is a mean device to divide one of the nine, and then say they acknowledge ten. The Catholics know that the commandments, as they are in many of their catechisms, are not as they were written with the finger of God on the tables of stone. They know that one is wanting, and why it is they know. They had better take care how they do such things, for the Lord is a jealous God.

Indeed the Catholics are sorry for what they have done in this matter. It has turned out a bad speculation. This reduction of the law of God one-tenth, has led to the opening of many eyes. They would never do the like again. And as a proof of their repentance, they have restored the second commandment in many cases: they can show you a great many catechisms and books in which it is found. I had supposed that the omission existed now only in the catechisms published and used in Ireland, until I heard of the Philadelphia Manual. They had better repent thoroughly, and restore the commandment in all their publications. And I think it would not be amiss for them to confess that for once they have been fallible; that in the matter of mutilating the Decalogue, they could, and did err. If they will afford us that evidence of repentance, we will forgive them, and we will say no more about it. We know it is a sore subject with them; they don't know how to get along with it. When one asks them, "How came you to leave out the second commandment?" if they say, "Why, we have not left it out of all our books.". The other replies, "But why did you leave it out of any ?" and there the conversation ends. Echo is the only respondent, and she but repeats the question, “Why ?”

7. Catholic Hostility to the Bible.

I am not surprised that the Roman Catholics dislike the Bible, for very much the same reason that Ahab, king of Israel, disliked Micaiah, the prophet of the Lord. 1 Kings, 22: 8. It is hard not to contract a strong dislike to that which is for ever bearing testimony against one. To love an enemy is one of the most difficult attainments. Now, the Bible is all the time speaking against the Catholic religion, and prophesying not good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of Ahab. It is natural, therefore, that the Catholic should feel an aversion to the Bible. We ought not to expect any thing else. But I am somewhat surprised that they do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of it, for it certainly does not look well that the church of God should fall out with the oracles of God. It has an ugly appearance, to say the least, to see the Christian church come out against the Christian Scriptures.

I wondered much, when, a few years ago, the Pope issued his encyclical letter, forbidding the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. It certainly looks bad that Christ should say, "Search the Scriptures ;" and that the vicar of Christ should say, "No, you shall not even have them." It has very much the appearance of contradicting Christ: but appearances may deceive in this case, as in transubstantiation. But I must do the Pope justice. He does not unconditionally forbid the use of the Bible, but only the use of it in the vulgar tongue. The Pope has no objection that a person should have the Bible, provided he has it in a language which he does not understand. The English Catholic may have

a French Bible, and the devout Frenchman may make use of an English or Dutch Bible; 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