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.' (Matt. ix, 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 Roman 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 Roman Catholics add

to this the sacrifice of the mass. They are not satisfied with Christ being 66 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 Roman 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 Roman 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, Roman Catholics believe the Scriptures. Therefore they believe all which Protestants do; and then, moreover, they believe tradi

tion; 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 Roman 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 Roman 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 Roman 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.

6. The Nine Commandments.

"Nine commandments! What does that mean? I always thought there were ten." There used to be that number. There were ten proclaimed by the voice of God from Mount Sinai; and ten were written by the finger of God on the tables of stone; and when the tables were renewed, there were still ten; and the Jews, the keepers of the Old Testament Scriptures, always recognized ten; and so did the primitive Church, and so do all Protestants in their creeds and catechisms. But the Roman Catholics-(you know they can take liberties, for they are the true church, they are infallible. A person, and so a church, which cannot possibly make a mistake, need not be very particular about what it does,) these Christians who have their head a way off at Rome,

subtract one from the ten commandments; and so they have but nine commandments. Theirs is not a Decalogue, but a Nonalogue.

It is just so. When many years ago I first heard of it, I thought it was a slander of the Protestants. I said, "Oh, it cannot be that they have dared to meddle with God's ten commandments, and leave out one. They cannot have been guilty of such impiety. Why, it is just as if some impious Israelite had gone into the holy of holies, opened the ark of the covenant, and taking out the tables of stone, had with some instrument of iron, obliterated one of the commands which the divine finger wrote on them." But then it struck me how improbable it was that such a story should ever have gained currency, unless there was some foundation for it. Who would ever have thought of charging Roman Catholics with suppressing one of the commandments, unless they had done it, or something like it?

So I thought I would enquire whether it was so or not; and I did, and found it to be a fact, and no slander. I saw with my own eyes the catechisms published under the sanction of bishops and archbishops, in which one of the commandments was omitted; and the reader may see the same thing in "The Manual of Catholic Piety," printed no farther off than Philadelphia.* The list of the commandments runs thus:

1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Remember the Sabbath-day, &c.

* See also "The Most Reverend Dr. James Butler's Catechism: Revised, Enlarged, Approved, and Recommended by the Four R.C. Archbishops of Ireland as a General Catechism for the Kingdom. Dublin: Printed by Richard Coyne, 4, Capel Street, Printer and Bookseller to the Royal College of St. Patrick's, Maynooth, and Publisher to the R.C. Bishops of Ireland."-page 36.-A. S. T.

The reader will see that the commandment which the Roman Catholics leave out as being grievous to them, is the second of the series. It is the one that forbids

making graven images and likenesses of any thing for worship. This is the one they don't like, because they do like pictures and images in their churches. They say these things wonderfully tend to promote devotion, and so they do away that commandment of God! David says, "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right." But he was no Roman Catholic.

Well, having got rid of the second, they call the third second, and our fourth they number third, and so on till they come to our tenth, which according to their numberingis the ninth. But, as they don't like the sound of "the nine commandments," since the Bible speaks of "ten commandments," (Exod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. iv. 13,) and every body has got used to the number ten,-they must contrive to make out ten some how or other. And how do you think they do it? Why, they halve their ninth, and call the first part ninth and the other tenth.

So they make out ten. In the Philadelphia Manual, corrected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop Kenrick, it is put down thus :

"9th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

10th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods." You see they make two of the commandments to relate to coveting. It is not very probable the Lord did so. I reckon they were not so numbered on the tables of stone. But you see it would never do to let that second commandment stand; and it would never do to have less than ten; so they were laid under a sort of necessity to do as they have done. But after all it is a bad job. It is not nearly so ingenious as many of the devices of . Popery. After all is said and done, they have but nine commandments; for every body knows that by dividing anything, you get not two wholes but two halves, there is but one whole after the division. And so the ninth commandment is but one commandment after they have divided it. If they were to quarter it they could not make

any more of it. If the Roman Catholics are bent on dividing the last of the commandments, they should call the first half 8, and the second half 9th. That is what they ought to do. That would be acting honestly, for they know they have left out one of the Lord's ten. They know that the Lord gave ten commandments, and they acknowledge only nine of them. It is a mean device to divide one of the nine, and they say they acknowledge ten. The Roman 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 Roman 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 over it. When one asks them, "How came you to leave out the second commandment?" If they say, 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?"