■ -■■•■■'..■'■• 
 
 v" '■■ ■■..■.'.■■■■■■■■'■■■■■' 
 i 1 . ; ..■'/'■■■ ■:'."■■■. 
 
 
 2E 
 
 KHH 
 
 
diss 3 V<K I 
 
 Book fN - 
 
 / C3 C r u 
 

 

 
True.at separates, but it imtieS also. It take's* us Ilrnoic tram 
 many ire love /but it takes lis to asmaurn ■ . 
 
v v 
 
 TJ-JE 
 
 (ilivmqtltcai 
 
 \mily urnmm 
 
 "roil., a.i m 
 
 
3S A <B Sf 36 <B .& a. 
 
 ^^(©W'i'^^io 
 
 Y REV. WILLIAM NEVINS, D. D. 
 M 
 
 Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
 
 150 NASSAU-STREET, NEW-YORK. 
 
 D. Faaahaw, Printsr. 
 
 V'g'bl.j 
 
1 1 • 
 
 Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, by 
 Rcfcs L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
 of the Southern District of New- York. 
 
 Right of publishing transferred to American Tract Society. 
 
 \ C i> < ^ 
 
P. T. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Ho. Pcge. 
 
 1. Do you Pray in Secret 1 - - - - - 7 
 
 2. Do you Pray in your Family 1 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 1 71 
 
 13. How came it to pass '?-----. 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 t - - 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. 
 
 No. 
 
 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? 
 
 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, 
 
 Pdye 
 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. 
 
 P. T. 
 
3£2&&<@^2£^&& 3PHfc<fi>W<B3K3P£» 
 
 1. »o 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, be 
 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 V 1 I 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. 9 
 
 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 1 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, how 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 1 
 
 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. 1 I 
 
 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 
 m 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 God 
 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 ? 
 It 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 any one 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 ? 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. i3 
 
 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! 
 
 There are families that call not on the name of 
 the Lord. Nor is it a new thing. There were such 
 so long ago as when Jeremiah lived. He takes 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. " Pour out thy 
 fury," he says, " upon the families that call not on 
 thy name." I would not like to have been a mem- 
 ber of one of those families ; and much less the head 
 of one of them. It must have been very offensive to 
 the Lord that there were families in which he was 
 not acknowledged and worshiped. And if there 
 were such families among the heathen nations that 
 offended him, how much more must it have dis- 
 
 2 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
14 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 pleased him that there should be such families even 
 among his people Israel ! families thai 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 we have no express precept on the subject, 
 we have pretty good examples in favor of it. I sus- 
 pect Abraham, who was so careful to instruct his 
 household in the way of the Lord, did not neglect 
 to pray with them. And David, I am quite confi- 
 dent, prayed in his family. It is said of him on one 
 occasion, that " he returned to bless his household." 
 No doubt there were both prayer and praise in that 
 family. Certainly Joshua must have prayed in his 
 house. How otherwise could he have fulfilled his 
 resolution that his house 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 resolul on 
 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 
 
 sion 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 
 9.* 
 
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, I must 
 pray 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 1 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 1 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 rftich 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 1 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 way 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, wh«n " 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 
 f praise is comely." All the exercises of devotion are 
 as full of pleasure as the)'- are abundant in profit. 
 But prayer is not only a means of getting good. 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 23 
 
 It is such a means of doing 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 world 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 intends 
 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 ? 
 
 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. 
 
 4r. 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 well 
 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 
 
 n Pr. Thought. 
 
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 were 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 ? How differently ? 
 
 1. I must not speak to God at a distance. I must 
 draw ncai to him. Nor that alone. I must stir my- 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 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 I 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 
 Joh, 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 pour 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 
 
30 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 more, what heavenly places our closets would be ! 
 What interesting 1 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 some- 
 
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 ? 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 oner. 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 1 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 THOUGHTS. 
 
 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 heaventy 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 
 
 lo 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 pray." 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 of 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 
 
CO 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, 
 r, commonly indicates that we ar. 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 sin 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 
 
 frayed. The closet is not the place for recitation. 
 What more common than this expression : " I must 
 s#y 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 ? How this contrasts with the cheerful 
 purpose of the Psalmist, " My voice shalt thou hear 
 m 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 against 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. 
 
 Fr. Thoughts. 
 
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 Ave 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 thaf 
 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 
 irom 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 ? 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 wise. 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 ? 
 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 vour 
 prayer is not heard ; suppose you try the efficacy oi 
 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, " 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 bodiiy ailments, 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. tl Who* 
 so offereth praise, glorifieth me." Ps. 1 : 23. Prayei 
 expresses dependence and desire ; hut 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 7 , " 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 CnristI 
 
 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 cf 
 him. Doubdess 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 ?" 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 " do." 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 to my 
 lips, primarily, because he said, " Do this." 
 
 The question about the usefulness of visibla 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- 
 
46 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, " Do this ?" 
 Can any doubt that he meant it to be done by all who 
 believe on him ? 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 1 
 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 1 What duty plainer — ■ 
 more peremptory ? Do some pay respect to this, 
 who do not obey other commands of Christ ? What 
 if it be so 1 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 % But will this 
 neglect make you less unworthy 1 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 % It is because you are not lo 
 be trusted, that you should trust him who is able io 
 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 1 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 j 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 
 
 fessions, 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 which 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. W T hy not of religion ? Why should 
 not religion be professed as well as other things? 
 Are attachment to the Gospel, love to Christ, regard 
 
 5 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
50 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 for the authority of Jehovah, and adherence to his 
 government, the only things never to be professed 7 
 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 ? 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 ? 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, fails 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- 
 sage* 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? 
 
 I am a little apprehensive that the title of this ar- 
 ticle will be read by some who will give no hearing 1 
 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 
 10 do that, it is rather more agreeable to them not to 
 have the feeling that they ought. It is uncomforta- 
 
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 ? 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 SabbatJi 
 School teacher. It is more than lawful to do such 
 good on the Sabbath day. It has great reward. Cod - 
 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 1 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. It 
 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 
 arc % 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 net 
 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 chilarenj 
 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 % 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 who said, 
 " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and for- 
 bid them not," knows this ; and he knows who 01 
 "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 carUt; 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 teas 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 mo&e 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 part 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 
 
60 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 exalteo 
 above the very throne of God itself, if you are above 
 caring for poor children. "But I should have to 
 mingle with those beneath me in rank." Ah, I 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 1 
 
 " 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 any thing, 
 is to teach it. If you only think yourself not quali- 
 fied, your very humility goes far towards qualify- 
 ing you. 
 
 " O, it is too laborious. There is so much self- 
 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 discipleship ? 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 
 
 crs. They lack the love that is necessary to engage 
 one in this labor of love. They have no heart for 
 the work. 
 
 10. Do you attend tlie Monthly Concert? 
 
 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 lighe, 
 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 world 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 
 
 5 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
C2 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 res alt 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? 0! 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 
 Concert, 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 com<3 
 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 r> 
 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 ? 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 tnere 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 anight 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 them 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 ? Goa nas 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 j 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. 
 
 .ng. It is a prayer meeting. Its exercises consist in 
 prayer interspersed with praise. The song of grati- 
 tude and supplication of blessing ascend alternately. 
 
 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 any 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 1 
 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 ? 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 nlfey illuminate his dark mind ? How shall I be 
 able to bear his reproachful recognition of me as a 
 Christian 1 I will take care not to lie under the ac- 
 cusation. I will pra}r 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. 
 (3, 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 1 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 
 
 12. 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 world. 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 % What particular attraction 
 will there be in the next Concert, that a Christian 
 should attend that, if never another % Do you ask ? 
 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. W'hat Christian will not go to 
 the next Concert, if for no other reason, to ofTer 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 1 
 
 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 griet 
 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 
 oftheir 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 reputed 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 Ave never 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 73 
 
 prayed for thee as we ought. You could go from 
 country, aud home, and mother, to seek a spot in sa- 
 vage Sumatra to plant the cross and preach Jesus, 
 while we 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 he 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 
 holds even the savage heart, might have turned it to 
 pity, and spared us. But his will he 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 Qod, thou God of my salvation." 
 
 7 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 13. How Came it to Pass? 
 
 That three thousand were converted on the day 
 of Pentecost — how came it to pass % 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 ? Whence had it that power ? I answer, 
 it was a grayer 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 mlfillment 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%f 
 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 church. 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 
 vfcre 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. 77 
 
 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 how 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 dp 
 7* 
 
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 1 Why is it not converted ? Whose is 
 the fault? Look not up to heaven with the inqui^, 
 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 icho- 
 soever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
 evei lasting 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 
 G jd in the conversion of the world. And he does 
 not siand 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 1 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 r 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 divide^ 
 among ourselves ?• The enemies of the world* s con- 
 version are united. Yes, they forget their private 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 83 
 
 differences when the cause 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 
 trace 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 the 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 ? Suppose I admit that ; 
 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 founded on Matthew, 18:3: " Except ye 
 be converted, and become as little children." 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 were 
 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 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
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. Hoav 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 ot 
 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 wall-floicers 
 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. 
 / only say it is not every u thing. 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 1 
 ' 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 be 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. 
 
88 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 She has time enough to turn a few reilex 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 work 
 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 tha 
 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. 
 
 1 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 ?" J5y 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 again ?" 
 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 
 8* 
 
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 meeiing 
 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 t 
 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 1 Can you 
 expect a heart of stone to feel, when a heart of flesh 
 does not 7 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 j^our 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 
 place 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 
 iecome 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 a>re old, yet, 
 like the new commandment and the new song of 
 which we read in the Bible, ever new. The first is, 
 the measure of plain evangelipal 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. 
 ' 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 notun- 
 irequently 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. I 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 i* 
 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 makinof ! 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 bow 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 eigbt 
 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 naid 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. Detached 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 
 liave done wrong," and feeling " I have sinned 
 against the Lord.' 1 
 
 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 weep, 
 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 worse 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 icorse than in 
 rain. 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 ! 
 
 g Pr. Thoughts. 
 
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 
 
 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 noble 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, while 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 P 
 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 wj^ich 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 tho 
 homage of his understanding, he at length opened 
 to him that other department of the man, and re* 
 eeived 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 
 thinks 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 Goa 
 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 of 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" . 
 
 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 writiags 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. 
 
 20. Traveling on the Sabbath. 
 
 How few men act from principle ! How few hare 
 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 light 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 it he has sig- 
 nified it to be his will that we should not do anv 
 work ; neither we, nor those who are subject to us 
 as children or as servants, nor even those tran? iently 
 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, 
 lohen did he it, and where is the record of its repeal 1 
 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 oi 
 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 other days, but they do some work. Such as %e- 
 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 
 *Biem 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 moia 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 107 
 
 common on the day which the Lord has blessed and 
 hallowed 1 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; 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 relentings, 
 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 enaole him 
 to travel, and is he not equally responsible for the 
 work which he renders necessary on the Sabbath, 
 as for that which he does with his own hands ? Buf 
 
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 
 and the poor mechanic may not use the seventh day 
 as 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 
 abroad, and those who accommodate them with con- 
 veyances, may use the seven days indiscriminately. 
 ts this equal ? 
 
 I think it must be evident to every unpreju- 
 diced mind, that to travel on the Sabbath is to use it 
 as 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 
 
 * j q Pr. Thoughts. 
 
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 
 
 31. 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 
 calling 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 
 as 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 
 the place to which the person wished to go, and 
 therefore he was compelled to travel on Sunday. 
 Compelled 1 Why go to the place at all ? Why not 
 procure a private conveyance on another day of the 
 week? What if it would be more expensive 1 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 tc 
 wait on the road, perhaps for a whole week, before 1 
 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 1 are 
 we under no obligation to obey a command of God, 
 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 Saturdajr, and the evening 
 no more sacred than Monday? Did God hallow 
 only the middle of the day 1 And is the day of rest 
 shorter by several hours than any other day? I 
 never could see how one part of the Sabbath should 
 be entitled to more religious respect than another 
 part. It seems to me a man may as property travel 
 on the noon of the Sabbath, as in the morning or 
 even in 2". 
 
 
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 1 1 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 he 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 
 have readily told him the difference, and why the 
 latter part of 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 
 o ease their consciences somewhat. I remarked that 
 I thought it older than puritanism. A Sinaitical 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. 
 
 
 22. I Have Done Giving. 
 
 A gentleman of high respectability, and a mem- 
 ber of the 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 1 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 ? 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 ? 
 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 oar 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, and 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 r 
 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 WiH Give Liberally." 
 
 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 shams 
 
 i 1 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
122 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 to give calculatingly and sparingly to such a cause, 
 and for such objects. If one gives at all, 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 Avill 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. Fie 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 I 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 what 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 : 
 i 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 the}'- 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 wea.tn) 
 lady once, who thought she gave a great dea* away 
 « in chanty, to keep an accurate account for one yeai 
 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 ? 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 Go'd is well 
 pleased, without going out of your way to do it. 
 Others must go about to do good, but yo*u 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. 
 
 25. "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 tho 
 inability. 
 
130 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 1. Perhaps he does not cam 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 penn}?- 
 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 j to save for the sake of having something 
 to give to the cause of the Lord ? 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 tine. 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 empty handed. 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 ? O, 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 icill. 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 soio more bountifully, 
 for I want to reap also bountifully. This parsimony 
 in the use of seed money is poor policy, 
 
 J 2 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
134 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 36. An Example of liiberaHty. 
 
 I am going to give an example of liberality. But 
 where do you think I am going to take it from, and 
 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. They 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 duty 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. 
 M 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 1 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 1 So far from it, there was 
 a 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. Now 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 — Avhat 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 ana 
 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- 
 rood 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 1 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 with 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. 139 
 
 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. Now, 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 ofTfor 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 willingly, 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, 
 " 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" 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 leg- 
 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 ahvays 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 tneir 
 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 even 
 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. 
 
 28. 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* 
 tion 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, hut themselves and 
 their '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 tliat 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 ? 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 leni more liberally to such a paymaster, and 
 
 J-3 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
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 19 
 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 
 by 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 
 
 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 effo rts. Nay, per- 
 haps has given his own person to the service which 
 he asks 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 j 
 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 samej 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. Taey need not become poor; but why 
 should they De so solicitous to become more rich ? 
 That is being as unlike the model as possible. 
 
 29. 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 hear s 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 Britain far off? 
 Yet Christian missionaries visited it. I wonder that 
 this circumstance should be forgotten. W T as that a 
 Quixotic enterprise which resulted in the conver- 
 sion of cur ancestors ? If not, how is that Quixotic 
 which undertakes the conversion of a nation now in 
 heathenism? 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 1 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 1 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 153 
 
 30. AVhy the "World Should Have tlie Bible. 
 
 There are a great manv reasons why the world 
 should have 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 means of multiplying and circulating copies of 
 it, do not resolve at once to attempt, within a reason- 
 able period, to give it to the world, since the world 
 can only have it by the gift of those in whose 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 but 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 
 !*ely, and does actually rely on God to aid him in 
 ixecuting it. He may take on him a great weight of 
 responsibility when he has such support. One can 
 io 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 
 
 6as sent liim. 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, hut 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 
 with 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. Amic 
 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 
 books have been tried and found wanting. They do 
 not go to the heart like God's. They don't wipe 
 away 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 how 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 
 v T ou — divine sympathy. Dost thou feel 1 He feels 
 coo. Does not the pitier always suffer as well as the 
 pitied % 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 
 iiim 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 give 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. SI. I4. Kevins. 
 
 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, wife 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 
 
 J 4 Pr . Thoughts. 
 
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 wha 
 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 remoA^ed 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 it 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, deemed 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 hor 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." Jesua 
 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 
 n Yes ; but not his— 'tis death, itself, there dies.' 
 
 32. What; Strange Beings We Are I 
 
 How unreasonable ! How inconsistent with our- l 
 selves ! Even we, who are Christians. God does the 
 very thing we ask him to do : and yet we complain 
 14* 
 
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." 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 Ave say that we never meant, in our 
 hearts, what the terms of our petition expressed — that 
 we never really desired his will should be done? 
 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 10 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 
 uni ormly 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 ! 
 
 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 
 Vv hile 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 Ave 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 Avhom 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 we 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 cur 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 1 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 th8 
 same 1 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. 167 
 
 pass from me," and it was not done ? 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 b}'- 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 1 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 reism with him." Jesus 
 
163 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 was ne\ r er 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 be- 
 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 
 Avould care to hold the reins of government, if he 
 might by the expression of his desire control the 
 being in whose hands they are ? 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 1 
 
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 heings we are to expect or desire such 
 a thing ! 
 
 Are we the only persons whose happiness is to be 
 regarded by God in his dispensations ? 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 ? 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 w r as not thy friend's happiness to 
 be taken into the account, as well as thine ? 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 ? If thy loss were equivalent to his 
 gain, it would 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 1 And shall you indulge 
 discontent ? If you cannot but grieve, yet you should 
 be willing to shed many tears for the sake of having 
 all his wiped away. Can a soul too soon cease from 
 
 \ 5 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
170 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 sin and sorrow ? Can heaven be entered premature 
 ly 1 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 tliy 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 1 ?" 
 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 w T ith 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 the 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 of 
 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 itself 
 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. Thing? cannot 
 be according to their mind in time and in eternity 
 both. How merciful it is in God not to let things by 
 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 u 
 
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? 
 
 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 hiru 
 that loved us ?" 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 175 
 
 Hoav 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, w T hen 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 best 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, 
 " 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 our families — wife 
 and children, and all. We say " These also are diine, 
 Lord. Use them likewise for thy glory. We con- 
 secrate them to thee." Well, being consecrated, ho 
 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 
 ;n nim, 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 % 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 
 into 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 U3e 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 tiie fiord. 
 
 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— those 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 ? Has 
 he not nourished and brought us up as children ? 
 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- 
 
130 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 ties us like as a father his children ? I know the 
 Lord is good to all. How can he, who is Jove, bo 
 other than benevolent ? It were contrary to his na- 
 ture not to be. But pity expresses more than good- 
 ness — more than benevolence. There is an ur- 
 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 suffer. 
 This one consideration — that God pities, is worth 
 more than all philosophy. 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 181 
 
 There is much that is interesting and lovely in 
 pity, 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 pow r er to give ; like as 
 he pities, so the Lord pities. So inexpressibly feels 
 he towards them that fear him. Such deep and un- 
 defmable emotions as a parent's heart is occupied 
 with, when he says " my poor child." So the Lord 
 pities. Can it be ? It is even so. WeR 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 1 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- 
 
 jq Pr. Thoughts. 
 
182 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 mg delight in 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 foi 
 him? Have you never denied him something, an& 
 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 ot 
 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 
 
 iather 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 % 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 ? 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 ! 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 
 their 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. 
 
 3t. Five Negatives. 
 
 It is known that two negatives in English are 
 equivalent to an affirmative. They destroy each 
 other. But it is not so in Greek. They strengthen 
 the negation ; and a third negative makes it stronger 
 still, and so a fourth, and a fifth. How strong five 
 negatives must make a negation ! But do five ever 
 occur ? 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 prorrises," 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 employed. We translate but two 
 of them j 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 tl?an doubly sure. So, instead of saying simply, 
 " I w'll not leave thee," which alone would have 
 beer enough, he adds, " nor forsake thee ;" and in- 
 stead of leaving it thus, " I will not leave thee, I will 
 r.ot 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, 
 
 " 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 3 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 ? 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 by this. But I need 
 
188 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 not attempt to explain a word that expresses what w» 
 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 1 Divide 
 it with others we may to some little 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 word 
 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 you ask, " Will he ? — 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 1HOUGHTS. 
 
 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 follows 
 no nourish 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 ? 
 
 why should he 1 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 1 Are ye not of much more value, whom 
 no less a price could redeem than the blood of his 
 Son 1 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 
 
19? 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. il Sure^ 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 ? 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 1 
 
 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 
 
 ] 7 Pr. Taoughts. 
 
1S4 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 1 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. i3o 
 
 would not satisfy, even if such a thing :ould 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 1 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 1 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 3onclude 
 the same if Ave 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- 
 
195 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 whc 
 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 ; but 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 
 calf 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 1 " 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 ft/50." 
 
 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. 
 
 4:0. IiOvest 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 our 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 snch 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 % 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 
 t^at we love him, and all our manner shows him that 
 we 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 husbana 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. M 
 
 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 hinj 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 clone for him 1 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 1 
 " Our love so faint, so cold to thee, 
 
 " And thine to us so great V 
 
 <U. The 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, M 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, w T ho 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 m it; nor in this other passage, " The.]/ 
 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 
 lie 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 
 
PRACTICAL 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 your 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 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
*205 
 
 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 at 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 1 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 shelving 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, anct 
 make converts to God. Yes, this is the way. " Hav- 
 ing your conversation honest among the Gentiles : 
 that whereas they speak against }^ou 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 
 divine 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 far 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 
 
 42. The Salt of the 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, Avhat a disinterested people Christians 
 are ! It is not to themselves mainly that 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 own. 
 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 not, 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 1 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 we 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 also. The new 
 crea'ure 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- 
 tians should be conformed to it. It would appear tc 
 be as contrary to their nature to be conformed to th« 
 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 surely 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. Tlic Distance of Death. 
 
 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 
 
 Rppa.1 mg 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 w r ay thither 
 was long and difficult, dying w r ould 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 wnat 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 death 
 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 any thing 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 ! 
 How 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 1 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 Pr. Thoughts. 
 
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 Loth to Die? 
 
 I find within me a strange reluctance to die ? and 
 I perceive in others indications of a similar unwill- 
 
PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 219 
 
 ingness. 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 s©me 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- 
 tian'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 
 better " 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, whicl 
 is far better." However averse to being ''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 deathis 
 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 ? 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 pcmt 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 7 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 ? 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 ?" 
 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 ? 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 
 ho do without you? Cannot he find other agents 
 and instruments when you are laid aside? Does he 
 not sav of the widows and fatherless children, " leave 
 them to me ?" And will he not be faithful to the 
 trust which he solicits? 
 
 Do rot children desire to see the face of their fa 
 ther? And are not we children of God ? Aft°r so 
 many years of daily converse and communion with 
 him, an 1 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 koine 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 farher'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 
 thought 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 attt-nds. 
 
 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. 
 
 Sureiy 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 Christ s 
 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 — 
 xv hat 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 ihe 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. 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 evi^s of earth. Not only what is in heaven, 
 should attract us to it, but what is not there. And 
 what is not there 1 There is no night there. Who ' 
 
226 PRACTICAL THOUGHTS. 
 
 does not want to go where no night is 1 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 nig-ht ; 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 of 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 
 
 nio-ht 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 Wee. 
 him ; for we shall see him as he is." 
 
 What is there then, since these are not ? 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, 
 '* 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; 
 that 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 1 Christian female, 
 thy husband. 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 of 
 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 unwflling 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 
 
 2Q Fr. Thoughts. 
 
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 authoi 
 here laid down his pen ; and instead of resuming it, 
 was called, who can question, to realise the scenes 
 he had been describing.] 
 
 TUB END. 
 
VS&^^T , ®3IBV£P 
 
 sr ^ 
 
 ■ To the law and to the testimony." Isa, 
 
 BY REV. WILLIAM NEVINS, P. D. 
 
 Late Pastor of a Church in Baltimore. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY. 
 150 NASSAU-STREET, NEW-YOKK. 
 
 U. F&nsbaw, Printer. 
 
Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, 
 R.ufus L. Nevins, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court 
 oC the Southera District of New- York, 
 
 Right of publishing transferred to American Tract Society. 
 

 CONTENTS 
 
 No. Pigt 
 
 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 
 
 6. The Nine Commandments, 21 
 
 7. Catholic hostility to the Bible, - - - - 25 
 
 8. Something for the Rev. Mi*. H. - ?'.) 
 
 9. Distinction of Sins into Mortal and Veni?J H - • ^3 
 
 10. The Deadly Sins, ----- - 35 
 
 11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit, - .37 
 
 12. Infallibility, 40 
 
 13. The Keys, 44 
 
 14. The Head of the Church, 47 
 
 15. The power to forgive Sins, ----- 51 
 
 16. A Catholic Book reviewed, - - - - 5ri 
 
 17. Review of the Catholic Book continued, - - 60 
 
 18. The Pope an Idolater, 05 
 
 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. Relies, - 94 
 
 26. Seven Sacraments, ---.«.- 100 
 
 27. Tran substantiation, ---,,- 103 
 
 28. Haifa Sacrament, 105 
 
 29. Extreme Unction, -••••- 109 
 
4 CONTENTS. 
 
 JVo. Pag: 
 
 30. Doing Penance, - - - - - - -112 
 
 31. The hardest Religion, ----- H6 
 
 32. More about Penance, ------ 120 
 
 33. A Fast-day Dinner, - - - - - 122 
 
 34. The Mass, 125 
 
 35. More about the Mass, ----- 130 
 
 36. The Host, 136 
 
 37. Priests, - 
 
 38. Celibacy of the Clergy, - - - - 
 
 39. A Holier state than Matrimony, - • - 
 
 40. Auricular Confession, - 
 
 41. A Mistake Corrected - 
 
 42. Purgatory, ------- 
 
 43. More about Purgatory, - - - - - 
 
 44. A Strange Thing, -_---, 
 
 45. Canonizing Saints, ------ 
 
 46. General La Fayette not at rest, - - - 
 
 47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed, - - - 
 
 48. An Improvement, - 
 
 49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason, 
 
 50. The Duke's Seventh Reason, - 
 
 51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason, - - . 
 
 52. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, 
 
 53. Beauties of the Leopold Reports, - 
 
 54. Partiality of the Church of Rome, 
 
 55. Supererogation, ------ 
 
 56. Convents, -------- 
 
 57. Mr. Berrington and Mrs. More, - 
 
 58. A new method of exciting Devotion, - 
 
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 iu 
 accordance with general suggestions of the author, but es- 
 sentially in the form in which they at first appeared. 
 
JPSS^^^OS^^ <fj>f2f J&^^SlSE^a 
 
 1. The Sufficiency of the Bible as a Rule of Faith 
 and Guide to Salvation* 
 
 This is the great matter in controversy between Pro- 
 testants and Roman Catholics. We say the Bible is 
 sufficient. TViey 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. 
 L But what did Paul write to Timothy about the Holy 
 
8 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 we 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, "are able 
 to make thee wise unto salvation." Why, what is the 
 matter with the man 1 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 wise. So then the Scriptures can 
 be known by children, and can make wise to salvation 
 those who know them. This is Paul's decision, and 
 here should be an end of the controversy. If this prove 
 not the sufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith and 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY- 
 
 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? 
 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, ar*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. The 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 
 
 2. 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 1 M 
 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 Paul said, (and I suspect they would 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 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. 
 
 8* 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 Son," &c. or to that, Matt. 
 11 : 28, 30, " Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 
 heavy laden, and I will give you rest," &c. and he 
 may read the words, but then he must not attempt to 
 pat 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 exuitingly 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 
 eontends 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 
 k. 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 were moved by 
 the Holy Ghost." Now I would ask if this reason 
 
 ^ Popery. 
 
14 THOUGHTS ON POPEEY. 
 
 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 it3 
 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 
 Avas 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, interpret 
 tulion. should be translated as Dr. M'Knight trans- 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 15 
 
 Iates 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 i 
 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 fur 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 thai 
 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 hand? 
 of the people, and advise them to read it, that they 
 may become, or continue to be good Roman Catholics 1 
 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 Catholic* 
 are not more anxious to put into general circulation the 
 two epistles of their St. Peter, who they assert wan 
 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 netter to believe too much than to believe too little j 
 and it is one of the arguments with which they endea- 
 vor t( 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 j 
 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 as 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 repre- 
 
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. Nov/, 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 safei 
 state than the Protestant. Well, when 1 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. The Nine Commandments. 
 
 "Nine commandments ! What does that mean 1 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 w T as that such a storv <=hould 
 
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 thv 
 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 thvj 
 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 coDtrive to make out ten some 
 how or other. And how do you think they do it? 
 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 
 eovet 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, 8j, and the second half r 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 01* 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 finger of 
 God on the tahles 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 ti rned 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, iliey 
 could, and did err. If they will alford us that evidence 
 of repentance, we will forgive them, and we will say 
 no more about it. We know it is a sore subject witfe 
 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 ?" 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 25 
 
 7. Catholic Hostility to tlie 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 
 iLord. 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 
 diey do not take more pains to conceal their dislike of 
 .t, for it certainly does not look well that the ^church 
 of God should fall out with the oracles of God. Itliasi* 
 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 Popery. 
 
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 fact has surprised me not a 
 little — that a student of Maynooth College, Ireland, 
 named O'Beirne, should have been expelled that insti- 
 tution for persistirg in reading the Bible ! Expulsion 
 is a pretty serious thing. That must be esteemed a 
 heinous crime which is supposed to justify so seveie 
 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: L 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 oily to read, but to search the Scriptures: the au- 
 thorities of the college told him he mast 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'fauh 
 *>¥ 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 recent 
 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 hellrinspired 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 
 
28 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 ot 
 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 1 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. 2$ 
 
 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 Douay is before all other Bibles, 
 yet king James' may answer one's turn until he can 
 get the Douay. The Catholics complain that we give 
 their people an erroneously translated Bible : why, 
 then, do they not supply them with a correct 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'? 
 
 3* 
 
30 THOUGHTS ON POPEKY. 
 
 8. Something for the liev. 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 Piotestant reli- 
 gion is. He has been often told, but I will tell him 
 again. It is the religion of the Bible. It was nol 
 called Protestant when the Bible was written, for 
 then there was no corruption of Christianity to fro- 
 test against. Put 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 particulai 
 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 inhere 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 V 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 1 
 
 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 icas 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 not 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 POPERt, 
 
 that he embodied the substance of the Gospel, which 
 he had taught them "publicly and from house to 
 house." lie 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 think not. Well, sir, what are the doctrines of that 
 epistle ? Are they yours or ours — Catholic or Protes- 
 tant ? 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 ? 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 ? 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 writUu, and after all the evangelists 
 and apostles were dead. I am informed on that point. 
 I Avant to know where the Roman Catholic religion 
 was before those good men died ; where it was before 
 the fathers. 
 
 They talk about the antiquity of the Roman 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 first 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 «in." 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 mcuth 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- 
 eth 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 ? 
 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 POPEHY. ^ 
 
 tO. 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 
 
3D THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 does not the apostle say, 4 " The wages of these seven 
 sins (enumerating them) is death '?" But he does not 
 say that. He regarded all sins as deadly — every :ne 
 of the multitude as mortal in its consequences. 
 
 If there are only seven sins which are deadly, then 
 I 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 y 
 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 
 mere 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, 
 u 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 
 
 I am surprised that in the list of deadly sms 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 — of 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 Popery. 
 
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 heaven, without a fitness for it 1 Asa 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 7 
 
 Here were two men, educated in the Catholic reli- 
 gion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and 
 yet ne\er having heard of the Holy Spirit ! They had 
 hean?. often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this 
 sair/, ind that saint, but never a word of the Holy 
 
THOUGHTS ON POFERY. 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 charactei 
 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 ? But this is by the way. 
 
 The *e 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 1 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, and 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 Jife of her she cannot tell wherf;. 
 Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Other"? 
 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 thev re- 
 quire us to believe that any one is. Let them jind 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 ? 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 FOPERY. 
 
 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 
 he, th« father of such a Hopeful youth as Cesar Bor- 
 gia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 43 
 
 pave 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 1 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. Now here 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 POPERT. 
 
 13. The Keys. 
 
 The Catholics, by which I mean Roman 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 Ave 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 Ox\ 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 the 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 1 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 ol 
 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 many fancy that Peter kept these keys all his 
 life and then transmitted them to another, and he to 
 a third, and so from hand to hand they have come 
 along down till whatfs his name at Rome has them 
 now — the Pope. And they say these keys signify the 
 
46 THOUGHTS OH 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 
 lias 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 all 
 be admitted, while never a soul of us, poor Protes- 
 tants, will. They may be mistaken, however. 1 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 
 JEpistles 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 
 
THOUGHTS 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. 
 
 I*. 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 1 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 ol" 
 the church. Ah, is he ? 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 !" 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 writings 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 POPERY. 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 I 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 Chrises 
 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, 
 
 = Popery. 
 
50 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 strengthened! 
 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 Ids 
 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 hut 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 tne 
 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 tkey 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 escered 
 the thoughts of the apostles. They are no* 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 may be 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 ? 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. Tha« 
 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 ? 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 ? 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 ON POPERY. 
 
 a priest; it is good for noihing 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 otier words, must wait before they express any joy 
 that a sinner has repented, 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 charactei 
 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 beer 
 remarking, are mentioned, there is this general state 
 ment : " Plenary indulgences granted to the faithful 
 
TH00GHT3 ON POPERY. 59 
 
 throughout these states, at the following times;" 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 thsm 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 
 ali 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 ni works behind them. How shall he ever 
 find 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 knew, 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 Popery, 
 
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 long enough, 
 when they have ascertained what the fathers 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 
 the 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'6 supper j 
 
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 lea7e 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 ot 
 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 m this home of freedom ! If it be 
 «o, 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 OAvn 
 words in proof of it. They are a part of the circular, 
 or encyclical letter, sent forth by him on entering on 
 his otfice, 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 " 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 ! 
 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 
 
 hovah 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 1 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- I 
 dress to him ? Do they not ask of her just what oughl 
 to be asked of Him, and what he alone can give? Af- J 
 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 ii 
 
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 1 What sort of 
 a body must that be, which has such a head 1 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. 
 I shall do the same in the case of Charles. On the 
 occasion of the baptism (with oil, spittle, &c. an im- 
 provement on th« 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 m ^fortunes with which 
 it has pleased Providence to aflfl-ct 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 
 is 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 call? 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPEHY. 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 augels. 
 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 authorising 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 TH0UGHT8 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 U3 the name Christianity, 
 since Christ " 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 
 
 SO. Idolatry near Home. 
 
 It is wonderful what a propensity there is in fallen 
 men to idolatry. How they do love to worship the 
 creature rather than the Creator ! In a certain church, 
 which 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 
 have 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 
 
 j Popery. 
 
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 1 It seems to signifv 
 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 Mary 
 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. 
 $0 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 Annapolis. 
 tn 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 ignorantlv 
 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 - 
 .mplies that the chapel in question is dedicated to the 
 worship of the Virgin Mary 5 and she being a creature, 
 
TflOOGHTS ON POPi-nY. 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 Roman 
 Catholic religion has only to be universally adopted 
 to make us both. 
 
 21. Praying to Saints. 
 
 This is one of the numerous points m 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 doubts 
 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 will 
 mention some of them, in4;he hope that they will ap- 
 pear to be equally good reasons why Catholics should 
 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 
 -rood gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and 
 eometa 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 
 ihat* 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 hy 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 be guilty of the idolatry of worship- 
 ing a creature. 7* 
 
<S THOUGHTS ON POPEIiY. 
 
 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, without 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- 
 ended to, for it may be among saints in heaven, as it 
 js 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 
 he 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, 
 to ask him, the Lord, to grant him something. This 
 
THOUGHTS 0^. 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. W"e 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 ever the Bible, the book which contains 
 the religion of Protestants, and which, being older 
 than the Reman Catholic religion, proves the seni- 
 
80 TEOUGETS 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 m 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. 
 
 «3. Specimens of Catholic Idolatry. 
 
 I take them from the Catholic book which I have 
 bpeu reviewing, "The Christian's Guide «to Heaven." 
 
. 
 
 THOUGHTS ON POPEHY. 81 
 
 did not know, before I read this book, that idolatry 
 was the road to heaven. It did not use to be under 
 the Jewish dispensation. These specimens of Catho- 
 lic idolatry I think the reader will pronounce, with me, 
 quite 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 
 look 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 I 
 
 Then 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 God," 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 I 
 give thee thanks from the bottom of my heart, lor 
 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 oi 
 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. I 
 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 1 There cannot be a plainer case of idolatry 
 made out m 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 ser- 
 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 
 ibat 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 5 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 pvil." 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 like 
 to know. Do they go so far as to say she is omnipre- 
 sent ? Have they formally deified her, as in fact they 
 nave 1 
 
 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, would 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. 
 
 S3. More Specimens of Catholic Idolatry. 
 
 Why, reader, did you know that the Catholics net 
 Only pray to the Virgin Mary, but sing to her ? I was 
 
 g Popery. 
 
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 bleat, 
 
 " Defend us from our foes ; 
 " From threatening dangers set us free, 
 
 " And terminate our woes." 
 
 Here is the idolatry of looking to a creature for th~ 
 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, 
 
 " Tity our needy state. 
 
 " O thou who fiU'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, w»ra trouble filled my breast, 
 
 "Or sin ray 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, 
 
 '' 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 Kim 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 
 
88 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 nineteenth^ the sinner is dire(R<J to say, " O wheat 
 of the elect, have mercy on us !" 
 
 I think we have found, with reference to the Catho- 
 lic 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 hei. If 
 the Roman Catholic church is idolatrous, can she 
 stand 1 Must she not fall 1 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. 
 I 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 thai 
 it now occupies. My hope is in God; but if it were 
 not, it would be in man. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. SO 
 
 34. Image Worsliip. 
 
 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 inhere 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 ol 
 Trfmt had said many years before, " the images ol 
 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 
 cf them be explained away, that is, be made so cleat 
 
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, I 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 n8t be so explained 
 as to appear in harmony, they have most effectually 
 explained one ol them 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, i3 
 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 r A 
 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 POPEHY. 93 
 
 and you only give "due honor and veneration" to 
 images — nothing more than that. You should con- 
 sider, my child, the distinction between adoration and 
 veneration — and also between latria and dulia." But 
 this might not have satisfied the person's conscience. 
 It 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 
 it was only a relative worship they paid to the visible 
 object, and that the adoration was meant to pass 
 through 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 net 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. 
 
 I 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. 
 
 35. 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 bodied, 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 a3 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 a*re 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 may be readily furnished with relics, and 
 the defect in this particular, which Catholics deplore 
 m 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 
 that some of them must be spurious. Five devout pil- 
 
 9 Popery. 
 
93 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 
 
 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 ! 
 
 Bat, 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 ? 
 
 I was surprised to find that Bellarmine refers to 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 99 
 
 Deut. 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 
 ihem. 
 
100 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 i. 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 j 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 all 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 
 fathers, stood on the bank of the stream, but Paul and 
 
THOUGHTS OX P0PE1LY. 101 
 
 his associates sat around the fountain. These last saw 
 truth in its rise ; the others only saw it in its now. 
 True, they were near the source, but they were not 
 ath; and who knows not that a stream may he cor- 
 rupted very near its source ? If I live eighteen or nine- 
 teen miles distant from a certain fountain, whoso 
 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 V I read in the Bible that " like as 
 a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them 
 that fear him/ 5 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 1 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. Trasasufestantiation. 
 
 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 V 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. Lei: 
 him turn to Luke, 22 : 19, 20. He reads in verse 19, 
 " This is my body." Therefore, he reasons, the breau 
 becomes the body of Christ. Very well. But read verse 
 20; i: 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 
 ill 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, wul you be - 
 lieve those liars, the senses 1 But if they are such fiai's 
 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 : li This is 
 my body ?" 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 ol 
 tbese 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 case s 
 of this change recorded in Revelation, 1 : 20; one in 
 which certain stars become angels, and another in 
 which certain candlesticks become churches. Do you 
 doubt 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 
 ray 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. Eut, 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 I 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. Half a 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. 
 
lOfi THOI'GHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 They have told them that they must put up with the 
 bread, for that they "want the cup for themselves. Bui 
 did not Christ give the cup, in the original institution 
 of the sacrament, to as many as he gave the bread ? 
 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 ? 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-extcnsive with the reason an- 
 nexed to it. Nov/ I have not been in the habit of re- 
 garding the propitiatory death of Christ as a part 01 
 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 oi 
 the blood shed for many, for the remission of sins, 1 
 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 1 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 1 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 sacrament might not 
 be done without a heinous sacrilege. Was not he head 
 of the church too, and was not he infallible ? If he was 
 not, I wonder how he could transmit infallibility. 
 
 This withholding of the cup is one of the boldest 
 strokes of that church. I cannot help admiring the 
 courage it manifests. Who would have thought it 
 could have succeeded so well? I wonder they even 
 undertook to carry this point. However, they have done 
 it. T.iere was some murmuring against it, to be sure. 
 Huss and Jerome made a noise about it, but they just 
 burnt them, and they made no more noise about it. 
 
 But are not Christians followers, that is, imitators 
 of Christ ? O yes. But this withholding of the cup is 
 not doing like Christ. The Catholics say that Christ 
 
108 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 is with their church to ihe end of time. It strides me, 
 however, that he could not have been with them at 
 that point in the progress of time when the Council of 
 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 
 tha 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 Paul 
 says, " as often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
 cup, ye do diow the Lord's death." It is only they 
 who do both that make this exhibition. Christ's 
 death is not shown by the bread merely, but by both 
 the elements. I know your church says that the 
 blood is m the body, and that, in taking one, both are 
 taken, for that "Christ was entire and truly under 
 <~iach kind," as the council decrees. But how came 
 Christ himself to know nothing of this 7 Did he do a 
 superfluous tnmg in giving the cup? 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. 
 
 29. 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 
 tf the priest should be long in coming, I would advise 
 Aim to confess to God. I think it would answer as 
 <vell. 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 
 
 Popery. 
 
110 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 — a sacrament — one of the seven! I think they must 
 have been at a loss to make up the seven, when 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 we 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 ? 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 
 haa ceased to pay his periodical visit to it. So in this 
 case, there being now no healing, there need be, and 
 there should be. no anointing. 
 
212 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 How the priests now differ in their use of the oil 
 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 iiieir 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 
 fire. 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, regeneration; 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 113 
 
 been present. But I must say that I know not how 
 to reconcile this rendering ot metanoia with their in- 
 tegrity as translators. I cannot help believing that 
 they 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 (coming one of them more- 
 over for the occasion) to convey the meaning of one 
 Greek word? Was there any necessity for it 1 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 f 
 "There is joy in heaven oyer 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 conv- 
 mands all to do penance. Except ye do penance, ye 
 shall all likewise perish. He is not willing that any 
 should perisji, 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 : 
 pnest ; 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 trice, 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 tha 
 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 POPERV. 
 
 penitent. But if the requisition be doing penance, iri 
 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 little 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 
 fepent ? 
 
 There is a precious note in the Douay connnected 
 with this subject, which may afford me a topic here- 
 after. 
 
 31. The Hardest ReligioA. 
 
 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 bodv and blood of Christ'?* Not 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 117 
 
 that alone, but also into his soul 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 j 
 z.:id 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 r that baptism is indispensable to salvation 7 
 they are all lost just for the want of a little water I 
 Poor things, they fare no better than the thief on the 
 eross 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 j 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 thev hold that there are some sins whose 
 
US 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 Avritten 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 tcits 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 then! 
 only from sheer necessity ? 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 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, 
 so 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 their 
 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 POFERY. 
 
 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 Lazarus, 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. 
 
 33. 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. But 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 pccnitentiam, 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 
 
 ginal word. Why then is a translation of it adopted, 
 which excludes both repentance and amendment. If 
 the original includes 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 
 
 l\ Popery/ 
 
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 of fish, (after all their kinds,) eggs, oysters, 
 terrapins, with all manner of vegetables, and every 
 variety of desert I 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. I 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." HovJ 
 does that sound ? Do you really think that it is wha 
 the Lord meant. 
 
 33. A Past-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 OT« POPERY. 123 
 
 hi 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 nourished. 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 itj 
 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 L 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 not 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:* Tlie Mass. 
 
 There is a gte'at 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 mak6 
 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 a?e 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 4 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 5 the first mass was said. In the Douay 
 Catdchism we find these questions and answers : 
 Q. Who said the first mass ? A. Jesus Christ. 
 Q. When did he say it 1 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 ! 
 
 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, lie 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 POPERt. 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 
 offered " of the fruit of the ground," was not accepted 
 equally with Abel who brought to the Lord " of the 
 firstlings of his flock." But Avhatever 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 what 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 7 
 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 iii 
 the history of the priesthood I 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 ^n 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 1 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 I Is this truth 1 Can an- 
 
ISO THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 tiquity be pleaded for this doctrine ? 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 tlie 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 jvo- 
 
THOUGHTS ON 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 
 Mekhizedek, 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." 
 Q,. 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 serioisly. 
 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 tempter's 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 o\ 
 his priestly office he blessed Abraham. To bless, we 
 know, was 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 7 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 v/hat, 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 Popery. 
 
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 1 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 ta< 
 
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 oi 
 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 
 our Saviour took bread and blessed, and break, and 
 gave it to his disciples ; but we read nothing about 
 
THOUGHTS OX POPERY. 137 
 
 any wafer. If by wafer the same thing' is meant f 
 which we mean by bread, yet why this change of 
 names % Why not call it what Christ called it 1 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, 
 sucii 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 sm,ell 
 alike, and taste and feel precisely alike. The form 
 
133 THOUGHTS ON FOPERY. 
 
 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, together ivith 
 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 thing 5. 
 
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 i* 
 to be ? And if in this case 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 
 nost is Christ — a wafer, God— a bit of bread, not only 
 she 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 
 
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 
 
 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 
 I 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 take the first 
 opportunity of retracting. 
 
TH0UGHT3 OK 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 5 ' 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 samts. 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 r 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 liveth 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 7 If Paul was, why does he not sometimes 
 call himself so in the introduction of his Epistles t 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 143 
 
 Was he ashamed of the office 7 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 1 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. Vv r ho 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, area! 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 
 
244 THOUGHTS 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, ODly 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. Tlie Celibacy of tlie 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, Ave 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 1 Our priests tell U3 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 that ruleth 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 Popery. 
 
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 
 which 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 ? 
 
 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 I 
 
 In one of his last letters to Mr. Breckenridge, Mr. 
 Hughes, of Philadelphia, says that the Catholic cnurch 
 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 '? 
 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 ; 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 I hen, 
 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 
 1 know not how many more. They all went with 
 their sin directly to God. Read that precious Psalm, 
 the 51 st. There 13 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 
 priest? 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 p- iest will hear you confess — he can 
 forgive you." I Jke better the Protestant doctrine 3 
 which speeds an J cnc-ers the penitent on his way to God. 
 13* 
 
150 THOUGHTS ON POPER*. 
 
 Nor ca*i 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 
 Avant 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 
 19 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 
 in use. 
 
 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, 
 aDd it was to them he said, " I have sinne4, 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 that the Catholics have authority 
 (such as it is) for 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. 
 
J52 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. # 
 
 But, poor man ! .He got nothing by going to the 
 priests. 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 Pries' 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 
 Tudas. 
 
 43. Purgatory. 
 
 There are no worse reasoners than the Catholics , 
 and L suppose the cause of this is that they are so lit- 
 tle accustomed to reason. Men rarely do uell 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. Betw r een their premises and con- 
 clusion there is often so great a gulf, so deep and 
 wide both, that I have wondered how thev 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; 
 
THOUGHT 3 ON FOPE2Y. 153 
 
 not for the satisfaction of the faithful, (for to them it is 
 sufficient that the church believes the doctrine,) hut 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 ha$ 
 
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 men's souls ; but 
 the fire here spoken of is to try every man's uork. 
 Besides, it is not said that the person shall be saved 
 by fire, but so as by fire ; that is, with the like difficulty 
 vyith 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 fir e. 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 cf 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?" 
 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 gire 
 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 jire. 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? 
 
156 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 flame, 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 Fid 
 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?" 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 POPEEY. 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 1 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 ? 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 Popery 
 
158 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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 Thing. 
 
 I read the other day in a Baltimore newspaper tne 
 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 f 
 of Cincinnati, and De INeker, 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 preached 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 waa 
 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 arn 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPEKY. 15& 
 
 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 incorrectlv. So 1 resumed the paper; 
 but still it read the same. Then I threw it dow r n, 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 4 
 "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 along 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, "Elessed are 
 the dead which die in the Lord/ro7W. 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 ? 
 
 Helping 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 ? 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, 
 tn 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 1 
 He died on that day, it is true. But 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 163 
 
 canonized saints — the saints of human manufactuie. 
 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 ? 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 aboui 
 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. But 
 this is a digression. I was speaking of us Protestants, 
 that we reject masses. And so we acknowledge no 
 distinction of days, but the Lord's day. We keep no 
 saint's days. We keep the Lord's day. It is almost 
 
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 jirst, 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. luafayette not at Rest. 
 
 A few days since I observed the following notice, 
 taken from the Charleston Roman Catholic Miscella- 
 ny : ' c 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 ins*. (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 s,eem 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. 
 1 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 we 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 wLked 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 disquiet 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 must believe that 
 
168 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 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?" 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 all the saints of the church 
 of Rome had been as good men as Lafayette. They 
 nave canonized worse men than he. I have never in- 
 quired curiously into the devotional character of the 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 169 
 
 g-Sneral, but I am possessed of no proof that he wag 
 Hot 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 woid 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. Wc prayed for 
 him while he Avas 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' Popery. 
 
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 infalliblt 
 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 soulin purgatory with singing? 
 
 47. Prayers for the 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 tc be prayed 
 out of it, seems to have been always cut 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 jire. 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 s 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 Maeb. 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 veng.eance ? 
 
 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. Rut 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 
 
TH0UGHT3 ON POPERY. 175 
 
 been c; 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 
 the 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 unfre mently 
 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 fox 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 their 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 
 {.hanks. If, on the other hand, the soul is not at rest, 
 then common sense, which is no fool, asks why they s 
 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 co/nmon 
 sense, they change the phraseology of the notice. It 
 is wise. Well may the authorities of the Roman 
 Catholic church stand in dread 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 ot 
 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 i 
 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 brear 1 
 
 49. The Duke 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 down Jifly reasons to justify the course he had 
 pursued, and had them printed in a little book, which 
 is entitled u 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 weak, 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 fqr 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 De equivalent 
 
 ;' to one good one. t 
 
 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, 
 
 >.i 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 religion. From whence I infer- 
 red, the Roman Catholic faith was built on a better 
 
ISO THOUGHTS 03 POPERY. 
 
 foundation than any of those sects that have divided 
 from it." Prodigious 1 — and there he stops. I 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 wag 
 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 in 
 the army for another I 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 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 181 
 
 again, wnat 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 Seventli 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 . ' Popery. 
 
182 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 may 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 
 say 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 true ? 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 
 
 litis 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 natiou he that feareth him, and worketfi 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 lo 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. Neicton, Leighton, Howard, and many 
 others are beyond 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 ; 
 but Protestants allow that Catholics may. If Protes- 
 tants were to say that Catholics could not be saved, 
 
184 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 believo 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 care for it. It is just 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 185 
 
 as they please. V\ 7 e 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?" 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 
 bemg 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 far 
 as it can, damns all who cannot see their way clear 
 to embrace it. 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 1S7 
 
 51. The Duke's Eleventh Reason. 
 
 1 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 f he 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 lie was quite an investigator. He searched 
 almost every book but the Scriptures. He looked 
 for what he wanted every where but where the thing 
 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 appeale'd 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- 
 mmick (!?) 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 
 tbirty-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. 189 
 
 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 dwell 
 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. 
 
 52. 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 
 
THO'oGI-lTS ON P0PESY. 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 I 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 1, -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." 
 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 <$■ 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 
 Eending gifts.] 
 
 17 Popery. 
 
194 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 53. Beauties of tlie 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. 
 
THOOGHTS 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- 
 ries ! 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 the 
 external honor of the house of God, so that the inner 
 man, by the splendor of the external divine worship, 
 may be lifted to heaven." What a sage sentiment ! 
 How scriptural I 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 
 trie mediator of the new covenant," whom they might 
 at any 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 I This is one of the doings 
 of that religion which Austria wants to give us. God 
 says to sinners, " Come unto me," and he premises 
 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. No^ 
 
THOUGHTS ON PCPERY. 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 ycu, then, that he has opened a wider door 
 of entrance into heaven to the rich than to the poor ? 
 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- 
 17* 
 
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, hew 
 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 piiests 
 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 net 
 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. .1 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 nm& I 
 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 
 so 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 
 Chrisiianity. 
 
 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 
 ovencork 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 he 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 tc^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 does not become a 
 precept or command, provided it be found that God 
 can be more glorified by a compliance with it than 
 otherwise. The thing recommended, if in any case it 
 be apparent that the doing of it will redound to the 
 glory of God, is ipso facto required, and becomes a 
 duty. Take the favorite example of the Catholics, 
 celibacy, which, they say, is recommended but not re- 
 quired. Now, if any one find that he can better serve 
 God in the single condition than in the matrimonial 
 stale, celibacy is in that case his duty ; and being a 
 duty, a tiling 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 
 
 5G. Convents. 
 
 Every body knows how important convents, monas- 
 teries, nunneries, &c. are in the Roman Catholic reli- 
 gion. Who has not heard of monks and nuns, and of 
 the establishments in which they respectively seclude 
 themselves from the worldl 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 flesn 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 Avorld, 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 fhey 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 1 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 
 
 23 Popery. 
 
206 THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 
 
 for examples. Why did not the Marys, or some other 
 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 we 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 
 firsi instituted by St. Anthony in the fourth century 
 afier 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 bv anv other force than 
 
THOUGHTS ON POPERY. 287 
 
 that which belongs to an argument. If I wt re 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 Jo no\ 
 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 ? 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 ail, whatever be our country, 
 think alike." Do they all think alike 1 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 ? 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. 5 ' So, 
 if you take up one catechism or book of instruction 
 and read that, you know what they ail 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. Ke 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 oi 
 the Bishop containing 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- 
 cluded ; 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 ? 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 
 e^ade it. If a man should publish successive editions 
 of the laws of any country, and should leave out o! 
 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. 211 
 
 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 1 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 ? 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 be 
 so; but I cannot say Amen. 
 
 5 8. A lew 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 V 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- 
 Lie altar which is hourly expected from Italy. Why 
 go all the way to Italy for an altar '? Why not employ 
 cur own mi;chanic> 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. dio 
 
 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 
 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? 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 POPERf. 
 
 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 bo 
 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 1 
 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 effect 
 from such a cause ! Will the reader please to consider 
 what was done and 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 FGPERY. 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 
 rdics (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-w£ 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. 
 " 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 1 
 
 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- 
 der 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. 
 
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, j 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Oct. 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies I 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION j 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 017 043 654 4 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 3»h 
 
 Ira. 
 
 MB 
 OTui 
 
 Wmtis 
 
 mm