revelation of his will; but before we can reap'any benefit from it, we must pay a priest to explain it to us, and if we refuse to do this we must perish for ever!!

Till this vile delusion is no longer practised in our land, let us cease to affect surprise at the conduct of those who actually forbid the use of the scriptures among the people at large; they are, in so doing, more consistent than their neighbours; for if a priest is nesessary to give the meaning of scripture, it is but right that the sacred deposit should be confined to his holy care. And, as to those who possess the scriptures, they ought to beware lest, in reading them without the assistance of the priest, they should use their reason, and so actually stumble on the literal, or real meaning; for if they once do, they will find no more use for the spiritual guide.

But, secondly, we are told that the church must be edified. True, the church must be edified, and the edification of the church ought to be the grand end of all Christian association. But into what a strange mistake do those fall, who suppose that the edification of a society of Christians ought to be confined to an individual, and often to one whose wisdom it would be rather to learn from the church than pretend to teach it! On this head the conduct of religious professors in general is such as shews that they completely misunderstand the nature of a Christian church.

The people have an idea that they ought to assemble together, but beyond this they seem not to stretch their thoughts. If they are regular in their attendance, if they punctually pay their portion of the priest's hire, and now and then entertain him at their table, they imagine they are fully entitled to the appellation of Christians. These and the like actions constitute the part they perform in the church. With respect to their edification, they leave that to the minister; he has been regularly bred to the business; he is a learned man, and can tell them much more than they are able to practise; the Lord has sent him among them to be their teacher, and qualified him for the work of the ministry, and therefore they look to him for instruction.

Now how comes it to pass that all the gifts possessed by a church should center in an individual, and that in a society composed of four or five hundred people, only one should be found capable of speaking even "five words" to edification?

In whatever way this difficulty shall be solved, the priest will be found to be the cause of it. If the church

possess no gifts but those of the preacher, is there not reason to suspect that they are not acting the part which, as Christians, they ought to do? But the preacher is a convenient cover for this defect, and so long as they have him to screen their indolence they are satisfied. If, on the contrary, the church does actually possess abilities for its own edification, and these are never employed, who but the priest prevents their being brought into action? Are we to suppose that, in the various churches in this country; there is to be found only one man in each, or at the most but two men capable of edifying the body? Let any one attend even a modern enlightened Unitarian assembly, and if he is to judge from appearances, he must soon conclude that they possess but little claim to the appellation of" enlightened." If they are enlightened, they reflect very little of their light by sitting dumb from the one end of the year to the other.

Let us then suppose that in a society of this description there are only ten men who possess abilities for edifying their brethren, and that those men never attempt any thing of the kind, even in case of its being impracticable for the preacher to be in the assembly, is there not manifestly a fault among them? for allowing that the preacher is a man of ability, and that he ought to render himself useful by exercising his talents in the church, here are other ten men, whose talents may in some respects be superior to his own, prevented by him from performing their duty. Reckoning in this way, the churches might soon see how useful their clergy are to them.

When these things are pointed out, the cry is immediately raised-"you wish to sap the foundation of all Christian order in the churches, and to throw every thing into confusion; you would deprive us of pastors and teachers, and bring Christianity into the greatest contempt." No such thing; the farthest from it possible; we only wish the priest to assume the man; to lay aside all his vain pretensions to superiority in the church; to act as a member of the body to which he belongs, without preventing the others from doing the same. If he possess great talents, this will afford him a more enlarged sphere for their exercise, instead of abridging his usefulness. We wish the churches to act like men who are in earnest in their profession; to take an active part in their public assemblies; and thus, by imitating the churches of God which were in Judea, exhibit the power of the doctrine of Jesus on the mind. Is it replied, "these things are impracticable under present circumstances?" we would ask what it is that renders them so, but the interest of a too

powerful body of men called clergymen. But what has this to do with the duty of Christians? The clergy, as a body, have no more to do with the sacred duties of a Christian church than the Board of Excise have. Are Christians in this country placed in more unfavourable circumstances than the Christians in Ephesus, in Rome, or in Thessalonica were? In Thessalonica, even when Paul, to save his life had fled from them, we find the Christians continuing to assemble together, buffeting the storm of persecution with undaunted courage; standing fast in the doctrine of the apostles; exhorting, comforting, strengthening, and edifying one another. Acts xvii. 1, 12. 1 Thess. iii. 5, 11.

The elders of the church in Ephesus appear to have been very differently circumstanced from our clergy; they seem to have followed the advice and example of Paul, who, when among the Christians of that place, while he preached the gospel, and disputed daily with the Jews for the space of two years, laboured, working with his hands, that he might not be chargeable to them. Acts xx. 33, 35. Indeed whether we consider the conduct of the people, or that of their leaders, we find nothing in either that corresponds with the manner in which the first Christians acted. The ancient Christians naturally associated together in conse quence of their having embraced the same doctrines; and, considering themselves members of the same body, they excited each other to abound in love and good works, and to wait for the hope of resurrection to eternal life. They were united bodies of active men; and by their conduct they spread abroad every where the doctrines of Christianity; their faith and love became so conspicuous, that Paul thought it unnecessary to say any thing concerning them. I Thess. i. In their case, wisdom was indeed justified of her children. Their office bearers were men of tried character and exemplary virtue; they grew up in the church, and were chosen to hold the offices they filled; in consequence of having shewn themselves qualified for them. Thus was Christianity originally exhibited. The church thus constituted had, within itself, every necessary means for the propaga tion of its doctrines; and but for the interference of foreign aid, would have flourished to this day.

With modern Christians the case stands very differently. All that the apostles and first Christians did and said, is of no use without a minister; and this minister is not a man who has, in the church, given full proof of possessing the qualifications mentioned as necessary to fit him for the office, by Paul, 1 Tim. iii. 1 to 10; but generally a young

man, sometimes a boy, whose assurance is superior to his understanding, and whose time has been spent chiefly within the walls of a school, where he had but little opportunity of knowing much of Christianity; the greater stranger he is to them so much the better; his presence is essential to those worshipping their Maker; without him they cannot assemble together; but if disappointed, they close the doors of their place of meeting, and return with rueful countenances to their home, to make the best shift they can by reading their Bibles :-or, perhaps, a few of the most godly will remain to hold what is called a prayer meeting, in which they may often be heard to bewail the disappointment they have sustained, and to profess unfeigned submission to the will of God, who has seen fit to deprive them of the labours of his servant for that day. Thus the preacher is made a man of great importance indeed; the bond of union in the church; the all in all of modern Christianity; and, I am mistaken, if any of those churches which lay claim to so much primitive simplicity, would not feel themselves greatly disappointed, if, for a whole day, instead of their minister, Jesus and his apostles should be heard in their assembly.

But, perhaps, it may be replied, these are not the only ways in which the usefulness of the clergy appears; their private labours are no less serviceable to the cause of Christianity than their public. By the private labours of the clergy is meant the practice of visiting the people at cer-. tain times, for the purpose of interrogating them respecting the state of their minds. They have an idea that, in virtue of their office, they have a peculiar right to enter their neighbour's house at any hour of the day, to assemble the family together, and address them in such a manner as would be suffered in no one but in a priest. This practice, they imagine, is sanctioned by Paul, who taught not only publicly, but from house to house. Now certainly, to social intercourse no Christians can have the least objection; indeed more benefit may be derived from it in one hour, if properly conducted, than can be obtained from sermons in twelve months. But the "ministerial visit," as they term it, is a very different thing from that social intercourse which appears to have existed among the first Christians. The priest makes his appearance with all the formality of his office, at the time that best suits himself, which is generally inconvenient for those who are visited; and during his stay, he assumes the tone of one who has a right to dictate in matters of faith.

Now what are the advantages resulting to Christianityfrom this practice? Allowing that there is some temporary benefit accrues from it to individuals, yet the good is nothing when compared with the real evils of which it is productive. Mark the effect of it on the minds of the rising generation; from the period at which they begin to think, they are thus taught to associate in their minds the idea of the necessity of a priest with all the ideas they have of Christianity they are taught to do him homage as a being superior to his fellow creatures. Perhaps some into whose hands these remarks may fall, do still remember the sensations excited in their breasts, when they appeared before the minister for examination; they trembled at the very thought of it, and wished themselves engaged in any thing rather than undergo such drudgery.

The clergy may, and actually do, by such means promote their own influence, but they at the same time do much mischief to Christianity. And let me ask the warmest advocate for these things, whether, if Christians acted the part they ought to do, there would be any necessity for the private labours of the clergy? If the ignorance of youth, and the incapacity of parents to instruct their children are urged, may we not in reply ask, whether this does not originate in the improper and unprofitable mode of public teaching pursued in this country? This devolving entirely on one man, and its being considered his peculiar prerogative, no one else ever thinks of attempting it.

Many thousands of parents spend their days in hearing of sermons, who might, did they but. employ their talents, render themselves highly serviceable in their own families, and in the church of God; might completely remove the supposed necessity of the private as well as the public teaching of the priest; and by representing Christianity in its own colours, divesting it of all the appalling and gloomy appendages with which superstition has clogged it, recommend it to men as a thing in which they are deeply interested, and as suited to make them superlatively happy, by promoting their welfare as immortal creatures.

In whatever light then we consider the clergy, as a body, it is obvious that they form a grand hindrance to Christianity. To argue that they do some good, is saying nothing; the question is whether, at least, ten thousand times more good might not be effected were the order completely annihilated, and Christians in general becoming active, and ex-' ercising those talents which God has given them, and for the use of which they are responsible. Let the clergy re