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 ac.. cording 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.

6. The Nine Commandments.

"Nine commandments! What does that mean? I always thought the commandments 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 away off at Rome, subtract one from the ten commandments; and you know if you take one from ten, only nine remain. 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, "O, 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 inquire 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 in 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.

The reader will see that the commandment which the Catholics leave out, as being grievous to them, is the second in the series. It is the one that forbids making graven images and likenesses of any thing for worship. That is the one they don't like; and they don't like it, 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 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 numbering, is the ninth. But as they don't like