suaded, never go down in the United States of America. It may do for Spain, Portugal and Italy; but it will not do here. There is too much respect for the Bible in this republican land to admit of such a thing. Republicans know too well how much liberty owes to the Bible. They know that tyranny cannot exist where the Bible, God's magna charta to mankind, is in the hands of the people. Besides, the people of this country have too much good common sense to take that for Christianity about which the evangelists and the apostles knew nothing. I think, therefore, that I shall have gained the point, if I show that Romanism and the Bible are at odds. This, if I mistake not, I can easily do.

The Roman Catholics act very much as if they themselves did not regard their religion as being scriptural. Why, if they believe that their religion is the religion of the Bible, do they not put the Bible into the hands of the people, and advise them to read it, that they may become, or continue to be good Roman Catholics? Why not circulate far and wide the book which contains their religion? They need not take our translation of it. They have one of their own-the Douay. Let them circulate that. Why do they leave the whole business of distributing the Scriptures to the Protestants? Above all, why do they oppose the operations of Bible Societies, when they are only multiplying and diffusing copies of the book which contains the Roman Catholic religion?

I am particularly surprised that the Roman Catholics are not more anxious to put into general circulation the two epistles of their St. Peter, who they assert was the first Bishop of Rome, and earliest Pope. They ac

knowledge that he wrote two epistles, and that they are extant. Why, in the name of common sense, do they not let every Catholic have them! I do not wonder that they wish to keep out of sight of the people the epistles of Paul, who says, Gal. 2: 11, that he withstood Peter to the face, "because he was to be blamed." Paul forgot at the moment that Peter was supreme and infallible! We are all liable to forget. But why the rulers of the church should be unwilling to let the people hear Peter, is the wonder with me. I have been reading his epistles, to see if I can discover why the Catholics are not friendly to their circulation. Perhaps it is because in them he says nothing about Rome, unless by Babylon, 1 Ep. 5: 13, he means Rome, as John does in the Revelation; and never a word about his being Bishop of Rome, or Pope! The man seems to have no idea that he was a pope. He says in his 1st Epistle, 5: 1, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." An elder! was that all? Why, Peter, do you forget yourself? Do you not know that you are universal Bishop, Primate of the Apostolical College, Supreme and Infallible Head of the Church? He seems never to have known one word about it. Now I think I have hit upon one reason why it is thought best that the people in general should not be familiar with the writings of Peter.

I wish, for my part, that the Catholics would print an edition of Peter's Epistles, and give them general circulation among their members; for if the religion of these epistles is their religion, I have no further controversy with them.

5. The Evil of Believing Too Much.

It is a common saying among the Catholics, that it is better to believe too much than to believe too little; and it is one of the arguments with which they endeavor to make proselytes, that they believe all that Protestants believe, besides a good deal that Protestants do not believe. Hence they would have it inferred that their religion possesses all the advantages which belong to Protestantism, and some more into the bargain; so that if the religion of the Reformation is safe, much more is that of the church of Rome safe. Now, as I am certain that this way of talking (reasoning it is not worthy to be called) has some influence in making Catholics, I shall take the liberty of examining it.

Why is it better to believe too much than to believe too little? Excess in other things is not better than defect. To eat or drink too much is not better than to eat or drink too little. To believe that two and two make five, is as bad as to believe that two and two make three. One of these errors will derange a man's calculations as much as the other. The man who believes that two and two make five, has no advantage because he believes the whole truth and a little more.

A certain writer, who ought to be in high authority at Rome as well as every where else, represents additions to the truth to be as injurious and as offensive to God as subtraction from it. Rev. 22: 18, 19. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Here you see what a man gets by believing too much. It is not altogether so safe a thing as the Catholics repre

sent it to be. Adding is as bad as taking away. For every article added there is a plague added.

I suppose that one reason why these additions to the truth are so offensive to God is, that they are such additions as take from that to which they are added; just as when a man puts “a piece of new cloth into an old garment, that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse." Mat. 9: 16. All the additions of the church of Rome to Christianity take away from some of its doctrines. She first cuts a hole in the robe of Christ and then applies her patch! In order to make room for her doctrine of human merit, she has to take away just so much from the merit of Christ. The Protestant doctrine is, that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Nay, says the Catholic, our own good works have something to do in the matter of our justification. Now, this addition does not leave entire that to which it is added, but takes from it!

We hold to the perfection of the one sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross. The Catholics add to this the sacrifice of the mass. They are not satisfied with Christ's being "once offered to bear the sins of many," but they teach the strange doctrine that Christ is offered as often as a priest is pleased to say mass !

Nothing is farther from the truth than that the Catholic believes all which the Protestant believes, besides a great deal that the Protestant does not believe. The latter part of the assertion is correct. The Catholics believe a great deal which the Protestants do not. In the quantity of their faith they far surpass us. There is the whole that is comprehended in tradition. They believe every word of it—while Protestants are

satisfied with Holy Scripture. But the Catholics do not believe all that Protestants believe; they do not believe the Protestant doctrine of regeneration, or justification, or other cardinal doctrines.

But, asks one, is not all that Protestants believe contained in the Scriptures! Yes. Well, Catholics believe the Scriptures. Therefore they believe all which Protestants do; and then, moreover, they believe tradition; so that they believe all which Protestants believe, and some more besides. Very logical, to be sure! But suppose that tradition and Scripture happen to contradict each other, how then? What sort of an addition to a testimony is a contradiction of it? I might give some precious specimens of these contradictions. The Catholic believes with Scripture, that "marriage is honorable in all;" and he believes with tradition, that it is very disgraceful in some. One of his rules of faith affirms that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” but the other assures him that there is merit in his good works. One says that Peter was to be blamed, but the other asserts his infallibility. According to one, Peter was a simple elder; but according to the other, universal bishop, &c. The Catholic says he believes both, and therefore he is in a safer state than the Protestant. Well, when I can be convinced that two contradictory assertions are both true, I may believe as much as the Catholic believes. Meanwhile I am satisfied with believing enough; and not caring to be more than perfectly safe, I shall continue to be a Protestant.