grave air and solemn tone, that it is a shocking wicked thing for an ecclesiastic to marry, I cannot help demurring somewhat to the statement of Cesar's father. But I must proceed with my reasons.

3. If a man says one thing one day, and the next day says another thing quite contrary to it, I am of opinion that he is one of the days in error. But what has this to do with the business in hand? Have not the Popes always pronounced the same thing? Have they ever contradicted each other? Ask rather, whether the wind has always, ever since there was a wind, blown from the same quarter. Now here is a reason why I cannot allow infallibility to belong to either popes or councils.

4. I would ask just for information, how it was, when there were three contemporary Popes, each claiming infallibility. Had they it between them? or which of them had it? What was the name of the one that there was no mistake about? How were the common people to ascertain the infallible one? for you know their salvation depended on their being in communion with the true Bishop of Rome, the rightful successor of St. Peter.

5. The more common opinion among the Catholics is, I believe, that the infallibility resides in a Pope and general council together. Each is fallible by itself, but putting the two together, they are infallible! Now I admit that in some languages two negatives are equivalent to an affirmative; but I do not believe that two fallibles ever were or will be equivalent to an infallible. It is like saying that two wrongs make a right.

13. The Keys.

The Catholics, by which I mean Roman Catholics, since, though a Protestant, I believe in the holy Catholic, that is, universal church, and profess to be a member of it, at the same time that I waive all pretensions to being a Roman Catholic.-they make a great noise about the keys having been given to Peter; the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Well, it is true enough-they were given to him. The Bible says so, and we Protestants want no better authority than the Bible for any thing. We do not require the confirmation of tradition, and the unanimous consent of the fathers. We do not want any thing to back "Thus saith the Lord." Yes, the keys were given to Peter; it is said so in Matthew, 16: 19. This is one of those passages of Scripture which is not hard to be understood, as even they of Rome acknowledge. I am glad our brethren of that communion agree with us that there is something plain in the Bible; that there is one passage, at least, in which private interpretation arrives at the same result which they reach who follow in the track of the agreeing fathers! I suppose, if we could interpret all Scripture as much to the mind of the Catholics as we do this, they would let us alone about private interpretation.

Well, Peter has got the keys. What then? What are keys for? To unlock and open is one of the purposes served by keys. It was for this purpose, I sup pose, that Peter received them: and for this purpose we find him using them. He opened the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Gospel Church, or Christian dis

pensation, as the phrase "kingdom of heaven" often signifies. He opened it to both Jews and Gentiles: he preached the first sermon, and was the instrument of making the first converts among each. With one

key he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, and with the other to the Gentiles. This was a distinction conferred on Peter, it is true: but it was necessary that some one of the twelve should begin the business of preaching the Gospel. The whole twelve could not turn the keys and open the door. The power of binding and loosing, which was conferred on Peter when the keys were given him, was not confined to him, but, as Matthew testifies in the next chapter but one, was extended to all the disciples.

Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven; and what became of the keys then? Why, there being no farther use for them, they were laid aside. I don't know what has become of them, for my part. When a key has opened a door which is not to be shut again, there being no more use for the key, it does not matter much what becomes of it. Hence, in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, we hear no more about the keys; and Peter, in his Epistles, says never a word about them. He wrote his second Epistle to put Christians in remembrance, but I don't find him reminding them of the keys. The truth is, having used them for the purpose for which they were given him, he had after that no more concern about them.

But many fancy that Peter kept these keys all his life and then transmitted them to another, and he to a third, and so from hand to hand they have come along down till what's his name at Rome has them now-the Pope. And they say these keys signify the

authority given to the church, and especially to the Popes. But I find no Bible warrant for this assertion. Christ does not say that he gave the keys to Peter to give to somebody else, and Peter does not say that he gave them to any body else, and no body since Peter has been able to produce the keys. This settles the matter in my mind. I want to know where the keys are.

But some suppose that Peter took them to heaven with him, and that he stands with them at the gate of heaven, as porter, to admit and keep out whom he will. But this notion does not tally very well with certain passages of Scripture. Christ tells his disciples that he goes to prepare a place for them, and that he will come again and receive them unto himself: John, 14: 3. He will do it. He will not trust the business to Peter. "He that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, is not Peter, but Christ." Rev. 3:7.

But the Catholics will have it that Peter is the one; and he, having the keys, they think that they will all be admitted, while never a soul of us, poor Protestants, will. They may be mistaken, however. I do not know what right they have to put in an exclusive claim to Peter. I see no resemblance between Peter and a Roman Catholic-none in the world. I never care to see a truer and better Protestant than I take him to be. But if he does stand at the gate of heaven with such authority as the Catholics ascribe to him, yet I suppose he will not deny that he wrote the Epistles called his. Well, then, if he shall hesitate to admit Protestants, we shall only have to remind him of his Epistles. He does not say any thing in them

about his being POPE. No, he says, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder." Not a word says he about the Mass, or the Seven Sacraments, or Transubstantiation. Let the reader turn to his Epistles, and see just what he does say; I think he will not find any thing in those Epistles to frighten Protestants.

But there is still another supposition, viz. that Peter is not perpetual porter of heaven; but each Pope, as he dies, succeeds to that office-one relieving another. I do not know how it is, but I judge, if all the Popes have been in their day porters of Paradise, many of them must have tended outside. They have not been universally the best of men, I think history informs us. But I will not mention any names.

One thing more. In Catholic pictures and prints (for that very spiritual religion abounds with these) you will see the keys of which we have been speaking represented as made to suit all the complicated modern wards, as if fresh from some manufactory at Birmingham or Sheffield! I do not suppose the keys Peter received answered exactly to this ingenious representation of them.

14. The Head of the Church.

The church is represented in the Scriptures as a body. Of course, therefore, it must have a head; and that same blessed book tells us who the head is. And