that would not have been to act the part of good Catholics. The good Catholic does not go to the mercyseat 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 confession-stool. The confession-stool substituted in the place of the mercy-seat! This is one of the doings of that religion which Austria wants to give us. God says to sinners, "Come unto me," and he promises that he will "abundantly pardon them from his throne of grace." "Nay," says the priest, "wait till I come with my little stool." Catholics may, if they please, go for pardon and mercy to the stool of confession— but, my Protestant brethren, "Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

54. Partiality of the Church of Rome.

There is nothing of which I am more perfectly certain 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 respecter of persons. Christianity is the very opposite of this. And not only is the church of Rome partial, but her partialities are all in favor of the rich. Now

Christianity, if it leans in any direction, inclines towards the poor. It was one sign that the Messiah was come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that "the poor had the Gospel preached to them." They were not overlooked; far from it. "Hearken," says one, "hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to them that love him." The poor had never such a friend as Christ. He was himself poor. He had experience of the privations, cares, and sorrows of that condition. So poor was he that he had not where to lay his head. No lodging-place at night had he in all that world which his word created and his hand sustained. The poor are peculiarly his brethren.

And think you, then, that he has opened a wider door of entrance into heaven to the rich than to the poor? 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 better 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 after 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

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, unless the sacrifice of the mass be added to it! Well, how are these masses, so necessary to the repose and release of the soul, to be had? Why, how do you suppose, but by paying for them! Give the priests money, and they will say them. At any rate, they promise that they will. Now, do you not see the advantage 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 religion 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 enter into the kingdom of God?" According to the Catholic doctrine, they are the very men that enter most easily-they having the wherewith to purchase indulgences and masses. It is the poor, according to this scheme, that with difficulty enter in. They have to serve their time out in purgatory-whereas, the rich can buy their time off.

But is the thing managed in this way? Are not masses said for all that die in the Catholic faith? Yes, there is a day in the year called All-soul's day, (it comes on the 2d of November. Alas for the poor Catholic 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 consider the millions of Catholics that die every year, and the many millions not yet out of the fire, among

whom the benefit is to be divided? It is not like having a mass said for one's soul in particular. But that is the privilege of the rich.

Now I do not believe that it is the religion of the blessed Jesus that makes this distinction in favor of the rich. I believe that Christ brought as good news from heaven to the poor as to the rich. I believe that every blessing which he has to dispose of may be bought without money and without price. See Isa. 55: 1. I believe that "whosoever will," may "take of the water of life freely." Rev. 22:17. This is my creed.

There was poor Lazarus. I reckon he went to heaven 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, without 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

salvation by fire, or in salvation by oil, I say now 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 Christianity.

55. Supererogation

This long word was coined by the Catholics for their own special use, as was also that longer and harder word transubstantiation. Nobody else finds any occasion for it. It expresses what the rest of mankind think has no real existence. If the reader is acquainted with the Latin, (that language which the church of Rome extols so high above the Hebrew and Greek, the languages of God's choice-and in which she says we ought all to say our prayers, whether we know it or not,) he will see that supererogation is compounded of two words, and signifies literally above what is required. It designates that overwork in the service of God which certain good Catholics in all ages are supposed to have done. Afser doing all the good which God requires of them