suffering souls in purgatory." It is a curious prayer. 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 refine 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 from the "ardent desire of being united to Him." I wonder, if they have such desire after God, that they are kept in suffering; 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 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 (Rom. iii. 26), 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 forgive them." (1 John i. 9.) Are not the faithful pardoned? and how is pardon consistent with vengeance?

The prayer goes on thus: "Remember, O Lord, thou art their Father, and they are thy children. Forget the faults which, through the frailty of human nature, they have committed against thee." Then a little further 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 suffer. ing for mere faults, which they fell into through frailty. This seems hard. But they are not only God's children; they are Christ's 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 Saviour discharged. And this is the Romish gospel! Is it not "another gospel"? And yet not another." It is no gospel. It is a contradiction of the good news. I quote 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 been "faithful unto death," go to a place of darkness and torture! I know not what worse can befall unbelievers.* Truly, here is no great encouragement to believing. What a doctrine is this to breathe in the ear of a disciple! Fear not, be of good cheer, thou art but going to a place of "darkness and torture." Can it be Jesus who says this to his faithful followers? Can this be christian doctrine? It certainly is not calculated to make dying easy. With such a prospect before them, I do not wonder that Roman Catholics find it hard to die. Verily, death has a sting, and the grave a victory, if the Romish doctrine of purgatory be true.

48. An Improvement.

I always hail improvements, 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 phrase, I rejoice in it, because words not only signify

*One difference, and only one, the Romanists acknowledge between the fire of Purgatory and that of Hell: namely in duration. The fire of Purgatory is as dreadful as that of Hell: but it is only temporary; while that of Hell is eternal.

A. S. T.

ideas, but sometimes generate them; so that, from using right words, men not unfrequently pass to holding correct ideas on the subjects to which they refer.

The improvement to which I refer is merely verbal. The case is this. It is the habit among Romanists, some few months after a considerable character dies, to have a service for him. This has heretofore been announced thus: "High mass will be sung or said 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. The service is not eucharistic, but supplicatory. This, I observed, was done in the case of a recent bishop, and also in that of Lafayette, 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. 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 Whitefield." 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 regularly buried months before. Protestants cannot understand it. But, waiving this, why the change of phrase? The best explanation I can give is this: The Romanists see, that the sense of the community, though sufficiently in their favour, 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. For man, who is naturally a logician, and can reason without having studied the rules of logic, argues thus: Either the soul for which the mass is said is at rest, or it is not. If it is, it is preposterous to pray for its repose. It is asking for what has been done already. When a thing is done, to pray for it is superfluous. Then is the time to give thanks. If the soul is not at rest, then common sense, which is no fool, asks why they did not begin to pray for its repose sooner?

It was not kind.

And common sense inquires how they know the soul did not go at once to rest; or, if not, how they know it is not at rest months after. Common sense, not finding any thing about it in the Bible, asks how the Romanists get the information? So, through fear of the questions of common sense, they change the wording of the notice. It is wise. Well may the Romish church stand in dread of common sense. It is a formidable foe to error and imposition. I confidently look forward to the overthrow of Romanism; and I expect that a great deal of the work of its destruction will be done by common sense.* I have not the dread, which some have, that this religion will overrun our country, and rise to dominion here. There is too much common sense abroad in the land to allow of it. 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. They will ask questions on religion; and they will insist on a satisfactory answer. The inhabitants of the old world may, if they please, believe on the ipse dixit of the Pope; but we, before we yield our assent, require a "Thus saith the Lord," or a demonstration. You can never get a majority here to believe in contradiction of the five senses. They will stick to it that a thing is what they see and feel and taste it to be—that bread is bread.

66

* That is to say, if it be such common sense as takes the Bible in hand, and brings every question connected with religion to that only infallible touchstone. Let it be well considered, and continually remembered, that without constant reference to the Word of God, we are liable-with all our powers of reasoning and natural shrewdness-to make the greatest mistakes in Religion. Vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt." (Job. xi. 12). "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Rom. i. 22). In short, he who presumes to judge upon the allimportant question of Religion, without submitting his soul to the teaching of the Bible, has really taken leave of common sense. (Jer. viii. 9. 1 Cor. iii. 18-20. Is. viii. 20.) A.S.T.

49. The Duke of Brunswick's Fiftieth Reason,

A certain Duke of Brunswick, having many years ago abjured Lutheranism, and become a Roman Catholic, thought it necessary to apologize to the world for his change of religion. It needed an apology. So he wrote down fifty reasons to justify the course he had pursued, and had them printed in a book, entitled," Fifty Reasons why the Roman Catholic religion ought to be preferred to all others." This book Romanists have permission to read. For they may read almost 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, and can write intelligibly. But......!! Fifty reasons! The duke must have been conscious, I suppose, that his reasons were weak, or he would have been satisfied with less than fifty. Why does a man want fifty reasons for a thing, when one good reason is enough? I have but one general reason for not being a Roman Catholic, and that is enough. It is that the Roman Catholic religion is not the religion of the Bible. It is not the religion of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Peter; as any onemay see, who will compare the Holy Scriptures with the Council of Trent. But the Duke, feeling that he had not one good reason for turning Romanist gives fifty poor ones; thinking to make up for the weakness of his reasons by their number; and calculating that fifty poor reasons would certainly be equivalent to one good one.

Fifty reasons! I shall not now inquire what the fortynine were. But what do you think the Duke's fiftieth reason was his closing, crowning reason-that with which he capped the climax?

I will give it to you in his own words, which I quote from an edition published by one of the best Roman Catholics in the land; so there can be no mistake about