and their offering sacrifice, that the Old Testament dispensation-the dispensation of types and shadows -was still in force: and that the Messiah, the substance and antitype, was yet to come. Priests were

a sacred order of men under the Jewish dispensation, and sacrifice constituted an important part of divine service. But, under the Christian dispensation, there is no order of priests, neither any literal sacrifices offered. We have, indeed, under this dispensation, a great High Priest, Jesus the Son of God, who, having once offered himself to bear the sins of many, has passed into the heavens for us, where he ever lives to make intercession; and he makes all his disciples, in a sense, both "kings and priests unto God"—John 1:6; even as also Peter, who is prime authority with us all, testifies. When addressing the Christians to whom he wrote, he says: "Ye are a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." 1 Pet. 2: 5. This priesthood, which Peter recognizes, is very different from the Roman Catholic priesthood. All Christians share equally in the New Testament priesthood, and these priests are set apart to offer up spiritual sacrifices, or as it is said, v. 9, that they "should show forth the praises" of God. This is not the object of the Roman priesthood, neither are its functions performed by all the faithful.

The truth is, the Roman Catholic priesthood, that large and influential body of ecclesiastics, has no more warrant and authority for its existence from Christ, than it has from Mohammed. There is no more in the Bible in favor of such an order, than there is in the Koran, and perhaps not as much. Christ instituted no such office-authorized no such

characters in his church. "He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" but he gave none priests. And these he gave or appointed "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," not for saying mass, offering sacrifice, burning incense, hearing confessions, and the like of those things. Christ appointed no officer to perform such functions as these. I have quoted from Eph. 4: 11, 12. In 1 Cor. 12: 28, we have another enumeration of the officers which God has set in the church, but there is not a word about priests. They are a class of persons not at all needed under the Christian dispensation. The great High Priest of our profession answers every purpose. He has offered the sacrifice which is efficacious to put away sin-has shed a blood which cleanseth from all sin; and he ever livet. to be our Advocate with the Father. Neither for propitiation, nor for intercession, need we any other priest. Other priests are quite out of place since he has come.

If Christ instituted an order of priests, why do we not read any thing about them in that choice piece of ecclesiastical history, the Acts of the Apostles? It is very strange. We read about Jewish priests in the Acts, and mention is made of the priests of Jupiter, but not a word do we hear of any Christian priests. Who were they? What were their names? Stephen was a deacon; Philip was an evangelist; Paul was an apostle; Peter was an elder, and there were many who were addressed as bishops. But who was a priest? If Paul was, why does he not sometimes call himself so in the introduction of his Epistles?

Was he ashamed of the office? Peter says he was an elder or presbyter, but gives no hint of his having been a priest. He seems to have had no idea of his being a priest in any other sense than as being one of that "holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices," which all true believers compose.

If the priesthood be a Christian order of men, why does Paul, in writing to Timothy and Titus, take no notice of it? He gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons, but says nothing about those of priests. Were they to have no qualifications? Must a bishop be "blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, apt to teach," &c. and might a priest be any thing he pleased in these respects? Might any body be a priest? If not, the silence of the apostle is decisive. Any one may see now why the Catholic priests do not like the Bible. Who likes to be treated by book or man with silent contempt? The priests will never forgive the evangelists and apostles for having passed them by in the way they have done. Never. And they will never let their people have the genuine Bible. If they do, they will lose the people.

I suppose it is scarcely necessary to say, that if Catholics meant no more by a priest, than some of our Protestant brethren mean by the word, viz. a presbyter, of which priest, as used by them, is but an abbreviation, there could have been no occasion for this article. But they mean by a priest, a real sacerdotal character, as much as the priest of the Old Testament was-one who literally offers sacrifice. They pretend that their priests offer sacrifice now-that whenever they perform mass, a true, proper, and

propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, is offered by them. And if you ask them what they offer, they tell you they offer Christ-that, under their hands, he becomes again, and as often as they choose to make him so, a propitiatory sacrifice-that he is as really offered by them in their missal service, as he was by himself on Calvary, only now he is offered in an unbloody manner! This is what their priests do. A priest must have somewhat to offer. He is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. Now, the Catholic priest, finding nothing else to offer, pretends to re-offer Christ. For all this-this priesthood, and this sacrifice-every one knows there is no more authority in the Bible than there is for the Hindoo Suttee-the burning of widows.

38. The Celibacy of the Clergy.

This is the Roman Catholic doctrine; but is it Bible doctrine? believe, however, that the Catholics say it is no part of doctrine, but of discipline. This is a sorry evasion. It amounts to a confession that some of their ecclesiastical practices have no warrant in Christian doctrine. It is saying that it is a part of their discipline that their clergy do not marry, but no part of their doctrine that they should not.

But let us see how this doctrine or discipline, or by whatever name it may be called, tallies with the Scriptures; and as we proceed, we shall see why the

Catholics are unwilling that the people should read the Bible. We shall see what a world of trouble it would occasion the priests, were they to be in the habit of reading it. Suppose, for example, an intelligent Catholic to take up Paul's first epistle to Timothy for perusal. Well, he reads along until he comes to the third chapter, where he finds Paul telling Timothy what a bishop must be. He must be this and that, and, among other things, "the husband of one wife." The reader is shocked. "Why, what does this mean? Our priests tell us that a bishop must not marry at all. Our church prohibits all her clergy from marrying. Which is right, our priests and church, or St. Paul?" He concludes to read on. Coming to verse 4th, he meets with this qualification of the bishop: "one that ruleth well his own house," i. e. family. But how can he, if not permitted to have a house of his own? He proceeds: "having his children in subjection." His children—his children!!! What, a bishop having children of his own, and having them collected in a family too! And then there follows a most provoking parenthesis, "for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" His ruling his own house well is to be a criterion of his ability to take care of the church of God, and yet they say that he must not marry!

But the apostle passes on to speak of the deacons, and to say what they must be; and in verse 11th, he says what sort of wives they should have-"even so must their wives be grave," &c. So far from encouraging a doubt whether they should marry or not, Paul gives them directions for choosing a wife.