But if a temporary state of punishment be admitted, prayer for the dead must fol. low of course; as on the other hand, if heaven and hell are believed to be the only alternatives in the moment of death, prayer for the dead is vain: for in heaven relief is not wanted, and "from hell there is no redemption.' Hence, when our friends are taken from us by death, and we have reason to hope (and when will not affection hope?) that these offences may not deserve the extremity of eternal punishment: we entreat the divine Goodness to shorten or alleviate their sufferings. Is this unreasonable? Is this superstitious? Is this unscriptural? Certain it is, that it is not uncharitable, and charity is the first of virtues.

"But the Scripture does not command us to pray for the dead." Neither does it forbid us. Why, then, may not the voice of nature, the dictates of reason, and the belief and usages of antiquity, be allowed to govern our conduct? At all events, if the Catholic does not think the practice repugnant to Scripture, why should he be condemned? Surely he has as much right as others to judge of the meaning of Scripture? And if his interpretation be confirmed by the constant belief of the Catholic Church, by the practice of his fore-fathers, by the dictates of nature, and the best feelings of the human heart is he not abundantly justified in preferring his own firm conviction to the fluctuating opinion of his neighbors?

An assertion is often made, "That the ministers of the church claim the power of relieving souls from purgatory." This strange misrepresentation, though a thousand times proved to be groundless, is as often repeated. The Catholic priest claims no authority or jurisdiction over the dead. All he can do is to apply to the mercy of God in their behalf; but, like other men,

deed, one advantage peculiar to the priesthood. He can offer sacrifice; and sacrifice under the new law, as well as under the old, has always been considered the most powerful means of moving God to mercy. Hence, if any one, in addition to his own private prayers, wish to have sacrifice offered for the souls of his departed friends, there is no doubt he must apply to the ministry of the priests; and if "They who serve the altar are entitled to live by the altar," (1 Cor. ix. 13,) no one, I presume, will deny, that the priest is as much entitled to a remuneration for the labor he performs, as those who receive fees for the burial service performed over the dead; nay, even for the administration of baptism, and for preaching the gospel. Would a Catholic be justified in saying, on this account, that, for a sum of money, these clergymen claim a power of remitting sin, and opening to their followers the gates of life?

PICTURES AND IMAGES.

Catholics use paintings and images as the most fitting ornaments for churches, oratories, &c., and at the same time, as objects calculated to excite and keep alive feelings of devotion. As the principal among them the crucifix may be mentioned. It is not possible to gaze upon the figure of the Redeemer, nailed to the cross, with a vacant eye. It brings before the mind, in the liveliest manner, his goodness, who for us, and for our salvation, was pleased "to submit himself to death, even to the death of the cross;" and reminds us how criminal those sins must be which caused him to undergo such sufferings, and how sincere our sorrow should be in having participated in the commission of them.

But there are those who say, that "Catholics worship images, as did the pagans of old, and that, like them, they give to the works of man's hands the glory due to the one eternal God." The accusation is a common one; and were it not that it proceeds from otherwise respectable sources, it might appear like insulting the understanding of the reader, to suppose

him capable of believing them. For surely it is not possible, that, in an age, and a country which claims, and not unjustly too, to be one of the most liberal and enlightened upon earth, men should be found capable of believing, that the majority of the Christian world, the great, the good, the learned of almost every civilized nation under heaven, should be so ignorant, so debased, so stupid, so wicked, as to give divine honors to a lifeless and senseless image! It is difficult to bring the mind to conceive it.

Among other texts of Scripture which bear upon this subject, the following are offered for consideration: Numb. xxi. 8, 9; John iii. 14, 15; Exod. xxv. 18, 22. "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Thou shalt also make two cherubim of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle; and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory, wherewith the ark is to be covered; in which thou shalt put the testimony that I will give thee. Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims," &c. (Exodus xxv. 18, &c.)

"And the Lord said to him (Moses,) Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign. Every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. Moses, therefore, made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign, which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed." (Numb. xxi. 8, 9.)

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (John iii. 14, 15.)

Like the invocation of the saints, the early use and veneration of their images are acknowledged. The centuriators allow that they were common in the third age of the church. "Eusebius," they say, "writes that he saw, in Asia, Christians who preserved the images of St. Peter, St. Paul, and of Christ himself." (Cent. iii.) The same writers add: "Tertullian seems to declare, that the Christians kept the image of the cross, both in their pub

lic assemblies, and private houses; and it was thence that the pagans called them worshippers of the cross." (Cent. iii.)

CEREMONIES AND VESTMENTS.

With respect to ceremonies and vestments, they should be viewed with the eye of antiquity. They are venerable relics of primitive times, and, though ill adapted to the youthful religions of modern times, well become that hoary religion, which bears the weight of so many ages. The ceremonies employed in the Christian sacrifice, as well as the sacerdotal vestments, have their model in the book of Leviticus, and, as nearly as the difference of the old and new laws permits, closely resemble those instituted by God himself. The Catholic Church deems them useful. They give a peculiar dig. nity to the sacred mysteries of religion; they raise the mind of the beholder to heavenly things by their various and appropriate import; they instruct the ignorant and keep alive attention; they give the ministers of religion a respect for themselves, and for the awful rites in which they officiate; but neither the ceremonies nor the vestments belong to the essence of religion. The Church established them in the first ages. She could, if she deemed it advisable, set them aside any day, and the sacrifice would be equally holy, though not equally impressive, if offered by the priest in a plain white surplice, or the ordinary costume of the day.

THE SERVICES IN THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

The reasons why, in the celebration of the mass, and of other services of the church, the Latin language is used, are simply these: First, the Latin and Greek were the languages most generally used, and almost the only written languages in the principal countries where the Christian religion was first promulgated. In these languages, therefore, the liturgy of the church was originally composed, nearly in its present form. When, several centuries afterwards, the languages of modern Europe began to be formed, the church did not think proper to alter the languages

she had ever used in the celebration of the holy sacrifice. For if, on the one hand, these languages, by becoming dead, ceased to be understood by the unlearned, on the other, they became, like a body raised from death, immortal, unchangeable, and on this account the better adapted for preserving unaltered the awful doctrines and mysteries committed to their care. Would prudence have justified the setting aside the pure, the dignified, the immutable languages of the primitive church; languages which, though no longer spoken by the unlettered, were still, as they are to this day, the universal languages of the learned in every country, and the adoption in their stead of the numberless barbarous, half-formed and daily changing languages of modern Europe? Would it have been respectful, would it have been secure, would it have been practicable, to commit to these rude and uncertain vehicles, the sacred deposit of the faith and hope of Christians? For the use of the people, translations have been made, and abound in every Catholic country; but at the altar the priest continues to commune with God in the original languages, reciting the more sacred parts of the sacrificial rite in a low voice, which breaks not the awful silence, nor disturbs the deep recollections of the surrounding adorers. And yet this has been termed "praying in an unknown tongue," and for the purpose "of keeping the people in ignorance." Had the latter been the unwise policy of the Catholic Church, she would have commanded the clergy to give instructions and to preach in unknown languages; whereas these portions of the church ordinances are always in the vernacular language.

PROSELYTISM.

And here a few remarks may not be irrelevant, in regard to what is usually called proselytism. A degree of odium has become attached to the term; all seem eager to disclaim it, as if it implied something criminal. Yet what is meant by proselytism? If it means converting others to the true religion, what were the apostles themselves, but the makers of proselytes? What did Jesus Christ give

them to do, when he bade them "Go and teach all nations," (Matt. xxviii. 19,) but every where to make proselytes? For what were the apostles persecuted, put to death, and crowned with the glory of martyrdom, but for making proselytes? What successor of the apostles would do his duty, if he did not labor like them to make proselytes? What Christian could lay claim to the rewards of charity, who, convinced of the truth of his religion, and of the inestimable blessings it imparts, refused or neglected to make others partakers of it; concealed his treasure from the objects of distress, and covered “under a bushel," the light which was wanted to guide the steps of his benighted fellowtraveller?

But, if by proselytism is meant the seducing of men from truth to error, or what we believe to be such; if it imply the use of any means that are unfair, unhandsome, dishonorable, or uncharitable; of violence, bribery, false arguments or any other means whatsoever than such as are dictated by the strictest truth and animated by pure benevolence; then, indeed, is proselytism as odious as it is unchristian; then, far be its practice from every Catholic and from every Christian. Be it hated and detested by every lover of honesty, of truth, and of charity.

THE POPE.*

Catholics, while they hold that the Church is the congregation of all the faithful under their invisible head, Jesus Christ, also believe that the Church has a visible head, in the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, and commonly called the Pope. That Jesus Christ, in quality of our Lord, is the head of the Church, will not be disputed; for "God appointed him head over all the Church." (Eph. i. 22.) But, since his ascent into heaven, he is invisible to us; and the question is, whether he did not, before he left the earth, appoint a vicar, or deputy, to be the visible head in his place. From

At present his holiness Pope Pius XI. He was elected June 17th, 1846, and his coro(Mastai Ferettai) cccupies the chair of Peter. nation took place four days after his election.-Editor.

questions continually revived, in order to draw down odium upon the Catholics. Suffice it to state, that these questions are not included in the articles of Catholic faith, nor have any influence upon Catholic practice. On this point, we have pleasure in quoting the decisive words of Dr. Purcell, Bishop of Cincinnati: "The Catholics do not believe that the Pope has any such power [that of interfering with the institutions of free States.] We would be among the first to oppose him in its exercise, and we should be neither heretics nor bad Catholics for so doing. For ten centuries this power was never claimed by any Pope; it can, therefore, be no part of Catholic doctrine. It has not gained one foot of land for the Pope. It is not any where believed or acted upon, in the Catholic Church; nor could it at this late day be established, even were a man found mad enough to make the attempt. Let these go forth before the American people as the real principles of Catholics concerning the power of the Pope. And if we must pronounce a judgment on the past, let it be remembered, that when the Pope did use the power, it was when he was appealed to as a common father, and in favor of the oppressed. We should go back, in spirit, to former times, when we undertake to judge them. We should understand the condition of society at the period; we should know the circumstances, general and particular, which controlled or influenced the great events recorded in history. We should not quarrel with our ancestors, because they did not possess knowledge which we possess; nor flatter ourselves that we are vastly their betters, because of these adventitious advantages; while they manifestly surpass us in others, of greater value to the Christian and the moralist. They had the substance of good things; we seem to be content with the shadow of them."

The same sentiments are eloquently enforced by Judge Hall, of Cincinnati. We quote a paragraph or two, for the benefit of those who may not be acquainted with an address, honorable alike to the head and the heart of its candid and liberal author.

"This question [the alarm raised

against the Catholics] has become so important in the United States, that it is time to begin to inquire into its bearings, and to know whether the public are really interested in the excitement which has been gotten up with unusual industry, and has been kept alive with a pertinacity that has seldom been equalled. For several years past the religious Protestant papers of our country, with but few exceptions, have teemed with virulent attacks against the Catholics, and especially with paragraphs charging them substantially with designs hostile to our free institutions, and with a systematic opposition to the spread of all free inquiry and liberal knowledge. These are grave charges, involving consequences of serious import, and such as should not be believed or disbelieved upon mere rumor, or permitted to rest upon any vague hypothesis; because they are of a nature which renders them susceptible of proof. The spirit of our institutions requires that these questions should be thus examined. We profess to guarantee to every inhabitant of our country, certain rights, in the enjoyment of which he shall not be molested, except through the instrumentality of a process of law which is clearly indicated. Life, liberty, property, reputation, are thus guarded-and equally sacred is the right secured to every man, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.'

"But it is idle to talk of these inestimable rights, as having any efficacious existence, if the various checks and sanctions, thrown around them by our constitution and laws, may be evaded, and a lawless majority, with a high hand, ravish them by force from a few individuals, who may be effectually outlawed by a perverted public opinion, produced by calumny and clamor. It is worse than idle, it is wicked, to talk of liberty, while a majority, having no other right than that of the strongest, persist in blasting the character of unoffending individuals by calumny, and in oppressing them by direct violence upon their persons and property, not only without evidence of their delinquency, but against evidence; not only without law, but in violation of law-and merely because they belong to an unpopular denomination.