system, let our dear Protestant Operative friends throughout the empire exert themselves, by influence and example on one another, by their votes, petitions, and addresses, to prevent the growth and development of Romish power, which, when it shall have gained the dominion, will oppress and persecute them, deprive them of their dearest privileges, and that chief of all, the right of reading the word of God in their native tongue.

Much has been done-much yet remains to be done and let the result of the question now before Parliament be what it may, we feel convinced it will have brought this good in the train of evils which follow it, that it will have aroused the Protestant spirit throughout the empire, and made them determined to uphold their religious and civil privileges, and contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints.

PERJURY AS TAUGHT IN THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH, SUPPORTED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

This is a college in which "the candidates for the office of the priesthood, are trained in a system of perjury, persecution, sedition, and unrelenting hostility to their Protestant Sovereign and Protestant fellow subjects." "For if ever the devil invented a system to corrupt and degrade the human heart below the ordinary level of its natural depravity, the system of training Roman Catholic Priests is that system."

Now, the first subject to which I (Rev. R. J. McGhee) call your attention is this-I say that the candidates for the priesthood in this college are trained in a system of awful perjury; they are trained in a system that opens the door wide as the gates of the College of Maynooth for the violation of every oath that man can take to his fellow-creature. I first call your attention to Bailly's Moral Theology. This is one of the books which every scholar is obliged to purchase at his own expense. It is stated here as a proposition, vol. ii. p. 117

"A promissory oath obliges, under the penalty of mortal sin, to do that which is promised in the oath." Well, that is very sound; then follows-" unless a legitimate cause excuses." Well, there may be causes, certainly, that preclude the observance of a promissory oath. We turn now to consider some of these causes, and we find, p. 119, a chapter with this title-" Of the causes which prevent or take away the obligation of an

oath." On this you will observe, that some causes prevent an oath from imposing any obligation, so that though a person takes an oath, yet he never was bound to keep it. Some causes, again, take away the obligation after it has been imposed, so that a man is bound by the oath after he takes it, but then some cause arises which delivers him from the obligation. Now I shall first mention some of the causes that prevent an oath from imposing any obligation. There are seven causes enumerated-but I must select certain passages only-it would be impossible to trespass on your patience by reading them all. Some of these seven causes are just and right, as, for instance, the defect of liberty—that is, that a person has no right to take an oath: a child has no right to take an oath to do a thing which his parent will not allow him to do. A third cause mentioned here is the hindering of a greater good which is opposed to the thing promised by the oath. So that if a man takes an oath, and then there is some greater good that might result if he had not taken the oath, the oath involves no obligation at all. The word of the living God says, "He that sweareth to his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance"-the Church of Rome says, hindering of a greater good prevents the obligation of an oath." "The seventh cause excusing from the obligation of an oath is, the limitation-either expressed, or even tacitly and silently understood-of the intention of the swearer. For in every oath certain general conditions are, from justice and use, included. One of them is, unless you accept, unless you remit; another is, salvo jure alieno-that is, saving the right of another." You shall hear by and by what that limitation is. Every Roman Catholic must take this oath-saving the right of his Superior-saving the right of the Pope, of his bishop, or his priest,

"The

Again,-There are five causes that take away the obligation of an oath after the oath has imposed an obligation. One of them is, "if the thing sworn becomes impossible, or unlawful on account of the prohibition of any Superior, illicita ob superioris prohibitionem." So that if a man takes an oath, and then his Superior is pleased to prohibit the observance of it, according to the Church of Rome the obligation of the oath is entirely taken away.

The fourth cause is, "the making void of the oath by him to whom the person of the swearer or the matter of the oath is subject." See how this is illustrated. "Thus the Superior" (that is, the General) of all the

orders of the monks can validly, even without cause, make void the oaths of all his subjects." One of these men, Dr. Anglade, Professor of Divinity, is asked, in this Report of the Commissioners, Where does the Superior of the Dominicans reside? At Rome. Where does the Superior of the Franciscans reside? At Rome. Where does the Superior of the Jesuits reside? At Rome. You have here, on the oath of this man, that the Superior of these orders of monks-every one of them-resides at Rome. So, while you have monks spreading themselves through every quarter of your country, you have a man residing at Rome who can make void with a word-lawfully make void, as they assert every oath of allegiance, or every other oath, which all the monks in the British empire take to their Sovereign or their fellow-man.

IMPORTANT HEADS FOR PRAYER,

SUITED TO THE TIMES.

The events of the times do seem to call as if with providential voice, for special prayer and watchfulness: the conflict of the Church is thickening; faithful men are persecuted; Atheists blaspheme; the nations are bending under the iron yoke of Rome; and the general movement of events seems to be towards some great conclusive catastrophe.

It is therefore suggested that those who bear the honored office of being the "Lord's remembrancers," should with confession of sin, humiliation, supplication for pardon, and other usual subjects of prayer, devote an additional fragment of time every morning to earnest entreaty on the following points :

1. With reference to the Church of England in particular; that the Heads of the Church may be gifted with the spirit of moderation, preventive wisdom, and prophetic discernment of the times, in relation to the present stormy epoch in the history

of the Church.

2. That the Laity may be led to adopt such legal and temperate measures in resisting the present spring-tide of Ritualism, as may not endanger the safety of the Church; and that those "false brethren" whose hearts are already fixed on Rome, may be led either to see their danger, or to quicken their footsteps thither.

3. That the British Government may be awakened to the peril resulting from the present gigantic efforts of the Jesuits, who, having fraternized with democracy, are beginning to set in motion the arms and limbs

of the disciplined hosts of France, with the sole object of arresting the progress of the Gospel at every Missionary outpost; in allusion to which a Morning Paper observes, "We receive no letter from any part of Europe, Africa, or Asia, that does not announce the appearance of a French Envoy, Missionary, or Emissary."

4. That there may be an increase of friendly intercourse between England and the Protestant Governments and Churches of Europe, for it has been truly said, “That there is still for England, as the supporter of Protestantism, an unexplored vista of power, happiness, and glory; whilst, on the other hand, history proves very clearly that judgment and misfortune have always followed close upon the track of each alternate movement towards Rome."

5. That there may be a more general agreement, amongst Christ's faithful Protestant servants, in regard to the real character and fated doom of Rome; as being destined not to be converted; but to be arrested in the full career of impiety by the brightness of another advent; a circumstance which in an especial manner calls upon Christians to "Watch, and pray always, that they may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.'

6. The discovery and revival of the longlost ten tribes of Israel, as being still within the reach of faith, and hope, and prayer; "For neither after their revolt, nor after their idolatrous lapse, nor after their captivity, nor after their supposed utter dispersion, were their names blotted out from the breastplate. They are still in existence, as a separate people, for their names are still High Priest, although their ancient earthly burning in the breastplate of their eternal dwelling-place knows them no more."

7. That the British public may be led to see the importance of Christian Missions to the Jews; and the certain prosperity which awaits the Christian cause in the Holy Land, however severe the intervening conflict may be;-*

"For the time to favor Zion, yea, the set time, is

come.

For thy servants take pleasure in her stones,
And favor the dust thereof.

So the heathen shall fear the name of the Lord.
And all the kings of the earth thy glory." AMEN.

"Is there nothing in the struggles of Rome to seat herself in the Holy Land, not only by the arms of the Crusaders, but in the secret movements (known only to a few) which at this moment are gathering the conflict of the Church to the East, around Jerusalem itself, to suggest the thought that on the scene of the past battles of the

Church, the final blow may even now be struck?" QUARTERLY REVIEW for Dec., 1842, p. 238.

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 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 i. 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. 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 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 officeauthorized 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. iv. 11, 12. In 1 Cor. xii. 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 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 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 reoffer 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.

66

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. 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 un

willing 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