for examples. Why did not the Marys, or some other of the pious women of whom we read in the Bible, take the veil? Monachism, they may say, is an improvement on those times. But I do not like the idea of improvements on a system arranged by the wisdom of the Son of God himself.

There is what we call the spirit of a book. Now, the entire system of convents seems to me as clearly at variance with the spirit of the Bible, as one thing can be at variance with another. The Bible appears to have been written for persons who were to live in society with their fellow-men. It supposes human beings to be associated together in families and in civil communities, not as immured in monasteries and shut up in nunneries. It takes up the various relations of life, and descants on the duties growing out of them. But the system of Monachism dissolves these relations. Is it scriptural then? But why should I ask if that be scriptural which was first instituted by St. Anthony in the fourth century after Christ?

Again, if the system is favorable to holiness, then all equally need it, since all are required to be equally holy-to be holy as God is holy. But what would soon become of us all, if the system should become universal, and all adopt these means of holiness? This idea, that the means of the most eminent sanctity required of any, are not accessible and practicable to all, is radically erroneous. It is no such thing. It cannot be. Therefore I conclude against convents.

But while I impugn the system, I bring no charges against the existing edifices, called convents. I would never have them assailed by any other force than

that which belongs to an argument. If I were a Roman Catholic, I could not more indignantly reprobate than, being a protestant, I do, the recent burning of one of these buildings. If truth and argument can prostrate them, let them fall; but not by axes, and hammers, and fire-brands. All I contend for is, that the whole concern of convents is unscriptural. Those who inhabit them may be as pure as any who live outside; and so I shall believe them to be, until I have proof to the contrary. This plan of suspecting, and of making mere suspicion the ground of condemnation, is no part of my religion. It is a part of my Protestantism to protest against it.

57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs. More.

In reading the interesting memoirs of Mrs. Hannah More, I was struck with a letter which that good lady received in 1809 from Joseph Berrington, the Pope's Vicar General, taking exception to something she had said in her "Calebs " about Popery. He is very much offended with her. He complains, among other things, of her use of the word Popery, to designate the Roman Catholic religion. Now, some of us do not make much use of that word, as knowing it is offensive to the Catholics, and not willing to say any thing irritating to them; and when we do use it, I believe it is more for brevity than for any other reason-to avoid tedious circumlocution. It is as much out of regard to the

printer as any thing else. I do not see, however, why they should so strongly object to the word Popery. They all hold to the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and regard him as the head of the church. Why then should not their religious system be called after him? We call ours after the one we regard as supreme in spiritual matters, and head of the church. We call it Christianity, after Christ. Why not for the same reason call theirs Popery, after the Pope? We do not even get angry when they call us Calvinists, and our doctrinal system Calvinism. Yet with much more reason might we; for what is Calvin to us? He is only one of many thousand eminent men who have espoused substantially the system of doctrine we do.

I find in Mr. B's. letter this remarkable sentence: "Nothing is more surprising than that you Protestants should be so utterly ignorant, as you really are, or seem to be, of our tenets; when we all, whatever be our country, think alike, and our catechisms and books of instruction lie open before the world." He says nothing is more surprising. But there is one thing which is even more surprising. It is that any intelligent ecclesiastic should venture to write such a sentence. He says we Protestants are, or seem to be, utterly ignorant of their tenets. Now, the truth is, there are few things we are better acquainted with than the tenets of Roman Catholics. They say we do not let them speak for themselves. Yes, we do. Do they not speak for themselves in their own manuals, breviaries, and catechisms printed under their own sanction and supervision? If we take their tenets from their own books, and quote verbatim, and refer to the edition and page, is not that enough?

Well, we do so. Yet they say we misrepresent them. How can that be? They may misrepresent and contradict themselves, but it is hard to hold us responsible for that. If we are ignorant of their tenets, it is because they do not themselves constantly hold to them. If they let go their doctrines, as soon as Protestants attack and expose them, and resorting to explanations, evasions and glosses, do thus virtually take hold of something different from their original and published tenets, we are not to blame for that, I should think.

But Mr. B. tells us what makes our ignorance so surprising: "when we all, whatever be our country, think alike." Do they all think alike? They did not always all think alike. See history. And so far as they do think alike, does the reader know how it comes about? It is by virtue of not thinking at all. But grant they all think alike. Does it follow that they think right? Has no error ever been very popular? The world all thought alike once on astronomy -all held the earth to be the centre of the system. But did they think right? However, it is convenient to have a large number of persons all think alike, for then, if you can ascertain what one thinks, you know what all think, and if you read one book, you know what is in them all. So, if you chance to fall in with a Spanish or Italian Catholic, and he tells you what he thinks, you know what every English and American Catholic thinks, for they "all think alike." So, if you take up one catechism or book of instruction and read that, you know what they all ought to contain. It saves a great deal of trouble.

But the Vicar complains bitterly of the Bishop of

Durham, for asserting that the Catholics suppress the second commandment. He says it is no such thing, and that any school boy could tell him different. And he affirms that a catechism was put into the hands of the Bishop containing that commandment, and still he persisted in his assertion. The Bishop was right; and "nothing is more surprising" than that Mr. B. should deny it. I have myself seen two different catechisms, published in Ireland by Catholic book-sellers, and under the highest Catholic authority, from both of which the second commandment was excluded; and it is left out of "the Christian's Guide," published in Baltimore by the Catholics, as any one may see for himself. Now what could Mr. B. say to this? Would he say, O! those were published in Ireland and America." But he says, we all, whatever be our country, think alike." Would he say that he spoke of 1809, and these were published since? But it is their boast that they not only do now all think alike, but that they always did think alike. Would he say that if it was left out of those catechisms, yet it was retained in others? Yes; but if their catechisms differ, how do they all think alike? Besides, no one ever accused the Catholics of leaving the second commandment out of every one of their books. But why do they leave it out of any? Will they please to say why they leave it out of any? They have never condescended to answer that question. They always evade it. If a man should publish successive editions of the laws of any country, and should leave out of some of the editions a certain important law, would it be sufficient for him to say that he did not leave it out of all the editions? Why did he leave it out of