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.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11