Charles Chiniquy, Catholic priest versus Charles Chiniquy, anti-Catholic preacher
INTRODUCTION
Most people today have never heard of Charles Chiniquy. However, between 1885 and 1899, he was one of the most famous men alive.
Chiniquy was an excommunicated former Catholic priest who became famous in 1885 when he published a book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, which made numerous scandalous accusations against the Catholic Church and its leaders. He thereafter earned his living by giving speeches and writing books and pamphlets attacking the Church.
Charles Chiniquy was born in 1809 in Kamouraska, Quebec. He was baptized and raised a Catholic. By all accounts, he was then very devout in his faith.
Later, as a young man, he felt called to become a priest. Chiniquy became a student at the Petit Séminaire (Little Seminary) in Nicolet, Quebec, from which he graduated a few years later. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1833.
In the following years, Chiniquy was an assistant priest and later a pastor at various parishes in Canada and in the United States. During the 1840s, he led a very successful campaign throughout Quebec against the evils of alcohol and drunkenness. This was unquestionably the high point of his career as a priest.
In 1851, a Baptist minister named Louis Roussy agreed to participate in a public debate against Chiniquy on the subject the Catholic Church and the Bible. At the time of this debate, Chiniquy was still a Catholic priest, and, in the words of the late Rev. Sydney Smith, “he talks just as a Catholic priest would talk, except for the repulsive egotism and browbeating which is all his own.”
Roussy was a Swiss immigrant and a leader of a Protestant missionary society. According to the records of this society, “a decisive motivation” of the organization was the conversion of Catholics to Protestantism.
Chiniquy, later the same year, published a transcript of the debate. It was distributed widely in Canada in the 1850s.
The text of this document is reproduced on the following page. It is a clever piece of work, and although not very deep, it is nonetheless remarkable for the clearness in which Catholic principles are set forth and defended.
Sadly, a few years later, Chiniquy committed a series of acts of immorality and other unfortunate wrongdoing, which ultimately led to his excommunication from the Catholic Church in 1858. The reasons for this excommunication are discussed, in detail, in the essay Pastor Chiniquy (by the same Rev. Sydney Smith, quoted above).
Not long afterwards, Chiniquy became a member of the Presbyterian church. He was ordained as a minister in 1860.
Chiniquy spent the remainder of his life making inflammatory speeches and publishing derogatory books and pamphlets assailing the Catholic Church. He died in 1899.
Today, very few readers are aware that Chiniquy once debunked the very same allegations which he later made against the Church. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Chiniquy, after he became a Protestant, never, either in English or in French, in lecture or brochure, in any way whatsoever, attempted to refute his own powerful arguments in favor of the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, the anti-Catholic books and pamphlets of Charles Chiniquy are still being sold and circulated. Many are available, in full, on the Internet. It is somewhat astonishing that his tirades were not laid to rest with his bones.
Readers of the following document can compare the Chiniquy of the Catholic Church with the Chiniquy of Protestantism.
THE TWO CHINIQUYS: Charles Chiniquy refutes Charles Chiniquy
On January 7th, 1851, several citizens of Ste. Marie, Quebec, Canada, were sent in all directions through the community to announce that a certain Mr. Louis Roussy, who for some weeks had been doing his best to convert the Catholics of the parish, had at last consented to hold the public discussion which had been previously demanded of him in vain. The result was that, by one o’clock, over four hundred persons had crowded into the large hall of the presbytery around the Rev. Mr. Chiniquy and Mr. Roussy, for whom a platform had been erected to enable the crowd to hear to advantage.
Mr. Joseph Harbeck was elected chairman, and Messrs. F. H. Gatien, notary, and Leandre Franchere, merchant, were requested to act as secretaries, and to take notes of what was said and done during the discussion. Messrs. Chiniquy and Roussy then agreed to abide by the decisions of the majority on all personal questions, or those of privilege (but not those of doctrine) which might arise during the discussion. The chairman also undertook to preserve order and silence in the assembly.
Mr. Roussy requested that ten persons should be appointed to assist the chairman with their advice and to enable him the better to maintain order. The Rev. Mr. Chiniquy replied that he did not see the necessity of naming so great a number of persons, as it would tend to complicate matters and lengthen out questions that might arise for decision; besides, that there was no necessity for so many persons to maintain order amongst such peaceable, respectable men as were those among whom he had the pleasure and honor to find himself; but since it was Mr. Roussy’s desire he would not oppose it.
Ten persons were, in consequence, selected to assist the chairman. The preliminary arrangements were thereupon completed.
Mr. Chiniquy then rose and spoke, as follows:
Mr. Chairman – This is an event which you have long desired in this parish — a circumstance for which I, too, have offered up my most fervent prayers. Certain men have come here proclaiming that we are idolaters; that our religion is nothing but a mass of error. They state publicly that Catholic priests are nothing but false prophets who deceive the people. And one of these men is today amongst us to prove, so he says, all these assertions. Well, I am glad to meet him. With God’s grace, nothing will be easier for me than to confound him, and to show on which side are the false prophets, ignorance, and falsehood.
But before entering into the discussion, I have one proposition to make to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roussy and I have agreed to abide by your decisions on questions of form that may arise between us; therefore, in regard to the proposition I am about to submit to you, I wish to abide by your decision. Out of respect for this large gathering, it seems to me but right that Mr. Roussy and myself should both inform you who we are, where we come from, and in what degree we deserve the respect and attention of those before whom we have the honor of speaking.
MR. ROUSSY (rising hastily): Mr. Chairman, I protest against Mr. Chiniquy’s proposition. Before coming here, I agreed with this gentleman that during our discussion, there should be no personal questions raised between us, and Mr. Chiniquy cannot make this proposition without violating his word of honor which he has pledged to me.
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman, it is certain that Mr. Roussy did not understand me, if he believed that the arrangement made between him and myself, in your presence, as well as in the presence of more than fifty witnesses this morning, deprives me of the right of politely asking him who he is, where he comes from, to what religion he belongs, and who has authorized him to preach. Europe is casting every day thousands of strangers on our shores. Amongst these emigrants, there are some who come here with a character not only equivocal but entirely lost; in a word, there are some who arrive, after having a thousand times deserved the rigors of the law.
I do not mean to say that Mr. Roussy should necessarily be of this number. No, certainly not, but it seems to me, that we, Canadians, would deserve the contempt that many Europeans have for us, if we should be forever ready to bestow our respect on the first adventurer who, decked out with a title, taken I don’t know where, comes posing as an apostle of a new religion.
MR. ROUSSY (taking up his cap and overcoat): I am going; this is a carefully prepared trap for me. Mr. Chiniquy violates the word of honor which he has given me, and he insults me by giving it to be understood that I am an unprincipled adventurer.
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Roussy is strangely mistaken, if he believes that I wish to insult him. I had not the faintest idea of doing so — but it seems to me that every man who respects himself has a right to know to whom he speaks, with what kind of man he argues. It is to enable me to fulfill the promise that I have made, to avoid all personalities during the discussion, that I ask Mr. Roussy at the present time: who he is, where he comes from, to what religion he belongs; who has given him a mission to preach and explain the Gospel; or by what right he poses as an apostle amongst us, if no one has given him the power to preach. The discussion is not yet commenced. The proposition that I make is not, then in violation of the word of honor I have pledged — not to bring in questions of personality during the discussion.
When Mr. Roussy asked to name a chairman, assisted by ten other persons, to decide personal or formal questions which might arise between us two, he supposed necessarily that during the discussion, some such questions were likely to crop up. The surprise which this gentleman pretends to manifest, appears to me to be nothing but a miserable pretext to escape us and back out of a discussion in which he has more than one reason to fear that the advantage will not be on his side. Besides, Mr. Chairman, it is neither Mr. Roussy nor myself, but you and you alone, who ought to decide this question; and Mr. Roussy is bound to abide by your judgment, if he has any respect for the word of honor which he gave to submit to your decision.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roussy, it seems to me that the request of Mr. Chiniquy is fair. A man of honor ought never to be afraid or ashamed to declare what claim he has to the respect and consideration of those before whom he appears, particularly for the first time. Although we wish to suppose that you are a gentleman, the greater number of those who form this assembly, and myself in particular, would like to know, for certain, who you are, where you come from, and from whom you hold the mission to preach the Gospel.
These words were heartily applauded by the entire audience. Mr. Chiniquy then arose and handed the Secretaries the following document, saying:
This, Mr. Chairman, will tell you who I am:
IGNATIUS BOURGET, by the mercy of God and the grace of the Holy Apostolic See, the Bishop of Ville Marie (Montreal). We certify and we wish to make known to all those who may read this letter, that the Reverend Charles Chiniquy, Priest, Apostle of Temperance, of our Diocese, is well known to us, and that, after diligent examination, we declare that he leads a life worthy of the Ecclesiastical state, and that he is not, to our knowledge, bound by any Ecclesiastical censure. For these reasons we pray by the mercy of God, all the Archbishops, Bishops, or other Ecclesiastical dignitaries upon whom he may call to receive him well, for the love of Jesus Christ and in case he should desire it, to permit him to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and to exercise other Ecclesiastical functions declaring that we are, Ourselves, ready to confer upon him these privileges, and others even greater.
In faith of which, we have given the present letter under our hand and seal and the countersign of our Secretary, in our Episcopal city and place, the 6th of June, 1850.
† IGNATIUS, Bishop of Montreal
J.O. PARE, Chancellery Sec.
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman, I have just shown you who I am. Let Mr. Roussy do as much; let him tell us what kind of a character he had on leaving Europe; let him tell us by what authority he preaches the Gospel; to what religion he belongs; yes, let him have the condescension to inform us if he belongs to the Episcopal Church of England or the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, or whether he is a Methodist, Juniper or Mormon. These are certainly things it is important we should know, and which we have a right to ask from a wise man who poses as a prophet amongst us.
MR. ROUSSY (rising hastily and taking his overcoat to leave): I cannot consent to remain here any longer. I refuse to give the explanations that Mr. Chiniquy demands, for I would not have come here to meet him, if I had believed he would try to deprive me of my character of a gentleman and a minister of the Gospel. I consider his request a downright insult. If I were not a minister of the Gospel, His Excellency the Governor would not have given me diplomas to bury the dead, to marry and to keep a register of such events.
MR. CHINIQUY: Really, Mr. Chairman, a singular manner to prove that one is a minister of the Gospel. Mr. Roussy assures us that the Governor has given him permission to bury, to marry and to keep a register of such events! To speak to us of a diploma from the Governor, in order to prove that one is a minister of the Gospel, is the most ridiculous and absurd thing, Mr. Chairman, that you and this respectable assembly have ever heard of. A governor may certainly name a justice of the peace, a captain of the militia, a civil magistrate, but he cannot go any further.
When Mr. Roussy assures us that he expected to be treated by me as a true minister of the Gospel, he was laboring under a great delusion. Strangers arriving in this country must take us, doubtless, for imbeciles, when they believe that on their simple word, we are going to give them the titles, the confidence, and the respect that they demand — that we are going, in a word, to bow humbly before their ipse dixit. If Mr. Roussy has, up to this moment met people who were good enough to act in this manner in regard to him, he is greatly mistaken, I can assure him, if he believes that you, Mr. Chairman, and this respectable assembly, are ready to look upon him as a true and worthy minister of the Gospel, before he has given us his credentials. As regards myself, this morning, before more than fifty men, I did something which should have opened Mr. Roussy’s eyes, as to what I thought about him. You were present Mr. Chairman, and the circumstance did not, I am certain, escape your notice. I shook hands with everybody except Mr. Roussy.
Mr. Roussy is the first man whom, I believed it my duty, to treat in such a manner. I am only waiting to shake hands with him, but first let him prove to us that his titles are not a usurpation. I shall be pleased and happy to give him my hand at that moment. But to enable me to do so he must show us that he is not imposing on us when he announces himself as a new apostle and a successor of those to whom Jesus Christ has said: “Go teach all nations; I am with you all days even to the end of the world.”
MR. ROUSSY (wishing to leave): Mr. Chiniquy insults me, and I will not hold a discussion with the gentleman unless he makes me an apology.
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman, if it be an insult to ask a person to whom one has never spoken, whom one has never seen before, and who comes, God knows from where; “Who are you sir? where do you come from? and what do you want?” If it be an insult to ask such questions, I am ready to make every apology (smiling). Yes, I am ready even to throw myself on my knees before Mr. Roussy to beg his pardon if you deem it right. But it seems to me that it is not I who insult Mr. Roussy; it is he who insults us when he tells me, that we have not the right in Canada to demand of the foreigners that Europe is constantly casting upon our shores, “who are you? where do you come from? and what do you want?” Especially when these foreigners pose in our presence as ambassadors of Christ upon earth. Decide, Mr. Chairman. Is it an insult to a man who comes in the name of God, asking us to change our religion; who comes preaching to us a new doctrine; and who announces himself as a minister from heaven, to say to him: “Who are you, and who has given you a mission to preach the Gospel? What proof have you to give us that you know how to interpret the Sacred Scriptures better than the Catholic Church? Prove to us that the Holy Spirit enlightens you more, you alone, than He enlightens the two hundred millions of Catholics who people the world.”
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roussy, I do not think that Mr. Chiniquy insults you in asking who you are and who has given you a mission to preach.
Mr. Roussy, being still anxious to leave, Mr. Chiniquy thereupon demanded of the ten gentlemen named to assist the Chairman with their advice: Decide, gentlemen, if it be an insult to ask a stranger who he is, where he comes from, and, what he wants. I appeal to your honor and your good sense. If you decide that it is an insult, I am ready to do whatever you deem right to repair it. I am determined, however, that Mr. Roussy shall not escape us. For a long time, I have desired to show this good parish the ignorance of all these makers of new religions, and this opportunity is too fine a one to let slip. I wish therefore to do all in my power to force Mr. Roussy to argue before you. But as I think Mr. Roussy will never consent, for good reasons of his own, to show us what titles he has to our respect as a minister of the Gospel, I withdraw my motion. And without knowing what kind of man I have to deal with, I consent to discuss with him.
Mr. Roussy wished to leave at once, but was stopped, in order that the ten judges named at this gentleman’s express wish should give a decision.
Upon which one of the ten, a Protestant named Auger, on behalf of all, said: “Mr. Roussy, as Mr. Chiniquy declares he had no intention of insulting you, in asking you who you are, you ought to accept his explanation. The more so as the gentleman declares himself ready to offer you any kind of apology that we may deem proper to demand of him. Besides as Mr. Chiniquy withdraws his motion and consents to discuss with you without knowing who you are, you cannot under the circumstances honorably refuse the discussion.”
This decision elicited great applause, and Mr. Roussy resumed his seat.
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to have known with whom I was going to enter this discussion, and it still seems to me that we have the right to know, but since this knowledge is denied us, let us open the discussion without any further delay. Mr. Roussy travels through the country telling us that the Bible, and the Bible alone, interpreted by each individual, ought to be the sole rule of our faith. He asserts that the Bible is the only authority that can possibly be our guide in the darkest hours of life. He has said that we ought to reject everything which is not proved by a clear text from the Bible. He says that we ought not to take any notice of the Holy Traditions, nor of the authority of the Church. Well, Mr. Chairman, I defy Mr. Roussy to prove these assertions, and I bind myself to demonstrate that each of these propositions is an absurdity.
MR. ROUSSY: Mr. Chairman — Nothing is easier for me to prove than that the Bible, and the Bible alone, and not tradition, is the rule for every man who desires to work out his salvation.
Moses says expressly in the book of Deuteronomy (Chap. 4: 2, 5): “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.”
This is very precise: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” Is it not a fact, Mr. Chairman, that this passage is directly opposed to the doctrine of tradition?
In the book of Joshua (Chap. 1:7-8), God speaking to this leader of His people, says to Him: “Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses, My servant, commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.”
We also read the following words in the book of Nehemiah (Chap. 8: 2-3, 8): “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning till mid-day, before the men and women, and all those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading.”
The 119th Psalm, which is the longest as well as the most beautiful of all the Psalms, is nothing but a repetition of the great advantage of constant meditation on the law of the Lord.
What does God tell us by the voice of the Prophet Isaiah, if not to have His holy law constantly before our eyes and in our heart. These are the exact words of the holy Prophet (Chap. 8:19-20): “And when they shall say unto you, ‘Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter’; should not a people seek unto their God? For the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.”
But let us leave the Old Testament and the prophets; we have seen that they are unanimous in inviting us to meditate upon and constantly study the law of the Lord. They do not speak in the manner of Tradition.
Let us come then to Our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Holy Gospel. We shall see that they are still more emphatic in urging us to study the law of the Lord, and to avoid the traditions of men.
In St. Matthew (Chap. 15:3), Jesus Christ answers the Pharisees: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Is not the doctrine of Tradition condemned here by the mouth of Christ Himself?
In St. John (Chap. 5:39) does not our Lord positively say: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.”
And what can more positively show us the necessity and utility of reading and constantly meditating on the holy scriptures, than this text from the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 17:11-12): “These [Jews of Berea] were more noble than those of Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore, many of them believed; also, of honorable women which were Greeks and of men, not a few.”
You can see by all this what we ought to think of a church which deprives its followers of the holy scripture to amuse them with its traditions! And St. John in the Revelation (Chap. 22:18-19), does he not say that those are cursed by God who add to or take away one word of the book of this prophecy. Is not this a striking proof that God wishes us to be guided by nothing but the written words in His Holy Gospel, and that He has a horror for the traditions of men?
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman — It was the custom of our dear old grandmothers to frighten little children by childish tales. It seems that it is also the custom amongst reformers of religion to imagine dark and dismal stories with which they horrify and amuse their dupes. Amongst these alarming histories, with which every echo from the so-called reformed countries resounds, the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most false, is without contradiction, the one with which Mr. Roussy has appeared engrossed during the reading of the long list of texts which we have just heard, I don’t really know for what purpose. Mr. Roussy has so many times heard his old grandmother tell the story that we Catholics are the enemies of the word of God, and that we abhor the Holy Bible, that he firmly believes it. But in reality this is one of those ancient tales for which educated Protestants blush.
Who preserved intact the sacred trust of the Holy Scriptures during the fifteen hundred years preceding the appearance of the lewd apostates, Luther and Calvin, if it was not the Catholic Church? Before these two monsters of impurity had troubled the peace of the world, deceiving people by their sophisms and errors of every sort; before there was even one single Protestant in the world, the Catholic Church not only preserved the sacred writings as her most precious treasure, but she neglected no possible means of spreading their knowledge amongst all nations.
During the short space of time which had elapsed between the wonderful invention of printing and the day that Luther published his first Bible, from seventy-five to eighty editions of the Bible, translated into the different languages of Europe, and forming not less than two hundred thousand copies, had been circulated amongst the people, with the authorization, and often at the expense, of the Catholic ecclesiastical authorities. If the Church, during a few years, was obliged to put certain restrictions on the diffusion and reading of the Bible in modern languages, Protestants alone were the cause of it. These sects had so changed the text in their false translations; they had by their ignorance, or rather by the corruption of their minds and hearts so poisoned this source of life, that those coming to drink of it found in it the death rather than the life of their souls.
Europe was for some time inundated with bibles in which the true text, as acknowledged by well-educated Protestants, had disappeared to give place to the senseless and impious dreams of the sects. Then, but then alone, the Church, rightly fearing, or rather, seeing that those falsified bibles were being taken for the true word of God, put some restrictions for a time on the reading of the Bible in modern languages. She did then what wise and able physicians do in times of epidemics; they forbid us certain foods which are excellent in other times, but which become dangerous on account of the impure disposition of the air, or of our temperaments. But never has the Church shackled the diffusion of the Holy Bible in the Greek or Latin text. Now, at that time, nearly everybody who knew how to read at all understood Greek or Latin; for these two languages were then taught far more universally than they are today in all the principal schools of Europe. But the unhappy epoch when a deplorable epidemic forced the Church of Jesus Christ to take this extreme measure in order to prevent the contagion of evil attacking the very heart of the nations, was not of long duration. The devouring fever which Satan had, by the hands of Luther and Calvin, infused into the veins of Europe, had scarcely lost its intensity and contagion, when the Church once more invited her children to nourish their souls by the reading of the Holy Bible, and put it within the reach of all by the numerous authorized translations, which She recommended everywhere by the voice of Her chief pastor.
Certain Protestants still repeat that the Church forbids the reading of the Holy Bible by the people; this is a cowardly and absurd lie, and it is only the ignorant or the silly amongst Protestants, who at the present day believe this ancient fabrication of heresy; some unscrupulous ministers, however, are constantly bringing it up before the eyes of their dupes to impose upon them and to keep them in a holy horror of what they call Popery.
Let Protestants make the tour of Europe and America; let them go into the numerous Catholic book stores they will come across at every step; let them, for instance, go to Montreal, to Mr. Fabre’s or to Mr. Sadlier’s book stores; and everywhere they will find on their shelves thousands of Bibles in all modern languages, printed with the permission of the Ecclesiastical authorities.
I hold in my hand a New Testament, printed less than five years ago, at Quebec. On the first page I read the following approbation of the Archbishop of Quebec:
We approve and recommend to the faithful of our Diocese this translation of the New Testament, with commentaries on the text and notes at the foot of the pages.
† JOSEPH, Archbishop of Quebec.
Every one of those Catholic Bibles, to be found on sale at every bookseller in Europe or America in like manner bears irrefutable witness to the fact that Protestantism is fed on lies, when day by day it listens with complacency to its ministers and its newspapers, telling it in various strains, that we Catholics are the enemies of the Bible.
Mr. Roussy has told us that the reading of the Bible was the sole means employed by Christ and His Apostles for the conversion of the world. Mr. Roussy obtains, probably, as all Protestants do, this new idea from his good old grandmother. But, Mr. Chairman, you must see that never has a greater absurdity issued from the mouth of man. It is incredible that men, who are continually talking to us of Bibles and Bibles, do not know that Jesus Christ has said to His Apostles: “Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (St. Mark, Chapt. 16:15-16). And in St. Matthew (Chap. 28:18-20) Jesus, speaking to his eleven disciples, says to them: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world.”
It is not, we see, a book that the Apostles are charged to write, to be read to the people to the end of the world. But their mission is to take the form of verbal preaching, in which mission the Divine Saviour promises to assist and guide them, not during thirty, forty or sixty years, but to the end of the world. It is by the preaching of the Apostles to the people, and not merely by the reading of the Gospel by the people that Jesus Christ wishes men to be enlightened and saved, to the end of the world. And this is why the Catholic priesthood, sole possessors of the mission given to the first Apostles, teaches, preaches and explains the Gospel to the people.
Jesus Christ has not said: “He that does not read the Gospel shall be condemned.” That is an absurdity and a falsehood: which can have only issued from Hell itself; but Jesus Christ has said to his Apostles for all time: “Preach the Gospel; teach all nations; I shall be with you; he that heareth you, heareth Me; He that despises you, despises Me; he that believeth on your preaching shall be saved, he that does not believeth it shall be lost.” Jesus Christ has not said: “If you do not read the Bible you shall be regarded as the heathen and the publican”, but He has said: “If you do not hear the Church you shall be as the heathen and the publican” (St. Matthew, 18:17).
It is then a Church that Jesus Christ came on earth to found, not a book that he came to have written and read. The Gospel is the property of the Church; it is one of its sacred trusts; it is one of its greatest treasures. She it is who is charged to preserve it and to explain its pages to the people. For it is to her alone and not to each individual that the promise was made and the mission given.
To say that Jesus Christ and his Apostles wished the nations to be converted by reading the Bible, interpreted by each individual, is so great an absurdity that I have the greatest difficulty in conceiving how a self-respecting man can possibly allow it to fall from his lips.
Everybody knows that before the invention of printing, books were just as scarce and expensive, as they are nowadays common and cheap. For 1400 years after Jesus Christ, every word had to be written by hand. Now to write out a whole Bible would require a great deal of time. Amongst many nations, almost constantly at war, very few persons knew how to write.
History records the names of even several powerful kings, who did not know how to sign their names. To have so large a book written, therefore, it was necessary to have an enormous sum of money. It was therefore absolutely impossible for the great majority of Christians for the space of 1400 years to either own Bibles or to read them. We also learn from history that previous to the invention of printing it was the custom for people to tax themselves in order to obtain a Bible, which was then deposited in the Church, where the priest would read some part of it every Sunday, and explain it to the people.
It was not by the reading of the Bible, but by the preaching of Apostles, commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ that the French, the English, the Germans, the Spanish, the Irish, the Greeks, the Romans, and all other nations were converted to Christianity; for amongst these different nations very few persons knew how to read, and a very much smaller number, indeed, had the means with which to procure a Bible. Let Mr. Roussy deny these facts, if he dares.
Well, since it is admitted as an ascertained fact that it was the will of Jesus Christ that His Church should march on to the conquest of souls by means of preaching for 1500 years, it devolves on Mr. Roussy to show us a single text in his Bible, which informs us that Jesus Christ decided that the reading of the Bible by each individual, should, at any period whatever during the life of the Church, take the place of this preaching.
It is clear that if Mr. Roussy’s system were based on the truth, Jesus Christ would have commanded his Apostles not to preach the Gospel till the end of the world, but to teach the nations how to read and to give them Bibles. And instead of Apostles, it would have been school-masters that he would have promised and sent to the nations sitting in the darkness of the shadow of death.
Mr. Roussy tells us that Our Lord was opposed to the false traditions of men, but is the Church less opposed to these false human traditions, or does she condemn them less than Her Lord and Master did? When Mr. Roussy says, all that is necessary to be believed and practiced is written in the Gospel, and that it is not necessary to believe in those truths taught by tradition; when, in a word, Mr. Roussy says the Catholic dogma of Tradition is not to be found in Holy Scripture, he simply shows either his bad faith or his ignorance.
Here is a Bible which comes from Mr. Roussy himself. Well, in the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, listen to what the Holy Apostle writes (Chap. 2:15): “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Here St. Paul tells us that what comes to us by means of the unwritten word, that is to say, by tradition, has the same authority as what he wrote in his epistle. Is it not, then, something more than effrontery on Mr. Roussy’s part to dare to tell us to our face that Tradition is not spoken of in the Holy Scriptures?
Again, in Chapter 3, verse 6, of the same Epistle, St. Paul says: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
In the second Epistle to St. Timothy (Chap. 2: 1-2), St. Paul contradicts, in advance, the absurd assertion of Mr. Roussy which maintains that all the truths and doctrines of Jesus Christ are written, and that there are none which reach us by tradition. His words are clear and precise: “Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
Really, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Roussy told us that everything was written in the sacred books, and that they have nothing to say about tradition, he had either lost his memory or supposed us so ignorant as to be incapable of reading the Epistles of St. Paul. Mr. Roussy has been truly unhappy in the choice he has made of his texts, for the purpose of proving that each individual is obliged to read Sacred Scripture, and has a right to interpret it in his own way.
He has cited the text in which Moses directs that we should observe the law of God. And that is precisely what we wish all to do. Yes, would that all the world meditated on the law of God. Now one of His laws, one of His Commandments, the most absolute is this: “Hear the Church, and he that will not hear the Church must be regarded as a heathen and a publican” (Matt. 18:17).
He next cited Joshua. Now, Joshua was the leader, the great chieftain of his people; he was a man visibly chosen and inspired by God to conduct his brethren into the promised land; nothing could be more natural than the obligation that he should read and meditate on the Sacred Writings, in order to instruct himself and teach others. And exactly in the same manner the Catholic Church obliges all those whom God has chosen as leaders of His people. She commands them to study and to frequently read the Sacred Scriptures.
The good Mr. Roussy has cited against us the Book of Nehemiah; but I believe it must have been absence of mind on his part. For the text which he has quoted proves exactly the opposite of what he had promised us.
Mr. Roussy had promised us, you all know, to show that each individual person ought to have his Bible and read it for himself. To do so, he quotes a text which informs us that not one single man or woman had a Bible, except the priests. “And Ezra the priest brought the law …. and he read therein before all people.”
You see, Mr. Chairman, that this Ezra was no better than a Popish priest. Instead of distributing Bibles around by thousands to everybody, as does the cheeky Mr. Roussy, he keeps the sacred volume in his own hands, and contents himself with reading and explaining it to the people, exactly as Mr. Girouard, your pastor, does every Sunday.
As to the extract from Isaiah; it proves that there is something else besides the written law, for God wishes that we should observe the testimony as well.
Our Lord advises the unbelieving Jews to search the Scriptures; but He certainly did not mean this as the only — or even as the best means of knowing Him, for these Jews would have done better according to Jesus Christ Himself, to have believed His word and his works (John, 5: 24, 36, 38).
The reading of the Bible, wrongly interpreted, was perdition to the Jews, as it is to the Protestants of today. It was with the Bible in hand, that these Jews declared that Jesus Christ was an impostor, and according to the law, he ought to be crucified (John 19:7).
But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refute Mr. Roussy of his own mouth, and by his own word, prove to him that he is astray and misleads others, when he tells them that in questions of religion, they should only admit such doctrines as can be proved by a precise text from the Bible. I wish to make him admit the absolute necessity of having recourse to tradition, and even an infallible tradition, under pain of not being a Christian. I shall therefore request Mr. Roussy to reply to my questions. And you, gentlemen, the secretaries, please write down the gentleman’s exact answers; and you my good friends (speaking to the people) listen with great attention to the avowals I am about to draw from him.
Since you say, Mr. Roussy, that we ought to admit nothing in religious matters, except what can be clearly proved by a text from the Bible, will you show us the text that proves that St. Mark wrote the Gospel, and that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, when he wrote his Gospel?
MR. ROUSSY (rising with an air of assurance): Nothing is easier, sir; here are the very words of the Saviour, in St. Matthew (Chap. 28:19-20): “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo! I am with you always even unto the end of the world.”
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Roussy will have the kindness to say to whom these words were addressed by the Divine Saviour?
MR. ROUSSY: Jesus Christ addressed these words to His Apostles.
MR. CHINIQUY: The Secretaries will have the kindness to write that the words which Mr. Roussy has quoted, refer only to the Apostles. Now, Mr. Roussy, will you tell us if St. Mark was an Apostle?
MR. ROUSSY: Yes sir, St. Mark was an Apostle.
MR. CHINIQUY: The Secretaries will please write that Mr. Roussy maintains that St. Mark was an Apostle.
MR. ROUSSY (precipitately): No, no, sir, St. Mark was not an Apostle.
MR. CHINIQUY: Write, gentlemen, that Mr. Roussy declares that St. Mark was not an Apostle. Well, Mr. Roussy, since St. Mark was not an Apostle, and since the text you have quoted refers only to the Apostles, it follows, according to your own statement, that it has nothing to do with St. Mark.
MR. ROUSSY: No sir, I was mistaken, and I admit that the text quoted does not refer to St. Mark.
MR. CHINIQUY: Very well, Mr. Roussy, then I repeat my question before this respectable assembly. Show us a precise text from the Bible, which proves that St. Mark was inspired by God to write the Gospel.
Mr. Roussy rises, and commences turning the pages of his book. He is pale, he trembles, he perspires profusely, he takes more than ten minutes to search.
A gloomy silence reigns, only a few feeble murmurs of “He is caught” are heard. But silence is imposed. At last the audience is becoming impatient, and someone speaks: “Come on, Mr. Roussy, what are you doing now?”
The gentleman appears more and more disconcerted. He replies in a trembling voice: “Gentlemen, I beg of you to be patient, I admit I am in very close quarters.” These words were followed by a general burst of laughter.
MR. CHINIQUY: You will find yourself in closer quarters in a minute, sir.
MR. ROUSSY (after having searched in vain for a quarter of an hour, falls into his seat, and says in a pitiful voice): “I am not able to find the text I am looking for.”
MR. CHINIQUY: Gentlemen, have the kindness to write that Mr. Roussy declares himself unable to find a text from Holy Scripture which proves that St. Mark was inspired by God to write the Gospel.
Another little question, Mr. Roussy. Since according to your religion, one should only believe as true, what can be proved by a text from the Holy Bible, will you find for us the text that proves that St. Luke, who was no more an Apostle than St. Mark, was inspired by God to write the Gospel?
MR. ROUSSY (once more rises, but his face and whole appearance indicate a man completely broken up. He searches again for five or six minutes; then allowing himself to fall back into his chair, exclaims): “I am not able.”
MR. CHINIQUY: Gentlemen, will you, if you please, write that Mr. Roussy declares he “is not able” to find a text in his Bible to prove that St. Luke wrote the Gospel.
[Then, addressing Mr. Roussy:]
Very well sir, since you declare you are not able to find a word in the Holy Bible to assure you that St. Mark and St. Luke wrote the Gospels that bear their names, how do you know that it was they who wrote these Gospels?
Then, turning towards the audience, Mr. Chiniquy says, smiling: “Listen well to his reply.” A gloomy silence follows for an instant.
MR. ROUSSY: We prove that St. Mark and St. Luke wrote the Gospels by the miracles they wrought.
MR. CHINIQUY: Very well, show me a text from the Gospel where it states that St. Mark and St. Luke wrought miracles.
MR. ROUSSY (rising slowly, admits that he is not able; he murmurs some unintelligible words, then speaks with an embarrassment which he cannot conceal): You ask me, sir, how it is known that St. Mark and St. Luke wrote their Gospels; but, sir, that is only known by the testimony of the early Christians.
At these words nothing is heard but exclamations of joy and the clapping of hands. “He is convicted by his own words”; “He is caught in his own trap”, yell voices from the crowd.
MR. CHINIQUY: Yes, my friends, he is taken at his own words, and as you say, caught in his own trap; he is forced to have recourse to the testimony of the early Christians, that is to the Tradition of the Church, to prove the very first of Gospel truths, the existence of the Gospel itself. He is, therefore, forced to admit that he deceived you just now, when he told you everything was to be found written in the Bible, and that anything that could not be proved by some text ought to be rejected.
MR. ROUSSY: I am not caught. It is you, Mr. Chiniquy, who have been caught in your own trap; it is you who are convicted, for you are not able to show us what the Church is, and what authority it has.
MR. CHINIQUY: Since Mr. Roussy does not know what the Church is, I shall have the pleasure of telling him. The early Christians, being divided on certain practices, followed the advice of Our Lord, and appealed to the Church of their day, and this is what took place: (Acts 15:6) “And the Apostles and ancients came together to consider of this matter. And when there was much disputing, Peter rising up said to them: My brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.” After Peter, Barnabas and Paul were heard. Then James speaks in his turn; but it was only to confirm what Peter had said. Finally, the deliberation being finished, they wrote these solemn words: “For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to decide in such a manner the question that you have raised.”
There, Mr. Roussy, that is what the Church is. That is how she spoke 1900 years ago, and that is how she speaks still, and how she still speaks to the end of time; for she can never perish, seeing that Jesus Christ has said: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.” It is this infallible Church which tells me, a Catholic, as she told it 1900 years ago: “St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired by God to write their Gospels”, and I am certain she speaks the truth, for it is the Holy Ghost who enlightens her. This Church, according to St. Paul (1 Timothy 3:15), “is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” This Church, outside of which there is nothing but falsehood and error, has been called Catholic since the time of the Apostles, and no other church can ever bear this grand name.
This Catholic Church, to which I have the happiness to belong, is also called Apostolic, because it is united with the Apostles by an unbroken chain of priests, bishops, and Popes, who obtain their power, by incontestable titles, from them. This Catholic and Apostolic Church is also called Roman, because it was at Rome that its Founder amongst men (St. Peter) shed his blood and because it was there, he deposited for his successors the keys of Heaven, which neither demons nor heretics nor infidels can deprive her of. “Thou art Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:16-19).
When I, a Catholic, take the Bible in my hands, I am as certain that it is the word of God as I am certain that there is a God in Heaven, because it is the Catholic Church (the pillar and foundation of the truth) which tells me so.
When I read the Gospel, I read it only with a full and complete submission to the interpretation which the Church gives me, whose voice I am obliged to hear, under pain of being treated by God “as a heathen and publican” (Matt., 18:17). And when I read this Holy Gospel I call to mind the words of St. Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16): “As also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which, are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition.”
In reading the Holy Scriptures, I call to mind that I am but a poor ignorant man, and that if I depend upon my feeble understanding, I shall very soon go astray; therefore, I am careful to understand what I read in the sense that the Church has always taught. For if I am bound to believe that the Church is infallible, when she tells me that St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired by the Holy Ghost to write their Gospels, although I do not find a word in the Bible, according to Mr. Roussy’s admission, to prove this truth, I am bound to believe that she is in like manner guided by the Holy Ghost, in the interpretation of the Scriptures, which sacred treasure she alone has preserved for me infallibly.
I have admitted to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am but an ignorant man, and for this reason I am in need of an infallible guide in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. I have no intention of insulting, nor of wounding Mr. Roussy in any manner, but I tell you that I believe him just as ignorant as I am, and I believe that he belongs to that class of men of whom St. Peter speaks, when he says, the unlearned do not understand the Holy Scriptures, and wrest them in a false sense to their own perdition.
In spite of my ignorance and my weakness, I am assured that I shall not go astray in the reading of the Scriptures, since I have for my guide the Church, “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, and I take for my interpreter that Church, to whom my adorable Saviour has said: “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” But I am curious to know how Mr Roussy, who is also a poor ignorant man, can be assured of finding his salvation in the reading of the Bible, when the prince of the Apostles assures us that the ignorant find in it their ruin.
MR. ROUSSY: The Holy Ghost invites us to read the Sacred Scriptures, and in consequence promises to enlighten us. Here is a text which reveals to us, in a most evident manner, this truth: “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But continue thou in the things thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child, thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3: 13, 16).
Here we see St. Paul congratulating his well beloved Timothy for having known the holy scriptures from his childhood. Therefore, we merit the praises of God by studying the Holy Scriptures. Besides, is it not positively stated here that all scripture is inspired by God for instruction and correction? If all scripture is given by inspiration of God for instruction, and correction, how can Mr. Chiniquy dare to say that the reading of the Holy Scriptures is bad and can cause our ruin?
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman, I have already remarked to you that this good Mr. Roussy was unfortunate in the choice of his texts. The one that he has just chosen is going to destroy irretrievably his argument.
In the first place, you see, by this text, that St. Paul says positively, “continue thou in the things thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” Here St. Paul is not speaking of the Bible, nor of writings at all, he speaks of things that have been learned, and it is very probable, or rather, it is very certain that these things were not written, for St. Paul says to remember them, not from the book in which he had read them, but on account of the person who had taught them to him. And to show how far St. Paul was from preaching Mr. Roussy’s absurd doctrine, that all things necessary to salvation are written in the Bible, it will suffice to cast our eyes a few lines higher than the text quoted by Mr. Roussy. St. Paul, speaking to the same Timothy, says to him: “And the things which thou hast heard from me, before many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men; who shall be fit to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
Yes, continue firm, says the Apostle of the Gentiles, in the things you have learned not only by the reading of the Sacred books, but also in the things you have “heard from me, before many witnesses.”
St. Paul made use of no different language when writing to Timothy, than he had used when addressing the Thessalonians, for he said to them also: “Therefore, Brethren, stand firm; and hold the tradition which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:14). And these words of the Apostle Paul, which are the words of the Holy Ghost himself have resounded throughout the world for 1900 years. And, all those who have really believed in Jesus Christ have repeated them, they believe them, and they will repeat them to the very end of time, to the eternal confusion of infidels and innovators. “Hold the tradition which you have learned, whether by our words or by our writings.” That has been the teaching of the Church for nineteen centuries. That will be the teaching of the Church till the end of time; for this Church, like the Son of God whose immaculate Spouse she is, can never change. St. Paul was far from upholding the absurd doctrine of modern innovators; he who says positively in his Epistle to the Romans (Chap. 10, 13-17): “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call Him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And now can they preach unless they be sent? Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”
St. Paul congratulates St. Timothy on his reading of the Holy Scriptures, but it was because his holy disciple joined to this reading, the most entire submission to the explanations and to the instructions, by word of mouth, of his superiors before God. It is also in this manner that the Church wishes her children to read the Holy Scriptures. The absurd idea entertained by Mr. Roussy, that a knowledge of the Gospel comes by reading alone, was so far from the thought of the Apostle that he cries out: “How shall the nations believe in Jesus Christ if they have not <IHEARD< I>Him spoken of, and how shall they hear Him spoken of unless someone preaches to them?”
According to the Apostle St. Paul, therefore, the best manner, or rather, the only means of knowing Jesus Christ is to hear of Him by preaching, and not by reading. Without doubt, reading is not useless, but it aids the faith of them alone, who listen to the preaching of those who have been sent to preach. But I have told you that Mr. Roussy was going to completely destroy himself with the text which he has quoted for us. If I have understood this gentleman well, he has read to us in his Bible these exact words, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Are those not the words you have read, Mr. Roussy?
MR. ROUSSY: Yes, sir. St. Paul says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
[NOTE: This debate originally took place in the French language. The word “scripture”, in English, commonly means the Sacred Scriptures of the holy Bible. However, in the French version of many Protestant bibles, including the Bible used by Mr. Roussy, the word “scripture”, which is here used, is translated in a manner equivalent to the ordinary English word “writing”, in everyday use.]
MR. CHINIQUY: Mr. Chairman and all of you, gentlemen, who compose this respectable meeting, you have heard these words from Mr. Roussy’s Bible. Well, what do you think of them? Yes, what do you think of a man or of a religion which assures you that all writing is given by the inspiration of God for reproof, for correction and for instruction? Up to the present moment, you have believed that there were some books or writings which could only defile and corrupt the heart, but Mr. Roussy has discovered the contrary in his precious Bible.
I know of a great number of books which have been written only under the inspiration of the most wicked passions and are calculated only to defile and corrupt those who read them, but, Mr. Roussy assures us that we have all been mistaken, and he proclaims that all writings are given by the inspiration of God. You have well understood him to say so, have you not? (voices: “Yes, yes,” are heard from all sides).
A few minutes ago, Mr. Roussy said, with emphasis, that if anyone added anything to or took anything from the word of God – he is cursed! Well, gentlemen, this being the case, the curse of God must surely be on those who wrote the Bible that Mr. Roussy holds in his hands, for this Bible is false, ridiculously false, when it says that all writing is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
MR. ROUSSY (rising angrily): How dare you say, Mr. Chiniquy, that the Holy Bible I hold in my, hand is false and deceptive, I defy you to prove it; what you say is blasphemy.
MR. CHINIQUY: I am going to prove to you, sir, that what I have just said, is nothing but the truth; your Bible is false and deceptive to an absurd degree. It is a falsified Bible, and I am about to prove it, at once.
Addressing a respectable farmer, named Gauthier: Sir, by whom was the Bible I hold in my hand given to you?
MR. GAUTHIER: That Bible was given to me by a person who had it from Mr. Roussy.
MR. CHINIQUY: Very well, Mr. Chairman, you are going to judge what should be thought of this Protestant Bible. The Bible that Mr. Roussy holds, says: “All writing is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for, correction, for instruction in righteousness.” But, the Bible which I hold, and which also comes from Mr. Roussy, does not contain this absurdity, for I read in it: “All scripture, divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, to correct, to instruct in justice.”
MR. ROUSSY (rising in a hurry): The two sentences are the same.
MR. CHINIQUY: No, sir, these two sentences are not the same. Is it the same thing, Mr. Chairman, and all you gentlemen who hear me; all of you reply; is it the same thing to say, “All writing is given by inspiration of God” — and to say — “All Scripture, divinely inspired, is profitable to teach”, etc.?
From all sides of the hall a unanimous cry is heard: “No, these two sentences are not the same.”
MR. CHINIQUY: You are right, my friends; the first of these sentences is an absurdity, and it is only a Bible coming from the hands of Satan himself, which could say, “All writing is given by the inspiration of God.” That sentence is infernal in character. No, no, all writing is not inspired by God. There are many writings, there are thousands of books inspired, by the Devil.
Besides, here are two Bibles, both from the hands of Mr. Roussy. If the one which says “All writing (or scripture) is given by inspiration of God” is correct, that which says “All scripture, divinely inspired is profitable to teach” is incorrect.
The latter is copied from the authorized Catholic Bible, and if the Methodists, in copying it, have added nothing to the true Bible, they have taken something from the Bible which Mr. Roussy has before him. This is as clear as sunlight; either they have added to this one the words “divinely inspired”, or they have taken them from the other; and as both these Bibles are printed and circulated by Methodists, for, though one claims to be a copy of the Catholic Bible, both come from their hands; therefore, according to Mr. Roussy’s words, they are cursed by Heaven for having added to or taken from the word of God.”
MR. ROUSSY (taking up excitedly his cap and coat, and wishing to leave, says): I don’t care to argue any longer with a man who dares to tell me that my Bible is falsified.
MR. CHINIQUY: I am not satisfied with telling you so, sir, but I prove it. Here are two Bibles, both coming from you — one speaks in one manner, the other in another. Consequently, one of them must be falsified, and you are consequently publicly convicted of having circulated a falsified Bible.
But enough on this question of the Bible and of Tradition. I have confounded you by your own words on these questions.
Let us take up the accusation that you have brought against the Catholic Church of having suppressed the Second Commandment of God.
Did you, Mr. Roussy, put your signature at the bottom of this letter? [Mr. Chiniquy then showed a letter signed by Mr. Roussy, in which the Catholic Church is accused of having suppressed the Second Commandment of God.]
MR. ROUSSY (appearing confused and trembling): Yes, sir, it is I who have signed that letter.
MR. CHINIQUY—Very well; then you must prove what you have stated in this letter.
MR. ROUSSY: No, sir, you have told me that my Bible is falsified, and I am going. (Mr. Roussy again begins to leave.)
On all sides, cries are heard of: “Don’t let him escape”; “Stop him”; “You are a coward, Mr. Roussy”.
It was only with great difficulty that Mr. Chiniquy and the chairman were able to stop the noise. Order being somewhat restored, the meeting resumed.
MR. CHINIQUY: That is not the only place where your Bible has been shamefully falsified. Here is another of your texts, where the hand of Satan is shown in a plainly visible manner: (Matt. 16:25): “For whosoever wishes to save his soul, shall lose it — but whosoever shall lose his soul for the love of me, shall find it again”
[“Car quiconque voudra sauver son âme la perdra … Mais quiconque perdra son âme pour l’amour de moi, la retrouvera” – French Protestant Bible.]
Is not this a great discovery, the finding of a soul which has been lost for the love of Jesus Christ?
This text seemed to strike Mr. Roussy like a thunderbolt; he starts from the platform where he was, saying: “Amongst the Latins, the soul and the life were the same thing.” These words were greeted with an immense shout of laughter; with cries: “The coward, he is running away; he is not able to continue the discussion”, and “Stop him from going out”.
The chairman and Mr. Chiniquy succeeded in restoring order, reminding the people they had given their word of honor not to do anything to hurt Mr. Roussy.
While Mr. Roussy was making his escape through the crowd, a Protestant, fearing that they would do him an injury, and wishing to protect him, exclaimed: “Mr. Roussy is defeated, it is true, but it is not necessary, on that account, to kill him.”
[Mr. Roussy went on his way without suffering any harm.]
The text of the above debate was originally published by Charles Chiniquy in 1851. It was later re-published in 1893 by the True Witness, a Canadian newspaper, as a pamphlet with the title The Two Chiniquys.
(The foregoing online version of the debate has been published through the collaborative efforts of Jim Goodluck, Lane Core Jr., Antoine Valentim, Richard Chonak, Sue Sims and John Pacheco.)