and moved in the genteeler ranks of society. The priest of the Catholic congregation, of which the gentleman was a member, frequently visited, and zealously endeavoured to preserve his charge from an influence in favour of Protestantism, which he apprehended from the wife. The good man appeared to be stedfast, and gave him all the satisfaction he desired. But the spiritual guide ürged the necessity of bringing her over to the Romish communion, saying, "The Catholic church is the only true church, and if she die without its pale, she cannot be saved-she is a heretic." The husband, of course, assailed his wife's religious creed, and endeavoured to win her over to his own. But she, being firm, the priest was introduced. Frequent disputes ensued, and the arguments were ably maintained on both sides; the gentleman leaving the point at issue between his wife and his spiritual director, to be settled by themselves.

The lady, by no means convinced by the reasoning of the priest, and growing confirmed in her own opinions, was yet, however, induced, from respect to her husband, to renew the argument from time to time as the priest repeated his visits. But the latter becoming impatient of delay, and anxious to effect the conversion of one whose politeness he had mistaken for a tenderness and increasing partiality to his creed, that would soon end in a profession of its tenets, was for putting the subject to immediate issue. She, however, delicately avoided this issue: probably unwilling to grieve her husband, and hoping he might be led in time to discover the errors of popery; and, on the other hand, fearing to exasperate the priest, who might find means to ruin the peace of the family. At the same time, she allowed him to cherish the expectation that she would some day declare herself.

An opportunity for this declaration soon after presented itself. In the course of their discussions, the doctrine of Transubstantiation came under consideration, and the priest insisted on the entire change of the wafer into the real body of Christ, so that every particle contained in it was on consecration transmuted or changed into the actual substance of our Saviour's body. The lady controverted this sentiment-and the priest positively insisted on it, always adding, that nothing could be impossible to God. The lady then cut short the subject by promising, that she would receive the mass on a certain day, if the priest would allow her to prepare the wafers herself. This point was conceded, and a day mentioned in which this business was to termi

nate.

The day arrived the parties met-the wafers were presented. The lady inquired, whether the wafers would be really changed by the consecration ?—The priest answered, they would.-Entirely? Yes." But, how can a wafer be changed into a body five feet in length, and that is in heaven ?”—"Nothing is impossible to God." The priest proceeded in his offices-the prayer of consecration was said. "Now," said the lady, "are the wafers changed?" "They are."-" Entirely changed ?" "Yes."

"So that none of the particles formerly contained in them remain ?" "None."-" They are now wholly and entirely transformed into the body of Christ ?" "They are." "Then," added she, "we may receive them; but, I inquired thus particularly, because there was arsenic in them." "What!" said the priest," arsenic ! Do you mean to poison me?" "Oh!" said the lady, "there is no danger now all the The priest broke out into a rage, refused to receive the wafers, and left the house. It need scarcely be added,

particles are changed.”

the gentleman plainly perceiving that the priest himself did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, left the Romish church, and professed the Protestant religion.

Some of the priests not believing in transubstantiation, confess their infidelity in this point to one another, and receive mutual absolution from one another, as Archbishop Usher declares some of them owned to himself. No wonder they doubt the reality of a wafer God! If we believe transubstantiation, we take away the testimony of our senses. And we give up our reason too. For if every particle of the host is as much the whole body of Christ, as the whole host is before it is divided, then a whole may be divided, not into parts, but into wholes. For, divide and subdivide it over and over, and it is whole still! It is whole before the division; whole in the division; whole after the division! Such nonsense, absurdity, and self-contradiction, all over, is the doctrine of transubstantiation! These elements of bread and wine are called by the Fathers, the images, the symbols, the figure of Christ's body and blood.

Purgatory is a doctrine of the church of Rome, of which we hear nothing till about the eighth century. The Roman Catholics teach, that the souls of those that die in a state of grace, but are not sufficiently purged from their sins, or have not had a plenary indulgence for the remission of them, go to purgatory, a place of torment in the other world, near to hell," where they are to continue till they have made full satisfaction for their sins, and are thoroughly purged and prepared for heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter. They

b

may be helped and delivered by the suffrages

Bellarm. de Pnrg. 1. 2. c. 6. SS. Quinta est.

b Catech. Rom. par. i. c. 6. n. 3.

Concil. Trid. Sess. 25, Decr. of Purgat.

faithful that are alive; that is, by prayers, alms, and masses; and other works of piety, such as indulgences. b Whosoever shall say, that there is no debt of temporal punishment to be paid, either in this world or purgatory, before there can be an admission into heaven, is accursed. And whosoever shall say, the sacrifice of the mass is not to be used for the dead, is accursed. d This is one of the principles, without the belief of which there is no salvation. a

The Roman Catholics make a fourfold hell. 1. The hell of the wicked, or damned, where there is eternal punishment, of both loss and sense. 2. Purgatory, where there is only a temporal punishment of both loss and sense, for venial sins, as they speak; but the distinction of sins into mortal and venial, is as groundless as the kind of hell they have invented for the punishment of venial sins. 3. The hell of infants, dying without baptism, which they call Limbus Infantum, where, according to them, there is eternal punishment only of loss. 4. The hell of the Old Testament believers, which they call Limbus Patrum, where there was a temporal punishment of loss, but not of sense. They say, that the souls of the faithful, who died under the Old Testament dispensation, were thrust down into a kind of infernal prison, where they suffered the punishment of loss, and were detained captives, from the time of their death, till Christ's resurrection from the dead; that when he died, his soul descended into hell locally, to show his triumph over devils, and to deliver the souls

a Sess. 22. Can. 3.

b Bellarm. de Purgat. 1. ii. c. 16. SS. Ad hæc.

Concil. Trid. Sess. 6. Can. 30, et Sess. 24. Decret, de Purg.

d Ibid. Sess. 22. Can. 3.

e Bulla Pii. 4ti.

of the holy patriarchs, out of Limbus; and that when he ascended up to heaven, he carried them with him thither.

To affirm every sin, even the least, sufficient to expose men to, and to involve them in so severe a condemnation, has seemed to some unworthy the love and tenderness of the merciful God, who, as they imagine, will rather overlook petty faults than thus severely punish them. Hence, they have taken occasion to invent a distinction of sins into mortal and venial, reckoning the more atrocious sins, such as blasphemy, and murder (provided it be not that of reputed heretics,) mortal sins; and sins of daily infirmity they reckon venial. This unhappy distinction has introduced into the Popish religion a sort of merchandise and traffic in vice; no sin among the crafty guides of that church is so mortal, but a sum of money will cancel the guilt, and procure a pardon. With them all sins are venial, unless the meanness of the worldly circumstances of the sinner be added to his other faults.

But Protestants, on Scripture testimony assert, that there are no venial sins, and that the smallest and lightest in the esteem of men, is mortal in the sight of God, and deserves everlasting punishment, Gal. iii. 10. We allow, indeed, that all sins are not equally heinous ; some in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others: "He that delivered me to thee," said our Lord to Pilate, "hath the greater sin." We allow also, that there is a vast difference between the common infirmities of the righteous, who indeed in many things offend all, Jam. iii. 2. and the wilful offences of wicked men; but that any sin is in its own nature venial, so as not to deserve everlasting punishment, we deny. Every sin,