lieve, 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 Cæsar Borgia, and the chief of ecclesiastics too, tells me, with a 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 Cæsar's father. But I must proceed with my reasons.

But Have

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, on one of those days, in error. what has this to do with the business in hand? 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 about whom there was no mistake? How were the common people to ascertain the infallible one ?--for you know, that 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 Romanists 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 ever will be, equivalent to an infallible. It is like saying, that two wrongs make a right.

12. A Religion without a Holy Spirit.

A gentleman of intelligence, who was born of Roman Catholic parents, and educated in the Romish church, but left it recently for Protestantism-(for some do leave the Roman 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, that it is really no wonder that a Roman Catholic should become a Protestant- the only wonder is, that any should remain Roman Catholics)- this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a Romanist, "Why, brother, as long as I was a Roman 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 the 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 heaven without holiness. And whence can any man have holiness, but from the Holy Spirit? And is it likely that He will act where He is not acknowledged? If priests can pardon, as they say, yet can they also purify?

Here were two men, educated in the Roman Catholic religion, and attending weekly the Roman 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 Holy Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier! But was it not their own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity a part of the Roman Catholic faith? It is: but that may be, and yet the priests may never instruct the people in the

C

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 Romish Church directs, is applied to the body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is mentioned? Yes, but, poor inen, 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 Roman 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 Roman Catholic system is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of Him in the pulpit, or in the confessionbox; 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! Roman 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." (Rev. xviii. 4.) This is one of her capital crimes. She does not speak against the Holy Ghost. No, she is silent about Him! *

*The truth is, that the Romish Church puts the Church, with its rites and ceremonies and observances, its devices and its penances,-in the place which the Scriptures assign to the Holy Ghost. A. S. T.

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 anything. We do not require the confirmation of tradition, and the unanimous consent of the fathers. We do not want anything to strengthen "Thus saith the Lord." Yes, the keys were given to Peter: it is said so in Matthew xvi. 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 Romanists 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 suppose, that Peter received them; and for this purpose

*In the sense in which all men are brethren (that is, all being descended from fallen Adam) we may call Romanists our brethren; but in the high and sacred sense in which the word Brethren is used in the Scriptures-as in Acts xv. 40; xvi. 2, 40; xxi. 7, 17; Rom. viii. 29; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Peter i. 22, 23; 1 John iii. 14,-we cannot acknowledge them as Brethren. For, if we are Christians, they are not; "for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols ?" (2 Cor. vi. 14-18; Rev. xviii. 4, 5).

A. S. T.

we find him using them. He opened the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Gospel Church, or Christian dispensation, 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 at once, 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. [Compare Matt. xvi. 19 with Matt. xviii. 18.]

Well, Peter opened the kingdom of heaven; and what became of the keys then? Why, there being no farther use for them, they were, in that sense, 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 the Pope at Rome has them now. And they say, that 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