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

does not choose them (those who marry) for her clergy." Truly, she is very fastidious in the choice of her clergy. Why need she be so much more particular than Paul required Timothy and Titus to be in the choice of their clergy? Their bishops and deacons might have a wife; but if any "wish to marry," she does not choose them for her clergy!

4. I thought when I read about the holier state, "what if all the world should aspire to the holier state?" Certainly, if it is holier, they ought to aspire to it. Priests are not the only persons who are commanded to be perfect.

Let the Catholic priesthood no longer make such an ado about their celibacy, as a holier state. Protestants allow their clergy to do as they please in this matter. If they remain unmarried, it is all very well. At the same time they are not extremely solicitous that their ministers should aspire to any holier state than that from which Enoch was translated.

40. Auricular Confession.

I have been thinking with myself, where is the authority for this doctrine and practice of the Catholicswhence came the idea of confessing sin to a priest? Every one admits that sin ought to be confessed-but why to a priest? Common sense would seem to dictate that confession should be made immediately to the being offended; especially if he be easily accessi

ble. If a child offends his father, does he confess the offence to some third person, when his father is near at hand too; and above all, does he select for that third person, an equally offending brother? Was ever such a thing heard of as this? Yet this is the Catholic doctrine. It sends us to a brother as deep in the offence as we, to confess to him, that we have sinned against our father, when that father is near by, and when, moreover, he says "Come to me!" I think both the brothers, the penitent and the priest, had much better go directly to the father. I find that this is what they used to do in old times. I have been looking into the Bible to discover how it was then, and I perceive that they all went to God to make their confessions. They did not stop at the priest. There was David, and Daniel, and Ezra, and Nehemiah, and I know not how many more. They all went with their sin directly to God. Read that precious Psalm, the 51st. There is David before God. He confesses to the one he had offended. "Against thee," he says. And may we not use that Psalm? May we not go and say "against thee?" Must we turn aside to the priest? The publican did not. He went straight on to God. And the prodigal did not stop short of his father. Why should we? Why should Catholics? I think the sinner should go on to God-and I do not like that Catholic doctrine, because it stops him as he is going to God. The sinner is on his way to confess his sin to his maker, and to implore of him

pardoning mercy, and it says to him you need not go so far the priest will hear you confess-he can forgive you." I like better the Protestant doctrine, which speeds and cheers the penitent on his way to God.

Nor can I see why we want more than one mediator between us and God. Why is not Christ enough? How admirably qualified he is for his work? With one nature that reaches up to God, and another that reaches down to man, how excellently fitted is he to mediate for us! Do we want another between us and Christ? O no. Let the priest please not put himJesus says, "Come unto me;" we

self in the way. want no human priest between us and our great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens for us."

I may be very dull, but really I cannot see for my part what is the use of the priest; for surely he cannot forgive a sinner, unless he repents; and if he does repent, God forgives him, and then who cares whether the priest forgives him or not. If confession to the priest is intended to supersede confession to God, it is certainly a great mischief. If not so intended, it is useless, for our being forgiven depends on the nature of our confession to God, as penitent or otherwise.

But they allege in support of their doctrine, a verse of Scripture, "confess your faults one to another." I suppose the reason they allege this is, that it is the best they can find for their purpose. They must be hard pushed for authority, when they resort to that passage. Confess your faults one to another." This implies something mutual. If I confess to the priest, he must confess to me, for it says one to another. This puts priests and all on a level. There is nothing auricular in this. Certainly we ought to confess our faults one to another, and to "pray one for another," as the same apostle exhorts. But this is by no means the Catholic doctrine of confession. That is quite a different thing.