then what they do over and above that, tney call supererogation. It expresses how much more they love God than they are required to love him. He claims, you know, to be loved with all the heart, and soul, and strength, and mind. This is the first and great command. And observe, it is with all of each. Now. when the Catholic has fully satisfied this claim, he enters upon the work of supererogation; and all that he does in the way of loving God after loving him with all the four, heart, strength, soul, and mind, is set down to this account, be it more or less. Might I just ask here, for information, if a man is required to love God with all his strength, that is, with his whole ability, how can he do more? It seems that whatever he can do, is required to be done. How Catholics contrive to do more than they can, I, for my part, do not know. It is a mystery to Protestants. We are in the dark on this subject.

66

Let me tell you more about this supererogation. It expresses how much more Catholics are than perfect. Perfect, you know, we are all required to be-perfect, even as our Father who is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48. And in another place, even by Peter it is said, "As he which has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation." Now, when one is holy as he who hath called him is holy, and holy in all manner of conversation, in so far as he is more holy than this, since this is all that is required, the surplus is set down to the account of supererogation! In other words, supererogation expresses the superfluous glory which men give to God, after glorifying him in their bodies and spirits, which are his, and doing all whatsoever they do, even to the matter of eating

and drinking, to his glory! See 1 Cor. 6: 27, and Acts, 10:31. This is supererogation. I hope the reader understands it.

Now, those who do these works of supererogation, have of course more merit than they have any occasion for on their own account; and as this excess of merit ought by no means to be lost, the church of Rome has with great economy treasured it up for the benefit of those who are so unfortunate as to do less than what is required, to whom it is, at the discretion of the church, and for value received, served out in the way of indulgences. This is the article that Tetzel was dealing in so largely and lucratively, when one Martin Luther started up in opposition to the traffic. Protestants have never dealt in the article of indulgences.

By the way, the wise virgins of whom we read in Matthew, 25, seem not to have been acquainted with this doctrine of supererogation; for when the foolish virgins, in the lack of oil, applied to them for a seasonable supply, they answered, "not so: lest there be not enough for us and you." They had only enough for themselves.

But, say the Catholics, are there not counsels in the Bible, as well as precepts—certain things which are recommended, though not required? If so, and a person, besides obeying the precepts, complies with the counsels, doing not only what is required, but also what is recommended, is not here a foundation for works of supererogation? This is plausible, but that is all. My motto being brevity, I shall not attempt an extended answer to it, but take these few things.

1. If there are counsels recommending things which

no precepts require, yet obedience to these counsels cannot constitute works of supererogation, and accumulate merit, unless all the precepts are perfectly obeyed. A man must do all that is required, before he can do more than what is required. Now, has any mere man since the fall perfectly obeyed all the commandments of God? Has any man done all his duty? If not, I reckon no one has done more than his duty. We don't generally go beyond a thing until after we have come up to it. A cup does not usually run over before it is full. But,

2. According to this doctrine of the church of Rome, men are capable of a higher virtue than God has required! They can, and actually do, perform virtuous and holy acts which belong to neither of the tables of the law, and which are comprehended neither in the love of God nor in the love of man! Is this idea admissible? The Psalmist says, "thy commandment is exceeding broad." But according to this doctrine, the virtue of the Catholic is broader. I, however, don't believe it.

3. There is no counsel which does not become a precept or command, provided it be found that God can be more glorified by a compliance with it than otherwise. The thing recommended, if in any case it be apparent that the doing of it will redound to the glory of God, is ipso facto required, and becomes a duty. Take the favorite example of the Catholics, celibacy, which, they say, is recommended but not required. Now, if any one find that he can better serve God in the single condition than in the matrimonial state, celibacy is in that case his duty; and being a duty, a thing required, it can be no work of superero

gation. When celibacy is not a duty, there is no virtue in it. Does any one believe that Enoch would have been more virtuous, and walked more closely with God, if he had not fallen into the mistake of matrimony?

But I arrest my remarks, lest, in criminating one kind of supererogation, I myself be guilty of another.

56. Convents.

Every body knows how important convents, monasteries, nunneries, &c. are in the Roman Catholic religion. Who has not heard of monks and nuns, and of the establishments in which they respectively seclude themselves from the world? What a pity they cannot keep the flesh and the devil as far off! But the flesh they must carry in with them; and the devil is at no loss to find an entrance. There are no convents that can shut these out; and it is my opinion that it is not of much use to exclude the world, if they cannot at the same time shut out the other two. The world would be very harmless, but for the flesh and the devil. Besides, I am of opinion that a person may be of the world, though not in the world. In, but not of the world, is the Protestant doctrine, and the true plan. People forget that the world is not the great globe, with all its land and water; but that it is often an insidious little thing, which, ere one knows it, has taken up its lodgment in the heart. The heart

can entertain the world. If so, convent cannot even keep out the world. They do not answer the purpose therefore for which they are intended.

But be this as it may, I find nothing for convents in the Bible. In the Old Testament not a word about them in the New not a word. Now if they are such grand contrivances for making people good, and for keeping them pure, I am surprised they were never thought of till after the canon of Scripture was closed. Why do not the men who speak by inspiration of God, say any thing about them? This puzzles me. I wish some of the Catholic writers would explain the reason. They tell us why St. Paul omitted to say any thing in his writings about the mass. It was, say the authors of the Rhemish Testament in their annotations on Hebrews, 7: 17, "because of the depth of the mystery, and the incredulity or feebleWe thank them ness of those to whom he wrote." for the admission that the apostle did not teach the doctrine of the mass. But how came they to know the reason of his silence upon it? May be it was for a similar reason that he maintained a perfect silence on the subject of convents!

But if convents are such clever things, why did not Enoch take the vow of celibacy, and into one, ingo 'stead of "walking with God and begetting sons and daughters?" How much better a man, according to the Catholic notion, he would have been, had he only been a monk! And why did not St. John banish himself to some solitary Patmos, and there live the life of a hermit, before a persecuting emperor drove him into it? Why did not Peter and his wife part, and he turn friar and she nun? We look to such characters