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. Whèn 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 pronounc ed 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

o me they might have accepted our Bibles until they could procure their own better Bibles. An imperfectly translated Bible is better than none: no translation of the Bible was ever so bad as to be worse than no Bible. What if the DOUAY is before all other Bibles, yet king James' may answer one's turn until he can. get the Douay. The Catholics complain that we give their people an erroneously translated Bible: why, then, do they not supply them with a correct translation? When they undertake that, we will cease to trouble them. We would be very glad to see every Catholic family possessing, and capable of reading, the Douay Bible, although it does make repentance towards God to consist in doing penance appointed by .nen. But that they have no idea of doing. Does not the Pope forbid the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue! I know many Catholics have it, but it is no part of their religion to have a Bible. They get their Christianity without the trouble of searching the Scriptures. Indeed they would in vain search in the Scriptures for what they call Christianity. If they were not perfectly conscious that their religion is not to be found in the Bible, do you suppose they would denounce and persecute that book as they do? Would they direct their inquiries to fathers, and councils, and priests for information, rather than to prophets, evangelists, and apostles?

8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H.

Mr. H the Goliath of the Catholics, seems to be very fond of asking questions which he thinks nobody can answer. I am not acquainted with any wri ter who makes more frequent use of the interrogation point. But his questions are not quite so unanswerable as he supposes. I will just answer two of the string of questions with which he commences a recent letter to Mr. B. and then I beg leave to ask a few.

He wants to know first, what the Protestant religion is. He has been often told, but I will tell him again. It is the religion of the Bible. It was not called Protestant when the Bible was written, for then there was no corruption of Christianity to protest against. But it is the same, however called. There it is, in the Bible. Read it. Read any part of it. You cannot go amiss to find the religion of the Reformation in the Bible. Read particularly the epistle to the Romans, to whom Catholics pretend to refer their origin; or the epistle to the Ephesians. I wonder if a passage from either of these prominent epistles was ever quoted by any one in proof of any peculiarity of the Roman Catholic church! I suspect never. Protestants, however, make great use of them.

But, says the interrogator, "tell us what particular doctrines constitute the Protestant religion. Telling us it is the religion of the Bible, is telling us where it is, but not what it is." And is it not enough to tell you where you may find a thing? Have you no eyes? Have you no mind? Do you want one to think for you? Is not that all which Jesus Christ did? He gave

the Scriptures to the Jews, and said, "search them." So we put the Bible into your hand, and say, there is our religion. And yet you ask, "Where was your religion before Luther?" Before Luther! we tell you where it was before the earliest fathers. It was in the Gospels and Epistles, where it is now, and ever will be. What have we to do with Luther or Augus tine, or any of them, until we get as far back into antiquity as St. John?

But Mr. H. asks again, "What society of Christians ever taught this pretended religion of Christ previous to the Reformation ?" Why, Mr. H. do not affect such ignorance-you must be joking, when you ask such a question. Did you never hear of a society of Christians residing at Rome, some of whom were of Cæsar's household, to whom one Paul wrote a letter, which has come down to us? Now, if it cannot be ascertained what that society of Christians "taught," yet it can easily be ascertained what was taught them. It is only to read the letter. And I think it not improbable that that society of Christians professed and taught what St. Paul taught them.

But there was another respectable society of Christians, a good while "previous to the Reformation," who seem to have known something about this "pretended religion of Christ," called Protestant. They dwelt in a city named Ephesus. That same Paul resided among them three years, preaching the Gospel, and he did it faithfully. He "shunned not to declare all the counsel of God." After establishing a flourishing church there, he went away, and subsequently addressed an epistle to them, which also has come down to us. In this epistle it is to be presumed

that he embodied the substance of the Gospel, which he had taught them "publicly and from house to house." He is not to be suspected of preaching one thing and writing another. Will Mr. H. deny that the society of Christians at Ephesus professed and taught the doctrines of the epistle to the Ephesians? I think not. Well, sir, what are the doctrines of that epistle? Are they yours or ours-Catholic or Protestant? I will leave it to any intelligent infidel on earth to decide. Will Mr. H. agree to the reference? O no, he wants us to leave it to a pope, and general council, and the unanimous fathers.

I have told Mr. H. now of two societies of Christians who “ taught this pretended religion of Christ previous to the Reformation." I could tell of more ; but two are enough. He only asked for one.

Now I would ask Mr. H. a question. Where was your religion, Mr. H. at the time the Bible was written? I am curious to know. How came the evangelists and apostles to know nothing about it, if it is really the religion of Christ? Perhaps Mr. H. can clear up this difficulty. I wish he would, if he can. I do not want him to say where his religion was after the Bible was written, and after all the evangelists and apostles were dead. I am informed on that point. I want to know where the Roman Catholic religion was before those good men died; where it was before the fathers.

They talk about the antiquity of the Roman Catholic religion. It is old, I must confess. It bears many marks of age upon it. But the difficulty is, it is not old enough by a century or two at least. They say it is the first form of Christianity. That is a