worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." But Roman Catholics worship the host. Yes; but is not Christ to be worshipped, and do they not hold that the host is Christ? Suppose they do hold so ; does it follow, that every thing is as they hold it to be? And if, in this case, the fact be different from what they hold it to be, is not their worship idolatry, whatever they may verily think? Paul verily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus of Nazareth. But did his verily thinking it was his duty, make it so, or exculpate him? No: he ought to have been better informed.* And Roman Catholics ought to be better informed, than to suppose that the host is Christ-a wafer, God-a bit of bread, not only the body, but the very soul and divinity of Christ! I say they ought to know better. And, if they do not, they must take the consequences of such ignorance.

2. The other thing which they do with the host is to eat it. This is all very well on our theory. It is bread; and what is bread for but to be eaten? Christ tells us to put it to this use. He says, "Take, eat." But, on their supposition that it is bread no longer, it is no longer proper to be eaten. Its nature being so changed, there ought to be a corresponding change in its use. If it is to be adored, it is not to be devoured. Common sense teaches this. These two uses of it, adoring it and eating it, are incongruous to each other. One of them at least ought to be dispensed with. If they continue. to eat it, they ought to give up adoring it. But if they must have it as an object of worship, they should cease to use it as an article of food. Any body can tell you, that you ought not to eat what you worship. Cicero thought such a thing could not be. In his work on

* And he looked upon himself as the very chief of sinners, because he had done that which was really enormous wickedness, though "ignorantly and in unbelief," he thought at the time, that he ought to do it. 1 Tim. i. 12-16. John xvi. 2, 3.

See also

A. S. T.

Theology, he asks, "Was any man ever so mad as to take that which he feeds upon for a God?" But Cicero did not live late enough, else he could not have asked that question. Papal Rome has far outdone Pagan Rome.

If I believed in transubstantiation, I would never receive the Eucharist. I know that I must spiritually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, that I may have life in me; but I could never literally eat what I believed to be my divine Saviour. What, take him actually between my teeth! chew and swallow what I had just before worshipped and adored! Let not the language be objected to. It is unavoidable. Rather let horror be felt at the thing. I would not speak lightly of sacred things, nor untenderly of the opinions of others but the idea of adoring and eating the same object is shocking to me. Some readers will, perhaps, say that I must misrepresent the Roman Catholicsthat it is impossible they should believe so. Let such convict me of misrepresentation, if they can, and I will take the first opportunity of retracting.*

:

*The fact is, that the Roman Missal, in the Rubrics De Defectibus, suppose that things much more disgusting may happen to the Host: for they tell the Priest what he is to do, if the consecrated Host should be "taken away by some animal!!!" Neither is this, by any means, the worst.

Rubric No. 14 (De Defectibus in Ministerio ipso occurrentibus) is so disgusting, that I do not like to quote it in a work intended to be popular.

Another of these Rubrics (No. 5) very gravely tells us what is to be done: "If a fly, or spider, or something else have fallen into the chalice,-after consecration." If the priest "has no nausea, nor fear any danger, let him take it with the blood!"

A. S. T.

37. Priests.

Where are we? Under what dispensation are we living? One would suppose, from hearing so much said among a certain class of people about priests, and their offering sacrifice, that the Old Testament dispensationthe 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 are 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 an important sense, both "kings and priests unto God" (Rev. i. 6) ; even as also Peter, who is prime authority with us all, testifies. Addressing the Christians to whom he wrote, he says, "Ye are an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." (1 Pet. ii. 5.) This priesthood, which Peter recognises, 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 funcions 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 Koranyi and perhaps not so 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 those 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. iv. 11, 12. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, we have another enumeration of the various 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 that blood which cleanseth from all sin; and He ever liveth 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 anything 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 (to use his own words, 1 Peter v. 1,) 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 Romish 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 Romanists meant no more by a priest, than some of our Protestant brethren mean by the word, namely, 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-and that, whenever they perform mass, a true, proper, and propitiatory acrifice, for the living and the dead, is offered by them. hat they offer, they tell

1

you

that

-meg

And if ask them what ~~ you ~~ that. under their hands, He cʊ...... they offer Christagain, and as often as they choose to make nim sʊ, 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

*Presbyter having been shortened into Prester (French prêtre) and then Prester into Priest, A. S. T.