Page images
PDF
EPUB

but left it recently for Protestantism (for some do leave the Catholic for the Protestant church-the conversions are not all to Romanism-but we, Protestants, don't make such a noise about it when we receive a convert; and I suppose the reason is, tnat it is really no wonder that a Catholic should become a Protestant-the only wonder is, that any should remain Catholics)-this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a Catholic, "Why, brother, as long as I was a Catholic, I never knew that there was a Holy Spirit."

And what do you think was the brother's reply? Well, I don't know that there is one now!"

The narration of what passed between these two men struck me with great force. A religion without a Holy Spirit! and this the religion, according to the computation of Bishop England, of two hundred millions of mankind! It made me sorry. My religion, thought I, would be very imperfect without a Holy Spirit. I want a Sanctifier, as well as a Surety. I want one to act internally upon me, as well as one to act externally for me. What should I do with my title to heaven, without a fitness for it? As a sinner, I am equally destitute of both. There can be no hea ven without holiness. And whence has any man holiness but from the Holy Spirit? And is it likely he will act where he is not acknowledged? If priests can pardon, as they say, yet can they purify?

Here were two men, educated in the Catholic religion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and yet never having heard of the Holy Spirit! They had heard often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this saint, and that saint, but never a word of the Holv

Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier!: But was it not their own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity a part of the Catholic faith? It is-but that may be, and yet the priests never instruct the people in the character and office of the Holy Spirit, and in the necessity of his operations.

But had these men never been present at a baptism, when water, according to Christ's direction, with oil, spittle, &c. as the church directs, is applied to the body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is mentioned? Yes, but, poor men, they had never studied Latin. How should they know what Spiritus Sanctus means, when they hear it? Why should all the world be presumed to understand Latin? Oh, why should the worship of the living God be conducted in a dead language? But this is by the way.

These men knew not that there was a Holy Spirit-why did they not know it? I will tell you. Because so little is said of the Holy Spirit among the Catholics-there is so little need of any such agent, according to their system! They do not believe in the necessity of a change of heart. Why should there be a Holy Spirit? The priest does not want any such help to prepare a soul for heaven. The Catholic system is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of him in the pulpit, and in the confession-box; and the sinner is not directed to seek his influences, or to rely on his aid. If I misrepresent, let it be shown, and I will retract. But if I am correct in the statement I make, look at it. Protestant, look at it.....a religion without a Holy Spirit! Catholic, look at it, and obey the voice from heaven which says. Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers

of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” This is one of her capital crimes. She does not speak against the Holy Ghost. No she is silent

about him!

12. Infallibility.

Every body knows that the Church of Rome lays claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no mistake about her; that she cannot err. Now this very modest claim of our sister of Rome (for in the matter of churches I reject the relation of mother and daughter) I am constrained to question, and that for such reasons as the following:

1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others contend that it resides in a general council. And another opinion is that both the Pope and a council are necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it among themselves who is infallible, before they require us to believe that any one is. Let them find infallibility and fix it. After that it will be time enough for us to admit its existence. But,

2. We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infal lible each successive Pope. Well, where did they get their infallibility? Why, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure. Christ gave it to him, and he

handed it down. But was Peter infallible? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infallible-when smitten to the heart by the reproving look of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. There is no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confidently pronounced, "Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee"-and let it be remembered that this was after Christ had said, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c.

If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts, 15. Why was the matter suffered to be debated in the presence of his infallibility? It seems that Peter on that occasion claimed no pre-eminence. Nor was any particular deference paid to him by the council. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infallible person than any of the rest. He says, "Wherefore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the church of Rome that Peter had not said that instead of James. We should never have heard the last of it. But it was the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will my Catholic brother take down his Douay and read that chapter?

But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2: 11. That was no way to treat a Pope. But Paul had always a spice of the Protestant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's treatment of him, for in his second Epistle he speaks of him as our beloved brother Paul." I suppose that

[ocr errors]

Peter himself did not know he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves.

Once more, if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange that, when a dispute arose among them who should be the greatest, our Savior did not take Peter, instead of a little child, "and set him in the midst of them,” and remind the others that the supremacy had been given to him. I think the other apostles could not have understood Christ in that declaration, “Thou art Peter," &c. as the church of Rome now understands him, otherwise the dispute about superiority could never have arisen.

Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, Peter being infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infallibility, and therefore never a man of them could err in a matter of faith-nor even the woman Joan, (for in the long list of Papas, there was by accident in the ninth century one Mama, though this, I am aware, is denied by some,)—even she retained none of the frailty of her sex.

It is well for the church of Rome that she does not contend that her popes are infallible in practice, for if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may err in practice and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I cannot believe that all I hear from him is good and true, when what I see in him is false and bad. Take for example such a one as Pope Alexander sixth; when he, the father of such a hopeful youth as Cesar Borgia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a

« EelmineJätka »