_84. Abripere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testamentum, seu eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os obturare_ (To tear the New Testament from the hands of Christians or to keep it closed to them by depriving them of this mode of understanding, is to stop for them the mouth of Christ). _85. Interdicere Christianis lectionem Sacrae Scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est interdicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut patiantur speciem quondam excommunicationis_ (To forbid Christians the reading of Holy Scripture, especially of the Gospel, is to forbid the use of light to the children of light, and to make them suffer a certain form of excommunication).[230] The Bull was accepted and published by the Parliament of Paris and by a majority of the faculty of the Sorbonne, and it was also published in the dioceses in the greater number of the bishoprics. The Cardinal Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, in making publication of the Bull, gives his general approval with certain reservations which were held by the Holy See to be invidious and as tending to schism. The Cardinal’s brief was itself condemned by the Inquisition. After the death of Louis XIV (September, 1715), the theological faculties of the Sorbonne and of the French universities made open declaration against the Bull, and no less than thirty bishops declared that they had accepted the Bull only on condition of certain reservations and explanations. The bishops made applications to the Regent to secure from the pope an interpretation of the full purport of the hundred and one propositions and an explanation of the precise grounds for the condemnation of these. In 1717, four of the French bishops made appeal to the general council for a decision in the matter. Later, other bishops, including Cardinal Noailles and a number of ecclesiastics and laymen, united in this appeal. This group were given the name of Appellants and their opponents were called Acceptants or constitutionals. The question as to whether the hundred and one propositions were or were not heretical or erroneous, fell more and more into the background and the issue finally took the shape as to whether a dogmatic Bull was to be accepted as a final decision of questions of doctrine, and whether such Bull was to be obeyed as an infallible and final judgment. The pope, however, so far from modifying in any way the decision presented in the original Bull, re-emphasised his position in a second Bull issued in 1719. In this, he presents the conclusion that the condemnation of the propositions was in itself final and authoritative and demanded from the Church unquestioning obedience. In 1720, an understanding was arrived at under which certain of the Appellants recalled their signatures to the original application while others repeated the first contention. These latter came to be known as Re-appellants.