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 influence 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, Vienna, 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 assert 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 have canonized worse men than he. I have never inquired curiously into the devotional character of the

general, but I am possessed of no proof that he was not a Christian. Certainly, I find in his moral history no reason why they should be so positive that he is not at rest. They might have made the appointment conditional, I should think-mass to be said for the repose 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 oldfashioned 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 always forget that the Catholics have another source of information on religion besides the Bible. Tradition they call it. They mean by it the talk of inspired men, when they had no pen in their hands; which being heard, was reported, and so has come along down by word of mouth. But I, for my part, am satisfied with what they wrote.

We, Protestants, cannot join the Roman Catholics in their solemn office for Lafayette. We hope there is no need of praying for the repose of his soul; and we are certain there is no use in it. We prayed for him while he was living. We did not wait for him to be dead first. Now that his spirit has returned to God who gave it, and the Judge has passed upon it, we leave it there. By the way, how do the Catholics know when to stop praying for the repose of a soul? The Charleston Catholics had their mass for him on the 30th of June. But it seems it was of no avail, for the Philadelphia Catholies are called together to sing theirs on the 29th of July. How long is this thing

to go on? I am writing on the 31st of July. Is he at rest now? Was the mass of the 29th inst. more efficacious than that of the 30th ult.? Perhaps the next news from New-York will be that mass is to be performed there for the repose of the same soul some day in August. I hope the church is not infallible in regard to Lafayette, as in other matters. I should

be

sorry to think him all this time not at rest.

I remember an old Latin maxim, "Nil de mortuis, nisi bonum," say nothing but good respecting the dead-which, it seems to me, the Catholics have disregarded 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 Philadelphia mass was sung. Is it kind to treat a suffering soul in purgatory with singing?

47. Prayers for the Faithful Departed.

I have taken up again that little book, "The Christian'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 heretofore reviewed, but I have not exhausted its contents. I find on page 198 of my edition, the title of this article, "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

66

good as to pray. I thought there was no need of praying for deceased Christians-for the faithful departed. I got the nation somewhere, that good people, when they die, go where there is "fullness of 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 present with the Lord. They don't go to heaven, or paradise. 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 immediately followed by the crown of life. But they that cannot err tell us otherwise.

Somehow or other this doctrine of the faithful going

to purgatory after death, and needing to be prayed out of it, seems to have been always out of the mind of the apostle Paul, when he had his pen in his hand, or was dictating to the amanuensis. He speaks of it as gain to die; but surely, to exchange earth for purgatory is no gain. Air, however impure or sultry, is more agreeable than the element of fire. He tells of his desire to depart and be with Christ, just as if the one immediately followed the other. He overlooked purgatory; otherwise I think he would not have had the desire to depart. Perhaps he thought he would fare as well as Lazarus, who made no stop in purgatory; 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 according to the Catholic system, this man, of all others, should have gone to purgatory. He never did any penance on earth-never bought an indulgence—he repented only a few minutes before he died; and yet he goes direct to paradise! Who then may not?

But do they not give us chapter and verse for praying for the dead! It must be confessed they do. Here it is. "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosened from their sins." 2 Macb. 12:46. This looks like Scripture, though it does not sound much like it. It passes for Scripture with the Catholics; but it is Apocrypha. It is no more holy Scripture than the Koran is. I know the Catholics contend that it is as good Scripture as any. But ask the Jews if it is Scripture. "Unto them were committed the oracles of God." Ask them if the books of Maccabees were committed to them. They tell you no. They were not even written in