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

This is the Roman Catholic doctrine; but is it Bible doctrine? I believe, however, that the Catholics say it is no part of doctrine, but of discipline. 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.

Popery

Now need any one wonder that the priests do not want to have the Bible read by the people; a Bible which contains such statements as these, and which moreover declares that marriage is honorable in all, without exception of clergy? I do not wonder at it. Who would put into the hands of his children and servants, and recommend to their perusal and belief, a book containing statements so much at variance with his oral communications to them?

But there is a passage a little farther on, at the beginning of chapter 4, which, I suppose, constitutes with the priests a still stronger objection to the popular reading of this part of the Bible particularly, "The Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith-forbidding to marry." Now, they are afraid that if the people were to read this, they might say, "Why, St. Paul must mean our church, it forbids to marry." And as it might give the priests some trouble to show that he did not mean their church, the better way is not to let the people know that there is any such passage in the Bible.

39. A Holier State than Matrimony!

In one of his last letters to Mr. Breckenridge, Mr. Hughes, of Philadelphia, says that the Catholic church does not forbid marriage, but "she holds, however, that there is a holier state." When I had read the letter

thus far, I stopped, and said to myself, "How is this? a holier state! I must look into this." So I thought a moment; and I came to the conclusion that I could not hold with the Catholic church in this thing, for the following reasons among others:

1. Because, according to this doctrine there is a holier state than that to which Enoch attained, and from which he was translated! He, we know, was a married man, and begat sons and daughters; and it would seem that he married earlier than any other Patriarch! And yet all the while after his marriage, for three hundred years, he walked with God; and "he had this testimony, that he pleased God;" and God, in honor of his eminent piety, translated him "that he should not see death!" Now do you suppose I am going to believe that the state of a Roman priest is holier than that of Enoch; and that he would have been a better man if he had let marriage alone? Never. I would ask, Do the priests do more than walk with God? Have they a higher testimony than that they please him? Are they translated? What is the reason we never hear of their holier state being thus honored?

2. If there be a holier state than matrimony, why did not the law of the Jewish priesthood enjoin celibacy, as the letter tells us the law of the Catholic priesthood does? Above all, why was not the high priest, whose functions were of the most sacred character, so much as permitted to occupy that holier state? He was not only authorized, but, it is believed, was obliged to marry.

3. The letter says, speaking of the Catholic church, "the law of her priesthood enjoins celibacy, &c. She