to befriend their cause. Thus they do with this passage of Peter. They quote it with an air of triumph, and exultingly ask what Protestants can have to reply to it.

Now in the name of Protestants, I will state in two or three particulars what we have to say in opposition to the Roman Catholic inference from these words of Peter. We say that that passage does not make for the Roman Catholic cause, first, because if the right of private judgment and private interpretation is taken away by it, as they affirm, yet it is taken away with respect to only a small part of the Bible, viz. the prophetic part. He does not say that any other part, the historical, the didactic, or the hortatory, is not of private interpretation ; but only the prophetic, that part in which something is foretold. He does not say no Scripture, but no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Allowing then to the Roman Catholic all that he contends for, we are left with by far the larger part of the Bible open to private interpretation. Peter restricts us only in the matter of prophecy !

66

But secondly, let me say, that to whatever the remark of the apostle has reference, it can easily be shown that it does not mean what the Roman Catholic understands it to mean. This is evident from what follows it. I wish the reader would turn to the passage. He will perceive that Peter, having said that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, proceeds to assign the reason of that assertion; or rather, as I think, goes into a further and fuller explanation of what he had said: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, (that is, it was not of human invention, it did not express the conjectures of men), but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Now I would ask if this reason confirms the Roman Catholic view of the passage ? Is the fact that the Bible was written by men inspired of God to write it, any reason why it should not be of private interpretation? Does the circumstance that God gave them the thoughts, even suggested to them the words in which they should clothe

them, render the production so unintelligible, or so equivocal in its meaning, that a private individual cannot be trusted to read it? That would be to say that God cannot make Himself understood as easily as men can! The Roman Catholic argument from this passage may be stated thus; The Bible is an inspired book, therefore. too obscure and ambiguous to be of private interpretation! Inspired, therefore unintelligible.

If it is so hard to understand what God says, how was the divine Saviour able to make himself understood by the common people, who heard him gladly? I suspect they knew what He meant when He said, "Come unto me, and I will give you rest." The sermon on the mount seems to have been understood by those who heard it. No one thought of asking how others understood it. No one felt the necessity of an interpreter: every one exercised his private judgment on what Christ said. Now suppose that what Jesus said to the people, and they found no difficulty in understanding it, had been taken down in writing at the time, would not they who understood it when they heard it, have equally understood it when they read it? The spoken discourses of Christ were intelligible; have they become unintelligible by being written?

To return for a moment to the passage in Peter. I consider that the word rendered in verse 20, interpretation, should be translated as Dr. M'Knight translates it invention; or as another renders it, impulse: and verse 21 should be considered as explanatory of that which precedes it. If the Apostle really intended to deny the right of private judgment, why does he in verse 19 exhort all the saints to whom he wrote, to take heed to "the more sure word of prophecy," the very thing in reference to which he is supposed to deny the right of private judgment? Why should they take heed to it, if it is not of private interpretation?-and why does he speak of it as "a light that shineth in a dark place?"

Finally:-If no part of Scripture is of private interpretation, then of course the passage of Scripture,

2 Pet. i, 20, is not of private interpretation; and yet the Roman Catholic exercises his private judgment upon it, and submits it to the private judgment of the Protestant, in the hope thereby of making him a Roman Catholic! No part of Scripture, according to him, may be privately interpreted, but that which affirms that no part, not even itself, may be privately interpreted!

4. Popery Unscriptural.

I undertake to prove that the Roman Catholic religion is unscriptural-that it is not borne out by the Bible. If I can do that, I shall be satisfied; for a religion, professing to be Christianity, which does not agree with the statements of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, will, I am persuaded, never go down in the United States of America.* It may do for Spain, Portugal, and Italy; but it will not do here. There is too much respect for the Bible, in this republican land to admit of such a thing. Republicans know too well how much liberty owes to the Bible. They know that tyranny cannot exist where the Bible, God's Magna Charta to mankind, is in the hands of the people. Besides, the people of this country have too much good common sense to take that for Christianity about which the evangelists and the apostles knew nothing. I think therefore, that I shall have gained the point, if I show that Romanism and the Bible are at variance. This, if I mistake not, I can easily do.

The Roman Catholics act very much as if they themselves did not regard their religion as being Scriptural. Why, if they believe that their religion is the religion of the Bible, do they not put the Bible into the hands of the people, and advise them to read it, that they may become, or continue to be, good Roman Catholics? Why

*Nor in any Protestant country. It will not do in any place in which the Bible is known.

And so do the inhabitants of this free and Protestant land; though we are not Republicans.

not circulate far and wide the book which contains their religion? They need not take our translation of it. They have one of their own-the Douay. Let them circulate that. Why do they leave the whole business of distributing the Scriptures to the Protestants? Above all, why do they oppose the operations of Bible Societies, when they are only multiplying and diffusing copies of the book which contains the Roman Catholic religion?

I am particularly surprised that the Roman Catholics are not more anxious to put into general circulation the two epistles of their St. Peter, who they assert was the first Bishop of Rome, and earliest Pope. They acknowledge that he wrote two epistles, and that they are extant. Why in the name of common sense, do they not let every Roman Catholic have them? I do not wonder that they wish to keep out of sight of the people the epistles of Paul, who says (Gal. ii. 11) that he withstood Peter to the face, "because he was to be blamed." Paul forgot at the moment that Peter was supreme and infallible! We are all liable to forget. But why the rulers of the church should be unwilling to let the people hear Peter, is the wonder with me. I have been reading his epistles, to see if I can discover why the Roman Catholics are not friendly to their circulation. Perhaps it is because in them he says nothing about Rome; unless by Babylon (1 Ep. v. 13) he means Rome, as John does in the Revelation; and not a word about his being Bishop of Rome or Pope! He seems to have no idea that he was a pope. He says in his first Epistle, v. "The elders which are among you I exhort, who also am an elder." An elder! was that all? Why, Peter, do you forget yourself? Do you not know that you are universal Bishop, Primate of the Apostolical College, Supreme and Infallible Head of the Church? He seems never to have known one word about it! Now I think

1,

I have hit upon one reason why it is thought best that the people in general should not be familiar with the writings of Peter.

I wish, for my part, that the Roman Catholics would

print an edition of Peter's Epistles, and give them general circulation among their members; for if the religion of these epistles is their religion, I have no more controversy with them.

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 endeavour 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 Roman 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 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. xxii. 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 Roman Catholics represent it to be. Adding is as bad as taking away. For every article added there is a plague added.