cine, and of legislation. The common people of Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France could understand it without difficulty. Most of the modern languages of Europe were formed from it, and in Hungary it had been spoken by the people for many centuries. It was taught in every school in Christendom, and was the medium through which other branches of learning were made known. Under these circumstances the publication of the Bible in the Latin tongue was the very best way to make it generally known and uniformly understood. No language so universal as the Latin then existed, either among scholars or among those who possessed the rudiments of education.

But we have already seen that long before Luther's time the Scriptures were translated into the living tongues of Europe. Almost every nation possessed a version in its own vernacular. "Before the publication of Luther's translation there had appeared in Germany no less than three distinct versions of the whole Bible, the last of which had passed through at least seventeen different editions. Add to these the three editions of Wittenberg, and we find that the Bible had already been reprinted in the German language no less than twenty times before the version of Luther appeared."* Comment on these facts seems

* Abp. Spalding, "Ref.," Vol. I. p. 296.

superfluous. There were at least seventy editions of the Scriptures in the vernacular tongues before Luther had circulated one copy of his German Bible. Yet he says in his "Table-Talk": "Thirty years ago the Bible was an unknown book; the Prophets were not understood; it was thought that they could not be translated. I was twenty years old before I saw the Scriptures."

But notwithstanding these facts, "the Church, after all this labor to preserve and make known the inspired word, had by decree prohibited its use"! This would be a singular contradiction, and, if it could be true, would convict the Church of the most stupid folly. Why did the ecclesiastical authorities permit and encourage the publication of a book not allowed to general use? What became of all the editions in the vernacular of different nations? They were not for the use of priests exclusively, who were accustomed to the study of the Latin Vulgate. For whom, then, were these different translations, unless for the people, who must have paid for their publication ? And where is this decree prohibiting the reading of the Bible? Let us look at the facts of the case. There is nothing to be gained by misrepresentation or falsehood. First, it was the care of the ecclesiastical authorities to guard against the circulation of erroneous or inaccurate editions. It will be admitted by

every one that any corruption or mistranslation would be a very serious matter. The change of a word even might alter the whole sense of a phrase. The publication of an incorrect translation would not be the publication of the word of God. The Church was therefore bound, as far as was in her power, to provide against this great evil. Secondly, as far as any decree prohibiting the general reading of the Bible is concerned, there is nothing in all history that bears any semblance of the same before the close of the Council of Trent in 1563. Then a rule of discipline was established which "permits the reading of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongues by Catholic authors to those only whom the bishop, with the advice of the parish priests or confessors, shall judge that such reading will prove profitable unto an increase of faith and piety." The reason assigned for this rule was "that experience had made it manifest that the permission to read the Bible indiscriminately in the vulgar tongues had, from the rashness of men, produced more harm than good." This regulation of discipline was temporary, and designed to meet the evils existing during the confusion of the times. It was a rule “which was not everywhere received in practice, and which has long since ceased to be of binding force on any part of the Catholic Church. The present discipline requires only that the version

be approved, and illustrated by commentaries from the Fathers and other Catholic writers. Pope Pius VI., in a letter written April 1, 1778, to Anthony Martini, the translator of the Italian version, praises him for his undertaking, and adds these words, "The Scriptures are the most abundant sources, which ought to be left open to every one to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine." * At the time of the Reformation, people inflamed with the infection of the times, seemed to be seized with a religious madness, and simple persons were in constant danger from fanatical teachers who, in their enthusiasm, perverted the sacred text to the destruction of all faith and piety. Preachers and apostate monks appeared in the public places, exciting revolution and leading away the unwary. As an illustration of what so often disgraced the whole Protestant movement, "Carlstadt, at Wittenberg, went about at the head of a mob demolishing altars, overturning statues, and destroying pictures and sacred images, and, to put the crown on all his sacrilegious conduct, administered the Lord's Supper to all who chose to approach. Prophets arose on every side, and the Anabaptists made their followers wild with frenzy and illusion. Carlstadt carried his zeal against human science so far that he cast

* Archbishop Spalding, I. 305. Archbishop Kenrick, "Theol. Dog.,” 1.429.

into the flames the text-books brought him by students from all quarters, saying that henceforth the Bible alone should be read among men. Under pretext of this principle, that the Bible alone was sufficient, he went through the streets of Wittenberg with the Scriptures in his hand, stopping the passers-by, and entering the shops of the mechanics, to ask the meaning of difficult passages, as from persons whose minds had not been warped by the sophistry of science. The students passed beyond the control of the authorities, and it was feared the university would be closed. Even the heresiarchs were startled at the excesses to which their teachings had led, and began to grow uneasy, lest they might serve as a pretext to the Duke of Saxony for putting a stop to any further attempts at reforming the Church." * The Protestants themselves were forced in self-defence to admit the evils which sprang from their doctrine, and attribute to the false interpretation of the Bible the controversies and fanaticism which threatened the foundations of society. "We thought," says a learned Protestant, "that we were gaining a victory over the Roman Church by the free circulation of the Bible. But the Church herself has conquered by its careful prohibition of the common reading of the ver

* Alzog, III. 54.