to found a claim of theirs on a grant made to the apostles? They do indeed come after the apostles, but they are their successors in no other sense. I should like to know how the priests prove that they inherit the apostolical power of remitting sins. But I forget that they scorn a resort to proof.

The power communicated in that grant to the apostles was merely ministerial and declarative. It was no less true after than before that grant was made, that none can forgive sins but God only. That the power was declarative merely, that is, that the apostles were empowered to remit and retain sins only as they were authorized and enabled to make a correct statement to mankind of the way and means of salvation, to express the conditions of pardon and condemnation, and to propose the terms of life and death, is clear to me from the fact that the conferring of it was immediately preceded by the Savior's breathing on them, and saying, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Now, this communication of the Spirit qualified them for the declarative remission and retention of sins. They were thereby inspired to pronounce on what grounds sins are remitted and retained by God.

This was the power over sins granted to the apostles, and I shall show presently that this declarative power is all they pretend ever to have exercised. Now, the priests have no right to claim even this power, except in that subordinate sense in which it is possessed by all who are authorized to preach the Gospel. Did Christ ever breathe on them, and say to them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," that they should claim equality with the apostles? The effect of the inspiration is not so manifest in the case of the priests as

it was in the case of the apostles, if I may be permitted to express an opinion.

Did

But the priests claim far more than ever entered the thoughts of the apostles. They are not satisfied with the ministerial and declarative power over sins They claim a magisterial and authoritative powei to remit and retain them. Consequently they call sinners to come and confess their sins to them. Peter and the other apostles, the very men to whom Christ said, "whosesoever sins ye remit," &c. ever do such a thing? You read in the Acts of the Apostles of synagogues and proseuches, or places of prayer, but do you find any thing about confession-boxes there? Does there seem to have been any thing auricular in the transactions of the day of Pentecost?

There is the case of Simon Magus that strikes me as in point. If Peter and John had had the power of forgiving sin, could they not have exercised it in favor of Simon? But we find Peter addressing him just as any Protestant minister would have done: " Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." How differently the Roman priest would have done! He would have said, "Well, Simon, and what have you to say for yourself? Ah, that is very bad, very bad. But if you are sorry, Simon, I forgive you. Only I cannot let you off without doing some penance. You must say so many paternosters, and you must not eat meat for so many days." This is the way in which the boasted successors of Peter manage these matters. But, they will say, Simon was not penitent, otherwise perhaps Peter would have pardoned him But I wonder if pardon would have waited for Peter's

action in the matter, if there had been penitence in the heart of the sorceror. I suspect not. I suspect the gracious Lord, when he sees contrition in any soul, does not withhold pardon till a priest or even an apostle shall intervene and act in the matter. And when the good angels have ascertained that a sinner has repented, I rather suppose they do not suspend their rejoicing until he has gone to confession, and has got absolution from the priest.

What a glorious book the Bible is! I wish the authorities of the Catholic church would condescend to strike it off the list of prohibited books, and allow the Lord to speak to his creatures. I wish they would let their people, the many thousands that on the Sabbath crowd their chapels and cathedrals, read, or hear what Jehovah says to "every one" in that wonderful chapter, the 55th of Isaiah. It is indeed a wonderful chapter. But the Catholics don't know any thing about it. No; and they have never heard of that precious and glorious verse, the 18th of the 1st chapter of Isaiah, in which thus saith the Lord to the sinner, "Come now, and let us" (you and I, sinner!) "reason together." And then follows the reasoning, "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Ask the awakened sinner, or the recently pardoned, what he would take for that passage. He esteems it above all price; and to the Christian it becomes every day more and more a theme of wonder and delight. But the Catholics don't know that the Lord has ever made any such kind and condescending proposal to his creatures. They never hear of the call of God to come and reason with him.

The only come" they hear is the priest's call. I pity them.

But it is no wonder that the priests treat the people as they do, for if they allowed them to know what the Lord says to them, they would be very apt to go directly to God in Christ, and leave the priest out of the question. And then where would be the importance of the priest? and his emolument, where?

16. A Catholic Book Reviewed.

I happened to lay my hand the other day on a little book entitled, "The Christian's Guide to Heaven, a Manual for Catholics," to which was appended some hymns. The book was published in Baltimore by a respectable Catholic bookseller, and under the sanction of the Archbishop. Well, said I to myself, this is good authority. I will look into this book. I know what Protestants say of Catholics. I will see now what Catholics say of themselves. Men cannot complain when we take their own account of themselves; and I like the way of judging people out of their own mouths, because it shuts their mouths so far as reply is concerned. I resolved that I would compare the statements and doctrines of this book professing to be a guide to heaven, with the statements and doctrines of that bigger book which is the Protestant's guide to heaven. You will know that I mean the Bible. That is our manual-that the guide we consult and follow

However, if a book agrees with the Bible, that is enough.

So I began to read; and one of the first things that I came to was, "Conditions of plenary indulgences." Indulgences! thought I. What does a Christian want of indulgences? He is apt enough to indulge himself. And how are indulgences to help him to heaven? I should rather pronounce self-denial the road. Indulgences not partial, but plenary! I should think plenary indulgence on any condition was enough to ruin one. If by indulgence the Catholics mean pardon, they have chosen an unfortunate way to express it. Why not say full pardon, instead of plenary indulgence? But I suppose pardon expresses what God exercises, and indulgence what the church grants. I should like to know, however, what right the church has to grant any thing of the kind.

Well, the conditions enumerated were four. I took note only of the first, which was in these words: "To confess their sins with a sincere repentance to a priest approved by the bishop." This begins very well, and goes on well for a time. Confession of sin, with sincere repentance, is truly a condition of pardon. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." But what a pity the condition did not stop there, or if any thing was added in regard to the object of the confession, that it did not designate God as the being to whom the sins should be confessed. The sins are all done against him, and why should they not be told to him? I cannot get rid of the notion that we ought to confess our sins to God, the being whom we have offended by them. But no, says this guide to heaven, the confession must be made to