is worth more than the wages they receive." There would seem to be some virtue in doing the deed secretly.† Are we to infer that Papists, like the ancient Spartans, deem theft honorable, if so adroitly done as to escape detection? And how convenient the standard by which to determine how much may be taken without sin-as much as the Catholic judges his or her services worth more than the wages received. Some servants, under such instruction, learn to set a very high estimate on their labors. Not only may servants steal from their employers, but wives may from their husbands. "A woman may take the property of her husband to supply her spiritual wants, and to act as other women act."

According to the moral theology of Liguori, "To strike a clergyman is sacrilege;" but, "It is lawful for a person to sell poison to one who, he believes, will use it for bad purposes, provided the seller cannot refrain from selling it without losing his customer." It is likewise lawful to keep a concubine, to shelter prostitutes, to rent them a house, and to carry messages between them and their gallants. "In case of doubt whether a thing which is commanded be against the command

* See Molina, vol. ii. p. 1150.

†The Catechism approved by French Bishops-their catechisms, like their prayer-books, are unnumbered-asks, "Is one always guilty of robbery when he takes the property of another? No. It might happen that he whose goods he takes has no right to object. For instance, when he takes in secret of his neighbor by way of compensation."

ment of God, the subject is bound to obey the command of his superior." The same high authority assures us that gambling, betting, disobedience of parents, gluttony, vain-glory, hypocrisy, opening another's letters, babbling, scurrility, and the ordination of drunkards and debauchees to the priesthood, are lawful under certain circumstances. Condemning the Wycliffites for opposing simony, he makes an excuse for its prevalence in the Romish Church. "A voluntary confession to a priest," he affirms, "is a sign of contrition."

For the practical carrying out of their cherished principle, "The end justifies the means," the injured Catholic may read, "If a calumniator will not cease to publish calumnies against you, you may fitly kill him, not publicly, but secretly, to avoid scandal." Again:"It is lawful to kill an accuser, whose testimony may jeopard your life and honor." And to make this code of infamous morals as convenient as possible, it is further affirmed:-" In all the above cases, when a man has a right to kill any person, another may do it for him, if affection move the murderer."

We know it may indeed be said, these precepts are not widely known, nor generally practised; they are only found in Rome's books; they are merely a portion of the legacy of the dark ages, and to hold Rome to account for them is, in every sense, and to the highest degree, unfair. No, not unfair; for immutability changes not, and a Church which assumes the right to place its ban on every immoral issue from the press, to

tell the world what to believe, what to read, and now to act, and has gone to the most distant publishing houses of the civilized world to drag thence for condemnation the principles of Protestantism, might surely take the trouble to expunge these and similar teachings from books written by her own sons, and once sanctioned.

The practice of the Popes in dispensing with oaths, obligations and contracts, and absolving subjects from allegiance to their lawful sovereigns in cases where kings rebel against the authority of Rome, has had no little influence in producing immoralities. It is a principle with Rome that "no faith is to be kept with heretics."*

And this dogma of Roman Infallibility has on several occasions been practically interpreted. John Huss was conducted to the Council of Constance, under the solemn pledge of protection from the Emperor. The Council, however, condemned the reformer as a heretic,

* Gregory IX. decreed :-- "Be it known to all who are under the dominion of heretics, that they are set free from every tie of fealty and duty to them; all oaths and solemn agreement to the contrary notwithstanding." Pope Innocent VIII., in his bull against the Waldenses, gave his nuncio full authority "to absolve all who are bound by contract to assign and pay anything to them." Gregory VII., in a solemn council held at Rome, enacted :-"We, following the statutes of our predecessors, do, by our Apostolic authority, absolve all those from their oath of fidelity who are bound to excommunicate persons, either by duty or oath, and we loose them from every tie of obedience." Martin V. says:— "Be assured thou sinnest mortally, if thou keep thy faith with heretics.”

and ordered him to be burned at the stake. In vain the Emperor interposed, pleading his pledged word of honor. It was solemnly decreed :-"The person who has given the safe conduct to come thither shall not, in this case, be obliged to keep his promise, by whatever tie he may have been engaged;" and poor Huss perished in the flames! Did ever ingenuity in devising rules of casuistry excel this? It is only equalled by the treachery of Judas. And even he, without attempting a defence of faithlessness, exclaimed, in the bitterness of remorse, "I have sinned." But Rome, to this day, has never expressed the slightest regret in having-not merely on this occasion, but on hundreds of others-deliberately broken faith, and consigned to the rack, the dungeon, or the flames those whose only crime was, that they loved Christ, the Bible, and a pure Christianity more than the Scarlet Mother on the seven hills of Rome.

In remembrance of such deeds, it is with a sense of holy satisfaction that the follower of Jesus reads, "Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities." And the prayer of the devout soul is, "Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly;" vindicate truth and justice; let the angel's voice be heard above the waves of earth's turmoil, saying, "Is fallen, is fallen, Babylon the great."

Did space permit we might easily prove that unblushing atheism is a natural fruit of Popery. In every Catholic country of the present day the more intelligent

classes are either infidel or atheistic. Without pausing to ascertain whether Popery is condemned or taught in Scripture, but presuming it is all it claims to be, the only form of religion having the sanction of the Bible, they deliberately reject God's Word as a guide to morality, holiness and happiness. To receive as a boon from our Father in heaven a book which, it is believed, wrongly indeed, yet firmly believed, sanctions such enormities, is justly considered a slander on the Creator. Accordingly, they look upon it as a cunningly devised fable, admirably adapted to bind the fetters of despotism on an ignorant people, precisely fitted to uphold and enrich an arrogant priesthood, but no guide to the sin-burdened soul on the way to eternal favor with God. Some, however, of the educated in Romish countries, perhaps the greater number, do not pause short of atheism. In rejecting a system of religion which cannot command even common respect, they, alas! reject also the triune God, who, although worthy the devout homage of every heart, is so dishonored by those who profess to serve him, as to be despised by those outside the Church claiming to be his. By the excesses of Popery they are drawn away from the Bible and God, and driven into atheism. Consciously or unconsciously they have reasoned, if this be the true religion of the true God (and they who claim talent, knowledge and piety so affirm), then we deliberately prefer to believe there is no God. The atheism, which, in the bloody excesses of the French Revolu