LIBEAEY
^biological £eminarg,
PRINCETON, N. J. :ion .
No. Case, No. Shelf ^ No. Book,
-
/077¥
S.F.S.Mv,, P.Xut
"True.it separates, but it zinitcw also. It takes ^^s I knew: them many we love Imt it takes as to as many we love " Fiu?e 221.
'NIK
^(£bmx§clitiit
tmmm msBJMm
'¥([)) Lt, an.
y*
s///s ■///>/// f ia& c ?a*f/%>.
©■a^^^ss^Aa.
*r m @ w <©■ ^s
Y REV. WILLIAM NEVINS, D . D
Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore.
PUBLISHED fiY THE
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY
150 NASSAU-STREET, NEW-YORK.
D. Famhuw, Printer.
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by Rufds L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York.
ISo. Page.
1. Do you Pray in Secret 1 ----- 7
2. Do you Pray in your Family "? ... 13
3. I must Pray more, - - - - - - 18
4. I must Pray differently, ----- 24
5. Why Prayer is not heard, ----- 30
6. I must Praise more, 38
7. Do you remember Christ 1 - - - 42
8. I don't like Professions, ----- 48
9. Are you a Sabbath School Teacher 1 - - 53
10. Do you attend the Monthly Concert 1 61
11. Why all Christians should attend the Monthly
Concert, 66
12. Will any Christian be absent from the next
Monthly Concert? 71
13. How came it to pass 1 74
14. Why the World is not Converted 1 78
15. The Conversion of the Church, 84
16. Inquiring Saints, 89
17. Do you pay for a Religious Newspaper 1 - - 92
18. Detached Thoughts, 95
19. The late Mr. Wirt, 99
20. Traveling on the Sabbath, 104
21. Apologies for Travelling on the Sabbath, - - 111
22. I have done giving, 118
23. I will give liberally, ... - - 121
24. The calls are so many, 125
25. I can't afford it, 129
26. An example of Liberality, - - - - 134
27. Another example of Liberality, - 140
28. More, about Liberality, 144
CONTENTS.
JVo.
29. A Tract Effort, -
30. Why the World should have the Bible,
31. Mrs. M. L. Nevins, ...
32. What strange beings we are,
33. What very strange beings we are,
34. Should it be according to thy mind 1
35. How inconsistent we are,
36. The Pity of the Lord,
37. Five Negatives, -
38. How to dispose of care, -
39. Do you enjoy Religion?
40. Lovest thou me 1
41. The light of the World,
42. The Salt of the Earth,
43. The Distance of Death,
44. Why so loth to die 1
45. Heaven's Attractions, -
46. The Heavenly Recognition,
Page 149 153 157 161 166 170 175 179 185 187 192 198 203 209 213 218 225 229
The following pages consist of miscellaneous articles published by the lamented author within the year 1834 and the months of January and February, 1835, chiefly in the New- York Observer, with the signature " M. S." the finals of his name. They were written after the insidious disease by which God was pleased to transplant him to a higher sphere of labor had so affected his voice as in a great de- gree to disable him from his stated public ministrations. This discipline was evidently blessed in his rapid sanctifi- cation ; his obtaining uncommonly clear views of truth and duty ; and his ardent desire to do something to rouse Chris- tians to greater attainments in personal holiness, and through their efforts and prayers to bless the world. His mind acted with unwonted vigor ; he panted to speak to multitudes for God and eternity, and adopted the only means then remain- ing to him — his pen. When about two-thirds of the articles were written, he was called suddenly to part with his be- loved wife; and the hallowed influence of the affliction is most apparent in the subsequent articles, the last of which, " Heaven's Attractions," with the additional fragment, seemed almost prophetic of the event which was soon to follow.
It was hoped that the substance of these articles might be embodied in a volume under the author's own supervision ; but his strength was inadequate to the task. They are now published in accordance with a few general suggestions made by him a little before his death, and in the form sub- stantially in which they at first appeared.
■^TOtr
1
1. Do you Pray in Secret?
I know not how it is with the reader, but I know that many persons are not in the habit of secret pray- er. They have no closet, no place of retirement to which they daily resort, and where, when they have shut the door, they pray to their Father which is in secret, and in solitude seek the society of God. I am acquainted with one who for many years neglected this duty, which all religions recognize, and which even nature teaches. Sometimes he read the Bible, and no part of it oftener than the sermon on the mount. Of course he must have frequently read those words of the great Teacher, in which, taking it for granted that his hearer prays, he tells him what he should do when he prays : " But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet ;" (the person is sup- posed to have some place called his closet, to which he is accustomed to retire for prayer;) "and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." He read this, but he gave no heed to it. During all this period he asked no- thing, though he received much. God did not neg- lect him, though he neglected God ; and as he pray-
8 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ed none, so he praised none. Sometimes, indeed, he said, " Thank God !" but it was said in so much thoughtlessness, that it was set down profaneness rather than praise. It is true, at that time he would never allow that he was ungrateful ; but he was, and now he sees that he was. He lived, and moved, and had his being in God, and yet was without God in the world. Many and precious were the thoughts of God towards him, but in all his thoughts God was not. Not even when he was in trouble did he ask, " Where is God my maker ?" 1 wonder the Lord had not become weary of bestowing his bounty on such an one. It is because he is the Lord and chan- ges not. But for that, the person of whom I speak would have been consumed long ago. There is no- thing he admires more than the long-suffering of God towards him, and he hopes to spend eternity in admiring it, and exchanging thoughts with his fel- low-redeemed on this and kindred subjects.
He supposes that he is not the only one who has neglected secret prayer. He fears that this neglect is even now the habit of many. They are shy of God. I know not why they should be. He is doing every thing to woo and win them, and to secure their confidence. So much has he done, that he asks (and I cannot answer) what he could have done more. He waits on his throne of grace to be gracious to them, but they come not near to him. He even calls to them to come to him, using too the language of
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
most affectionate address : " Son, my son ;" but they respond not, " Abba, Father." It is strange they should treat this Father so. They treat no other fa- ther so. What child does not, in the morning, salute his father ? and what father does not expect the sa- lutation of each child as they come into his presence? Oh, yes, we love our father who is on earth ; and we remember with gratitude the favors he does us. And does the Father of our spirits, the giver of every good gift, deserve no daily notice from us, no affectionate salutation, no grateful recognition of indebtedness to him ? I am certain he expects it, for he says, " A son honoreth his father : if then I be a Father, where is mine honor ?"- He claims to be a Father; and O, hoAV well he has established that claim ! Truly he is a Father, and " like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth " his. And to the com- passion of the father he adds the tender care and un- tiring mindfulness of the mother. " Can a woman," he asks, " forget her sucking child ?" She may, he says, but He will not. How strange it is that men will not go to the closet to meet and to pray to such a Father !
Surely it is not for want of encouragement. If they have it not in his very nature, yet in his invita- tions, his promises, and his past acts of unsolicited kindness, they have all they could desire. Nor is it that they have no need of God. Never one of the prayerless will say that. They all know what would
10 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
become of them but for that overlooking eye, and that supplying hand, and that supporting arm. And do they not know that God has a heart too — that he can love with all the fervor of a friend % And can they not imagine that in the interchange of affection between God and the soul of man there may, and indeed must be, ineffable delight ? And who that looks but a little way forward, does not perceive an exigency when, in the utter inadequacy of earthly and human resources for comfort, he will want " the consolations of God ?"
Ah, it is a sad as well as strange thing, that so many enter no closet ! seek daily no retirement, either in their houses or elsewhere, where they may be a little while alone with God : where they may look up and meet the light of his countenance as he looks down on them ; where they may confess their sins, and receive assurance of his pardoning love; where they may thank him for mercies past, and humbly ask for more ; where they may take counsel of him ; tell him of their griefs, and have their tears wiped away, and with him leave the weighty burden of their cares.
I know not whether this excites more my grief or my wonder. I am not so much surprised that men should neglect a manifest duty, but when I think what a 'privilege it is, what a happiness, what an honor, to be on terms of intimacy, and in habits of intercourse with God, it amazes me that they should
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 11
forego it. How will such reflect upon themselves here- after— how execrate their folly ! How will they won- der that they could have deliberately done their souls such a wrong" ! Then it will be too late to redress the wrong. They sought not the Lord while he might be found — they called not upon him while he was near. Yea, though he called, they refused. Now they may call, but he will not answer. If any one who is living in the neglect of secret prayer shall read this, will he not be persuaded to commence the practice the very day he reads it, aye, that same hour, if it be possible ? If it be not convenient, let him make it convenient. Let other things give way for this, rather than this for any thing. Can he think his heart right in the sight of God, or his condition safe in prospect of eternity, while he neglects prayer ? How dare he live without prayer? Without it can he have courage to die? At the mercy-seat of Gocl we may decline to appear, but before his judgment- seat we must all stand. How a frequent access to the first would prepare us for final arraignment at the other ! How it would familiarize us with the presence of God ! How it would serve to break the shock of the entrance into eternity !
Does any one, who is not in the habitual and daily practice of secret devotion, pretend to be a Christian ? [t is but pretence. He may believe the creed of the Christian, but certainly he does not pursue the prac- tice nor possess the spirit of the Christian. Breath-
12 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ing is essential to living, and prayer is the Chris- tian's vital breath. Does he walk with God who never converses with him ?
Some spiritualize the direction of Christ, making the closet to mean the heart, and the duty of private devotion to be discharged in mere mental prayer. But Christ did not so trifle. His closet was not his heart : he could not have meant that ours should be. He selected the still morning, and sought out the solitary place for prayer. May we be less attentive to the circumstances of time and place ? Shall we talk about entering into ourselves and there thinking prayer ? Jesus, even in his most retired intercourse with his Father, used his voice. That prayer, " Let this cup pass from me," was vocal — and that peti- tion, " God be merciful to me a sinner," was express- ed in words. Shall we reserve the voice exclusively for our intercourse with men, and not with it also supplicate and bless God?
Is anyone inquiring after truth? What place more appropriate for asking " What is truth," than the closet ? Who so likely to be taught of God as they who ask of God 1 Some men carry that ques- tion to the Bible, and press it there, as indeed they should ; but they carry it not to the throne of grace, and press it there also. They read to know what truth is, but do not pray to know it.
Oh, how an hour in the morning, spent with God, prepares us pleasantly and profitably to pass the
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 13
other hours of the day with men ; and at night, what so composing as communion with God ! In resign- ing ourselves into the arms of sleep — that image of death, what security like that of prayer ! It engages Him who never slumbers nor sleeps, to watch over us.
Has any one become remiss in secret devotion ? What ! tired of God ? weary of communion with him ? How sad the state of such a soul !
2. Do you Pray in your Family t
There are families that call not on the nam^ of the Lord. Nor is it a new thing. There were such so long ago as when Jeremiah lived. He t=^es no- tice of them. He has a prayer about them It seems he was divinely inspired to call down the indigna- tion of the Lord upon such families. * Pou* out thy fury," he says, " upon the families that <all not on thy name." I would not like to have r-en a mem- ber of one of those families^, and much-ess the head of one of them. It must have been v<7 offensive to the Lord that there were families * which he was not acknowledged and worships And if there were such families among the ^atnen nations that offended him, how much moJ must *l have *&■ 2
14 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
pleased him that there should be such families even among- his people Israel ! families that did not in the family capacity invoke him ! I do not know why it should be less offensive now. I do not be- lieve it is. Families are now under as great obliga- tions to God as ever they were.
Some persons ask why we insist on family prayer as a duty. They say we cannot produce any precept enjoining it. That is true enough. But I wonder if that is not a duty, the omission of which is the sub- ject of prophetic denunciation. I wonder if that is not by implication commanded, the neglect of which brings down the wrath of God on those guilty of the neglect. There are some things so manifestly reasonable, and of such self-evident obligation, that they need no law expressly enjoining them. It is not necessary that they should be taught in so many words.
But if ve have no express precept on the subject, we have pretty good examples in favor of it. I sus- pect Afcaham, who was so careful to instruct his householl in the way of the Lord, did not neglect to pray wih them. And David, I am quite confi- dent, prayed;n his family. It is said of him on one occasion, that < he returned to bless his household." No doubt therevere h0th prayer and praise in that family. Certainl j0SjIVj(l must have prayed in his house. How othe.vise could he have fuifiued his resolution that his ^use as well as himself should
\ \
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 15
serve the Lord 1 What ! resolve that his house should serve the Lord, and not join with them in supplication for the grace to serve him ! That is not at all likely.
Now I would ask if it is not proper and right that every head of a family should adopt the resolution of him who said, " as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord ?" But can there be religion in a house without prayer % Is there not inconsistency in saying, " I and my family will serve God, but we will have no family altar nor offering ?" Is not prayer an essential part of the service of God ? I wonder if any one ever lived who supposed that family prayer was not more pleasing to God than the omission of it. I wonder if any one ever omitted it for fear of being guilty of will- worship, or through dread that it might for some reason offend God 1 I wonder if the practice of family prayer ever distressed any con- science. The omission of it has troubled many.
It is admitted, I believe, to be the will of God that we should pray to him socially. The Lord's prayer was constructed for social use. The disciples were directed to use it when they should pray together ; and it is accordingly in the plural number : not my Father, but " our Father." Now, is God to be so- cially worshiped, and yet not worshiped in that first, most permanent, and most interesting form of society — the form of society instituted by God him- self— the family ? Is that to be believed ? But the
16 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
Lord's prayer seems not only intended for social, but for daily use. " Give us this day our daily bread" is one of its petitions. It does not contemplate the morrow. It asks supplies but for one day. Now if, as it appears from this reasoning, social prayer should be daily, where but in the family, the society which is abiding, and which a single roof covers, can it with propriety be daily? Should there be public re- ligious services daily, or daily prayer-meetings for this purpose ? Then, how suitable it is that those who together share their daily bread, should together daily ask it.
How reasonable and comely is household reli- gion— family worship ! Common blessings, such as families daily share, call for common thanksgivings. Common wants, such as families together feel, call for common supplications. Is it not fit that families, in retiring to rest at night, should together commit themselves to the divine keeping; and in the morn- ing unite in praising the Lord for having been their protector? It is a clear case, it seems to me. Besides, fathers are directed to bring up their children " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." But can they do this while they pray not with them and for them ? I do not know how we are to comply with the apostolical exhortation to pray " every where," unless we pray in the family, as well as under other circumstances.
Is any one in doubt whether the practice or omis-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 17
«rion of family prayer will be the more pleasing sub- ject of retrospect from the dying bed, or the eternal world? Parents should not forget, that presently will come the long deferred and greatly dreaded season cf taking the last look, and the last leave of those whom their decease is to make orphans. O then, what a sweet thought it will be to enter into the dying meditation, that they have been in the daily habit of bowing down with their children in prayer, and commending them to the care and grace of their heavenly Father, and that they may now indulge the confident hope that he will infinitely more than supply the paternal place which they are to leave vacant.
But what need of more argument ? I suspect every body secretly admits the obligation of family prayer. I judge so from the trouble many are at to apologize for the neglect. It tries them not a little to satisfy even themselves with an excuse. The usual plea is inability. They have not the gift, they say. What gift ? Can they not collect their family together night and morning ? Have they not so much authority in their own house as that? And then can they not read a portion of Scripture to them ; and kneeling down, express their common desires to God. If they cannot frame a prayer at the moment, yet can they not use a form ? It requires no great gift to read a prayer in an audible voice. But what if it be hard at first, it will soon be easy, if persevered in. The 2*
18 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
beginning of almost every good habit is difficult. The most of those who make this apology, presume on their inability. They say they cannot before they have tried. But until they have tried, they do not know whether they can or not. What if some have tried once and failed. One failure should not dis- hearten them, nor two, nor even twenty. Demos- thenes tried speaking many times before he became an orator. Besides, how do those who presume on their inability to conduct family worship, know what assistance they might receive from God, if they were to make an humble and faithful experiment.
If any one shall condescend to read this, who does not pray in his family, I advise him to commence immediately. He knows that he will never be sorry for it, if he does ; but he is not so sure that he may not be sorry for it if he does not. If there were no other reason in favor of the practice, this alone would be sufficient. I think it is Jay who says that a fa- mily without prayer is like a house without a roof — it has no protection. Who would like to live in such a house?
3. I must Pray more.
I habitually feel this necessity, but the other day the conviction came to my mind with strange power,
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 19
and I said with greater emphasis than ever, J must fray more. It struck me with indescribable wonder that so little time should be employed, and so little energy expended in prayer, even by those who are prompt to acknowledge its dignity as a privilege, and its efficacy as a means of obtaining good. It is not now as it was in patriarchal times. We do not pray as Jacob did. He wrestled until the breaking of the day. Yes, his praying was wrestling, and it lasted all night. We put forth no such power in prayer, and we do not allow the repose of our nights to be inter- rupted by it. It is not because our wants are all sup- plied that we are so feeble and brief in prayer — nor is it that God's bounty is exhausted. We are as poor as creatures ever were, and He as rich and mu- nificent as ever. His hand is not shortened, neither his ear heavy.
Only think how small a portion of each succes- sive day is spent in prayer. I wonder if any Chris- tian ever thought of it without being so dissatisfied as to resolve that he would spend more time in pray- er the next day. Just add together the minutes you daily occupy in supplication, and the kindred exer- cises of devotion, scriptural reading and meditation, and see to what it will amount. Will the sum total be one hour ? What ! less than an hour a day in de- votion ? — not one twenty-fourth part of time ! And is this all which can be afforded ? Let us see. How much time has business ? Could not a little be saved
20 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
from business for prayer ? Do you not give an hour or two more to business every day than it absolutely requires ? Then how much time has sleep for the re- freshment of the body ? Might not some little time be redeemed from sleep and spent in prayer, with more profit to the whole man than if it were given to repose ? Would not the soul thereby obtain a rest, which would most favorably react on the body ? I do not believe that the Psalmist suffered any thing in the day for the hours of night he spent in com- muning on his bed with his own heart and with God. I do not believe that even " tired nature " had any reason to complain of that interruption of the repose due to her. I suspect he enjoyed as good health, and was as vigorous through the day as we, though he rose at midnight to give thanks unto God, and prevented the dawning of the morning with his pray- er. Such interruptions of sleep are no loss even to the body. I am sure, and I think no one can doubt, that considerably more time might be afforded for prayer than is actually given to it. If we take none from business and none from sleep, yet could not some be spared from the table, or conversation, which is not always the most profitable? Perhaps some of us spend more time in barely receiving the body's nourishment, than we do in the entire care of the soul ! But not to dwell to tediousness on this topic. You have only to look back on a day, to perceive how much of it might have been spent in prayer and
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 21
devotion without interfering with any thing which ought not to be interfered with.
Seeing then that we can pray more — that time can be afforded for it, I am amazed that we do not pray more. If prayer was nothing but a duty, we ought to pray more. We do not pray enough to dis- charge the mere obligation of prayer. We are com- manded to pray more than we do, aye, to pray " with- out ceasing." But prayer, while it is a duty, is ra- ther to be viewed by us in the light of a privilege. And O it is such a privilege ! What a favor that we may petition God and ask of him eternal life, with the confidence that we shall not ask in vain ! How strange it is that we no more value and exercise this ■privilege of prayer ! It is astonishing that the sense of want, or the desire of happiness, does not carry us oftener to the throne of grace, and that we should ever require to be incited to prayer by the stimulus of conscience. Oh ! I wonder that we do not often- er go in unto the King, whose gracious sceptre is ever extended towards us — I wonder we have not more frequent and longer interviews with our hea- venly Father. It is strange we do not pray more, when prayer is the easiest way of obtaining good. What is so easy as to ask for what we want ? How could we receive blessings on cheaper terms ? Sure- ly it is easier than to labor, and less expensive than to buy. It may be hard to the spirit to ask of men. To beg of them you may be ashamed. But no such
22 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
feeling should keep you aloof from God. He giveth and upbraideth not.
But prayer is not merely the easiest way of obtain- ing good. It is the only Avay of obtaining the great- est of all good. The subordinate necessaries of life we get by labor or purchase ; but the things we most need are given in answer to prayer. The one thing needful is a divine donation. We ask, and receive it. Now we labor much. Why do we not pray more ? Do we seek a profitable employment ? None is so profitable as prayer. No labor makes so large a re- turn. If you have an unoccupied hour — and you have many, or might have — by redeeming time, you cannot employ it in any way that shall tell so favorably on your interests as by filling it up with petitions to God. ' Yet when we have such an hour, how apt we are to spend it in unprofitable intercourse with our fellows, rather than in communion with God. It is wonderful that we talk so much, when " the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury," and pray so little, when prayer "brings a quick return of blessings in variety."
Is there any thing attended by a purer pleasure than prayer ? One who knew, said, " It is good for me to draw near to God " — and again, " It is good to sing praises unto our God : for it is pleasant, and praise is comely." All the exercises of devotion are as full of pleasure as they are abundant in profit. But prayer is not only a means of getting good.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 23
It is such a means of doi?ig good, that I wonder our benevolence does not lead us to pray more. We are commanded, " as we have opportunity," to do good unto all men. Now prayer affords us the opportu- nity of being universal benefactors. Through God we can reach all men. We can make ourselves felt by all the world, by moving the hand that moves it. In no other way can we reach all. Prayer makes us, in a sense, omnipresent and omnipotent. It pre- vails with Him who is both.
The ivorld needs your intercessions. It lies in wickedness. Zion needs them. She languishes be- cause few pray for her peace ; few come to her so- lemn assemblies. Whose family needs not the pray- ers of its every member ? Who has not kindred that are out of Christ % With such a call upon us for prayer so urgent, and from so many quarters, I won- der we pray no more.
I must pray more, for then I shall do more — more for God, and more for myself; for I find that when I pray most, I accomplish more in the briefer intervals between my devotions, than when I give all my time to labor or study. I am convinced there is nothing lost by prayer. I am sure nothing helps a student like prayer. His most felicitous hours — his hours of most successful application to study, are those which immediately follow his seasons of most fer- vent devotion. And no wonder. Shall the collision of created minds with each other produce in them a
24 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
salutary excitement, and shall not the communion of those minds with the infinite Intelligence much more excite them, and make them capable of wider thought and loftier conceptions 1
I must pray more, because other Christians, whose biography I have read, have prayed more than I do.
God is disposed to hear more prayers from me than I offer ; and Jesus, the Mediator, stands ready to present more for me.
If I pray more, I shall sin less.
I will pray more. The Lord help to fulfill this resolution.
4. I must Pray differently.
Some time ago I felt strongly the necessity of praying more, and I expressed that impression in an article entitled, " I must pray more." Now I feel that I must not only pray more, but differently ; and that my praying more will not answer any good purpose, unless I also pray differently. I find that quality is to be considered in praying as well as quantity ; and, indeed, the former more than the latter. We learn from Isaiah, chapter 1, that it is possible to make many prayers, or to multiply prayer, as it is in the margin, and yet not be heard. The Scribes
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 25
and Pharisees made long prayers ; but their much praying availed them nothing, while the single short petition of the publican was effectual to change his entire prospects for eternity. It was because it was prayer of the right kind. It is a great error to sup- pose that we shall be heard for our much speaking. Let me, however, say, that while length is not by it- self any recommendation of prayer, yet we have the highest and best authority for continuing a long time in prayer. We know who it was that, " rising up a great while before day," departed into a solitary place, and there prayed ; and of whom it is recorded in an- other place, that he " continued all night in prayer to God." Certainly they should spend a great deal of time in prayer, who are instructed to " pray with- out ceasing." It is in the social and public worship of God that long prayers are out of place.
But to return from this digression. I must pray differently; and I will tell you one thing which has led me to think so. I find that I do not pray effec- tually. It may be the experience of others, as a eil as of myself. I do not obtain what I ask ; and that though I ask for the right sort of things. If I asked for temporal good, and did not receive it, I should know how to account for it. I should conclude that I was denied in mercy ; and that my prayer, though not answered in kind, was answered in better kind. But I pray for spiritual blessing — for what is inhe- rently and under all circumstances good, and do not
26 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
obtain it. How is this ? There is no fault in the hearer of prayer — no unfaithfulness in God. The fault must be in the offerer. I do not pray right. And since there is no use in asking without obtain- ing, the conclusion is that I must pray differently.
I find, moreover, that I do not pray as they did in old time, whose prayers Avere so signally answered. When I compare my prayers with those of the Pa- triarchs, especially with that of Jacob — and with the prayers of the prophets, those, for instance, of Eli- jah and Daniel ; when I compare my manner of making suit to the Savior, with the appeals made to him by the blind men, and by the woman of Canaan ; and above all, when I lay my prayers along side of His, who " offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears," I perceive such a dissimi- larity, that I thence conclude I must pray differently.
I find also that I do not urge my suits to God as I do those which I have sometimes occasion to make to men. I am wiser as a child of this world, than I am as one of the children of light. When I want to carry a point with a human power, I find that I take more pains, and am more intent upon it, and use greater vigilance and effort, than when I want to gain something of God. It is clear, then, that I must alter and reform my prayers. I must pray differently.
But in what respects 1 How differently ?
1. I must not speak to God at a distance. I must draw near to him. Nor that alone. I must stir my-
PRACTICAL THOUGHT?!. 27
self up to take hold of him. Isaiah, 64 : 7. Yea, I must take hold of his strength, that I may make peace with him. Isaiah, 27 : 5. I have been satisfied with approaching God. I must, as it were, appre~ hend him.
2. I must not only take hold of God in prayer, but 1 must hold fast to him, and not let him go, ex- cept he bless me. So Jacob did. There were two important ingredients in his prayer — faith and per- severance. By the one he took hold of God ; by the other he held fast to him till the blessing was obtained.
3. I must be more affected by the subjects about which I pray. I must join tears to my prayers. Prayers and tears used to go together much more than they do now. Hosea says that Jacob " wept and made supplication." Hannah wept while she prayed. So did Nehemiah, and David, and Heze- kiah ; and God, in granting the request of the last mentioned, uses this language : " I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears." But a greater than all these is here. Jesus offered up prayers " with strong crying and tears." Some think it unmanly to weep. I do not know how that may be ; but I know it is not unchristian. It is thought by some, that men must have been more addicted to tears then than they are now ; but it is my opinion that they felt more, and that is the reason they wept more.
Now I must feel so as to weep; not by constraint,
28 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
but in spite of myself. I must be so affected, that God shall see my tears as well as hear my voice ; and in order to being- so affected, I must meditate. It was while David mused that the fire burned ; and then he spake with his tongue in the language of prayer. And we know that which melted his heart affected his eye, for in the same Psalm, the 39th, he says, ;' Hold not thy peace at my tears."
4. There are other accompaniments of prayer which I must not omit. Nehemiah not only wept and prayed, but also mourned, and fasted, and made confession. Why should not I do the same?
5. I must plead as well as pray. My prayers must be more of the nature of arguments — and I must make greater use than I have ever done of certain pleas. There is one derived from the character of God. " For thy name's sake pardon mine iniquity. Have mercy on me according to thy loving kind- ness" Another is derived from the promises of God. " Hath he said, and shall he not do it; or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" Another is drawn from the past doings of God. " I will re- member the years of the right hand of the Most High. I will remember the works of the Lord ; surely I will remember thy wonders of old." I must also plead Christ more in my prayers. The argument is drawn out to our hands by Paul : " He that spared not his own Son .... how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 29
6. But again : I must cry unto the Lord, Cry- ing expresses more than praying. It expresses earn est, fervent prayer. This is what they all used to do. They cried to God. The Psalmist says : " I cried with my whole heart." I must cry with my whole heart — yea mightily, as even the Ninevites did, else those heathen will rise up in the judgment and con- demn me.
7. I must seek the Lord in prayer, feeling as did Job, when he said, " O, that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his seat !" And this I must do, as Judah is once said to have done, with my " whole desire." Yea, I must search for him with all my heart. I must even four out my heart before him, as the Psalmist, on one occasion, exhorts. I must " keep not silence, and give him no rest," as Isaiah directs ; " night and day praying exceedingly" as Paul says he did.
8. And I must pray in the Holy Ghost, as Jude exhorts. We need the Spirit to help our infirmi- ties, and to make intercession for us. Nor should we be satisfied with any prayer in which we have not seemed to have his help.
Finally, I must alter and alter my prayers, till I get them right ; and I must not think them right un- til I obtain the spiritual blessings which they ask. If I pray for more grace, and do not get it, I must pray differently for it, till I do obtain it.
Oh, if Christians prayed differently, as well as 3*
30 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
more, what heavenly places our closets would be ! What interesting meetings prayer-meetings would be ! What revivals of religion we should have ! how frequent, numerous, and pure ! What a multitude of souls would be converted ! What joyful tidings we should hear from our Missionary stations, and from the heathen world ! Oh, what times we should have ! The Millennium would be on us before we knew it.
And because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the offering of a different kind of prayer for the Spi- rit, would do more to put down error than all other means which can be resorted to. The preachers of truth cannot put it down without the aid of the Spi- rit of truth.
Let us then pray differently. Let us at least try. I am sure it is worth the effort. Let every one who reads this resolve, " I will pray differently."
5. Why Prayer is not heard.
There are some who are not at all interested in this inquiry. They offer no prayer. There is in their case nothing to be heard. They are content with the things which are to be had without asking. Such are in a bad way, and I suspect they t ome-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 31
times themselves think so. That dependent crea- tures should habitually and devoutly acknowledge their dependence before God ; and that needy crea- tures, whose necessities return every day, and in- deed recur with every moment, should ask God to supply them, is too reasonable a thing for men to neg- lect it, and yet be at perfect peace with themselves. But to pass from those who never make the expe- riment of prayer, we observe that some pray with- out any expectation or care to be heard. To obtain is not their object. Their end is accomplished in ask- ing. They hear and judge that prayer is a duty owed to God. They therefore pray, that they may dis- charge this duty ; and having prayed, and so done their duty, they are satisfied. Of course such per- sons obtain nothing. Why should they 1 If a child of yours should come and ask you for any thing from a mere sense of duty, you would say, " Very well, you have done your duty, go;" but you would not give him the thing. He did not ask it with any wish to get it. He does not feel his want of it. He meant only to do his duty in asking. It makes very little difference with such what is the matter of their prayer — what petitions they offer. Any thing that is of the nature of supplication will do. It is true, they generally pray for the right things, because the prayers they have heard and read petitioned for such, and they fall naturally into that style of prayer. Ask such persons if their prayers are heard, and you
32 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
astonish them. That is what they never looked for. They never asked any thing with the hope of re- ceiving it — never prayed from a sense of want. I have sometimes thought, how many would never pray, if prayer was not a duty. They never pray except when urged to it by conscience. As a privilege, they set no value on it. Now the truth is, when a man is really engaged in prayer, he altogether forgets that it is a duty. He feels that he wants something which God alone can give, and therefore goes and asks it ; and feeling that he wants it very much, he is in earnest, asks and asks again, and waits and pleads for it, till he gets it. Does any one suppose that the publican smote on his breast, and cried, " God be merciful to me a sinner," from a sense of duty, and not rather from a conviction of sin, and a deep feel- ing of his need of mercy ? And yet how many ask for mercy from a mere sense of duty. They have their reward, but they do not obtain mercy.
Some prayers proceed from a conviction of want, while there is no sense of want. The persons judge that they need the things they ask for, but they do not feel their need of them. Now, prayers, which come from no deeper source than the understanding, are not heard. They must come from the heart. True prayer always originates in the heart. It is the heart's sincere desire. Or, as another has well described it, " It is a sense of want, seeking relief from God."
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 33
But there may be a sense of want, and yet no real desire for that which is adapted to the supply of the want. .In that case the prayer, not being sustained by a corresponding desire in the heart, is not heard. There is a conflict here. The lips pray one thing and the heart another. The request is perhaps to be delivered from all sin, but the desire is to be de- livered from all but one or two favorite sins. Now it would be strange if God should grant a man's re- quest to the disregard of his desire — that he should attend to the lips rather than the heart, and answer the prayer according to its terms rather than its meaning.
But sometimes the desire for the thing requested is real, while the mischief is, it is not paramount — it is not supreme. This is a common case. The prayer expresses what is desired, but not what is desired on the whole. Many really wish to be reli- gious, and they pray that they may be so, but they do not on the whole desire it. They have a strange wish to be something else which is incompatible with their being religious. Again, some sincerely desire the progress of the Gospel, and pray, " thy kingdom come," but they desire still more to take their ease, or to keep their money. Perhaps some of this description attend the Monthly Concert. But desire may be sincere and supreme, and yet not in- tense. Effectual prayer is the expression of intense desire. The examples of successful prayer recorded
34 PRACTICAL THOTTGHTR.
in the Bible evince this. The woman of Canaan sin- cerely, supremely, and intensely desired what she asked. Such was the character of Jacob's desire for a blessing, and of the publican's for mercy. Where the desire of spiritual blessings is not very strong, it shows that these blessings are not suitably estimated. A great deal depends on having a petition pro- perly presented. It is all-important to get it into the right hands. A petition frequently fails through in- attention to this. If the proper person had been en- gaged to present and urge it, it would have been granted. This holds true of suits to the throne of the heavenly grace. We must ask in the name of Christ. We must put our petitions into his hands, and engage the great Advocate to present and urge them. Him the Father always hears. Even the prayers of the saints need an incense to be offered along with them to render them acceptable. That incense is Christ's intercession.
To present a petition is one thing. To prosecute a suit is another. Most prayer answers to the former. But successful prayer corresponds to the latter. The children of this world are in this respect wise in their generation. When they have a petition to car- ry, they go with it to the seat of government, and having conveyed it by the proper channel to the power which is to decide upon it, they anxiously await the decision, in the meantime securing all the influence they can, and doing every thing possible
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 35
to ensure a favorable result. So should the children of light do. But frequently they just lodge their pe- tition in the court of heaven, and there they let it lie. They do not press their suit. They do not employ other means of furthering it, beyond the simple pre- senting of it. They do not await the decision on it. The whole of prayer does not consist in taking hold of God. The main matter is holding on. How many are induced, by the slightest appearance of repulse, to let go, as Jacob did not ! I have been struck with the manner in which petitions are usually conclud- ed: "And your petitioners will ever frayP So " men ought always to pray, (to God,) and never faint." Payson says : " The promise of God is not to the act, but to the habit o( prayer."
Sometimes prayer is not heard, because not offered in faith, " He that cometh to God, must believe." Yea, he must "ask in faith, nothing wavering." Sometimes it is for want of a concomitant submission to the will of God. He who said, " let this cup pass from me," added, " nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." Often prayer fails because the direction to pray every where is neglected. The petition pro- ceeds from the closet, but is not also offered in the fa- mily, in the social meeting, and in the solemn assem- bly. Sometimes a specific direction is given concern- ing something to be done in connection with prayer, which being neglected, the prayer by itself is una- vailing. Thus, in order that we may not enter into
36 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
temptation, we are commanded to " watch and pray." Vain is prayer to secure against temptation, if vigi- lance be omitted. Prayer is sometimes ineffectual, because too general. When we ask many things, it commonly indicates that we are not in earnest for any thing. The heart is incapable of being at the same time the subject of many intense desires. The memorials of the children of this world are specific. They are rarely encumbered with more than one petition. Does any one suppose that when prayer was made of the church for Peter, being in prison, they prayed for every body and every thing first, and only brought in Peter's case at the close?
Petitions have usually numerous signatures. So should there be union in prayer among Christians. Social supplication has particular value in the esti- mation of God. Special promises are made to it. Need I say that alloiced sin vitiates prayer ? " If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me."
There is a regard to the promises which ought to be had in prayer. Moreover, confession of t in out of a broken heart, and gratitude for good received, should accompany it. And there is a " praying in the Holy Ghost," which we should aim to under- stand and realize.
At an earlier stage of these remarks I might have observed that some prayer is not heard, because it is said rather than prayed. Now, prayer ought to be
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 37
prayed. The closet is not the place for recitation. What more common than this expression : " I must say my prayers?" Must you indeed? Is this the way you speak of it ? Is it a task to which you are going- reluctantly to apply yourself? and say your prayers too 1 How this contrasts with the cheerful purpose of the Psalmist, " My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord ; in the morning will I di- rect my prayer unto thee, and will look up."
Perhaps one brings his gift to the altar, and for- gets that his brother has aught again:-* him ; or re- membering it, does not go first and seek reconcilia- tion with him, but proceeds to offer his gift, and that is the reason it is not accepted.
Many a Christian hinders his prayer by indulg- ing in that species of unbelief, which surmises that what he asks is too great a thing for God to bestow on one so unworthy as he is. He forgets that the greatest, aye the greatest gift, has already been con- ferred in God's own Son, and the foundation therein laid for the argument, " how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" God, having begun his bounty in such a style of magnificence, consist- ency requires him now to go on, and do the greatest possible thing for the recipients of his Son.
38 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
6. I must Praise more.
The title of a recent article was, " I must pray more ;" and in it I expressed wonder that we pray- so little, and gave reasons why we should pray more. But it strikes me that we ought to praise more as well as pray more. I do not know how it is with others, but I know that I have a great deal for which to be thankful and to praise God. I feel that it will not do for me to spend all my breath in pray- er. I should thus, it is true, acknowledge my de- pendence on God ; but where would be the acknow- ledgment of his benefits conferred upon me ? I must spend a part of my breath in praise. O ! to be ani- mated from above with that life, whose alternate breath is prayer and praise ! God has been very good to me. Yes, he has exercised goodness towards me in all its various forms of pity, forbearance, care, bounty, grace and mercy ; or to express all in one word, " God is love," and he has been lcve to me. I do not know why he should have treated me so kindly. I have sought, but can find no reason out of himself. I conclude it is because he " delighteth in mercy." His nature being love, it is natural for him to love his creatures, and especially those whom he has called to be his children. O ! the goodness of God ! The thought of it sometimes comes over me with very great power, and I am overwhelmed in admiration. Nothing so easily breaks up the foun-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 39
tain of tears within me. Those drops, if I may judge from my own experience, were intended as much to express gratitude as grief. I think I shall be able, without weariness, to spend eternity on the topic of divine love and goodness.
Reader, can you not adopt my language as your own ? Has not God been the same to you ? And shall we not praise him ? Shall all our devotion consist in prayer 1 Shall we be always thinking of our wants, and never of his benefits — always dwelling on what remains to be done, and never thinking of what has already been done for us — always uttering desire, and never expressing gratitude — expending all our voice in supplication, and none of it in song? Is this the way to treat a benefactor % No, indeed. It is not just so to treat him ; neither is it loise. It is very bad policy to praise no more than Christians in general do. They would have much more success in pray- er, if one-half the time they now spend in it were spent in praise. I do not mean that they pray too much, but that they praise too little. I suspect the reason why the Lord did such great things for the Psalmist was, that, while he was not by any means deficient in prayer, he abounded in praise. The Lord heard his psalms, and while he sung of mercy shown, showed him more. And it would be just so with us, if we abounded more in praise and thanks- giving. It displeases God that we should be always dwelling on our wants, as if he had never supplied
40 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
one of them. How do we know that God is not waiting for us to praise him for a benefit he has al- ready conferred, before he will confer on us that other which we may be now so earnestly desiring of him 1 It is wonderful how much more prone we are to for- get the benefit received, than the benefit wanted — in other words, how much more inclined we are to of- fer prayer than praise. For one who offers genuine praise, there may be found ten that pray. Ten lepers lifted up their voices together in the prayer, " Jesus, Master, have mercy on us," but only one of the ten "returned to give glory to God." The rest were sa- tisfied with the benefit — this one only thought grate- fully of the benefactor. His gratitude obtained for him, I doubt not, a greater blessing than ever his prayer had procured ; and praise has often, I believe, in the experience of the people of God, been found more effectual for obtaining blessings than prayer. A person, being once cast upon a desolate island, spent a day in fasting and prayer for his deliverance, but no help came. It occurred to him then to keep a day of thanksgiving and praise, and he had no sooner done it than relief was brought to him. You see, as soon as he began to sing of mercy exercised, the exercise of mercy was renewed to him. The Lord heard the voice of his praise.
Christian reader, you complain perhaps that your prajrer is not heard ; suppose you try the efficacy of praise. Peradventure you will find that the way to
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 41
obtain new favors is to praise the Lord for favors re- ceived. Perhaps, if you consider his goodness, he will consider your wants. It may be you are a pa- rent, and one child is converted, but there is another concerning whom you say, " O that he might live before Thee !" Go now and bless the Lord for the conversion of 'the first, and it is very likely he will give thee occasion shortly to keep another day of thanksgiving for the salvation of the other. Some of us are sick. Perhaps it is because we did not praise the Lord for health. We forget that benefit. We do not forget our sickness. O no. Nor is there any lack of desire in us to get well. We pray for recovery. And so we should ; but it strikes me that we might get well sooner were we to dwell with less grief and despondency on our loss of health, and, to contemplate with cheerful and grateful admiration what God has done for our souls — the great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins ; and how he spared not his own Son, that he might spare us ; and gives us now his Spirit, to be in us the earnest of heaven, our eternal home. If we were to think such thoughts, to the forgetfulness of our bodily aliments, I judge it would be better for the whole man, body and soul both, than any other course we can pursue. If the affliction should still continue, we should count it light, aye, should re- joice in it, because it is his will, and because he says he means to make it work our good. 4*
42 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
There is nothing glorifies God like praise. " Who- so offereth praise, glorifieth me." Ps. 1 : 23. Prayer expresses dependence and desire ; but praise admi- ration and gratitude. By it men testify and tell all abroad that God is good, and thus others are persuad- ed to " taste and see that the Lord is good." Praise is altogether the superior exercise of the two. Pray- er may be purely selfish in its origin, but praise is in- genuous. Praise is the employment of heaven. An- gels praise. The spirits of the just made perfect praise. We shall not always pray, but we shall ever praise. Let us anticipate the employment of heaven. Let us exercise ourselves unto praise. Let us learn the song now, " O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness." But above all, " let the saints be joyful in glory : let them sing aloud upon their beds." I charge thee, my soul, to praise him, and he will never let thee want matter for praise. " While I live will I praise the Lord: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being."
7. Do you remember Christ?
I know you cannot help thinking of Christ some- times. His story is too extraordinary to be heard once and never again remembered. There is also
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 43
much which we daily see and hear to remind us of him. Doubtless you often involuntarily remember him ; but do you voluntarily, and of choice, remem- ber him ? Do you ever, by an exercise of volition, recall the memory of him ? He is sometimes in- truded into the society of your thoughts, but do you ever invite him there ? Do you ever say, " Come now, let me think of Christ ?" I doubt not you do this also. You voluntarily remember — you call to mind his incarnation, his miracles of mercy, his doctrine, his example, his resurrection ; but do you particularly remember his death ? His death was the main circumstance in his history. Do your thoughts, passing from the manger along the track of his sorrowful story, fasten on the cross ?
May I ask, moreover, with what you remember him ? Whether it is a mere intellectual operation, or one in which the heart is conjoined ? There are recollections which pass across the mind without ever stirring the most easily excited emotions of the heart. Is your recollection of Christ of this kind ? or do you feel while you think of him? Do your affections move in the line of your thoughts, and collect about the same centre? Jesus ought to be remembered with the heart. We should feel when we think of him. You say, perhaps, " I do not only mentally, but cordially remember Christ." But do you remember him practically ? Do you do any thing in remembrance of him ? It is customary not
44 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
only to remember, but to commemorate great bene- factors ; and that not merely by speaking of their benevolent exploits, but by some appropriate acts. Do you this with respect to Christ, that greatest, best of benefactors ?
Perhaps you answer : " I do many things out of regard to the memory of Christ. His precepts ge- nerally I endeavor to obey." That is all very well ; but do you that which he appointed, or requested to be done in remembrance of him, on that " same night in which he was betrayed V Some do not. Even some who profess respect, and indeed love for Christ, do not ! It is strange, but so it is. They remember Christ in their own way, but not in his way. They do some things in remembrance of him, but not that which he said " doP I wonder they do not adopt his way. I cannot help suspecting their love when I see they do not. It always appeared to me that such a benefactor as Christ ought to be remembered in his own way — that he deserved to have the privilege of saying how he would be remembered ; and that sin- ners, whom he died to save, should remember him in that way, even though it should not seem to them the most appropriate and reasonable manner of com- memorating him. I do not know how it strikes others, but so it always struck me ; and I confess I take the bread and eat it, and I put the cup V) my lips, primarily, because he said, " Do this."
The question about the usefulness of visible me-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 45
morials, and the suitableness of these memorials, I am content that he should settle. I know very well that if there be no natural adaptation in these me- morials to do me good, he can connect a blessing with them. It is my part to obey him. It is enough for me that my Savior inclined to this mode of be- ing remembered, and expressed such a wish : the least I can do is to comply with it. He did not ex- press a great many wishes. It is an easy yoke he- calls us to take — a light burden to bear. I cannot help regarding it as unkind, that this one wish of Je- sus should not be complied with; and especially when I consider what a friend he was — what a benefactor ! I use the word benefactor — but those who are ac- quainted with the etymology of the word, know it does not express all that Christ was. It implies do- ing out of good will to others ; but his benevolence was not satisfied with benefaction : he suffered — he died for others. Strong as death — stronger was his love ! And consider, too, the circumstances under which this wish was expressed — when it was, and where. All his wishes, I think, should be complied with ; but this was his last. He was going to suf- fer— he was to die in a few hours : and such a death too ! and for them of whom he made the request, that they might die never. And the request was touching his death. He desired it might be com- memorated as he signified. Oh, to think that such a wish should not be complied with — the tender re-
4G PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
quest of the dying Redeemer not regarded ! Who would have believed it? I wonder those words, " broken for you," do not break the heart of every one who refuses.
Men treat no other being so. Out of their own mouths I will judge them. They know the sacred regard they pay to last wishes and dying injunctions ; and that, though they are under no particular obli- gations to the persons expressing them, and though the things desired be often unreasonable, yet, be- cause they are last wishes — dying requests, the in- dividuals expressing them being about to make the awful transition to eternity, how solemnly they charge the memory with them ! how punctiliously they comply with them ! We feel as if persons in such circumstances had a right to command us. I never knew one such request, if it was practicable, and at all reasonable, that was not complied with. I ought to say, I never knew but one. The last request of Jesus Christ — his last solemn injunction on those whom he bled to save, forms the solitary exception!- Oh, it is too bad ! It were a neglect unpardonable, but for the mediation of the very being who is the object of it. Nothing but his blood can cleanse from the sin of putting away from us the offered emblem of it. I know not how to make any apology for it. Jesus pleaded for his murderers, that they knew not what they did. But those who disregard his dying injunction, know what they do.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 47
Excuses, it is true, they make ; but to what do they amount ? Can any doubt that Christ said, u Do this ?" Can any doubt that he meant it to be done by all who believe on him 1 What reason can be imagined why one redeemed sinner should partake of the emblems of the body and blood of Christ, which does not equally apply to every redeemed sinner 1 Should not as many as the body was broken and the blood shed for, partake of the memorials of that transaction % What propriety is there in limiting the command. " Do this," and not the declaration, " This is my body broken for you ?" If we put it on the ground of right to command, questions any one the right of Christ to issue mandates ? What duty plainer — more peremptory ? Do some pay respect to this, who do not obey other commands of Christ ? What if it be so ? Is that a reason why you should add another to your acts of disobedience %
Do you refrain because it is a solemn transaction ? Far more solemn are death, judgment, and eternity, from which, nevertheless, you cannot refrain. Do you feel yourself to be too unworthy 1 But will this neglect make you less unworthy? A sense of un- worthiness is a grand part of the qualification. Are you afraid of sinning, should you in this way remem- ber Christ ? But you are certain of sinning by not remembering him. Say you, " I cannot trust my- self?" But can you not trust Christ? If there is danger that you will prove faithless, yet is there any
48 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
danger that he will 1 It is because you are not to be trusted, that you should trust him who is able to keep that which is committed to him. If you trust him for strength, you are as sure of- being supplied as of being pardoned, if you trust him for that. Why should not you remember Christ \ He remem- bers you — yes, practically remembers you ; nor one thing merely does in remembrance of you, but many. What if he should make excuses for not remember- ing you ?
But perhaps you will cut short the interview by saying, " I am now quite unprepared for this act ; hereafter I mean to attend to it." Be it known to you, then, that there are greater things for which you are unprepared, and they are things which you cannot evade or defer, as you can this ; and as to that hereafter on which you count, who art thou that boastest of to-morrow ?
8. I don't like Professions.
This is the reason which many give for not ac- knowledging Christ. They say, when urged upon the point, that they " don't like professions." A strange reason this for not obeying the express command of the Divine Savior ! What if they do not like pro-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 49
fcssions, do they equally dislike obeying commands? If so, they had better say, " I don't like obedience to the commands of God." But they profess to be well disposed to obey: it is only to professing that they object. Well, then, let them obey all the pre- cepts Avhich they find in the Bible, and we will not trouble them about a profession. Why should we? In that case they will obey the precept which enjoins a profession ; they will do the thing appointed in re- membrance of Christ.
But " I don't like professions." And who does like mere professions ? Who ever contended in favor of a man's professing to have what he has not ? Pro- fessions are very different from mere professions. Suppose a person has what he professes to have, what then ? What is the objection to a profession in that case ? I see none. If a man loves the Lord Jesus, I can see no harm in his professing or declaring his attachment to him. It is very natural to declare it. We profess attachment to others — to relatives, friends, benefactors, pastors, civil rulers. Why not to Christ ? How does his being the subject of the profession con- stitute such an objection to it ? Is he the only being to whom we may not profess attachment ?
"Don't like professions?" Why yes, they do. Professions of friendship, of patriotism, and of loyal- ty they like. Why not of religion ? Why should not religion be professed as well as other things ? Are attachment to the Gospel, love to Christ, regard 5
50 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
for the authority of Jehovah, and adherence to his government, the only things never to be professed? I do not see any objection to professions, but I see propriety and utility in them, even if it were optional with us to make them or not. If it were left to our choice, it strikes me, we ought to choose to profess love and obedience to Christ. But suppose it is re- quired, does not that alter the case 1 Will these per- sons say they do not like what God requires % And does he not require a profession 1 His inspired apos- tle twice exhorts Christians to hold fast their pro- fession. Does not that imply that it is made, and ought to be made 1 How is a person to hold on to that of which he has never taken hold ? Is not the public confession of Christ required when it is made a condition of salvation? Rom. 10 : 9, " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Does not divine authority require it, when to the doing of it is made one of the most precious promises in the whole Bible % " Whosoever therefore shall confess me be- fore men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Is not that duty, against the omission of which such a threatening lies as this, " But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven ?" Matt. 10 : 32, 33. It is very plain that God requires professions, though some men do not like them.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 51
"You don't like professions!" Then Joshua, a man that followed the Lord fully, falls under your censure, for he professed the service of God. " As for me and my house," said he, " we will serve the Lord." Are we to think the worse of him for this? Some ask what is the use of a profession. If they will observe what followed Joshua's profession, they will see the use of it. They will see that it brought out all Israel. " We will also serve the Lord," said they, and they entered that day into a covenant to serve him. Nor did their practice belie their profes- sion, for it is recorded that " Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the Elders that overlived Joshua." So much for a profession. It is agreed on all hands that that professing gene- ration, in piety and devotion to God, surpassed any other during the national existence of Israel.
We read in 1 Tim. 2 : 10, of certain things which are said to become " women professing godliness." It would seem from this to be the duty of women to profess godliness. And if of women, of men also, I suppose. What case of real subjection to the Gospel of Christ do we read of, which was not also a case of " professed subjection" to it? Paul, in 2 Cor. 9 : 13, speaks of some who glorified God for the " pro- fessed subjection" of others unto the Gospel of Christ. It appears then that God is glorified by these pro- fessions. And I should presume, from certain pas- sages in the Bible, that he is not glorified when a
52 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
profession is withheld. There were in primitive times some who did not like professions. It is no new thing not to like professions. In John, 12 : 42, 43, we read that " among the chief rulers many be- lieved on him, but" as they did not like professions, " because of the Pharisees they did not confess him — for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." It is no honorable mention which is in- tended to be made of another, of whom it is said that he was " a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews." John, 19 : 38. Fear made him decline a profession for a time ; but at length he came out openly on the side of Christ, and besought Pilate for the body of Jesus.
If they who say they do not like professions, mean that they do not like false, or loud, or ostenta- tious, or barely verbal professions, let them say so, and we will agree with them ; but let them not mean this, and say, without qualification, they " don't like professions."
It is truly strange, because some now, as in apos- tolic times, " profess that they know God, but in works deny him," that others will never profess to know him. Because men have professed friend- ship, and have proved no friends, therefore they will not only not profess friendship, but they will abstain from certain acts and expressions of friendship, be- cause they involve a profession of it ! It is a pity that men who are going to give an account of them- selves to God. should reason and act thus.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 53
Well, they must do as they please ; but of one thing I am sure. The hour is coming-, when, however they may now dislike professions, they will like them. They may not now like to confess Christ before men, but they will then like to have Christ confess them before his Father. They may not like to call him now the beloved of their souls, but they will like to have him call them, on that day, the blessed of his Father.
9. Are you a Sabbath School Teacher?
[ am a little apprehensive that the title of this ar- ticle will be read by some who will give no hearing to the article itself. There are those, who, being pro- fessors of religion, or at least well disposed thereto, are not Sabbath School teachers, and yet strongly suspect sometimes that they ought to be. Such are not fond of reading an enumeration of the reasons why they should engage in this benevolent employ- ment, because these reasons are apt to appear more cogent than their objections to it. After such a pe- rusal, they are very prone to feel as if they ought to take hold of this good work, and not being prepared to do that, it is rather more agreeable to them not to have the feeling that they ought. It is uncomforta- 5*
54 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ble to carry about with one a sense of obligation which he is not disposed to discharge.
But I hope my apprehensions will be disappoint- ed: so I proceed to the article. Are you a Sabbath School teacher 1 If you are, you are engaged in a good work. Yes, it is good, both as acceptable to God, and as profitable to men. It is good in its di- rect operation, and good in its reflex action. It is not merely teaching the young idea how to shoot, but, what is still more important, it is teaching the young and tender affection what to fix upon, and where to entwine itself. Nothing hallows the Sabbath more than the benevolent employment of the Sabbath School teacher. It is more than lawful to do such good on the Sabbath day. It has great reward. Con- tinue to be a Sabbath School teacher. Be not weary in this well-doing. Do not think you have served long enough in the capacity of teacher, until you have served life out, or until there shall be no need of one saying to another, " Know the Lord." What if it be laborious ? It is the labor of love, in the very fatigue of which the soul finds refreshment.
But perhaps you are not a Sabbath School teacher. " No, I am not," methinks I hear one say. " I am not a professor of religion. You cannot expect me to be a teacher." You ought to be both, and your not being the first is but a poor apology for declining to be the other. The neglect of one obligation is a slim excuse for the neglect of another. You seem
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 55
to admit that if you professed religion, it would be your duty to teach in the Sabbath School. Now, whose fault is it that you do not profess religion ? But I see no valid objection to your teaching a class of boys or girls how to read the word of God, though you be not a professor of religion. I cannot think that any person gets harm by thus doing good. Ex- perience has shown that the business of teaching in the Sabbath School is twice blessed — blessing the teacher as well as the taught.
But you are " not good enough," you say. Then you need so much the more the reaction of such an occupation to make you better. The way to get good is to do it. " But I am not a young person." And what if you are not ? You need not be very young in order to be a useful Sabbath School teacher. We don't want mere novices in the Sabbath School. If you are not young, then you have so much more ex- perience to assist you in the work. Do Sabbath School teachers become superannuated so much earlier in life than any other class of benefactors — so much sooner than ministers and parents ? There is a prevailing mistake on this subject.
But you are married, you say. And what if you are 1 Because you have married a wife or a hus- band, is that any reason why you should not come into the Sabbath School ? Many people think that as soon as they are married, they are released from the obligation of assisting in the Sabbath School.
56 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
But I do not understand this to be one of the immu- nities of matrimony. As well might they plead that in discharge of the obligation to every species of good-doing. Such might, at least, postpone this apology till the cares of a family have come upon them. And even then, perhaps, the best disposition they could make of their children on the Sabbath, would be to take them to the school. I wonder how many hours of the Sabbath are devoted to the in- struction of their children by those parents who make the necessity of attending to the religious cul- ture of their families an apology for not entering the Sabbath School ; and I wonder if their children could not be attended to in other hours than those usually occupied in Sabbath School instruction ; and thus, while they are not neglected, other children, who have no parents that care for their soul, receive a portion of their attention. I think this not impos- sible. But perhaps the wife pleads that she is no longer her own, and that her husband's wishes are opposed to her continuing a teacher. But has she ceased to be her Lord's by becoming her husband's? Does the husband step into all the rights of a Sa- vior over his redeemed ? If such an objection is made, it is very clear that she has not regarded the direction to marry " only in the Lord."
But perhaps you say, " There are enough others to teach in the Sabbath School. " There would not be enough — there would not be any, if all were like
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 57
you. But it is a mistake ; there are not enough others. You are wanted. Some five or six children, of whom Christ has said, " Suffer them to come to me," will grow up without either learning or reli- gion, unless you become a teacher. Are all the children in the place where you live gathered into the Sabbath School ? Are there none that still wan- der on the Lord's day, illiterate and irreligious % Is there a competent number of teachers in the exist- ing schools, so that more would rather be in the way than otherwise 1 I do not know how it is where you live, but where I live, there are boys and girls enough, aye, too many, who go to no Sabbath School. It is only for a teacher to go out on the Sabbath, and he readily collects a class of children willing to attend ; and where I reside, there are not teachers enough for the scholars already collected. Some classes are without a teacher, and presently the children stay away, because, they say, they come to the school, and there is no one to attend to them. He wrho said, " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and for- bid them not," knows this ; and he knows who of H his sacramental host" might take charge of these children, and do not. They say every communion season, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ?" and the Lord replies, " Suffer the little children to come to me," and there the matter ends.
I visited recently an interesting school, composed of colored adults and children. It is taught partly
58 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
by white persons, and partly by intelligent colored persons. It is languishing now for want of teach- ers. There were present some twenty-five or thirty females, and only two female teachers. I wondered to see no more than two there of those who were last at the cross and first at the sepulchre. I thought it a little out of character. One of these told me that often there had been forty present, but as two could not attend to them all, they had gradually become discouraged, and had dropped off one after another. They found they must give up learning to read, though they wanted very much to learn to read the Bible. Some large classes of fine looking boys sat there without any teacher. No man cared for them. I said it was a pity, but I thought it was a shame. The church with which this school is connected, abounds in able-bodied, professors of religion, who could easily supply this want. But they don't do it. They say they caiHt ; but the truth is, they wont. I know some have an antipathy to the colored ; but, as I suppose, they are comprehended in that " world " of which we read, John, 3:16, that God loved it, and certainly in that " whole world," of which we read, 1st John, 2 : 2, as connected with Christ's pro- pitiation, I have none. As for those, however, who are so much more fastidious than their Lord, there are white children enough to employ them.
But I hear one say, " I was once a teacher;" and do you not blush to own that you became weary in
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 59
this species of well-doing? "But I think I taught long enough." How long did you teach? Till there were no more to learn ? Till you could teach no longer ? Are you dead ? If not, you are resting from your labors rather prematurely. This excuse resembles one which I heard of, as from a lady of wealth, who, having for several years been a sub- scriber to the Bible Society, at length ordered her name to be striken off, alleging that she thought she had done her pari; towards disseminating the Bible ! The world was not supplied ; O no, not even the country ; and her means were not exhausted. But she had done her part. Had she done what she could ? The woman whom Jesus commended had " done what she could." But this is a digression.
But one says, " I want the Sabbath for myself — for rest and for improvement." And who does not? Are you busily employed all the week ? So are some of our most faithful teachers. You ought to be "diligent in business" during the days of the week. " Six days shalt thou labor." "But is there any rest in Sabbath School teaching?" The soul finds some of its sweetest rest in the works of mercy, and often its richest improvement in the care to im- prove others.
But perhaps you say, though with some diffi- dence you express this objection, that you belong to a circle in society whose members are not accus- tomed to teach in the Sabbath School. Do you mean
50 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
that you are above the business ? You must be ex- ceedingly elevated in life to be above the business of gratuitously communicating the knowledge of God to the young and ignorant. You must be exalted above the very throne of God itself, if you are above caring for poor children. "But I should have to mino-le with those beneath me in rank." Ah, 1 sup- posed that Christianity has destroyed the distinction of rank, not indeed by depressing any, but by ele- vating all. Should Christians, all cleansed by the same blood and spirit, treat other Christians as
common?-
« But I am not qualified to teach." If you are not in reality, you should undertake teaching for the sake of learning. The best way to learn anything, is to teach it. If you only think yourself not quali- fied, your very humility goes far towards qualify- ing you. § . if - O, it is too laborious. There is so much seU- denial in it" And do I hear a disciple of Christ complaining of labor and self-denial, when these are among the very conditions of cliscipleship ? Is the disciple above his master? Can you follow Christ without going where he went? And went he not about doing good ? Pleased he himself?
Ah, I know what is the reason of this deficiency of Sabbath School teachers, and I will speak it out. It is owing to a deplorable want of Christian bene- volence in them who profess to be Christ's follow-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 61
ers. They lack the love that is necessary to engage one in this labor of love. They have no heart for the work.
10. Do yon attend the Monthly Concert 1
I would like to have this piece read, though I know very well that many of those I ask to read it, could themselves write a better article on the same subject. I am a little afraid that some who do not attend the Monthly Concert, will read the heading of the article and then turn to something else, pre- sumed to be more interesting. As that, however, will look very much like a desire to evade the light, and an unwillingness to hear why we should at- tend the Concert, I hope they will, through dread of that imputation, conclude to read the whole ar- ticle. I cannot doubt they have their reasons for not attending, and I promise that if they will have them printed, I will carefully read them, provided they will read my reasons in favor of attendance.
I put a question. I put it not to every body. I ask it not of the world, for the Avorld is the object of the Concert, and cannot be expected therefore to join in it. I put it to the professor of religion — the reputed disciple of Christ. I ask him if he attends 6
62 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
the Monthly Concert ? He knows what I mean by that phrase — the meeting for prayer attended by Christians on the first Monday in each month, in which they offer their social supplications for the success of missions, the spread of the Gospel, and the conversion of the world to God. All the mem- bers of the church do not attend it. The half do not. No. The Concert has not yet secured the majority of the church. Even "the sacramental host " are not as yet in favor of the conversion of the world, if attendance on the Monthly Concert may be made the test, as I think with the utmost propriety it may ; for surely he cannot have much of a desire for the world's conversion who will not meet once a month to express it in concert with other Christians. And this, I suppose, is the principal reason why the world is not converted, because the prayer-meetings of the church bear testimony that even she is not heartily in favor of it. O, when will the question, " Shall the world be converted ?" be put to the church, and carried in the affirmative? There will be joy in heaven when that result is re- ported there ; and then the work of the world's con- version will go rapidly forward, and nations be born in a day. Now, do you join in the concert, or are you one of those who make discord ?
Many professors can say they do attend. I am glad so many can say it. You attend, but let me ask, do you love to attend ? O ! if you leave your
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 63
hearts at home, that is bad. We want the heart at the Monthly Concert. It spoils all if we have not the heart there to send up to heaven its sincere de- sires. " Prayer," you know, " is the heart's sin- cere desire." You attend, but do you attend habitu- ally ; or is it only occasionally that you go ? Do you attend twelve times a year, if Providence inter- pose no obstacle ? It is a Monthly Concert. It is intended that Christians should meet and pray to- gether at least once a month. There are professors of religion who attend the Concert sometimes, per- haps on an average once in three months, and they think that is doing tolerably well. But what if others should do so ! Then it would be no Monthly Conceit, but a Quarterly Concert ; and such it should be now to suit the practice of too many of the church. But I think once a month, or twelve times a year, is not too often for Christians to meet together to pray, "Our Father thy kingdom come." As a Chris- tian, I feel that it is not too often, and I think, if I was a heathen, and knew all that is involved in be- ing a heathen, I should feel like being prayed for by Christians at least once a month. O ! it is not too often, either for us who pray, or for those for whom we pray. Then, fellow Christians, let us attend every month, bringing along with us each one a heart touched with gratitude, melted into pity, fervent with love, full of faith, and as sure as we live, we shall bless and be blessed.
64
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
" But they say it is not an interesting meeting." I don't know why it should be uninteresting to Christians. Is it because it is a prayer meeting ; or because it is a prayer meeting for others ? Does it lack interest because there is no preaching, and the very prayers are not for ourselves ? Will the disciple of Jesus make this confession? Will he acknowledge that it takes away the interest of a meeting, when its character is so devotional, and its object so benevolent ? It has been asked, " How shall we contrive to make the Monthly Concert interest- ing to the people?" It is only the people them- selves that can make it interesting. Let them come to it. Let the members of the church appear in their places on that evening. Let conscience bring them, if inclination does not, and let him who is to preside in the meeting be cheered by the aspect of a full assembly, and the interest of the Monthly Con- cert is secured without the laying down of rules and observance of minute directions. Who ever found a well attended concert for prayer uninteresting ?
But, one says, it sometimes rains, and I cannot at- tend. I know it sometimes rains, but do you never go out in the rain for any purpose 1 O Christian, if for anything you ever go through the rain, go through the rain to the Monthly Concert. I sus- pect the rain does not hinder you from fulfilling an important engagement with a fellow creature. Now, I know that you have not specifically engaged to
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 65
meet God at the Monthly Concert ; but there are vows on you which, I am sure, include this. Are you not one of those who say, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" waiting for his answer? His an- swer comprehends many things, and among them is this. Indeed, I think the duty of attending the Monthly Concert is included in the general obliga- tion to go " into all the world," and " teach all na- tions •" and you consented to it when you made the full surrender. Therefore let not trifles detain you at home on the evening of the church's concert of prayer for the world. But if by necessity detained — if you go not, because on such a night you would go out for no purpose whatever, you can spend the hour in the closet praying for the world. That you will not fail to do. The closet is accessible in all wea- ther. If you cannot go out to the prayer meeting, yet you can " enter into thy closet," and though your prayer will be a solo, it will be as grateful to God as the concert of others.
But some professors of religion never attend the Monthly Concert ! What I propose to say to them I must reserve for another article.
6*
66 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
11. Why all Christians should attend the Month- ly Concert.
It is a fact well known and deeply deplored, that some professors of religion never attend the Monthly- Concert. Perhaps they never attend any of the pray- er-meetings of the church. It is not for me to say that such persons have no religion, though I must go so far as to say that I do not see how they can have a great deal. Nor does their religion appear to be of the kind contemplated in the New Testament. They may be Christians, but I am certain they are not primitive Christians. I do not, for my part, see how those who never meet with their fellow disciples for social prayer, can be acquitted of contemning that gracious promise of Christ, " If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for thern of my Father which is in heaven." What an encouragement to concerts of prayer is conveyed in those words, " if two of you shall agree /" How can they be supposed to love the presence of the Savior, who are not desirous to meet him " where two or three are gathered together in his name !" If such disciples had existed at that time, of course they would not have attended the meetings for prayer which preceded the memorable day of Pentecost. They would not have gone to the " upper room." Perhaps they would have made some ex-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 67
cuse for their absence. Perhaps not. One might have said that he could not bear the air of a crowd- ed room. Another, that he did not see why he could not pray as well at home. There were no such de- spisers of the prayer meeting among the primitive disciples. They all frequented the upper room, " and all continued with one accord in prayer and suppli- cation." O that it were so now ! Fellow disciples of the blessed Jesus, listen to a few plain reasons why we should all attend the Monthly Concert.
1. It is a meeting of Christians. Should you not meet with Christians ? God has made you social be- ings ; and Christians are the best company. Should you not cultivate that kind of society on earth, with which you are to be associated for ever in heaven ? The same class of persons — they that feared the Lord — used to meet together in the days of Mala- chi; and the Lord noted it down. Come then to the Concert.
2. It is a meeting of Christians for religious wor- ship. The Concert is a sacred assembly. It invites not merely to mutual intercourse, but to intercourse with God and heaven. In it we meet one with ano- ther, that we may together meet the Lord ; and if he kept a book of remembrance for them who feared him, and who met for conference with each other, will he not much more for those who meet for com- munion with himself?
3. It is the most interesting kind of religious meet-
68 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ing. It is a prayer meeting. Its exercises consist in prayer interspersed with praise. The song of grati- tude and supplication of blessing ascend alternately.
0 it is good to be there ! What Christian but loves the prayer meeting !
4. It is the most interesting of all prayer meetings.
1 had rather be absent from arly other than from this. Think how large a concert it is — how many Voices join in it, and hearts still more ! From how many lands — in how many languages they pray, yet with one desire, and for a single object. Think of that object — its unity, its grandeur, its benevolence — a world lying in wickedness — the speedy conversion of that world to God! In the Monthly Concert Chris- tians meet to express together to their God this one great benevolent desire. And ought not you to bo there ?
But what gives the greatest interest to the Concert is, that Christ himself in substance established it. Yes, he has taught us so to pray. His disciples asked him how they should pray, and he answered that they should pray socially for the conversion of the world, viz. that they should meet under circumstan- ces which would justify the use of the plural num- ber, " Our Father," &c. and thus met, that they should pray together, " Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Now, is not this just what we do in the Monthly Concert ? We put in practice that lesson of Christ on prayer
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 69
That is the amount of it. The missionary concert has then the sanction of the Master, however some of his professed disciples may regard it. Is it so ? Then I ask not, will you come to the Concert, but how can you stay away ?
5. It is good to draw near to God in prayer for a guilty and dying world. Christians find it so. If they benefit no others, yet they benefit themselves. God bestows blessing on them while they implore blessing for others.
6. It is kind to the poor heathen thus to meet once a month and pray that they may possess the same Gospel of the grace of God, which has brought sal- vation to us. If we were in their situation, and knew what it was to be in such a situation, we should wish Christians to pray for us. And shall not we, being Christians, pray for them 1 The gol- den rule requires it. The love of Christ constrains to it. How shall we not pray for them % How shall I be able to answer for it, I say not to God, but to my poor pagan brother that I shall meet before the bar of our common Judge, if I let him go into eter- nity without even praying that the light of the Gos- pel may illuminate his dark mind ? How shall I be able to bear his reproachful recognition of me as a Christian ? I will take care not to lie under the ac- cusation. I will pray for him.
7. Nothing so cheers the hearts of our mission- aries, and nothing so encourages them in their work,
70 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
as when they hear of well attended Concerts. So they tell us ; and they write back that nothing they meet with on the field of their labors depresses and discourages them so much as the intelligence they receive from home, that Christians neglect the Month- ly Concert, and few of the churches meet to pray for them. They know that they cannot succeed with- out God, and they know that it is prayer which en- gages God to work effectually with them. O, if we could but send them word by the next ships that go, that Christians in crowds come up to the missionary prayer meeting, and the place of the Monthly Con- cert is thronged; they would be able, I have no doubt, to send us word back, perhaps by those very ships returning, that the heathen in crowds gather around them inquiring the way of salvation, and that many have gone even unto Christ, and become partakers of his grace. But in vain shall we expect to hear very cheering intelligence from them, while the in- telligence they receive from us is no more cheering. O, it is base treatment of our missionary brethren and sisters, as well as gross dereliction of the duty im- posed by the Savior's last command, not to meet and pray for them.
But why should I multiply reasons? Will you not attend henceforth ? If, after all, you will not, I can only say I am sorry — sorry on two accounts — sorry for the heathen, and sorry for you.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 71
19. "Will any Christian be absent from the next Concert I
The Monthly Concert of prayer for the success of Missions and the salvation of the Avorld. I wonder, indeed, that any Christian is ever voluntarily absent from that prayer meeting ; but, from that of Monday next, what Christian, that is a Christian, can of choice absent himself? Why 1 What particular attraction will there be in the next Concert, that a Christian should attend that, if never another ? Do you ask 1 Can you not imagine % Have you not heard the news brought by the last ship from eastern and southern Asia % When came a ship so freighted with tidings ? Morrison is dead. What Christian will not go to the next Concert, if for no other reason, to offer praise to God that Morrison lived, and lived so long, and was enabled to accomplish the magnificent work of translating the word of God into the language read and spoken by one third of human kind ?
But that is not all the news the ship brought. It came fraught with heavy tidings. How many tears have already been shed at the recital, tears of grief for the dead, and tears of sympathy for the living — the widows — and the mothers, for one, perhaps each, left a mother. Lyman and Munson, in the flower of their youth, and on the threshhold of their labors, have fallen, not the subject of nature's gradual decay, nor by some fell eastern disease, but the victims of
72 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
violence, the food of cannibals ! This is something new. We have never before had intelligence like this from our missionary fields. We have never had so loud a call in Providence to the Concert. What Christian will not obey it, and go on Monday to weep as well as praise, and to mingle with tears and praises, prayer for those poor brutal men that did the deed, and for them whose hearts it has so deep- ly stricken? And what Christian, who properly es- timates his privileges, and duly regards his obliga- tions, will not, on that occasion, let fall some drops of sorrow for his past remissness in praying for Mis- sionaries ?
I have said to myself since I heard of this outrage, " So much for not attending the Monthly Concert — so much for not praying more for Missionaries." I may be mistaken. The reader will judge. But so it has struck me. The church sent out these Mission- aries, and many more than half of her reruted chil- dren have never met to pray for them ! Whether the same remembered them in the closet and around the fireside I cannot say, but I fear they did not.
There is one most touching part of the melancholy tale. It is related that one of the Missionaries, I hope we shall never know which it was, was killed and eaten first, the other being compelled to be a specta- tor of the whole savage ceremony, with the know- ledge that he was reserved for a similar fate. How he must have felt ! Poor dear brother, I fear we never
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 73
prayed for thee as we ought. You could go from country, and home, and mother, to seek a spot in sa- vage Sumatra to plant the cross and preach Jesus, while wc could not once a month leave our firesides long enough just to go and pray for you, that God would protect you and give you favor in the sight of the heathen. O this neglect of the Monthly Concert is a cruel thing ! This forgetfulness to pray for Mis- sionaries, how dwelleth the love of God in the same heart with it ? Perhaps this was one of the multitude of thoughts that passed through his mind while he waited to be sacrificed, and while he perceived that God, though with him to support and to save him, was not with him to protect him from the fierceness of man. Perhaps he thought, " O if Christians had been more uniformly and earnestly mindful of us in the closet, the family, and the Concert, the hand that ho'ds even the savage heart, might have turned it to pity, and spared us. But his will be done. Bitter as is the cup we drink, it is not so bitter as the cup that was drank for us." Let us all go to the coming Con- cert, and humble ourselves together ; and from his humiliation let each pray, " Deliver me from blood- guiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation."
f4 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
13. How Came it to Pass
That three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost — how came it to pass 1 The truth as it is in Jesus was preached, and the power of God accompanied and made the truth effectual. But had not the meeting- for prayer, of which mention is made in Acts, 1:14, a close and influential connection with the glorious results of that day and that dis- course ? Undoubtedly it had. But what was there in that meeting of the hundred and twenty disciples, to exert an influence to the conversion of three thousand individuals 1 Whence had it that power ? I answer, it was a prayer meeting — professedly and mainly a prayer meeting. If it had been a meeting for preach- ing, it would not have exerted the influence it did, even though prayer had preceded and followed the sermon. It was a prayer meeting — a meeting of Christians to express their dependence on God ; unitedly to call on him for his blessing ; to plead the promise, and to wait for the fulfillment of it. Those are the efficient meetings, in which Chris- tians meet and agree to ask of God. I wonder they do not value them more. To the prayer meeting Christians come, to exercise the high privilege of in- tercession for others — to do good and to communi- cate— to act the " more blessed " part ; whereas, to meetings of another kind, they go for the less bene-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 75
volent purpose of receiving good. Yet Christians value no meetings so little as prayer meetings ! And, O shame, no prayer meeting do they value so little as that which Christ himself may be said to have established in saying, " When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven ; hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come" — the Monthly Concert. Though it occur but once a month, and though our Savior, in the prayer he has given us, has expressly instructed us to pray socially for the conversion of the world, yet how attended ! I pity the heathen, that so few are disposed to meet to pray for them. For the church, I blush that it should be so.
But the influence of that meeting of a hundred and twenty was not owing entirely to its being a prayer meeting. Many meetings for prayer are held, and no such effects follow. There must have been some- thing peculiar about that prayer meeting, to account for its efficacy. There was much by which it was distinguished from ordinary prayer meetings. The mention of some of these peculiarities may be of service. It may provoke imitation in some churches.
1. All the church attended that prayer meeting. " These all continued," &c. There were but a hun- dred and twenty disciples, and they were all present. Not a member of the, church was absent, unless pro- videntially detained. How different is it now ! Now, if so many as a hundred and twenty can be collected in a prayer meeting, yet they represent perhaps a
76 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
church of five or six hundred communicants, and all the rest are with one accord absent. They who meet may agree among themselves to ask for an outpouring of the Spirit, but it is, after all, but the agreement of a minority of the chuich. The majo- rity, by their absence, dissent from the request.
2. As all attended, of course the men attended as well as the women. Yes, every male member of the church was present ; and I suppose the males were more than one half of the whole number. They did not leave it to the women to sustain the prayer meetings. That prayer meeting had not the aspect of many a modern prayer meeting, in which almost all are of the weaker sex.
3. The most distinguished members of the church attended, as well as the most obscure. There were all the apostles, and " Mary the mother of Jesus," and " his brethren." None of them felt above being at a prayer meeting. How is it now? Let that question answer itself.
4. They were all agreed — " of one accord," as it is said. Not merely agreed as touching what they should ask, viz. the fulfillment of " the promise of the Father," but of one mind generally — aye, and of one heart. They thought and felt alike. They all loved one another. They observed the new com- mandment. Such cordial union among Christians has great power with God. It does not always exist in our prayer meetings.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. ft
5. They persevered in prayer. " These all conti- nued in prayer." First they stirred themselves up to take hold on God, and then they said, " We will not let thee go, except thou bless us." They met often for prayer, and all met, and they lingered long at the throne of grace. There were not some who came to the meeting once for a wonder, or only occa- sionally. No ; " these all continued" &c. It is not so now. But how long did they continue asking % Until they obtained; and then they did but pass from the note of prayer to that of praise. They sought the Lord until he came. It is time we all should do it. They were together — holding meet- ing— when the Spirit descended.
I think if all our church members would habitu- ally attend the prayer meetings, men as well as wo- men, rich as well as poor, and be "of one accord" in heart, as well as in judgment, and would continue in prayer, they would not wait in vain for " the pro- mise of the Father." O for such prayer meetings ! But now they are despised by many. How often we hear it said, It is nothing but a prayer meeting! Nothing but ! I should like, for my part, to know what surpasses a prayer meeting. And often on what unworthy conditions do those called Christians sus- pend their attendance. They must know who is to conduct the meeting, who will probably lead in prayer, and from whom a word of exhortation may be expected ; and if the meeting is not likely to be
78 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
to their mind, they will not attend it. This thing ought not so to be.
14. Why the World is not Converted.
The world is not converted. The melancholy- fact stares us in the face. Yet the world is to be converted. That delightful truth shines conspicu- ous on the pages of the Bible. Why is it not already- converted 1 It ought to have been converted ere this. Eighteen centuries ago it was well nigh converted. But now the world is far, very far from being con- verted. It "lieth in wickedness." What is the meaning of it ? Why is it not converted ? Whose is the fault ? Look not up to heaven with the inquiry, as if the reason was to be found there, among the mysteries of the eternal Mind. Look elsewhere. The fact we deplore results not from any lack of benevo- lent disposition in God. No. " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- soever belie veth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." What could he have felt or done more ? The object of his love, the world — its gift, his Son ! Could it have been more comprehensive. or more munificent ? Nor is the reason found in any deficiency in the atonement made by Christ, for
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 79
he is the propitiation "for the sins of the whole world" the Lamb of God who " taketh away the sin of the world." Nor is it owing to any limitation in the commission of the Holy Spirit ; for of him it is testified, that when he should come, he should " re- prove the world of sin " : and the commission to the human agents of the work was as extensive, " Go ye into all the world — preach the Gospel to every creature — teach all nations." And the promise of the presence and power of Christ to be with them is also without restriction. See what goes before, and what comes after that great commission. The words which precede it are, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." The words which follow, are, " And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." You must look some where else than upward for the reason why the world is not converted. Look beneath, around, within.
I propose to assign a few reasons why the world is not converted.
1. The world does not wish to be converted. That which is to be the subject of conversion, is a foe to it. It resists the influence that would convert it to God. What means that language, " My Spi- rit shall not always strive with man?" Striving im- plies opposition offered. The opposition is made by the will. The universal will of man resists the work of the Spirit of God. And that thing, the will, is a tremendous obstacle opposed to conversion. It is
80 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
more than a match for all the motives you can bring to bear upon it. It wont move for motives. The Lord alone can master it. O ! if the world had of itself been willing- to be converted, it should long ere this have been brought back to God ! It is but to be willing and the thing is done.
2. The devil, who in the Bible is called " the god of this world," is opposed to its conversion. Now, it must be very much in the way of the world's con- version, that not only itself but its god is opposed to it. The will is a powerful foe of itself, but when the will is in league with Satan, who is called the adversary, by way of eminence, what an enemy the combination must produce ! The devil and the heart, what a formidable alliance ! Satan is sincere in his opposition to the conversion of the world, i. e. he is really opposed to it. He does not merely pretend to be. And he is in earnest. His heart is in the work of opposing the world's conversion — and he does all he can to prevent it. The friends of the conversion of the world do not all they can to pro- mote it. "Would that they did ! But Satan does all he can to prevent it. Ah, why cannot we do as much for Christ as his enemies do against him? Why don't Christians do all they can ? Satan does all he can — and that is a great deal, for he was one of those angels " that excel in strength," and though by his fall he lost all holiness, he lost no power. He is as potent as ever — possessed of very great energy,
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 81
and he exerts it all in the enterprise of opposing God in the conversion of the world. And he does not stand still and exert his power, but goeth " to and fro in the earth." Yea, "as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." He does not icait for his prey, but hunts for it. Yet he has not always the lion look, for sometimes " Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light ;" nor does he always roar. He can let his voice down to the softest whisper, which the ear he breathes it into alone can hear ; and Satan does not act alone. He is assisted by myriads of kindred spirits. They were many, we are told, that possessed one man — yes, a legion. How many they must be in all ! and all engaged in the same opposition — aye, and mul- titudes of men are even now in league with them, engaged in the devils' work as heartily as if they were of that race. Is not this a strong reason why the world is not converted ? Have I not given two such reasons ? But I have a stronger :
3. The church is not heartily in favor of the world's conversion. And when I affirm this of the church, I refer not to those who rest in the form of godli- ness, and have but a nominal life. No wonder the unconverted, though they may be members of the vi- sible church, should not be concerned for the con- version of others. But I mean that real Christians, who have themselves been converted, are not hear- tily in favor of it. Yes, the converted part of the
82 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
world are not heartily in favor of the conversion of the great remainder ! And this is the principal rea- son why it is not converted. What if the world is not in favor of it, and Satan is not ? It was never in- tended that the world should be converted by their instrumentality, but in spite of their opposition ! But that the church, to whom is given the commission, to whom is committed the instrumentality which God blesses for conversion, and to whom even Christ looks with expectation, should not enter into the work with all her soul and strength, how strange and how lamentable ! I know that Christians say they are in favor of it, and I will not question their sincerity, but I wish they gave such proof of being sincere and in earnest as Satan and his allies do. Actions have a tongue, and they speak louder than words. Satan's actions declare unequivocally that he is a foe to the world's conversion. Do our actions proclaim as unequivocally that we are its friends ? We say we desire the world's conversion ; but what say our prayers, our contributions, our efforts, our conduct ? We talk as if we desired it, but do we pray, do we contribute, do we labor, do we live as if we desired it? In this matter our unsupported word will not be received as proof.
Why, if we who love the Lord are heartily in fa- vor of the world's becoming his, are we so divided among ourselves ? The enemies of the world's con- version are united. Yes, they forget their private
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 8&
differences when the causy of Jesus is to be attacked, and one heart animates the whole infernal host. But the friends of the great enterprise are divided, and much of their force is spent in skirmishes among themselves, while the common enemy in the mean- time is permitted to make an almost unresisted pro- gress. It is a pity, a great pity. It ought not to be so. The great aggressive enterprise of the world's conversion demands all our resources, and. yet we are expending them in mutual assaults. When will it be otherwise ? When will Christians agree on a truce among themselves, and march in one mighty phalanx against the world, to the service to which the Captain of salvation calls them ? When shall it once be ? I do not know, but I do know that when. it takes place, the first of the thousand years will not be far off
Fellow-soldiers of the cross ! what are we about ? Let us form. Let us put on our complete armor. Some of us are not in full panoply. And let us sing together one of the songs of Zion, and to that music let us march on to the conquest of the world for Jesus. He is already in the field, let us hasten to his support. Let us go to his help against the mighty. Let us leave all, even our mutual dissen- sions, suspicions and jealousies, and follow him — and presently the world shall be converted.
84 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
15. The Conversion of tlie Church.
We hear a great deal now-a-days about the con- version of the world. It is in almost every Chris- tian's mouth ; and we cannot be too familiar with the phrase — we cannot be too diligent to promote the thing. It ought to have our daily thoughts, prayers, and efforts. It deserves our hearts. It is the great object of Christianity. But there is ano- ther community besides the world, which I think needs to undergo a measure of the same process that the world so much needs. It is the church. While the conversion of the world is made so pro- minent, I think we ought not to overlook the con- version of the church, especially since this comes first in order.
Every thing, we know, begins at the house of God, both in judgment and mercy. But what do I mean by the conversion of the church ? Is not the church converted already 1 Suppose I admit tha! ; may she not need a new conversion % Regeneration is but once, but conversion may be many times. Peter had been converted when Christ said to him, " and when thou art converted, strengthen thy breth- ren." There is no doubt the church might be con- verted again, and that without any injury to her.
But why do I think the church needs conversion ? I might give several reasons, but I will assign only
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 85
one. It is founueu on Matthew, 18:3: " Except ye be converted, and become as little children.1'' Here we see the effect of conversion is to make the sub- jects of it as little children, and hence St. John ad- dresses the primitive Christians as little children. Now my reason for thinking- the church needs con- version is, that there does not seem to be much of the little child about the church of the present day. There is a great deal more of "the old man" about it, I am afraid. I think if John were living now, he would not be apt to address the members of the church generally as " little children." No indeed. I question whether, if he were even addressing an assembly of the ministers and officers of many of our churches, he would not be apt to apply other terms than " little children" as a preface to his ex- hortation " love one another," which I am sure he would not forget.
Little children are humble, but humility is not a remarkable characteristic of the church of the pre- sent day. I don't think the scholars of either of the schools have got the lesson of lowliness very per- fectly from their Master. I fear, if the Master Avere to come in upon us now, he would be likely to chide many in both the schools. Why two schools ? There is but one Master.
How confiding little children are, and how ready to believe on the bare word of one in whom they have reason to feel confidence, and especially if he 8
86 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
be a father ! But not so the church. " Thus saith the Lord" does not satisfy her sons now. They must have better reasons for believing than that. They must hear first what he has to say, and then see if they can get a confirmation of it from any quarter before they will believe it. How unceremo- niously many of these children treat some of the things which their Father very evidently says, be- cause they do not strike them as in accordance with reason, justice, or common sense !
How docile the little child is ! Mary, who " sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word," was such a child. Never a why or a how asked she of him. I cannot say so much for the church of our day. Simplicity also characterizes little children. How open and art- less they are — how free from guile. Such was Na- thanael. Whether this trait of character be conspi- cuous in the church now, let the reader say.
Little children are moreover characterized by love, and their charity " thinketh no evil." How unsus- picious they are ! But too much of the charity of the present day, so far from thinking no evil, think- eth no good. It suspects every body. It " hopeth " nothing. Indeed love, and her sister peace, which used to lead the graces, are become as w all-flowers with many; into such neglect they have fallen. They seem to be quite out of the question with many. Some good men appear to think that con- tending for the faith is the end of the commandment
/
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 87
and the fulfilling- of the law. But it is not. It is a duty, an important duty — one too little regarded by many — one never to be sneered at as by some it is. I acknowledge some treat it as if it were nothing. I" only say it is not everything. There is walking in love, and following peace, which, as well as con- tending for the faith, are unrepealed laws of Christ's house. I believe they can all be done, and that each is best done when the others are not neglected. I am sure truth never lost any thing by being spoken in love. I am of opinion that a principal reason why we are not more of one mind, is that we are not more of one heart. How soon they who feel heart to heart, begin to see eye to eye ! The way to think alike is first to feel alike ; and if the feeling be love, the thought will be truth. I wish, therefore, for the sake of sound doctrine, that the brethren could love one another. What if we see error in each other to condemn, can we not find any thing amiable to love ? I would the experiment might be made. Let us not cease to contend for the faith — not merely for its own sake, but for love's sake, because " faith worketh by love." But, in the conflict, let us he careful to shield love. It is a victory for truth scarcely worth gain- ing, if charity be left bleeding on the field of battle. You see why I think the church wants convert- ing. It is to bring her back to humility, and simpli- city, and love. I wish she would attend to this mat- ter. She need not relax her efforts for the world.
CO PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
She has time enough to turn a few reflex acts on herself. The object of the church is to make the world like herself. But let her in the meantime make herself more like what the world ought to be. It is scarcely desirable that the world should be as the church in general now is. Let her become a better model for the world's imitation. Her voice is heard for Christ ; but let her " hold forth the word of life " in her conduct, as well as by her voice. Let her light shine. Let her good works be manifest. Let her heaven-breathed spirit breathe abroad the same spirit.
The work of the conversion of the world goes on slowly ; but it makes as much progress as the Avork of the conversion of the church does. No more sin- ners are converted, because no more Christians are converted. The world will continue to lie in wick- edness, while " the ways of Zion mourn " as they do. Does any one wonder that iniquity abounds, when the love of so many has waxed cold? We are sending the light of truth abroad, when we have but little of the warmth of love at home.
We are often asked what we are doing for the conversion of the world. We ought to be doing a great deal — all we can. But I would ask, what are we doing for the conversion of the church ? What to promote holiness nearer' home, among our fellow- Christians and in our own hearts ? Let us not forget the world, but at the same time let us remember Zion.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 89
16. Inquiring Saints.
I was asked the other day whether I had had any- recent meeting- for inquirers. I replied that I had not — that there were few inquiring sinners in the con- gregation, and I judged the reason to be, that there were few inquiring saints. " Inquiring saints ! that is a new phrase. We always supposed that inquir- ing belonged exclusively to sinners." But it is not so. Do we not read in Ezekiel, 36 : 37, " Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel to do it for them ?" By the house of Israel, that is, by his people — by the church. You see that God requires and expects his covenanted people to inquire. It is true that saints do not make the same inquiry that sinners do. The latter ask what they must do to be saved, whereas the inquiry of Christians is, "Wilt thou not revive us again1?" It is a blessed state of things when the people of God are inquiring. It is good for themselves, and it has a most benign influence on others. When the people of God inquire, presently the impenitent begin to in- quire. That question, " Wilt thou not revive us ?" is soon followed by the other, " What must I do to be saved ?•" Yes, when saints become anxious, it is not long ere sinners become anxious. The inquiry of the three thousand on the day of Penteccst, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" was preceded by the
90 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
inquiry of the one hundred and twenty, who " all continued with one accord in prayer and supplica- tion." Generally, I suppose, that is the order. First saints inquire, and then sinners. And whenever, in any congregation, religion does not nourish, one principal reason of it is that the saints are not in- quiring. They do not attend their inquiry meeting appointed for them. The saints' inquiry meeting is the prayer meeting. In that Christians meet to- gether to inquire of the Lord " to do it for them," that is, to fulfill the promise about the new heart and the new spirit, of which he had been speaking. Now, when this meeting is crowded and interesting — when the inquiry among Christians is general and earnest, and importunate, the sinners' inquiry meeting usually becomes crowded and interesting. O that I could make my voice to be heard by all the dear people of God in the land on this subject. I would say, " You wonder and lament that sinners do not inquire. But, are you inquiring ? You won- der that they do not feel. But do you feel ? Can you expect a heart of stone to feel, when a heart of flesh does not ? You are surprised that sinners can sleep. It is because you sleep along side of them. Do you but awake, and bestir yourselves, and look up and cry to God, and you will see how soon they will be- gin to be roused, and to look about them, and to ask the meaning of your solicitude." O that the saints would but inquire ! That is what I want to see.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 91
We hear a good deal said about the anxious seat. Concerning the propriety of the thing signified by that not very elegant expression, we will not now dispute, especially since that seat is at present pretty much vacant every where. I only wish that the piace where Christians sit were a more anxious seat than it is.
Neither will I engage in pending controversy about measures, new and old. What I fear most from the controversy is that it will cause many to become no measure men. I do not know why we want so many measures, if we will only make good use of those we have. There are two measures, which, if generally adopted and faithfully applied, will, I think, answer every purpose. You may call them new or old. They are both. They are old, yet, like the new commandment and the new song of which we read in the Bible, ever neip. The first is, the measure of plain evangelical preaching "in sea- son, out of season," and " not with wisdom of words." The other is the measure of united and fervent pray- er, such as preceded the memorable events of the day of Pentecost. I am for these old, yet ever-new mea- sures. O that the brethren of every name would take fast hold of these measures and hold on to them. I think then we should not want many more measures. Praying and preaching used to be " mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong holds." I am sure they will never fail. Let us employ them.
92 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
17. Do you Pay for a Religious Newspaper ?
I was going to ask the question in another form. 11 Do you read a religious newspaper ?" but then I reflected that many read a religious newspaper who do not themselves subscribe for one, they being in the habit of borrowing from their neighbors, and after sending and respectfully soliciting the loan of the paper before the family have read it, and not un- frequently keeping it a length of time greater than the golden rule will exactly justify. Then I had like to have thrown the question into this shape : " Do you subscribe for a religious newspaper ?" but it struck me all at once, that some subscribe for a paper, but do not pay for it. I have heard this com- plaint made, and I have no doubt there is foundation enough for it. I, for my part, would advise such persons to take a moral newspaper, if they can find such a thing. That is the sort of paper they require. A religious newspaper is quite too far advanced for them. 1 don't know, and cannot conceive why these non-payers want to read a religious newspaper. I should suppose they would be satisfied with secular newspapers. I can imagine that they may desire, notwithstanding their delinquency, to know what is going on in the world, but why they should care to know how things go in the church, I cannot con- jecture. What do those who do not give any thing for value received, want to know about revivals, mis-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 93
sions, &c. ? Here are persons who would starve editors, publishers, printers, and paper-makers — the whole concern — into a premature grave ! — who say, " Send me your paper," implying of course that they will send the money in return, yet never send it ; and yet they want to know all about the progress that is making in converting souls to God, and what is doing among the heathen. Is not this strange, that having never learned as yet to practice the first and easiest lesson of honesty, they should wish to read every thing about godliness and vital piety! So I concluded to head the article, " Do you pay for a religious newspaper ?"
Do you, reader? If you do, continue to take and read, and pay for it ; and be slow to withdraw your subscription. Give up many things before you give up your religious newspaper. If any one that ought to take such a paper, does not, I hope that some one to whom the circumstance is known, will volunteer the loan of this to him, directing his attention par ticularly to this article. Who is he ? A professor of religion ? It cannot be. A professor of religion and not taking a religious newspaper ! A member of the visible church, and voluntarily without the means of information as to what is going on in that church ! A follower of Christ, praying daily, as taught by his Master, " Thy kingdom come," and yet not know- ing, nor caring to know, what progress that kingdom is making ! Here is one of. those to whom Christ
94 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
said, " Go, teach all nations ;" he bears a part of the responsibility of the world's conversion, and yet, so far from doing any thing himself, he does not even know what others are doing in promoting this great enterprise ! Ask him about missionary stations and operations, and he can tell you nothing. He does not read about them. I am afraid this professor of religion does not love " the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob." Ah, he forgets thee, O Jerusalem !
But I must not fail to ask if this person takes a secular newspaper. O, certainly he does. He must know what is going on in the world ; and how else is he to know it ? It is pretty clear then that he takes a deeper interest in the world than he does in the church ; and this being the case, it is not difficult to say where his heart is. He pays perhaps eight or ten dollars for a secular paper — a paper that tells him about the world, but for one that records Zion's conflicts and victories, he is unwilling to pay two or three! How can a professor of religion answer for this discrimination in favor of the world ? how defend himself against the charge it involves ? He cannot do it ; and he had better not try, but go or write immediately and subscribe for some good reli- gious paper ; and to be certain of paying for it, let him pay in advance. There is a satisfaction when one is reading an interesting paper, to reflect that it is paid for.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 95
But perhaps you take a paper, and are in arrears' for it. Now suppose you was the publisher, and the publisher was one of your subscribers, and he was in arrears to you, what would you think he ought to do in that case ? I just ask the question. I don't care about an answer.
18. Del a died Thoughts.
It is not every broken heart which constitutes the sacrifice of God. It depends on what has broken it — whether the experience of misfortune, or the sense of sin — the sorrow of the world, or the sorrow of God. Both break the heart, but it is a different fracture in one case from what it is in the other. God values the latter ; and hearts so broken he mends and makes whole.
Some sinners repent with an unbroken heart. They are sorry, and yet go on, as did Pilate and Herod.
A sinner must come to himself, as did the prodi- gal, before ever he will come to Christ.
The consummation of madness is to do what, at the time of doing it, we intend to be afterwards sorry for ; the deliberate and intentional making of work for repentance.
96 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
• When a Christian backslides, it is as if the pro- digal son had re-acted his folly, and left his father's house a second time.
There is a mighty difference betwixt feeling " I have done wrong," and feeling " I have sinned against the Lord."
Some sinners lay down their burden elsewhere than at the feet of Jesus.
Ministers should aim in preaching to puncture the heart, rather than tickle the ear.
He who waits for repentance, waits for what can- not be had so long as it is waited for. It is absurd for a man to wait for that which he has himself to do.
Human friends can weep with us when we wreep, but Jesus is a friend, who, when he has wept with us, can wipe away all our tears. And when the vale of tears terminates in the valley of the shadow of death, and other friends are compelled to retire and leave us to go alone, Jesus is the friend who can and will enter and go all the way through with us.
It is better for us that Christ should be in heaven than on earth. We need him more there than here. We want an advocate at court.
When a family party are going home, it is com- mon for one to go before to make all ready for the rest, and to welcome them. " I go to prepare a place for you," says Christ to his disciples.
Procrastination has been called a thief — the thief of time. I wish it were no wrorse than a thief. It
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 97
is a murderer ; and that which it kills is not time merely, but the immortal soul.
Surely the subject of religion must be the most important of all subjects, since it is presently to be- come, and ever after to continue to be, the only and all-absorbing subject.
The obstacle in the way of the sinner's conver- sion possesses all the force and invincibleness of an inability, with all the freeness and criminality of an indisposition.
In vain will sinners call upon the rocks and mountains to hide them. Nature will not interpose to screen the enemies of her God.
What strange servants some Christians are ! — al- ways at work for themselves, and never doing any thing for Him whom they call their Master ! And what subjects ! — ever desiring to take the reins of government into their own hands !
It is one of the worst of errors, that there is an- other path of safety besides that of duty.
The man who lives in vain, lives worse than in vain. He who lives to no purpose, lives to a bad purpose.
The danger of the impenitent is regularly and rapidly increasing, as his who is in the midst of a burning building, or under the power of a fatal disease.
How many indulge a hope which they dare not examine !
98 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
If the mere delay of hope — hope deferred, makes the heart sick, what will the death of hope — its final and total disappointment — despair, do to it ?
The brightest blaze of intelligence is of incalcu- lably less value than the smallest spark of charity.
The sublimest thoughts are conceived by the in- tellect when it is excited by pious emotion.
There are many shining lights, which are not also burning lights.
Those may hope to be saved at the eleventh hour, who, when called at that hour can plead, that it is their call : who can say, when asked why they stand idle, " Because no man hath hired us."
Some never begin to pray till God has ceased to hear.
The Christian's feeling himself weak, makes him strong.
Genuine benevolence is not stationary, but peripa- tetic. It goeth about doing good.
Preparation for meeting God ought to be made first, not only because it is most important, but be- cause it may be needed first. We may want nothing so much as religion. It is the only thing that is ne- cessary, certainly, exceedingly, indispensably and immediately.
Some things, which could not otherwise be read in the book of nature, are legible enough in it when the lamp of revelation is held up to it.
It is easier to do a great deal of mischief than to accomplish a little good.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 99
No man will ever fully find out what he is by a mere survey of himself. He must explore, if he would know himself.
When a man wants nothing, he asks for every thing.
19. The late Mr. Wirt.
The distinguished man whose name introduces this article, and who for so long a time filled so large a place in the public eye and mind, has passed away from the admiring view of mortals. We shall never again behold on earth his nob]e figure, but his me- mory shall long, long be cherished in the choicest place of ihe heart. His history in part belongs to the nation. Let others, more competent to the task, write that, wrhile I make a brief record of that por- tion of his earthly story which connects him with the church. Few names have ever been written on earth in larger and more brilliant letters ; but his name was written also in heaven — he had a record on high. Mr. Wirt was a Christian. He aspired to that "highest style" of humanity, and by divine grace he reached it.
The writer of this was for many years familiar with the religious history of Mr. Wirt. From the
100 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
first of his acquaintance with him, he always found him disposed to listen and learn on the subject of religion, even from those who were very far infe- rior to him in intellect and general information. I never knew a man more open, candid, docile, than he : and yet, for every thing which he admitted, he required a reason. His faith was implicit towards God, when he had ascertained that it was to God he was listening ; but his understanding refused to bow to man. There was a time, when, it is believed, he had doubts in regard to the truth of the Christian religion ; but, inquiring and examining, his doubts departed, and his mind rested in the confident be- lief, for which he was ever ready to render a rea- son, that God had made a revelation to man, and that the Bible contains that revelation. Perhaps this work of conviction was not fully wrought in him until some years ago, when, with the greatest satis- faction and profit, as he has often said to the writer, he read " Home's Introduction to the Critical Study of the Holy Scriptures," a work which many have read at his recommendation, and with like results.
But Mr. Wirt was not satisfied while the faith of Christianity had possession of his intellect alone. He was aware that it equally deserved a place in his affections; and having long yielded to Christ the homage of his understanding, he at length opened to him that other department of the man, and re- ceived him into his heart.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 101
It was in the summer of 1831, that, on a profes- sion of faith and repentance, he became connected with the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore, of which he remained a consistent and exemplary member until his death.
Shortly after his union to the church, the writer of this received from him a letter, from which he think? it will be gratifying to the Christian public that he should make the following extracts. They show, among other things, what views this great man had been taught by the Spirit of God to en- tertain of the human character and heart. He writes from the Sweet Springs of Virginia.
" My mind has been too much occupied by the petty every-day cares of a residence at a public wa- tering-place, or traveling and tossing over rough roads, for that continuous and systematic medi- tation and cultivation of religious feelings which I know to be my duty, and which I think I should find a delightful duty ; but perhaps I de- ceive myself in this, for I have no faith in the fair dealing of this heart of mine with myself. I feel the want of that supreme love of my God and Savior for which I pray. I feel the want of that warming, purifying, elevating love, that sanctifying and cheering spirit which supports the Christian in his warfare with the world, the flesh, and the great enemy of our souls. Yet let me not be ungrateful. I have some sweet moments. My affections do some- 9*
102 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
times take wing among these great works of God that surround me, and rise to their Creator, and I think with gratitude on that transcendantly greater work of his, the salvation of a guilty and fallen world by the death and mediation of his only Son. But indeed I am an exceedingly poor and weak Chris- tian ; and I often fear, too often for my peace, that there is at least nothing of the vitality of religion about me, and that I may have mistaken the burning of some of those vapors that fume from an ardent imagination, for that strong, steady and ever-during fire which animates the Christian, and bears him triumphant on his course. God only knows how this matter is. I think I am endeavoring to be sin- cere. But I may be mistaken, and it may turn out at last to be only one of those stratagems which the arch-enemy plays off upon us to our ruin. But even this apprehension again may be one of his strata- gems to make me despond, and thus defeat the ope-, ration of the Spirit.
Alas ! with how many enemies are we beset — treachery within and without. Nothing remains for us but to watch and to pray, lest we enter into temp- tation. God forbid that the public profession which I have made of religion should redound to the dis- honor of his cause. It is the fear* of this which has so long held me back, and not the fear of man. I am grieved to learn that my having gone to the Lord's table has got into the papers. It is no fit
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 103
subject for a paper. Of what consequence is it to the cause of Christ that such a poor reptile as my- self should have acknowledged him before other worms of the dust like myself. I feel humbled and startled at such an annunciation. It will call the eyes of a hypercritical and malignant world upon me, and, I fear, tend more to tarnish than to advance the cause."
In another part of the letter he writes : " I long for more fervor in prayer — for more of the love and Spirit of God shed abroad in my heart — for more of his presence throughout the day — for a firmer an- chorage in Christ, to keep this heart of mine and its affections from tossing to and fro on the waves of this world and the things ©f time and sense — for a brighter and a stronger faith — and some assurance of my Savior's acceptance and love. I feel as if he could not love me — that I am utterly unworthy of his love — that I have not one loveable point or qua- lity about me — but that, on the contrary, he must still regard me as an alien to his kingdom and a stranger to his love. But, with the blessing of God, I will persevere in seeking him, relying on his pro- mise, that if I come to him, he will in no wise cast me off." 4
It may not be uninteresting to mention that the favorite religious authors of Mr. W. were Waits and Jay. More recently he became acquainted with the writings of Flavel, and the subject of the last
104 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
conversation I had with him was Flavel's " Saint Indeed," which he had just been reading with great interest.
30. Traveling on the Sabbath.
How few men act from principle ! How few have any rule, by which they uniformly regulate their conduct ! Fewer still act from christian principle — regard a rule derived from revelation. It makes my very heart bleed to think how few, even of civi- lized and evangelized men, regard divine authority. And yet it is the disregard of this which constitutes the sinner and the rebel. Some disregard one ex- pression of it. and some another. He who, whatever respect he may profess for God, practically disre- gards any expression of divine authority, is a re- volter — a rebel : is up in heart, if not in arms, against God; is engaged in a controversy with Jehovah.
What has let me into this train of reflection, is the general disregard that I observe with respect to the sanctification of the Sabbath. He who made us, and who, by constantly preserving us, when otherwise we should relapse into non-existence, may be said to be continually renewing the creation of us, and has
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 105
beyond all question a right to control us, did long ago, from Sinai, distinctly express his will with re- gard to the manner in which the seventh portion of time should be spent, and how it should be dis- tinguished from the other six portions. He remind- ed his creatures of it, and declared it to be his will that it should be kept holy ; that six days we should labor, and therein do all our work, leaving none of it to be done on the seventh, because the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. It is his rest, and therefore should be ours also. In if he has sig- nified it to be his will that we should not do any work ; neither we, nor those who are subject to us as children or as servants, nor even those transiently domesticated with us, the strangers within our gates. Nor should man alone rest, but the beast also. Then he condescends to give a reason for this enactment, in which all mankind, whenever and wherever they live, are equally interested — a reason which was valid from the creation of the world, and will hold good as long as the world lasts ; " for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day ; where- fore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hal- lowed it."
Now, God has never revoked this expression of his will. He has never repealed this law. If he has, when did he it, and where is the record of its repeal ? He has not taken off the blessing which he laid on
106 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
the Sabbath. He has not obliterated the distinction which he put on the seventh portion of time. He has not said, " You need no longer remember the Sabbath to keep it holy — seven days you may labor — my example of six days of work, followed by one of cessation and rest, you may now cease to imitate." He has not said any thing like it. The law is in force therefore even until now.
Well, here is the law of God, with the reason of it. Now for the practice of men. How poorly they compare ! There are indeed few who do not remem- ber the Sabbath day, and in some manner distinguish it from the other days of the week. But the law is, that they should remember it to keep it holy; that they should distinguish it by hallowing it as a day of rest. This they do not. They keep it no more holy than any other day, though they do differently on that day from what they do on others. They do not the same work on that day which they do on the ether days, but they do some work. Such as ne- cessity requires, and such as mercy dictates, they may do. The law of nature teaches that, and. the example of the Lord of the Sabbath sanctions and confirms the lesson. But they do other work than such as these call them to. The Sabbath is with them as secular a day as any other, though the man- ner of their worldliness on that day may be unlike what it is on the other days. What is more purely secular than visiting and traveling, yet what more
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 107
common on the day which the Lord has blessed and hallowed ? These, I know, are not considered as fall- ing under the denomination of work, but they do fall under it. They are as certainly included among the things forbidden to be done on the Sabbath, as are ploughing and sowing. The former are no more sacred — no less secular than are the latter.
I have been struck with the indiscriminate man- ner in which travelers use the seven days of the week. One would suppose that the law had made an exception in favor of traveling — forbidding every other species of secular employment on the day of rest, but allowing men to journey on it. They that would not do any other labor on the Sabbath, will nevertheless without compunction travel on that day. The farmer, who would not toil in his field; the merchant, who would not sell an article out of his store j the mechanic, who would not labor at his trade ; and the mistress of the family, who scrupu- lously avoids certain household occupations on the Sabbath, will yet all of them, without any relettings, travel on the Sabbath, and that whether the object of their journey be business or pleasure. It makes no difference. They would not on the Sabbath do other work appropriate to the six days. That would shock them. But to commence, continue, or finish a journey on the Sabbath, offends not their consciences in the least. I am acquainted with many persons who would not for the world travel to a place on Sa-
108 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
turday, accomplish their business, the object of their journey, on Sunday, and return on Monday; but these same persons will, for a very little of the world, and without any hesitation, go to the place on Fri- day,.do their business on Saturday, and return on Sunday. Now I would do the one just as soon as I would the other, and should consider that I desecra- ted the Sabbath by traveling to or from the place of business on it, just as much as by accomplishing the object of the journey on it.
I would ask the candid traveler if any thing can secularize the Sabbath more completely, if any thing can more effectually nullify it, than ordinary travel- ing ? If a man may lawfully travel on the Sabbath, except in a case of stern necessity, such as would justify any species of work, I know not what he may not lawfully do on that day. What is more absurd than that it should be lawful and proper to journey on the day set apart and sanctified for rest ? Surely journeying does not comport well with rest. But they say that traveling is not work, and therefore not included in the prohibition. I deny the fact. It is often hard and wearisome work. And what if it be not work to the passenger, is it not work to those who are employed in conveying him ? If he does not labor, yet others must labor in order to enable him to travel, and is he not equally responsible for the j work which he renders necessary on the Sabbath, as for that which he does with his own hands ? But
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 109
what if no human being is employed to forward him on his journey, he deprives the beast of his day of rest. And is it nothing to withhold from the poor animal the privilege of the Sabbath — to compel him to work on the day on which God has directed that he should be permitted to rest ?
According to this theory, that it is lawful to jour- ney on the Sabbath, a man may so arrange it as ne- ver to be under obligation to keep a Sabbath. He has only to set apart that day of the week for travel- ing ; he has only to keep in motion on the day of rest ; that is all. Moreover, he who gets his living by traveling, or by the journeying of others, has, on this supposition, a manifest advantage (if such it may be called) over his neighbors. He has seven days for profit, while they have only six. The day-laborer md the poor mechanic may not use the seventh day is they do the other days of the week. They must make a distinction between them. But those who travel for their pleasure, or whose business calls them ibroad, and those who accommodate them with con- veyances, may use the seven days indiscriminately. Is this equal ?
I think it must be evident to every unpreju- liced mind, that to travel on the Sabbath is to use it is any other day. It is to make no distinction be- tween it and Monday or Saturday. It disregards the peculiarity of the day altogether. Yet I suppose there is as much journeying on the Sabbath as there 10
110 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
is on any other day of the week. With very few exceptions, the steam-boats ply and the stages run as usual ; and both, I am informed, are as full, if not more crowded on the Sabbath than on any other day ; and private carriages are as numerous on the great thoroughfares, and in the vicinity of cities more so on the Sabbath. And the registers of the watering places show as many arrivals and departures on Sun- day as on Monday. Yes, men make as free with the Lord's day as they do with their own days. So little regard is paid to divine authority. So little do men care for God. And, they tell me, all sorts of men travel on the Sabbath — -even many professors of religion. That I would suppose. I never heard of any thing so bad that some professor of religion had not done it. It was one of the professors of re- ligion who bartered away and betrayed our blessed Lord and Savior. And some ministers of the Gospel, I am told, do the work of traveling on the Sabbath. Now we have some ministers who have farms. I suppose it would be accounted dreadful, should they plough or reap on the Sabbath. Yet these might plough as innocently as those may travel. But these breakers of the Sabbath, and indeed almost all of this class of transgressors, are the readiest persons I ever met with at making excuses for their conduct. I pro- pose in my next to consider some of their apologies. They will be found very curious.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. Ill
21. Apologies for Traveling on the Sabbath.
Some of those who do the work of journeying on the Sabbath, do not condescend to make any apology for it. They care neither for the day, nor for Him who hallowed it. With these we have nothing to do. Our business is with those who, admitting the general obligation of the Sabbath, and knowing or sus- pecting Sunday traveling to be a sin, offer apologies which they hope may justify the act in their case, or else go far toward extenuating the criminality of it. I propose to submit to the judgment of my read- ers some of the excuses for this sin, as I cannot help ealling the breach of the fourth commandment, which from time to time I have heard alleged.
I would premise that I know of no sin which men are so sorry for before it is done, and so ready to apologize for afterwards. I cannot tell how many persons, about to travel on the Sabbath, have an- swered me that they were very sorry to do it ; and yet they have immediately gone and done it. They have repented and then sinned — just like Herod, who was sorry to put John the Baptist to death, and then immediately sent an executioner to bring his head. It does not diminish the criminality of an act that it is perpetrated with some degree of regret — and yet the presence of such a regret is considered by many as quite a tolerable excuse.
One gentleman, who was sorry to travel on the
112 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
Sabbath, added, I recollect, that it was against his principles to make such a use of the day. I won- dered then that he should do it — that he should de- liberately practice in opposition to his principles. But I was still more surprised that he should think to excuse his practice by alleging its contrariety to his principles. What are principles for but to regu- late practice; and if they have not fixedness and force enough for this, of what use are they? A man's principles may as well be in favor of Sabbath breaking as his practice ; and certainly it constitutes a better apology for a practice that it is in conformity to one's principles, than that it is at variance with them.
Another gave pretty much the same reason for his conduct in different words : " It is not my ha- bit" said he, "to travel on the Sabbath." It was only his act. He did not uniformly do it. He only occasionally did it. A man must be at a loss for reasons who alleges an apology for traveling one Sabbath, that he does not travel other Sabbaths. The habit of obedience forms no excuse for the act of dis- obedience.
An intelligent lady, who was intending to travel on the Sabbath, volunteered this exculpation of her- self. She said she had traveled one Sabbath already since she left home, and she supposed it was no worse to travel on another. What then? are not two sins worse than one?
Another (and she was a lady too) said she could
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 113
read good books by the way ; and you know, said she, that we can have as good thoughts in one place ss in another. I assented, but could not help think- ing that the persons employed in conveying her might not find their situation as favorable to devout reading and meditation. This, I suppose, did not occur to her.
Another person said that he would never com- mence a journey on the Sabbath; but when once set out, he could see no harm in proceeding. But I, for my part, could not see the mighty difference be- tween setting out on the Sabbath, and going on on the Sabbath. My perceptions were so obtuse that I could not discern the one to be traveling, and the other to be equivalent to rest.
I heard, among other excuses, this : Sunday was the only day of the week on which the stage run to *he place to which the person wished to go, and therefore he was compelled to travel on Sunday. Compelled ? Why go to the place at all 1 Why not procure a private conveyance on another day of the week? What if it would be more expensive ? Doing right pays so well, that one can afford to be at some expense to do it.
Again, I was frequently met with this apology for journeying on the Sabbath : " The stage was going on, and if I had laid by on the Sabbath, I should have lost my seat, and might have had to wait on the road, perhaps for a whole week, before I 10*
114 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
could regain it." This apology satisfied many. They thought it quite reasonable that the person should proceed under those circumstances. But it did not satisfy me. It occurred to me, that if he had honored the Sabbath, and committed his way to the Lord, he might not have been detained on the road be- yond the day of rest. But what if he had been ? are we under no obligation to obey a command of Goct, if we foresee that obedience to it may be attended with some inconvenience ? Better the detention of many days than the transgression of a precept of the decalogue.
One person told me that he meant to start very early in the morning, for he wished to occupy as lit- tle of the Sabbath in traveling as possible. Another proposed to lie by all the middle of the day, and pro- ceed in the evening, and he was sure there could be no harm in that. Ah, thought I, and has not Sun- day a morning and an evening appropriate to itself as well as any other day of the week ? Is the morn- ing of Sunday all one with Saturday, and the evening no more sacred than Monday ? Did God hallow only the middle of the day 7 And is the day of rest shorter by several hours than any other day? I never could see how one part of the Sabbath shouid be entitled to more religious respect than another part. It seems to me a man may as properly travel on the noon of the Sabbath, as in the morning or evening.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 115
One person was very particular to tell me what he meant to do after he had traveled a part of the Lord's day. He expected, by about 10 or 11 o'clock, to come across a church, and he intended to go in and wor- ship. That he supposed would set all right again.
Another, a grave looking personage, was travel- ing on the Sabbath to reach an ecclesiastical meet- ing in season. Another, in order to fulfill an appoint- ment he had made to preach. These were ministers. They pleaded the necessity of the case ; but I could see no necessity in it. I thought the necessity of keeping God's commandments a much clearer and stronger case of necessity. The business of the meeting could go on without that clergyman, or it might have been deferred a day in waiting for him., or lie might have left home a day earlier. The ap- pointment to preach should not have been made ; or if made, should have been broken.
There was one apologist who had not heard from home for a good while, and he was anxious to learn about his family. Something in their circumstances might require his presence. I could not sustain even that apology, for I thought the Lord could take care of his family without him as well as with him, and I did not, believe they would be likely to suffer by his resting on the Sabbath out of respect to God's commandment, and spending the day in imploring the divine blessing on them.
Another apologist chanced to reach on Saturday
116 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
night an indifferent public house. He pleaded, therefore, that it was necessary for him to proceed on the next day until he should arrive at better ac commodations. But I could not help thinking that his being comfortably accommodated was not, on the whole, so important as obedience to the decalogue.
One person thought he asked an unanswerable question, when he begged to know why it was not as well to be on the road, as to be lying by at a coun- try tavern. It occurred to me, that if his horses had possessed the faculty of Balaam's beast, they could hav-e readily told him the difference, and why the latter part Gf the alternative was preferable.
There was still another person who was sure his excuse would be sustained. He was one of a party, who were determined to proceed on the Sabbath in spite of his reluctance, and he had no choice but to go on with them. Ah, had he no choice ? would they have forced him to go on ? could he not have sepa- rated from such a party ? or might he not, if he had been determined, have prevailed on them to rest on the Lord's day? Suppose he had said, mildly yet firmly : " My conscience forbids me to journey on the Sabbath. You can go, but you must leave me. I am sorry to interfere with your wishes, but I cannot of- fend God." Is it not ten to one such a remonstrance would have been successful ? I cannot help suspect- ing that the person was willing to be compelled in this case.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 117
But many said that this strict keeping of the Sab- bath was an old 'puritanical notion, and this seemed to ease their consciences somewhat. I remarked that I thought it older than puritanism. A Siyiaitical no- tion I judged it to be, rather than puritanical.
Many Sunday travelers I met with, begged me not tell their pious relatives that they had traveled on the Sabbath. They thought, if these knew it, they would not think so well of them, and they would be likely to hear of it again. No one asked me not to tell God. They did not seem to care how it affected them in his estimation. It never occurred to them that they might hear from the Lord of the Sabbath on the subject.
I do not know any purpose which such apologies for Sabbath -breaking serve, since they satisfy neither God nor his people, but one, and that is not a very valuable one. They serve only, as far as I can see, to delude those who offer them.
I love to be fair. I have been objecting lately against the Catholics, that they reduce the number of the commandments to nine. I here record my ac- knowledgment that some of us Protestants have really but nine. The Catholics omit the second ; some of our Protestants the fourth.
118 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
2». I Have Done Giving.
A gentleman of high respectability, and a mem- ber of che church, made this remark the other day, when informed that an application was about to be made to him in behalf of some charitable object. " I have done giving," said he. When I heard of his remark it awakened in my mind a train of reflec- tion, which I have thought it might not be amiss to communicate.
" Done giving !" Has he indeed ? Why ? Has he given all ? Has he nothing left to give ? Has this disciple done what his Master did ? Was he rich, and has he become poor for the sake of others, that they, through his poverty, might be rich ? O no ! he is rich still. He has the greatest abundance — more than enough to support him in elegance, and to en- able him to leave an ample inheritance to his chil- dren. What if he has a great deal ? He has not only not impoverished himself, but is probably richer now, through the favor of Providence, than he would have been had he never given any thing. Now if, by honoring the Lord with his substance, his barns, in- stead of being emptied, have been filled with plenty, he had better continue this mode of honoring him. He should rather increase than arrest his liberality. " Done giving !" Why ? Is there no more need of giving 1 Is every want abundantly supplied ? Is
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 119
the whole population of our country furnished with the means of grace ? Is the world evangelized ? Have missionaries visited every shore ? Is the Bible translat- ed into every language and distributed in every land, a copy in every family, and every member of every family taught to read it ? Are the accommodations for widows and orphans as ample as they should be 1 Is there a house of refuge for every class of the hu- man family that needs one ? Or have the poor ceased from the land ? O no ! There are no such good rea- sons as these for ceasing to give. Why then has he done giving? Is it because others do not give as they ought? But what is that to him? Will he make the practice of others his rule of conduct, ra- ther than the precept of Jesus Christ ? If others do not give, so much the more should he. Will he add another name to the list of niggards ?
Does he feel worse for having given away so much ? Has it made him unhappy ? Is his experi- ence different from that of the Lord Jesus, who said, " It is more blessed to give than to receive ?"
Has he, who thinks he will give no more, been led to that conclusion by having found that what has been given hitherto has done no good ? And is it so, that no good has been done by all the Bibles published, and all the Tracts distributed, and all the missionaries sent abroad into our own land and into the world ; and all the schools established, and all the children taught to read, and all the civilization intro-
120 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
duced, and all the asylums opened, and all the po- verty relieved? Has no good heen done ? Good, great good has been done by what has been given ; but still more will be done by what shall be given here- after. Bibles can now be printed at a cheaper rate than heretofore, and the conductors of our charitable operations have learned, by experience, that economy which can be learned in no other way. And yet at this time, when a dollar goes so far in doing good, here is a man who says, " I have done giving !" If I had his ear for a moment, I would ask him if he has done receiving — if God has done giving to him. I would ask him, moreover, if he has done spending, or done hoarding, or done wasting. Now, if he has not, he surely should not stop giving. When he ceases to waste, to hoard, and to spend, except for the merest necessaries, then he may stop giving, but never till then.
" Done giving !" that is, done lending to the Lord ! Done sowing and watering ! Done offering the sacri- fices with which God is well pleased ! Done mak- ing the widow's heart leap for joy, and bringing on himself the blessing of them that were ready to pe- rish ! Well, I am sorry — sorry for the sake of the poor, and the sick, and the orphan, arid the ignorant, and the heathen. But no less sorry am I for the man's own sake. Poor man! poor with all his af- fluence, for there is really no one more poor than he, who, with the ability to give, has not the inclina-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 121
tion. He has it in his power to give, but not in his heart. He is enriched with abundance, but not with liberality.
" Done giving !" well then, if he will not give his money, he must keep it. And yet how short the time he can keep it ! Had he not better freely give away some of it, than to wait for it all to be torn from him ? The thought that he has given, will be at least as agreeable a meditation in his dying moments, as the reflection that he spent, or that he laid up.
I hope that gentleman who said " I have done giving," will recall his resolution, and taking re- venge on himself for having made it, give more liberally than ever.
23. " I Will Give Liberally,'4
It is a good resolution, founded on good reasons, some of which I will state, in the hope that others may be induced to come to a similar determination.
I will give liberally, for the following reasons, viz.
1. Because the objects for which I am called upon to give are great and noble. It is the cause of letters and religion, of man and God, for which my donations are wanted. The interests of time and eternity both are involved in it Now, it is a shame 11
122 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
to give calculatingly and sparingly to such a cause, and for such objects. If one gives at a.., he should give liberally. Nothing can justify a person's put- ting in only two mites, but its being all his living.
2. Liberal donations are needed. The cause not only deserves them, but requires them. It takes a great deal to keep the present operations a going ; and we must every year extend the works. Do you not know that we have the world to go over, and the millennium is just at hand? Look, the morning of that, day is getting bright. We can almost see the sun peering above the horizon.
3. My means either enable me now to give libe- rally, or, by economy and self-denial, may be so in- creased as to enable me to give liberally. I will give liberally so long as I do not resort to economy and self-denial ; and if I do resort to them, that will ena- ble me to give liberally.
4. I will give liberally, because I have received liberally. God has given liberally. He has not only filled my cup, but made it run over. He has given me " good measure, pressed down, and shaken to- gether, and running over." I will imitate him in my gifts to others, and especially in my donations to his cause.
5. I am liberal in my expenditures, and therefore I will be in my donations. Why should I spend much and give little ? It is not because spending is more blessed. No, it is giving that is said to be
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 123
more blessed. The conduct of a man, whose expendi- tures are large and his donations small, is literally monstrous. I will not act so out of all proportion. If I must retrench, I will retrench from my expen- ditures, and not from my benefactions.
6. The time for giving is short, and therefore I will give liberally while I have the opportunity of giving at all. Soon I shall be compelled to have done giving:.
7. A blessing is promised to liberal giving, and 1 want it. The liberal soul shall be made fat. There- fore I will be liberal. " And he that watereth, shall be watered also himself." Then 1 will water. " There is that scattereth and yet increaseth." Therefore I will scatter ; and not sparingly, but bountifully ; for " he which soweth sparingly, shall reap also spa- ringly ; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully."
8. I will give liberally, because it is not a clear gift, it is a loan. " He that has pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord ;" lendeth to the best of pay- masters, on the best security, and at the highest rate of interest ; for he renders double, aye, a hundredfold in this life, to say nothing of the life to come. I will lend him liberally.
9. I will give liberally, because the times are hard where the Gospel is not.
10. I will give liberally, because there are many who would, but cannot ; and many that can. but will
124 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
not. It is so much the more necessary, therefore, that they should who are both able and inclined. I used to say, " I will not give liberally, because others do not. There is a richer man than I am, who does not give so much as I do." But now, from the same premises, I draw the opposite conclusion. Because others do not give liberally, I will.
11. I have sometimes tried giving liberally, and I do not believe I have ever lost any thing by it. I have seen others try it, and they did not seem to lose any thing by it ; and, on the whole, I think a man is in no great danger of losing, who puts liberally into the treasury of the Lord and possessor of all things, and the giver of every good and perfect gift.
12. And finally, when I ask myself if I shall ever be sorry for giving liberally, I hear from within a prompt and most decided negative, " No, never."
Wherefore I conclude that I will give liberally. It is a good resolution, I am certain ; and now I will take care that I do not spoil it all by putting an illi- beral construction on liberally. I will understand it as meaning freely, cheerfully, largely, whether the lexicographers say so or not; or, in other words, as meaning ivhat I ought to give, and a little more. I will tell you how I will do. An object being present- ed to me, when I have ascertained what justice re- quires me to give, I will add something, lest, through insidious selfishness, I may have underrated my ability : and that, if I err, I may be sure to err on the
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 125
right side. Then I will add a little to my donation out of generosity. And when I have counted out what justice requires, and what generosity of her free will offers, then I will think of Him, who, though he was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we, through his poverty, might be rich ; and I say not that I will add a little more, but, how can I keep back any thing ?
" Were the whole realm of nature mine, " That were a present far toe small : 11 Love so amazing, so divine, " Demands my soul, my life, my all."
24. The Calls are so Many.
This is one of the most common complaints of those who are called upon to contribute to charitable objects : " The calls are so many," they say. Now, let us inquire into this matter.
1. Are there really so many? Reckon them up. Perhaps they are not, after all, so many as you ima- gine. Any thing which annoys us, at intervals, is apt to be considered as coming oftener than it really does. When a man has rent to pay, how frequently quarter day seems to come round ! But it is not so 11*
126 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
with him who is the receiver. The calls are not, in fact, so many as you imagine. I asked a wealthy lady once, who thought she gave a great deal away in charity, to keep an accurate account for one year of all she gave away, particularly to the religious charities ; (which are those that are most complain- ed of;) and I predicted that she would find, at the close of the year, that her donations had been less than she imagined. She did so, and at the end of the year came to me and said she was perfectly ashamed to find that she had spent so much and given so little. She found that the calls were not " so very many."
2. If the calls are so many, yet do not make that a reason for refusing them all. I fear that some do. But surely that the calls are so many, is no reason that you should not comply with some of them. It is only a reason why you should not comply with all. Meet one-half of them generously, if you can- not meet them all. You acknowledge that there ought to be some calls, when you complain that they are so many.
3. If the calls are many, are they more than the wants ? Ought they not to be as many ? Would you have the calls fewer than the wants? That would never do ; — then some wants would never be supplied. Besides, you should consider who makes or permits the wants — and therefore the calls — to be so many, lest your complaint cast a reflection on God. If the calls are so many — too many, and we
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 127
must dispense with some, which shall they be? Widows and orphans, and the poor generally, you dare not, as you fear God, except from your chari- ties. Will you refuse the call of the Bible agent, or the Tract agent? Will you withhold from Foreign Missions, or from Home Missions, or from both ? Or will you say, " We will contribute to send out and support missionaries both at home and abroad, but we will not aid in their education 1 Let them get that as they can. Let them make their way through the academy, the college, and the theologi- cal seminary as they can. And let Sunday schools establish and support themselves : and temperance agents see, since they are so much in favor of absti- nence, if they cannot get along without the staff of life." For my part, I do not know what calls to ex- cept, and therefore I judge the safer way to be to re- ceive none.
4. If the calls are many, the expenditures are more ; and we not only spend, but waste, in more ways than we give.
5. If the calls you receive are so many, suppose, in order to avoid them, that you make some. Turn agent for some society, and you shall see how much more pleasant it is to make calls than to receive them. We will excuse you from contributing, if you will solicit. But that you would not like at all. " You cannot bear begging. It is the most unpleasant thing in the world to apply to people for money." Very
128 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
well ; if you decline this branch of the alternative, then do not complain of the other. If you will not turn out and make the calls, you must sit still and receive them. It is the easier part ; and you ought to be good natured when you receive one of these calls — aye, and even grateful to the man who comes to you, that he affords you another opportunity of offering one of the sacrifices with which God is well pleased, without going out of your way to do it. Others must go about to do good, but you can sit still and do good.
6. If the calls are so many, this importunity will not last long. Not more than seventy or eighty years does it ever continue. If it is an annoyance, you can bear it a few years. In eternity you will never receive these or any other calls. I knew se- veral rich men whose last calls were made on them in 1833.
Do these calls pester you ? They bless others. Yonder is a poor woman reading the Bible which your money paid for. And there is another weep- ing over a Tract which she owes to your donation. And there is a third blessing the good people that support domestic missions : and there is a heathen mother, who perhaps would have immolated her child, if your contribution had not helped to send her the Gospel. Do you hear that young man ? How well he preaches ! You assisted to educate him. Dear friend, do not complain, but welcome
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 129
every call ; treat all the agents with civility, and do as much as you any way can for the various benevo- lent objects ; for " the time is short," and all the re- gret which your liberality will occasion you I will consent to suffer.
35. «I Can't Afford It."
This is another of the common excuses for not giving. A person, being applied to in behalf of this or that good object, says, " I approve the object. It ought to be encouraged, and I am sorry I cannot aid it. But so it is. The calls on me are so many, and my means are so limited, I cannot afford it." Now it may be he is mistaken. Perhaps he can af- ford it. The heart is very deceitful. But admitting that he cannot afford it, as is often the case, yet does this excuse him ? Is the want of ability a sufficient apology? By no means. There is another thing to be considered — the cause of his inability. Why can he not afford it ? We must go back one step, and in- quire how it comes to pass that he is so destitute of means as to be unable to give to this and that good object. What if he has not the ability, provided he might have it ? Now as it regards the cause of the inability.
130 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
1. Perhaps he does not earn as much as he might. In that case, his not being able to afford it is no ex- cuse. All he has to do is to earn a little more, and then he can afford it. Let only his idle hours be fewer — let him but work a little longer, or a little harder, and there will be no difficulty. And why should not a man earn to give, as well as earn to eat, drink, and put on ? Are these last more blessed than giving ? Why should you not put forth a little extra effort, if it be necessary to enable you to pro- mote the cause of humanity and religion ? We see that this man is the author of his inability, and there- fore it is no excuse. He could afford it if he would but take certain simple and obvious measures to do so.
2. Perhaps the case may be that he does not save as much as he might. He is not idle, but he is pro- digal. He earns enough, but he does not economi- cally use it. Now a penny saved is equal to a pemry earned ; and it is all one to the treasury of charity whether that which it receives comes of economy or of industry. The person of whom I now speak, earns it, but he does not save it. Hence his inabil- ity. His income is more than sufficient for the com- fortable subsistence of himself and those dependent on him, yet he is so inconsiderate in his expenditures, wastes so much, that he has nothing left to give. Now, I would ask if it is not worth while to prac- tice economy for the sake of being able to exercise
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 131
liberality ; to save for the sake of having something to give to the cause of the Lord 1 Is it not worth all the care which economy requires ?
3. But perhaps I have not suggested the true cause of the inability. If, however, the apologist will allow me the liberty of a little survey and criticism, I think I can ascertain why he cannot afford it. And first I will scan his person. O, I see why you can- not afford it ! You wear your money. You have got so much of your earnings or income on your person, that it is no wonder that you cannot afford to give. Why, there is one article worn over the shoulders, that cost one hundred dollars, or more. Now I do not say, take it off; but I do say, that while it is on, you have no right to plead, " I cannot afford it," for you wear a proof that you can afford it. Next I will enter the house. The size and situation of it is perhaps unnecessarily expensive ; and then the furniture ! Here the wonder ceases — the mystery is explained. I see plainly enough why you can- not afford it.
Now, again I say, I am not one of those who would have you sell off your furniture and move out of the house you occupy, for God has given us " richly all things to enjoy ;" but while you live in the manner you do, pray do not plead that you can- not afford it when one asks you to give to the cause of some charity. Now the table is set. The service is very fine. Distant China has contributed of its
132 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
porcelain, and Potosi of the product of its mines to enrich it. What a display of silver ! I see why you cannot afford it. You have melted the dollars by which you could have afforded it, into plate. Now, either send that back to the mint again, or else do not send away the agent for that Christian institu- tion emptyhanded. The dinner is spread. Many and rich are the dishes. I do not complain. Only when you have such a table before you, dare not to say that you cannot afford the money which shall purchase and send a little of the bread of life to the destitute and perishing. Then follows the — wines, I should say. Well, what is the harm ? Even the temperance pledge excepts wine. No harm. Only do not say again " I cannot afford it," to him who comes to plead before you the cause of the orphan, the ignorant, the unevangelized. Or, if you excuse yourself, tell the whole truth — say ; " For my wine, I cannot afford it." There drives up a carriage. It is in fine style ; one servant on the box, and one be- hind— a noble span. Yet the gentleman and lady who ride in that carriage, when one comes and tells them of the poor heathen who are groping their way in the dark to eternity, haughtily, perhaps, reply that they have nothing to give. O no, they cannot give, for they must ride in state, But here is another who dresses and lives very plainly ; yet he cannot afford it. Why, what is the matter 1 0, his money is in the stocks, and he cannot touch the principal ;
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 133
and there are his children for whom he must make a liberal provision.
Friend, hear me : you can afford it, if you will. If you have not the ability, you can acquire it. You can earn more ; or you can save more. You can spend less. You can afford it out of your furniture, your dress, your table, your equipage — or, perhaps, over and above it all. You can afford it, and you ought to afford it. You must afford it. Come, now, and resolve that you will. Say no more, " I cannot afford it," but " I will afford it." You can afford to indulge yourself when you wish — to take your plea- sure— to gratify your children. And can you not afford to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to send the balm of life abroad into a diseased and dying world 1 It is very strange ! Are you a Chris- tian ? As for me, " I cannot afford not to give " — there is so much gain in giving — so much loss in not giving, that if I cannot afford any thing else, I must afford this. Some say they are too poor to give, but I am too poor not to give ; and, moreover, I can no longer afford to give so little as heretofore I have given. Indeed, I must sow more bountifully, for I want to reap also bountifully. This parsimony in the use of seed money is poor policy.
12
134 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
26. An Example of Liberality.
I am going to give an example of liberality. Bu( where do you think I am going to take it from, an what persons hold up as an example of liberality ? Not Christians, though there were in the apostolic age of Christianity notable examples of liberality, many disciples literally doing as did their Master, impoverishing themselves for his cause ; and though since that time there have been others, and are now not a few of a kindred spirit. The example I pro- pose to give is taken from the history of the Jews. Some will wonder that I go to the Jews for an ex- ample of liberality. But I wish, for my part, that Christians were only as generous as the Jews once were, whatever they may be now.
The case to which I refer is related in Exodus, chapter 35. The tabernacle was to be erected and furnished ; and for this purpose various and very precious materials were requisite. He who gave his people bread and water by miracle, could have miraculously furnished all that was necessary for the tabernacle, just as he can now convert the hea- then without the help of men and means. But he did not choose to do it, as now he does not choose to save the world without employing human instrumen- tality. God does not every thing which he is able to do. Some people seem to think that they are un-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 135
der no obligation to attempt any thing which God can do without them.
The plan adopted for obtaining the materials was this. Moses, in a full assembly of the people, gave the following notice : " This is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying, Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord ; whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord ; gold, and silver, and brass," &c. This was all the agency that was employed for the collection of all those costly materials. How in contrast stands this to our necessarily numerous, expensive, and laborious agen- cies ! Here was a simple notice given ; a bare state- ment made that such and such things were wanted. Nor were the people called on to give on the spot, or to pledge their donations. Thty were not taken unawares, and hurried into an exercise of liberality. Time was given them for consideration. After the notice the congregation was dismissed. Nor was it made the absolute duly of the people to give. A command was indeed issued on the subject, but indi- viduals were left free to give or not, as they pleased. " Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it." And it appears from Exodus, 25 : 2, where the sub- ject is first introduced, that Moses was not to receive any offering that was not given willingly and cheer- fully. " Of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart, ye shall take my offering."
By the way, may not this be a rule which should
136 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
be regarded now — not to receive an offering into the Lord's treasury, if there be any evidence of its be- ing reluctantly given ? If nothing was to be re- ceived for the work of the tabernacle, but what was given with the heart, why should heartless donations be accepted for the edification and extension of the church ? It has occurred to me, that perhaps one reason why the means which our benevolent socie- ties employ effect no more — why our Bibles and Tracts, and the labors of our Missionaries, are not more extensively blessed, is, that these operations are not sustained and carried on by purely free-will offerings. A great deal that goes to sustain them is grudgingly given. I know it may be said that if we reject all but free-will offerings, our means will not suffice. If that should be the case, yet I doubt not less money, cheerfully contributed, would accomplish more than a larger amount drawn out of the pockets of an unwilling and complaining people. But I do not believe that the sum total of receipts would be less. Was there any deficiency in the offerings con- tributed for the tabernacle ? So far from it, there was i superabundance. The artisans came and told Mo- ses, saying, " The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work." Accordingly, Moses forbade any more offerings being brought. - So the people were restrained from bringing, for the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much." The liberality went far
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 137
beyond the necessity. Christians give now no such examples of liberality for the church. Noic much less than enough is received ; and that, though the notice is oft repeated — and though more than a mere notice is given — though warm and earnest appeals are made, and the greatest urgency used ; and though new arguments are employed, such as could not have been used with these Jews. What a founda- tion for argument and appeal is laid in the love and death of Christ ! What convincing force — what per- suasive efficacy ought there not to be to the mind and heart of every follower of Jesus, in the logic of that passage which Paul used so successfully with the Corinthians ! " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might be rich." The Jews did not know that. Yet how liberally they gave ! — more than enough ! But now, with all our knowledge, less than enough is received ; and that, though after the public applica- tion and appeal are made, the people are waited on, and the application and appeal are renewed in pri- vate. Moses sent no one round, from tent to tent, to gather the contributions of the people. No. These Jews brought them. But, ah, how little do Chris- tians now bring to the treasury of the Lord ! How small a proportion of the money used for the work of the Lord is brought ! No. It has to be sent after. The benevolence of the church now complies. It 12*
138 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
does not offer. It does, to be sure, stand still and do some good ; but it does not go about doing good. All the labor and trouble connected with giving is declined. It is considered now-a-days to be a very good excuse for not giving to a well-known object of benevolence, if the person can say that he has not been called on to give. Not called on ! Did your Master wait to be called on ? Did his charity defer its action until application was made to it ? Formerly it was held that the disciple should be as his master. In other days Christ was regarded as the model, and that Christianity was not thought any thing of which did not include an imitation of Christ.
Would it not be considered as a very unwise pro- ceeding on the part of an agent now, should he, af- ter stating an object, immediately dismiss the people, and leave it entirely optional Avith them to give or not? Would he be likely to hear from all of them again ? But Moses did so. He dismissed them ; " and all the congregation of the children of Israel departed from the presence of Moses." But the very next verse says, " they came and brought the Lord's offer- ing." There was nothing lost to the cause by this arrangement. " They came, both men and women, as many as were willing-hearted." They all did it cheerfully.
But some may say, " It is no wonder they gave ; what use had they in the wilderness for their money and substance?" But observe what articles they con-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 189
tributed. Gold, and silver, and precious stones, which men value, whether they have any particular use for them or not. Nor these only, but their personal or- naments, "bracelets, and ear-rings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold." You see they gave things which are valued under all circumstances. Nor could it be said that they gave generously because they were in prosperous business. Some persons say they are always willing to give freely when they are making money. Now, the Israelites were not making money, nor were they passing through a gold country, yet they gave liberally — far beyond the liberality of prosperous Christians generally. Nor was it a single donation they made. We read in the 36th chapter, " and they brought yet unto him free offerings every morning." They kept it up from day to day ; and how long they would have gone on, if not restrained from giving more, no one can tell. I wonder when we shall have to restrain Chris- tians from giving. What a different state of things we find now ! We talk about " stubborn Jews, that unbelieving race;" but there was one generation of them, at least, that were not near as obstinate in holding on to their money and substance as the pre- sent race of Christians.
140 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
27. Another Example of Liberality.
The first example was taken from the history of the Jews. The one I am now to give is taken from the records of Christianity. And yet it is not in any history of the modem church that I find it. They are not the Christians of the present day that I am going to hold up as a model of bountifulness. The reader will find the account in the eighth and ninth chapters of the second Epistle to the Corinthians. It relates to the Christians of Macedonia. Paul, wishing to excite the Corinthians to the exercise of liberality, tells them what their brethren of Macedo- nia had done — how liberally they had given. The account is very remarkable in several respects.
1. These Macedonian Christians gave, though they were very poor — in " deep poverty," ch. 8, v. 2. They had the best of all excuses for not giving. They might, with the greatest propriety, have pleaded po- verty. I do not see, for my part, how they gave at all. But somehow or other they made out to give, and to give liberally. Their poverty does not seem to have stood in their way in the least. It is even said that " their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality." Now, if their deep poverty so abounded, it occurs to me to ask, what would not their great riches have done, had they been as wealthy as some American Christians ? The truth is, as the proverb says, " when there is a will, there
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 141
is always a way." Having it in their heart to give, they contrived by dint of some ingenuity, and not a little self-denial, to get it into their power to give. Such liberal souls had they, that it made their very poverty abound unto the riches of their liberality.
2. They gave not only to the full extent of their ability, but even beyond it. " For to their power, (I bear record,) yea, and beyond their power," they gave. So testifies the apostle. The Christians of our day do not give more than they are able. I wish it could be said that they give according to their abil- ity. Note, the idea of giving as much as one any way can, is almost laughed at. But it was no joke in former times. But how did they contrive to give beyond their power, some one will ask. This looks a little contradictory. Well, I suppose it means that they gave beyond what, on the usual principles of computation, would have been judged to be their ability ; and that on the score of justice, and even of generosity, they might have been let off for less.
" What improvident persons ! " some will say. " How they must have neglected their families ! Are we not told to provide for our own, and that he who does not, has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel ?" Yes, we are told so. But for all that it does not appear that these Macedonians were cen- sured as worse than infidels. They were even com- mended as Christians, whose example was worthy of all imitation.
142 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS,
3. They gave ivillingiy, verse 3. They did not give beyond their disposition, though they did be- yond their ability. They had it in their hearts to give even more. It was done, " not grudgingly or of ne- cessity," No one said, as is sometimes said now, M well, I suppose I must give you something." Nor was their willingness the effect of any appeals made to them. They were " willing of themselves!'1 the apostle testifies. It was entirely spontaneous. The apostles had not to entreat them to give ; but they had earnestly to entreat the apostles to receive their gift. " Praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift." It is not so now. Now, the beg- ging is too much on the other side.
4. They gave altogether beyond the apostles' ex- pectations. " Not as we hoped," says Paul. Our agents are not often so agreeably disappointed. Their fears are more apt to be realized, than their hopes exceeded.
5. But I see how it was they came to give so libe- rally. It was owing to "the grace of God bestowed " on them, as it is said in verse 1. That always makes people liberal. Grace is a generous principle. There is nothing opens the heart like it. Under the influ- ence of this grace they " first gave their own selves to the Lord." Now when a man has given away himself, it is easy to give what only appertains to him. The great matter is to give the person. The property follows as a matter of course. Indeed it is
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 143
included in the first gift. I suppose the reason that some give no more property to the Lord's cause, is that they have not given themselves to him. They have not begun right.
6. I suppose also that these Macedonians were in- fluenced to the exercise of liberality by the considera- tion which Paul uses with the Corinthians in verse 9. " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich," &c. They thought that the disciples ought to do like their Master. I con- clude, moreover, that they held the doctrine, that giv- ing is sowing, and that men reap in proportion to what they sow ; and since they wished to reap boun- tifully, they sowed bountifully. They knew too that God was able to make all grace abound toward them ; that they, always having all sufficiency in all things, might abound to every good work, ch. 9, verse 8. They were not at all concerned about the consequences of their liberality.
It should not be forgotten that they gave for the benefit of people a great way off — the poor saints at Jerusalem. They might have said that they had ob- jects enough at home, and where was the necessity of going abroad for them. But it seems distance had not that weight with them that it has with some now. The wants of the poor saints at Jerusalem touched their hearts, and they contributed for their relief, though they were poor, very poor themselves. I don't know but I might have made it with propriety
144 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
a distinct head, that they seem to have been evea poorer than those for whom they gave ; for theirs was deep poverty. When we give to evangelize poor souls in heathen lands, we don't give to those who are as well off as we are. We have no such objects at home as they are. Finally, what a noble example of liberality is here ! How worthy of imitation by American Christians ! We need much that the spi- rit of these men of Macedonia should come over and help us.
38. More about Liberality.
In my opinion there is nothing which lays the church more open to infidel attack and contempt, than its parsimony to the cause of Christ. Profes- sors of religion, in general, give nothing in com- parison to what they ought to give. Some literally give nothing, or somewhere in that immediate neigh- borhood. I shall not inquire whether such persons are really Christian men. One might almost ques- *ion whether they are human.
I have used the word give ; I must correct my language. Deliver up, I ought to say, when speak- ing of Christians who have so often acknowledged
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 145
themselves as not their own, but themselves and their1 s to be the Lord's. Not a cent, or not much more, will some of these deliver up of all that their Lord has given them in trust. What stewards we Christians are ! We act as if we were undisputed owners and sovereign proprietors of all; when we know, and if pressed, acknowledge, it is no such thing. The infidels know that we profess to be but stewards, and that, in our devotional hours, we write on every thing we have, " This is the Lord's ;" and they naturally expect to see some correspondence between our profession and practice ; and when they perceive that in this instance it is but bare profession, and that we do not mean any thing by it, they are very apt to conclude that this is true of our religion generally. Moreover, these shrewd characters see common humanity constraining, men of the world to greater liberality than the love of Christ con- strains his reputed disciples to exercise ; and that, though they hear Christians continually saying that there is no principle which has such power to carry men out to deeds and sacrifices of benevolence as the love of Christ. What must they conclude from this 1 Either that there is no such principle, or that Christians do not feel the force of it.
Again : Infidels hear us speak of giving, as lend- ing to the Lord. Now, they don't believe any such thing ; but since we do, they are astonished that we do not lend more liberally to such a paymaster, and 13
146 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
on such security. They are in the habit of lending liberally, and they wonder Christians do not. They hear us also repeating and admiring that sentiment, " It is more blessed to give than to receive." Must they not think us insincere in our commendations of this sentiment, or else that we have very faint as- pirations after the more blessed part, when they look on and see with how much more complacency and good humor we receive a great deal, than give a little.
But about the parsimony of Christians. I do not hesitate to say, having well considered the import of my words, that men are not so mean (I must use the word) to any cause as Christians, in general, are to Christ's cause. They give more sparingly to it than to any other. Just think of the American Bible Society receiving scarcely one hundred thou- sand dollars a-year from these United States, to give the Bible to the country and to the world. There is one fact for you. More is often given to carry a po- litical election in a single limited district ; and some professors of religion will give more to promote such an object than to help on the conversion of the world. I should not wonder if this article were read qy some who have done so this very year.
Many persons never give until they have done every thing else ; and when any pressure occurs, it is the first thing they stop doing. They go on spend- ing, not only for necessaries and comforts, but even for luxuries, never minding the pressure. They only
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 147
stop giving ; commencing retrenchment with their donations, and generally ending it with them. They are liberal still for every thing but charity. You could never suppose, to look at their dress, equipage, furniture, table, &c. that the times were any way hard. No, they forget that, till they are called on to give ; then they feel the pressure of the times.
The manner in which some persons give is wor- thy of no very commendatory notice. They say, when applied to, " Well, I suppose I must give you something." Mark the word must, where will ought to be ; and give, where contribute, or strictly speak- ing, yield up, should have been ; and you — give you. It is no such thing. The man is no beggar. He is not asking any thing for himself. He has himself given to the same object ; and more than money — his time and thought, his cares and efforts. Nay, per- haps has given his own person to the service which he saks others to aid by their pecuniary contribu- tions. Christians, so called, talk of giving to sup- port missionaries, as if they laid the missionaries under some obligation to them. Preposterous ! How it sounds to hear a British Christian indulge such a remark in reference to the richly-gifted, and profound- ly learned Martyn, who, when he might have shone at home, went into the sickly East to hold up the light of life in those dark places ! To call men who give themselves to the work of the Lord, and to la- bor and die for their fellow-men, the protegees, ben-
148 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
eficiaries, and obligated dependants of us who live and luxuriate at home, is really too bad ; men, who when the alternative is to go or send, consent to the weightier branch of the alternative, and go ; that they should be looked upon as inferior to us, who choose the lighter part of the alternative, and only send ! I say it is too bad. "I must give you something!" Really !
I do not wonder, for my part, that God does not give " the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven," to the present generation of saints. Their souls are not suf- ficiently expanded to receive it. It will require a race of Christians of great hearts to take possession of the world in the name of Jesus — Christians who shall be constrained by his love, and who shall feel the full force of the consideration presented in 2 Cor. 8 : 9. Many Christians now think they feel it ; but is it feeling the force of that consideration for a man, who has an income of some thousands a-year, to give a few surplus dollars annually to support missions, or to circulate the Bible % I do not say, that because Christ impoverished himself, therefore all his followers ought literally to do the same ; but I say they ought to come nearer to it than they do. If, being rich, they should not become poor, as he did, yet surely they ought to be more free with their riches. If the master gave his whole principal, cer- tainly the disciples might give their interest. That
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 149
would not be too closely imitating him. If he emp- tied himself, they at least might forego farther accu- mulation. They need not become poor ; but why should they be so solicitous to become more rich ? That is being as unlike the model as possible.
39. A Tract Effort.
We had a meeting last night in one of our churches to raise the sum of one thousand dollars in aid of the American Tract Society's foreign operations. The notice was general in the churches ; and to many in- dividuals repeated in the shape of a printed request sent to them on the day of the meeting. The evening came, and it was one of the finest we ever have ; not a cloud, and the moon shining forth in her full- est splendor — emulating, to her utmost, the light of the orb of day. We had not, however, a very large meeting.
Few, even of our church members, can be per- suaded to adopt that sentiment of the Savior, that " it is more blessed to give than to receive." Many are unable to conceal the sceptical smile, when it is gravely advanced and urged as an argument for li- berality. More blessed to give ! There is nothing in 13*
150 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
them that responds to that sentiment. Yet Jesus said it seriously. He meant what he said ; and some of his dear followers know in their hearts that it is so. They experience the superior blessedness of giving. Far more delightful to them is the feeling when they communicate, than the feeling when they re- ceive ; and giving leaves an impression of pleasure on the soul which no other act does or can. To be capable of communicating ! What a privilege ! they exclaim. It is to be like God, who all things gives, but nought receives, save the gratitude and praise of his innumerable pensioners and dependants. These persons give now as they pray, almost for- getting it is a duty, so occupied are their souls with a feeling that it is a privilege.
But we met to promote a. foreign object ; and that made against us with some. The distance of the heathen from us was even pleaded by one as an ar- gument against contributing. They are so far off. So far off — my thoughts dwelt on these words — and I reflected thus : " They are not so far off from us, as angels are from men. Yet angels come over the distance to minister to men. No part of earth is so far from any other part, as earth from heaven ; yet, did not the benevolence of the Son of God bring him across that long interval of space ? How have we his spirit, if our benevolence cannot carry us the length and breadth of this little continuous earth ? What if the object be foreign ? Earth was more fo-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 151
reign to heaven. The man that argues against mis- sions as foreign, is not aware perhaps that his argu- ment assails the mission of the Son of God, and would prove the incarnation to have been an unwise mea- sure. But is it foreign ? What ! one spot of earth foreign to another, and man an alien to man ! Chris- tianity teaches a different lesson — that earth is but one great habitation, and men but one extended bro- therhood. O shall we, who have been visited by a ben- efactor from the skies, think any part of earth too dis- tant for our charity to explore ! Jesus thought it not so when he said, " Go ye into all the world." If the argument of distance had prevailed with others, we had never heard of Jesus. Was not Britian far off? Yet Christian missionaries visited it. I wonder that this circumstance should be forgotten. Was that a Quixotic enterprise which resulted in the conver- sion of our ancestors 1 If not, how is that Quixotic which undertakes the conversion of a nation now in heathenism 1 Too distant ! There was something formidable in distance once. But what is distance now ? With the star, and the compass, and the sail, and the steam, and man's skill to construct, and courage to dare, and fortitude to endure, what, I ask, is distance ? Diminished almost to being annihilated. Whither has not man gone for his own objects? Whither shall he not go for Christ's ? Shall curiosi- ty, the love of science, the passion for adventure, the lust of gain, carry men farther than the love of Christ
152 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
\
shall constrain them to go ? O never. There is no force in the objection.
It was, notwithstanding all, a good meeting. Those who were present gave liberally, and with the help of the ladies we shall more than make up the sum we proposed. I know some think these women ought not to labor with us in the gospel. But why not these, as well as " those women " which labored with Paul in the gospel, of whom he makes such respectful mention in his epistle to the Philippians ? Was it proper then to use their aid, and not now % May they not do what they can for Christ as well as their sister whom Christ commended for having done what she could ? Were they not women whom Christ sent on the first errand he wanted done after his resurrection ? " Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." May not such as went on that errand, go on that greater er- rand : " Go ye and teach all nations .?" May they not at least promote the going of others ? What, are women the followers of Jesus Christ, and may they not, as their Master did, go about doing good ?
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 153
30. Why the World Should Have the Bible.
There are a great many reasons why the world should h-\ve the Bible. The reasons are so nume- rous, substantial and urgent, that I wonder any should have doubts about it. And I wonder that we who have the Bible, and think so much of it, and have such xneans of multiplying and circulating copies of it, do not resolve at once to attempt, within a reason- able neriod, to give it to the world, since the world can only have it by the gift of those in Avhose pos- session it now is. If it is time that they had it — high time, as I suppose no one will deny, it is time we had at least resolved to try to let them have it. I wonder the great national Societies hesitate to resolve to try to fill the world with Bibles within a given period. No individual or society knows what it can do till a trial is made ; we can never foresee our ability to ac- complish a great enterprise. They must always be undertaken in faith. I consider it quite as hazardous to predict that the world God has created and up- holds cannot be put in possession of his Word in some twenty or thirty years, as to predict that it can. This may seem a short time for us to fill the world with Bibles, but it is a long time for them to be without Bibles. I think it is always best to resolve on that which ought to be done, and which greatly needs to be done, especially when one knows that the thing
154 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
is to be done within some period, and when the re- solution is hut to make the attempt, and even that is done only in reliance on divine help. A man may resolve on a great deal, when he is authorized to rely, and does actually rely on God to aid him in executing it. He may take on him a great weight of responsibility when he has such support. One can do all things through Christ strengthening him ; and cannot some hundreds of thousands of Christians fill the world with Bibles through the same ?
Why should not the efforts of the friends of Christ extend as far as do those of the foes of Christ? There is Satan and his associates. They go for the whole world. When the Lord asked Satan whence he came, he answered, " From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." He had been over the whole ground. And shall not we go over the whole ground ? Shall we not go as far seeking whom we may save, as he " seeking whom he may devour ?" I know that he is a very powerful being, and we are weak ; but he is not al- mighty, whereas, though we are not, our glorious Ally is.
I know too that the foes of Christ are united, and herein have a great advantage ; while the friends of Christ are any thing but united. That desire which the Savior expressed, " that they all may be one," remains to be accomplished : and while that is the case, no wonder the world does not believe that God
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 155
has sent him. John 17 : 21. Christ does not seem to have expected that the world would believe, until his disciples were one. Now, they are not one, nor even two, but many. These friends have so many disputes to settle among themselves, that I do not know -when they will be ready to proceed against the common foe. No other being ever had such di- vided friends as Christ. I do not say that all their controversies are unimportant, but I say they are none of them as important as the Lord's controversy Avith the earth.
But there is another more touching reason why the whole world should have the Bible as soon as possible. My mind has recently laid great stress upon it, and it was for the sake of presenting it that I undertook this article. Every part of earth is a vale of tears, and man is universally a mourner. Afflic- tion is, or is to be, the lot of all. " Man is born to trouble," and no one can alienate this birthright. Now the Bible is the mourner's own and only book. There is nothing will do for him but this. Other )ooks have been tried and found wanting. They do •ot go to the heart like God's. They don't wipe iway a tear. But the Bible tells us of a hand that wipes away all tears from our eyes. And it is the very hand that made us. What a picture the Bible presents ! One everlasting arm underneath a man to support him, and the hand of the other wiping away his tears as they flow ! Was ever any thing like it ?
156 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
That picture ought to be exhibited every where. I have read what Howe, and Watts, and Flavel, and Baxter and Cecil, and I do not know how many others, have written for mourners, and it is all very well ; but what is it all to what I have read in the La- mentations of Jeremiah, " he doth not afflict willingly !" Ah, there is more than half the hu- man race that think he does afflict willingly. The cholera is regarded by the Hindoos as the cruel sport of one of their goddesses. O ho»v it would lighten the sorrows of these mourners, did they but know that it is no one of a plurality of gods, but the Lord that afflicts them, and that he does it not wil- lingly ! Can we not in a quarter of a century give them this information ? But this is only one of I know not how many similar passages. There is another that goes even beyond this ? " In all their afflictions He was afflicted !" Here is sympathy for you — divine sympathy. Dost thou feel ? He feels too. Does not the pitier always suffer as well as the pitied 1 Well, " like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth.'"' Such ideas as these never crossed a pagan mind. It never even occurred to him that God is a father.
I have thought how one of us in our affliction would like to be without the Bible, and what we would not give under such circumstances to obtain it; whether we would not give more to have it for ourselves, than we now sfive that the other members
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 157
of the great family of mourners may have it. I think we should increase our subscription to the Bi- ble Society. We would not like to go along the vale of tears, and through the valley of the shadow of death, into which the former sometimes so suddenly sinks, without the 23d Psalm in our possession.
31. Mrs. M. Ii. NeviaiS.
Will you allow a friend, in his affliction, to oc- cupy a little space in your valuable paper, with a subject deeply interesting to himself and to a few of your readers. Other readers can pass it by as des- titute of general interest, and when their turn of be- reavement comes, let them be indulged the like pri- vilege of consecrating their private griefs on the public page.
The following notice was inserted in the secular newspapers of Baltimore, of November 12.
" Died, on Saturday, November 8, 1834, after a short illness, Mrs. Mary Lloyd, Avife of the Rev. W. Nevins, aged 33 years. Though she fell a victim to the dreadful pestilence, yet she suffered no pain, and felt no terror, but with sweet submission to the divine will — with perfect confidence in the merits of 14
158 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
her Redeemer, and in humble hope of eternal life through his atonement, she gently breathed her spirit out to God, and left her body to sleep in Jesus until the morning of the resurrection."
For the secular newspaper that sufficed. But as one object of your publication is to record the doings of divine grace, a more extended memorial of what that grace did for the subject of this notice, espe- cially in her last brief illness, cannot be out of place in its columns.
Mrs. Nevins was the daughter of the late Philip Barton Key, Esq. and was born in Georgetown, D. C. the 27th of August, A. D. 1801. For several years it was her privilege to enjoy the public minis- try, and to receive the pastoral attentions of the Rev. C. P. Mcllvaine, then rector of an Episcopal church in that place, and now bishop of the diocess of Ohio. For her soul he felt the tenderest concern. His pray- ers, his vigilance, and his efforts for its salvation were unremitted and untiring. Nor did he labor in vain. By the blessing of God on his fidelity, it is believed she became, in 1821, a subject of divine grace, and gave up the world for Christ. In one of her last conversations she spoke of this beloved man in terms of such affection as can be felt alone to- wards those who have been the instruments, in the hand of God, of winning souls to Christ. She felt that under God she owed every thing to him.
In November, 1822, she became the wife of the
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 159
Rev. W. Nevins, and removed to Baltimore, the scene of his ministry, where she continued to reside until her death. Of her devotedness as a wife, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a friend, the writer of this could speak in terms of unmeasured eulogy ; but 't is enough that her record in this respect is engraven indelibly on many hearts. Her attach- ment to the cause of Christ was intelligent, sincere, and uniform.
Up to the evening of the 7th of November, she was, with an exception, aeemed scarcely worthy of notice, in the possession of perfect health. It has been said of the cholera that it begins where other diseases end — with death. Almost literally true was this in her case, In a few hours after she was at- tacked, it became evident to those around her, and to herself, that the mortal blow had been struck. She needed no one to tell her of it ; she felt within her- self that life was fast ebbing away, and said of the weariness upon her, that it must be the weariness of death. When a friend, who stood by her, expressed her sorrow that she should take such a view of her case, she said, " Remember who hath said all things shall work together for our good. I submit to his will, and desire that he may do with me as seemeth to him good ; though it is very painful to be separa- ted from my dear husband and my sweet children. But I commit them all into the hands of the Savior. It will be a short separation, and then we shall meet
160 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS,
to part no more." Being asked if she felt afraid to die, she replied, " No : I had always expected that the prospect of death would almost frighten me out of existence ; but now it has no terrors. I rely on Jesus, and feel I shall be happy when I die. It is better to depart and be with him, where I shall be completely freed from sin." To the friend already referred to, she said, " M. our intercourse here will soon be over. We have had many sweet and pleasant hours together ; now I am going from you to my precious Jesus. Precious Jesus ! Whom have I in heaven but thee ?" Seeing her friend agitated and weeping, she said, " You must not do so. I am happy, very happy ; and you must all pray that my eyes may be fixed on the glories of crucified love to the last."
Once, with a sweet expression of countenance, she said, " How much is implied in those words : The peace of God which passeth all understanding !" She was asked if she relied on Jesus. She answer- ed, "Entirely." Often she was interrogated as to his presence with her, and her replies were uni- formly satisfactory. On one occasion, appearing to be engaged in deep thought, she was asked what she was thinking of. She said, " Mercy." Jesus and mercy — those are what the dying should think of. Much on her lips, and more in her thoughts was that name — name above every name — Jesus ! " O, Lord Jesus, place underneath me thy everlasting
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 161
arms ! Jesus, receive my spirit ! O, Lord Jesus, re- ceive me on the other side of Jordan !" were among her prayers to him. Nor did her heart spend its emotions in prayer alone ; it was attuned to praise. She said, " I want a hymn sung." What hymn? it was asked, " The hymn about crossing over Jordan," she said : and it was sung ; and soon after she cross- ed the stream — the narrow stream of death. Nor did Jesus wait for her on Canaan's bright side of the stream, but he came over to earth's dark shore of it, and himself took her across. That stream must be narrow, it was so soon passed ; and all was so calm, there could not have been a ripple on its sur- face. O death, where was thy sting ? O grave ! A feeble, fearful female, with only a few hours to arm herself for the conflict, and to take leave of her babes, met thee, and was more than victor through Him who gave her the victory !
«' Is that a death-bed where a Christian lies 1 " Yes ; but not his — 'tis death, itself, there dies.'
33. What Strange Beings We Are !
How unreasonable ! How inconsistent with our- selves ! Even we, who are Christians. God does the very thing we ask him to do ; and yet we complain
162 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
of him, or grieve immoderately, and almost incon- solably, because he does it ! We ask that his will may be done ; which implies, that our will, if it be in contrariety to his, should not be done ; and this we sometimes in so many words express : " Not as we will, but as thou wilt.1' Well, God does his will, the very thing we wanted him to do ; and yet we complain that he does not our will, the thing we de- precated his doing. We complain that he hears our prayer and grants us the desire of our heart. Was ever complaint so unreasonable % If, when we asked him to do his will, he had done ours, there would have been some semblance of reason for our com- plaint. Will we say that we never meant, in our hearts, what the terms of our petition expressed — that we never really desired his will should be done1? Will any one acknowledge that he has uniformly been a hypocrite in the use of the Lord's prayer % Certainly, then, he ought not to complain that God has detected and chastised his hypocrisy. But, if he was sincere — if he desired what he asked for, then if he complains, he complains that God has gratified his desire. How perverse it is in a creature to say to God, time after time, when craving good, or de- precating evil, " Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt ;" and then, because it is as God wills, and not as he wills, to think hard of God !
Every one who prays " Thy will be done," is aware that the will of God does not always coincide
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 163
with the inclinations of his creatures. It were won- derful if it should — wonderful indeed, if the will of an omniscient and infinitely perfect being should uniformly fall in with the capricious desires and in- clinations of those who are finite, fallible, and sinful. Our own inclinations do not agree with each other. We are the subjects of conflicting desires : the will of God could not coincide with our inclinations with- out coinciding with contraries. Well, the prayer " Thy will be done," which we all consent to use, recognizing this want of coincidence, begs that in all such cases God will cause his will to be done rather than ours. It is a most reasonable request ; no wonder God should comply with it. And yet we complain that in such cases of disagreement he does not carry out our inclinations instead of his own will. It is well, in view of such perverseness, that we have to do with a God of infinite patience. How very slow to anger our God is ! i But I have not stated the case yet in all its strength. Complaint against God would be altogether unrea- sonable, if he caused only his will to be done. But while he causes his own, he causes our will also to be done ; for it is our will, as we have told him, over and over again, that his will should be done. Why should he not gratify the inclination of ours, that his will should be done, as well as any other inclination which we have ; for example, the inclination to re- tain a certain earthly enjoyment ? He cannot gratify
164 PRACTICAL TOUGHTS.
our every inclination, for the gratification of one would be the denial of another. He must make a selection. It is not his fault that we have warring inclinations. He did not make us so ; it is one of the inventions we have sought out. It belongs to us as marred by ourselves. Will it be said that God se- lects the less worthy inclination to gratify ? I think not. What worthier inclination can we have, than that God's will should be done ?
Is it the pain of having an inclination crossed, of which we complain ? But let us complain of our- selves, that we have inclinations which need to be crossed. And, besides, would it give us no pain were we to discover, that in a particular instance, God submitted his own will to our inclination, and suf- fered us to be gratified in a certain respect, when his judgment was against it?
Fellow-Christians, we must give up the use of that petition, " Thy will be done," or else act more consistently. It will not do to be daily asking a thing, and daily lamenting that the thing is granted. If we would have our will done, let us alter the petition, and say, " Our will be done." Let us be sincere, if we are nothing else. Let us tell the Lord the very desires we have, however wrong they may be. That is better, certainly, than to have such desires, and tell him the contrary.
But I would by no means advise the alteration. I think we had much better keep to the old form, and
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 165
pray as the Lord taught his disciples. Yes, let us go on to say, " Thy will be done." It is our hea- venly Father whom we address. Surely his children need not fear to have his will done. Let us consent with our whole heart that his will should be done, and towards us as well as towards others ; and not merely in some things, but in all things ; for why should not all his will be done, as well as any part of it ? If we do so, by and by we shall have no incli- nations contrary to his will. We shall be incapable of cross or disappointment. Every thing being as he would have it, would be also as we would have it. If now a part of his will be hidden, until events disclose it, yet in other respects it is already revealed. We know, for instance, that it is our Father's good pleasure to give us the kingdom ; and that it is our divine Savior's will that we should be with him where he is, that we may behold his glory. For the present let this suffice us. We shall be satisfied, when we awake in his likeness. In this expectation we should.be satisfied now. Let us suffer God to reign, and let us not aspire to be his counselors. He taketh no counsel of any.
166 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
33. "What very Strange Beings \vc are.
Yes ! What very strange beings we are ! We, who are sinners, expect to be treated with more de- ference than the innocent and holy. Their will is not done ; nor do they desire it should be. We, who are of earth, expect privileges, as we in our igno- rance account them, which they of heaven never think of claiming — the privilege, if not of holding the reins of government, yet of directing how they should be held; and of having things move on ac- cording to our inclinations. But should men, who are " of yesterday, and know nothing," rule, when angels, of an intellectual growth of thousands of years, cast their crowns at Jehovah's feet, and de- cline every thing but the most entire subjection?
But this is not all. We, who are the sons of God but by adoption, expect to be treated better than even God's only-begotten Son. Did not he suffer? And is it a mystery that we should ? Was he " acquaint- ed with grief," and shall we deem it strange and in- explicable that we should have experience of the same ? Why should we marvel that the cup we de- precate does not pass from our lips, when a far more bitter cup did not pass from him ? Shall we conclude that God is not a hearer of prayer, because a prayer of ours is not answered in kind, when he whom the Father always hears, prayed " let this cup
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 1G7
pass from me," and it was not done 1 Ah, you say, what a dark and mysterious Providence this is ! But that was darker and more mysterious, which left the Son of God to be betrayed and crucified by his ene- mies. And what if his sufferings were to accom- plish an immensely important object ; how few, it may be supposed, of the intelligent mind that looked on, were aware of that? Besides, may not your suf- ferings be intended to accomplish an important ob- ject % Are they not certainly so meant ? Do we not read of chastening, that " it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness, unto them who are exercised thereby ;" and of affliction, that it " worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory ?" Doubtless our sufferings are in their place as indis- pensable as were those of Christ.
Again, how reasonable and fit it is that the follow- ers of a suffering Savior should themselves suffer — that they should drink of the cup of which he drank, and be baptized with the baptism wherewith he was baptized ! How could we be like him without suffer- ing ! The Master was made " perfect through suffer- ings." How suitable that the disciples should not be made perfect, until after they "have suffered awhile!" He went through suffering to his dominion and glo- ry. Why should we expect to reign with him, ex- cept we also suffer with him ? Have we not always known that the cross is the condition of the crown ? " If we suffer, we shall also reign with him." Jesus
168 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
was never known to smile on earth. But we reckon it strange and quite unaccountable, if we may not smile perpetually. He wept, while we regard each tear we shed as a mystery. What bereavement have any of God's adopted children ever suffered, the sense of which was so keen as that under which the only-begotten Son cried out, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
We wonder that God does not hear every prayer we offer to him for every sort of thing, for health, for success in worldly matters, for exemption from b^ reavement, &c. never reflecting that if he did so, he would cease to be the governor of the world, except in name. He would be but our agent. He would reign in subordination to us. We should rule all things by the sway of our prayers. And where would be the difference between being on the throne our- selves, and directing him who occupies it ? Who would care to hold the reins of government, if he might by the expression of his desire control the being in whose hands they are 1 What a world this would soon become, if every prayer, every expres- sion of desire offered to God even by his own children, were answered according to the term of it ! The voices of them in heaven who say, " Alleluia : for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth," would be hush- ed at once. O, shall God be infinitely wise and intel- ligent, and not employ his boundless wisdom and knowledge in managing the affairs of his creatures ?
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 169
Shall his omniscience of all things in all periods ex- ert no influence on his determinations ? Shall he, to gratify us, hear a prayer which we would never of- fer if we saw what he sees, or what we ourselves may discover in the progress of a few short years ? What strange beings we are to expect or desire such a thing 1
Are Ave the only persons whose happiness is to be regarded by God in his dispensations 1 What if an event affect us with sorrow ? The same event may affect others with joy, and God may be receiving their praises, while he hears our complaints. Are we alone to be considered, and not they 1 We grieve, perhaps, because one very dear to us has been taken from earth to heaven* We prayed importunately that it might be otherwise, but we were not heard. We know not what to make of it, and are on the point of murmuring. But was not thy friend's happiness to be taken into the account, as well as thine 1 Is the event so very mournful a one in the aspect of it which he contemplates ? Does he grieve that he has made the exchange 1 If thy loss were equivalent to his gain, it wrould be unkind to complain of the dispen- sation. But what is the loss to thee in comparison with the gain to him ? Is not thy friend satisfied with what God has done ? And shall you indulge discontent 1 If you cannot but grieve, yet you should be willing to shed many tears for the sake of having all his wriped away. Can a soul too soon cease from 15
170 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
sin and sorrow ? Can heaven be entered premature- ly ? Do you not read, and believe that it is better, far better, to depart and be with Christ ?
How very inconsistent we are ! If God, wearied with our discontent and complainings, should say, " Well, since you desire it, be it according to your mind," is there one Christian who would not instant- ly respond, " Nay, rather be it according to thine ?" Who would exercise the fearful privilege of order- ing a single event which is to affect him ? And shall we contend for a privilege which we would not ex- ercise if we had it ? Shall we claim to choose in a case in which, if the right of choice were given us, we should immediately give it back into the hands of God?
34. Should it be according to thy Mind?
This question Elihu asked of Job. Things were not according to the mind of Job ; and he complained, and was unhappy that they were not. He wanted them to be according to his mind. Perhaps it is so with you. But should it be according to thy mind, when there is another mind in the universe which is exercised and employed about the affairs of mor- tals : and that mind infinite, while yours is finite —
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 171
infallible, while yours is liable to a thousand errors and mistakes, in which you have often been detect- ed even by yourself — possessed of all knowledge too, while you "are of yesterday, and know nothing?" Should it not be rather according to his mind ? Should the inferior mind dispose and direct things ?
If there were but one such mind the demand would not be quite so unreasonable. But should it be ac- cording to thy mind, when upon the same principle it should be according to the mind of others, your feL low-creatures, as wise and good as you, as much en- titled and as well qualified to govern as you, whose minds nevertheless are in opposition to yours, so that it could not be according to theirs and yours also ? Many of your views and wishes are at war with theirs. The gratification of your desires would often be incompatible with the gratification of theirs. Now should one creature rule all other creatures, and the creator too ? Is it not better to let the supreme mind direct for all ? when, moreover, this creature, who would rule all others, does not and cannot rule his own spirit ? Methinks he who aspires to command and control others, should begin with commanding and controling himself.
But what still more unfits him to order things, is that his mind not only is at variance with other minds, but does not agree with itself. Sometimes it inclines to one thing, and again it inclines to tho op- posite. Nothing, not even the inconstant wind, is
172 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
so changeable as this mind, which would have things to be according to it. Should such a change- able mind rule, rather than he who is " in one mind," and whom none can turn — " the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow ot turning ?"
But not only does this mind disagree with itself at different times, but often at the very same moment it is at war with itself; forming plans and cherishing inclinations which are opposite to each other; so that it could not accomplish one of its purposes with- out defeating another ; and could not gratify itselt in one respect without denying itself in another. Should it be according to a mind, according to which it could not be % We often have a mind to an end, when we have no mind to the means necessa- ry to secure that end. Who has not a mind to be saved ? But many have no mind to the way of being saved. Self-gratification is the thing men plead for, which implies that they have no mind to self-denial ; and yet, if they would be saved, they must deny them- selves. In order to have things according to their mind hereafter, they must consent that they should not be according to their mind now. Things cannot be according to their mind in time and in eternity both. How merciful it is in God not to let things be to our mind in this present brief life !
Should it be according to thy mind, when thou dost not always know thy own mind ? In such a
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 173
case would you not have another to choose for you ? Should one who has to hesitate and debate matters with himself, before he decides, have the direction of affairs in his hands? How long it sometimes takes you to make up your mind ! What shall be done in the mean time ? Must the course of nature and Pro- vidence be arrested, and the whole current of events stand still, till you have concluded what is best to be done ?
Have you not sometimes had things according to your mind, and afterwards regretted that they were so ? And would you run the risk of similar re- grets hereafter ? Have you not sometimes also had things contrary to your mind, and subsequently re- joiced that they were so ? Have you never found crosses to be blessings in disguise ? May not the present cross cover a blessing ? And will you com- plain of a blessing, in whatever garb it may come 1
Let God be heard before he is condemned. We concede this privilege to men. We consent to hear their reasons, before we censure their acts. God has appointed a day for the explanation of all things ; and he may reveal the reasons of his conduct to- wards us even before the day of the revelation of his righteous judgment. It is uncertain whether we shall justify men, after we have heard their reasons ; but do you not believe that if you knew the reasons of all God's proceedings in Providence, you would approve and sanction them all, and that your mind 15*
174 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
would be in accordance with his ? Why then not acquiesce in it now ? Other beings, better and great- er than you, do so. They decline having things ac- cording to their mind. And should not you? Eli said, " It is the Lord ; let him do what seemeth him good." And even Christ would not have it accord- ing to his mind. " Not as I will, but as thou wilt," was his conclusion, when the bitterest of all cups was at his lips.
Are you one of those who love God ? Surely then it ought to satisfy you, when God assures you that under his government " all things work together for good to them that love him." Will you not let him choose what the things shall be, when he pledges himself that the result of them all shall be your good ? Is it certain, if the things to befall you were chosen by you, that they would all conduce to your good ? He says that he will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly. Is not this guaran- tee enough? "How shall he not," says one of his inspired apostles, with Christ " also freely give us all things ?" " All things are yours." And will you complain that death is in the catalogue ? or that tribulation and distress are among the things, in all which " we are more than conquerors through him that loved us ?"
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 175
35 . How Inconsistent We are !
How many examples of inconsistency one may give, without going- beyond the pale of the church, into the wide domain of the world ! We Christians consecrate ourselves to God for his use, and glory. Who is a Christian that has not done this ? and what Christian has not done it often, and perhaps recorded the solemn act of self-consecration? Well, having done it repeatedly, and not by constraint, but will- ingly; and having thus not only acknowledged God's right to use us, and to glorify himself in and by us, but asked him to do it, we afterwards complain that he does it. We object to the use to which he puts us, though we never stipulated any particular use to which he should put us, but left him free to use us as should seem good to him. Yet now, when we see what he is going to do with us, though, in consent- ing that he should do with us according to his plea- sure, we consented to that very thing, we demur, and would dictate what use he should make of us, and how glorify himself by us ! Do I not justly denomi- nate this inconsistency? May not God do what he will with his own, when it is his own on so many accounts, and by so perfect a right — his own, not only by creation, by preservation, and by purchase, but by our consent and covenant with him, and oft expressed desire that it should be his; and when
176 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
moreover he engages that in using us according to his will and for his glory, he will not fail to secure our highest interests, our hest good, our eternal well-being ? We do what we will with our own, though it be our own in a very subordinate sense, and though we use it exclusively for our pleasure or profit ; and we concede the same right to our fellow- creatures. What if we were to say to a fellow-man, 11 this is yours ; you made it ; you daily renew your labor on it, to keep it in repair ; you also paid a price for it. I surrender it up to you. I desire it should be yours. You are much better qualified to use it properly than I am," and then afterwards object to his using it as his own % How unreasonable it would be in us ! How we should contradict ourselves. And is it not as unreasonable to hold similar lan- guage to God, and then complain of him ?
We also consecrate to God oui families — wife and children, and all. We say " These also are thine, Lord. Use them likewise for thy glory. We con- secrate them to thee." Well, being consecrated, he uses them as sacred to him ; and presently, having no farther use for one of them on earth, and wanting him in heaven to fill a place there, he takes the per- son thither — changes his residence and society — promotes him — brings him nearer to court. Having sometime before justified and begun to sanctify the individual, he at once perfects the work of holiness in him, and beatifies, glorifies him — frees him from
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 177
all sin, sorrow, pain and dread ; and wipes away his last tear. The subject of all this is in an ecstacy of joy and gratitude for what has been done to him, and would not for worlds leave the choice spot which he now occupies. Well, and what then 1 Why, we object, and complain, and think it hard, and almost weep dry the fountain of tears, and refuse to be com- forted ! and that though it was God who took that member of the family ; and though he took but his own, and took it to himself; and though we are so soon ourselves to follow to the same abode ; and though it was always understood and agreed upon that God should take each just when he pleased. It was one of the articles of the covenant we entered uAo with him. He claimed and we conceded the right. We received that creature with the express understanding that we were to give him up, when called for. We always knew it was not a gift out- right, but a loan. And now shall we complain of the recall of the loan ?
Oh how easy it is to convince the judgment — to silence the mind ! But the heart — the unmanageable heart, feels on as before. Our arguments go not down to that deep seat of emotion. There is still the void, the tumult, the ache, the longing. Only God can reason with the heart. At no bidding but his, will it ever be still and satisfied.
Again, we consecrate our property to God, We say, " We being thine, all ours is also thine. Thine
178 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
be it. Take and use it." But let God touch it, to take any part of it away, and how distressed, and well nigh desperate it makes some who profess to be Christians ! and how unlike a thing sacred, and by our act made sacred to God, we use it. " Holiness to the Lord " we inscribe on all our property, and then utterly disregarding the label, we use it exclu- sively for ourselves.
So also we devote life to God. But he must not on any account take it. How we tremble when we apprehend that be is going to receive what we offer to him ! O death, can it be that thou hast lost thy sting ? Blessed Jesus, how reluctant thy disciples are to have thee come and take them to thyself! Forgive us — we know not what we do.
Once more, what strange, inconsistent beings we are ! If it be one characteristic of the righteous man, that he " sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not," how much more essential to rectitude must it not be to comply with the terms of the oath, which we have sworn, not to man, but to God ; and when the tendency of the oath is not our hurt, but our greatest, and most lasting good ! As Christians, we have sworn to God. We have taken the sacrament — and that often, and not without deliberation. Many oaths are on us. And now shall we change ? Shall we draw back ? Shall we refuse to perform, or, as the case may be, to submit, because of some trifling inconvenience, some transient evil, which God can
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 179
and will make to conduce to our ultimate and eter- nal good?
36. The Pity of the Lord.
There is a great deal of the Bible which seems not to be believed even by those who profess and suppose that they believe it all. And this is true, if I mistake not, of what some would call the best parts of the Bible — 4hose parts, for example, which speak of the kind feelings of God towards his creatures, and especially towards those of them who fear him. I suspect that even Christians read them with a sort of incredulity. They seem to them almost too good to be true. But why should not God feel towards us as he says he does ? Is he not our Father 1 Has he not nourished and brought us up as children 1 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with us, that God should feel as a father does towards his children? I never read that 103d Psalm, but I stop at the 13th verse : " Like as a father pitieth his chil- dren, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him ;" and I read it a second time, and I find myself asking, not merely in admiration, but with some degree of unbelief: " Can it be that the Lord pities us, and pi-
180 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ties us like as a father his children ? I know the Lord is good to all. How can he, who is love, be other than benevolent 1 It were contrary to his na- ture not to be. But pity expresses more than good- ness— more than benevolence. There is an un- movedness in mere goodness. But in pity the heart melts, and the eye weeps, and the whole soul is moved as from its seat. And this is especially true of a parent's pity. Can it be possible that God pities after that manner?" O yes, it is possible; and it has passed out of the limits of possibilities into the circle of facts. The Lord pitieth them that fear him — pitieth, as a father, you, if you fear him. His feelings towards you are fully up to those which you can conceive, or from experience know to be those of the most tender parent towards his children. Yes, God pities you. That nature which is love, feels and exercises compassion towards you in your sorrows and trials. That great heart is affected by your misery and griefs, as our hearts are, when at the sight of suffering we weep. Yes, Christian, God is sorry for you. Oh what a thought this for an hour of trial ! What a sentiment this to bear suf- fering with ! What if thou dost suffer ? Is it not enough that God pities thee % We should be willing to suffer, if he will sympathise. We should never know what divine sympathy is, if we did not sulfer. This one consideration — that God pities, is worth more than all philosophy.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 181
There is much that is interesting and lovely in pi y, whoever be the object of it. There is, however, a peculiar tenderness, which belongs to the pity felt for suffering children. Nothing goes so keenly to the heart as the child's tear and tale of sorrow. And is the pity of the Lord like this ? Yes. It is not said that he pities, as man pities man ; or as one pities children ; or even as a parent pities children ; but as a father pities his children, so the Lord pities. " Like as a father." Like as one who most affectionately loves, pities the dear object of his love, his child, his own child, when that child is sick, and he looks upon his altered countenance, and with a weeping eye watches over him day and night, and hears his moans, and is imploringly appealed to by him for relief, which it is not in his power to give ; like as he pities, so the Lord pities. So inexpressibly feels he towards them that fear him. Such deep and un- definable emotions as a parent's heart is occupied with, when he says " my poor child." So the Lord pities. Can it be 1 It is even so. Well then, come want, come sickness, come sorrow, if such pity may come with it. The relief exceeds the suffering. The support is greater than the burden. It not only bears up, but lifts up the soul.
But how does a father pity ? Does he pity so as
never to chastise % Oh no. " What son is he whom
his father chasteneth not ?" He chastens out of pity.
But he so pities that he is infinitely far from tak-
16
182 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ing delight m the smallest sufferings of his children, even when it becomes his duty for their good to in- flict them. It hurts him more to chastise, than them to be chastised. In all their affliction he is afflicted ; and more afflicted than they. Have you never correct- ed a child, and gone away and wept in pure pity for him ? Have you never denied him something, and found it a greater self-denial ? Is such your heart towards your children ? Such is God's towards his. " He doth not afflict willingly."
Again, a father so pities that he would spare or relieve his child, if he could ; that is, if he had the power; or having the power, it were proper he should exercise it. A parent sometimes has the power to relieve and does not exert it. The principle of benevolence within him which proposes the greatest good of his child for the longest period, forbids that he should yield to the impulse of compassion, which calls for the rendering of immediate relief. He pities his child too much to relieve him. So the Lord pi- ties. He has always the power to relieve. And of- ten he exerts it. He always would, if it were, in view of all considerations, proper and benevolent that he should. He, who for thee spared not his own Son, would spare thee every sorrow thou hast, and would relieve thine every pain, but " whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth."
A father so pities his children that he would, it he could, even suffer in their stead. More than one
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 183
father has said, " Would God I had died for thee, my son, my son !" And is the pity of the Lord like a father's in this particular too 1 Yes. So the Lord pities. So he has pitied. He could suffer in the stead of those he pitied — and he did. " Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." He has even died for us. O what pity !
A father so pities his children, that to promote their comfort and happiness, he will spare no pains and no expense. How freely the most avaricious parent will spend, if the necessities of a child require it ! The wants and sorrows of his child can open even his heart. Such is the pity of the Lord. He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all. Having one Son, his only-begotten, he gave even him for us.
Let the child of God derive from these considera- tions inexpressible consolation. O think that he, in all thy sorrows, pities thee. Yes, thy God feels for thee. Thy sufferings go to his heart. There is one in heaven who, from that exaltation, looks down upon thee ; and the eye that watches over you, wept for you once, and would, if it had tears, weep for you again. He knoweth your frame. He remembereth that you are dust. He will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. It was he who, when his disciples had nothing to say for them- selves, made that kind apology for them, " The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." He can be touched
184 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
with the feeling of all your infirmities. You may cast all your cares on him, for he careth for you. All through this vale of tears you may rest assured of his sympathy ; and when the vale of tears de- clines into the valley of the shadow of death, not his sympathy only will you have, hut his inspiriting presence, and his timely succor. And after that, what will not his bounty be, whose pity has been so great ? When there is no longer any occasion for pity — when misery is no more, and sighing has ceased, and God's hand has for the last time passed across your weeping eyes, and wiped away the final tear, what then will be the riches of his munifi- cence ? What then will he not do for you, having so felt for you 1 You know a father feels a peculiar affection for a child that has been afflicted, and that has cost him a great deal. How will our compas- sionate Redeemer cherish and caress those who have come out of great tribulation, and for whom he went through so much more himself I What must be the glory of that place to which he will take them, after he shall have made them perfect through suf- ferings ! What exalted honors, what ecstatic joys must he not have in reserve for them, whom he came down here to weep with, and now takes up thither to rejoice with himself! And now that they have ceased to sin, and are perfectly conformed to his image, what will not be his complacency in them» when his pity towards them is so great in this im
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 185
perfect state, in which their suffering is always mingled with sin !
Well then, since we are the objects of such pity, let us be its subjects too. Let us pity, as we are pi- tied. Cared for ourselves, let us care for others. Let (heir case reach our hearts, as ours reached God's. Let us, for whom so many tears have been shed, be not sparing of our tears for others' woes. Nor let us give to misery merely the tear, but speak the word of consolation, and reach out the hand of help.
37. Five Negatives.
It is known that two negatives in English are equivalent to an affirmative. They destroy each other. But it «s not so in Greek. They strengthen the negation ; ind a third negative makes it stronger still, and so a iourth, and a fifth. How strong five negatives must make a negation ! But do five ever occur 1 Whether they ever occur in the Greek classics, I do not know ; but in the Greek of the New Testament there is an instance of the kind. And what is that? Are the five negatives used to strengthen any threatening? No. They are con- nected with a promise, one of the " exceeding great and precious promises," which are given unto us. 16*
186 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
The case occurs in Heb. 13: 5, "for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." There five negatives are employea. We translate but two of them ; but there they all are, as any one may see who looks into his Greek Testament. Now, they need not all have been there. They are not all necessary to express the simple idea that God will never forsake his people. There must have been design in 'multiplying negatives so. I do not believe the phraseology was accidental, and I think it not difficult to guess the design. God meant to be be- lieved in that thing. He would secure the confidence of his children in that particular. He knew how prone they were to doubt his constancy — how strongly inclined to that form of unbelief — and how liable to be harassed by the dread of being forsaken by him ; and he would therefore make assurance more than doubly sure. So, instead of saying simply, " I will not leave thee," which alone would have been enough, he adds, " nor forsake thee ;" and in- stead of leaving it thus, " I will not leave thee, I will not forsake thee," he uses language equivalent to the following: " I will not, I will not leave thee; I will never, never, never forsake thee." There is a stanza, which very faithfully, as well as beautifully, expresses it —
" The soul that on Jesus hath lean'd for repose,
" I will not, I will not desert to his foes ;
"That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
M I'll never — no never— no never forsake."
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 187
How in earnest God appears to be in this matter ! How unworthy it is in his children, after such an as- surance as this, to suspect that he will forsake them ! He cannot. It is impossible for God to lie. Here one who was never known to break his word, assures his people, each of them individually, and five times over in a single sentence, of his continued presence with them. Under similar circumstances, what man of reputed veracity would be discredited? and shall not the God of truth be believed in a like case ?
38. How to Dispose of Care.
There is such a thing as care. Who does not know it by experience ? Who has not felt it at his heart I How heavily it presses there ! and it pierces too. It is a burden ; and it has also a sting. Nothing is more unfriendly to happiness than care. It is hard being happy with a load on the heart. The objects of care are almost innumerable. What shall I eat; what shall I drink; and wherewithall shall I be clothed, are only a few of its anxious interrogations, and they are among the least important of them. These concern ourselves ; but care often forgets self in its solicitude for others. Parents, and especially mothers know what I mean bv this. But I need
188 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
not attempt to explain a word that expresses what we all feel.
There is a care both for ourselves and others which God himself has cast upon us ; and of which it were sinful to attempt to make any other disposi- tion than he has made of it. But over and above this, there is a large amount of solicitude and anxiety which we lay upon ourselves, and which is unne- cessary, useless, injurious. This is the care that is unfavorable to happiness. The other is friendly to it. It is very desirable to get rid of it, since it does us harm, and does no one good. Nothing is more hostile to the successful care of the soul than the pressure and poignancy of the care of which I speak. " Careful and troubled about many things," we in- termit or entirely overlook the care of the "one thing needful." But what shall we do with it — how get rid of it, since to bear it is so painful to our feelings, and often so ruinous to our better interests ? Divide it with others we may to some Mttle extent. There is such a thing as sympathy. There is such an operation as unburdening the mind to a fellow- creature. And I will not deny that there is some relief in it. Yet the very etymology of the wrord sympathy evinces that it is no remedy. It is. after all, a suffering together. A great deal of what con- stitutes sympathy is grief that we can but grieve — sorrow that we cannot succor. Mixing tears does indeed diminish their bitterness, but weeping with
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 189
those that weep does not wipe away their tears. They weep on, and the only difference is that we weep with them, and our tears may be said to dilute theirs.
There is a better way of disposing of care than to cast it on our fellow-creatures. Indeed, what fellow- creatures can we find who have not enough of their own to bear, without receiving an additional burden from us ? What friend has not himself surplus care to dispose of?
There are some who cast off care without refer- ence to what becomes of it. They sing, " Begone dull care." These are the reckless. Care may go at their bidding, but the worst of it is, it is sure to return again, and it comes back a heavier burden — duller than ever. This is not the way to dispose of care. Yet there is a way whereby all excess of anxiety may be effectually removed, and the heart be left with all its tender affection, and yet with no more solicitude than such as the blessed in heaven might feel without diminution of happiness. It is to cast care on God. That is the true and only effectual way to dispose of care. He can take the burden, however huge and heavy. You do not doubt that ; but yru ask, " Will he I — may I cast it on him ? I, such a one as I, cast my cares, the whole multitude and burden of them, on such a being as God? I know the government of the mighty universe, and the pro- vidence which extends to the minute equally as to
190 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
the magnificent — reaching low as to the fall of the sparrow, and the numbering of the hairs of the head, does not distract or burden him. I know he can take a larger charge and not feel it. But will he ? Will such greatness stoop to such littleness ? — such holi- ness come down to such vileness?" Yes, it will, for condescension is one characteristic of greatness ; and " the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." But why do I reason ? Does not the Holy- Ghost say by David, "cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee" — and by Peter, "casting all your care upon him" — and by Paul, " be careful for nothing" — and does not Immanuel himself say, " Come unto me, all ye that labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest?" No longer ask if you may, but use your privilege. Here is your au- thority. The Lord says you may do it. Nay more, commands you to do it. It is your duty, as well as your privilege. So far is it from being presumption to cast your care on God, it is a sin not to do it.
This is the way to dispose of care; and it is no matter how much there is of it. God will take it all. It is no burden to him. Many have made this dis- position of their cares, and all testify how willingly he took and bore them : and if at times they took back the burden, yet willingly he received it again, when again it was cast upon him.
There is a reason given by Peter for casting care on God, that is inexpressibly touching. He says,
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 191
"casting all your care on him," and then iouows no flourish of rhetoric, no parade of reasons, but this — O how happily selected, I would say, but that he wrote by inspiration, which does every thing felici- tously— "for he careth for you." Why should you care for yourself, since God cares for you ? Ah, here is a topic not for the meditation of an hour merely, but of an eternity. He careth for you. Can it be ?
0 why should he % What a thought to carry through this vale of tears, and to go down with into the deep- er valley of death, that God cares for me ! He con- cerns himself about me. Let the scholar look at the original. The English is good enough, but the Greek is still more interesting. God has me on his heart. Some poor saints think nobody cares for them. But God does. Is not that enough ? He that regards the cry of the raven, and gives all the fowls of heaven their food, and decks the lilies of the field, doth much more, care for you. He concerns himself for his creatures, will he not much more for his children ? Are ye not of much more value, whom no less a price could redeem than the blood of his Son ? Let this suffice for you.
I know not any thing that goes so soon and surely to my heart, as the sight of a poor sobbing, or sor- rowfully looking child, an orphan, or worse than parentless, whom no one seems to care for. But if
1 weep at such a sight, it dries up my tears to think that there is, after all, one who cares for the poor
192 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
child, even he who said, " Suffer little children to come unto me." O come, let us cast our care on God. Let us go to Jesus for rest. In him we shall find sympathy such as man can feel, with support such as only God can afford. There we shall meet with such pity as at first weeps with the sufferer, and then wipes away his tears. Surely he who bare our sins will not refuse our cares. " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows."
39. Do you enjoy Religion!
I do not ask you if you possess religion, but do you enjoy it ? Does it make you happy ? The ques- tion is not whether being, as you hope, a religious person, you are also happy; but is it your religion which makes you happy ? Are you happy, because religious 1 A person may acknowledge God, and have joy, and yet not "joy in God." Perhaps you will say it helps to make you happy — that is, reli- gion and certain other things together make you happy. But this answer is not satisfactory. Reli- gion must more than help to make you happy. If it only helps, it does no more than many other things. They help. In that case religion might be
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 193
needful to happiness, even as money is reckoned by many to be ; but it could not be pronounced to be the one thing needful. Religion ought to make you happy without the aid of any thing else. You should enjoy it, though you had nothing else to enjoy. Habakkuk says, " Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines ; the la- bor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls ; yet I will re- joice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my sal- vation." He regarded religion as able alone to make him happy. And are we not commanded to be happy in religion alone — to " rejoice in the Lord," and that " evermore ?" Should we be commanded to be happy in it, if it needed some assistance to make us happy ?
Religion is both exactly adapted and entirely adequate to make its subjects happy. It supplies the soul with a portion ; and what does the soul want to make it happy but a suitable and sufficient portion ? This the religious man has. The Lord is his portion. Is not that a portion to make him happy? Is it not good enough, and large enough ? If the world can make one happy, as some suppose, cannot much more the Maker of all worlds, and the owner of the universe ? This portion is infinite, so that it can never be exhausted ; and it is eternal, so that it can never fail. And while religion gives 17
194 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
us a portion, what a protector, what a provider, what a comforter it affords us ! The best of fathers, and the friend that is more constant than a brother ! Then, what present good it yields, and what promises it makes of greater good to come ! What a prospect it holds out ! O what hopes it inspires ! The Chris- tian has all these to rejoice in — Christ Jesus, the " exceeding great and precious promises," the first fruits of the Spirit, and the hope of glory. Can any one say what is wanting in religion to make one happy ?
Religion has made many happy. Peter, in his first general epistle, within the compass of only three verses, speaks of Christians as not only rejoicing, but rejoicing "greatly," yea, " with joy unspeakable and full of glory." He speaks of it not as a duty, or as a privilege, but as a fact. They did so. And what they so rejoiced in was Jesus Christ, and the prospect of the incorruptible inheritance, both which Christians have the same warrant to rejoice in now. Now, if religion made these happy, why should it not make others happy ? Why should one enjoy it, and another not enjoy it, if both possess it? It was intended to make all its subjects happy — very happy.
I ask then, does it make you happy ? Do you en- joy religion ?• Now, do not evade the question. What is to become of us, if religion does not make us happy ? If we do not enjoy it here, how shall we enjoy it hereafter ? Barely to possess it hereafter
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 195
would not satisfy, even if such a thing could be. How can a religion which does not make us happy on earth, make us happy in heaven ? The religion of heaven is the same in kind with that of earth. The only difference is in degree. The religion of earth is communicated from heaven. It must be of the same nature with it.
Besides, if our religion does not make us happy, how do we do our duty ? We are commanded to re- joice. It is a part of practical Christianity to be happy. It is obedience to a precept. It belongs to the character of the doer of the word. Moreover, how are we to have satisfactory evidence that we possess true religion, if we have not joy in it ? Suppose we had not love, would we be Christians then ? No, cer- tainly ; for without charity a man is nothing. But why can we not be Christians without love ? Be- cause it is the fruit of the Spirit. And is not joy also the fruit of the Spirit ? If love is the first named of the nine, joy is the second. " The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, &c." Gal. 5 : 22, 23. And these are not said to be the fruits of the Spirit. It is not the plu- ral form that is used. They are not distinct produc- tions. They are all one cluster — " the fruit of the Spirit." Now, since we have not love, we conclude we have not the Spirit ; why should we not conclude the same if we have not joy 1 I know it may be said that there are many things to interfere with Christian joy. But while these may and do dimi-
196 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
nish it and interrupt it, they do not therefore anni- hilate it. There was much to interfere in the case of those to whom Peter wrote. They were " in hea- viness through manifold temptations." Nevertheless they rejoiced " greatly."
You see now why I ask you if you enjoy reli- gion. You perceive that it is no insignificant ques- tion. Many profess to have religion, but are con- scious that they do not enjoy it. They hope they are religious, but know they are not happy. They trust that God is their portion, but they have no joy in him. Indeed some are astonished that we should speak of religion as a thing to be enjoyed. They regard it rather as a thing to be endured — as a sort of penance, a system of privation. And in so far as it is not suffering, it is toil — a something composed of penance and task. When they betake themselves to any thing of a religious nature, they feel that they must. A sort of dire necessity constrains them. Such a religion may prepare a person for hell, but how it is to qualify him for heaven, I see not. And a religion which does not qualify a person for hea- ven, certainly does not answer the purpose.
Many persons lament that their religion does not make them happy, and they wonder why it is. I sus- pect it is because they depend no more upon it to make them happy. They look for enjoyment too much to other sources. Perhaps, however, the rea- son they have so little enjoyment in religion is that
Practical thoughts. 197
they have so little religion to enjoy. Now those who appear to have so little, should seriously inquire if they have any.
But some may say, " Religion sometimes make us happy." But why only sometimes — why not al- ways? The command is, "Rejoice in the Lord al- ways ,-" and the same reason exists for being happy in religion at all times, as at any time. If you re- joice in the world, no wonder if your joy is often interrupted ; hut if God is your God, and he is evermore the same, why should you not rejoice in him evermore? But does not the Lord sometimes call to sorrow ? True, but even then he does not call from joy. Joy and sorrow are perfectly compa- tible. Were they not coincident in the experience of Paul ? " As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing," he says. If there exists causes of sorrow which operate, that does not annihilate the causes of joy. They should operate too. If you seem to have nothing else to rejoice in, yet there are your sorrows ; re- joice in them ; well may you, if they work for you " a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." Did not Paul " glory in tribulations also."
Let not the reader rest satisfied until he enjoys re- ligion. How are we to die by a religion which we do not enjoy ? What can one enjoy when the world is receding, if he cannot enjoy God ?
198 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
40. Lovest Thou Mel
We make a profession of Christianity, and go along from day to day, and perhaps from year to year, supposing that we are Christians, and that all is well with us ; that we are equipped for the en- counter of death, and prepared to meet our Judge, and take our place in heaven, when it may be wc are not able to answer till after long consideration, and then with not a little doubt and misgiving, so simple a question in Christian experience, as " Lovest thou me ?" Peradventure the utmost we dare say, after all our reflection and self-research, is, *' I really do not know how it is. I hope I love him." This will never do. The question, " Lovest thou me," is one which every person, making any pretensions to Christianity, ought to be able to answer affirmatively at once. Indeed we ought not to give onr Savior any occasion to ask the question. It is very much to our discredit — it should make us blush and be ashamed — that our manifestations of love to him are of so equivocal a character as to leave the very existence of the affection doubtful, and to render it necessary for him to interrogate us in reference to it. There are many less lovely beings than Christ that have not to ask us if we love them. We act in such a manner towards them that they cannot for a moment doubt the fact of their being dear and precious to us. They do not want our words to assure them. They
Practical thoughts. 199
have our uniform conduct and deportment making" the silent yet most forcible declaration. Has your parent to ask you if you love him, or your child ? Have husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, and friends, to ask this question of each other ? O no — none but Christ has to ask us if we love him ! And he has not only to ask the question, but to wait, sometimes a long while, for an answer. We have to consider and go into an examination, and call up our conduct to the bar of judgment, and dissect our very hearts, before we can venture an answer. This is strange. It is not so in other cases. If a relative or a friend, more for the gratification of a renewed expression of our love, than from any doubt of its ex- istence, ask us if we love him, do we keep him wait- ing for an answer 7 Do we say, " Well, I must con- sider. I must examine myself. I hope I do." No, indeed. We are ready with our affirmative. Nor is it a cold yes we return ; but we express our surprise at the question. " Love you !" And we assure the person in the most emphatic and ardent language that we love him, and all our manner shows him that Ave speak out of the abundance of the heart. But we do not express surprise that our Savior should ask us if we love him. We do not wonder at the question from him. We know too well how much reason we give him to doubt our affection.
Why should there be such a difference in favor of the earthly objects of our love? Is not Christ as lovely
200 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
as those other beings — as deserving of affection — as attractive of love? He is altogether lovely. Are they? He possesses infinite loveliness. Nor does that ex- press all. He is essential Love. Nor love at rest, but in motion ; nor far off, but near ; exerting infinite energy in action, exercising infinite fortitude in suf- fering ; earth the scene, and man the object. It is he who asks, " Lovest thou me?" And he of whom he asks it is this man, the intelligent spec- tator of all this love ; aye, its chosen and cherished object.
If Christ was not nearly related to us, as those other beings are, that might be the reason of the dif- ference in their favor. But who is so closely related to us, so intimately joined to us, as Christ? He formed us, and in him we live, move, and have our being. Does not that imply nearness ? Is he divine, while we are human ? He is human as well as divine- — one of the brotherhood of flesh and blood. He came down to earth to take our nature on him, nor went up to heaven again without it. There it is — our humanity allied to divinity, divinity radiant through it, on the throne. Is he not related to us ? He says of every one who does the will of his Father, " the same is my brother, and sister and mother." That alone relates us to him more than all human ties. But that is not all. Christ is the husband of the church. He is one with it. If we are his disciples, he is the vine and we the branches — he the head
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 201
and we the members. Yea, " we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Does not this express a near and intimate relation ? Now it is one so near to us, so joined to us, who asks, " Lovest thou me ?"
Have our friends, whom we are so conscious of loving, done more for us than Christ, or made greater sacrifices for us ? Are we under greater personal obligations to them ?
" Which of all our friends, to save us, " Could or would have shed his blood?
" But this Savior died to have us " Reconciled, in him, to God."
And yet we know we love those friends, but this friend ! we know not whether we love him or not — we only hope we do !
Do other beings find such difficulty in loving Christ ? and are they at such a loss to know when they do love him ? O no. His Father testifies, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And he is called also his well-beloved, his dear Son. All the angels of God love and worship him, and delight to ascribe infinite worthiness to him. It is only men who find any difficulty in loving Christ. It is only the human heart that hesitates and hangs back. Is there any reason for this — any reason why men should be the last to love Christ, and why they should love him least of all who behold his loveli-
202 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ness ? I see none, but I think I see reasons many, and strong-, and tender, why we should be first, and most forward, and warmest in our affection to him. How many worlds he passed to alight on this ! How many created natures he rejected, when from all of them he chose the human to be united to divinity ! Others have sinned, yet not their sins bare he, but ours. It may be said of other creatures, " He loved them ;" but of men only can it be added, " and gave himself for them." And yet who is so backward to love him as redeemed man? Not tardy merely. O how parsimonious of his love — loving him so lit- tle, that often he cannot ascertain if he loves at all ! Shame, where is thy blush ; and sorrow, where thy tear ?
O how different Christ's love to us from ours to him ! We have not to ask him if he loves us. If any one should ever ask that question of Jesus, he would say, " Behold my hands and my feet." He bears on his very body the marks of his love to us. But what have we to point to as proofs of our love to him ? What has it done for him ? What suffered ? O, the contrast ! His love, so strong ! Ours, so weak ! His, so ardent ! Ours, so cold ! His, so constant ! Ours, so fickle! His, so active ! Ours, so indolent! So high, so deep, so long, so broad his love, its dimensions cannot be comprehended, it passeth knowledge ; while ours is so limited, and so minute, it eludes research !
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 203
" Dear Lord ! and thall we ever live
" At this poor dying rate "? " Our love so faint, so cold to thee,
" And thine to us so great V1
41. Tlie Light of the World.
How are we to know whether, being nominally Christians, we are also really Christians ? It is im- portant to know if we possess the thing signified by Christianity. The mere name and fame of the thing will be of little use to us.
Now the Bible tells us what Christians are. If then, we are what the book says Christians are, we are Christians. Every body admits this — that a scriptural Christian is without doubt a real one. But some seem to hesitate about admitting the con- verse of the proposition, that if we are not what the Bible says Christians are, we are not Christians. The reason they hesitate can only be that they per- ceive or fear the latter conclusion makes against themselves ; for the one is as clearly and certainly true as the other. What use could there be in state- ments declaring what Christians are, if individuals may be Christians without being what Christians are thus declared to be? Indeed, what truth would there be in such statements? That is no character-
204 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
istic of a class, which does not belong to all the in- dividuals of the class. The declaration, " If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature," is neither useful nor true, if some are in Christ who are not new creatures. The same may be said of the assertion, " There is therefore now no condem- nation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit," if a solitary individual is pardoned and freed from condemnation who still walks after the flesh. There is neither sense nor sincerity in it; nor in this other passage, " They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts," if some are Christ's who have never put the flesh and its lusts to that kind of death.
It must be admitted that if we are not what the Bible says Christians are, we are not Christians in fact. We may as well admit it first as last. Christ says we are to be judged by his word ; not by any favorite author of ours, Blair or Paley, or whoever Jie maybe ; not by any sermon we may have heard from this or that minister ; not by the standard that may have been set up in some conversation with an eminent divine ; not by the opinion entertained in the circle in which we move ; nor by what seems to stand to our reason. There will be no spreading out of these, when the Judge shall sit. The Bible will be the only book of law and authority opened then.
I know very well there is nothing new in what I
TKACTICAL THOUGHTS. 205
am saying. Any body can say it, and say it as well. Every body knows it already. But it is one of the old things that we need to be often reminded of. I know nothing we are more prone to forget than these common-place truths. It is what we know best, and most firmly believe, that we fail most to consider and lay to heart. The most familiar truths have always been the truths by men most disre- garded.
But let us hear what the Bible says Christians are, for I did not intend so long an introduction. Well, the Bible says, among other things, that they are the light of the world. The blessed Jesus him- self is the speaker, and he is addressing his disciples, and he says to them "Ye are the light of the world." Observe, he does not say, " Ye may be, if you are careful to live up to j^our privileges ;" or "Ye ought to be — it is your duty ;" or " Ye shall be — by and by, when you have have made greater progress in religion ;" but he speaks of it as a pre- sent matter of fact, " Ye are the light of the world." — So it seems that Christians shine. We talk of a shining Christian, meaning to distinguish such a one from Christians in general. But there is no Christian who is not a shining one. Every Chris- tian emits light. Paul testifies of the Christians of Philippi that they shone as lights in the world. They were what Christ said his disciples were. And must not Christians of our cities and villages be the
same ?
18
206 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS'
It also appears that Christians are not merely re- ceivers. They give out — they communicate. That is their character. They do not live merely or mainly for themselves. A candle is not lighted for its own convenience, but for the benefit of others, that it may give light unto all that are in the house. Some people think it is enough if they personally enjoy religion. But that is not the case. No man liveth to himself — much more does no Christian.
There are two objects for which Christians shine. One is to discover themselves, that the world may know what Christians are, and so be led to emulate the character. This our Savior contemplates when he says, " Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Fa- ther which is in heaven." We are to emit light for others to see by ; and it is that they may see our good works. All Christians perform good works. They are all of them doers. They are the most practical men in the world, though regarded by many as visionaries. There are, to be sure, specu- lators and theorists enough in the church, but real Christians are working men. But what is the use in our good works being seen \ Why is it not enough that they be done. Does not humility dic- tate that they should be concealed, rather than ex- posed ? The thing is impracticable. " A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid." Were the thing pos- sible the attempt af concealment might be proper
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 207
enough, if there were no others to be influenced by the sight of our good works. Whether a candle in an uninhabited house be on a candlestick or under a bushel, is a matter of little consequence ; but not so if there be people in the house. The Christian's good works are to be visible ; not that he may be applauded for them, but that men may thence be led to glorify God. Now, a question. Do we shine? And by the light which we evolve, do observers see our good works ? Have we any good works for them to see? And are they such good works as, they seeing, will instinctively refer to the grace of God as their cause, and so be led to glorify him ? We are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ; that we should shew forth the praises of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvelous light.
I would not have any one suppose that a Chris- tian is to make an effort to let his good works be seen — to be ostentatious of them. No, he is only to let his light shine. He is active in doing good works, but quite passive in shewing them. A lumi- nous body makes no effort in emitting light. Indeed it cannot help shining. A Christian has only in all his intercourse with men to act out the Christian spirit, and be governed by the fear of God, and the principles of his holy religion, and the thing is done. The light is emitted, and the good works are seen. And this is the way, under God, to commend truth
208 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
to the conscience, to reach the hearts of men, and make converts to God. Yes, this is the way. " Hav- ing your conversation honest among the Gentiles : that whereas they speak against you as evil doers, they may by your good works, which they shall be- hold, glorify God in the day of visitation." Another question. Is this what we are doing — shining so that men, knowing we profess the religion of Jesus, see. in looking at us, how pure, lovely, excellent, and diviae a religion it is, and are led to say, " Verily, it must be from God, and we must embrace it too — we will be Christians ?"
The other object for which Christians shine is to enlighten others. But on this I cannot now enlarge. Only this I would observe. See how/<zr Christians shine! They do not merely illumine some little sphere. They are the light of the world. Their in- fluence reaches to the ends of the earth.
Would we make good our Savior's assertion with respect to ourselves — would we be the light of the world, let us first take heed that the light which is in us be not darkness : and let us next have a care that our light make discovery to others of good works. Let us do them. Then, as for those who see us, it is their fault, not ours, if they are not con- verted. And as for those who are too far off to see us, it only remains that we carry them the light, or send it to them.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 209
43. The Salt of tlie Earth.
Here is something else which Christians are. All that they are cannot be told in a single sentence. It requires many. Some content themselves with a partial representation of the Christian character. But the proper plan is to bring together all the Bi- ble has to say about it, and then aptly to arrange the parts so as to present a full and perfect delineation. Many seem to think that every definition of religion in the Bible is intended to exhaust the subject. It is a great mistake, and one which, I fear, is fatal to many.
Christians are the light of the world, as has been already said. But this is not all they are; they are also " the salt of the earth ;" and the same individuals are both these ; they do not merely shine for the benefit of the world ; they act upon it in another, more immediate and more energetic manner ; they are not merely light to it, but salt to it also. They preserve it.
Here let me remark, what a useful people Chris- tians are ! What are more useful, I may say indis- pensable, than light and salt ? How could we get along at all without them ? Well, Christians are these to the moral world. They enlighten it. They discover moral excellence to it. Yea, they preserve it from perishing. The world would not keep but for 18*
210 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
Christians. They are the salt of the earth. How soon Sodom was destroyed after Lot left it ! He was the salt of Sodom. That one good man saved the city while he remained in it ; and if there had been nine more, they might all have remained, and Sodom should have been spared. Well may I say, how use- ful Christians are to their fellow-creatures ! And I may add, how variously useful they are ! If they were merely light to the world, they could be very useful ; but they are also salt to it.
Moreover, what a disinterested people Christians are ! It is not to themselves mainly tjiat they are so useful, but to others. Not a man of them liveth to himself. Light shines not for its own advantage ; and salt exists wholly for the benefit of other sub- stances ; and how completely it spends itself on them, and loses itself in them ! Such are Christians. They please not themselves. They seek not their OAvn. This is what we are, if we are Christians.
And now I have another grave reflection to make. How different Christians are from the residue of men ! How eery unlike them ! Others are not the light of the world, and the salt of the earth. No, they are the world — the persons that require the light — the dark objects. They are the earth, which needs the salt for its preservation. They are the corrupt mass. Now, light is very unlike the objects it illumines, and salt very unlike the substance it preserves or seasons. If it were no*, it would not
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 211
at all answer the purpose intended by its application. Well, just as unlike other men, unregenerate men, the men of the world, are Christians — as unlike as are light and the world, or salt and the earth. But some may say, this is figurative language. What if it is ? Figures mean something. They mean as much as literal phraseology. And the meaning of figures is as easily gained as that of any other kind of language. But St. John speaks on this subject with- out a figure, and he employs one of the strongest and most striking expressions I have ever read. To many ears it does not sound at all charitable. He says, speaking in the name of Christians, "We know that ice are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness ;" or, to translate the original more literal- ly, and to make the contrast still more striking, in the wicked one. This is his account of the difference between Christians and others. Christians are of God. All other men are in the wicked one. Nor is it wonderful that Christians are so very different from others, when we consider that they become such by being created anew in Christ Jesus. Such a work of God upon them must needs make them very unlike those who are not the subjects of it. Creation makes a vast difference in things. The first creation did. The second does alsr The new creature differs widely from the mere.creature. The Christian is eminently distinguished from the man. Christians are exhorted not to be conformed to the
212 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
world. It would seem impossible that real Chris- dans should be conformed to it. It would appear to be as contrary to their nature to be conformed to the world, as for light to resemble darkness, or salt any- insipid or corrupt substance.
But the world say they do not see the mighty dif- ference between Christians and other men. Perhaps it is because they do not look at the right persons. It is no wonder they do not see a mighty difference between some professors of religion and the rest of mankind, for no such difference exists. It is not to be seen. It is not every professor that is a true Christian. There are some that pass for Christians, of whom it may be said that the light which is in them is darkness. Such are not the lights of the world. They need themselves illumination more than any others, for the darkness which is in them is great. Again, there are those in whom, accord- ing to the case supposed by our Savior, the salt has lost its savor — its saline quality. Yes, there are in- sipid Christians. That such should not manifest the difference which exists between real Christians and others, is curely not to be wondered at. These differ from others rather in being worse than better than they. What is so worthless as salt which has lost its savor ? " It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Just so it is with graceless professors of religion. They serve no good turn, but many an ill one.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 213
But some are not entirely without the saline prin- ciple ; yet have it in great weakness. They are, if I may so speak, only a little brackish with it. Let such give diligence to grow in grace. And let us all see to it that we have salt in ourselves, that we may be in this respect also what Christ says his dis- ciples are, " the salt of the earth."
43. The Distance of Deatfcu
How far from any human being is death ? This is not equivalent to asking when he will actually die. That may not be for years to come. But all that time how far off is death from him % Not far — only a step. " There is but a step between me and death." Death is always at just the same distance from every man, though all do not die at the same time, and some live to a much greater age than others. Death is as contiguous to childhood and youth, as it is to manhood and old age. Facts are every day proving it. From no subject of human life, and from no point or period of it, is death ever at a greater distance than may be measured by a step. David said what I have quoted, of himself. It is just as true of all men, un- less some are protected, as Hezekiah was, by a pro- mise of God that he should live a number of years,
214 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
David said it in a moment of panic. He might have said it in his calmest hour. It is no piece of extra- vagance. It is a sober reality. It is plain matter of fact, that all we who live, live at precisely this little distance from death, and no more. David said it in view of a particular danger. But there are a thou- sand dangers besetting every man, any one of which could justify the language. We sometimes seem to be nearer death than at other times ; and we are ac- tually sometimes nearer dying. Every hour brings us nearer dying, but not nearer death, for that is never but "a step" off. That is always close at our side — our companion through life. The whole course of life is in the closest proximity to death. We are not merely tending towards a brink, over which ul- timately we are to plunge, but we are all the time traveling on that brink. We are not journeying towards a precipice which may be more or less dis- tant from us, but our whole way winds along the frightful edge of the precipice. Our danger does not commence just before we actually die, but it attends us all the way of life. It is true, some escape it for a long time, but there is not a point in the path which has not been so dangerous as to prove fatal to some travelers.
It is this, if I mistake not, which makes our con- dition here so fearful — this perpetual insecurity — this ever-present and imminent peril. It is not the certainty of the fact in regard to death that is so very
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 215
appaling to the soul. It is the uncertainty of the time. It is not that ultimately we must die, but that presently we may. It is the thought of being neces- sarily always so near that great evil — always imme- diately adjacent to the judgment — always close upon, the confines of eternity, and always within a little of our everlasting abode — the journey from every point of our path so short — a single stage, a single step ! Now here ; anon there — this hour with men ; the next with God — to-day only candidates for immor- tality; to-morrow its incumbents — to-day on trial for eternity; to-morrow tried, and the case decided irreversibly and forever — on earth to-day ; to-morrow in heaven or in hell — nor yet the interval always so great as a day. I do not think the fearfulness of man's condition in view of these considerations is capable of being exaggerated. No language can overstate it. If the change awaiting us were gradu- ally brought about, it would not be so fearful. If one by one the mysterious ligaments of life were sundered, and one by one the objects of earth faded from our view, and the novelties of eternity were slowly and separately unfolded to our vision; if the summons of death designated a distant day for our appearing at the bar of God, and our way thither was long and difficult, dying would not constitute so formidable a prospect as now it does. But the fact is, the change is as sudden as it is great. The fami- liar scenes of the one world all vanish at once, and
216 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
the unimagined realities of the other all at once burst on the beholder. The summons requires im- mediate attendance, and the way is but a step. There is no doubt about this. There are not two minds on the subject. Every one, when asked what his life is, answers in similar language, " It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little while, and then vanisheth away." No one contends for the power or right to boast of to-morrow. All see that the Son of man cometh at such an hour as men think not. The fre- quent sudden precipitation into the grave and the eternal world, of persons of all ages, and of every condition of body, evinces that between them and death there was but a step. And how should there be more between us and death ? The reasons which determine God in the dispensations of life and der**h are perhaps more inscrutable than those which govern any other part of his conduct. There is no class of facts out of which it is so perfectly impossible to construct a theory, as those which relate to human mortality.
So then, death is but a step off, and we cannot move him farther from us. He will keep just at that distance, though he may long maintain it. He will be ever threatening us — his weapon ever up- lifted and over us, though he cannot strike until the word is given him from another. Is it so ? Is death but a step removed — so near as that ? Then, if there be anything in death which requires preparation, (and
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 217
is there not?) how important that from the earliest dawn of reason it should be made ! so that we may be ever prepared for that which is ever so near — always in panoply to meet an enemy always at hand ! Hovv absurd to put off preparation for death, when one cannot put off death itself! Is the reader pre- pared to die ? He has entertained less momentous questions than this. Is he in readiness to take the step which separates him from all that is final and formidable in death ? Will he not seriously institute and faithfully prosecute this inquiry ?
But if death is so near, there are other things even more formidable than death, which cannot be far off. Judgment is near, if death is. Yes, " The Judge standeth before the door." How near to every ac- countable being is the place and period of his final reckoning ! To-morrow he may have to answer for the deeds of to-day ; or to-day, of yesterday's. How many accounts are closed every day — how many cases decided daily at that court of ultimate adjudi- cation ! And are we so near the awful interview — the tremendous audit 1 And does it not affect us at all ? Are we so well prepared for it, or so careless of being prepared for it ?
Retribution ensues immediately on judgment. That also is but the distance of " a step." Now, if that retribution were temporal and mutable, the thought would be alarming. But it is eternal and irreversible. Ah, then, if these things be so, how 19
218 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. ^
near to some is perdition ! It is the verge of that dark and fathomless abyss on which they so securely tread. What a risk they run ! The prize ought to be great which is sought at such a peril. So near to hell ! What a position to occupy ! But if the sin- ner will repent, and behold the Lamb of God, and yield his heart to the Lord, then he shall be as near to heaven. There shall be but a step between him and it. Some are as near as all that to heaven. It is not a day's journey there. It is but to take a step, and, follower of Jesus, thou art where no night is, and no sound of moaning is heard, and every tear is wiped away. So near to heaven ! How frequent then and fond should be your thoughts of it ! All so near ! Then " what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness !" How carefully and circumspectly ought they to walk whose path lies along such a brink !
And since the end of all our opportunities is as near as death, whatever our minds meditate, or our hands find to do, for our own souls, for the good of others, or for the glory of God, let us do it with our might.
44. Why so L,oth to Die 1
I find within me a strange reluctance to die ? and I perceive in others indications of a similar unwill-
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 219
mgness. Indeed, it is rare to meet with one who does not participate in this general and great aversion to dying. Now I do not wonder that some are unwill- ing to die. Nature revolts at death. It is the object of her strongest antipathy. It is not strange, there- fore, that mere natural men should be averse to it. Some have nothing to die for. How can it be ex- pected that they should be willing to die? They have nothing beyond the grave to go to. Their pos- sessions all lie on this side of it. They have their portion in this life — their good things here. Do you wonder they are reluctant to leave them % To such to die is loss. Death is not theirs, as it is the Chris- tion's ; but on the other hand, they are death's. Je- sus is not precious to them. How should they be " willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord ?" What Paul esteemed " far etter " than life — dying in order to be with Christ — has for them no charm whatever.
But that the spiritual man, the disciple and friend of Jesus, the child and heir of God, should be so strongly averse to death, deserves to be considered strange. We might indeed expect that there should remain some of the reluctance of nature to death, even in the subjects of grace, for Christianity does not destroy nature ; but that this reluctance should be so strong, and often so predominant, that grace should not create a desire for death stronger than nature's aversion to it, is what surprises us,
220 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
I am sure it ought not to be as it is. Certainly every Christian ought to be able to say with Paul, " having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better." However averse to being fl unclothed," he should yet be willing to be " clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life." Life re- quired an exercise of patience in the saints of old, which seems to have no existence now. Job says, " all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come." Then Christian submission was exercised in living. Now, to be resigned to death is the desideratum. Grace had then to make its sub- jects willing to live. Now it has to make them will- ing to die.
How shall we account for this reluctance 1 What if nature in us be strong, is not grace stronger ? Has it subdued our sins, calmed our agitations, allayed our fears, and can it not master this one aversion % Have we made experiment of what grace can do with the fear of death ?
Is it because of the fain of dying that we shrink from it? But how know we that to die is so very painful ? In half the cases of death at least, it does not appear to be so. How many sicknesses we are subject to, whose progress is attended with far more pain ! How many surgical operations which men readily submit to, are beyond all doubt productive of more suffering !
Is this world so bright and beautiful that we are
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 221
loth to leave it on that account ? But is not heaven fairer and brighter far 1 Here there is night ; but there none. Here deformity alternates with beauty ; but there all is loveliness. Here the alloy prevails ; there, there is no mixture — all is pure. Can it be possible that earth has charms and attractions equal to those of heaven — this earth, which the curse has lighted on, comparable in point of beauty and loveli- ness to that heaven where God manifests himself, and which Jesus has gone to prepare as the fit habita- tion and eternal home of his redeemed? Is it con- ceivable ? Even the saints who lived under a dark- er dispensation esteemed the heavenly a better coun- try. Is it the separations which death makes, that render us so averse to die ? True, it separates, but it unites also. It takes us, I know, from many we love, but it takes us to as many we love. Leave we a fa- mily behind ? But do we not go to one larger, more harmonious, happier 1 Are we parted from friends by death ? And are we not joined to friends by the same ? If we lose a father, do we not find a better father ; and if we leave a dear brother, do we not go to one who " is not ashamed to call us brethren p} More than half of some families have gone already to heaven. Why should we be so much more desir- ous of continuing with the part on earth, than of going to the portion in heaven ? Do those you part from need your care and services more than those to whom you go 1 But is it not safe going, and leav- 19#
222 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
ing them in charge of God ? Is it not he now who cares for them, and watches over them, provides for them, and defends them? And will he not do it when you are dead and gone ? Ah, the parent clings to life, and looks imploringly on death, when he thinks of his loved little ones ! What will become of them he asks ? What would become of them now, if they had only you to care for them ? It is not your eye that keeps watch over them ; nor your arm that is put underneath and round about them ; nor your hand from whose opening palm their wants are supplied. It is God's. And what he does by you now, cannot he do without you ? Cannot he find other agents and instruments when you are laid aside ? Does he not say of the widows and fatherless children, " leave them to me ?" And will he not be faithful to the trust which he solicits 1
Do rot children desire to see the face of their fa- ther ? And are not we children of God ? After so many years of daily converse and communion with him, and after receiving so many tokens of his pa- ternal regard, should you not be willing to go now and see him face to face, whose unseen hand has led, sustained and supplied you hitherto ? It is unnatural in us not to be willing to go to God. We readily go to those we love.
Has home no charm ? What man is he, to whom it has not a charm ? Who has been long absent from it, and does not languish with desire to reach it ?
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 223
But where is home — thy father's house ? It is not here. It is beyond the flood. Earth is not home. Heaven is home. Living is not being at home. Dy- ing is going home. We must die to reach our fa- ther's house. And yet we are reluctant to die !
Do you dread the way ? Do you tremble at the vhought of the valley of the shadow of death ? What, when you are sure of such company as that of Je- sus? Will you fear with him at your side? Do not talk of the cold arms of death. Think rather of the warm embrace of Jesus. Does he not say he
will come for you ? " If I go I will come again,
and receive you unto myself." Angels may minister to the saints on common occasions, but when a Christian dies, Jesus himself attends.
But death has a sting. You mean he had one. To those who believe in Jesus, no sting of death re- mains.
Fear you the consequences of dying ? Does the thought of the presence into which you are to go appal you ? But you have often been into that pre- sence in prayer — you have appeared already before God on his mercy seat, and then you have wished the veil away. Why then so unwilling that death should withdraw it ? Were you not gladdened by those transient glimpses of his glory which you saw? And dread you now the full and fixed gaze of his glory ? Have you not often sighed for those brighter views, and those nearer and clearer disco- veries which death will afford you ?
224 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
Surely it cannot be the judgment you fear. What, when you are " accepted in the beloved !" If accept- ed in yourself, you should not fear. How much less, when accepted in him ! If God would honor your own righteousness, had you a righteousness of your own, will he not much more honor Christs righteousness, now become yours? What if you cannot answer for yourself! Cannot he answer for you ? But who is the judge ? Is it not Jesus, your advocate? Will your advocate condemn you ? Are you afraid to meet your Savior ? He that summons you to judgment, is the same that said " Come unto me, and I will give you rest." Would you live al- ways? I know you would not. But you would live longer, perhaps you say, for the sake of being useful to others. But who knows that you may not be more useful in heaven ? Who can say but your death may do more good than your life ? Besides, if God can dispense with your services, should you not be willing to have them arrested ?
Do you not desire to be freed from all sin ? But know you not that only he " that is dead is freed from sin?" If you cannot be perfectly holy until you die, ought you to be so unwilling to die ? Is your desire of perfect holiness sincere, while you are so averse to the condition of it ?
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 225
45. Heaven's Attractions.
I have been thinking of the attractions of heaven — what there is in heaven to draw souls to it. 1 thought of the place. Heaven has place. Christ says to his disciples, " I go to prepare a. place for you." It is a part of the consolation with which he comforts them, that heaven is a place, and not a mere state. What a place it must be ! Selected out of all the locations of the universe — the chosen spot of space. We see, even on earth, places of great beauty, and we can conceive of spots far more delightful than any we see. But what comparison can these bear to hea- ven, where every thing exceeds whatever eye has seen or imagination conceived ? The earthly para- dise must have been a charming spot. But what that to the heavenly ? What the paradise assigned to the first Adam, who was of the earth, earthy, com- pared with that purchased by the second Adam, who is the Lord from heaven ? It is a " purchased possession." The price it cost the purchaser every one knows. Now, having purchased it, he has gone to prepare it — to set it in order — to lay out his skill upon it. O what a place Jesus will make — has al- ready made — heaven ! The place should attract us.
Then I thought of the freedom of the place from the evils of earth. Not only what is in heaven, should attract us to it, but what is not there. And what is not there ? There is no night there, Who
226 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. .
does not want to go where no night is ? No night — no natural night — none of its darkness, its damps, its dreariness — and no moral night — no ignorance — no error — no misery — no sin. These all belong to the night ; and there is no night in heaven. And why no night there ? What shines there so perpe- tually ? It is not any natural luminary. It is a mo- ral radiance that lights up heaven. " The glory of God doth lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." No need have they there of other light. This shines every where and on all. All light is sweet, but no light is like this.
And not only no night there, but " no more curse." Christ redeemed them from the curse ©f the law, being made a curse for them. And " no more death" The last enemy is overcome at last. Each, as he enters the place, shouts victoriously, " O death — O grave !" " Neither sorrow." It is here. O yes. It is here — around, within. We hear it ; we see it ; and at length we feel it. But it is not there. " Nor crying " — no expression of grief. " Neither shall there be any more pain : for the former things are passed away." And what becomes of tears ? Are they left to dry up ? Nay, God wipes them away. And this is a sure sign they will never return. What shall cause weeping, when he wipes away tears ?
I have not said that there is no sin in heaven. I have not thought that necessary. If sin was there,
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 227
night would be there, and the curse, and death, and all the other evils — the train of sin. These are not there. Therefore sin is not. No, " we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is."
What is there then, since these are not 1 Day is there — and there is the blessing that maketh rich — and there is life, immortality — and since no sorrow, joy — "fulness of joy — joy unspeakable " — and smiles where tears were — and there they rest, not from their labors only, but from cares, and doubts, and fears. And glory is there, an " exceeding and eter- nal weight."
Then I thought of the society. It is composed of the Elite of the Universe. The various orders of angels who kept their first estate — as humble as they are high — not ashamed of men. Why should they be, when the Lord of angels is not ashamed to call us brethren % The excellent of the earth also — all the choice spirits of every age and nation — the first man — the first martyr — the translated patriarch — the survivor of the deluge — the friend of God, and his juniors, Isaac and Israel — Moses, the lawgiver, and Joshua the leader of the host — the pious kings — the prophets — the evangelists and apostles, Paul, John — the martyrs — the reformers — the Puritan fa- thers— the missionaries, Swartz, Brainerd, Martyn — Carey and Morrison have just gone up; and the young brothers, who ascended from Sumatra — and another, connected with missions, Wisner, has been suddenly sent for to heaven.
228 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
Is that all ? Where is he who used to lisp " fa- ther, mother," — thy child? Passing out of your hands, passed he not into those of Jesus ? Yes, you suffered him. If any other than Jesus had said, 11 Suffer them to come to me," you would have said, No. Death does not quench those recently struck sparks of intelligence. Jesus is not going to lose one of those little brilliants. All shall be in his crown.
Perhaps thou hast a brother, or a sister there; ihat should draw you towards heaven. Perhaps a mother — she whose eye wept while it watched over thee, until at length it grew dim, and closed. Took she not in her cold hand, thine, while yet her heart was warm, and said she not, " I am going to Jesus. Follow me there ?" Perhaps one nearer, dearer than child, than brother, than mother — the nearest, dear- est is there. Shall I say who ? Christian female, thy husbund. Christian father, the young mother of thy babes. He is not. She is not; for God took them. Has heaven no attractions ?
Heaven is gaining in attractions every day. True, the principal attractions continue the same. But the lesser ones multiply. Some have attractions there now, which they had not but a few months ago. Earth is losing. How fast it has been losing ot late ! But earth's losses are heaven's gains. They who have left so many dwelling places of earth de- solate, have gone to their Father's house in heaven. What if they shall not return to us ? We shall go to them. That is better.
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 229
But the principal attractions I have not yet men- tioned. There is our Father — our heavenly Father, whom we have so often addressed as such in prayer. He that nourished and brought us up, and has borne us on — he that has watched over us with an eye that never sleeps, and provided for us with a hand that never tires ; and who can pity too. We have never seen our heavenly Father. But there he re- veals himself. There he smiles ; and the nations of the saved walk in the light of his countenance.
And there is he, to depart and be with whom Paul desired, as being " far better " than to live, There is his glorified humanity. If not having seen, we love him ; and in him, though now we see him not, yet believing, we rejoice with joy un- speakable and full of glory, what will be the love and the joy when "we shall see him as he is?" There is he.
Heaven has attractions — many, and strong — and yet who would think it ? How few feel and obey the heavenly attraction ! How much more power- fully earth acts upon us ! How unwilling we are to leave it even for heaven !
46. The Heavenly Recognition.
The question is often asked, " Do you think we shall know each other in heaven ?" Some are very 20
230 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS.
curious to be informed on this subject. It is a point they seem more anxious to know than some other more important points. I am afraid we shall not all know each other in heaven. I am afraid we shall not all be there to know and be known. Let us first try to get to heaven. It is more important that we should be there, than that we should know what other persons are there. Let us repent with a broken heart ; and believe in Christ for a title to heaven ; and " let us follow holiness " that we may be fur- nished with a fitness for heaven; and being our- selves "accepted in the Beloved," and sanctified through the Spirit, let us try to get as many others to heaven as we can ; and let us leave the subject of mutual recognition in heaven for subsequent consi- deration. By the time we have done what I recom- mend, we shall be close upon the celestial confines
perhaps within heaven's limits * * * *
[The article is unfinished. The beloved author here laid down his pen ; and instead of resuming it, was called, who can question, to realise the scenes he had been describing.]
THE END.
IfttS^W^ffifitffS
If ® ® ® i If »
To the law and to the testimony." lea.
Y REV. WILLIAM NEVINS, D. D
Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore.
PUBLISHED BY THE
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY,
150 NASSAU-STREET, NEW-YORK.
D. Fatuhaw, Printer.
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by Rukus L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York.
CONTENTS
No. Pjge.
1. Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith and
Guide to Salvation, 7
2. The Source of Heresies, 10
3. Private Interpretation, - - - - - -11
4. Popery Unscriptural, 15
5. Evil of believing too much, 18
G. The Nine Commandments, 21
7. Catholic hostility to the Bible, - - - - 25
8. Something for the Rev. Mr. H. - - - - 30
9. Distinction of Sins into Mortal and Venial, - - 33
10. The Deadly Sins, -35
11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit, - - 37
12. Infallibility, 40
13. The Keys, 44
11 The Head of the Church, 47
15. The power to forgive Sins, 51
16. A Catholic Book reviewed, - 50
17. Review of the Catholic Book continued, - - 00
18. The Pope an Idolater, - - - - -65
19. Charles X. an Idolater, 69
20. Idolatiy near home, ------ 73
21. Praying to Saints, - - - - - # - 76
22. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, 80
23. More Specimens of Catholic Idolatry, - 85
24. Image Worship, ------ 89
25. Relics, - - - 94
26. Seven Sacraments, ------ 100
27. Transubstantiation, - 103
28. Haifa Sacrament, 105
20. Extreme Unction, 109
4 CONTENTS.
Jto. Page.
30. Doing Penance, 112
31. The hardest Religion, 116
32. More about Penance, 120
33. A Fast-day Dinaer, 122
34. The Mass, 125
35. More about the Mass, 130
36. The Host, 136
37. Priests, 140
38. Celibacy of the Clergy, 144
39. A Holier state than Matrimony, - 146
40. Auricular Confession, .... - 148
41. A Mistake Corrected - - - - • 151
42. Purgatory, -------- 152
43. More about Purgatory, ----- 156
44. A Strange Thing, 158
45. Canonizing Saints, , - 161
46. General La Fayette not at rest, - - - - 165
47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed, - - - . 170
48. An Improvement, -175
49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason, - 178
50. The Duke's Seventh Reason, - - - - 181
51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason, 187
52. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, ... 190
53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, ... 194
54. Partiality of the Church of Rome, - - - 196
55. Supererogation, .---.- 200
56. Convents, >c - 204
57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs. More, - - - 207
58. A new method of exciting Devotion, - 212
The lamented author of the following articles had long mourned over the influence of Romanism, as essentially a political rather than a religious institution — attracting men by its splendid and imposing exterior, to the neglect of that spirituality of heart, without which no man can "see the kingdom of God." He had made repeated endeavors to engage what he considered abler pens in exposing its ab- surdities ; and at length, as a means of reaching the greatest number of minds, commenced the insertion of brief mis- cellaneous articles bearing on the subject in a widely circu- lated weekly newspaper— the New- York Observer— using the signature M. S. the finals of his name. In familiarity of style, kindness and cheerfulness of manner, and plain common sense, they are adapted to secure the attention and carry conviction to the heart of the general reader; while their richness of thought and clearness and conclusiveness of argument will render them not less acceptable to mature and cultivated minds. Finding the reception they met, it was the design of the author to comply with requests from numerous sources entitled to his regard, by himself (when the series should have been somewhat further extended) embodying them in a volume ; but the failure of his health and the early close of his valuable life prevented the fulfill- ment of that design. They are now given to the public ill accordance with general suggestions of the author, but es- sentially in the form in which they at first appeared.
tfSS#W<S2I£^0 <8>» &Q»38&'ar»
1. The Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faitli and Guide to Salvation.
This is the great matter in controversy between Pro- testants and Roman Catholics. We say the Bible is sufficient. They say that it is not. Now, suppose that Paul the apostle be permitted to decide between us. We are agreed to refer the matter to him. Can our opponents object to this reference? Let Paul then be consulted in the only way in which he can be, viz. through his acknowledged writings. It is agreed on all hands that he wrote the second epistle to Timothy. Well, in the third chapter of that epistle, and at the 15th verse, he writes to Timothy thus : " And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." That the Greek is here correctly translated into Eng- lish, any scholar may see.
Here then we have what Paul wrote, and I cannot believe that he would write, in a letter to Timothy, that the Holy Scriptures are capable of being known by a child, and able to make wise unto salvation, and then say, to be handed down by tradition, that they are so obscure and abstruse that one can make nothing out of them.
But what did Paul write to Timothy about the Holy
ti THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
Scriptures ? He reminds him that he had known them from a child, that is, he had been acquainted with them so far as to understand them from that early age. Now, either Timothy was a most extraordinary child, of which there is no proof, or else the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, and of the New, so far as the latter was written and recognized at the time, are in- telligible to a child. I see not how this conclusion can in any way be evaded. If the child of Eunice could and did know them, why may not my child and your child, and any child of ordinary understanding? And what do Ave want more for a rule of faith, than a Bible which a child can understand? The Bible then can- not be insufficient as a rule of faith, through any want of perspicuity in it. That point is settled.
But Paul says something more to Timothy about these same Scriptures, "which" he says, u are able to make thee wise unto salvation" Why, what is the matter with the man? He talks as if he had taken lessons of Luther. When did he live ? They say that the Protestant religion is only three hundred years old, but here is a man who lived well nigh eighteen hun- dred years ago, that writes amazingly like a Protestant about the Holy Scriptures. He says (and I have just been looking at the Greek to see if it is so there, and I find that it is) they are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Now, who wishes to be wiser than that? and if they can make one thus wise, they can make any number equally Avise. So then the Scriptures can be knoAvn by children, and can make AArise to sah'ation those Avho knoAV them. This is Paul's decision, and here should be an end of the contnwersy. If this prove not the sufficiencv of the Bible as a rule of faith and
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 0
guide to salvation, I know not how any thing can be proved. I will tell you what I am determined to do the next time a Catholic opens his mouth to me about the insufficiency and obscurity of our rule of faith, I mean to take hold of the sword of the Spirit by this handle, 2 Tim. 3 : 15, and I mean to hold on to this weapon of heavenly temper, and to wield it manfully, until my opponent surrender or retreat. He cannot stand before it.
But before I close this, I must say, that if the Scrip- tures which existed when Paul wrote to Timothy were able to make wise unto salvation, how much more are they with what has been added to the canon since 1 And here, by the way, we have an answer to the ques- tion which the Catholic asks with such an air of tri- umph : " How, if this be your rule of faith, did Chris- tians get along before the New Testament was writ- ten and received?" Very well; they had Scriptures enough to make them "wise unto salvation" as early as the time of Timothy ; and they had, many years before that, all the Old Testament, and a part of the New. Now, with Moses and the prophets, ai«d the Psalms, and Matthew's Gospel, and perhaps some others, together with a large number of divinely in- spired men, I think they must have got along very comfortably.
One thing more I desire to say. It is this : that there is an advantage for understanding the Bible, which does not belong to any book whose author is not per- sonally accessible. Tite advantage is, that we have daily and hourly opportunity to consult the Author of the Bible on the meaning of it. We can, at any mo- ment we please, go and ask him to interpret to us any
10 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
difficult passage. We can lift off our eyes from the word of truth, when something occurs which we do not readily comprehend, and direct them to the throne of grace. And what encouragement we have to do this ! James tells us, " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not ; and it shall be given him." So then we have the Bible to inform and guide us, and we have constant opportunities of consulting its Author in regard to its meaning. Is it not enough ? I, for one, am satisfied. I can dispense with the fathers, &c. &c.
a. The Source of Heresies.
The Roman Catholics say it is the Bible. They trace all the errors and divisions which prevail, to the Scriptures as their fountain. Do they know whose book it is which they thus accuse ? How dare they charge God with being " the Author of confusion ?" But is the Bible to blame for heresies ? Christ gives a very different account of the matter. He says, Matt. 22 : 29, to the Sadducees, " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures." He makes ignorance of the Scriptures the source of heresies. He does not agree with the priests.
It is very strange, if the reading of the Scriptures is the cause of heresies in religion, that the Bereans, who searched them daily, because they would not take on trust even what Paid said, (and I suspect they would
THOUGHTS ON TOPERY. 11
not have treated Peter any more civilly,) did not fall into any of these errors. It would seem to have had quite a contrary effect, for it is added, " therefore many of them believed." Acts, 17 : 11, 12. Whatever these Bereans were, it is clear that they were not good Ca- tholics.
But after all it is not surprising that these noble Be- reans did not fall into any fatal error by reason of read- ing the Scriptures, since Peter says of Paul's hardest parts, and most obscure passages, that they do nobody any harm, but such as are both " unlearned and un- stable;" and that they do them no harm, except they wrest them, that is, do absolute violence to them. 2 Pet. 3 : 16.
3. Private Interpretation.
It is known to every body how strenuously the Ca- tholics oppose the reading of the Bible, or rather, I should say, the reader exercising his mind on the Bible which he reads. He may read for himself, if he will only let the church think for him. He may have a New Testament, and he may turn to such a passage as John, 3 : 16, " God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sen," &c. or to that, Matt. 11 : 28, 30, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I Avill give you rest," &c. and he may read the words, but then he must not attempt to wit a meaning upon them, though it be very difficult
12 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
to avoid attaching a sense to them, since they are quite as easy to be understood as they are to be read. But he must not do it. At his peril he must not. He is guilty of the crime of private interpretation, if he does. Before he pretends to understand those passages, he must inquire how the church has always interpreted them, and what the popes and general councils have thought about them, and how all the fathers, from Barnabas to Bernard, not one excepted, have under- stood them. Well, now, it strikes me as rather hard upon the poor sinner, that he should be made to go through this long and difficult process before he is permitted to admire the love of God in the gift of his Son, and before he can go to Jesus for rest. And somehow I cannot help suspecting that it is not ne- cessary to take this circuitous course, and that it is not so very great a sin when one reads such passages, to understand them according to the obvious import of their terms.
But the Catholic asks, " Does not Peter condemn private interpretation ?" And they point us to his 2d Epistle, 1 : 20. " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." Now you must know that Catholics, though they have no great attachment to the Bible, are as glad as any peo- ple can be, when they can get hold of a passage of it, which seems to establish some tenet of theirs. And as only a very small portion of the Bible has even the appearance of favoring them, one may observe with what eagerness they seize upon, and with what te- nacity they cling to the rare passages which seem to befriend their cause. Thus they do with this pas- sage of Peter. Thev quote it with an air of triumph,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 13
and exultingly ask what Protestants can have to re- ply 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 Catholic inference from these words of Peter. We say that that passage does not make for the Ca- tholic cause, first, because if the right of private judg- ment 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 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 interpreta- tion." Allowing then to the Catholic all which he contends for, we are left with by far the larger part of the Bible open to private interpretation. Peter re- stricts us only in the matter of prophecy !
But secondly, let me say, that to whatever the re- mark of the apostle has reference, it can easily be shown that it does not mean what the Catholic under- stands 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, pro- ceeds 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 w<ere moved by the Holy Ghost." Now I would ask if this reason 2
14 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
confirms the 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, and 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 Catholic argument from this passage may be stated thus : the Bible is an inspired book, therefore too ob- scure and ambiguous to be of private interpretation ! Inspired, therefore unintelligible !
If it be so hard to understand what God says, how was the divine Savior able to make himself understood by the common people who heard him gladly ? I sus- pect 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 inter- preter : 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 under- standing 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 intelligi- ble : 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, interpre- tation, should be translated as Dr. M'Knight trans-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 15
lates 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 inter- pretation, then of course the passage of Scripture, 2 Pet. 1 : 20, is not of private interpretation ; and yet the Catholic exercises his private judgment upon it, and submits it to the private judgment of the Protes- tant, in the hope thereby of making him a Catholic ! No part of Scripture, according to him, may be pri- vately 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 reli- gion is unscriptural — that it is not borne out by the Bible. If I can do that, I shall be satisfied ; for a reli- gion, professing to be Christianity, which does not agree with the statements of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude, will, I am per-
16 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
suaded, never go down in the United States of Ame- rica. 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 coun- try 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 odds. This, if I mistake not, I can easily do.
The Roman Catholics act very much as if they them- selves 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 not circulate far and wide the book which con- tains their religion? They need not take our transla- tion 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 Protes- tants? 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 ac-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 17
knowledge that he wrote two epistles, and that they are extant. Why, in the name of common sense, do they not let every Catholic have them ! I do not won- der that they wish to keep out of sight of the people the epistles of Paul, who says, Gal. 2 : 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 Catholics are not friendly to their circulation. Perhaps it is because in them he says nothing about Rome, unless by Babylon, 1 Ep. 5 : 13, he means Rome, as John does in the Revelation ; and never a word about his being Bishop of Rome, or Pope ! The man seems to have no idea that he was a pope. He says in his 1st Epistle, 5:1, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." An el- der ! was that all ? Why, Peter, do you forget your- self? 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 I have hit upon one reason why it is thought best that the people in general should not be familiar with the wri- tings of Peter.
I wish, for my part, that the 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 further controversy with them.
2*
IS THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
5. The Evil of Believing Too Much.
It is a common saying among the Catholics, that it is oetter to believe too much than to believe too little ; and it is one of the arguments with which they endea- vor to make proselytes, that they believe all that Pro- testants believe, besides a good deal that Protestants do not believe. Hence they would have it inferred that their religion possesses all the advantages which be- long 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 sat 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 be- lieves 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 addi- tions to the truth to be as injurious and a& 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 reprc-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 19
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 ad- ditions 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 Christiani- ty 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 me- rit, she has to take away just so much from the merit of Christ. The Protestant doctrine is, that we are justi- fied by faith alone, without the deeds of the law. Nay, says the Catholic, our own good works have some- thing 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 of- fered as often as a priest is pleased to say mass !
Nothing is farther from the truth than that the Ca- tholic believes all which the Protestant believes, be- sides a great deal that the Protestant does not believe. The latter part of the assertion is correct. The Ca- tholics 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
20 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
satisfied with Holy Scripture. But the Catholics do not believe all that Protestants believe ; they do not believe the Protestant doctrine of regeneration, or jus- tification, 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 be- lieve tradition ; so that they believe all which Protes- tants believe, and some more besides. Very logical, to be sure ! But suppose that tradition and Scripture hap- pen 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 contra- dictions. 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 Catho- lic says he believes both, and therefore he is in a safer state than the Protestant. Well, when I can be con- vinced that two contradictory assertions are both true, I may believe as much as the Catholic believes. Mean- while I am satisfied with believing enough ; and not caring to be more than perfectly safe, I shall continue to be a Protestant.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 21
6. Tke 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 pri- mitive 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 par- ticular 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 med- dle 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 instru- ment 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
22 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 some- thing 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 slan- der. 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 Phi- ladelphia. 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 23
the sound of " the nine commandments," since the Bible speaks of "the ten commandments," Exod. 34 : 28 ; Deut. 4 : 13, and every body has got used to the number ten, they must contrive to make out ten some how or other. And how do you think they do if? Why, they halve their ninth, and call the first part ninth, and the other tenth.
So they make out ten. In the Philadelphia Manual, corrected and approved by the Right Rev. Bishop Kenrick, it is put dowathus: "9th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. 10th. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." You see they make two of the commandments to relate to coveting. It is not very probable the Lord did so. I reckon they were not so numbered on the tables of stone. But you see it would never do to let that second commandment stand, and it would never do to have less than ten : so they were laid under a sort of necessity to do as they have done. But, after all, it is a bad job. It is not near so inge- nious as many of the devices of Popery. After all is said and done, they have but nine commandments ; for every body knows that by dividing any thing you get not two wholes, but two halves: there is but one whole after the division. And so the ninth command- ment is but one commandment after they have divided it. If they were to quarter it they could not make any more of it. If the Catholics are bent on dividing the last of the commandments, they should call the first half, 8^, and the second half, 9th. That is what they ought to do. That would be acting honestly, for they know they have left out one of the Lord's ten. They know that the Lord gave ten command- ments, and they acknowledge only nine of them. It
24 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
is a mean device to divide one of the nine, and then say they acknowledge ten. The Catholics know that the commandments, as they are in many of their cate- chisms, are not as they were written with the fing&r of God on the tables of stone. They know that one is wanting, and why it is they know. They had better take care how they do such things, for the Lord is a jealous God.
Indeed the Catholics are sorry for what they have done in this matter. It has ttrned out a bad specula- tion. This reduction of the law of God one-tenth, has led to the opening of many eyes. They would never do the like again. And as a proof of their re- pentance, they have restored the second command- ment in many cases : they can show you a great many catechisms and books in which it is found. I had sup- posed that the omission existed now only in the cate- chisms published and used in Ireland, until I heard of the Philadelphia Manual. They had better repent thoroughly, and restore the commandment in all their publications. And I think it would not be amiss for them to confess that for once they have been fallible ; that in the matter of mutilating the Decalogue, they could, and did err. If they will afford us that evidence of repentance, we will forgive them, and we will say no more about it. We know it is a sore subject with them ; they don't know how to get along with it. When one asks them, " How came you to leave out the second commandment ?" if they say, " Why, we have not left it out of all our books." The other replies, " But why did you leave it out of any ?" and there the conversa- tion ends. Echo is the only respondent, and she but repeats the question, " Why V
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 25
7. Catholic Hostility to the Bible.
I am not surprised that the Roman Catholics dislike the Bible, for very much the same reason that Ahab, king of Israel, disliked Micaiah, the prophet of the Lord. 1 Kings, 22 : 8. It is hard not to contract a strong dislike to that which is for ever bearing testi- mony against one. To love an enemy is one of the most difficult attainments. Now, the Bible is all the time speaking against the Catholic religion, and pro- phesying not good, but evil of it, just as Micaiah did of Ahab. It is natural, therefore, that the Catholic should feel an aversion to the Bible. We ought not to expect any thing else. But I am somewhat surprised that they do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of it, for it certainly does not look well that the church of God should fall out with the oracles of God. It has an ugly appearance, to say the least, to see the Chris- tian church come out against the Christian Scriptures.
I wondered much, when, a few years ago, the Pope issued his encyclical letter, forbidding the use of the Bible in the vulgar tongue. It certainly looks bad that Christ should say, " Search the Scriptures ;" and that trie vicar of Christ should say, " No, you shall not even have them." It has very much the appearance of con- tradicting Christ: but appearances may deceive in this case, as in transubstantiation. But I must do the Pope justice. He does not unconditionally forbid the use of the Bible, but only the use of it in the vulgar tongue. The Pope has no objection that a person should have the Bible, provided he has it in a language which he does not understand. The English Catholic may have 3
26 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
a French Bible, and the devout Frenchman may make use of an English or Dutch Bible ; or both may have a Latin Bible, provided they have not studied Latin. An acquaintance with the Latin makes it as vulgar a tongue as any other. I have thought it due to the Pope to say thus much in his favor. Far be it from him to forbid the use of the Bible, except in the vulgar tongue ! Another more recent faet has surprised me not a little— that a student of Maynooth College, Ireland, named O'Beirne, should have been expelled that insti- tution for persisting in reading the Bible ! Expulsion is a pretty serious thing. That must be esteemed a heinous crime which is supposed to justify so severe a penalty. I cannot see any thing so criminal in read- ing the Scriptures. I wonder if the reading of any other book is forbidden at Maynooth: I suspect not. The authorities at Maynooth must think the Bible the worst book in the world. A student of that college may read whatever is most offensive to purity and piety in the ancient classics, without any danger of expulsion ; but if he reads the Bible he is dismissed with dishonor! But I suppose they will say, he was not expelled for reading the Scriptures, but for con- tempt of authority, in that, after being forbidden to read the Scriptures, he still persisted in reading them. That makes a difference I must confess: still the young man:s case was a hard one. Christ told him not only to read, but to search the Scriptures : the au- thorities of the college told him he must not. His sin consisted in obeying Christ rather than the govern- ment of the college. I think it might have been set down as venial. They might have overlooked the fault of preferring Chnst's authority to theirs. (; When the
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 27
Son of man shall come in his glory," I don't believe he will expel the young man for what he did, though the college bade him " depart."
I wonder, and have always wondered, that the Ca- tholics, in prohibiting the Scriptures, do not except St. Peter's Epistles. Was ever any Catholic forbidden to read the letters of a Pope ? I believe not. But if good Catholics may, and should read the " Encyclical Let- ters " of the Popes, why not let them read the " Gene- ral Epistles " of the first of Popes, Peter ? Why is it any more criminal to read the letters of Pope Peter, than those of Pope Gregory ? I cannot explain this.
Here is another fact that has surprised me. A reoent Galway newspaper denounces, by name, two Protest- ant clergymen as reptiles, and advises that they should be at once trampled on. What for % Why, for the sin of holding a Bible meeting, and distributing the Scrip- tures ! It speaks of them as a hell-inspired junto of incarnate fiends, and says, " If the devil himself came upon earth, he would assume no other garb than that of one of these biblicals." The Irish editor adds, " The biblical junto must be put down in Galway." He is evidently in a passion with the Bible : I suppose it must be because it prophecies no good of him. Cer- tainly he cannot think the Bible very favorable to his religion, otherwise he would not proclaim such a cru- sade against its distribution. It is the first time I ever heard it asserted, that the managers and members of Bible Societies are ipso facto incarnate fiends. It seems singular, that those who promote the circulation of a heaven-inspired volume, should be themselves, as a matter of course, hell-inspired. I cannot think that Exeter Hall and Chatham-street Chapel become
23 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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. When re- cently 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 of- fered 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 sup- pose, 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 of- fered them, was, that they had other and better Bibles. That is not pretended. They had none. Now, it seems
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 29
to 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 Bi- ble. What if the Doday 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 transla- tion ? 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 to- wards God to consist in doing penance appointed by men. 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, evan- gelists, and apostles?
30 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 no- body 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 unanswera- ble 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 reli- gion 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 pro- test 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 31
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 re- ligion 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 an- tiquity as St. John?
But Mr. H. asks again, " What society of Chris- tians ever taught this pretended religion of Christ pre- vious 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 Caesar's household, to whom one Paul wrote a letter, which has come down to us ? Now, if it cannot be as- certained 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 profess- ed and taught what St. Paul taught them.
But there was another respectable society of Chris- tians, a good while " previous to the Reformation," who seem to have known something about this " pre- tended religion of Christ," called Protestant. They dwelt in a city named Ephesus. That same Paul resided among them three years, preaching the Gos- pel, and he did it faithfully. He " shunned no' to declare all the counsel of God." After establishing a flourishing church there, he went away, and subse- quently addressed an epistle to them, which also has come down to us. In this epistle it is to be presumed
32 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 1 I think not. Well, sir, what are the doctrines of that epistle ? Are they yours or ours — Catholic or Protes- tant 1 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 coun- cil, and the unanimous fathers.
I have told Mr. H. now of two societies of Chris- tians 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 writ- ten 1 I am curious to know. How came the evange- lists and apostles to know nothing about it, if it is really the religion of Christ 1 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.
Tney talk about the antiquity of the Roman Ca- tholic 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 f.rst form of Christianity. That is a
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 33
mistake. It is the second. The first appeared for a while, then " fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God," and re-appeared at the Re- formation. They call it a new religion. But no, it is the old restored. If any one doubts the identity of the restored religion, let him but compare its features with that which appeared and flourished in the apos- tolic age.
Another question I beg leave to ask Mr. H. " Did the first Christians of Rome hold the doctrines con- tained in the epistle to the Romans, or did they not ?" If they did not, they must have departed from the faith sooner than Paul predicted that they would. If they did hold the doctrines of the epistle, then, since these are the very doctrines which the friends of the Refor- mation contend for, have we not here the example of a society holding the doctrines of the Reformation long before the actual era of the Reformation ? I have other questions to ask, but I wait for these to be an- swered.
9. The Distinction of Sins into Mortal and Venial.
Mr. Editor, — I was not aware, until recently, that Roman Catholics of this age, and in this country, make that practical use which I find they do of the distinc- tion of sins into mortal and venial. For the truth of the following narrative I can vouch. An intelligent gentleman being, a few weeks since, expostulated with by a Protestant lady, on his spending the whole of a certain Sabbath in playing cards, replied with
34 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
the utmost readiness, and with every appearance of confidence in the validity of his apology, " O, that is not a mortal sin." Several similar examples of a resort to this distinction were reported to me. Now, can that system be the religion of Jesus Christ, which recognizes this horrible distinction, and puts such a plea as this into the mouth of a transgressor of one ot the commandments of that Decalogue which God's own voice articulated and his own finger wrote? I cannot express the feelings I have, when I think of the multitudes who are forming a character for eterni- ty under the influence of doctrines like these. What sort of a character must they form !
How completely at variance with the Scriptures is this distinction ! " Cursed is every one that continu- ed} not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them — the wages of sin is death — the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Gal. 3 : 10 ; Rom. 6 : 23 ; Ezek. 18 : 4. Is not all sin disobedience to God ? and may he be disobeyed in any respect without guilt 1 Did ever a father of a family recognize such a distinc- tion in the government of his children ? Did Christ atone for what are called venial sins, or did he not ? If he did not, then he did not atone for all sin. If he did atone for them, they must be worthy of death, since he died for them.
The truth is, all sin is mortal, if not repented of ; and all sin is venial, that is, pardonable, if repented of. There is no sin which the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from. And nothing but that can take out any sin.
It is not worth while to reason against such a dis tinction. I only mention it as one of the absurd and pernicious errors of the system to which it beiongs.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 35
10. The Deadly Sins.
In "the Christian's Guide to Heaven" I read with some interest an enumeration of what the Catholics are pleased to call " the seven deadly sins." Why this distinction, thought I ? Are there only seven sins ? Or are only some sins deadly ; and is the number of sins that kill ascertained by the infallible church to be just seven and no more, all other sins being venial, not mortal, according to another distinction which that church presumes to make ?
They cannot mean that there are only seven sins, for heresy is not in this list of sins, and that I am sure they esteem a sin ; neither is there any mention of falsehood and deception, which we Protestants regard as sins, even though their object should be pious. Be- sides, David says that his iniquities were more than the hairs of his head — consequently many more than seven. And who is any better off than David in this respect? Moreover, even the Catholics admit nine commandments. They do not leave out any but the second. They must therefore admit the possibility of at least nine sins.
They must mean that there are only seven sins which are mortal to the soul. But if this be the case, why is it said, " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them?" It is admitted that there are more than seven things written in the book of the law. Again, why is it said that the wages of sin is death ? This would seem to imply that death is due to every sin, of what- ever kind. If there are only seven deadly sins, why
36 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
does not the apostle say, " The wages of these seven sins (enumerating them) is death?" But he does not say that. He regarded all sins as deadly — every one of the multitude as mortal in its consequences.
If there are only seven sins which are deadly, then 1 suppose we can answer for all the rest ; but Job says he cannot answer him one of a thousand. According to Job, then, who is a very ancient authority, there are at least a thousand sins for which we cannot answer.
But let us hear what the seven are. They are Pride> Covetousness, Luxury or Lust, Anger, Gluttony, En- vy, Sloth. Well, these are, to be sure, sins, all but one of them, anger, which is not necessarily a sin any more than grief is. We are directed to " be angry and sin not." I wonder they should have put anger with- out any qualification among the seven deadly sins. It must be because they are not familiar with the Scrip- tures. But granting them all to be sins, then certainly they are deadly, since all sin is deadly. We could not therefore object, if it had been said, in reference to them, " seven deadly sins." But " the seven deadly sins " seems to imply that there are no more. We read in the book of Proverbs of six things which the Lord doth hate ; yea, of seven that are an abomination to him. But there is no implication there, that those are the only things which the Lord hates. It is not said, "the seven things which the Lord doth hate." The language which I animadvert upon implies that the seven sins enumerated are, if not exclusively, yet pe- culiarly deadly. Now that is not the case. There is nothing in those sins to entitle them to this distinction above other sins. There is no reason why we should be warned to avoid them more than many others.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
37
1 am surprised that in the list of deadly sins theie is no mention of unbelief. Now surely that must be a deadly sin, when " he that believeth not shall be damned— shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Moreover, we are told that the Holy Ghost came primarily to reprove the world of unbe- lief—and yet there is no recognition of it among the deadly sins ! It is an oversight, which no wonder they fell into, who, in making out their religion, made no use of the word of God.
I perceive that neither heresy nor schism are in the list of deadly sins. I infer, then, that to differ from the Roman church in some particulars, and even to sepa- rate from her communion, is not fatal, even she her- self being judge. I thank her for the admission.
There is one sin which, in all their catalogues, the Catholics omit, and which, I think, they need to be re- minded of. It is the sin of idolatry— oi worshiping the creature— of paying divine honors to something else besides God. It used to be very deadly, under the Jewish dispensation. It doubtless is equally so under the Christian. They had better beware of it. They had better leave off praying to saints, and honoring the Virgin Mary above her Son, lest perchance they fall into deadly sin-
11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit.
A gentleman of intelligence, who was born of Ca- tholic parents, and educated in the Catholic church, 4
38 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
but left it recently for Protestantism (for some do leave the Catholic for the Protestant church— the conversions are not all to Romanism — but we, Pro- testants, don't make such a noise about it when we receive a convert ; and I suppose the reason is, that it is really no wonder that a Catholic should become a Protestant — the only wonder is, that any should re- main Catholics) — this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a Catholic, " Why, brother, as long as I was a Catholic, I never knew that there was a Holy Spirit."
And what do you think was the brother's reply ? " Well, I don't know that there is one now !"
The narration of what passed between these two men struck me with great force. A religion without a Holy Spirit ! and this the religion, according to the computation of Bishop England, of two hundred mil- lions of mankind ! It made me sorry. My religion, thought I, would be very imperfect without a Holy- Spirit. I want a Sanctifier. as well as a Surety. I want one to act internally upon me, as well as one to act externally for me. What should I do with my title to hea\en. without a fitness for it? As a sinner, I am equally destitute of both. There can be no hea- ven without holiness. And whence has any man ho- liness but from the Holy Spirit? And is it likely he will act where he is not acknowledged ? If priests can pardon, as they say, yet can they purify ?
Here were two men, educated in the Catholic reli- gion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and yet never having heard of the Holy Spirit ! They had heard often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this saint, and that saint, but never a word of the Holv
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 39
Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier ! But was it not their own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity a part of the Catholic faith ? It is — but that may be, and yet the priests never instruct the people in the character and office of the Holy Spirit, and in the necessity of his operations.
But had these men never been present at a baptism, when water, according to Christ's direction, with oil, spittle, &c. as the church directs, is applied to the body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is mentioned ? Yes, but, poor men, they had never stu- died Latin. How should they know what Spiritus Sanctus means, when they hear it ? Why should all the world be presumed to understand Latin? Oh, why should the worship of the living God be con- ducted in a dead language 1 But this is by the way.
These men knew not that there was a Holy Spi- rit— why did they not know it ? I will tell you. Be- cause so little is said of the Holy Spirit among the Catholics — there is so little need of any such agent, according to their system ! They do not believe in the necessity of a change of heart. Why should there be a Holy Spirit? The priest does not want any such help to prepare a soul for heaven. The Catholic sys- tem is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of him in the pulpit, ard in the con- fession-box; and the sinner is not directed to seek his influences, or to rely on his aid. If I misrepresent, let it be shown, and I will retract. But if I am correct in the statement I make, look at it. Protestant, look at
it a religion without a Holy Spirit ! Catholic, look
at it, and obey the voice from heaven which says. "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers
40 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
of her sins, and that ye receive not of- her plagues." This is one of her capital crimes. She does not speak against the Holy Ghost. No, she is silent about him !
12. Infallibility.
Every body knows that the Church of Rome lays claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no mistake about her ; that she cannot err. Now this very modest claim of our sister of Rome (for in the matter of churches I reject the relation of mother and daugh- ter) I am constrained to question, and that for such reasons as the following :
1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others contend that it resides in a general council. And ano- ther opinion is that both the Pope and a council are necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it among themselves who is infallible, before they re- quire us to believe that any one is. Let them find in- fallibility and fix it. After that it will be time enough for us to admit its existence. But,
2. We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infal- lible— each successive Pope. Well, where did they get their infallibility ? Why, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure. Christ gave it to him, and he
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 41
handed it down. But was Peter infallible? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infal- lible— when smitten to the heart by the reproving look of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. There is no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confi- dently pronounced, " Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" — and let it be remembered that this was after Christ had said, " Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c.
If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts, 15. Why was the matter suffered to be debated in the presence of his infallibility 1 It seems that Pe- ter on that occasion claimed no pre-eminence. Nor was any particular deference paid to him by the coun- cil. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infal- lible person than any of the rest. He says, " Where- fore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the church of Rome that Peter had not said that instead of James. We should never have heard the last of it. But it was the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will my Catholic brother take down his Douay and read that chapter ?
But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul " withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2 : 11. That was no way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always a spice of the Protes- tant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's treatment of him, for in his second Epistle he speaks of him as " our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that 4*
42 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves.
Once more, if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange that, when a dispute arose among them who should be the greatest, our Savior did not take Peter, instead of a little child, " and set him in the midst of them," and remind the others that the supremacy had been given to him. I think the other apostles could not have understood Christ in that declaration, " Thou art Peter," &c. as the church of Rome now understands him, otherwise the dispute about superiority could never have arisen.
Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter be- ing infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infal- libility, and therefore never a man of them could err in a matter of faith — nor even the woman Joan, (for in the long list of Papas, there was by accident in the ninth century one Mama, though this, I am aware, is denied by some,) — even she retained none of the frail- ty of her sex.
It is well for the church of Rome that she does not contend that her popes are infallible in practice, for if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may err in practice and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I can- not believe that all I hear from him is good and true, when what I see in him is false and bad. Take for example such a one as Pope Alexander sixth; when vie, the father of such a hopeful youth as Cesar Bor- gia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 43
grave air and solemn tone, that it is a shocking wicked thing for an ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help de- murring somewhat to the statement of Cesar's father. But I must proceed with my reasons.
3. If a man says one thing one day, and the next day says another thing quite contrary to it, I am of opinion that he is one of the days in error. But what has this to do with the business in hand? Have not the Popes always pronounced the same thing? Have they ever contradicted each other? Ask rather, whe- ther the wind has always, ever since there was a wind, blown from the same quarter. Nowhere is a reason why I cannot allow infallibility to belong to either popes or councils.
4. I would ask just for information, how it was, when there were three contemporary Popes, each claiming infallibility. Had they it between them ? or which of them had it ? What was the name of the one that there was no mistake about? How were the common people to ascertain the infallible one? for you know their salvation depended on their being in communion with the true Bishop of Rome, the right- ful successor of St. Peter.
5. The more common opinion among the Catholics is, I believe, that the infallibility resides in a Pope and general council together. Each is fallible by itself, but putting the two together, they are infallible ! Now I admit that in some languages two negatives are equi- valent to an affirmative ; but I do not believe that two fallibles ever were or will be equivalent to an infalli- ble. It is like saying that two wrongs make a right
44 THOUGHTS ON POPERY
13. Tlie Keys.
The Catholics, by which I mean Boman Catholics, since, though a Protestant, I believe in the holy Ca- tholic, that is, universal church, and profess to be a member of it, at the same time that I waive all pre- tensions to being a Roman Catholic. — they make a great noise about the keys having been given to Peter ; the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Well, it is true enough — they were given to him. The Bible says so, and we Protestants want no better authority than the Bible for any thing. We do not require the confirma- tion of tradition, and the unanimous consent of the fa- thers. We do not want any thing to back " Thus saith the Lord." Yes, the keys were given to Peter ; it is said so in Matthew, 16 : 19. This is one of those pas- sages of Scripture which is not hard to be understood, as even they of Rome acknowledge. I am glad our brethren of that communion agree with us that there is something plain in the Bible ; that there is one pas- sage, at least, in which private interpretation arrives at the same result which they reach who follow in the track of the agreeing fathers ! I suppose, if we could interpret all Scripture as much to the mind of the Ca- tholics as we do this, they would let us alone about private interpretation.
Well, Peter has got the keys. What then ? What are keys for? To unlock and open is one of the pur- poses served by keys. It was for this purpose, I sup- pose, that Peter received them : and for this purpose we find him using them. He opened the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Gospel Church, or Christian dis-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 45
pensation, as the phrase " kingdom of heaven " often signifies. He opened it to both Jews and Gentiles : he preached the first sermon, and was the instrument of making the first converts among each. With one key he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and with the other to tfie Gentiles. This was a distinction conferred on Peter, it is true : but it was necessary that some one of the twelve should begin the business of preaching the Gospel. The whole twelve could not turn ihe keys and open the door. The power of binding and loosing, which was conferred on Peter when the keys were given him, was not confined to him, but, as Matthew testifies in the next chapter but one, was extended to all the disciples.
Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven ; and what became of the keys then ? Why, there being no farther use for them, they were laid aside. I don't know what has become of them, for my part. When a key has opened a door which is not to be shut again, there being no more use for the key, it does not matter much what becomes of it. Hence, in the history oi the Acts of the Apostles, we hear no more about the keys ; and Peter, in his Epistles, says never a word about them. He wrote his second Epistle to put Chris- tians in remembrance, but I don't find him reminding them of the keys. The truth is, having used them for the purpose for which they were given him, he had after that no more concern about them.
But mar./ fancy that Peter kept these keys all his life, and th m transmitted them to another, and he to a third, and so from hand to hand they have come along down till what's his name at Rome has them now — the Pope. And they say these keys signify the
48 THOUCIITS ON POPERY.
authority given to the church, and especially to the Popes. But I find no Bible warrant for this assertion. Christ does not say that he gave the keys to Peter to give to somebody else, and Peter does not say that he gave them to any body else, and no body since Peter has been able to produce the keys. This settles the matter in my mind. I want to know where the keys are.
But some suppose that Peter took them to heaven with him, and that he stands with them at the gate of heaven, as porter, to admit and keep out whom he will. But this notion does not tally very well with certain passages of Scripture. Christ tells his disci- ples that he goes to prepare a place for them, and that he will come again and receive them unto himself: John, 14 : 3. He will do it. He will not trust the bu- siness to Peter. " He that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, is not Peter, but Christ." Rev. 3 : 7.
But the Catholics will have it that Peter is the one; and he, having the keys, they think that they will ail be admitted, while never a soul of us, poor Protes- tants, will. They may be mistaken, however. I do not know what right they have to put in an exclusive claim to Peter. I see no resemblance between Peter and a Roman Catholic — none in the world. I never care to see a truer and better Protestant than I take him to be. But if he does stand at the gate of heaven with such authority as the Catholics ascribe to him, yet I suppose he will not deny that he wrote the Epistles called his. Well, then, if he shall hesitate to admit Protestants, we shall only have to remind him of his Epistles. He does not say any thing in them
TII0UGIIT3 ON POPERY. 47
about his being Pope. No, he says, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." Not a word says he about the Mass, or the Seven Sacra- ments, or Transubstantiation. Let the reader turn to his Epistles, and see just what he does say; I think lie will not find any thing in those Epistles to frighten Protestants.
But there is still another supposition, viz. that Peter is not perpetual porter of heaven ; but each Pope, as he dies, succeeds to that office— one relieving another. I do not know how it is, but I judge, if all the Popes have been in their day porters of Paradise, many of them must have tended outside. They have not been universally the best of men, I think history informs us. But I will not mention any names.
One thing more. In Catholic pictures and prints (for that very spiritual religion abounds with these) you will see the keys of which we have been speak- ing represented as made to suit all the complicated modern wards, as if fresh from some manufactory at Birmingham or Sheffield ! I do not suppose the keys Peter received answered exactly to this ingenious re- presentation of them.
14. The Head of the Church.
The church is represented in the Scriptures as a body. Of course, therefore, it must have a head; and that same blessed book tells us who the head is. And
48 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
who, think you, is the head of the church ? Who but Christ himself? Who else is fit to be its head—its source of influence and government ? I will produce the passages of Scripture in proof of Christ's headship presently.
But the Catholics say that the Pope is the head oi the church. Ah, is he 1 Where is the proof that he is? Now there is nothing which irritates a Catholic so soon as to ask him for proof. " Proof, indeed I" he says. "Do you ask proof of an infallible church? What is the use of infallibility, if we must prove every thing? These are truly most degenerate days. The time was when nobody demanded proof; but now every little sprig of a Protestant must have reasons to support assertions. He calls for proof. And he must have it from the Bible. He will not believe any thing in religion unless some text can be cited in support of it. Things have come to a pretty pass indeed." It is even so. We plead guilty to the charge. For every thing alleged to be a doctrine of Christianity, we con- fess we do require some proof out of the Avritings of some evangelist or apostle. And since our Catholic brethren will not gratify us by adducing the scriptural warrant for believing the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be the head of the church, we will do them the favor of consulting the Scriptures for them. Well, we begin with Genesis, and we go through to Revelation, search- ing all the way for some proof that the Pope is the head of the church. But so far are we from finding any evidence that he is the head of the church, that we find not a particle of proof that he is that or any thing. We find no account of any such character as a Pope- not a word about him. The subject of the proposition,
/
THOUGHTS ON POFERY. 49
that is, the Pope, does not seem to be known to that book at all. I really do not wonder that it frets a Ca- tholic when we send him to the Bible for proof that the Pope is the head of the church.
But though we discover nothing in the Bible about a Pope, yet we find much about the head of the church. In Ephesians, 1 : 22, 23, Christ is said to be " the head over all things to the church, which is his body." Now, if the church is his body, surely he must be the head of it, as well as head over all things to it. Will any one say that the Pope of Rome is the head of Christ's body? That is shocking. And yet the Catholics are told that they must believe it ; and seeing they cannot help it, they do somehow or other contrive to believe it. In Eph. 5 : 23, it is explicitly declared that " Christ is the head of the church." The same is repeated in Col. 1 : 18—" He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church."
Our brethren of the Catholic church have long been in the habit of asking where our religion was before the Reformation. They may see where one doctrine of it was fifteen hundred years before the Reformation. One would suppose, from the way they talk, that they supposed the Bible was written a considerable time after the Reformation, and that it was then got up to support the Protestant heresy ! I might ask them, but that they do not like to be asked questions, lest they should not be able to answer them, where their doc- trine of the Pope's headship of the church was when the New Testament was written, i. e. some seventeen hundred and fifty or eighteen hundred years ago. But I will withdraw the question. It may seem unkind to press it,
5
50 THOUGHTS ON POFEBY.
Now, since the Bible says that Christ is the head of the church, if the Pope also is, there must be two heads of the church. But there is only one body. Why should there be two heads ? Is the church a monster? Besides, if there had been another head, Christ would have been spoken of in the Scriptures as one of the heads of the church, or as a head of the church. But he is called the head of the church. The article is de- finite, denoting only one. There is not a syllable in the Bible about another head. Indeed the language of the Bible does not admit of there being another. Yet the Catholics say there is another ; and it is their Pope. " Christ being absent, they say, it is necessary there should be a visible human head to represent him on earth." Now the Pope, they say, is this visible head of the church — the head that you can see. But is their assumption correct, that Christ is absent ? Is he ab- sent ? Hear : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world," " Where two or three are ga- thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Was he absent from Paul ? He says : " I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." A visible head ! What do we want of a visible head ? Of what use to us — the part of the body here — is a head a way off at Rome ? It is no better than a caput mortuum to us.
But what if we admit the possibility of a visible human head of the church, who made the Pope that head ? Did he inherit this also from St. Peter? Was Peter head of the church ? He, more modest than his pretended successors, does not any where claim that title. I know the Catholics hold him to be the rock — the foundation of the church; but I really did not know
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 51
that they regarded him, whom, however they exalt, they still consider but as a mere man, as capable of being head of the church too. It is not too much to speak of Christ as both the foundation and head of the church, but to speak of Peter, poor Peter, as we are accustomed to call him when we think of the scene of the denial, as both foundation and head of the church, is really carrying the matter rather far. How little Peter thought he was both, when " he went out and wept bitterly !" How little he knew of himself! The Pope the head of the church ! ! Then the church is the Pope's body ! ! Alas for the church !
15. The Power to Forgive Sins.
Seculum modestum I rather suppose will not be the designation by which the 19th century will be distin- guished in history from her sister centuries. I know not whether any age has been more remarkable for cases of unfounded pretension than the present. The case, however, of which I am to take notice, did not originate in the 19th century. It has existed many hundred years. I do not wonder at its surviving the dark ages, but that it should have lived so far into the luminous 19th does somewhat surprise me. The pre- tension to which I allude is that made by the Catholic priesthood. What do you think it is which they pre- tend they can do? Forgive sins. They pretend that they have power over sins, to remit or retain them.
52
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
They claim that the prerogative of pardon is lodged with them. And that is the reason why they receive confessions. Confession to a priest would be a farce, if it was not thought that he could forgive.
The first thing that strikes me is the contrariety of this notion to common sense. The idea of being par- doned by any other than the being offended, seems absurd. What ! a fellow-sinner of a priest pardon sins against God ! It is as if of two debtors, one should play the creditor and forgive the other his debt, with- out any consultation with the real creditor. That would be a strange way of getting rid of debts. I al- ways thought he to whom the debt is due ought to have a say in the matter of remitting it. If I had disposed of a debt in that manner I should always be afraid that it would some day or other be exacted — that the real creditor would appear and make his de- mand. Then it would be a poor come off for me to say that my fellow-debtor forgave me the debt. I will tell you what I expect. I expect that a great deal which the priests forgive will be exacted notwith- standing. Catholics talk of going to the priest and getting their old scores wiped off, just as if it were but a slate and pencil memorandum, which any one can rub out. The sin of man is not thus recorded. It is "written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond." It is not so easily obliterated.
But is there not Scripture in support of the priests' claim? See John, 20 : 23. Does not Christ say to his disciples: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- mitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained?" Yes, he says that to his disciples —the apostles. But pray, what right have the priests
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 53
to found a claim of theirs on a grant made to the apos- tles? They do indeed come after the apostles, but they are their successors in no other sense. I should like to know how the priests prove that they inherit the apostolical power of remitting sins. But I forget that they scorn a resort to proof.
The power communicated in that grant to the apos- tles was merely ministerial and declarative. It was no less true after than before that grant was made, that none can forgive sins but God only. That the power was declarative merely, that is, that the apostles were empowered to remit and retain sins only as they were authorized and enabled to make a correct statement to mankind of the way and means of salvation, to ex- press the conditions of pardon and condemnation, and to propose the terms of life and death, is clear to me from the fact that the conferring of it was immedi- ately preceded by the Savior's breathing on them, and saying, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Now, this communication of the Spirit qualified them for the declarative remission and retention of sins. They were thereby inspired to pronounce on what grounds sins are remitted and retained by God.
This was the power over sins granted to the apos- tles, and I shall show presently that this declarative power is all they pretend ever 10 have exercised. Now, the priests have no right to claim even this power, ex- cept in that subordinate sense in which it is possessed by all who are authorized to preach the Gospel. Did Christ ever breathe on them, and say to them, " Re- ceive ye the Holy Ghost," that they should claim equality with the apostles? The effect of the inspi- ration is not so manifest in the case of the priests as 5*
54 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
it was in the case of the apostles, if I may be permit- ted to express an opinion.
But the priests claim far more than ever entered the ^thoughts of the apostles. They are not satisfied with the ministerial and declarative power over sins They claim a magisterial and authoritative power to remit and retain them. Consequently they call sinners to come and confess their sins to them. Did Peter and the other apostles, the very men to whom Christ said, "whosesoever sins ye remit," &c. ever do such a thing? You read in the Acts of the Apos- tles of synagogues and proseuches, or places of prayer, but do you find any thing about confession-boxes there? Does there seem to have been any thing auricular in the transactions of the day of Pentecost?
There is the case of Simon Magus that strikes me as in point. If Peter and John had had the power of forgiving sin, could they not have exercised it in favor of Simon ? But we find Peter addressing him just as any Protestant minister would have done: "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if per- haps the thought of thine heart maybe forgiven thee." How differently the Roman priest would have done ! He would have said, " Well, Simon, and what have you to say for yourself? Ah, that is very bad, very bad. But if you are sorry, Simon, I forgive you. Only I cannot let you off without doing some penance. You must say so many paternosters, and you must not eat meat for so many days." This is the way in which the boasted successors of Peter manage these matters. But, they will say, Simon was not penitent, otherwise perhaps Peter would have pardoned him. But I wonder if pardon would have waited for Peter's
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 55
action in the matter, if there had been penitence in the heart of the sorceror. I suspect not. I suspect the gracious Lord, when he sees contrition in any soul, does not withhold pardon till a priest or even an apostle shall intervene and act in the matter. And when the good angels have ascertained that a sinner has repented, I rather suppose they do not suspend their rejoicing until he has gone to confession, and has got absolution from the priest.
What a glorious book the Bible is ! I wish the au- thorities of the Catholic church would condescend to strike it off the list of prohibited books, and allow the Lord to speak to his creatures. I wish they would let their people, the many thousands that on the Sab- bath crowd their chapels and cathedrals, read, or hear what Jehovah says to " every one " in that wonderful chapter, the 55th of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful chapter. But the Catholics don't know any thing about it. No ; and they have never heard of that pre- cious and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter of Isaiah, in which thus saith the Lord to the sinner, "Come now, and let us" (you and I, sinner !) "rea- son together." And then follows the reasoning, "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Ask the awakened sinner, or the recently pardoned, what he would take for that pas- sage. He esteems it above all price ; and to the Chris- tian it becomes every day more and more a theme of wonder and delight. But the Catholics don't know that the Lord has ever made any such kind and con- descending proposal to his creatures. They never hear of the call of God to come and reason with him
56 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
The only " come " they hear is the priest's call. I pity them.
But it is no wonder that the priests treat the people as they do, for if they allowed them to know what the Lord says to them, they would be very apt to go di- rectly to God in Christ, and leave the priest out of the question. And then where would be the importance of the priest 1 and his emolument, where ?
16. A Catholic Book Reviewed.
I happened to lay my hand the other day on a little book entitled, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven, a Manual for Catholics," to which was appended some hymns. The book was published in Baltimore by a respectable Catholic bookseller, and under the sanction of the Archbishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good authority. I will look into this book. I know what Protestants say of Catholics. I will see now what Catholics say of themselves. Men cannot complain when we take their own account of themselves ; and I like the way of judging people out of their own mouths, because it shuts their mouths so far as reply is concerned. I resolved that I would compare the statements and doctrines of this book professing to be a guide to heaven, with the statements and doctrines of that bigger book which is the Protestant's guide to heaven. You will know that I mean the Bible. That is our manual — that the guide we consult and follow.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 57
However, if a book agrees with the Bible, that is enough.
So I began to read ; and one of the first things that I came to was, " Conditions of plenary indulgences." Indulgences ! thought I. What does a Christian want of indulgences 1 He is apt enough to indulge him- self. And how are indulgences to help him to hea- ven? I should rather pronounce self-denial the road. Indulgences not partial, but plenary ! I should think plenary indulgence on any condition was enough to ruin one. If by indulgence the Catholics mean par- don, they have chosen an unfortunate way to express it. Why not say full pardon, instead of plenary in- dulgence 1 But I suppose pardon expresses what God exercises, and indulgence what the church grants. I should like to know, however, what right the church has to grant any thing of the kind.
Well, the conditions enumerated were four. I took note only of the first, which was in these words : " To confess their sins with a sincere repentance to a priest approved by the bishop." This begins very well, and goes on well for a time. Confession of sin, with sin- cere repentance, is truly a condition of pardon. " If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." But what a pity the condition did not stop there, or if any thing was added in regard to the object of the confession, that it did not designate God as the being to whom the sins should be confessed. The sins are all done against him, and why should they not be told to him ? I cannot get rid of the no- tion that we ought to confess our sins to God, the be- ing whom we have offended by them. But no, says this guide to heaven, the confession must be made to
58 THOUGHTS OX POPERY
a priest ; it is good for nothing without it. If the pub- lican, of whom we read, had lived now, it would have been quite irregular, according to the Catholic notion, that he should have gone down to his house justified, when he confessed only to God. And the penitent must take care what sort of a priest it is to whom he confesses, else he might as well remain impenitent. It must be a priest approved by the bishop. Well, now, this is a queer arrangement, that our pardon should be suspended on such a condition — that angels, in other words, m*istwaif before they express any joy that a sinner has rmented, until he has gone and told his sins to a priest approved by a bishop ! Who sus- pended it there, I wonder ? Not Isaiah. Read his 55th chapter. Nor Peter, nor Solomon, nor John, nor Paul. Read them and see. There is not a word in the Bible about confessing to a priest. So I found that the two guides did not agree in this matter. The Catholic Manual said the confession must be to a priest ; but the holy Scriptures insist on no such thing, but direct that the confession be made to God.
This thought occurred to me : What if a sinner con- fess his sins with a sincere repentance, though not to a priest, what is to be done with his soul ? Must par- don be denied him, and he be consigned to perdition, because, though he confessed penitently, yet he did it not to a priest ? Really this is making rather too much of the priest. It is making too important a character of him altogether. I do not believe that our salvation is so dependent on the deference we pay the priest.
Before the conditions, on one of which I have been remarking, are mentioned, there is this general state- ment: " Plenary indulgences granted to the faithful
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 59
throughout these states, at the following times j" and then follows a specification of nine different seasons when plenary indulgences may be had. I did not know before that pardons were confined to any set times ; I always supposed that they might be had summer and winter, night and day, and at any hour of either — in short, whenever a penitent heart breathes its desire to God. My mistake must have arisen from the fact that I have been in the habit of consulting the Bible on these matters. I never saw " The Christian's Guide to Heaven " before in my life. I have always used the Bible as a guide, for want of a better.
Now that I am on the subject of confession, I may as well make another reference to the manual. There is an article or chapter headed " The Confiteor." In it the person wishing to be guided to heaven makes this confession, from which it will appear that Catho- lics do not confine their confessions to the priest, but extend them to many other beings : " I confess to Al- mighty God, to blessed Mary, ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and to all the saints, that I have sinned." Now, I do not see the use of naming so many. The confession, I think, should have stopped with the first mentioned — Almighty God. What have the rest to do with it ? How is it any of their business? The person has not sinned against them. Surely every sinner may say to God, " Against thee, thee only have I sinned," since David could. Besides, this coupling of these creatures with the Creator, as worthy equally with himself to receive our confessions of sin, savors strongly of idolatry. Con- fession is made to them on the same principle that
60 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
prayer is. Each is an act of worship — one of those things which should be confined exclusively to God. I wonder the Catholics will not be satisfied with one great and glorious object of worship, God, the Father, Son, and Spirit. Why will they in their devotions as- sociate creatures with the Creator ? The book I am reviewing contains numerous and very offensive ex- amples of it. I shall continue the review in my next
IT. The Review of the Catholic Book continued.
The next thing that struck me as worthy of notice in the perusal of the book was this — that the devout Catholic is represented as making the following so- lemn declaration concerning the Holy Scriptures : " Neither will I ever take and interpret them other- wise than according to the unanimous consent of the fathers." I smiled when I read this, and I thought within myself, if that is his determination, he will not be likely ever to take them at all. What an intention this, which the Catholic expresses — never to attach any meaning to a passage which he may read in the Bible, until he has first ascertained whether certain ancient persons called the fathers all agreed in any interpretation of it, and if so, what that interpretation is ! What should give such authority and weight to the interpretation of the fathers ? Why cannot we as- certain what the Bible means as well as they could ? What helps had they which we have not? and why
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 61
require that they be unanimous? What a roundabout method this of finding out what a book means ! First, the reader has got to ascertain who are entitled to be called fathers. He must make out a list of them all. If one is overlooked, it vitiates the interpretation, though all the rest should agree in it. But supposing him to have got a catalogue of the whole number from Bar- nabas to Bernard, the next step in the process is to ascertain how they all interpreted the Bible. For this purpose he must pore over their works. But some of them left m works behind them. How shall he ever iind out what they thought of this and that passage of Scripture ? And yet he must somehow or other ascer- tain their opinions, else how can he compare them with the opinions of the other fathers, and discover their agreement with them ? For you will remember the consent must be unanimous. Others of the fathers left works behind them, but they have not come down to us. How shall the reader of the Bible know what those lost works contained ? Yet he must know what they thought, else how can he be sure that they thought in accordance with the views of those fathers whose works are preserved to us. I cannot see how this dif- ficulty is to be got over, for my part. It is altogether beyond me. But supposing it to be surmounted, there remains the task of comparing the opinions of all these Greek and Latin fathers, to the number of a hundred or two, one with another, to see if they all agree ; for the consent, you know, must be unanimous. Those parts of Scripture in the interpretation of which they did not agree, are to go for nothing. Indeed, if ninety- nine should be found to accord in a particular inter- pretation, it must be rejected if the hundredth father G
62 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
had a different opinion of its meaning. I cannot help thinking that it is the better, as certainly it is the shorter and easier method, just for every one to take up and " search the Scriptures," and " if any lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally."
As the case is, I do not wonder that the Catholics do not read the Bible. They have not come to that yet. They are still among the fathers, searching out and comparing their opinions, so as to know how to take the Bible. By and by, if they live lr-ag enough, when they have ascertained what the fatners agreed on, they may go to reading the Scriptures.
It seems odd that one cannot, without mortal sin, attach a meaning to such a passage as John, 3 : 16, " God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," until he has first ascertained what Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, both the ^Gregorys, and indeed all the fathers thought of it, and whether they agreed in their interpretation of it. How any one can read it without understanding it in spite of himself, I cannot see. Ah, but they say ihe Scriptures are so obscure. And are the fathers so very clear ? Why cannot we understand the Greek of John and Paul, as well as that of Chrysostom ?
The thing which next attracted my observation in the book was the following : " In the Mass there is of- fered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." The Mass ! and what is that? The Bible could not tell me. So I had to resort to the dictionary. It is the name which the Catholics give to the sacrament of the Lord's supper ;
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 63
or rather to the half of it ; for you know they divide it, and giving the bread to the people, do with the wine I cannot tell what. They say that it is perfect in one kind, and anathematize all who say it is not. Their curse is on me now while I am writing. Neverthe- less I must ask, if it was perfect in one kind, why did Christ institute it in both kinds ? Why did he not stop with the bread, reserving the cup ? Was it to make the sacrament more than perfect ? But this is reasoning. I forget myself. The Catholics don't hold to reasoning.
An idea occurs to me here which I beg leave to ex press. If the sacrament is perfect in either kind, why do not the priests sometimes give the people the cup ? Why do they always give them the bread ? And why originally did they withhold the cup rather than the bread? Some persons may imagine a reason, but I will content myself with asking the question.
But to proceed. They say that "in ihe Mass there is offered to God" &c. Why, what do they mean ? There is nothing offered to God. What is offered is to men. Christ says, offering to his disciples the bread, "take, eat," and reaching out the cup, he says, " drink ye all of it." There is something offered to men in this sacrament, even the precious memorials of the Savior's propitiatory death ; but every one who reads the account, sees that there is nothing offered to God. Yet the Catholics, leaning on tradition, say there is in it " a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice " offered to God. A sacrifice included in the sacra- ment! How is that? And a propitiatory sacrifice too ! I always supposed that propitiatory sacrifices ceased with the offering up of the Great Sacrifice —
64 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
when the Lamb of God bled and died. Do we not read, that " by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," " now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself ?" " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many" — and it is said of his blood that it " cleanseth from all sin." I don't know what we want after this, of those unbloody sacrifices which the Ca- tholics talk of as offered continually in the service of the Mass. What is the use of them, if they are un- bloody, as they say, since "without shedding of blood is no remission?"
According to the Catholics, it was premature in Christ to say on the cross, " it is finished." They deny that it is finished. They say it is going on still — that Christ is offered whenever Mass is said. Once Christ was offered, the Bible says ; but the Roman church affirms that he is offered many times daily , whenever and wherever mass is said !
I do really wonder that this religion has lasted so long in the world. How the human mind can enter- tain it for a day, I do not know. See how at every step it conflicts with reason. See in how many points it does violence to common sense. See, in this case, how boldly it contradicts the dying declaration of the Savior. It is a religion unknown to the Bible — and yet still in existence, aye, and they say, making pro- gress, and that even in this home of freedom ! If it be so, which I question, I blush that I am an American, and am almost ashamed that I am a man.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 65
18. The Pope an Idolater.
It may seem a very uncharitable title I give this ar- ticle. What, some will say, charge the Pope with be- ing an idolater! What do you mean? I mean just what I say, that this boasted head of the church, and self-styled vicar of Christ, residing at Rome, ascribes divine attributes, and pays divine honors to a creature, even to a human being, a partaker in our mortality and sin ! and if that is not idolatry, I don't know what idolatry is. If that is not idolatry, the worship of the golden calf was not — the worship of the host of hea- ven was not — the worship of the gods of Hindooism is not. What truer definition of idolatry can be given than that it is an ascribing of divine attributes, and a paying of divine honors to a creature ? It does not mat- ter what the creature is, whether it be the angel nearest the throne of God, or an onion that grows in the gar- den, such as they of Egypt once worshiped. It is its being a created thing — it is its being not God. that makes the service done it idolatry.
But can I make good this charge against the suc- cessor of St. Peter, as they call him? If I cannot, I sin not merely against charity, but against truth. But I can establish it. Nor will I derive the proof from the Pope's enemies ; nor will I look for it in the his- tories of the Papacy. The Pope himself shall supply me with the proof. Out of his own mouth will I judge him. If his own words do not convict him of idolatry, believe it not. But if they do, away with the objec- tion that it is an offence against charity to speak of such a thing as the Pope's being an idolater. My cha- 6*
66 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
rity "rejoiceth in the truth." The charge can be un- charitable only by being untrue. It is too late in the day, I trust, for idolatry to find an apologist. But to the proof. Perhaps you suppose it is some obscure Pope of the night of times — the dark ages, that I am going to prove an idolater. No, it is a Pope of the nineteenth century — the present reigning Pope, Gre- gory XVI. He is the idolater ; and here are his own words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, or encyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on his office, and addressed to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops. The letter may be found in the Laity's Directory, 1833, and has been extensive- ly published without any of its statements being con- tradicted. In it the Pope calls upon all the clergy to implore il that she, (the Virgin Mary,) who has been, through every great calamity, our Patroness and Pro- tectress, may watch over us writing to you, and lead our mind by her heavenly influence, to those counsels which may prove most salutary to Christ's flock !" Is comment necessary ? Observe, he recognizes not God as having been their defence, but her as having been their protectress in past calamities, and directs the clergy to pray to her to continue her watch over them 1 As contrast is one of the principles on which ideas are associated, I was reminded in reading this, of the 121st Psalm, in which the writer speaks of the one " that keepeth Israel." It is not she, according to the Psalmist, but He, the Lord which made heaven and earth, that keepeth Israel. But, according to the Pope, it is the Virgin Mary that keeps Israel ; and he speaks of her as exerting a heavenly influence on the mind. I al- ways thought it was the exclusive prerogative of Je-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 57
iiovah to have access to the mind, and to exert an im- mediate influence on it ; and I cannot but think now that the Pope must err in this matter, though he speaks ex cathedra. I cannot believe he was exactly infallible when he wrote that letter.
But you have not heard the worst of it yet. In the same letter he says : " But that all may have a suc- cessful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys here- sies, who is our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope !" The underscoring is mine, but the words are the Pope's. Now, just look at this. Did you ever hear any thing like it ? Observe what Mary is said to be and to do ; and what the clergy are exhorted to do. The Pope's religion cannot be the oldest, as they pretend. It is not the religion of the Psalms. In the 121st Psalm the writer says : " / will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord." And in the 123d, " Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress ; so our eyes wait upon the Lord cur God, until that he have mer- cy upon us." But the Pope says : " Let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary." There is the difference between the Pope and the Psalmist. Pro- testants in this case side with the Psalmist ; and in this particular our religion is not only older than Lu- ther, but older even than the Pope.
I would inquire of the reader whether these prayers which the Pope would have the whole church address to the Virgin Mary, are not precisely such as are pro-
68 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
per to be addressed to God, and which others do ad- dress to him ? Do they not ask of her just what ought to be asked of Him, and what he alone can give? Af- ter asking such things as the Catholics are directed to ask of the Virgin Mary, what remains to be asked of God in prayer? And is not this putting a creature in the place of God ? Indeed, is it not putting God quite out of the question? The eyes are raised in prayer to the Virgin, and they are lifted no higher There they fix. Is not this idolatry ? And you see he is not satisfied himself with being an idolater, but he wants the entire clergy, and of course the whole Ca- tholic church, to join him in his idolatry !
I wish the Pope had explained how the blessed Vir- gin destroys heresies. He says she does it, and she alone. I should think it rather belonged to " the Spirit of Truth" to destroy heresies, and to " guide into all truth." But no, says the Pope, the Spirit of Truth has nothing to do with it. It is all done by the blessed Virgin ! She " alone destroys heresies."
The Catholics complain that we call their Pope Antichrist. But I would appeal to any one to say it he is not Antichrist, who, overlooking Christ altoge- ther, says of another, that she is " our greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope ?" Is not that against Christ? The Bible speaks of him as "our hope," 1 Tim. 1:1; yea, of him as our only hope ; for " other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. " Neither is there salva- tion in any other " Acts, 4 : 12. It would seem from this, that Christ is the ground of hope. But not so, says the Pope ; the blessed Virgin is " the entire ground of our hope." By the way, I should not be surprised if
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 69
that hope should disappoint its possessor. Now, is not the Pope Antichrist? Well, if he is an idolater and Antichrist, ought he to be adhered to ? What sort of a body must that be, which has such a head? I think I should not like to be a member of it. And I must confess that I am against such a person having any- more power in our free, enlightened, and happy Ame- rica, than he has already. Pray let us not, after hav- ing broken the chains of political thraldom, come in bondage to idolatry. Let us not, after having extri- cated our persons from the power of a king, subject our minds to the spiritual domination of a Pope.
19. Charles X. an Idolater.
Having proved his holiness the Pope an idolater, I proceed now to prove " his most Christian majesty" that was, the ex-king of France, an idolater ; which having done, I shall have gone a good way towards proving the whole Catholic church idolatrous, since, as you know, it is their boast that they all think alike, and that there are no such varieties of opinion among them as among us unfortunate Protestants; though, by the way, it is not so strange that they all think alike, when one thinks for all.
I proved Gregory an idolater out of his own mouth. 1 shall do the same in the case of Charles. On the occasion of the baptism (with oil, spittle, &c. an im- provement on the simple water-system of the Bible)
70 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
of his young grand-son, the Duke of Bordeaux', this was his language : " Let us invoke for him the protection of the mother of God, the queen of the an- gels ; let us implore her to watch over his days, and remove far from his cradle the misfortunes with which it has pleased Providence to afflict his relatives, and to conduct him by a less rugged path than I have had, to eternal felicity." He was anxious that the little boy should have a protector, one to watch over him, and to remove his misfortunes, and to conduct him by an easy path to eternal life. For this purpose, one not educated a Catholic would have supposed that he would apply to the omniscient and almighty God. I do not know who can do those things besides God. But no. 'His majesty" does no more apply to God, than did his holiness in a similar case. I suppose it would have been heresy if he had. They would have thought him going over to Protestantism. His holi- ness and his majesty both make application to the creature rather than to the Creator. Charles does not say, " Let us invoke for him the protection of God," but of a woman, a woman indeed highly favored of the Lord, and of blessed memory, but still a woman. He calls her, according to the custom of his church, " the mother of God." I suppose you know that phrase s not in the Bible. And there is a good reason for it. the idea is not as old as the Bible. The Bible is an old book, almost as old as our religion. Roman Ca- tholicism is comparatively young. I will not remark on the phrase, mother of God, seeing it is not in the Bible, and since it has often been remarked upon by others. But there is another thing the ex-king says of her. on which I will spend a word or two. He calls
THOUGHTS ON POPE.LY. 71
her " the queen of the angels." Now we read in the Bible, of Michael, the archangel, or prince of angels, but we do not read of the angels having a queen. We read also of a king in heaven, but not a word about a queen. I don't know where he got this idea of a queen of angels. He certainly did not get it out of the Holy- Scriptures, and yet these Scriptures, I had always supposed, contain all that we know about the angels. I wish he would tell us from his retirement where he got the idea, for he speaks very positive about the an- gels having a queen. It is true, we do read in one place in the Bible of a queen of heaven, but the wor- ship of her was so evidently idolatry, that I presume the Catholics will not quote it as authorizing the title they give and the honor they pay to the Virgin Mary. The account is found in Jeremiah, 44. If any one will read the chapter he will see what that prophet thought of those worshipers of the queen of heaven. Now, if the worship of a queen of heaven by the Jews was de- nounced as idolatry, and ruin came on them in con- sequence of it, is not a similar worship performed by Catholics as idolatrous, and as dangerous?
But no matter what he calls her, he asks her to do what only God can do. He treats her precisely as if she were divine. Is it not so — and is not this idolatry ? He ascribes divine perfections to her — omniscience, else how could she watch over the child ; and omni- potence, else how could she ward off evil from him ; and he speaks of her as the guide of souls to eternal life. The Psalmist considered it was the prerogative of God to do this. He says, " Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." But the ex-king looks to Mary to conduct the young
72 THOUGHTS ON POPERY,
duke to eternal life. What the Psalmist expects from God, the ex-king expects from Mary. Is not this put- ting a creature in the place of God, the Creator? Every one must see that it is shocking idolatry, and that the man who uses such language is as truly an idolater as any devotee of Juggernaut.
I do really wonder that the Catholics continue to call their system Christianity. It is by a great misno- mer it is so called. It is not the proper name for it at all. It should be called by some such name as Mari- anism, rather than Christianity. In Christianity the principal figure is Christ ; but he is not the principal figure in the Catholic religion. Mary is. Therefore the religion should be called after her, Marianism, and not after Christ, Christianity. Catholics are not the disciples of Christ, but of Mary ; she is their confi- dence and hope. Pope Gregory says she " is our great- est hope, yea, the entire ground of our hope." Now, I think that the religion of such people ought to be called after the one who is their greatest hope ; and I have suggested a name to the Catholics, which I ad- vise them to adopt. Let their religion be called Mari- anism, and let them leave to us the name Christianity, since Christ c< is our hope."
Having proved his Holiness, and his most Christian Majesty, the two principal characters in the church of Rome, idolaters, I think I may as well stop here.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 73
20. Idolatry near Home.
It is wonderful what a propensity there is in fallen Hen to idolatry. How they do love to worship the freature rather than the Creator ! In a certain church, tvhich need not be named, the blessed virgin, though a mere woman, receives ten, perhaps a hundred times as much religious honor as does the blessed Savior, though he be " the mighty God," deserving of all ho- mage, while she merits barely respectful remembrance. One that has much intercourse with Catholics would suppose the mother to be the Savior of the world, ra- ther than the Son. They make her to be the principal advocate of sinners in heaven. " If any man sin, we nave an advocate with the Father." Who? St. John says, "Jesus Christ the righteous" — the Catholics say it is Mary ! So they differ — we Protestants side with John.
I have lately met with an idolatrous temple, that is, a church or chapel avowedly erected in honor of a creature, and dedicated to a creature. Is not that a temple of idolatry ? Can there be a more accurate de- finition of such a place ? Well, I have seen one — and I have not been a voyage to India neither. Some think there is no idolatry nearer than India ; and when they hear of an idol-temple they immediately think of Juggernaut. But it is a mistake. I have not been out of the United States of America, and yet I have seen a temple of idolatry. I will state the case, and let every one judge for himself. If I am under an erro- neous impression I shall be glad to be corrected. The 7
74 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
case is this : On the Catholic chapel in Annapolis, Maryland, is this inscription, " In honorem Dei Pa- rje Virginis." It is Latin. The English of it is, " In honor of the Virgin, the mother of God." If I have not rightly translated it, some of those who worship m Latin can correct me.
Now, what does this mean ? It seems to signify that the chapel was erected, and is continued in ho- nor of, that is, for the worship of the Virgin Mary. The being in whose honor a chapel is erected is wor- shiped in it. If not, how is it in honor of him? The inscription signifies dedication to the Virgin Marv Now, the being to whom a place of religious worship is dedicated is always the object of the worship there rendered. This is universally understood. Hence we dedicate our churches to the Triune God, for him we worship in them. They are erected in honor of him. No one mistakes the meaning of these inscriptions, When we read on the Unitarian church in Baltimore this inscription in Greek, " To the only God," we un- derstand that the church is consecrated to the service of the only God, and it is precisely the same as if the inscription had been in the style of that at Annapoliss in honor of the only God. So when Paul found at Athens an altar with this inscription, " To the unknown God," he inferred immediately that worship was in- tended, for he says, " whom therefore ye ignorantly worship :" suppose the inscription had been " in ho- nor of the unknown God," would not the apostle's in ference have been the same? Nothing is more clear than that the inscription on which I am remarking, implies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the worship of the Virgin Mary : and she being a creature
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 75
this constitutes it a temple of idolatry, and those who worship in it idolaters !
Let no man say that the inscription implies no more than that the chapel is named after Mary. Some Pro- testants name their churches after saints, but the name is not given in any case in honor of the saint. St. Paul's in London was not built in honor of St. Paul. It is simply so denominated. But here we have a chapel in honor of the Virgin, and she is called Mo- ther of God, apparently to justify the worship which the authors of the chapel intend her. If this were the only proof that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary, we might overlook it ; but it is only one of many. No one thing is more susceptible of demonstration, less capable of denial, than that Roman Catholics render unto this creature that which is due to God alone, re- ligious worship. See for proof, their own Rhemish Testament with the notes. Therefore they are idola- ters. I am sorry to say it, because I am sorry there is any occasion for saying it. But the time has come to speak out. This religion is threatening America, and it should be known, it should be proclaimed in the ear of every Christian, and every patriot, that it is some- thing worse than mere error. And something more to be dreaded far than tyranny, which also it is, and ever has been, and must be — it is idolatry. It puts another, and a creature, in the place of God ; or if it discards not him, it does what is as offensive to him, it associates other and inferior objects of worship with him — and this his jealousy will not suffer. Whatever this great people are to become, I do hope we shall never be a nation of idolaters — creature-worshipers. We had better be, what God forbid we ever should be,
76 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
a nation of slaves. I do verily believe that the Romar, Catholic religion has only to be universally adopted to make us both.
81. Praying to Saints.
This is one of the numerous points in which Ca- tholics and Protestants differ from each other. They, the Catholics, pray to departed saints. This they ac- knowledge they do, nor are they at all ashamed of the practice, but endeavor to justify it. If any one doubtf that they hold to the invocation of saints, as they ex- press it, let him consult the notes to their own Rhe- mish Testament, or look into their book of prayers where he will read the very language in which they make their supplication to the saints.
We Protestants do not pray to saints, and we think we have pretty good reasons for not doing it. We wil, mention some of them, in the hope that they will ap- pear to be equally good reasons why Catholics shouid not pray to saints.
1. We do not feel the need of saints to pray to. We have a great and good God to go unto, whose ear is ever open to our cry, and we think that is enough we do not want any other object of prayer. Whenever we feel the need of any thing, we judge it best to apply directly to our heavenly Father, especially since James, one of the saints, testifies, that " every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, an« cometh down from the Father of lights." Others may,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 77
in their necessity, if they please, apply to the saints, but we choose to ask of the Great Giver of all good. In doing so, we think we are much more likely to re- ceive than if we invoke the saints.
It is true, being sinners, we need an advocate with the Father, but we do not need more than one, and him we have, as John, another saint, testifies, in Jesus Christ : " If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." John speaks of only one advocate, and Paul asserts that as there is but one God, so there is but one mediator between God and men. Yet the Catholics will have it, that there are advocates many and mediators many. The notes of the Rhemish translators on 1 Tim. 2 : 5, and 1 John, 2 : 1, assert the doctrine of a plurality of me- diators and advocates. The object of those notes is to show, that if any man sin, he has many advocates with the Father, and that there are more mediators than one between God and men ; the very reverse of what those texts assert ! I am aware that the Catholics say that saints are mediators only in a subordinate sense ; but I say they are mediators in no sense. Does the Bible speak of them as mediators in any sense ? Those words, " mediator " and " advocate," are in the Bible sacredly appropriated to Christ. There is but one, and it is he. We come to the Father by him. To him we come immediately. Here we need no daysman.
2. We Protestants have always regarded prayer as a part of worship, as much as praise and confession of sin. Now, our Savior says, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." We dare not, therefore, pray to any other than God. We would not like to b? guilty of the idolatry of worship- ing a creature. 7*
■"8 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
3. If we were disposed to pray to the saints, yet we should not exactly know how to do it. Were we to pray to them generally, wi:hout singling any out by name, it would be a kind of praying at random ; and we strongly suspect that our requests would not be at- tended to, for it may be among saints in heaven, as it is among their less perfect brethren on earth, that what is made every body's business comes to be regarded as nobody's. If, on the other hand, we apply to spe- cific saints, and invoke them by name, this supposes that we know just who the saints are. It implies either that we could see into their hearts while they lived, or that we can see into heaven now — both which far outreach our power. We might make some sad mis- take in praying to deceased men who have passed for saints. It is easy enough to ascertain who the church regards as saints, but the canonized may not exactly correspond to the sanctified. But, supposing this diffi- culty removed, and that we know certain individuals, who, having once lived on earth, are now in heaven : the next thing is, to make them hear us, for there is manifestly no use in preferring requests to those who cannot hear them. How is this to be done? The saints are in heaven — the suppliant sinner is on earth, and the distance between them is great. Saints in heaven are not within call of sinners on earth. Where is the proof of it? If I say, "Peter, pray for me," how is ne to know I say it? Peter is not omnipresent. Do they say that God communicates to him the fact; but where is the proof of that ? Besides, what does it amount to? God, according to this theory, informs Peter that a certain sinner on earth wants him, Peter, o ask him, the Lord, to grant him something. This
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 79
is a roundabout method of getting at the thing. The man had better, a great deal, not trouble Peter, but say at once, " God be merciful to me a sinner."
But the Catholics ask with an air of triumph, if we do not request living saints to pray for us. We do, for we have inspired authority for that. But that is not praying to them. There is a wide difference be- tween praying to a saint in heaven, and asking a fel- low-traveler to Zion on earth to pray to God for us. Every one must see that. When a Christian asks his minister or his Christian friend to beseech God for him, he does not consider that he is praying to him or invoking him. Besides, we never ask one to pray for us, unless we know he is within hearing. We should think it very silly to do so. We must have proof of his presence before we think of making any request of him. Yet the Catholics are continually making requests of creatures, of whose presence with them they have not a particle of proof, and who, being crea- tures, it is certain cannot be present with all that call upon them. How many individuals are every day, at the same hour, calling on the blessed Virgin for as- sistance ! It is all folly, unless she be omnipresent — a goddess, which the Bible certainly does not represent her as being. She occupies but one small spot in the universe of God, and it is probably a great way off. She cannot hear, even if she could help. Do you sup- pose that her calm repose in heaven is suffered to be disturbed by the ten thousand confused voices that cry to her without ceasing from earth? Never.
In looking over the Bible, the book which contains the religion of Protestants, and which, being older than the Roman Catholic religion, proves the seni-
80 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
ority of Protestantism over Popery, I find no account of praying to saints. I do not read of Joshua praying to Moses ; or of Elisha invoking Elijah. No, there is not a word of what constitutes so much of the devo- tion of the Catholic in either Testament. We do not find any thing in the Acts or Epistles about praying to the beloved Virgin, whom they call our Lady, in allusion to the phrase our Lord. Those writers say nothing about the mother. It is all about the Son. What heretics Luke and the rest of them were ! How worthy of being excommunicated ! Catholic books are full of the blessed Virgin. The Bible is all about Christ. There is the difference.
But I forgot. The New Testament does record one instance of prayer to a departed saint. The record is in Luke, 16. The saint prayed to was Abraham. The supplicant was a rich man in hell, and he made two requests. Here is the Catholic's authority for this doctrine of praying to deceased saints, so far as he gets it out of the Bible. Let him make the most of it. When, however, he takes into consideration that it was offered from hell, and by a man who lived and died in ignorance and neglect of religion, and that it proved totally unavailing, I suspect he will make no more out of it.
specimens of Catholic Idolatry.
I take them from the Catholic book which I have been reviewing, " The Christian's Guide to Heaven."
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 81
I did not know, before I read this book, that idolatry- was the r )ad to heaven. It did not use to be under llie Jewish dispensation. These specimens of Catho- de idolatry I think the reader will pronounce, with me, HUite up to the average of Pagan idolatry.
Here is one. " We fly to thy patronage, O holy mother of God ; despise not our petitions in our neces- sities, but deliver us from all dangers." That is the manner in which devout Catholics in the United States are directed to pray. They fly to Mary, but " God is our refuge." There is the difference. They .ook to her to deliver them from all dangers. I don't Know how she can deliver them from all dangers. I think they had better ascertain the powers of the Vir- gin Mary, before they place such unbounded reliance on her. I should be a very fearful creature, had I none to fly to from danger but her. " What time I am afraid, I will trust in thee" (the Lord.) So says the Psalm- ist, and it is my purpose too.
The next specimen is entitled, " The Salve Regi- na," and thus it runs : " Hail ! holy queen, mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee we cry, poor banished sons of Eve; to thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious advocate, thy eyes of mercy towards us, and after this our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus, O clement, O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary." Now, is it not a farce to call this Christianity ? It is a great deal more like atheism. Here is an authorized Catholic prayer, in which there is no recognition of God whatever !
Tken follows a call to devout contemplation, and
82 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
one would suppose that the object of it would be God, or the Savior. But no, it is the Virgin. "Let us, with exultation, contemplate the blessed Virgin Mary sitting in glory at the right hand of her be- loved Son. She is crowned by the heavenly Father queen of heaven and earth, and appointed by Jesus Christ the dispenser of his graces." It is singular that the Catholics, when they look up to heaven, see no object so conspicuous: as the blessed Virgin. Now, she was not the most prominent figure in those visions of heaven of which we have account in the Bible. Ste- phen saw " the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of Gcd," but he saw no- thing of the Virgin Mary sitting at her Son's right hand. Nor does John, in the history he gives in the book of Revelation of his visions of heaven, make any mention of seeing her. But it seems she is not only visible to the contemplative Catholic, but almost alone conspicuous.
They speak of her moreover as crowned universal queen, and appointed dispenser of the graces of Christ. But where did they get that information ? It is too much to expect us to take their word for it, since it is acknowledged that we have not the word of God for it. I always supposed Christ to be, through his Spirit, the dispenser of his own graces. I always understood it to be him who " received gifts for men." But it seems, according to the Catholics, that quite a different per- son received and dispenses them. How much novelty there is in the Catholic religion ! It is almost all of it comparatively new doctrine. Ours, the Protestant, is the old religion, after all that is said to the contrary.
But the Catholic is so positive in regard to the coro-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 83
nation of the blessed Virgin, that we find him using the following thanksgiving, " O Jesus, in union with angels and saints, I bless thee for the glory with which thou hast environed thy holy mother, and 1 give thee thanks from the bottom of my heart, for having given her to me, for my queen, my protec- tress and my mother." Here ends the thanksgiving to Jesus. They soon become weary of addressing him, and fondly return to the mother. " O queen ot angels and men, grant thy powerful intercession to those who are united to honor thee in the confrater- nity of the holy rosary," (I don't know what that means ; it is a mystery that I must leave unexplain- ed,) "and to all thy other servants." Then follows something to which I solicit particular attention. 1 suspect the author and approvers of the book would be glad to obliterate the sentence I am going to quote, if they could. But it is too late. The words are these : " I consecrate myself entirely to thy service." Here the person wishing to be guided to heaven is directed, under the authority of the archbishop, to con- secrate himself entirely to the service of the Virgin Mary, who is acknowledged on all hands to be a creature. Mark, it is entirely. This excludes God altogether from any share in the person's services. He is to be entirely consecrated to the service of the Virgin. Will any one, who has any regard for his character as an intelligent being, say that this is not idolatry ? There cannot be a plainer case of idolatry made out in any part of the world, or from any portion of history. St. Paul beseeches us to present our bo- dies a living sacrifice to God, which, he says, is our reasonable service ; but this Catholic guide to heaven
84 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
directs us to consecrate ourselves entirely to the se* vice of the Virgin Mary.
Accordingly, the docile Catholic does consecrate himself to Mary, as in the following act of devotion to her, which you may read in the same little book: " O blessed Virgin, I come to offer thee my most humble homage, and to implore the aid of thy pray- ers and protection. Thou art all-powerful with the Almighty. Thou knowest that from my tender years I looked up to thee as my mother, my advocate, and patroness. Thou wert pleased to consider me from that time as one of thy children. I will henceforth serve, honor and love thee. Accept my protestation of fidelity ; look favorably on the confidence I have in thee ; obtain for me, of thy dear Son, a lively faith ; a firm hope ; a tender, generous, and constant love, that I may experience the power of thy protection at my death." Here you perceive the Catholic says he will do what " the guide " directs him to do. He will serve her; and so doing, he hopes to experience the power of her protection at his death. Poor soul ! I pity him, if he has no better company in death than that. That was not the reason David said, " Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." His reason was, "for Thou (the Lord, his shepherd) art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." How can Mary be with every dying Catholic who trusts in her? I should likt to know. Do they go so far as to say she is omnipre- sent ? Have they formally deified her, as in fact they have ?
The devotee in this prayer uses the following lan- guage to the virgin : " Thou art all-powerful with the
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 85
Almighty." Shall I call this an error or a. falsehood? It is certain that there is no truth in it. She, a poor sinful creature, like the rest of us, saved by grace, all- powerful with the Almighty in intercession ! Christ is that ; but no other being is ; and to say that any other is, is not only falsehood, but blasphemy.
I have other specimens of Catholic idolatry, which I mean to give ; but those I have exhibited are suffi- cient to convict that church of idolatry before any court that ever sat, or any jury that was ever impan- neled. / have proved the Catholic church and reli- gion to be idolatrous. I have not merely asserted it ; it has been demonstrated, and the proof has been taken from her own authorized publication. To have said she was idolatrous, Avould have been uncharita- ble. To have proved it, is not. A man is responsi- ble for the drift of his assertions, but not for the scope of his arguments.
Idolatrous ! Yes, she who pretends to be the only church, is convicted, out of her own mouth, of idola- try. She has this millstone about her neck. I won- der she has swum with it so long. It must sink her presently. I think I see her going down already, al- though I know many suppose she is rising in the world.
23. More Specimens of Catholic Idolatry.
Why, reader, did you know that the Catholics not Only pray to the Virgin Mary, but sing to her ? I was
86 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
not aware of it until I got hold of the book I have been reviewing. But it is a fact that they do. At the end of the book I find the two following hymns ad- dressed to her. They are both in common metre. Here is the first. You will see that, in point of idolatry, they are fully up to the prayers to her.
" O holy mother of our God,
" To thee for help we fly ; ''Despise not this our humble prayer,
" But all our wants supply.
" O glorious virgin, ever blest,
" Defend us from our foes ; " From threatening dangers set us free,
" And terminate cur woes."
Here is the idolatry of looking to a creature for the supply of all wants, and of flying to a creature for help and for defence. There is a curse pronounced in Jeremiah, 17 : 5, on the man " that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." If the person who de- voutly uses this hymn does not make "flesh his arm," I should like to know who does.
The other hymn runs thus :
" Hail, Mary, queen and virgin pure,
" With every grace replete ; " Hail, kind protectress of the poor,
" Pity our needy state.
" O thou who fill'st the highest place,
" Next heaven's imperial throne; " Obtain for us each saving grace,
* And make our wants thy own.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 87
" How oft, when trouble filled my breast,
" Or sin my conscience pained, " Through thee I sought for peace and rest,
" Through thee I peace obtained.
" Then hence, in all my pains and cares,
" I'll seek for help in thee ; " E'er trusting, through thy powerful prayers,
4 To gain eternity."
But it seems the blessed Virgin is not the only crea- ture they sing to. I find in the same book a hymn to St. Joseph, of which the first verse is,
"Holy Patron, thee saluting,
" Here we meet with hearts sincere;
" Blest St. Joseph, all uniting,
" Call on thee to hear our prayer."
Perhaps the reader is aware that the Catholics are not satisfied with praying merely to animated beings, they sometimes supplicate things which have no life. Indeed they seem disposed to worship almost every thing, except it be Him whom alone they should wor- ship. To give but one example, I find in " the Litany of the blessed Sacrament," as they call it, among ma- ny other similar supplications, this one, " O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us." What a prayer this, to be sanctioned by an archbishop, and sent forth from one of the most enlightened cities of America, and that in the nineteenth century too ! It is really too bad We talk of the progress of things. But here is retro- cession with a witness. In the first century the rule was, according to the practice of the publican, to pray " God be merciful to me a sinner ;" but now in the
00 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
nineteenth, the sinner is directed to say, " O wheat of the elect, have mercy on us !"
I think we have found, with reference to the Catho* lie religion, what Archimedes could not find when he wanted to move the world. He said he could move it, provided he could have a place to stand on, from which he could with his lever act upon the world. But as no such place could be found for him, the world was not moved. I think, however, that I have discovered a spot from which we can not only move, but utterly subvert the Roman Catholic religion. We pass over her absurdity and her intolerance, and plant ourselves on her idolatry. Here we will stand, and from this place we will carry on our operations against her. If the Roman Catholic church is idolatrous, can she stand? Must she not fall? What ! a church that is plainly idolatrous maintain its ground as the church of Christ ! It is impossible. It is but for the eyes of mankind to be opened to see her idolatry, and her reign is over. The common sense of the world cannot long brook prayers and hymns to creatures, and sup- plications for mercy to that of which bread is made.
1 would not have it persecuted ; I would not have one of its adherents harmed in the slightest degree ; but there are some things which the enlightened intellect of man cannot tolerate ; and this is the chief of those things which are intolerable to reason. It must go off the stage, even though infidelity should come on and occupy it. The religion that is not of the Bible, and that scoffs at reason, must come to an end. I have nc fears of its rising to any higher ascendancy than that it now occupies. My hope is in God ; but if it were not, it would be in man.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 89
24. Image Worship.
If there be any truth in phrenology, I judge that Catholics must have the organ of veneration very largely developed. There are no people, unless it be some Pagans, who are so inclined to worship. They worship almost every thing that comes in their way, with scarcely any discrimination. The value of wor- ship with them seems to depend on the variety of ob- jects worshiped. What a pity it is they cannot con- fine their worship within narrower bounds ! What a pity they are not satisfied with one object of religious veneration — the great and glorious God ! But no. Be- sides him, they must have a host of creatures, angels, saints, and what not, as objects of adoration. Nor are they satisfied with these beings themselves. They must have visible representations of them to bow down unto, and worship. They want something to worship which they can see. In the profession of faith which I find in the little book published in Bal- timore under the sanction of the archbishop, from which I have quoted so freely already, and to which I love to appeal, seeing it is published so near home, and there can be no dispute about its authority, I find this paragraph among others : " I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of the saints, ought to be had and re- tained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them." This doctrine sounds a little different from that promulged from Sinai, and written with the finger of God on the tables of stone. They look to be at variance, to say the least ; and I think I shall be 8*
90 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
able to show presently that they have that aspect to Catholics as well as Protestants. The voice that shook the earth, after saying, " Thou shalt have no other gods before me," said, " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above," &c. Now Christ, the virgin, and the saints are in heaven above, unless any choose to surmise that some of those reckoned saints are elsewhere. Consequently no likeness of them may be made. The law proceeds : " Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." But do not Catholics bow down or kneel before likenesses of the saints and others? I ask the question. I know they used to do so, and I suppose I may infer that they do so now, since it is their grand boast that their religion is every where and always the same. The doctrine delivered from Sinai is the old notion on the subject, and it would seem to be against every kind and degree of image worship. But, says the modern " guide to heaven," what the authoritative Council of Trent had said many years before, " the images of Christ, of the mother of God, and also of the saints, ought to be had and retained, and due honor and ve- neration given them." Here are Baltimore and Trent against Sinai; or, in other words, the arch- bishop and council on one side, and he who came down on the mountain which burned with fire on the other. My hearers must range themselves on either side, as they see fit.
But cannot the two things be reconciled somehow ? Can they not be so explained as to remove all ap- pearance of inconsistency ? Perhaps they can, if one of them be explained away, that is, be made so clear
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 91
that you can't see it any longer. This is a new way some have of reconciling things ; but I, as an indivi- dual, do not think much of it. I like the old way of laying things alongside of each other, and then shed- ding as much light as possible on both. If this is done with the two things in question, 1 fear there is no hope of reconciling them. To this conclusion our Catholic brethren themselves seem to have come ; and seeing that the two things could not be so explained as to appear in harmony, they have most effectually explained one ol tnem away. They have suppressed it. The second commandment has been thrown out of the Decalogue, as I have shown on a former occa- sion. This is a part of the Catholics' " short and easy method with Protestants." It beats Leslie's with the Deists all to nothing. Whether it be as honest and correct a method, as it is short and easy, I refer to the judgment of my readers. One thing is very certain ; the Catholics must think that the old second com- mandment is, or at least looks very much against them, otherwise they would not have meddled with it. Can any other reason be given for the suppres sion of the second commandment, but that it seems to forbid that use which Catholics make of images in their churches? If any body can imagine another reason, I will thank him to state it. Now, where there can be but one motive impelling to an act, I suppose it is not uncharitable to refer the act to that motive.
I believe the reader is aware that, even in the little modern Baltimore book, " the guide to heaven," the second commandment is suppressed. I think I have stated that fact in a former article. It is so. And
92 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
why should it not be ? Why should not the invaria ble religion be the same here that it is in Ireland or Italy ? Why should American Catholics be bound to keep one more commandment than European Catho- lics? Why should they of the old countries have greater liberty of action than we of the new world ? The circumstances under which the second com- mandment is omitted in "the guide to," &c. are these. An examination, preparatory to confession, is recommended to the devout Catholic, on the ten com- mandments, that he may see, before he goes to the priest to get forgiveness, wherein he has transgressed any of them. Now, he is not directed to examine him- self on the second, but twice over on the tenth, so as to make out the full number. Now I acknowledge it would have been awkward to have set the person to examining himself in reference to the second com- mandment. It might have led to a conviction of sins not recognized by his confessor. If he had asked himself, " is there any graven image, or likeness erf any thing in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, to which I bow down ?" himself would have been apt to answer, " Why yes, there is that image of Christ I kneel before — and there is that likeness of the blessed Virgin I bow down to and adore — I am afraid I have broken the second commandment." If then he had gone to the priest with his scruples, you see it would have made work and trouble. It is true, the priest could have said to him, " O, my child, you don't mean any thing by it. You only use the image as a help to devotion. Your worship does not terminate on it. Your worship of it is only relative. Besides, you don't adore the image — you only venerate it —
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 93
md you only give " due honor and veneration " to Images — nothing more than that. You should con- sider, my child, the distinction between adoration and Feneration — and also between latria and duliaP But this might not have satisfied the person's conscience. [t might have been all Greek to him. Wherefore it was judged most prudent not to recommend any ex- amination on the commandment about images. Per- haps it was the more prudent course. The policy of the measure I do not dispute.
But, say the Catholics, have not Protestants their pictures and statues? Certainly we have. We do not make war against the fine arts. We can approve of painting- and statuary without practicing idolatry. Yes, we have representations of deceased Christians, but we do not kneel before them, nor do we on that account drop the second commandment, as some do. The Catholics make a great many explanations and distinctions on this subject of image worship, some of which I have adverted to above, in what I have supposed the priest to say. But they are substantially the same that the ancient Israelite might have made, and the modern Pagan makes in justification of him- self. Idolaters, when called upon to explain them- selves, have always been in the habit of saying that t was only a relative worship they paid to the visible object, and that the adoration was meant to pass mrough and terminate on an invisible object beyond. This explanation is not original with the modern Christian idolater. It is as old as Jewish and Pagan idolatry. The worshipers of the golden calf wor- shiped something beyond the calf. The calf was only a help to devotion, and they only paid " due
94 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
honor and veneration " to it. Nevertheless they " sin- ned a great sin," and " the Lord plagued the people " on account of it. " There fell of the people that day about 3.000." I suppose it would have been just the same had they made ever so many explanations. But their explanations were not waited for. What signi- fies all these explanations and distinctions to the great mass of the Catholic laity ? They do not even under- stand them ; and it seems that if they both understood and regarded them, it would not help the matter. It is this very explained and qualified worship which the commandment forbids.
T have nothing more to say about images, but I wish the Archbishop of Baltimore would allow the second commandment to appear in the next edition of " the Guide to Heaven." I wish he would let the publish- er's stereotype plates be altered so as to conform to the tables of stone. I am afraid the people will not get to heaven if they have not respect to all God's com- mandments. The Psalmist seems to have thought that necessary. Ps. 119: 6. It would gratify me much, if the archbishop would permit the Lord to say to his people all he has to say.
25. Relics.
My last was on the subject of images. Here are some more things to which the Catholics, if they do not exactly worship them, pay a respect and venera- tion which is very apt to run into worship. They are
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 95
relics, so called. I have just come from the diction- ary where I went to find the word. I consulted Cru- den's Concordance first, but I found no such word there. That contains only the words which are used in the Bible. Relics came in fashion after the Bible was written. In those old times they were not in the habit of mutilating the bodies and disturbing the bones of the pious dead. They respected the remains of the departed by letting them alone, as king Josiah ordered the people to do in the case of the bones of the two prophets. They were going to disturb them, but he told them to let them alone, 2 Kings, 23: 18. This is the way in which Protestants respect the re- mains of the dead. It is rather queer that Catholics, in the lack of other scripture to support their doctrine of relics, appeal to this, and they will have it that Josiah, like themselves, entertained a great respect for relics. The reference to that passage must be on the principle of lucus, a non lucendo, [light from no light.] I cannot account for it in any other way.
By the way, I did not even find relics in the con- cordance to the Apocrypha. But Johnson has it. A dictionary, you know, takes in all words. I find the general signification of the word to be remains. In the Catholic church it is used to designate " the re- mains of the bodies, or clothes, of saints or martyrs, and the instruments by which they were put to death, devoutly preserved, in honor to their memory ; — kissed, revered, and carried in procession." This is the best definition of relics I can any where find. I am indebted for it to the Encyclopedia. But it is not a perfect definition. There are some things preserved and revered as relics which don't exactly fall under
96 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
it ; as, for example, the rope with which Judas hanged himself, and the tail of Balaam's ass, both of which are kept and shown as relics.
But it may be asked if relics are not out of date. The inquirer should know that nothing ever gets out of date with the Catholics. Always and every where the same is their boast respecting their religion. Be sides, in the Baltimore publication, " the Guide to Heaven," notice is taken of relics. It says that the saints are to be honored and invocated, and that their relics are to be respected. Well, and where is the harm of respecting relics ? I might retaliate and ask where is the use — what is the good of it 1 They must think that devotion is promoted by these relics. But I cannot see how the spirit of devotion is to be pro- moted by contemplating St. Joseph's axe and saw, or the comb of the Virgin Mary, or even the finger of St. Ann. If a person even knows that he is handling a piece of the identical wood of the cross, it does not occur to me how that is to enkindle the flame of piety in his heart. The ancient method of exciting the glow of devotion was quite different. It was by me- ditation on spiritual subjects. It was while the Psalm- ist was musing, that " the fire burned " within him. But it seems the Catholics come to the same thing by the aid of their relics. Well, if devotion is kindled by relics, towards whom does it flame? Towards the saints, to be sure, whose relics they are. These re- mains can only remind them of those to whom they once belonged. So that it is the religious veneration of saints, not the worship of Jehovah, that is promoted by relics. All that can be said for them is, that they serve the cause of idolatry.
"' THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 97
But I have been writing as if these relics were genuine remains of the saints— the saw they show really St. Joseph's, and the finger St. Ann's. The reader must excuse me for indulging such a supposi- tion. The very idea of such things being preserved, and transmitted through eighteen centuries, is prepos- terous. Their own writers acknowledge that many of them are spurious— that bones are often consecrated, which, so far from belonging to saints, probably did not belong to Christians, if indeed to human beings. If this be so, how are we to know which are genuine? There can be no internal evidence to distinguish them. The bones of saints must look just like other bones. I know it is said there is an odor about the genuine relics which does not belong to the remains of the vulgar dead. How that is I cannot say. I understand that, in the failure of the ordinary, external evidence, the Pope takes it on him to pronounce them genuine. This is making short work of it. But some of the authorities of the church of Rome go so far as to say that it is not necessary the relics should be genuine. It is enough that the worshiper has an in- tention of honoring the saints whose bones he sup- poses them to be. If this is correct doctrine, churches and chapels maybe readily furnished with relics, and the defect in this particular, which Catholics deplore in regard to many of their establishments, be supplied without going farther than tne nearest graveyard.
If any one should still think that the relics may be genuine, there is a consideration which, if I mistake not, will carry complete conviction to his mind. It is, that there are altogether too many of these relics, so thi* some of them must be spurious. Five devout pil- 9
93 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
grims happening to meet on their return from Rome, found, on comparing their notes, that each had been honored with a foot of the very ass upon which Christ rode to Jerusalem. Here were five feet for one ani- mal. Moreover, it is said that there are as many pieces of the timber of the true cross in different parts of Europe, as would supply a town with fuel for a winter !
But, say they, were not the bones of Joseph pre- served, and afterwards removed to Canaan. Undoubt- edly they were. But they were all kept together in a coffin, and they were removed, not to be worshiped, but to be buried. Joseph, being persuaded that God would visit his people, and bring them out of Egypt into Canaan, enjoined it on them to take his remains along with them, for he wished them to repose in the land of promise. What this has to do with relics I have not the discernment to perceive. How it bears any resemblance to the Catholic practice of disturbing coffins and separating bone from bone, and cherishing them as things to be revered, I cannot see. Yet no less a character than Cardinal Bellarmine appeals to this fact in support of their doctrine of relics. So also they cite the case recorded in 2 Kings, 13: 21, of the dead man that was revived by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha. But how does this favor relics ? The bones of Elisha were quietly reposing in the place where they were laid at his death. Not one cf them had been touched. But if relics had been in vogue then, do you suppose the remains of such an eminent saint as Elisha would have been left undis- turbed ? . ^ w ' «i
I was surprised to find that Beliaim.)^ re^'
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 99
Dent. 34 : 6, in support of relics. It is that remarka- ble passage in which the Lord is said to have buried Moses in a valley in the land of Moab, and that no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. I sup- pose the cardinal would have us infer from this, that if the place of Moses' body had been known, it would have been dug up and converted into relics. And therefore the Lord took care it should not be known. The devil, it seems, from Jude, 5: 9, contended for it for some such purpose as this, but he was foiled. The reference to this passage strikes me as rather an un- happy one.
But were not handkerchiefs and aprons brought from the body of Paul, and miracles thereby wrought? Yes, but they were not relics. Paul was living. Be- sides, who does not see that those articles of dress were but signs to connect the miracles, in the minds of the people, with the person of God's inspired am- bassador ? Was any honor due to them? Do we hear of their being preserved and revered ? No. I do not find them in any list of relics. They passed again immediately into their former appropriate use as hand- kerchiefs and aprons. Finally, they appeal to the effi- cacy of the shadow of Peter, as related, Acts, 5 : 15, in proof of the virtue of relics. But as there appears to be no substance in this argument, I leave it unanswer- ed ; and have only to add, that I wonder not that infi- dels abound so in Catholic countries, when Christi- anity is held up before them as embracing and even giving prominence to such doctrines as the veneration of relics, the invocation of saints, and many more like them.
100 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
Seven Sacraments.
What ! Seven ! How is this ? I read in the Bible of only two. Whence have they the other Jive ? O, they come from the other source of Christian doctrine, tra- dition. They were handed down. It is true, the apos- tles wrote of only two sacraments ; but Catholics would have us believe that they preached and con- versed about five others : and those that heard them spoke of these sacraments to others ; and they to others still ; and so. the story passed from lip to lip, until the Council of Trent, I believe it was, concluded that something had better be written about these five extra sacraments. I wonder that was never thought of be- fore. It is surprising that it never occurred to the apostles, when they were writing their Epistles, to say a syllable about these seven sacraments. It would seem to have been very thoughtless in them. I may be very hard to please, but I cannot help feeling a desire to have Scripture, as well as unwritten tradition, in support of a doctrine or practice called Christian. I like to be able to trace a doctrine al] the way back to the Bible, and to find it originating in the very oracles of God themselves. Some think it sufficient, if they can follow a doctrine back as far as the earlier fathers ; and especially if they can trace it to the Epistles of Ignatius. But this does not satisfy me. There are cer- tain other Epistles, rather more ancient, in which I would like to find the doctrine. Ignatius was a very good man, but he did not belong to the days of Paul by any means. Ignatius, Clemens, and all those good iiathers, stood on the bank of the stream, but Paul and
THOUGHTS ON POPEHY, 101
his associates sat around the fountain. These last saw truth in its rise ; the others only saw it in its flow. True, they were near the source, but they were not at ii ; and who knows not that a stream may be cor- rupted very near its source ? If I live eighteen or nine- teen miles distant from a certain fountain, whose stream passes by my residence, and I want to know whether its waters have been corrupted, do I trace back the stream until I come within a mile or two of the fountain, and there stop, concluding thai such as the water is there, such it must be at the spring? Do I not rather go all the way up to the fountain ? Which ought I to do ? It strikes me as very strange, that any should suspend their search after truth a century or two this side of the Bible era. I think they should go all the way back to the Bible.
But I am wandering from my subject, which is the sacraments. What are those other Jive ? One is mar- riage. What ! marriage a sacrament ! How does it answer to the definition of sacrament? What spiritual thing is signified by it ? Marriage is said to be " ho- norable in all," but nothing is said of its being a sa- crament. If it be a sacrament, why are not priests, as well as others, permitted to take this sacrament? Why should the universal clergy be debarred the pri- vilege of this holy thing? Does its sacred character render it unsuitable to those who fill the sacred office ?
The other day I was thinking — for, being a Protes- tant, I dare think even on religion — and this thought occurred to me : " Is it possible that God has denied the whole body of the clergy, of all nations and ages, the privilege of knowing how he pitieth them that fear him ; and of approaching to the experimental know- 9*
102 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
ledge of his exceeding readiness to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him — the privilege, in other words, of being able to feel the force of some of the most touching representations which he has made of his dispositions towards his creatures, founded on the parental relation?" I read in the Bible that " like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Now, can it be sinful for a minister of Jesus Christ to know by experience (the only way in which it can be fully known) how a father pitieth, and how, consequently, the Lord pitieth his people? I think it is man, and not God, that constitutes this a sin. Again, does God make this general appeal to his creatures, " If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him !" — and has he at the same time excluded a large class of his creatures from the privi- lege of ever knowing how well disposed parents are to bestow good things on their children? And has he laid under this ban the very persons whom he has ap- pointed to represent and testify of him to men? Has he appealed to the parental feelings of his creatures, and then forbidden a large and important class of them to know what those feelings are ? This is rather more than I can believe.
A minister of Jesus Christ may decline the privi- lege of marriage in his own case — he may not use thai power, as Paul, in his peculiar circumstances, did not, and as many a Protestant minister does not. This is one thing ; but has God cut off the whole order of the clergy from even the right to marry? That is the question. And that is a very different thing.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 103
27. Trims instantiation.
Because Christ says, in reference to the bread, " This is my body," the Catholics contend that the bread is changed into the body of Christ ; and this they call Transubstantiation. And when we say that the pas- sage is not to be interpreted literally, but that the bread is merely indicated as the representative of Christ's body, they reply with wonderful confidence, " Ah, but does he not say it is his body — does he say it represents his body merely — what authority have Protestants to bring in a figure here ?" Now let me be heard. I have no disposition to ridicule the doctrine of Transubstantiation, especially as it professes to be founded on Scripture. I would give always a candid hearing to the claims of a doctrine which even seems to be held out of respect to the authority of the Bible. But I must say that the Catholic does not carry his veneration for the Scriptures far enough ; or he is not consistent in his interpretation of them. I think I can show that, to be consistent with himself, he should be- lieve in many more than one Transubstantiation. Let him turn to Luke, 22 : 19, 20. He reads in verse 19, " This is my body." Therefore, he reasons, the bread becomes the body of Christ. Very well. But read verse 20 ; " This cup is the new testament." Here is ano- ther Transubstantiation. The cup or chalice becomes the new testament. It is no longer gold or silver. but a testament or will ! Does not Christ say it is the new testament? What right have Catholics to bring in a figure here 7 The cup is a will— Christ says so. To be sure, if it were carried to a probate office, it
104 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
would be thought out of place, and an article for a sil versmith to prove, rather than a judge of probate. But no matter for that. What if the senses do tell you that it is still a cup, and the body still bread, will you be- lieve those liars, the senses ? But if they are such liars as this would make them out to be, why should I ever believe them — why should I believe them, when they tell me that I see in the Bible those words : " This is my body V* That testimony of the senses the Catholic believes ; but if they lie about the body, still declaring it is bread, after it has ceased to be any such thing, why may they not lie in regard to the letters which spell " this is my body." Under the appearance of these letters there may be something quite different, even as, under the appearance of bread in the Eucha- rist, is the body of Christ, as the Catholics affirm !
But these are not the only instances of Transub- stantiation. The Bible is full of them. I find two cases of this change recorded in Revelation, 1 : 20; one in which certain stars become angels, and another in whion certain candlesticks become churches. Do you doabt it? Read for yourself: " The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven can- dlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven churches." The construction here is precisely similar to " this is my body." Christ is the speaker in each case, and he says the stars are angels, and the candlesticks are churches. Who has any right to imagine a figure here?
Perhaps every body does not know that Transub- stantiation is an Old Testament doctrine. But, ac- cording to this mode of interpretation, it is St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 10 : 4, alluding to the rock which Moses
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 105
smote in the wilderness, says, " That rock was Christ" — not it represented, but it was Christ ! Away with your figures.
Many other examples of Transubstantiation might be given from the Old Testament. Let two remark- able cases suffice, of which we have an account in Ge- nesis, 41 : 26, 27 : " The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years," &c. Here seven cows and seven ears of corn are changed into seven years of three hundred and sixty -five days each !
I suppose 1 might find many hundred examples of these Transubstantiations. Now, does the Catholic believe in all of them? He ought, most undoubtedly he ought, on the same reason that he believes in one. Let him then either believe in them all, or else never adduce, " this is my body," in proof of the Transub- stantiation held in his church. I wish Mr. H. or some body else would set me right, if I err in this argument.
28. Haifa Sacrament.
Half a sacrament ! Who ever heard of such a thing ? A sacrament divided ! Yes, even so. The authorities of the Roman Catholic church, Pope, Council, &c. have divided the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which our Savior instituted the same night in which he was betrayed ; and, ever since the Council of Con- stance, they have allowed the people only half of it.
106 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
They have told them that they must put up with the bread, for that they want the cup for themselves. But did not Christ give the cup, in the original institution of the sacrament, to as many as he gave the bread 1 Yes, Christ did. So say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. He took the cup, they tell us, and gave it to them ; and Matthew adds that he said in giving it, " Drink ye all of it." Let not this be omitted by any disciple. It would seem as if Christ foresaw what the Constance Council was going to do, and therefore said, " Drink ye all of it." Rome might with more plausibility have denied her laity the other half of the sacrament — the bread. After the command to take the cup, there fol- lows the reason ; observe it : " For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." Now the Catholics say that only priests were present on that occasion, and that the giv- ing of the cup to them can be no precedent for giving it to the laity. But, though we should admit that they were at that time priests, I want to know if the reason for partaking of the cup does not apply to others be- sides the clergy. Was not the blood shed for the laity as well as for the clergy 7 And if this is the reason why any should partake, it is equally a reason why all should for whom the blood was shed. The precept and privilege to drink is co-extensive with the reason an- nexed to it. Now I have not been in the habit of re- garding the propitiatory death of Christ as a part of the benefit of clergy — as one of the peculiar privileges of the priesthood. I object therefore to the restriction of the cup of blessing to the clergy. The symbol ot the blood shed for many, for the remission of sins, I claim to be my privilege as truly as that of any priest,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 107
Christ did not shed his blood for the sons of Levi alone.
Yes, Christ: gave it in both kinds — and what is more, the Catholics themselves acknowledge that he did, and that the primitive church administered it in both kinds, yet (hoc tamen non obstante are their very words) they appoint that the people shall receive it but in one kind, that is, notwithstanding Christ and the primitive church. And they declare them accursed who teach or practice otherwise. What is this but anathema- tizing Christ? But surely they must have something to say in justification of their conduct in this respect. To be sure they have. Do you not know that the Pope is the head of the church, and that he is infallible ; or if he is not, yet the firm Pope & Co. are ? Yes, but there was Pope Gelasius, who lived' a good while be- fore. He having heard of some Manicheans who re- ceived the bread without the wine, decided that such a dividing of one and the same sacramer/t mi^'ht not be done without a heinous sacrilege. "Was not he head of the church too, and was not hp_ infallible ? If he was not, I wonder how he could transmit infallibility.
This withholding of tne ^p is one of the boldest
strikes of that chur;ch> | cannot help admiring the
courage it map^es^j. Who would have thought :t
couiu have suc.oeeded s0 well? I wonder they even
undertor^ tQ carry ^ point However, they have done
li" x .le-e was some murmuring against it, to be sure.
Hu.%s and Jerome made a noise about it, but they just
burnt ;hem, and they made no more noise about it.
, But are not Christians followers, that is, imitators
of Christ 1 O yes. But this withholding of the cup is
not doia* like Christ. The Catholics say that Chngt
108 THOUGHTS ON POPERV. ,
is with their church to the end of time. It strikes me however, that he could not have been with them a that point in the progress of time when the Council o Constance sat.
I do not know what others think, but for my own part I don't believe that any power on earth has a right to limit a grant of Jesus Christ, or, in other words, to take away what he has given. He said of the cup, " drink ye all of it" — and I, for one, will do it, and I think all ought — and if the Catholics will come over to us, they too shall have the cup of salva- tion. O, if I had the ear of the Catholics now, I would not ask them to confess their sins to me, but there is a thing I would tell them : I would say, My dear Catholic brethren, you never remember Christ in his sacrament. You only half remember him. He said, eat and drink in remembrance of me. You only do one. You do not show the Lord's death ; for Pau„ says, " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." It is only they who do both thai make this exhibition. Christ's death is not shown by the bread merely, but by boti the elements. I know your church says that the blood is in the body, and that, \v taking one, both are taken, for that "Christ was entii* and truly under each kind," as the council decrees. But how came Christ himself to know nothing of this ? Did he do a superfluous thing in giving the cup 1 What if the blood is in the body, and the bread being changed into the body, we take the one in taking the other, we want the blood separated from the body, the blood shed. The blood of Christ is not an atone- ment for sin, except as it is shed. Catholics, you
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 109
never celebrate the Lord's Supper. In the Lord's Supper there was a cup. In yours there is none. You hold that the discourse in John, 6, relates to an atonement, and there it is written, " except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Now, according to his own princi- ples, you have no life in you, for you do not drink his blood. The most you can be said to do is, that you eat it in connection with his body ! One thing more, Catholic brethren. There can be no such thin* in reality as half a sacrament. To divide a sacrament is to destroy it. What follows then, but that the whole sacrament is taken from you ! Look at this — just fix your mind five minutes on this subject, and you are, I do not say what, but you are no longer a Catholic. Five minutes. That is all. But you say, I must not doubt ; yet you may think, and God the judge will never condemn you for exercising your mind.
39. Extreme Unction.
When it looks as if one was going to die, then by all means let the priest be sent for: and when he has come, let him receive the dying man's confession, (but if the priest should be long in coming, I would advise him to confess to God. I think it would answer as well. Indeed I prefer that near way to pardon, to the other circuitous route) — and let him then in that ex- tremity anoint him with oil ! This is extreme unction 10
110 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
— a sacrament — one of the seven! I think they must have been at a loss to make up the seven, v/hen they pressed this into the service.
There don't seem to be a great deal of religion in it; nor indeed any excess of common sense. But to speak of it as constituting a preparation for death is really shocking. What ! a preparation for dying, and for meeting and answering to God, procured by the in- tervention and unction of a human priest — done by oil ! Truly this is an easy way of getting to heaven, particularly where priests are plenty. I do not won- der that the Catholic religion is popular. This is in- deed prophesying smooth things. We Protestants have no such doctrine to preach. When we are called to see a sick person, we candidly acknowledge that there is nothing we can do for him which shall infallibly secure his salvation. We tell him what he must do : that he must repent and believe in Christ : and then Ave ask God to undertake and do for him. It is only on certain conditions that we can assure him of his salvation. The priests say that they can in- sure the person's salvation ; but to any such power as that we do not pretend.
But have not the Catholics plain Scripture for their doctrine of extreme unction ? If they have ; if it is written, and not merely handed down, then I am at once a believer in it. Let us see : they adduce two passages in support of their dogma, Mark, 6 : 13, and James, 5 : 14. The first is historical. It affirms that the apostles " anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them." The other is hortatory. " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. Ill
with oil in the name of the Lord," that is, doing what the apostles are represented by Mark as having done; and doing it, as appears from the next verse, with the same end in view, viz. healing. Now, what authority for the sacrament of extreme unction is there here ? Here is indeed an anointing with oil by an ecclesias- tic. But who does not see in how many particulars, and how widely this anointing differs from the ex- treme unction of the Catholics 1 Their anointing pro- ceeds on the supposition that the person is going to die ; and could his recovery be foreseen, it would be omitted. But the anointing practised by the apostles and elders of the church was in order to the recovery of the person, and was in every case connected with his recovery. Their anointing was the attendant and token of a miraculous cure. It held precisely the same place with Christ's making clay of spittle, and anointing therewith the eyes of the blind man ; or with Naaman's being directed to go and wash seven times in Jordan. It was, like each of these, an exter- nal, and in itself inefficacious sign of a miraculous re- covery ; and even now there is no objection to the use of the sign, if the thing signified is to be expected. Let the priests anoint with abundance of oil all their sick, if they can accompany that unction with such a prayer of faith as shall save the sick. But if the miraculous recoveries have ceased, let there be a do- ing away of the sign. As soon as any sign becomes insignificant, let it cease to be used. Extreme unc- tion is now a sign of nothing. There was no use in going down into the pool of Bethesda after the angel had ceased to pay his periodical visit to it. So in this case, there being now no healing, there need be, and /here should be. no anointing.
112 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
How the priests now differ in their use of the cil from those whose successors they pretend to be ! The apostles and elders anointed persons with a view to their living ; but the priests with a view to their dy- ing. The former would not anoint, if they foresaw the person was to die ; the latter will not, if they fore- see that he is to live. How at odds they are ! How Scripture and tradition do quarrel ! And the worst of it is, there is no such thing as bringing about a recon- ciliation between them.
Among the doctrines of the Catholic church, I am at a loss whether to give the palm to this or to purga- tory. Purgatory teaches the doctrine of salvation by Jire. Extreme unction, the doctrine of salvation by oil. There does not seem to be much Christianity in either. Extreme unction is, however, the smoothest doctrine. Decidedly so. Jesus Christ came by water and blood. The salvation he proclaims is by these; and the sacraments he instituted, are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These signify something: the first, regenerat ion; the second, the propitiation made for our sins.
30. Doing Penance.
Insufferable ! What ? Why, that the Catholic trans- lators of the Bible should render the Greek word, which signifies repentance, (metanoia,) by the phrase doing penance ! I would not willingly be uncharita- ble, imputing a bad motive where a good one might have i
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 113
been present. But I must say that I know not how to reconcile this rendering of metanoia with their in-
egrity as translators. I cannot help believing that ♦hey knew better. Could they have supposed that they were selecting the most judicious method of con- veying the mind of the Spirit as expressed in that word, when they concluded on rendering it doing pen- ance ? Why, in the name of common sense, did they use two English words (coining one of them more- over for the occasion) to convey the meaning of one Greek word? Was there any necessity for it ? Was there no single English word that would express the sense? There was repentance, the word adopted by the translators of the common English Bible. What objection lay to the use of that ? Why was that passed by ; and especially why was it passed by in order to give a preference. to such a phrase as doing penance? If they had disliked repentance, they might with more propriety have employed the word reformation. It would seem as if they were anxious to avoid the use of any word which expressed or implied either sorrow or amendment, and therefore they fixed on the phrase doing penance. I am mistaken if these translators have not a heavy account to give. This single ren- dering, if it were the only exceptionable one, would be as a millstone about the neck of that translation. Just think of the false impression, and that on a point of the highest moment, made on the minds of so many millions by this one egregiously erroneous version.
Contemplate the state of the case. Gcd, in pros- pect of the judgment day, and by the terror of it, com- mands all men every where to do a certain thing, Acts, 17: 30, 31; and Christ says that except they 10*
114 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
do it, they shall perish. Luke, 13 : 3. This thing God expresses by the Greek term metanoia. But all do not understand Greek. Wherefore, for the admonition and instruction of those Catholics who read only ihe English language, and who cannot be persuaded of the sin of reading the Bible, it becomes necessary to render that word into English. Certain persons un- dertake to do it, that is, to interpret the mind of God as expressed by metanoia. And what do they make it out to mean ? Hear, hear ! Doing 'penance ! That is it, they say. " Do the penance which your priest appoints, after you have made your confession to him, and that is all." It is no such thing. This is a mis- representation of the Almighty. This is not the sub- ject of the command and warning to which reference has been made, And to suppose that it is on account of this that angels rejoice, i. e. when a sinner does penance, is truly farcical. O what a translation ! "There is joy in heaven over one sinner that does penance." Truly angels must be easily made to re- joice, if this be the case ! How it sounds ! How offensive to the very ear, and how much more to the enlightened judgment, is this rendering ! " God com- mands all to do penance. Except ye do penance, ye shall all likewise perish. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance /" Shocking! Away with such a translation from the earth. The Douay Bible is not God's Bible ; for it purposely misrepresents him in a main point, viz: on the article of repentance. Here is a translation of metanoia implying no sorrow for sin, no change of mind, (which the word literally signifies,) nor any moral reformation ; but only the doing of certain ex-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 115
ternal, and generally puerile, things prescribed by a priest ; all which may be done without any internal exercise — without any emotion of any kind. The word, according to the Catholics, makes no requisition on the heart whatever. And truly, a man may be a good Catholic without ever feeling any thing, unless it be the bodily pain of self-inflicted penance. And every one knows that thinking is not necessary to con- stitute a good Catholic. Wherefore a man may be a good Catholic without either thinking or feeling , that is, without any exercise of either mind or heart. All that seems requisite is mechanical action. Maelzel, the constructor of automatons, could almost make one. Is this uncharitable ? It is true, and ought to be said. It ought to be known and proclaimed that the religion of the church of Rome overlooks the reason, con- science, and heart of man, addressing no appeal to them, and indeed making no use of them. Is it then the religion of the Holy Ghost ? Is this the Christi- anity of Christ? It cannot be.
I ought perhaps to say that I find, in one place in the Douay Testament, the Greek metanoeite translated correctly, repent. It occurs in Mark 1 : 15. Whether it was done in a moment of relenting, or through in- advertence, I cannot say. It was never repeated that I can find. Perhaps the translators had to do penance for presuming to render the word in that one case cor- rectly.
Do you not see what a difference it makes to the priests, if you give it out that repentance is the requi- sition ? Then a sinner will be saved if he repent, irre- spective of the priest. The great High Priest that is passed into the heavens will see to the case of every true
116 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
penitent. But if the requisition be doing penance, in that case, there being something necessary which the priest prescribes, he has the poor sinner completely in his power. It makes the salvation to depend on the act of the Utile low priest. Do you wonder that the priests insist on the translation do penance, and forbid the people to read in a Bible which requires them to repent ?
There is a precious note in the Douay connnected with this subject, which may afford me a topic here- after.
31. The Hardest Religion.
Among the compliments which our brethren of the Church of Rome pay to their religion, this is one. They say it is the hardest religion — that no other re- ligion requires so much of its votary. Hence they would have it inferred that theirs must be the divine and only true religion. The yoke being so hard, and the burden so heavy, they must of course be Christ's.
I shall examine this claim to the precedence in point of difficulty. And something I am prepared to concede to the Church of Rome on this score. There is a part of her faith which I acknowledge it is exceedingly hard to receive. It requires a powerful effort doubtless to believe the doctrine of transubstantiation, viz. that the bread and wine of the sacrament are changed into * * * what? The body and blood of Christ? No;
ot
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 117
that alone, but also into his sold and divinity ! Yes, it is hard to believe it is so, when one sees it is not so, and knows it cannot be so. It is hard to disbelieve at will those long-tried and faithful servants, the senses ; and especially that first of the five, the sight. There is difficulty in the Catholic religion truly. It puts a tre- mendous strain on the mind.
There is also her doctrine about the necessity of bap- tism to salvation, which some of us find it very hard to believe. One reason of our difficulty is that that doctrine bears so hard upon the heathen, and particu- larly on the immense multitude of infants who every where die without baptism. According to the doctrine of Rome, that baptism is indispensable to salvation, they are all lost just for the want of a little water! Poor things, they fare no better than the thief on the cross who died without baptism. They get no farther than Paradise the first day. It is a hard religion. This doctrine is cruelly hard upon children ; as her doctrine that money, by the purchase of prayers and masses, re- leases souls from Purgatory, is hard upon the poor.
So much for the difficulty of her faith. But all of that is not so hard ; as for example, her doctrine of in- dulgences. It is never hard to be indulged. There is no hardship, but very great convenience for a delin- quent sinner to have such a bank to draw upon, as the accumulated merits of the saints in by-gone ages, who did more than they needed for their own salvation, having loved God with considerably more than " all the heart, and soul, and strength, and mind !" This doctrine does not make the Roman Catholic religion a hard one — neither does the doctrine of venial sins. You know they hold that there are some sins whose
118 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
wages is not death. They are excusable — mere pec- cadillos. We recognise no such sins. We think with St. Paul, that " cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
But perhaps when the Catholics speak of their re- ligion as a hard one, they refer not so much to its faith as to its practice. It is what they have to do that is so hard. But why do they speak of it as hard ? It looks as if it was a task to them — as if they do not find their sweetest and purest delight in it. It would appear as if they did not esteem the service of God as much their privilege as their duty. One would suppose, to hear them talk, that the commandments of God are grievous. I am truly sorry for them that Christ's yoke, which, he says, is easy, they find to be so galling to them. We, Protestants, never think of speaking of our religion as hard. "Wisdom's ways" we find to be "pleasant- ness, and all her paths peace." Our language is : " O how love I thy law ! How sweet are thy words unto my taste ! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth !" But it seems not to be so with Catholics. I have been struck with surprise to hear even the most devout of them speak of the requirements of their religion as things which they must comply with. " I must," is the language which they use in reference to almost every thing of a religious kind that they do. I have thought with myself how it is possible that their hearts can be in their religion, if they esteem it such a hard- ship. How will heaven be able to make them happy, if the exercises and acts on earth, most akin to those of heaven, are so irksome that they engage in them only from sheer necessity ?
'
THOUGHTS ON POFERY. 119
But I must advert to some of the hard practices which the Catholic religion requires of her votaries. There is that practice of confessing to the priest, is not that hard ! Truly it is. I think I should find it hard to tell every thing, even the most secret thoughts, to any body called a priest. And then to have to per- form whatever penance he might please to prescribe. Yes, it is hard — so hard, and so absurd too that God has never required it at our hands. He says to the sinner, come right to me with your broken heart, and make your confession to me, for he is " in Christ re- conciling the world unto himself, not imputing then- trespasses unto them."
Again, fasting is reckoned among the hard things of the Catholic religion — and indeed it is hard not to eat when one is hungry. But that is not their idea of fasting. Their idea of fasting is in accordance with what St. Paul says to Timothy in his prediction con- cerning them, an " abstaining from meats" or "what- soever is sold in the shambles." Now there is nothing so very hard in that restriction. He must be very dif- ficult who cannot satisfy his appetite out of all the va- riety of the vegetable kingdom, when he has more- over the liberty of the entire fish market.
But there is one thing about the Catholic religion in view of which I suppose I must admit it to be the hardest religion. It belongs strictly neither to faith nor 'practice. You will guess that I have in my mind — Purgatory. Now, as a doctrine, there are many things about it hard to be believed, as, for example, that ma- terial fire should be able to act on an immaterial spirit, and thereby purify it too. But hard as purgatory is to be believed, it is still harder to be suffered. Yes; it is
120
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
hard, after having gone through the whole routine of the sacraments, and lived long a good Catholic, then to die, and go into an intense fire. It is so hard that I, for my part, prefer the religion of poor Lazr.rus, whom the angels took straight to heaven ; and of the penitent malefactor, who spent a part of the day on which he died, in Paradise. By the way, St. Paul could not have been thinking of Purgatory when he said, " to me to die is gain.'''' But I forget that he lived before the time of the Catholic religion.
3'4. More about Penance.
Let us hear both sides. In my former article on this subject, I objected to the translation doing penance, in the Douay Bible. Bu*" have the Catholics nothing to say in justification of their rendering? I suppose that whatever they have to say is expressed in a cer- tain note on Matthew, 3:2. " Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," is the edifying trans- lation of the passage. Our attention is then directed to this note, "agite poenitentiam, metanoeite," which word, according to the use of the Scriptures and the holy fathers, does not only signify repentance and amendment of life, but also " punishing past sins by fasting and such like penitential exercises." This is the sage note.
Now here is an acknowledgment that the ideas of repentance and amendment are intended in the ori-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 121
ginalword. Why then is a translation of it adopted, which excludes both repentance and amendment. If the original iucludes them, yet their translation does not. A man may do penance, and yet neither repent nor amend — neither be sorry nor better. These trans- lators must have thought that repentance and amend- ment, though included in the original word, were of little importance, otherwise they would not have sup- pressed them in their translation. They must have judged them too insignificant to be taken notice of in their standard version ! As for us Protestants, we think that to be sorry and to reform are very impor- tant parts of repentance.
But, besides repentance and amendment, they say the original word signifies " punishing past sins, by fasting," &c. This is their assertion. Where are their proofs ? I would like to see some of them, for the dictionaries tell us another story. Well, they ap- peal to the Scriptures and the fathers, " according to the use of the Scriptures and the holy fathers." Here are two authorities, though of very unequal weight in my estimation. I wish these translators had said where the Scriptures use this word in their sense. I suppose they would, if they had been able. The truth is, the word is never so used. It does not include this idea of theirs. Punishing ! Repentance don't mean punishing. Punishing past sins ! This is no very eligible phrase. It is quite too figurative for an ex- planatory note. And punishing them, how? By fast- ing. How does fasting punish sin? I cannot see how any fasting punishes sin; but I am sure the Cath- olic fasting does not. Do you know what Catholics mean by fasting ? Not abstaining from food. No, to 11
122 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
be sure. But changing their kind of food. Only ab- stain from meats, according to the prediction, 1 Tim. 4: 3, and you may eat what else you please. Fasting, according to the opinions held by Catholics in the re- gion of country where I live, and I suppose it is so elsewhere, consists in reducing one's self down to the low diet offish, (after ail their kinds,) eggs, oysters, terrapins, with all manner of vegetables, and every variety of desert ! That is fasting, because there is no butchers' meat eaten. You may eat what is sold anywhere else but in the shambles. Now I cannot see any thing very punitive in such fasting. A man's sin must be exceedingly sensitive to feel the infliction of such abstinence. 1 do not believe that sin is to be starved out of the soul in this way.
It is well enough sometimes to try the value of an explanation upon a passage in which the thing ex- plained occurs, as for example, " God now command- eth all men every where to punish their past sins by fasting and such like penitential exercises." How does that sound ? Do you really think that it is what the Lord meant.
33. A Fast-Day Dinner.
Some plain, honest people may be surprised at the heading of this article, because it implies a dinner of some sort on a day of fasting, whereas, according to their old-fashioned notions there should be no dinner
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 123
at all on a fast day. And truly fasting did formerly imply 'partial, at least, if not total abstinence from food during the period of the fast. It was thought that eating to the full was incompatible with genuine fasting. Indeed it was considered that eating at all broke a fast. I suppose no one doubts that Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra, and the pious Jews in general, ab- stained entirely from food on their days of fasting. Who has an idea that they ate any dinner on those days ? But mind has marched a great way since those men flourished. Whether its march has always been, forward, I leave others to determine. Now, ac- cording to the views which prevail in that church which cannot go wrong, and which don't make mis- takes even when she contradicts herself, abstinence is not essential to a fast ; and a fast-day dinner, so far from being no dinner at all, as some puritanical christians still contend it should be, is a rare repast — one of the very best dinners in the whole week. I ought to say here that some Protestants have imbibed this doctrine cf the infallible church, and very com- placently practice according to it. We have a great many Protestants among us who do not protest as thoroughly or as strenuously as we think they should. What put me in mind of this subject was the fol- lowing incident. As I was sitting at table the other day, the topic of conversation was a very delicate pre- paration of eggs. I took no particular interest in it, until one of the company remarked that when she re- sided in the family of Mr. A., a distinguished Catholic, that dish was always a part of their fast-day dinner. This arrested my attention. Fast-day dinner ! ex- claimed I. Who ever heard of a dinner on a fast-day ?
124 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
It is not possible they have a dinner at Mr. A.'s on fast- days ! Dinner ! replied the person. I never desire to eat a better. This made me curious to enquire what constituted the fast-day dinner at Mr. A.'s table. Well, said she, to begin, a rock fish dressed with eggs and butter, (no mean affair this where there is an appe- tite,) eggs prepared in two ways, and oysters. They dispense with vegetables I presume, said I. O no, she rejoined ; and to this I readily assented, for I had for- gotten myself in supposing that they dispensed with vegetables. Timothy does net prophecy of the anti- christ that he shall command to abstain from vegeta- bles, but only from " meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving." Well, surely, said I, they have no desert on their fast-days ? How you talk, said she ; they have the very best, and every variety. And do they call that a. fast-day dinner? and do they suppose that they fast when they eat it? Certain- ly, said she. Well, I suppose it is because they eat very sparingly of what is set before them. You are mistaken, replied my informant, quantity has nothing to do in the matter. It is not the quantity eaten that constitutes a fast, but the kind. There the conversa- tion ended, but my thoughts proceeded on. And this, thought I, is fasting. So the church teaches, and mil- lions on their way to the judgment believe it. What dupes ! how deceived to suppose that this is fasting. If not deceived themselves, what insulters of God, to endeavor to palm it off on him as fasting ! A change of food is fasting! To eat differently on one day from what we do on other days, is to keep a fast I Admirable doctrine !
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 125
34. The Mass.
There is a great deal of the phraseology of the Ro- mish church which is not a little peculiar, not to sav outlandish. The Christian reader who is not very- familiar with other authors than those who by inspi- ration wrote the Bible, does not know what to make of these terms when he comes across them in books professing to treat of Christianity. " The mass, the mass," he repeats to himself, " what is that ?•' He has read his Bible through and through, but he has found nothing about the mass there. He thinks it ought to be there, if it is any part of Christianity. Why should apostolical Christians have been silent on a subject on which those who claim to be their direct descend- ants are so loquacious ? He does not even meet in his Bible with any doctrine or rite to which the word mass seems at all appropriate. He would not object to the word, if he could find the thing there. It never occurs to him that by the mass Catholics can mean the transaction recorded by Matthew in his 26th chap- ter, and by three other sacred writers, and which we commonly speak of as the institution of the Lord's Supper. But that is what they mean by it. Then, they tell us, the first mass was said. In the Douay Catechism we find these questions and answers : Q. Who said the first mass ? A. Jesus Christ. Q. When did he say it ? A. At his last supper. Here it is, question and answer for it, if not chapter and verse. The Biblical reader will please to bear in mind, whenever hereafter he reads the narrative of 11*
126 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
the transaction, that the writer is giving an account of the first mass that was ever said I
But they may call it mass, if they please, and they may speak of Christ's instituting the ordinance as his saying mass. Words are nothing, though it is cer- tainly best that they should be well chosen and fitly applied. If they mean by their mass what we mean by the Lord's Supper, that is the main point. But the truth is, they mean by it as different a thing as you can well imagine. Just hear what " the Christian's Guide" says on the subject: "I profess likewise, that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." Christ offered it first when he said mass, and every priest now offers it when he says mass. Well, read- er, you and I must not judge rashly. We will look again at the account given of the matter in the Bible, and we will see if we can find in it any thing of the nature of a sacrifice. He "took bread and blessed, and brake and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat." And then he took the cup and gave it. Where is any sacrifice here, and especially where is any pro- pitiatory sacrifice ? Does the account we have of sacrifices in the Old Testament, and in the epistle to the Hebrews, accord with what was done on this oc- casion ? The Catholics say that when Christ perform- ed these actions with the bread and wine, he offered himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. How does what he did, bear even the least resemblance to the offering of a propitiatory sacrifice ? There was no bloodshed — no life taken, as was the case in all pro- pitiatory sacrifices under the law, and in the sacrifice which Christ made of himself on the cross, and which
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 127
has always, by Pagans, as well as the disciples of the true religion, been considered as essential to a pro- pitiatory sacrifice. I confess there was something offered. Bread and wine were offered. These might constitute a eucharistic sacrifice, but never a propi- tiatory one. If things of this kind can constitute a propitiatory sacrifice, then I do not see why Cain, who oifered " of the fruit of the ground," was not accepted equally with Abel who brought to the Lord " of the firstlings of his flock." But whatever was offered, it was not offered to God. A sacrifice, to be a sacrifice, must be offered to God, as even the quotation from the Christian's guide recognizes. But Avhat was of- fered in this case was offered to the disciples. " Take, eat," he said to them. It is true the bread and wine were offered them as the memorial of a sacrifice in which the body of Christ was to be broken and his blood shed ; but the memorial of a sacrifice is not a sacrifice. The emblematical representation of a thing is not the thing itself. Plainly there was no sacrifice in this transaction.
But again : if Christ in the eucharist offered him- self a sacrifice to God, as they affirm ; and afterwards, as all admit, offered himself on the cross, then he twice offered himself; and if so, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was under a great mistake, for he says, " Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," " we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. 9 : 28, and 10 : 10. Here is a contradiction. Which shall we believe? The apostle of the Gentiles or the Catholic church 3 If Christ really offered himself in the eucharist — on the table, as Catholics contend — there was no need
128 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
of his offering himself on the cross. His twice offer- ing himself was quite unnecessary. If " in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitia- tory sacrifice," what need of another on Calvary? One " true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice " is all that is wanted.
But if the Catholic doctrine be true, Christ has been offered not twice only, but innumerable times. In every mass that ever has been said, he has been of- fered. He is offered to-day as really as he was on the day of his crucifixion. He is offered on earth while he is interceding in heaven. Both parts of the priest's office, the propitiation and the intercession, are going on at the same time — a thing unheard of in the history of the priesthood ! Did the Jewish high priest, the type of Jesus, our great high priest, exe- cute both parts of his office at the same moment? Moreover, according to this doctrine, there was no propriety in Christ's saying on the cross, " It is finish- ed," for it is not finished yet, nor will it be, till the last mass is said. It depends on the will of the priest when it shall be finished. This to me is shocking doctrine. What ! Can a priest cause Christ to be of- fered just when he pleases ? My mind recoils from the conviction. There is what by a figure is called the " crucifying of the Son of God afresh," but this appears like doing it literally.
I know the Catholics make a distinction here. They say, and let them be heard, that Christ in the eucha- rist is offered in an unbloody manner, while the sa- crifice of the cross was bloody. And this distinction they lay great stress on. But I wonder they see not the consequence of this explanation — that if the sacri-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 129
fice is unbloody, it cannct be propitiatory, which, ne- vertheless, they say it is. Unbloody, yet propitiatory! Who ever heard of an unbloody propitiatory sacrifice? What Jew ? What Pagan ? A propitiatory sacrifice, be it remembered, is a sacrifice for atonement — a sa- crifice with a view to the remission of sins. This all acknowledge. But " without shedding of blood is no remission," Heb. 9 : 22 — consequently no propitiatory sacrifice. Now here is no shedding of blood, they say; yet remission is effected by it ! It is a 'propitia- tory sacrifice, notwithstanding. Who does not see the contradiction? They must take back their admis- sion that it is unbloody, or else acknowledge that it is not propitiatory. They cannot hold to both without self-contradiction.
The reader sees that this doctrine of the Catholic church subverts that great principle in the divine go- vernment, that " without shedding of blood is no re- mission " — a principle not merely inscribed on the page of the Bible, but written with the finger of God on the mind of man. The conscience of the veriest pagan reads it there ? If a sacrifice may be propitia- tory, though unbloody, never a victim that bled under the Jewish economy, need have been slain ; and Christ need not have died! The doctrine of the mass therefore, that a sacrifice may be propitiatory, though bloodless, undermines the Gospel.
One inference more from their doctrine I must not forget. It is this. If in the eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice is offered, then a propitiatory sacrifice may be effected by mere action. No passion whatever is ne- cessary to it — expiation is made without any suffer- ing— made by a mere doing ! Is this truth ? Can an-
130 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
tiquity be pleaded for this doctrine 1 Can that be the oldest religion which cherishes and teaches it?
There is no sacrifice in what is improperly called the mass — least of all a propitiatory sacrifice. The doctrine is error — error in a capital particular — on a fundamental point — gross and most pernicious error. What then shall we think of a church which not only inculcates it, but gives it the greatest prominence, and makes the service connected with it the main thing in its religion? I have my thoughts. The reader must have his.
I reserve some things on the mass for a future com- munication.
35. More about tlic Mass.
But before I proceed to the Mass, I wish to add a word about relics. In my communication on that subject, I referred to Bellarmine as quoting from the Old Testament in support of the doctrine of relics. Since then, I have recollected a fact which makes me wonder that a Catholic should ever appeal to the Old Testament for authority in favor of relics. The reader probably knows that no relics are more common among the Catholics, and none more highly valued than the bones of deceased saints and martyrs. Now, if Num- bers, 19: 16, be consulted, it will be found that under the Jewish dispensation, if a person so much as touch- ed the bone of a man, he was ceremonially unclean for seven days, and had to submit to a tedious pro-
i
THOUGHTS Ota POPERY. 131
cess of purification before he could be restored to the privileges of God's worship, from which he had been temporarily excluded in consequence of that contact. This being the case, it is pretty certain that the bones of the dead were not handled and cherished as relics by the pious Jews, as they are by our Catholics. There was nothing which the Israelite more carefully avoid- ed than some of those very things which are now carried about and shown as relics. Therefore, I say, it is not best to go so far back as the Old Testament for testimony in favor of relics.
Now let us to the mass again. It is known, I sup- pose, that they quote Scripture in favor of the mass. That circumstance however proves nothing. Scrip- ture is not always aptly quoted. It should be remem- bered by those who are prone to think it in favor of a doctrine, that its abettors appeal to the Bible in its support, that Scripture was once quoted by a celebra- ted character to prove the propriety of the Son of God casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. It is always advisable to refer to the quota- tion, and see for ourselves if it makes in favor of the doctrine. The principal passage which the Catholics adduce in support of their mass, is that concerning Melchizedek, in the 14th chapter of Genesis. Abra- ham and his armed servants were on their return from " the slaughter of the kings," when they were met by this distinguished personage. The record of the oc- currence is as follows : " And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine ; and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him.... And he gave him tithes of all." Here is the text, reader. Now the doctrine deduced from it is this that
132 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
" in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead."
a. e. d.
Do not smile at the incongruity of the text and the doctrine — the distance of the conclusion from the premises. Sacred things are to be handled seriously. I know the reader only smiles at the logic of the thing. But he should remember that they do the best thing they can, when they quote this passage in favor of their mass. If there were other Scripture more appropriate and to the point than this, they would quote it. I have no doubt the intelligent Catholic is ashamed of this reference to the Bible in behalf of the mass. He sees that it has no bearing on the case, It is not to compare in point of appropriateness with the tempters quotation referred to above.
Just observe first, that it was as king, not as priest, that Melchizedek brought forth the bread and wine. " Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine." It was an act of royal bounty — an exer- cise of kingly hospitality. True, it is said immedi- ately after, that he was a priest as well as a king ; but that is said in reference to what follows, not what precedes. " And he was priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him." In his capacity of king he brought forth bread and wine. In the exercise of his priestly office he blessed Abraham. To bless, we know, Avas one part of the priest's office. Numbers, 6 : 23. His bringing forth bread and wine had nothing to do with his being a priest. What proves this view of the passage correct is, the manner in which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to it. In his seventh chapter he introduces Melchizedek as a priest,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 133
and in that character as the model of Christ's priest- hood ; and he speaks of his blessing Abraham, but says not a word about his bringing forth bread and wine. Why is not this circumstance — this most ma- terial circumstance, according to the Catholic notion, alluded to, if in it he acted as a priest and as the sa- cerdotal type of Christ? Why does the apostle, when speaking of him as a priest, mention only his benedic- tion of Abraham ? Now if, as I think it is manifest, he brought forth bread and wine not in the exercise of his office as priest, it overturns the Catholic argument at once.
But secondly, consider what in all human proba- bility was the object of the bread and wine. Would, any one, in reading the passage, suppose it could have been for any other purpose than refreshment ? What an idea ! to come out to a people returning famished and weary from the toils of conflict, with a sacrifice — a propitiatory sacrifice too — the mass — with bread and wine, not to be eaten and drank, but to be offered to God ! What more unnatural than such a supposi- tion ! On. the other hand what more natural, and proper than to bring forth, for those fatigued soldiers, "wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart," to refresh them ? It was just what, under the circumstances, they needed.
In further proof of the correctness of this view of the passage, we find that Abraham recognized the priesthood of Melchizedek, not by receiving bread and wine at his hands, but by giving him tithes, "And he gave him tithes of all."
We see then there is no proof of any sacrifice in this transaction. There was nothing offered to God, 12
134 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
What was offered, was to Abraham and his company. But if the offering was to God, it could but constitute an eucharistic sacrifice. Bread and wine might be offered as thank-offerings. But a bloodless propitia- tory sacrifice was unknown under the Old Testament. Whatever view we take of the passage, it cannot make for the mass. That which was offered was only bread and wine. The Catholics do not pretend that they were changed into the body and blood of Christ. Melchizedek lived nearly 2000 years before Christ had a body. How could transubstantiation take place so long before the incarnation ? But if sim- ple bread and wine were offered, then the act of Mel- chizedek, if any thing more than an example of hospitality, was rather the model of the Protestants' Lord's Supper, than the Roman Catholic's mass. — And here it may be observed, that Melchizedek does not seem to have denied the cup to the laity, as later priests have done. O no, it was the Council of Con- stance, in the 15th century, that established that custom. But Catholics have another argument from Scrip- ture in favor of their mass. It is derived from the perpetuity of Christ's priesthood. If, say they, Christ is a priest forever, and " every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices," there must be a perpetual sacrifice, else he would be a priest without exercising priestly functions. But do they not see that this is to suppose Christ a priest after the order of Aaron, and not after that of Melchizedek ? It is true the Aaronic priests offered sacrifice during the whole term of their priesthood. They stood " daily ministering, and offer- ing oftentimes the same sacrifices." But what is said of Christ? He "needeth not daily, as those high
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 135
priests, to offer up sacrifice for this he did once,
when he offered up himself." And again: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." Yet the Catholics say he needeth daily to offer up sacrifice, and that he, as well as the Aaronic priests, offers of- tentimes the same sacrifices ! They make Christ to resemble the Jewish priests in those very particulars in which the apostle says he stands in contrast to them!
As to Christ's being a priest forever, if that means any thing more than is expressed in Heb. 7 : 24, where he is said to have " an unchangeable priest- hood," that is, a priesthood that passes not from one to another, as did the Aaronic, it is explained in the succeeding verse, where it is said that "he ever liveth to make intercession." He is a priest forever, because he ever liveth to make intercession. It is not at all necessary that he should ever live to offer sacrifice, in order to his being a priest forever. Intercession is as much a part of the priest's office as sacrifice. And here I would ask whether the Jewish high-priest was not as much a priest when he went into the most holy place to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice, and to burn incense, as when, before he entered, he was engaged in offering the sacrifice ? Undoubtedly he was. He offered no sacrifice while he was in the holy place. He went in for another purpose altogether. So Christ, the great antitype, has entered "not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." And there he remains. He has never come out. He had no need to come out to
136 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
offer another sacrifice, as the Jewish high-priest had. '*By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." Were another sacrifice necessary, he would return in person to earth to offer it ; nor would it be " under the form of bread and wine," for the apostle argues, in Heb. 9 : 25, 26, that he must suffer as often as he offers himself— that he cannot be offered without suffering. Yet the Douay Catechism says he " continues daily to offer himself." He is sacri- ficing, according to them, while he is interceding— sacrificing in the place appropriated to intercession, and offering himself without suffering ! The Bible tells us, " Christ was once offered," but that " he ever liveth to make intercession." It makes the perpetuity of his priesthood to consist in his intercession. The Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, teaches us that he is continually offered, and therefore a priest for- ever. And yet they appeal to the Bible in proof of their doctrine !
36. The Host.
Here is another of the peculiar terms of the Cath- olic religion. Protestants commonly use the word to signify an army, or a great multitude. But Catholics mean by it one thing. It is the name they give to the consecrated wafer in the Eucharist. Wafer! What has a wafer to do with the Eucharist? We read that ou* Saviour took bread and blessed, and break, and gave it to his disciples; but we read nothing about
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 137
any wafer. If by wafer the same thing is meant, which we mean by bread, yet why this change of names? Why not call it what Christ called it? Why seek to improve upon things as they were left by him?
When the wafer, the thin piece of bread, is conse- crated; that is, when a blessing has been invoked, and thanks have been given, for that is all that Christ did, (the same precisely which he did when he fed the multitudes; in which case not even Catholics contend that there was any transubstantiation of the bread into another substance; and if no such effect was pro- duced on that bread by the blessing and thanksgiv- ing, how should the same produce such an effect on the bread of the sacrament?) then it is no longer called a wafer. It is true, St. Paul calls it the same afterwards that he called it before. But not so the Catholics. Now they call it the host, a word derived from the Latin hostia, signifying victim, or sacrifice.
But why change its name ? And above all, why give it so different a name? One minute to call a thing a wafer, and the next a victim, a sacrifice ! and when nothing but a prayer has intervened. Has it become so different a thing that it deserves so different a name ? I know the Catholics say a great change has taken place in its nature, and therefore it ought to have a new name. Well, I am open to conviction. When a great change has taken place in any thing, such a change that the original substance of the thing has totally departed, which is the greatest change any thing can undergo, it commonly appears to the senses different from what it did before. But the wafer and the host look exactly alike, and they smell alike, and taste and feel precisely alike. The form 12 *
139
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
is the same it was before ; and by every test by which the substance can be examined, it is found to be the same. Yet they say the two things are as unlike as bread, and the body, soul and divinity of Christ ! And this on pain of perdition must be believed, though the senses all exclaim against it ; and reason, that calm faculty, almost getting into a passion with the absur- dity of the doctrine, cries out against it; and though all experience be against it. And in favor of it, there is what? Why, Christ said "This is my body," speaking as Paul did when he said " and that rock was Christ;" and as he himself did, when he said "I am the door." Did any one ever contend that Christ was literally a door or a rock ? Oh no. Why then is it contended that the bread was literally his body ? Is it so said ? And are not the other things also so said? It is strange the Catholics should contend for a literal interpretation in the first case, while they will not allow it in the other cases.
But if they contend for a strictly literal interpreta- tion of " this is my body," why do they not abide by such an interpretation ? Why do they say, as in the Christian's Guide, page 14. that "in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, tog-ether with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ ?" If Christ says it is his body, he does not say it is his soul and divinity. Where do they get that from ? They say it is his body, because he says it is. But why do they say it is his soul and Divinity also, when he does not say so? You see they do not interpret the pas- sage literally, after all.
But what do the Catholics do with this host? Prin- cipally two things,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 139
1. They adore it. The Bible says "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." But the Catholics worship the host. Yes, but is not Christ to be worshiped, and do they not hold that the host is Christ ? Suppose they do hold so. Does it follow that every thing is as they hold it to be 7 And if in this Ccise the fact be different from what they hold it to be, is not their worship idolatry whatever they may verily think ? Paul verily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. But did his verily thinking it was his duty, make it so, or exculpate him ? No, he ought to have been better informed. And Catholics ought to be better informed than to suppose that the host is Christ — a wafer, God — a bit of bread, notBnly the body, but the very soul and divinity of Christ ! I say they ought to know better. And if they do not, they must take the consequences of such ignorance.
2. The other thing which they do with the host is to eat it. This is all very well on our theory. It is bread ; and what is bread for but to be eaten. Christ tells us to put it to this use. He says " Take, eat." But on their supposition that it is bread no longer, it is no longer proper to be eaten. Its nature being so changed, there ought to be a corresponding change in its use. If it is to be adored, it is not to be devoured. Common sense teaches this. These two uses of it, adoring it and eating it, are incongruous to each other. One of them at least ought to be dispensed with. If they continue to eat it, they ought to give up adoring it. But if they must have it as an object of worship, they should cease to use it as an article of food. Any body can tell you that you ought not to eat what you
140
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
worship. Cicero thought such a thing could not be. In his work on Theology, he asks " Was any man ever so mad as to take that which he feeds upon for a god ?" But Cicero did not live late enough, else he could not have asked that question. Papal Rome has far outdone Pagan Rome.
If I believed in transubstantiation, I would never receive the Eucharist. I know that I must spiritu- ally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, that I may have life in me, that is, I must by meditation and faith, contemplate and appropriate his sacrifice; but 1 could never literally eat what I believed to be my divine Saviour. What, take him actually between my teeth ! chew and swallow what I had 'just before worshiped, and adored ! Let not the language be ob- jected to. It is unavoidable. Rather let horror be felt at the thing. I would not speak lightly of sacred things, nor untenderly of the opinions of others ; but the idea of adoring and eating the same object is shocking to me. Some readers will perhaps say that I must misrepresent the Catholics— that it is impos- sible they should believe so. Let such convict me of misrepresentation, if they can, and I will lake the first opportunity of retracting.
37. Priests.
Where are we ? Under what dispensation are we living? One would suppose, from hearing so much said among a certain class of people about priests,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 141
and their offering sacrifice, that the Old Testament dispensation — the dispensation of types and shadows — was still in force : and that the Messiah, the sub- stance and antitype, was yet to come. Priests were a sacred order of men under the Jewish dispensation, and sacrifice constituted an important part of divine service. But, under the Christian dispensation, there is no order of priests, neither any literal sacrifices offered. We have, indeed, under this dispensation, a great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God, who, hav- ing once offered himself to bear the sins of many, has passed into the heavens for us, where he ever lives to make intercession; and he makes all his disciples, in a sense, both " kings and priests unto God " — John 1:6; even as also Peter, who is prime authority with us all, testifies. When addressing the Christians to whom he wrote, he says: "Ye are a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." 1 Pet. 2 : 5. This priesthood, which Peter recognizes, is very different from the Roman Catholic priesthood. All Chris- tians share equally in the New Testament priest- hood, and these priests are set apart to offer up spiritual sacrifices, or as it is said, v. 9, that they " should show forth the praises" of God. This is not the object of the Roman priesthood, neither are its functions performed by all the faithful.
The truth is, the Roman Catholic priesthood, that large and influential body of ecclesiastics, has no more warrant and authority for its existence from Christ, than it has from Mohammed. There is no more in the Bible in favor of such an order, than there is in the Koran, and perhaps not as much. Christ instituted no such office — authorized no such
142 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
characters in his church. " He gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ;" but he gave none priests. And these he gave or appointed "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." not for saying mass, offering sacrifice, burning incense, hearing confessions, and the like of those things. Christ ap- pointed no officer to perform such functions as these. I have quoted from Eph. 4: 11, 12. In 1 Cor. 12 : 28, we have another enumeration of the officers which God has set in the church, but there is not a word about priests. They are a class of persons not at all needed under the Christian dispensation. The great High Priest of our profession answers every purpose. He has offered the sacrifice which is efficacious to put away sin — has shed a blood which cleanseth from all sin ; and he ever livetL to be our Advocate with the Father. Neither for propitiation, nor for inter- cession, need we any other priest. Other priests are quite out of place since he has come.
If Christ instituted an order of priests, why do we not read any thing about them in that choice piece of ecclesiastical history, the Acts of the Apostles ? It is very strange. We read about Jewish priests in the Acts, and mention is made of the priests of Jupiter, but not a word do we hear of any Christian priests. Who were they? What were their names? Ste- phen was a deacon; Philip was an evangelist; Paul was an apostle; Peter was an elder, and there were many who were addressed as bishops. But who was a priest? If Paul was, why does he not sometimes call himself so in the introduction of his Epistles 1
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 143
Was he ashamed of the office ? Peter says he was an elder or presbyter, but gives no hint of his having been a priest. He seems to have had no idea of his being a priest in any other sense than as being one of that "holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," which all true believers compose.
If the priesthood be a Christian order of men, why does Paul, in writing to Timothy and Titus, take no notice of it 1 He gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons, but says nothing about those of priests. Were they to have no qualifications? Must a bishop be " blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, apt to teach," &c. and might a priest be any thing he pleased in these respects? Might any body be a priest ? If not, the silence of the apostle is de- cisive. Any one may see now why the Catholic priests do not like the Bible. Who likes to be treat- ed by book or man with silent contempt? The priests will never forgive the evangelists and apos- tles for having passed them by in the way they have done. Never. And they will never let their people have the genuine Bible. If they do, they will lose the people.
I suppose it is scarcely necessary to say, that if Catholics meant no more by a priest, than some of our Protestant brethren mean by the word, viz. a presby- ter, of which priest, as used by them, is but an abbre- viation, there could have been no occasion for this article. But they mean by a priest, a real sacerdotal character, as much as the priest of the Old Testa- ment was — one who literally offers sacrifice. They pretend that their priests offer sacrifice now — that whenever they perform mass, a true, proper, and
144 TH0UGHT3 ON POPERY.
propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, is offered by them. And if you ask them what they offer, they tell you they offer Christ — that, under their hands, he becomes again, and as often as they choose to make him so, a propitiatory sacrifice — that he is as really offered by them in their missal ser- vice, as he was by himself on Calvary, only now he is offered in an unbloody manner ! This is what their priests do. A priest must have somewhat to offer. He is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. Now, the Catholic priest, finding nothing else to offer, pre- tends to re-offer Christ. For all this — this priest- hood, and this sacrifice — every one knows there is no more authority in the Bible than there is for the Hindoo Suttee — the burning of widows.
38. The Celibacy of the Clergy.
This is the Roman Catholic doctrine ; but is it Bi- ble doctrine ? I believe, however, that the Catholics say it is no part of doctrine, but of discipline. This is a sorry evasion. It amounts to a confession that some of their ecclesiastical practices have no warrant in Christian doctrine. It is saying that it is a part of their discipline that their clergy do not marry, but no part of their doctrine that they should not.
But let us see how this doctrine or discipline, or by whatever name it may be called, tallies with the Scriptures; and as we proceed, we shall see why the
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 145
Catholics are unwilling that the people should read the Bible. We shall see what a world of trouble it would occasion the priests, were they to be in the ha- bit of reading it. Suppose, for example, an intelli- gent Catholic to take up Paul's first epistle to Timo- thy for perusal. Well, he reads along until he comes to the third chapter, where he finds Paul telling Tim- othy what a bishop must be. He must be this and that, and, among other things, " the husband of one wife." The reader is shocked. " Why, what does this mean ? Our priests tell us that a bishop must not marry at all. Our church prohibits all her clergy from marrying. Which is right, our priests and church, or St. Paul ?" He concludes to read on. Coming to verse 4th, he meets with this qualification of the bi- shop : " one thatruleth well his own house," i. e. family. But how can he, if not permitted to have a house of his own ? He proceeds : " having his children in subjection.'*' His children — his children ! ! ! What, a bishop having children of his own, and having them collected in a family too ! And then there follows a most provoking parenthesis, " for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God ?" His ruling his own house well is to be a criterion of his ability to take care of the church of God, and yet they say that he must not marry !
But the apostle passes on to speak of the deacons^ and to say what they must be ; and in verse 11th, he says what sort of wives they should have — " even so must their wives be grave," &c. So far from en- couraging a doubt whether they should marry or not, Paul gives them directions for choosing a wife. 13
146 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
Now, need any one wonder that the priests do not want to have the Bible read by the people ; a Bible Avhich contains such statements as these, and which moreover declares that marriage is honorable in all, without exception of clergy? I do not wonder at it. Who would put into the hands of his children and servants, and recommend to their perusal and belief, a book containing statements so much at variance with his oral communications to them 1
But there is a passage a little farther on, at the be- ginning of chapter 4, which, I suppose, constitutes with the priests a still stronger objection to the popu- lar reading of this part of the Bible particularly. " The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith— forbidding to marry." Now, they are afraid that if the people were to read this, they might say, " Why, St. Paul must mean our church, it forbids to marry." And as it might give the priests some trouble to show that he did not mean their church, the better way is not to let the people know that there is any such passage in the Bible.
89. A Holier State than Matrimony!
In one of his last letters to Mr. Breckenridge, Mr. Hughes, of Philadelphia, says that the Catholic church does not forbid marriage, but " she holds, however, that there is a holier state" When I had read the letter
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 147
thus far, I stopped, and said to myself, " How is this ? a holier state ! I must look into this." So I thought a moment ; and I came to the conclusion that I could not hold with the Catholic church in this thing, for the following reasons among others.
1. Because, according to this doctrine there is a holier state than that to which Enoch attained, and from which he was translated ! He, we know, was a married man, and begat sons and daughters ; and it would seem that he married earlier than any other Patriarch ! And yet all the while after his marriage, for three hundred years, he walked with God; and " he had this testimony, that he pleased God ;" and God, in honor of his eminent piety, translated him " that he should not see death !" Now do you sup- pose I am going to believe that the state of a Roman priest is holier than that of Enoch ; and that he would have been a better man if he had let marriage alone ? Never. I would ask, Do the priests do more than walk with God ? Have they a higher testimony than that they please him ? Are they translated ? What is the reason we never hear of their holier state being thus honored?
2. If there be a holier state than matrimony, why did not the law of the Jewish priesthood enjoin celi- bacy, as the letter tells us the law of the Catholic priesthood does ? Above all, why was not the high priest, whose functions were of the most sacred cha- racter, so much as permitted to occupy that holier state ? He was not only authorized, but, it is believed, was obliged to marry.
3. The letter says, speaking of the Catholic church, "the law of her priesthood enjoins celibacy, &c. She
148 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
does not choose them (those who marry) for her cler- gy." Truly, she is very fastidious in the choice of her clergy. Why need she be so much more parti- cular than Paul required Timothy and Titus to be in the choice of their clergy ? Their bishops and dea- cons might have a wife ; but if any " wish to marry," she does not choose them for her clergy !
4. I thought when I read about the holier state, "what if all the world should aspire to the holier state?" Certainly, if it is holier, they ought to aspire to it. Priests are not the only persons who are com- manded to be 'perfect.
Let the Catholic priesthood no longer make such an ado about their celibacy, as a holier state. Protes- tants allow their clergy to do as they please in this matter. If they remain unmarried, it is all very well. At the same time they are not extremely solicitous that their ministers should aspire to any holier state than that from which Enoch was translated.
40. Auricular Confession.
I have been thinking with myself, where is the au- thority for this doctrine and practice of the Catholics — whence came the idea of confessing sin to a priest 1 Every one admits that sin ought to be confessed — but why to a priest? Common sense would seem to dic- tate that confession should be made immediately to the being offended y especially if he be easily accessi-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 149
ble. If a child offends his father, does he confess the offence to some third person, when his father is near at hand too ; and above all, does he select for that third person, an equally offending brother? Was ever such a thing heard of as this ? Yet this is the Catholic doctrine. It sends us to a brother as deep in the of- fence as we, to confess to him, that we have sinned against our father, when that father is near by, and when, moreover, he says " Come to me !" I think both the brothers, the penitent and the priest, had much better go directly to the father. I find that this is what they used to do in old times. I have been looking into the Bible to discover how it was then, and I perceive that they all went to God to make their confessions. They did not stop at the priest. There was David, and Daniel, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, and I know not how many more. They all went with their sin directly to God. Read that precious Psalm, the 51st. There is David before God. He confesses to the one he had offended. " Against thee," he says. And may we not use that Psalm? May we not go and say "against thee?" Must we turn aside to the oriest ? The publican did not. He went straight on to God. And the prodigal did not stop short of his father. Why should we? Why should Catholics? I think the sinner should go on to God — and I do not like that Catholic doctrine, because it stops him as he is going to God. The sinner is on his way to confess his sin to his maker, and to implore of him pardoning mercy, and it says to him " you need not go so far — the priest will hear you confess — he can forgive you." I like better the Protestant doctrine, which speed? and <-heersthe penitent on his way to God. J 3+
150 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
Nor can I see why we want more than one media- tor between us and God. Why is not Christ enough ? How admirably qualified he is for his work? With one nature that reaches up to God, and another that reaches down to man, how excellently fitted is he to mediate for us ! Do we want another between us and Christ ? O no. Let the priest please not put him- self in the way. Jesus says, " Come unto me ;" we want no human priest between us and our " great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens for us."
I may be very dull, but really I cannot see for my part what is the use of the priest ; for surely he can- not forgive a sinner, unless he repents ; and if he does repent, God forgives him, and then who cares whether the priest forgives him or not. If confession to the priest is intended to supersede confession to God, it is certainly a great mischief. If not so intended, it is useless, for our being forgiven depends on the nature of our confession to God, as penitent or otherwise.
But they allege in support of their doctrine, a verse of Scripture, " confess your faults one to another." I suppose the reason they allege this is, that it is the best they can find for their purpose. They must be hard pushed for authority, when they resort to that passage. " Confess your faults one to another." This implies something mutual. If I confess to the priest, he must confess to me, for it says one to another This puts priests and all on a level. There is no- thing auricular in this. Certainly we ought to con- fess our faults one to another, and to " pray one for another," as the same apostle exhorts. But this is by do means the Catholic doctrine of confession. That is quite a different thing.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 151
On the whole, it is my opinion that the world can dispense with this doctrine, and with the practice founded on it as well as with any thing which it has
41. A Mistake Corrected.
In an article entitled " Auricular Confession," the writer stated, that in looking into the Bible he disco- vered that all the penitents mentioned therein went directly to God to make their confessions of sin, and not to the priests ; and he spoke of David, Daniel, Ez- ra, and Nehemiah, as examples in point. He finds, how- ever, that he was mistaken in saying that they all confessed to God instead of the priests. There is one exception, and he is willing that the Catholics should have the advantage of it. It is the case of Judas Is- cariot, recorded in Matthew, 27 : 3, 4. He did not go to God with his confession. He went to the chief priests, and it was to them he said, " I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." Here, we must confess, is an example of confession to a priest. But it is the only one, I believe, in the Bible. Ju- das also brought money (thirty pieces of silver) to the priests; so r\at the Catholics have authority (such as it is) lor that part of their practice. I am determined I will do the Catholics justice. They shall have the advantage of every particle of (Scrip- ture which really makes in their favor. It is well known that they need it.
352 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
But, poor man ! He got nothing by going to the pnests. It was their cruel and contemptuous treat- ment of him, as much as any thing else, that deter- mined him to go and hang himself. How differently even Judas would have been treated, if he had gone with a broken heart to our great High Priest, Jesus ! Ah, he had better gone to him whom he betrayed, than to them to whom he betrayed him. I think I shall always go to Him, notwithstanding the example of Judas. ""
43. Purgatory.
There are no worse reasoners than the Catholics , and I suppose the cause of this is that they are so lit- tle accustomed to reason. Men rarely do well what they are not used to do. The mind needs to be dis- ciplined to thinking and reasoning, else it performs these operations but very indifferently. Hence, you hear so many persons say therefore, when nothing follows, or, at any rate, that does not follow which they suppose. Of this, the Catholics, not being in the habit of thinking and reasoning, their very reli- gion prohibiting these operations, afford us some won- derful specimens. Between their premises and con- clusion there is often so great a gulf, so deep and wide both, that I have wondered how they manage to get over it. Let us hear them on the subject of pur- gatory. They feel as if they would like to have a lit- tle Scripture for this dogma of theirs — a text or two ;
THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 153
not for the satisfaction of the faithful, (for to them it is sufficient that the church believes the doctrine,) but to meet the heretics. But where shall they find in the Bible any thing favorable to purgatory. The Bible speaks plainly enough of two places beyond the grave, but it says nothing about a third place. It tells us of a heaven and a hell, but of an intermediate purgatory never a word. It is true that some hundreds of years afterwards certain writers speak of it as a Christian doctrine, but I want to know why the older, the in- spired writers, say nothing about it. We read fre- quently in the Bible of being purged from sins, but most unfortunately for the Catholic doctrine, the purging is done in this life, not after death ; and it is done, not by fire, as that doctrine asserts, but by blood. So that those passages in which purging oc- curs, do not help the Catholic cause. Then they look in the Bible for the word fire ; and they read of the fire that is not quenched, and of everlasting fire, pre- pared for the devil and his angels. But this will not answer their purpose. This fire is everlasting, and for devils as well as wicked men. They never ima- gined a purgatory for devils. The fire of their pur- gatory is to be quenched.
But there is a passage having fire in it, which they, adduce as to the point. It is 1 Cor. 3 : 15 : "yet so as by fire." These are the premises in the grand argu- ment ; and the conclusion is purgatory, a place of tem- porary punishment by fire after this life. Q,. E. D. Those letters were never more out of place. If there existed independent and irrefragible proof from ano- ther quarter of the doctrine of purgatory, in that case it might be innocently imagined that the apostle had
154 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
in his mind some remote allusion to it in this chap- ter ; but that this proverbial phrase, " saved, yet so as by fire," signifying, as used by writers both sacred and profane, a narrow escape out of a great danger, should be relied on as the principal support of the doctrine, is truly marvelous ! I always thought that the fire of purgatory was to purify metis souls ; but the fire here spoken of is to try every maris work. Besides, it is not said that the person shall be saved by fire, but so as by fire ; that is, with the like difficulty with which a man in a burning house is saved from its conflagration. A good man, who, on the precious foundation of Jesus Christ, builds worthless materials, such as wood, hay, stubble, shall suffer the loss of his work, yet he himself shall be saved, though with great difficulty, so as by fire. So much for the main pillar of purgatory.
But they point us to Matthew, 5. 25, 26, " agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Now I would look the intelligent Catholic, who refers to this in proof of purgatory, in the face, and ask him if he is in earnest; if he can think that the doctrine of purga- tory derives any support from that passage. What is it but a most excellent piece of advice in reference to the settlement of differences among men ? But they say, " does not Christ, in Matthew, 12 : 32, speak of a sin which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come ; and does not this imply
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 155
that some sins may be forgiven in the world to come?'*1 It implies no such thing. That form of expression is employed but to strengthen the denial. Besides, how- can they be said to be forgiven, if they are purged away by fire ?
Ah, but does not St. Peter say that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison ? Where were they but in purgatory '? But were all the giant sinners be- fore the flood in purgatory ? If so, there may be some hope for us heretics. But why should Christ go to purgatory to preach to the spirits there ? It is not by -preaching, according to the Catholics, that souls are liberated from purgatory, but by prayers and masses, well paid for. And why should Christ select out the antediluvian sinners, and preach only to them ? In- deed, I think the friends of purgatory had better give up that text ; and not attempt to support their dogma by Scripture, but be content with tradition, consoling themselves with the reflection that though nothing is written about it, yet it has been handed down.
As for us Protestants, we do not believe in burning out sin — in salvation by fire. We protest against it. We believe in the washing away of sin, and that by the blood of Jesus alone : " The blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanseth us from all sin." What is there left for fire to do ? The spirits of the just made per- fect ascribe no part of their salvation to fire. No. Their ascription is " unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood." How could souls just come up out of purgatory, where they have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, un- dergoing the purification of fire, unite in this song 1
\
156 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY.
43. More about Purgatory.
What low and unworthy thoughts the Catholics must have of the work of Christ and of the efficacy of his blood, that they should believe that after he has done all he can for a soul, and his blood has exhausted its virtue on it, it has still to be subjected to the action of an intense name, for no one knows how long, in order that the expiation of its sins may be complete, and its salvation perfected! What a doctrine! Why, according to this, Christ was premature in saying on the cross, " It is finished." It was not finished. The expiation of sin was only begun on Calvary. It is completed in Purgatory ! O God, I pray thee rid and deliver the mind of man from this dreadful delu- sion, so derogatory to thy dear Son, our blessed Sa vior ; and so injurious to thee, for it represents thee, who delightest in mercy, as punishing after thou hast pardoned ; as requiring satisfaction from men, after thou hast accepted for them the satisfaction of Christ !
Now I know the reason why Catholics are never happy in the prospect of death — why the dying vota- ries of that religion never exclaim, " O death where is thy sting ? O grave where is thy victory V It is because they are expecting to go to a place of fire. How can they be triumphant in the " certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation ?" How can their religion be other than what it is, a religion of fear and foreboding.
I have a few more things to say upon this subject; one of them is this : If there was in the time of Christ and his apostles such a place as Purgatory, it must have been a place of little note and of little use — of
THOUGHTS ON POPERY, 157
little note, for they say nothing about it — and of little use, because we hear of no one going there. Lazarus did not go there, neither did Dives — nor did the thief who was saved from the cross — nor did Judas. Paul speaks of those Christians who are absent from the body, as present with the Lord. Is Christ in Purga- tory ? Is it there that believers go to be ever with him? But hark ! a voice from heaven ! now we shall know how it is : " I heard a voice from heaven," says St. John, " saying unto me, write, blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors." They that die in the Lord, rest. Then certainly they are not in Purgatory.
If Purgatory is full of souls, who are helped by the prayers of the faithful on earth, as Catholics say why, in the multitude of their exhortations, do the sacred writers never so much as give us a hint about praying for those poor suffering souls 1 What a cruel oversight it was in them !
I smile sometimes when I look at this doctrine of Purgatory. But I repress the smile. Ludicrous as the doctrine is, it is still more pernicious. What does it do, that is so bad ? Why, it turns away the atten- tion of the soul from Christ. It says the very opposite of "behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And then it tells men that they may not only live, but die wickedly, and yet entertain the hope of salvation. It proclaims the possibility of a post-mortem repentance and purification from sin. It emboldens men to go out of the world in impeni tence, assuring them that though they do, yet prayers
and masses offered for thera after death can save 14
158 THOUGHTS ON FOFERY.
them. It denies that we are to be judged and dealt with according to the deeds done in the body ; whereas, the Bible declares that according to these, we are to receive.
On the whole, for this doctrine of Purgatory there is neither Scripture, nor reason, nor common sense. This, however, may be said of it. It is a profitable doctrine. Yes, a capital speculation. There is no doctrine which pays so well. You have heard of Pe- ter's pence. Here his boasted successors get their pounds.
44. A Strange Tiling.
I read the other day in a Baltimore newspaper the following article :
" Obsequies.— This day the Prelates and Theologians of the Catholic Provincial Council, now in session in this city, to- gether with several other priests, celebrated the solemn office for the repose of the souls of the Right Rev. Doctor Fenwick, of Cincinnati, and De Neker, of New Orleans. The Right Rev. Doctor Rosati celebrated the High Mass, attended by the pro- per officers. After the Gospel, the Right Rev. Doctor Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati, ascended the pulpit and preach ed a fune- ral Oration; in which he ably portrayed, in accurate and pathetic language, the virtues and services of the deceased prelates, the former of whom fell a victim to the cholera, after years of laborious and successful exertions; the latter was taken away in the bloom of youth and in the midst of his labors by the yellow fever. After the Mass, Doctor Rosati perform- ed the usual obsequies."
Having finished reading the article, I withdrew the paper from my eye and I said to myself, Where am
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 159
I? I thought I was in the United States of America. But that cannot be. This can be no other than Spain, Portugal, or Italy. And what century is this? I always thought that I lived in the glorious nineteenth. But I must have made a mistake of nine at the very least. This surely must be the tenth century ; the darkest of the dark ages — seculum tenebricosum, as the church historians call it — the midnight of time ! this day the Prelates in this city celebrated the solemn of- fice for the repose, &c.
Just then it occurred to me that I might have read the paragraph incorrectly. So I resumed the paper ; but still it read the same. Then I threw it down, and I sat and thought : Well now, this is a strange thing — an extraordinary piece of business — praying for the re- pose of deceased saints ! — and those, too, prelates of the only true church — and prelates eminent for their "virtues and services" — dead a year, or thereabouts, and yet not at rest ! — and this by confession of their own church ! What must become of the less renowned Catholics, if the very best of their bishops are tossing and burning in purgatory a year after having sacrificed their lives in the service of God and their fellow-crea- tures ; and need solemn offices said for the repose of their souls? I always thought that rest to the soul en- sued immediately on the exercise of faith. Paul says, "we which have believed, do enter into rest ;" and Christ says, ". come unto me, and I will give you rest ;
take my yoke upon you and learn of me and ye
shall find rest unto your souls." I always supposed it meant that they should find the rest as soon as they came ; and not after a long life, and a long purgatorial period subsequent to that. But above all, I had got the
160 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
impression that, if never before, yet in the grave, good men find rest. I must have contracted that belief, I suppose, by reading what St. John says, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest," &c. or possibly I got it from that other passage, " there the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest." But it seems I am wrong. Here are two bishops dead, yet not at rest! If what St. John says is true, here is a dilemma. Either those bishops did not die in the Lord, or they are at rest. Will the prelates say that they did not die in the Lord ? I suspect not. Then they must believe that they are at rest. And if so, why celebrate the solemn office for their repose ?
Hoping it may not be a mortal sin, (if it be only ve- nial, I will risk it,) I would ask how the Catholics know that these bishops of theirs are not at rest ? Who told them so ? Where did they learn it 1 It seems to me a slander on those men. Bishop Fenwick enjoyed an enviable reputation for goodness. I have often heard him spoken of by Protestants in terms of high commendation; and the article quoted speaks of " the virtues and services " of both. And now, after they have been dead so long, to tell the world that they are not at rest, and that their repose must be prayed for! If Protestants had dared to suggest such a thing about them, we should never have heard the last of it.
But it seems not only a slander on those men, but also a reflection on Christ. How imperfectly, accord- ing to the Catholics, he must have done his work ! that even those esteemed his most devoted servants must lie. and toss, and burn, nobody knows how long,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 161
after death, before the efficacy of his atonement will allow of their being taken to heaven ! And where is the fulfillment of his promise, " Come unto me and I will give you rest. Ye shall find rest to your souls ?" According to the prelates, &c. these bishops have not found it yet.
I would dare ask another question. How is it that the priests and prelates can tell with so much accura- cy how long a soul remains in purgatory before it is released? How do they know just when to stop pray- ing? I will not insinuate that they pray as long as the money holds out, and no longer ; for in the case of the bishops, I suppose they freely give their prayers. I could not help thinking, if they did go first to purga- tory, yet they may not be there so long as this. A year is a long time to be in purgatory. Hours pass slowly away while one is burning. O, is this a part of Christianity ? Can it be ? What an unsatisfactory religion, which will not allow its most eminent exam- ples, its most virtuous votaries, to have repose even in the grave ! Credat qui vult, non ego.
45. Canonizing (Saints.
I was a good deal struck the other day in reading in a Baltimore paper, the following notice : " On Monday, the 17th of March, St. Patrick's day, a so- lemn High Mass will be sung in St. Patrick's church, Fell's Point, and the panegyric of the Saint will be 14*
162 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
delivered." It suggested some thoughts which I beg leave to communicate.
Why should the 17th of March be called St. Pat- rick's day ? How is it his day more than yours or mine ? What property had he in it more than others ? He died on that day, it is true. Bat was he the only one that died on that day. Many thousands must have died on the same day. Does a man's dying on a particular day make it his ? Ah, but he was a saint. How is that ascertained ? Who saw his heart ? I hope he was a good man, and a renewed person. But I think we ought to be cautious how we so positively pronounce our fellow creatures saints. Especially should Catholics, since even Peter himself, though, as they affirm, infallible, did not express himself so confidently, for he says in his first epistle, 5th chap, and 12th verse, of Silvanus, " a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose."
But what if he was a saint ; every real Christian is a saint. If any one doubts this, let him consult any part of the New Testament. I trust there were many saints on earth at that time ; and I doubt not that other saints died on that day as well as Patrick. I ob- ject altogether to the day being called his. I have no idea that the 365th portion of every year belongs pe- culiarly to St. Patrick. I have no notion of this par- celing out the year among the saints, and calling one day St. Patrick's, and another St. Cecilia's, and so on. At this rate we shall have the whole year appro- priated to dead saints.
Ah, but you forget that Patrick was canonized. The church made him a saint, and appropriated that day to him. But I have not much opinion of these
J
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 163
canonized saints — the saints of human manufacture. I like the sanctified ones better. Our Protestant saints are "God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." But granting the 17th of March to be St. Patrick's day, why is it kept? "What have we to do with it, who live so long after 1 Patrick died in 493, and here in the 19th century they are keeping his day ! I think it is time to have done grieving for the death of St. Patrick, now that he has been dead more than 1300 years, and especially when he died at the good old age of 120. Really, I think it is time that even the Irish Catholics had wiped up their tears for him. Tears ! why, they do not keep the day in lamentation for him, but in honor and praise of him. High mass is to be sung, as it appears by the advertisement. Now sing- ing expresses praise — and his panegyric is to be pro- nounced. It is wonderful what a disposition there is among the Catholics to multiply the objects of their religious honor. O that they were but satisfied to praise the Lord that made heaven and earth ! But no — they must have creatures to do homage unto — an- gels ; and saints of their own making ; and above all, the blessed Virgin, "our heavenly mother," as some of them call her. It would really seem as if they had rather pay respect to any other being than God ! They cannot be satisfied with the mediation of Jesus. They must have creatures to mediate and intercede for them. They are always doing things, and keeping days in honor of the saints. How much they talk about tute- lar saints and guardian angels. It would appear as if they had rather be under the care of any other beings than God!
Now the idea of still eulogizing, panegyrizing, and
164 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
praising, here in these United States, one St. Patrick, who died in Ireland in 493, how absurd! How is piety to be promoted by it, I should like to know !
By the way, what is high mass in distinction from low mass ? They differ in several respects. Among the peculiarities of high mass, this, I believe, is one, that it is more expensive than low mass. If you want high mass said for a poor suffering soul in purgatory, you have to pay more than you do if you are content with low mass. And so it should be, for the high mass is worth more. Low mass scarcely makes an impression on a soul in purgatory. It is high mass that does the business effectually and expeditiously.
As for us Protestants, we have nothing to do with these masses. We do not find any thing said about them in the Bible. The Catholic will pardon me, I hope, for alluding to the Bible. I am aware that it is no good authority with him, except now and then a verse, (entirely misunderstood,) such as that about the rock, which they say was Peter, on whom the church was built, according to them ! Only think now, a man that denied the founder of Christianity three times with profane oaths, himself the foundation of the whole church ! Nothing else for it to rest upon but Peter! But the beauty of it is that this foundation should have had a long series of fundamental succes- sors, down to the present Pope ! I always supposed that when a foundation is laid, there is an end of it and that all after belongs to the superstructure. Bu1 this is a digression. I was speaking of us Protestants, that we reject masses. And so we acknowledge na distinction of days, but the Lord's day. We keep no saint's days. WTe keep the Lord's day. It is aLmos:
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 165
the only day that some Catholics do not keep reli- giously ! They are so busy with their saint's days, that they quite overlook the day which " the Lord hath made."
It strikes me that in giving this notice, the priests should have used an easier word than panegyric. I wonder how many of our Irish brethren know what it means. But " ignorance is the mother of devotion," you know, is one of their maxims. What multitudes of them said, on the 17th of March, " blessed St. Pat- rick." Probably many more than said " Hallowed be thy name." And every day how much more respect is paid among them to the mother than to the Son ! It is as clear as demonstration can make any thing, that the Catholic religion is idolatrous. Men may say that it is a very uncharitable remark. But if any one will dare to say it is an untrue remark, I am ready to meet him. Let us inquire Jlrst, what is truth. Then we will come to the question, what is charity. And we shall find that charity is something which " rejoices in the truth."
46. Gen. Lafayette not at Rest.
A few days since I observed the following notice, taken from the Charleston Roman Catholic Miscella- ny : " There will be an office and high mass in the Cathedral on Monday, 30th inst. (June,) for the re- pose of the soul of General Lafayette." Also the
166 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
following, taken from the Catholic Herald : " A so lemn high mass will be sung on Tuesday next, the 29th inst. (July,) at 10 o'clock, at the church of the Holy Trinity, corner of Sixth and Spruce, for the re- pose of the soul of the late Gen. Lafayette." The General died, it will be remembered, on the 20th of May. I did not know that he had been heard from since, any more than the rest of the dead. But the Charleston and Philadelphia editors seem to have had accounts of him up to as late a date as the 29th of July. Forty days after his death, according to the one account, and sixty-nine days according to the other, his soul was not" at rest; and they give notice that measures are about to be taken to procure its repose. I don't know where they got it. They do not say through what channel the intelligence came. They are very positive, however, in regard to the fact. I have often been surprised at the confidence with which Catholics make assertions, implying a knowledge of the condition of souls beyond the grave. One would suppose they had a faculty, peculiar to themselves, of seeing into the invisible world. With what positive- ness they speak of this one and that other as saints in glory, and even pray to them as such. I have often thought that many of the prayers of Catholics might be lost from the circumstance of the persons to whom they are addressed not being in heaven.
We Protestants do not lose any prayer in that way. We do not pray to any being who we are not certain is in heaven. We speak with positiveness of the fu- ture condition of characters and classes of men — the righteous and the wicked — believers and unbelievers. The Eible does that. But Ave do not, we dare not
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 167
speak of the condition of individuals with the same confidence ; and especially dare we not say of this or that person that has died, that his soul is not at rest. We think it better to be silent concerning the spirit that has returned to God who gave it, and wait for the great day to disclose the decision of the eternal mind on its case, and that especially if the person seemed to die in impenitence. We would not usurp the place and prerogative of judgment. What Protestant^even though belonging to the class of Calvinists, as some of us do, would intimate that the soul of such a man as Lafayette is not at rest ?
But the Catholics are not so reserved. They pre- tend to know not only who are saints in glory, but what souls are suffering in the fire and restlessness of purgatory. They can tell you the names of the per- sons. They have printed in two of their papers, at least, that the good Lafayette, as our countrymen are wont to speak of him, has not gone to rest. His body rests ; but his soul, they tell us, has as yet found no repose. It has not obtained admittance into that place where " the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest." The General lived a long time where the wicked cease not from troubling ; and much an- noyance received he from them, in the course of his patriotic and useful life ; and many trials and fatigues he underwent for liberty and the rights of man. Now it seems to me the Catholics take a great deal on them, when they say that his soul is still subject to the annoyances and disqjiiet which were his lot on earth. Yet they do say so. They appoint a day, a good while after his death, to sing high mass for the repose of his soul. Of course they n»*-* l-~1:— ♦*■*•»*
168 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY.
up to that day his soul is not in repose, else why seek its repose ? If the person who inserted these notices were living in the papal dominions, or under the influ- ence of Prince Metternich, or the ex-king Charles, I should not wonder at their proclaiming his soul not at rest, for Lafayette was never a favorite at Rome. Vi- enna, or in the court of Charles X. He loved liberty too well for that. But that American Catholics, and, if the reader will not smile at the incongruity of the terms to each other, republican Catholics, should as- sert such a thing of him, I am a little surprised. I almost wonder that the people do not resent it as an insult to the old general. If a Protestant minister should say from the pulpit, or through the press, that Lafayette is not at rest, his church and his person would be hardly safe. But the Catholics do it with impunity. And let them. All the penalty I would have them suffer, is the contempt of every intelligent mind.
But why do the Catholics suppose that Lafayette is not at rest? Is it because none are at rest when they die? Is this their doctrine? A comfortable religion to be sure ! According to this, how is it " gain to die ?" Who would be " willing rather to be absent from the body ?" Or how can it be said, " O death where is thy sting?5' since here it is, and sting enough. But he who wrote, Phil. 1, and 1 Cor. 15, and 2 Cor. 5, was not a Catholic. Or do they conclude Lafayette to be not at rest, because only saints find repose in death, and he was no saint ? I wish al^the saints of the church of Rome had been as good men as Lafayette. They have canonized worse men than he. I have never in- quired curiously into the devotional character of the
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 169
general, but I am possessed of no proof that he was not a Christian. Certainly, I find in his moral history- no reason why they should be so positive that he is not at rest. They might have made the appointment conditional, I should think — mass to be said for the re- pose of his soul, provided it be not at rest. But they insert no condition. They are sure he is not at rest.
Well, if he is not at rest, how are their masses to give him repose? Does the Bible say that they have that efficacy ? I must be excused for being so old- fashioned as to appeal to the Bible. That book, since it says nothing about masses, cannot be supposed to say anything of their tranquilizing tendency. I al- ways forget that the Catholics have another source of information on religion besides the Bible. Tradition they call it. They mean by it the talk of inspired men, when they had no pen in their hands ; which being heard, was reported, and so has come along down by word of mouth. But I, for my part, am satis- fied with what they wrote.
We, Protestants, cannot join the Roman Catholics in their solemn office for Lafayette. We hope there is no need of praying for the repose of his soul ; and we are certain there is no use in it. We prayed for him while he was living. We did not wait for him to be dead first. Now that his spirit has returned to God who gave it, and the Judge has passed upon it, we leave it there. By the way, how do the Catholics know when to stop praying for the repose of a soul ? The Charleston Catholics had their mass for him on the 30th of June. But it seems it was of no avail, for the Philadelphia Catholics are called together to sing theirs on the 29th of July. How long is this thing 15
170 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
to go on? I am writing on the 31st of July. Is he at rest now ? Was the mass of the 29th inst. more efficacious than that of the 30th ult. ? Perhaps the next news from New-York will be that mass is to be performed there for the repose of the same soul some day in August. I hope the church is not infallible in regard to Lafayette, as in other matters. I should be sorry to think him all this time not at rest.
I remember an old Latin maxim, " Nil de mortuis, nisi bonum," say nothing but good respecting the dead — which, it seems to me, the Catholics have dis- regarded in the case of Lafayette. It is certainly not saying any good of a dead man, to say that he is not at rest. And it is cruel to sing about it. The Phila- delphia mass was sung. Is it kind to treat a suffer- ing soul in purgatory with singing ?
4:7. Prayers for tlie Faithful Departed.
I have taken up again that little book, " The Chris- tian's Guide to Heaven," published, as the title page assures us, with the approbation of the most reverend Archbishop of Baltimore. Parts of it I have hereto- fore reviewed, but I have not exhausted its contents. I find on page 198 of my edition, the title of this arti- cle, " Prayers for the Faithful Departed." Faithful, said I to myself; and is it for the faithful dead that they pray ? I was so ignorant as to suppose that it was for wicked Catholics, being dead, they were so
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 171
good as to pray. I thought there was no need of praying for deceased Christians — for the faithful de- parted. I got the notion somewhere, that good peo- ple, when they die, go where there is " fullness 01 joy," and "pleasures forevermore." I may have imbibed it from St. Paul, who says that when such are " absent from the body," they are "present with the Lord ;" or perhaps I caught it from St. John, who speaks of the dead that die in the Lord, as "blessed from henceforth," and as resting from their labors. It is more likely, however, that I got the idea from our Saviour, who says to the church in Smyrna, " Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." It was natural that I should take up the idea in reading this, that prayers for the faithful departed were needless, since he says, if they were faithful unto death they should receive a crown of life. We are all liable to mistakes, that is, unless we are infallible. It seems, according to the Catholics, who profess to know all about these matters, that the faithful don't get the crown of life by being faithful unto death. No, they must be faithful a good while after death, before they receive it. That which they get at death is very different from the crown of life. They are a long time absent from the body before they are pre- sent with the Lord. They don't go to heaven, or para- dise. They go to purgatory. This is the Catholic's creed. It don't seem to agree altogether well with the Savior's promise to the Smyrneans. A simple man would suppose that fidelity unto death was im- mediately followed by the crown of life. But they that cannot err tell us otherwise.
Somehow or other this doctrine of the faithful going
172 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
to purgatory after death, and needing to be prayed out of it, seems to have been always out of the mind of the apostle Paul, when he had his pen in his hand, or was dictating to the amanuensis. He speaks of it as gain to die ; but surely, to exchange earth for pur- gatory is no gain. Air, however impure or sultry, is more agreeable than the element of fire. He tells of his desire to depart and be with Christ, just as if the one immediately followed the other. He overlooked purgatory ; otherwise I think he would not have had the desire to depart. Perhaps he thought he would fare as well as Lazarus, who made no stop in pur- gatory ; or as the penitent thief, who could not have made a long one, since he was in Paradise the same day he died. It has always appeared to me, that ac- cording to the Catholic system, this man, of all others, should have gone to purgatory. He never did any penance on earth — never bought an indulgence — he repented only a few minutes before he died ; and yet he goes direct to paradise ! Who then may not ?
But do they not give us chapter and verse for pray ing for the dead ! It must be confessed they do. Here it is. " It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosened from their sins." 2 Macb. 12 : 46. This looks like Scripture, though it does not sound much like it. It passes for Scripture with the Catholics; but it is Apocrypha. It is no more holy Scripture than the Koran is. I know the Catholics contend that it is as good Scripture as any. But ask the Jews if it is Scripture. " Unto them were committed the oracles of God." Ask thpm if the books of Maccabees were committed to them. They tell you no. They were not even written in
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 173
Hebrew. The New Testament abounds in quota- tions from the Old Testament Scriptures. I wonder some of the writers of the New Testament had not quoted Maccabees, if it had been Scripture. I would ask any one who reads it, if it strikes the ear as Scrip- ture. It certainly does not. Besides, it is not in all cases good sense. The verse quoted in favor of pray- ing for the dead is not good sense. They speak of praying for the dead as a holy thought, and of prayer as having an efficacy to loosen them from their sins. Now any child can see this to be no part of Scripture. But I hasten to the prayer. " A prayer for the suf- fering souls in purgatory." It is a curious prayer. I should like to quote the whole of it. But some speci- mens must suffice. Here is one petition. " Have mercy on those who suffer in purgatory. Look with compassion on the greatness of their torments ; they are more keenly devoured by their ardent desire of being united to thee, than by the purging flames wherein they are plunged." Observe, here are spirits in flames; and they are purging flames. Fire may re- fine and purify certain metals, but how it should act in that way on souls, is beyond my comprehension. The suffering occasioned by fire is very horrible; but it seems that it is nothing compared with what they suffer from the love of God, or the "ardent desire of being united to him." I wonder, if they have such desires after God, that they are kept in that suffering state. I wonder he does not take them up to himself. Why should they suffer so, since Christ has suffered for them, and they are the faithful who believe on him? Did not Christ suffer enough ? But, the prayer proceeds: "With them I adore thy
174 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
avenging justice." So it seems the faithful are the objects of God's avenging justice. I always thought that justice exacted its full demand of Christ. I don't know what the Apocrypha says about it, but holy Scripture informs me that God can now be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus ; and that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to for- give them. Are not the faithful pardoned ; and how is pardon consistent with vengeance ?
The prayer goes on thus : " Remember, O Lord, thou art their Father, and they are thy children. Forget the faults, which, through the frailty of hu- man nature, they have committed against thee." Then a little farther on : "Remember, O Lord, that they are thy living members, thy faithful followers, thy spouses." Here you see these sufferers are God's children ; and they are suffering for mere faults, which they fell into through frailty. This seems hard. But they are not only God's children; they are Christ's living members, his faithful followers, his spouses ; and he died for them — and yet there they are burning — pardoned, yet suffering punishment — interested in the satisfaction of Christ, yet making satisfaction for themselves — paying over again the penalty which the Savior discharged. And this is the Catholic gospel! Is it not "another gospel?" And yet "not another." It is no gospel. It is a con- tradiction of the good news.
I quote but one more petition : " Deliver them, O most merciful God, from that place of darkness and torture, and call them to a place of refreshment, light and peace." The reader will remember that this prayer is for the faithful. It is they who, having
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 175
been " faithful unto death," go to a place of darkness and torture. There they " rest from their labors." I don't know, for my part, what worse can befall unbe- lievers than this. Truly, here is no great encourage- ment to believing. What a consolitary doctrine this to break in the ear of a dying disciple ! Fear not, be of good cheer, thou art but going to the place of " dark- ness and torture." Can it be Jesus who says this to his faithful followers? Can this be Christian doc- trine ? It certainly is not well calculated to make dy- ing easy. With such a prospect before them, I do not wonder that Catholics find it hard to die — verily death has a sting, and the grave a victory, if the Ca tholic doctrine of purgatory be true.
48. An Improvement.
I always hail improvements. I am always glad to see things taking a turn for the better, even though the improvement be slight. We must not despise he day of small things. Rome was not built in a day, nor will she be overthrown in a day. A system that it took centuries to introduce, cannot be expected to pass away all at once. Even if the improvement be only in phraseology, I rejoice in it, because words not only signify ideas, but sometimes generate them ', so that from using right words, men not unfremently pass to holding correct ideas on subjects.
The improvement to which I refer relates to phra-
176 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
seology merely. The case is this. It is the habit among the Catholics, some few months or so after a considerable character dies, to open the church and have a service fix him. This has heretofore been an- nounced thus : " High mass will be said or sung for the repose of the soul of such a one, at such a time " — not, the reader will understand, because the soul is at rest, but that it may be at rest. The service is not eucharistic, but supplicatory. This, I observed, was done in the case of a recent western bishop, and also in the case of Gen. La Fayette, who, some months after he had died, was discovered not to be at rest. Now, a short time ago the Archbishop of Baltimore died ; and weeks having passed away, the time came to take notice of his soul. Accordingly it was done. But I was struck with the alteration in the wording of the notice. It ran thus: "A funeral service will be performed in the cathedral for the late Most Rev. Archbishop Whitfield. " This is certainly better than the old way of announcing it. To be sure, it sounds odd to talk of a funeral service for one who was regu- larly buried some months before. Protestants cannot readily understand it. But waiving this, why the change of phraseology ? The best explanation I can give of it is this : The Catholics see that the public sense of the community, though sufficiently in their favor, will not tolerate a thing of this kind without a degree of restlessness, not a little annoying to them, and perhaps likely to be injurious to iheir concern. For see, that reasoning animal, man, who is naturally a logician, and can reason without ever having studied the rules of reasoning, argues something like this : Ei- ther the soul for which the mass is said is at rest, or it
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 177
is not at rest. If it is at rest, it is preposterous to pray for its repose. It is asking that that may be done which has been done already. When a thing is done, to pray for it is superfluous. Then is the time to give thanks. If, on the other hand, the soul is not at rest, then common sense, which is no fool, asks why they put off the mass so long — why they did not begin to pray for the repose of the soul sooner. It was not kind in them. And common sense, which is also a great querist, inquires how they know the soul did not go immediately to rest ; or if it did not, how they know it is not at rest weeks and months after. Common sense, not finding any thing about it in the Bible, wants to know how the Catholics get the information. And so, through fear of the investigation of common sense, they change the phraseology of the notice. It is wise. Well may the authorities of the Roman Catholic church stand in uread of common sense. I do not know any more formidable foe of error and im- position. I confidently look forward to the overthrow of the Catholic religion ; and I expect a great deal of the work of its destruction will be done by common sense. I have not the dread, which some have, that this religion is going to overrun our country, and rise to dominion here. There is too much common sense abroad in the length and breadth of the land to allow of such a result. The people of the United States will think, and they have a notion that they have a right to think for themselves, without sending to Rome to know if they may. And they will ask ques- tions on subjects, not omitting religion, and they will insist on having a satisfactory answer. The inhabi- tants of the old world may, if they please, believe on
178 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
the ipse dixit of the Pope, but we of the new, before we yield our assent, require a " Thus saith the Lord," or a "quod erat demonstrandum," or something of that nature. You can never get a majority here to believe in contradiction of the five senses. They will stick to it that a thing is what they see and feel and taste it to be— in other words, that bread is bread.
49. The Bulce of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason.
A certain Duke of Brunswick, having many years ago abjured Lutheranism, and become a Catholic, thought it necessary to apologize to the world for his change of religion. It needed an apology. So he wrote downffty reasons to justify the course he had pursued, and had them printed in a little book, which is entitled " Fifty Reasons why the Roman Catholic religion ought to be preferred to all others." This book the Catholics have free permission to read. O yes— they may read any book but the Bible. There is no objection to their reading books which contain the thoughts of men ; but the book which contains the thoughts of God is interdicted ! Men know how to express themselves. Men can write intelligibly. But ! !
Fifty reasons ! The Duke must have been conscious, I suppose, that his reasons were u-eaA', otherwise he would have been satisfied with a less number than fifty. Why does a man want fifty reasons for a thing
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 179
when one good reason is sufficient ? / have but one general reason for not being a Catholic, and I consider that enough. It is that the Catholic religion is not the religion of the Bible. It is not the religion which Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter wrote about, as any one may see who will compare the Holy Scriptures with the Council of Trent. But you see, the Duke, feeling that he had not one good reason for turning Catholic, gives us fifty poor ones ; thinking to make up for the weakness of his reasons by the number of them ; and calculating that fifty poor reasons would certainly be equivalent to one good one.
Fifty reasons ! I shall not now inquire what the forty-nine were. But what do you think the sapient Duke's fiftieth reason was— his closing, crowning reason— that with which he capped the climax— the reason which, having brought out, he rested from very exhaustion, consequent on the amazing effort of mind by which it was excogitated ?
The fiftieth reason ! I will give it to you in his own words, which I quote from an edition of his reasons, published by one of the very best Catholics in the land, so that there can be no mistake about it. After going on about something else, he says, " Besides that, the Catholics, to whom I spoke concerning my salva- tion, assured me that, if I were to be damned for em- bracing the Catholic faith, they were ready to answer for me at the Day of Judgment, and to take my dam- nation upon themselves ; an assurance I could never extort from the ministers of any sect, in case I should live and die in their region. From whence I infer- red, the Roman Catholic faith was built on a better
180 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
foundation than any of those sects that have divided from it." Prodigious !— and there he stops. 1 think it was time.
I do not know whether to make any comment on this reason or not. Sometimes comment is unneces- sary, and even injurious. I wonder the Catholics are not ashamed of this reason. Indeed, I suspect the in- telligent ones among them do blush for it, and wish the Duke had stopped at forty-nine.
But let us look at it a minute. It seems the Duke was won over by the generosity of the Catholics. They agreed that if he were to be damned for embracing their faith, (they admit the possibility that he might be ; whereas, the Protestant ministers whom he consulted were too well assured of the truth of their religion to allow of the supposition,) they would take his place, and be damned for him. Now I wonder the Duke had not reflected— (but there are stupid Dukes— this was a nobleman, but not one of nature's noblemen)— that those very Catholics, who made him this generous offer, if their faith was false, would have to be damned for themselves ! That which should leave him with- out a title to heaven, would equally leave them with- out one. I wonder the Duke so readily believed that the substitution would be accepted. What if they were willing to suffer perdition in his place ! The Judge might object to the arrangement. What igno- rance and stupidity it manifests, to suppose that one may suffer in hell for another, just as one serves m the army for another! What an idea such persons must have of the nature of future punishment, to sup- pose that it is transferable ! I should like to know how one man is to suffer remorse for another. And
k
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 181
again, what an admirable exemplification of the spirit of Christianity, that one should consent, on any con- dition, to lie in hell, for ever, sinning and blaspheming God ! I am sincerely glad that no Protestant minis- ter could be found to give his consent to an eternity of enmity against God. But the Catholics whom the Duke consulted, they loved the Lord so that they were willing to sin against him for ever and ever, with ever-increasing malignity of opposition, for the sake of saving their noble proselyte ! " FROM WHENCE I INFERRED," says the Duke, (but you have no capitals large enough for this conclusion,) " the Ro- man Catholic faith was built on a better foundation than any of those sects that have divided from it." Admirable dialectician ! He must be Aristotle him- self, by metempsychosis.
I think that those who wish to live and die Catho- lics, had better keep their eyes shut. It is the safer way. If they open them almost any where, they will be in danger.
50. The Duke's Seventh Reason.
The Duke's fiftieth reason has been the subject of an article. Each of his reasons might be made the subject of one, but that would be giving them too much consequence. I have selected the seventh for some remarks, because I have several times, in con- versation with Catholics, heard it alleged, and some considerable stress laid on it. The drift of it is this : . Protestants acknowledge that some Roman Catholics 16
182 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
tnay be saved, but Catholics contend that no Protes- tants can be saved. Therefore it is better and safer to be a Catholic, than a Protestant ! But, perhaps, I had better Let his Serene Highness speak for himself He says : " But what still confirmed me in my resolu- tion of embracing the Roman Catholic faith was this, that the heretics themselves confess Roman Catholics may be saved, whereas, these maintain there is no salvation for such as are out of the Roman Catholic church." Let us examine this reasoning. Catholics May that there is no salvation out of their church, and therefore, by all means, we should belong to it. But does their saying so make it so ? Is this very chari- table doctrine of the Catholics of course trice ? Is it so very clear that none are saved but the greatest bi- gots—none saved but those who affirm, and are ready to swear that none others but themselves can be saved ? Have Roman Catholics never affirmed any thing but what was strictly true, so that from their uniform ve- racity and accuracy, we may infer that they must be correct in this statement ? Let history answer that question. This is more than we claim even for Pro- testants. No salvation except for Catholics ! Ah, and where is the chapter and verse for that. I don't think that even the Apocrapha can supply them. If subse- quent Popes have taught the doctrine, he who is reck- oned by Catholics to have been the first Pope, did not. It is rather unkind, perhaps, to quote Peter against his alleged successors, but a regard to truth compels me to do it. It is true, Peter once thought that a person must be an Israelite to be saved, just as our Catholics hold that a person must be a Cath- olic in order to be saved; but the case of Come-
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 183
lius cured him of that prejudice. That led him to say as recorded, Acts 10 : 34, 35, " Of a truth I per- ceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in eve- ry nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous- ness, is accepted with him." This sounds a little differ- ent from the Duke's premises. It is a little unlike the language of later Popes. They have not taken their cue from Peter. Peter was a little of a Catholic at first, but he soon got rid of it.
Now, if what the Catholics say about there being no salvation out of their church, is not true — if there is no Scripture for it, but much against it — if even Peter controverts it, it certainly does not constitute a very good reason for being a Catholic. Suppose that Protestants should give out to the world that none but themselves can be saved, would that make Protes- tantism any better, or safer, or worthier of adoption ? Would our religion be more entitled to reception, if we should publish that Fenelon was lost forever, and that Pascal was excluded from heaven, and Masillon too, just because they were not Protestants, but in communion with the Church of Rome ? I think not. Nor can I think that the Roman Catholic religion is entitled to increased respect and veneration, because Catholics assert as an undoubted verity, that such men as Locke. Newton, Leighton, Howard, and many others are beyoud all question, in hell, not even ad- mitted to purgatory, because, forsooth, they were not Catholics.
But the Duke's inference is from a double premiss. Not only do Catholics say no Protestant can be saved j but Protestants allow that Catholics may. If Protes- tants w^re to say that Catholics could not be saved,
1S4 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
then they would be even with each other, and tnere could be no argument in the case. But since Protes- tants allow that others besides themselves may be saved, while Catholics deny it, therefore the Catholic religion is the safer. See what credit the Catholics give our declarations when they seem to work in their favor. They build a whole argument on one. Why do they not give us equal credence, when we declare that the probability of salvation among Protestants is much greater than among Catholics ?
But what is it after all that Protestants allow? They allow that some Roman Catholics may be sav- ed. They allow that the fact of a person's being ex- ternally related to the Catholic church does not of it- self shut him out from salvation — that if he believes with his heart in the Lord Jesus, and truly repents of his sins, he will be saved, though a Catholic : and that the fact of his being a Catholic, though much against him, does not preclude the possibility of his being a genuine penitent and a true believer. This is the length and breadth of our admission. It admits, as every one must see, not that there is salvation by the Catholic religion, but in spite of it, to some who professedly adhere to that religion. If a Catholic holds understandingly to the merit of good works, the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, the worship of crea- tures, or similar unscriptural doctrines, we do not see how he can be saved ; but we believe many, called Ca- tholics, reject these doctrines in fact, though not per- haps in word, and rely on Christ's atonement alone for salvation. Now if Catholics are so absurd as not to admit in our favor as much as we admit in theirs, we can't help it, and we don't ca^e for it. It is just
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 185
as they please. We shall not take back our admis- sion for the sake of making proselytes to Protestant- ism— and if they can draw off any from us by their exclusive notions, they are welcome to them.
But I must call the reader's attention to the extent of the Duke's inference. He infers the perfect safety of the Catholic religion, because Protestants admit that some Catholics may be saved ! But is that a safe spot of which this only can be said that some of the persons occupying it. may possibly escape ? And is it madness to occupy any other spot? The Duke ex- claims, "What a madness then were it, for any man not to go over to the Roman Catholics, who may be saved in the judgment of their adversaries : but to sort himself with these, who, according to Roman Catholics, are out of the way V* What a madness in- deed, not to join a people who may not all be lost ! O what a madness to continue to be Protestants, when Roman Catholics say that they are out of the way ! What if they do say so? What if every Jesuit mis- sionary has ever so constantly affirmed ? I suppose a Jesuit can say what is not so, as well as any body else. I suppose it is not naturally impossible for one being a Jesuit, I will not say to lie, but to err. He goes on like a very Aristotle. " Who would not ad- vise a man to take the safest way when he is threat- ened with any evident danger?" Certainly noble Duke, the safest way ; but not of course tne way which some say is safest. There are a great many safest ways, if all which are said to be safest, are so. But his higness proceeds : " And does not that way which two opposite parties approve of, promise great- er security than another which one party only recom- 16*
186 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
mends, and which the other condemns ?" But that is not so. The two parties do not approve of it. So far from it that the Protestant declares the Catholic way to be an exceedingly dangerous way, while his own way, though pronounced by the Catholic to be fatal, can claim the most respectable testimony that it is the true and safe way. Then comes an illustration, which like a great many other illustrations, is well con structed, but happens to be totally inapplicable to the case in hand, " Who, in fine, can doubt, but that a medicine prescribed by two physicians may be taken with more security than another which one of the two judges may be his death ?" How the Duke rolls on his argument ! Just now the Protestant only admitted the possibility of the Catholic's salvation. Then he is represented as approving the Catholic way — and immediately after as prescribing it ! It is easy prov- ing any thing, if one may make facts to suit his pur- pose. I believe it is not true that Protestants pre- scribe the Catholic religion to those who ask them what they shall do to be saved.
People must become Catholics, if they please, but I would advise them to look out for better reasons for the change than the Duke of Brunswick's fifty ; and especially than this, his seventh. It is a poor reason for becoming a Catholic that they say they are the people, and haughtily bid all others stand by, because they are holier. I cannot think it so great a recom mendation of a religion, that it denounces, and so fa, as it can, damns all who cannot see their way clea\ to embrace it.
THOUGHTS ON POPEltY. 1S7
51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason.
I don't know what is to become of our Protestant religion, with so many reasons against it. I don't know but we shall all have to go back again to the Catholic church, compelled by the cogency of argu- ment. Fifty reasons why the Roman Catholic reli- gion ought to be preferred to all others ! Only think. And some of them that I don't find any answer to in any Protestant writer ! Such a one is the eleventh of the formidable series. In the three preceding rea- sons or considerations, as he calls them, the Duke had been giving us the result of his inquiries. It seems he was quite an investigator. He searched almost every book but the Scriptures. He looked for what he wanted every where but where the thiDg was. When a man is inquiring after the truth, and consults the philosophers, the fathers, the martyrs, and all the saints, I cannot see where is the harm of just looking into the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles too. I don't know why they should be treated with such neglect ; I think they are quite as respectable writers as some of the fathers. But be this as it may, the Duke, in his eighth consideration, tells us about his consulting the writings of the an- cient fathers, to find what they would advise him to do, whether to embrace the Roman Catholic faith or no. And he says they all told him to be a Roman Catholic by all means. Then says he in his ninth consideration, "I appealed to the saints of God, and asked them what was the faith they lived in, and by which they arrived at eternal bliss." And they said,
188 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
not that they had "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," in accordance with the account given of some other saints in Rev. 7, but "they all made answer, it was the Roman faith." By the way, the Catholics have an advantage over us Protestants. They know just who are saints and have a way of consulting them after they are dead. We are not equal to those things. Why, the Duke even tells us the names of those who made an- swer. " Thus," says he, "I was answered by St. Mar- tin, St. Nicholas, St. Athanasius, and many more among the bishops ; among the religious, by St. Do- minick (!?) St. Francis, &c. Among the widows, by St. Monica, St. Bridget, St. Elizabeth, &c. Among the virgins, by St. Agatha, St. Lucy, St. Agnes, St. Catharine, &c." I think if a Protestant had had the privilege of cross-examining the above when the Duke consulted them, the result might have been somewhat different. But no Protestant had notice of his intention to carry his inquiries into that quar- ter. The Duke was determined to make thorough work of it. Therefore, in his tenth consideration he tells us: "Then I turned to the holy martyrs, and inquired what faith it was for the truth of which they spilt their blood." They answered it was the Roman Catholic. "This," he says, "I was assured of by thirty-three bishops of Rome, who were crowned with martyrdom ; by the saints Cyprian, Sebastian, Laurence; by St. Agatha, St. Cecily, St. Dorothy, St. Barbara, and an infinite number of other saints." They all told the same story. " Then," says the Duke, " I wound up my argument." But he concluded on the whole, before winding it up, to let it run down a little
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 1S9
lower. And this brings us to his eleventh reason. The reader will please prepare himself now for a prostrating argument. "My next step was in thought to hell, where I found in condemnation to everlasting torments, Simon Magus, Novatus Vigi- lantius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Marcion, &c." May I never be under the necessity of descend- ing so low for an argument ! But the Duke does not say that he actually went to the bad place, but he went in thought. There, having gone in thought, he found so and so. Here is another advantage the Ca tholics have over us. They know who are in hell. We do not. Perhaps some are not there who we may fear are. We do not hold ourselves qualified to judge in these matters. Well, he found them there. He was quite sure not one of them had repented and been saved. And he asked them how they came there, and they very civilly answered that " it was for their breaking off from the Roman Catholic church." Now this is the argument that I have not seen answered by any Protestant writer, as far as I can recollect. I don't read of any Protestant who went even in thought to hell to consult the lost on the points in controversy between us and the Catholics. So that the Catholics have the whole of this argu- ment to themselves. The Duke says they told him they were there for not being Catholics, and we have no counter testimony. Protestantism, however, hav- ing so many other " witnesses on the truth" of her system, can easily do without the testimony of " the spirits in prison." Let that be for the Catholics. But by the way, I wonder that the Duke relied so unhesi- tatingly on the testimony of those persons. How
190 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
does he know they told the truth ? Are not all such called in Scripture " the children of the devil," and does not every body know his character for veracity ? It is certainly an extraordinary answer for one ot them, Simon Magus, to give, considering the time when he lived. How could he say with truth that he was there for breaking off from the Roman Catholic church, when at the date of his apostacy the Gospel had never been preached at Rome? There was no Roman church to break off from.
I was expecting that the Duke would push his in- quiries yet one step farther, and, seeing he was on the spot, interrogate Satan in regard to the true re- ligion. But he does not seem to have consulted " the father of lying," but only the children. The truth is, the Devil does not wait to be consulted on that sub- ject, but makes his suggestions to " them that dweL on the earth," without being called on so to do.
I hope the Reformed religion will be able to stand the shock of this argument, notwithstanding the doubt I expressed in the beginning.
53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports.
I have been not a little interested with the extracts recently published from the Reports of the Leopold Society in Austria, and it has struck me that I might do some service, especially to those who have not the time or the patience to read long articles, by calling
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 191
the attention of the 'public to the choice parts of the reports ; for even where all is good, you know, there are generally portions here and there of superior ex- cellence. Will you allow me, then, to point out some of the beauties of the reports? What has struck me with peculiar force, will probably affect others as forcibly. Now I have admired the way in which the report speaks of conversions. It seems that these Catholics can foresee conversions with as much certainty as we, poor blind Protestants, can look back on them ! F. Baraga writes, under date of March 10, 1832 : " I long for the arrival of spring, when I shall have numerous conversions ! !" Now, I am aware that the face of na- ture is renewed when spring appears, but 1 did not know this was as true of the souls of men. It is news to me that conversions can be foreseen with such per- fect accuracy. It is hard to foresee what men will do. But here is a foreseeing of what God will do, unless they deny that conversion is his work ! But what makes our Catholic brother speak so confidently of the conversions that were to take place ? How did he know it ? Why, forsooth, some had promised him that they would be converted in the spring. " There are many pagan Indians," he says, " who promised me last summer and fall, that they would in the spring embrace the Christian religion !" This beats all. Why, if they were convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, did they not embrace it at once ? Why put it off till after the 1st of March ? But not only had some promised him on their honor that they would be converted, but he says : " From two other counties I have received assurances, that many of the Indians there would be converted to. the Christian reli-
192 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
gion, if I would come and preach the gospel to them !5 You see they had told others, who told Baraga, that they would. It came very straight. He speaks par- ticularly of a Christian Indian who had brought him the intelligence. Now observe, they had never heard a word of the gospel — neither knew what it was, nor how confirmed ! Yet they promised to embrace it — promised to believe, and be converted — to have their hearts changed — to be born again ! I know that God promises, " A new heart will I give you," but I never knew before that any man, and especially one who had never heard the gospel, could look ahead and say, " at such a time I will have a new heart." Baraga says, "I cannot describe the joy such assurances give me." We Protestants are not so easily made happy by the promises of the unconverted.
Again, I have been struck with the manner in which Baraga speaks of the mother of Jesus, under date of July ], 1832 : " When I decided to be a missiona- ry," he says, " I promised our heavenly mother that I would consecrate to her the first church I should con- secrate among the Indians, for I am convinced she will pray her Son continually for the progress of our missions." Our heavenly mother ! ! Our heavenly Father is a phrase dear to every Christian heart; but it is the first time I ever heard we had a heavenly mother. O ! O ! Will the reader pause a moment and inquire the meaning of the word idolatry ? Baraga promised her ? Where had they the interview when that promise was made ? He must have been praying to her. And why was the promise made ? Because "I am convinced she will pray her Son." What! prayer in heaven ! John, in Patmos, heard praise in
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 193
heaven, but not prayer. I know there is one advocate in heaven, Jesus Christ the righteous, who over liveth to make intercession. That one is enough. But here we are told of another advocate on high — a mediatrix. And she prays to her son — mediates between him and sinners. What ! Do we need a mediator between us and Christ ? I always knew we needed a mediator between God and us ; but I supposed we need go di- rectly and immediately to Christ, since he is himself a mediator. Baraga says presently after, " thanks be to Mary, gracious mother, who ever prays for the con- version of the heathen." Now, if all this is not idola- try, I wish some body could tell me what idolatry is. I would as soon undertake to defend the worship of the golden calf as this.
Finally, what power these Catholic priests have ! Protestant ministers are only " mighty through God.'5 But the priests can succeed without that help. Father Senderl writes : " Young people of sixteen years, and not unfrequently older persons, have never con- fessed nor communed ; (taken the half sacrament, I suppose he means.) I prepare them for both, and for confirmation." /prepare them ! And another writes concerning Baraga, that he achieves wonders of sal- vation among the Ottawas.
This is a specimen of the religion which Prince Metternich fy Co. our Austrian brethren, those dear lovers of liberty, are benevolently contributing to give us here in America. They are afraid that our free institutions will not be permanent unless they help us to prop them up with the Catholic religion ! Timeo Metternich et donaferentem. [I fear Metternich, even sending gifts.]
17
194 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports.
Puerility of the Catholic Religion.
What a puerile religion the Catholic religion is ! How childish I How petty its cares ! About what trifles it concerns itself ! The Christian is truly " the highest style of man," but the consistent Catholic is not much above the lowest. Baraga writes as follows: " It would be of essential service to our missions, if there could be sent us cups, boxes for the holy wafer, rosaries, crucifixes — of the last two, as many as pos- sible, for such articles cannot be bought here. How it is with church furniture and linen, you may easily think. Those given to me by pious persons are of great use to me, and I cannot be thankful enough for them." Cannot be thankful enough for boxes, rosaries, &c. ! ! His capacity for gratitude must be small indeed. We Protestants often feel that we cannot be thankful enough, but it is not for such trumpery as cups and boxes. When we feel and lament over the inadequacy of our gratitude, it is in view of the many and great mercies of God to us. I suppose our Protestant mis- sionaries at Ceylon, and elsewhere, would not be so very grateful if we should send them a consignment of cups, boxes, &c. No : such things could not be of essential service to their missions. We do not under- stand converting people as the Catholics do. They can regenerate and pardon, and do all the rest in a trice. We have to bring before the mind of the sinner the great-saving truth of Christ crucified ; but they have only to put the little crucifix in his hand. I went, a short time ago, to visit a man under sentence of death,
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 195
to talk to him about Christ and his death. I found him gazing intently on a little metallic image of Christ crucified, which a priest had left him. He seemed indifferent to all I said. The priest had 'prepared him !
In a note to Baraga's letter, we are told of a great number of Catholic notions that are already on their way to America ; among them three thousand rosa* vies I What a sight of beads ! How their missions must prosper after this ! A little afterwards, by way of inducing others to contribute beads, boxes, &c. it is said : " The good Christian rejoices to promote th ) external honor of the house of God, so that the inne ' man, by the splendor of the external divine worship may be lifted to heaven." What a sage sentiment How scriptural ! How philosophical too ! This is truly a new way of being lifted to heaven.
But I must not overlook a letter of Bishop Fenwick, dated Mackinac, July 1, 1831. He writes : " On the second day after my arrival, Mr. M. and I preached at different times after mass. When the people had heard some sermons, confessions began ; and from that time till the day of our departure, we sat on the confession stool from early morning till 1 o'clock, and in the af- ternoon, from 3 or 4 o'clock, till 10, 11, and twice till 12 at night. There were confessions of twenty, thirty, and forty years." What a prodigious memory they must have had, who called to mind and confessed the sins of forty years ! All that time they were waiting for a priest to come along. There was the God who delighted in mercy, to whom they might have confess- ed, as the publican dared to do ; and there was "Jesus the mediator of the new covenant," whom they might at anv time have engaged to intercede for them. But
196 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
that would not have been to act the part of good Ca- tholics. The good Catholic does not go to the mercy- seat of God to confess his sins and obtain forgiveness, (that were an " iniquity to be punished by the judges,") but he waits for the priest to come along with his con- fession-stool. The confession-stool substituted in the place of the mercy-seat ! This is one of the doings of that religion which Austria wants to give us. God says to sinners, " Come unto me," and he promises that he will " abundantly pardon them from his throne of grace." " Nay," says the priest, "wait till I come with my little stool." Catholics may, if they please, go for pardon and mercy to the stool of confession — but, my Protestant brethren, "Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
54. Partiality of the Church of Rome.
There is nothing of which I am more perfectly cer- tain than that the religion of the church of Rome is not the religion of Jesus Christ. I do not care to say what it is — but it is not Christianity. How can they be the same, when they differ so widely ? Midnight and noon are not more unlike. I will specify one point of difference. Romanism is partial. She is a re- specter of persons. Christianity is the very opposite of this. And not only is the church of Rome partial, but her partialities are all in favor of the rich. Now
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 197
Christianity, if it leans in any direction, inclines to- wards the poor. It was one sign that the Messiah was come in the per? on of Jesus of Nazareth, that " the poor had the Gospel preached to them." They were not overlooked ; far from it. " Hearken," says one, " hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him." The poor had never such a friend as Christ. He was himself poor. He had experience of the privations, cares, and sorrows of that condition. So poor was he that he had not where to lay his head. No lodging-place at night had he in all that world which his word created and his hand sustained. The poor are peculiarly his brethren. And think you, then, that he has opened a wider door of entrance into heaven to the rich than to the poor 1 Think you that he has connected with the condition of the rich man an advantage whereby he may sooner or more easily obtain admittance into the place of his glorious presence ? I do not believe it. But this is what the church of Rome teaches. She preaches bet- ter tidings to the rich than to the poor — Christ did not. But I must make good this charge against the church of Rome. I do it thus : According to her creed, all souls, except, perhaps, now and then one, of every condition, go, on their leaving the body, to purgatory. There they are. Now to get them out. How does she say that is to be done? Why, they must either suffer out their time, (that is, all the time which remains af- ter subtracting all the indulgences that were purchased and paid for,) or their release must be effected by the efficacy of prayers and masses said for them by the faithful on earth. You remember that mass was per- ]7*
198 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
formed lately by the Catholic congress assembled in Baltimore, for the repose of the souls of two deceased bishops. There is no other way . Christ's sacrifice does not give rest to the soul, according to the Catholics, un- less the sacrifice of the mass be added to it ! Well, how are these masses, so necessary to the repose and re- lease of the soul, to be had ? Why, how do you sup- pose, but by paying for them! Give the priests money, and they will say them. At any rate, they promise that they will. Now, do you not see the ad- vantage which money gives a man in the church of Rome, and the hardships of being a poor Catholic ? I wonder any poor man should think the Catholic re- ligion the religion of Christ. Verily, Popery is no religion for poverty. What did our Savior mean, when he said, " How hardly shall they that have riches en- ter into the kingdom of God ?" According to the Ca- tholic doctrine, they are the very men that enter most easily — they having the wherewith to purchase indul- gences and masses. It is the poor, according to this scheme, that with difficulty enter in. They have to serve their time out in purgatory — whereas, the rich can buy their time off.
But is the thing managed in this way ? Are not masses said for all that die in the Catholic faith ? Yes, there is a day in the year called All-soul's day, (it comes on the 2d of November. Alas for the poor Ca- tholic who dies on the 3d, for he has to wait a whole year for a mass,) when all of them are prayed for. The poor share in the benefit of the masses said on that day ; but what does it amount to, when you con- sider the millions of Catholics that die every year, and the many millions not yet out of the fire, among
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 199
whom the benefit is to be divided ? It is not like having a mass said for one's soul in particular. But that is the privilege of the rich.
Now I do not believe that it is the religion of the blessed Jesus that makes this distinction in favor of the rich. I believe that Christ brought as good news from heaven to the poor as to the rich. I believe that every blessing which he has to dispose of may be bought without money and without price. See Isa. 55 : 1. I believe that " whosoever will," may " take of the water of life freely." Rev. 22 : 17. This is my creed.
There was poor Lazarus. I reckon he went to hea- ven as soon after he died as he would have done if he had had millions of money to leave to the church ; and I reckon the angels were as tender and careful of his soul as if he had been clothed in purple and fared sumptuously every day. And he was a poor man to whom the dying Savior said, " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." If there was ever a man who, according to the Catholic doctrine, should have gone to purgatory, and remained a great while there, it was that thief. But you see he did not go there. Christ took him with him immediately to paradise. He went there without penance, without extreme unction, with- out confession to a priest, without a single mass being said for him, in utter outrage of all the rules of the church ! I don't think that Joseph of Arimathea, rich as he was, could have got to heaven sooner than that penitent thief. But Christ always considered the poor; and that is not Christianity which does not consider them.
As I said in former pieces that I had no faith in
200 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
salvation by fire, or in salvation by oil, I say no\» ( have no faith in salvation by money.
I will close with a syllogism. Christianity makes it as easy for a poor man to get to heaven, as for one that is rich. This is my ma or proposition. Who dare dispute it ? But the church of Rome makes it not s'.o easy for a poor man to get to heaven as one that is rich. This is my minor proposition, and this I have shown. Who dare deny it ? Now my conclusion is, therefore, the religion of the church of Rome is not Christianity.
55. Supererogation.
This long word was coined by the Catholics for their own special use, as was also that longer and harder word transubstantiation. Nobody else finds any occasion for it. It expresses what the rest of mankind think has no real existence. If the reader is acquainted with the Latin, (that language which the church of Rome extols so high above the Hebrew and Greek, the languages of God's choice — and in which she says we ought all to say our prayers, whe- ther we know it or not,) he will see that supereroga- tion is compounded of two words, and signifies lite- rally above what is required. It designates that overwork in the service of God which certain good Catholics in all ages are supposed to have done. Af- ter doing all the good which God requires of them
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 201
then what they do over and above that, tney call su- pererogation. 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 com- mand. 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.
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 superflu- ous 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
202 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
and drinking, to his glory ! See 1 Cor. 6 : 27, and Acts, 10 : 31. This is supererogation. I hope the reader un- derstands it.
Now, those who do these works of supererogation, have of course more merit than they have any occa- sion 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 Tet- zel 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 indul- gences.
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 sea- sonable 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 per- son, 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 203
no precepts require, yet obedience to these counsels cannot constitute works of supererogation, and accu- mulate 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 com- mandments 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 re- quired ! 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 ad- missible? 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 docs 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 re- quired. 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-
204 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
gation. When celibacy is not a duty, there is no vir- tue 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 mat- rimony ?
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, monas- teries, nunneries, &c. are in the Roman Catholic reli- rion. Who has not heard of monks and nuns, and of 'ie 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 205
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 feeble- ness of those to whom he wrote." We thank them 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 go into one, in- 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 him- self 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 18
206 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
*
for examples. Why did not the Marys, or some othe* of the pious women of whom we read in the Bible, take the veil ? Monachism, they may say, is an im- provement on those times. But I do not like the idea of improvements on a system arranged by the wis- dom of the Son of God himself.
There is what Ave call the spirit of a book. Now, the entire system of convents seems to me as clear- ly 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 monas- teries and shut up in nunneries. It takes up the va- rious 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 equal- ly holy — to be holy as God is holy. But what would soon become of us all, if the system should become uni- versal, and all adopt these means of holiness ? This idea, that the means of the most eminent sanctity re- quired 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 267
that which belongs to an argument. If I were a Ro- man Catholic, I could not more indignantly repro- bate than, being a protestant, I do, the recent burn- ing 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 suspect- ing, and of making mere suspicion the ground of con- demnation, 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 " Ccelebs " about Popery. He is very much offended with her. He complains, among other things, of her use of the word Popery, to designate the Ro- man 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
208 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 noi 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 Protest- ants 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 manu- als, breviaries, and catechisms printed under their own sanction and supervision ? If we take their te- nets from their own books, and quote verbatim, and refer to the edition and page, is not that enough '?
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 209
Well, we do so. Yet they say we misrepresent them. How can that be 1 They may misrepresent and con- tradict themselves, but it is hard to hold us responsi- ble 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 Pro- testants 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 1 Has no error ever been very popu- lar ? 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 Ameri- can 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 con- tain. It saves a great deal of trouble.
But the Vicar complains bitterly of the Bishop of 18*
210 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 ot the Bishop coniaining 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-sel- lers, and under the highest Catholic authority, from both of which the second commandment was ex eluded ; 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, what- ever 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 1 Besides, no one ever accused the Catholics of leaving the second com- mandment 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 con- descended 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
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 21J
any ? Why did he not make them all uniform? A man may as well tell me I have no eyes, as deny that some Catholic catechisms have been published with- out the second commandment. Now, why was ever a catechism published under Catholic sanction with- out it? Did they ever publish one in which they omitted any other of the commandments ? Did Pro- testants ever publish a list of the commandments with one omitted, and another divided so as to make out the ten ? Alas for them ! there is no getting out of this dilemma into which they have brought them- selves by their mutilation of the decalogue. It is about the most unfortunate thing they ever did for themselves. I do not wonder that Mr. B. was rest- less under the charge. But surely, he had too much good sense to suppose that he had answered the Bishop, when he showed him a catechism that had the commandment in it. It is as if a man, charged with falsehood in a particular instance, should under- take to answer the charge by showing that in another instance he had spoken the truth. The Catholics are very uneasy to get rid of this millstone about the neck of their religion. They see it is in danger of sinking it. But they cannot slip it off so easy ; and if they cannot manage to swim with it, it must sink them. Well, if it does, and nothing but the system goes to the bottom, I shall not be sorry.
In the course of his letter, Mr. B. speaks of " the anarchical principle of private judgment." And is this a principle which leads to anarchy 1 Paul did not seem to think so. He says : " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." What anarchy must have existed in the Berean church, where, after
212 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
hearing the word, they " searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so !" What confusion there must have been where all read and thought for themselves ! They needed an Inquisitor to set things to rights. He is the man to mend matters when people fall to " searching the Scriptures." Well, if the 19th century will tolerate the denunciation of private judgment on any subject, I suppose it must b<» so ; but I cannot say Amen.
58. A New Method of Exciting Devotion.
There seems to be no end to new discoveries. Marching mind appears to have no idea of halting. Probably improvements will go on until the world it- self terminates. What should I see, in taking up the Observer of January 3d, but an article headed " Ca- thedral at St. Louis?" Then followed a description taken, be it known, not from any scandalous Protes- tant paper, but from the Catholic Telegraph, printed at Cincinnati, of the building, altar, &c. By the way, the altar is of stone, but they tell us this is only tem- porary, and will soon be superseded by a superb mar- ble altar which is hourly expected from Italy. Why go all the way to Italy for an altar ? Why not employ our own mechanics and artists? We have marble enough here, and men enough. But I suppose it is a present. Our country is receiving a great many pre- sents now from abroad. Foreign Catholics are parti- cularly kind to us. You know we are making the
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 213
great experiment whether a free, representative go- vernment can sustain itself; and our Austrian and Italian brethren, sympathizing with us, want to help us all they can. They mourn especially over the de- plorable lack of religion in this country, and are anx- ious to supply it. Nor is it in building and furnishing i churches alone that they are disposed to help us. They cannot bear to see our children growing up in such ignorance. They are not used (they would have us believe) to an ignorant population ; and then, what is to become of the republic if the people are not educated 1 So they come from Ireland, France, Italy, and all those countries, male and female, to educate us. A sceptical person might be tempted to ask if there is nothing of the kind to be done at home — if, for exam- ple, they cannot find any uneducated children in Ire- land, but they must come over here to find them. How- ever that be, they come. But what strikes me with won- der, is, that when they get here, they are all for educating Protestant children. Why do they not give the chil- dren of Catholics, their own people, a chance? There are many of them scattered over the land, and they are not all self-taught. I should like to have this ex- plained. Common sense suggests that there must be a motive for making this distinction, and shrewdly suspects it is proselytism. Charity waits to hear if any more creditable reason can be assigned. But this is digression.
Well, on the 26th of October the grand building was consecrated. The procession consisted of an " ec- clesiastical corps " amounting to fifty or sixty, of whom four were bishops, and twenty- eight priests, twelve of whom were from twelve different nations. You see
214 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
they are coming upon us from all quarters. It would really seem as if all Europe was conspiring to pour in its priests among us. Here are priests of twelve dif- ferent nations met at St. Louis ! Protestantism has to depend for its men and money on native Americans ; but Popery, you perceive, has all Europe to draw upon. If, with this advantage, the latter religion should make considerable progress in our country, we must not be surprised. Whether this influx of foreign priests au- gurs good or evil to our free institutions, is a question on which I will express no opinion.
I come now to the novelty which suggested the title of this article — the new discovery — the improvement I spoke of. The editor, or his correspondent, says, "As soon as the procession was organized, the pealing of three large and clear-sounding bells, and the thunder of two pieces of artillery, raised all hearts, as well as our own, to the Great and Almighty Being." Now is not this something new ? I always thought bells were to call people together, not to raise them up. But here he says they raised all hearts. However, it was with the help of the thundering artillery. It was the bells and guns together that did it. They made such a noise that at once all hearts were raised. What an eifect from such a cause ! Will the reader please to consider what was done aDd what did it? All hearts were raised to God by means of three bells and two guns ! Is not this a new method of exciting devotion? Who ever heard before of noise composing the mind and preparing it for devout exercises ? According to this, the fourth of July should be the day of all others in the year most favorable to devotion. And what a ca- lamity deafness now appears to be; and how to be
THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 215
pitied they are who lived before the invention of gun- powder ! I never knew before that this was among the benefits of that invention, that it inspires devo- tional feelings, and raises hearts on high. But we must live and learn.
Well, all hearts being raised as before, " the holy relics (alias, the old bones) were moved towards the new habitation, where they shall enjoy anticipated resurrection — the presence of their God in his holy tabernacle." What this means, the reader must find out for himself. Now, when the relics were moved, the writer tells us what the guns did. " The guns fired a second salute." They could not contain themselves. Neither could the writer. " We felt," says he, " as if the soul of St. Louis was in the sound." A soul in a sound ! Here is more that is new.
Then we are told who preached the dedication ser- mon ; and afterwards we are informed, for our edifica- tion, that " during the divine sacrifice, (the Protestant reader, perhaps, does not know what is meant by this phrase, but if the twelve nations continue to send over their priests, we shall know all about it by and by,) two of the military stood with drawn swords, one at each side of the altar; they belonged to a guard of honor, formed expressly for the occasion. Besides whom, there were detachments from the four militia companies of the city, the Marions, the Greys, the Riflemen, and the Cannoniers from Jefferson Barracks, stationed at convenient distances around the church." The reader will not forget that certain professed am- bassadors of " the Prince of Peace " were here en- gaged in dedicating a church to his service ; and this is the way they took to do it. If they had been conse-
216 THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
crating a temple to Mars, I don't know how they could have selected more appropriate ceremonies. Here were soldiers, drawn swords, guns, and, as we shall see presently, colors and drums too, all to dedicate a church to the meek and lowly Jesus, and that too on the day of rest !
One more quotation from this glowing description. H When the solemn moment of the consecration ap- proached, and the Son of the living God was going to descend, for the first time, into the new residence of his glory on earth, the drums beat the reveille, three of the star-spangled banners were lowered over the balustrade of the sanctuary, the artillery gave a deaf- ening discharge." All that seems to have been want- ing here was three cheers. Those would have been quite as suitable as the other accompaniments of the service. Reader, is this religion ; and are these the things which are pleasing to God ?
I have a word to say about the star-spangled banner. That is an ensign endeared to every American heart. Whether it is as highly esteemed by the twelve na- tions, I cannot say. But a church is not its appro- priate place. There is another banner which should wave there — and that is not star-spangled. One soli- tary star distinguishes it — the star — the star of Beth- lehem. Let us keep these things separate : under the one, go to fight the bloodless battles of our Lord — un- de: the other, march to meet our country's foes. This is the doctrine of American Protestantism — no union of church and state, and no interchange of their ap- propriate banners.
THE END.