to the year 1546, all of which since that date is accepted by her as canonical.

Pope Gregory I. himself rejected the entire Apocrypha, as no part of the sacred Canon of Scripture and he followed the list of Jerome, who also rejected those books as uninspired. Surely a monk may express his doubts if a bishop and a Roman saint reject books by the wholesale!

Luther is blamed also for his opinion on the Apocalypse. He is stated to have said in the "Table Talk," "Let each man judge of this book according to the light that is in him, and by his own particular perception. I do not desire to impose my opinion respecting it upon any one. I say, simply, that which I think of it myself. I look on the Revelation of St. John to be neither Apostolic nor prophetic." He gives the following reasons:-" Many of the Fathers of the Church rejected this book; consequently, every man is at liberty to treat it according to the dictates of his own mind. For my part, one single reason has determined me in the judgment I have come to respecting it, which is, that Christ is neither adored in it, nor is He therein taught such as we know Him."1

In these expressions, and, as alleged in the "Table Talk," for which Luther is not responsible, of the relative value, in his estimation, of the Books of the New Testament, he has been called a Blasphemer against God and of His Holy Scriptures!

But a charge like this coming from Romanists, whose Church has degraded Scripture by bringing it on a level with their Traditions, is really too ridiculous. Nay, practically, they place Tradition above the Scriptures, for Bishop Canus tells us that "Tradition is not only of greater force against heretics than the Scriptures, but almost all disputations with heretics is

1 Quoted in Michelet's "Life of Luther," Bogue's edition, 1846, p. 273.

to be referred to tradition." The importance of Tradition to the Roman Church is thus boldly summed up in the following startling passage from the pen of a popular Jesuit writer, Costerius, and it has not the honourable distinction of appearing either in the Prohibitory or Expurgatory Indices of Rome:-"The excellency of the unwritten Word doth far surpass the Scriptures, which the Apostles left us in parchment; the one [Tradition] is written by the finger of God, the other [the Scriptures] by the pen of the Apostles. The Scripture is a dead letter, written on paper or parchment, which may be razed or wrested at pleasure; but Tradition is written in men's hearts, which cannot be altered. The Scripture is like a scabbard, which will receive a sword, either leaden, or wooden, or brazen, and suffereth itself to be drawn by any interpretation. Tradition retains the true sword in the scabbard; that is, the true sense of the Scripture in the sheath of the letter. The Scriptures do not contain clearly all the mysteries of religion, for they were not given to that end to prescribe an absolute form of faith; but Tradition contains in it all truth, it comprehends all the mysteries of faith, all the estate of the Christian religion, and resolves all doubts which may arise concerning faith; and from hence it will follow that Tradition is the interpretation of all Scriptures, the judge of all controversies, the remover of all errors, and from whose judgment we ought not to appeal to any other judge; yea, rather, all judges are bound to regard and follow this judgment. Thus making void the word of God by their traditions! Albertus Pighius did not hesitate to compare the Scriptures to a nose of wax, which allows itself to be pulled this

3

992

1 Canus, Loc. Theol., lib. iii., c. 3, p. 156, Colon., 1605.

2 Coster., Eucharist. c. i., p. 44, Colon., 1606. Quoted by Sir H. Lynde, via Devia, sec. vii., p. 300, London, 1850.

3 "Sunt enim Scripturæ velut cereus quidam nasus; qui sicut horsum illorsumque facile se trahi permittet," &c.-De Ecclesiâ Controv. iii., p. 90, Paris, 1549.

way and that. He goes still further, he places the Gospels subject to the Church; that is, of course, the Roman Church, practically Pope, Bishops, and Priests. "All the authority of the Gospels depends on that of the Church, and the authority of the Church is greater and more notable than that of Scripture; and the Church imparted canonical authority to the principal Scriptures, that is, to the writings of the Gospel, which authority they did not possess, either from themselves, or from their author; and the Church preserved to other scriptures the authority they had from their writers; and thus, through the Church alone, and her authority, we now believe the Scriptures. "1

With reference to the Scriptures generally, when we bring an accusation against Popes and Priests of their opposition to the free perusal of the Scriptures, they invariably appeal to the fact that before Luther gave us his translation the Church of Rome published the Scriptures in the vernacular of different countries, and they call our attention to the Pope's Licence printed with every edition of their translations. With regard to this particular licence or recommendation, it had only reference to Martini's translation in Italian, with notes, in several folio volumes. But when the same text was published in England and elsewhere, but without the notes, it was immediately placed in the Prohibitory Index, and authoritatively suppressed.2

But of what practical benefit are these translations when by the Fourth Rule of the Index, confirmed by the

1 See Wordsworth's "Letters to Gondon," Sequel, second edition, 1848, who gives in Appendix B the original text.

2 In the Decree of January 17, 1820, the prohibited Testaments are thus entered :—"Nuovo Testamento secondo la vulgata tradotto in lingua Italiana, da Monsig. ANTONIO MARTINI, Arcivescovo di Firenze." Livorno,1818; Deer. 6 Sept., 1819. Idem Gesu Cristo. Edizione Stereotipa, Shacklewell (this is the English edition), dai Torchi di T. Rutt, 1813. Decr. ed. Juxta Decreta S. Congr. Indicis, 13 Jan., 1767 [1757], ed. 23 Jun., 1817.

Council of Trent, it is laid down that, "Inasmuch as it is manifest from experience that if the Holy Scriptures, translated into the vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the temerity of man will cause more evil than good to arise from it; and that, therefore, without the written consent of the Bishop or Inquisitor, they must not be read or possessed." This rule is still in full force, and any seeming relaxation in 1757, as often asserted, has been overruled in a Monition included in the Index of Gregory XVI., which bids all bear specially in mind that those regulations are particularly to be insisted on which were set forth in the Fourth Rule of the Index.1

But what encouragement have priests given to study the Scriptures? What encouragement do they now give? Hear what the late Doctor and Cardinal Archbishop Wiseman said on this subject. In his "Catholic Doctrine of the Use of the Bible," London, 1853, he says, in page 26, "In Catholic countries such as can read, or do read, have access to the Latin version without restraint. Though the Scriptures may be permitted, we do not urge upon our people, we do not encourage them to read them." In page 25, he adds that where the Church permits "the reading of Scripture, she does not permit the interpreting. "If, therefore, we be asked why we do not give the Bible indifferently to all, and the shutting up (as it is called) of God's Word be disdainfully thrown in our face, we will not seek to elude the question, or to meet the taunt with a denial, or by attempts to prove that our principles on this subject are not antagonistic to those of Protestants. They are antagonistic, and we glory in announcing it. The experiment has been tried on a great scale of what the indiscriminate reading of the Bible will make a people. It has transferred a mild and promising race into a pack of lazy, immoral infidels."

1 Monitum Sac. Cong. editum, Fer. v., die vii., Januarii, 1836.