law of the priesthood to confound them let them read the following:-" And he (the priest) shall take a wife in her virginity; a widow or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take, but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife" (Lev. xxi. 13 and 14).

Statistically, it is probable that the great number of priests desirous of, and advocating confession are celibates, and, as results show, many of them are perfect in debauchery; and history speaks to the end of celibacy, to wit says Hallam :

"Two crimes, or at least violations of ecclesiastical law, had become almost universal in the 11th century, and excited general indignation, the marriage or concubinage of priests, and the sale of benefices. By an effect of those prejudices in favour of austerity, to which I have just alluded, celibacy had been, from very early times, enjoined as an obligation upon the clergy. The Latin Church . . . has uniformly persevered in excluding the three orders of priests, deacons and subdeacons, not only from contracting matrimony, but from living with wives espoused before their ordination. The prohibition, however, during some ages, existed only in the letter of her canons.' *In every country, the secular or parochial clergy kept women in their houses, upon more or less acknowledged terms of intercourse, by a connivance of their ecclesiastical superiors, which almost amounted to a positive toleration. The sons of priests were capable of inheriting, by the law of France and also of Castile †.. It was acknowledged in the reign of Henry I. that the greater and better part of the clergy were married; and that prince is said to have permitted them to retain their wives. But the hierarchy never relaxed in their efforts; and all the councils, general or provincial, of the 12th century, utter denunciations against concubinary priests. Quidam sacerdotes Latini (says Innocent III.) in domibus suis habent concubinas, et nonnulli aliquas sibi non metuunt desponsare. Opera Innocent III. The latter cannot be supposed a very common case, after so many prohibitions; the more usual practice was to keep a female in their houses, under some pretence of relationship or servitude, as is still said to be usual in Catholic countries. A writer of respectable authority asserts that the clergy frequently obtained a bishop's license to cohabit with a mate. I find a

*"This prohibition is sometimes repeated in Charlemagne's Capitularies; but I have not observed that he notices its violation as a notorious abuse. It is probable, therefore, that the open concubinage or marriage of the clergy was not general until a later period."

"This was by virtue of the general indulgence shown by the customs of that country to concubinage or barragania."

"The Third Lateran Council, fifty years afterwards, speaks of the detestable custom of keeping concubines, long used by the English clergy. 'Cum in Anglia pravâ et detestabile consuetudine et longo tempore fuerit obtentum, ut clerici in domibus suis fornicarias habeant."

passage in Nicolas de Clemangis about 1400, quoted in Lewis's Life of Peacock Plerisque in diocesibus rectores parochiarum ex certo et conducto cum his prælatis pretio, passim et publicè concubinas tenent. After that age we do not find them so frequently mentioned; and the abuse by degrees, though not suppressed, was reduced within limits at which the Church might connive."-HALLAM's Europe in the Middle Ages, pp. 353-4.

Now let us see the reason, pure and simple, of our crafty Church for alienating her sons from all home ties :

:

"There was certainly much reason for the rulers of the Church to restore this part of their discipline, since it is by cutting off her members from the charities of domestic life, that she secures the entire affection to her cause, and renders them, like veteran soldiers, independent of every feeling but that of fidelity to their commander, and regard to the interests of their body. It was a struggle against the natural rights and strongest affections of mankind, which lasted for several ages, and succeeded only by the toleration of greater evils than those it was intended to remove."-Ibid., p. 354.

But in spite of history, in spite of newspaper reports of the profligacy of our clergy, we John Bulls go jogging along with our eyes shut, firmly believing in an infallible Church, and unheeding how Ritualism is drifting into Romanism with its confession against Bible teaching, convents for nuns and celibacy for priests, and with religion fast degenerating as heretofore into a system of cruel, unreasonable, inconsistent dogmas taught us and our children, at the dictates of sacerdotalism, for the purpose of enslaving and frightening that part of man which of all others should be free to worship God in sincerity and truth, and unshackled by customs and ceremonies not only tending to debase the mind to an earthly level, but actually, as research unquestionably shows, of a decided pagan origin, and of a pernicious tendency.

CHAPTER III.

On the Mass or Holy Eucharist; comparison continued with Similarity of Forms and Teaching.

THE following subjects being of great importance have been dealt with separately, and thus are slightly out of order.

THE HOLY EUCHARIST.

Surely, under the Jesuitical disguise of the Real Presence, the Ritualist teaches transubstantiation! However, let us leave Mother Church and go to her Master. Christ tells St. Thomas to use the senses of sight and feeling as well as faith (St. John xx. 27, St. Luke xxiv. 39-40), and we therefore cannot do better than obey His divine teaching, and use those faculties with which God has endowed us, and which shew that bread and wine remain bread and wine still; nor can we with reason believe that an act of priestcraft and superstition can, in imitation of our Saviour's material and spiritual act at the Last Supper, transform bread to flesh and wine to blood-in a word, become an intended act of cannibalism! Just think of it! If poor wretches starving at sea can overcome repugnance and eat their fellowcreatures, we hold aloft our hands with horror, and punish them for it, but we, well fed, partake of the Body and

* Perhaps the following is more emphatic: "God hidden beneath the sacramental species, unseen, unheard, passive, dependent upon men, who handle and consume Him!"-T. T. CARTER'S Self-Renunciation, p. 282. This is Divine Cannibalism with a vengeance! †The case of the ship "Mistletoe" some years ago.

Blood of that dear and generous Lord and Friend who gave His life for the salvation of our souls. It is awful to think of, and nothing but the gross superstition of religious priestcraft can account for such a belief! Read Stanley's African Discoveries and Sir S. Baker's Travels, and the account of blood brotherhood, and these men shrank from sucking a human being's blood; yet the priest would have us believe that wine has become veritable blood, and that we are like the heathen savage making a blood brotherhood with our Saviour. So much for Christian Mother Church!

Now hearken to the following precious piece of sacerdotalism and blasphemy, and, after it, be prepared to swallow anything in the way of Ritualistic teaching:

"He who once concealed His Godhead under the form of a poor and weak infant, obedient to His Mother and St. Joseph, obedient to the laws of man and nature, suffering hunger and cold and weakness and death for our sakes, now humbles Himself still more, hiding both His Body and Soul as well as His Godhead, under the forms of mere bread and wine; and is obedient to the priest, coming down at his word, remaining on the Altar, and giving Himself to any who will come, remaining silent and motionless, while not one of His creatures moves a hand or speaks a word without His assistance, descending, not into a stable, but into the hearts (ie. the stomachs!) of men who so often offend Him by sin."-Prayer Book for the Young, p. 322.

So it seems that the apostolically-descended priest, having himself partaken of Christ's "Body and Soul as well as His Godhead" becomes necessarily something approaching divine, and it is presumed that in this character he blasphemously demands that God's only Son shall be "obedient unto him and come down at his word." And this teaching, Parents, is fulminated in a book of devotion