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 power 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 66 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

a priest; it is good for nothing without it. If the publican, of whom we read, had lived now, it would have been quite irregular, according to the Catholic notion, that he should have gone down to his house justified, when he confessed only to God. And the penitent must take care what sort of a priest it is to whom he confesses, else he might as well remain impenitent. It must be a priest approved by the bishop. Well, now, this is a queer arrangement, that our pardon should be suspended on such a condition—that angels, in other words, must wait before they express any joy that a sinner has repented, until he has gone and told his sins to a priest approved by a bishop! Who suspended it there, I wonder? Not Isaiah. Read his 55th chapter. Nor Peter, nor Solomon, nor John, nor Paul. Read them and see. There is not a word in the Bible about confessing to a priest.. So I found that the two guides did not agree in this matter. The Catholic Manual said the confession must be to a priest; but the holy Scriptures insist on no such thing, but direct that the confession be made to God.

This thought occurred to me: What if a sinner confess his sins with a sincere repentance, though not to a priest, what is to be done with his soul? Must pardon be denied him, and he be consigned to perdition, because, though he confessed penitently, yet he did it not to a priest? Really this is making rather too much of the priest. It is making too important a character of him altogether. I do not believe that our salvation is so dependent on the deference we pay the priest.

Before the conditions, on one of which I have been remarking, are mentioned, there is this general statement: "Plenary indulgences granted to the faithful