a French Bible, and the devout Frenchman may make use of an English or Dutch Rible; or both may have a Latin Bible, provided they have not studied Latin. An acquaintance with the Latin makes it as vulgar a tongue as any other. I have thought it due to the Pope to say thus much in his favor. Far be it from him to forbid the use of the Bible, except in the vulgar tongue!

Another more recent fact has surprised me not a little-that a student of Maynooth College, Ireland, named O'Beirne, should have been expelled that institution for persisting in reading the Bible! Expulsion is a pretty serious thing. That must be esteemed a heinous crime which is supposed to justify so severe a penalty. I cannot see any thing so criminal in reading the Scriptures. I wonder if the reading of any other book is forbidden at Maynooth: I suspect not. The authorities at Maynooth must think the Bible the worst book in the world. A student of that college may read whatever is most offensive to purity and piety in the ancient classics, without any danger of expulsion; but if he reads the Bible he is dismissed with dishonor! But I suppose they will say, he was not expelled for reading the Scriptures, but for contempt of authority, in that, after being forbidden to read the Scriptures, he still persisted in reading them. That makes a difference I must confess: still the young man's case was a hard one. Christ told him not only to read, but to search the Scriptures: the authorities of the college told him he must not. His sin consisted in obeying Christ rather than the government of the college. I think it might have been set down as venial. They might have overlooked the fault of preferring Christ's authority to theirs. "When the

Son of man shall come in his glory," I don't believe he will expel the young man for what he did, though the college bade him "depart."

I wonder, and have always wondered, that the Catholics, in prohibiting the Scriptures, do not except St. Peter's Epistles. Was ever any Catholic forbidden to read the letters of a Pope? I believe not. But if good Catholics may, and should read the "Encyclical Letters" of the Popes, why not let them read the "General Epistles" of the first of Popes, Peter? Why is it any more criminal to read the letters of Pope Peter, than those of Pope Gregory? I cannot explain this.

Here is another fact that has surprised me. A recent Galway newspaper denounces, by name, two Protestant clergymen as reptiles, and advises that they should be at once trampled on. What for? Why, for the sin of holding a Bible meeting, and distributing the Scriptures! It speaks of them as a hell-inspired junto of incarnate fiends, and says, "If the devil himself came upon earth, he would assume no other garb than that of one of these biblicals." The Irish editor adds, "The biblical junto must be put down in Galway." He is evidently in a passion with the Bible: I suppose it must be because it prophecies no good of him. Certainly he cannot think the Bible very favorable to his religion, otherwise he would not proclaim such a crusade against its distribution. It is the first time I ever heard it asserted, that the managers and members of Bible Societies are ipso facto incarnate fiends. It seems singular, that those who promote the circulation of a heaven-inspired volume, should be themselves, as a matter of course, hell-inspired. I cannot think that Exeter Hall and Chatham-street Chapel become

Pandemoniums whenever the Bible Society meets in them. Nor shall I believe that Satan is going to turn Bible distributer, until I actually see him "walking about" on this agency.

I do not know how it is, but I cannot help looking on the circulation of the Scriptures as a benevolent business-the gratuitous giving of the word of God to the children of men as a good work. When recently I read an article stating that the Young Men's New-York Bible Society had undertaken to supply the emigrants arriving at that port with the Bible in their respective languages, I almost instinctively pronounced it a good work; and I was astonished, as well as grieved, to find that some of the emigrants refused to receive the volume. I suppose that if the agent had offered them a volume of the Spectator, or a novel, they would have taken that. Any book of man they could have thankfully received; but the book of God they had been instructed to refuse, should that be offered them! The agent reports the following fact: "June 17, visited on their landing a large number of emigrants from Ireland, not one of whom could be prevailed on to receive a Bible, even as a gift. One of the females told me, if I would give her one she would take it with her and burn it." Who, do you suppose, put them up to refuse the Bible? And who put it into the head of the woman to speak of burning the Bible? I think any person, in whatever part of the country born, could guess. I guess it was not any infidel—I guess it was a priest.

But perhaps the reason they refused the Bibles offered them, was, that they had other and better Bibles. That is not pretended. They had none. Now, it seems

to me they might have accepted our Bibles until they could procure their own better Bibles. An imperfectly translated Bible is better than none: no translation of the Bible was ever so bad as to be worse than no Bible. What if the DOUAY is before all other Bibles, yet king James' may answer one's turn until he can get the Douay. The Catholics complain that we give their people an erroneously translated Bible: why, then, do they not supply them with a correct translation? When they undertake that, we will cease to trouble them. We would be very glad to see every Catholic family possessing, and capable of reading, the Douay Bible, although it does make repentance towards God to consist in doing penance appointed by men. But that they have no idea of doing. Does not the Pope forbid the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue! I know many Catholics have it, but it is no part of their religion to have a Bible. They get their Christianity without the trouble of searching the Scriptures. Indeed they would in vain search in the Scriptures for what they call Christianity. If they were not perfectly conscious that their religion is not to be found in the Bible, do you suppose they would denounce and persecute that book as they do? Would they direct their inquiries to fathers, and councils, and priests for information, rather than to prophets, evangelists, and apostles?

3*

8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H.

Mr. H. the Goliath of the Catholics, seems to be very fond of asking questions which he thinks nobody can answer. I am not acquainted with any writer who makes more frequent use of the interrogation point. But his questions are not quite so unanswerable as he supposes. I will just answer two of the string of questions with which he commences a recent letter to Mr. B. and then I beg leave to ask a few.

He wants to know first, what the Protestant religion is. He has been often told, but I will tell him again. It is the religion of the Bible. It was not called Protestant when the Bible was written, for then there was no corruption of Christianity to protest against. But it is the same, however called. There it is, in the Bible. Read it. Read any part of it. You cannot go amiss to find the religion of the Reformation in the Bible. Read particularly the epistle to the Romans, to whom Catholics pretend to refer their origin; or the epistle to the Ephesians. I wonder if a passage from either of these prominent epistles was ever quoted by any one in proof of any peculiarity of the Roman Catholic church! I suspect never. Protestants, however, make great use of them.

But, says the interrogator, "tell us what particular doctrines constitute the Protestant religion. Telling us it is the religion of the Bible, is telling us where it is, but not what it is." And is it not enough to tell you where you may find a thing? Have you no eyes? Have you no mind? Do you want one to think for you? Is not that all which Jesus Christ did? He gave