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 discovered 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, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as examples in point. He finds, however, 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 Iscariot, recorded in Matthew, 27: 3, 4. He did not go to God with his confession. He went to the chief priests, and it was to them he said, "I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." Here, we must confess, is an example of confession to a priest. But it is the only one, I believe, in the Bible. Judas 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 Scripture which really makes in their favor. It is well known that they need it.

But, poor man! He got nothing by going to the priests. It was their cruel and contemptuous treatment of him, as much as any thing else, that determined him to go and hang himself. How differently even Judas would have been treated, if he had gone with a broken heart to our great High Priest. Jesus! Ah, he had better gone to him whom he betrayed, than to them to whom he betrayed him. I think I shall always go to Him, notwithstanding the example of Judas.

42. Purgatory.

There are no worse reasoners than the Catholics; and I suppose the cause of this is that they are so little accustomed to reason.

Men rarely do well what they are not used to do. The mind needs to be disciplined 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 religion prohibiting these operations, afford us some wonderful specimens. Between their premises and conclusion there is often so great a gulf, so deep and wide both, that I have wondered how they manage to get over it. Let us hear them on the subject of purgatory. They feel as if they would like to have a little Scripture for this dogma of theirs-a text or two;

not for the satisfaction of the faithful, (for to them it is sufficient that the church believes the doctrine,) but to meet the heretics. But where shall they find in the Bible any thing favorable to purgatory. The Bible speaks plainly enough of two places beyond the grave, but it says nothing about a third place. It tells us of a heaven and a hell, but of an intermediate purgatory never a word. It is true that some hundreds of years afterwards certain writers speak of it as a Christian doctrine, but I want to know why the older, the inspired writers, say nothing about it. We read frequently 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 occurs, 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, prepared 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 imagined a purgatory for devils. The fire of their purgatory 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 argument; and the conclusion is purgatory, a place of temporary 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 another quarter of the doctrine of purgatory, in that case it might be innocently imagined that the apostle had

in his mind some remote allusion to it in this chapter; 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 work. Besides, it is not said that the person shall be saved by fire, but so as by fire; that is, with the like difficulty with which a man in a burning house is saved from its conflagration. A good man, who, on the precious foundation of Jesus Christ, builds worthless materials, such as wood, hay, stubble, shall suffer the loss of his work, yet he himself shall be saved, though with great difficulty, so as by fire. So much for the main pillar of purgatory.

But they point us to Matthew, 5. 25, 26, "agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing." Now I would look the intelligent Catholic, who refers to this in proof of purgatory, in the face, and ask him if he is in earnest; if he can think that the doctrine of purgatory derives any support from that passage. What is it but a most excellent piece of advice in reference to the settlement of differences among men? But they say, "does not Christ, in Matthew, 12: 32, speak of a sin which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come; and does not this imply

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 before 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? Indeed, I think the friends of purgatory had better give up that text; and not attempt to support their dogma by Scripture, but be content with tradition, consoling themselves with the reflection that though nothing is written about it, yet it has been handed down.

As for us Protestants, we do not believe in burning out sin-in salvation by fire. We protest against it. We believe in the washing away of sin, and that by the blood of Jesus alone: "The blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanseth us from all sin." What is there left for fire to do? The spirits of the just made perfect 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, undergoing the purification of fire, unite in this song?