The Colporteur and Roman Catholic

DIALOG-UE I.

Colporteur. Can I sell you a Bible or Testament this morning? they are very cheap.

Roman-catholic. We do not approve of your Bibles. They are not correct; and our priests warn us against them.

Colp. Do they furnish you with such as are correct? Have you a Bible in the house?

Rom. No; our priest says the common people have no need of the Bible; they do not know how to interpret it; and reading it would do them more harm than good. He says that whatever is necessary he will teach us; and if we believe as the church believes it is enough.

Colp. But may not a priest be a bad man? Is it not possible that he may not know the truth, and therefore cannot lead you in the right way? Is it wise to venture your salvation upon the fidelity of a fallible man?

Rom. The thing which you suppose is possible; priests are but men, and some of them frail men; but we can do no better than commit our souls to their keeping. If we should offend them they might refuse to give us absolution.

Colp. We never read that Christ or his apostles ever forbade the people to read the Scriptures; on the contrary, they exhorted men to search the Scriptures, and blamed them for not knowing what was written in them. “All Scripture” is said to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The law, under the old dispensation, was read in the hearing of all the people every seventh year; and in the synagogues the law and the prophets were read every Sabbath-day. Timothy is said to have- known the Scriptures from his childhood, and the Bible contains instructions and exhortations addressed to all sorts of men. If the priest should be ignorant, or negligent, the people must perish for lack of knowledge, if they are not permitted to read the Scriptures. You speak of absolution. You do not really believe that any sinful man has power to forgive sin. The thing is incredible. Man can only declare the terms on which God will grant forgiveness; but he cannot tell when those conditions are complied with. Suppose a man to confess his sins to the priest in hypocrisy, still regarding iniquity in his heart, can the priest forgive him? certainly not. He can only pronounce the true penitent forgiven. The priest’s absolution of an impenitent sinner cannot avail. But, friend, you have now arrived at mature age, and have from your infancy been under the instruction of your priests, do tell me what you have learned about the way of salvation? How shall a sinful man obtain the favor of God; and what is necessary to prepare him for heaven?

Rom. “Why, sir, we must lead a good life, and when we commit sin — and what man is there that sinneth not? — we must confess our sins to the priest and obtain absolution, and then submit to the penances which he lays upon us; and as to preparation for heaven, we must make satisfaction for our venial offences while we live; or if that is not done, we must suffer the fires of purgatory until we are prepared for heaven. Besides, when we are near to death, we have a sacrament intended for the express purpose of preparing the soul for death. This sacrament is called extreme unction, and consists in anointing the sick with consecrated oil, by which grace is communicated to the departing soul. Thus you see our religion contains all that is needful to gain the favor of God and preparation for heaven.

Colp. Now, my friend, be not offended at my plainness, when I tell you that this is not the religion of the Bible. If your priest has taught you this system as the way of salvation revealed in the Bible, he has deceived you; and as your salvation is at stake, you ought, like the Bereans, to examine for yourself, “whether these things are so.” Acts 17: 11. The religion inculcated in the Bible is essentially different from this. It is a method of saving sinners by grace, without the merit of good works. Pardon is freely granted to every penitent believer, only for the sake of the obedience of Christ unto death. His blood is the only sacrifice which atones for sin. We never read in the New Testament of sinners being directed to make satisfaction for their own sins. Justification is declared to be by faith, and not by the works of the law; so that God is said to justify, not the righteous, but the ungodly who believeth in Jesus. Our works and merit have no part in the business. Indeed, the sinner is justified before he begins to perform any works that are truly good; and even these could never be the ground of justification, because they are all imperfect. I know that your Douay Bible has the phrase do penance — unless you do penance — but unless by penance you understand sincere repentance, the translation is evidently wrong, as every scholar must confess. Where in all the New Testament do you find any such thing commanded, or ever once spoken of, as is now called penance? But as to repentance, the best preachers in your church allow, that repentance of the heart is the essence of all true penance. And the Scriptures speak of nothing else, except the evidence which we- must give of our sincerity, namely, “works meet for repentance.”

And this leads me to remark, that according to the teaching of .the New Testament, a thorough change of heart is necessary to our entering the kingdom of heaven. Your priest, no doubt, has taught you that you were regenerated in infant baptism, and that no other conversion is needed. But in the Bible there is no such doctrine. If all who have received infant baptism were truly regenerated, they would show the evidence of the change in their conduct and conversation. They would lead holy lives. But in many such persons we see no such thing. They give no evidence of a holy nature. But “without holiness no Juan shall see the Lord.” Your outward ceremonies, and sacraments as you call them, cannot prepare you for heaven. The Jews gloried in their circumcision; but the apostle Paul in many places teaches, that this and other ceremonies profited nothing. “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing but faith which worketh by love — the new creature.”

True religion is spiritual, has its seat in the heart, and does not consist in meats or drinks, that is, in outward ceremonies, but in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. What Paul says about the real Jew is equally true in regard to the Christian, for true religion has ever been the same. He says, “He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly,” that is, only by complying with external ceremonies; “but he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, and not of the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God/1

And as to purgatory, it is entirely a human invention. There is not one word in the whole Bible that makes the least mention of any such place. Besides, the whole doctrine of making satisfaction for our own sins is unscriptural, and is highly derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ, as though that was insufficient. This doctrine too has introduced the most shameful abuses, through the cunning and avarice of the priests, who have found it to be a gold-mine, certainly a most successful device for drawing money from the people, by working on their tender feelings of compassion. Ask your priest to put his finger on a single text in the Bible which speaks of purgatory, and if I cannot show that it is misinterpreted I will give up the point.

And again, you say that by the sacrament of “extreme unction,” as you call it, the dying are prepared for their change. But if the dying person be impenitent, will anointing him with oil save him? But the Scriptures speaks of no such sacrament. The custom of anointing with oil was anciently a very common remedy in sickness; and when the disciples were sent forth to heal the sick, they were commanded by the

Lord to anoint them with oil, as a sign of healing. And James directs the sick to send for the elders of the church, who should pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. But this ceremony or remedy was not used to prepare the dying for death; it was used to preserve them from death, by the miraculous healing power which attended it.

And here I think we have the true reason why the priests do not encourage the people to read the Bible. It is, that they fear lest they should discover that the religion which they teach is not taken from the Bible. And if you go to tradition, you will find nothing like a prohibition of reading the holy Scriptures in all the writings of the Christian fathers for many centuries. It was always the undisputed privilege of men, women, and children, of every rank, who could read, to read the sacred Scriptures. Nay, it was always considered an incumbent duty, which no Christian was at liberty to neglect. I must think, therefore, that in taking away the holy Scriptures from the people, the priests are guilty of an enormous crime. They have taken away the key of knowledge. They have shut up the fountain of life, which God had opened for all mankind. There is nothing in the whole Romish system which strikes me as more impious, or more unreasonable. This single thing is enough to convince any unprejudiced man that their religion is not true Christianity: if it were, they would be glad to appeal to the Bible for proof of all their doctrines and all their practices; whereas, if a person acquainted with the Scriptures should be brought into a Romish chapel, and should carefully attend to all the ceremonies in celebrating mass, he would be ready to think that he had been introduced into a heathen temple, rather than a Christian church. Rom. You have your way of thinking, and I have mine, and we are not likely to convince one another. We live in a free country, where every man has an equal right with others to form his own opinions, and be of what religion he pleases. Yet, though I believe firmly in the old mother church, as being the only true church, and the only safe way to heaven, yet I must confess I never could see the reason why the Scriptures are kept from us.

DIALOG-UE II.

Rom. I do not like any of your novelties in religion. I am for following the good old way. Yours is a new religion, only about three hundred years old; but ours is more than eighteen hundred years old. Ours has come down in a right line from Christ and his apostles; yours began with Luther and Calvin.

Colp. Did you never hear, friend’, that Paul predicted that there would be a great falling away before the end of the world? Suppose now that apostasy to have taken place; and suppose some pious men, by reading the Scriptures, to have discovered that the church was become corrupt, and should endeavor to bring the people back to the religion inculcated by Christ and his apostles; which ought to be called the good old way, the errors and corruptions of an apostate church, or the doctrines and worship of the New Testament restored? Certainly the latter. Now this is precisely the case. Your church has evidently departed from the Scriptures; and we are endeavoring to bring the people back to the true religion, which by degrees was forsaken by the whole Roman-catholic church. Popery then is the novelty, and Protestantism the old religion of the Bible. I have here a book with this very title, “Popery a Novelty f and the thing is proved by undoubted testimonies, that a large part of the Romish religion has sprung up long since the times of the apostles-Rom. I never can believe that Christ would leave his church to apostatize; for he has promised that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Colp. Certainly the church of God will never become extinct. If it becomes corrupt, it will be reformed and restored to its primitive purity; and God is accomplishing something of this kind now. He has put it into the hearts of many to search the Scriptures; and they have found that the Romish church, and also the Oriental churches, have become very degenerate. Still, there has been a seed to serve Him. In the midst of corruption, a few faithful souls have been found who have testified against the errors and sins of the times. And in sequestered valleys a people have lived who continued to profess the true doctrines of Christianity. These have been long and cruelly persecuted, but not exterminated. These held the same doctrines as the Reformers whom God raised up in these latter ages. The Jewish church fell away to idolatry in the time of Elijah, so that he thought that he alone was left of the worshippers of the true God; but God informed him that there were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.

A similar defection took place in the time of Manasseh and Amon; in which time the Scriptures were unknown among the people, as we learn from the fact, that the book of Moses was found among the rubbish, and the pious young king Josiah, when he heard it read, rent his clothes, and expressed the utmost grief, because the prescriptions of the divine law had not been obeyed for a long time. As it was then, so it is now with the Romish church. The Scriptures, though not lost, are kept back from the people by their priests and prelates. They are kept in ignorance, and have no opportunity of judging whether what their friends teach them is agreeable to Scripture or not. Now certainly this is not a safe condition to rest in.

But my object in seeking this conversation was not to enter into any dispute, but to have a serious discourse about vital piety. If your religion is right, it brings those who receive it to love God supremely, and to love their fellow-men. The question then which I would propose for your consideration is a personal one. It is simply the question which our Saviour, after his resurrection, propounded to Peter, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” I put it to your conscience, do you feel a sincere love to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Rom. To be sure I do. Do you take me for a heathen or a reprobate, that you ask me, a Christian man, such a question?

Colp. I mean no offence. But a mere profession of love with the lips is easily made. Christ said of some that had a high opinion of themselves, “I know you, that you have not the love of God in you.” And he also said to his disciples, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.77 Do you then obey from the heart all the commandments of God? One of these commandments is, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven abovej or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them.77-” Now, it is a notorious fact, that in all your churches you have images, and that you bow down to them and worship them.

Rom. I have the ten commandments in my catechism at home, but there is no command forbidding us to worship images. You Protestants must have invented this to impose on the ignorant.

Colp. Here is a plain evidence of the craft and dishonesty of your priests. They have left out almost the whole of the second commandment of the Decalogue, and have made one commandment out of the first two; and that they might make out the number ten, they have divided the tenth into two.

Rom. I never can believe that any of our priests would change the word of God, or leave out any of the commandments of God. If you could convince me of the truth of what you say, it would go further to shake my faith in their honesty than all that you have yet said. But it cannot be. Here is a catechism which has the ten commandments, and there, is no prohibition of worshipping images. The first is, “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.77 And the second commandment is,” Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the

Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” I wonder at the effrontery of men, that in the face of day will make so heinous a charge against our priests. They certainly break the commandment that says,” Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’7

Colp. I admit that the charge is a grievous one, and if it is not true, I will consent to be considered a false accuser. You admit that the Douay translation of the Bible is correct; it was made by Romish priests, and is the version in use among you, as far as you have liberty to read the Bible. Then, friend, I have a copy in my leather bag, and you shall read for yourself, and compare what is there written with the commandments which you have in your manual; for though they have omitted the second commandment in the catechisms and manuals, which are put into the hands of the people, they have not had the impious audacity to strike it out of the Bible.

Rom. [Reads the commandments out of the Douay Bible.] This, I confess, surprises me not a little. This is a thing I never heard of before. I must get my confessor to explain how this comes. Surely there must be some good reason for this, or it would never have been done.

Colp. My dear sir, the thing admits of no explanation, and needs none. You see with your own eyes that one of the commandments has been omitted, or so mutilated, that you never knew till this moment that God had given such a commandment, and this furnishes the strongest reason why the people should have the Bible in their own hands, and not trust implicitly to the priest. And it shows clearly enough why the priests are so reluctant to let the people have the Bible to read. It is a fear lest they should see the contrast between the Romish religion and that of the Bible. Remember the words of our Saviour,” He that breaketh one of the least of these commandments and teacheth men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.’’

But what I wish, as I said, is not to dispute, but to come to the vitals of religion. A man may profess the true religion, and yet have no experience of its vital power. The essence of all true piety is in the affections and purposes of the heart. God looketh on the heart, while man can only look on the outward appearance. You and I must soon stand before the judgment-seat of Christ; and if we are then found to have built our hopes on a false foundation, it will be too late to remedy the evil. Our Saviour expressly and solemnly declares, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.’7 Let me ask you, friend, have you good reason to think that you have ever been truly converted? You talk of your penances, and of the priest’s absolution, but believe me, no human priest ever had power on earth to forgive sins; and be assured, that without repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, you must perish. “He that believeth not is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him.”

Rom. You preach very well, but I am not going to forsake mother church, and Mary the mother of God, and all the saints, for the heresy of Luther, Zuingle, and such like.

Colp. I do not wish you to have any thing to do with Luther and Calvin: what I bring before you is not taken from them, nor from any other man; it is from the holy Scriptures — from the words of Christ himself, and from Paul and the other apostles. They all agree in this, that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord;” and this holiness does not belong to our nature, for we are “by nature, children of wrath,” and “dead in sin.” “We must’ come to Christ by faith, that we may have life. And as to the Virgin Mary, I admit that she was a blessed saint; but no mere creature should be worshipped. Show me one text of Scripture which commands us to worship her or any other saint or angel, and I will join your church; but there is none such. Almost all your religion is the invention of men — mere will-worship. Even your adoration of the cross, and making the sign of the cross so often, is superstitious. There is not one word in the Bible, from beginning to end, which gives the least encouragement to any such thing. Your religious ceremonies were for the most part borrowed from the Pagans, as some writers have clearly demonstrated.

DIALOG-U-E III.

Rom. Well, friend, I see you are still travelling about with your pack of books. I have been thinking much about our last conversation respecting the love of Christ, and what you call the new birth, and have come to the conclusion that the religion of Protestants is mere enthusiasm. Who would give any credit to a man who should profess to have experienced a new or heavenly birth? The thing is foolish and absurd, and this shows how dangerous it is to leave every one to interpret the Scriptures for himself.

Ignorant and conceited people catch up certain words of Scripture by the mere sound, and put a meaning upon them which they were never intended to bear by the inspired writer.

Colp. Then you do not believe any change of heart necessary to fit a man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. I thought your authors did hold that the sinful heart must be renewed before it can go to heaven, but insisted that all who were properly baptized were regenerated, or received grace at the moment of their infant baptism. This you before acknowledged. And what is there more foolish or absurd in supposing the Spirit of God to renew the soul of an adult under the preaching of the word, than the regeneration of a child by infant baptism? If the Spirit of God operates at all on the minds of men in these latter days, there is no reason why he may not operate on the minds of poor lost sinners, to bring them to repentance. If it were not so, there would be no hope of salvation for any sinner; for even if the priest could give him absolution, as you think, an unholy soul never could be received into heaven; and if admitted there, never could enjoy the holy pleasures of the place. Verily there must be a new birth, by which is meant nothing else but a sincere conversion, or a true repentance, by which a sinner obtains new views, experiences new affections, forms new purposes, enjoys new hopes and pleasures, and immediately begins to live a new life. And as you acknowledge that many of your people lead a profane and wicked life, these, even if they were regenerated in their baptism, have lost the grace then received, and need to be renewed again to repentance. You recollect that in a former conversation, you said that the reason why all baptized persons did not give evidence of a renewed heart was, that they through negligence and sin lost the grace then received; and if they needed regeneration in infancy, when they had no sin but original sin to be removed, how much more do they need renovation now, when they have added to their original sin so many actual transgressions, and have formed evil habits and dispositions of the most inveterate kind? As to enthusiasm, I am no friend to it. But you have no right to charge it upon Protestants, and especially for professing a change of heart, which you cannot deny to be necessary.

But if you are disposed to cavil, I think we had better close the conversation and say no more. My earnest wish* has been to quit disputing, and to converse about the vital parts of true religion; and therefore I proposed the subject of the love of God, concerning which there can be no dispute, as all must allow that this is necessary; and I asked you what you believed to be the evidence that a man did love Christ, and whether you possessed such evidence. But you seem unwilling to come to the point; and I have no right to compel you to answer. But, my dear sir, it is your own concern. Your eternal interests are at stake, and time is fast rolling away. Soon, both you and I must appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, to answer for the deeds done in the body, whether they have been good or bad. And I am persuaded that no absolution by a priest will avail any thing to the impenitent sinner on that day. Whether he be calle*d Papist or Protestant will then be of no account; but the point of great, yea, of infinite importance will be, whether he is robed in the justifying righteousness of Jesus Christ, and whether he has become a new creature, and has exercised that faith which works by love and purifies the heart.

As I may possibly not see you again, I solemnly warn you of the danger which, in my opinion, hangs over you; for though it is not my place to judge any man, yet when we think a fellow-creature is exposed to misery, charity requires that we should wan them, whether they will hear or forbear. I cannot be uncharitable in supposing that you are an unconverted man, as you do not profess to have experienced any such change, and, indeed, do not believe in its reality. But as I feel a real love for your soul, I would affectionately entreat you to look well into this matter, and do not trust so implicitly to the teaghing of your priests. They may mislead you to your ruin. Christ said of the scribes and Pharisees, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Do, friend, take this New Testament and compare it with your own, and you will find that they agree in all important points. You will find that a change of heart is no enthusiastic notion, but clearly taught in your own Bible.

Rom. You are mistaken, sir, in supposing I possess a Testament. I wish I had one which our priest will approve.

Colp. I am sorry to part with you; but do take this book. You need say nothing about it to the priest, lest he take it from you and burn it. But lest he should extort the secret from you at confession, I only lend you the book till I come again. And may God bless the reading of it to your soul.

DIALOGUE IV.

Colp. Well, friend, have you read any in the Bible which I left with you when I was last here, and will you let me know what you think of the book?

Rom. To be sure, we all agree that the Bible is a good book — the best of all books, and was given by inspiration of God. No good Catholic disputes that; and I must confess that I have taken much interest in reading many things both in the Old and New Testaments.

Colp. What right then has the priest to deprive you of the benefit of reading the word of God, which St. Paul says “is able to make you wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus?” And from this same passage we learn that children were allowed in old times to read the holy Scriptures, for the apostle says, “from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures.77 And in all the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, there is not one word forbidding or discouraging any one from reading the word of God, but frequent exhortations to” search the Scriptures ;77 and the errors of some are attributed to their ignorance of the Scriptures. Of all the errors of Romanism, this practical one of denying the Scriptures to the people is the most unreasonable and the most injurious. In this free country, I wonder that any man who has the spirit of independence in him can submit to such tyranny, attended with effects so disastrous. That must be a fearful superstition which binds a man7s conscience to relinquish such a privilege, when his own judgment is convinced that the thing is right and good.

Rom. You have now touched upon the key which will explain what at first sight seems to be a paradox. The truth is, that we must not be governed by our own private judgment, but by the decisions of the church. No scripture is of private interpretation. No man has a right to judge for himself in matters of religion. And here is the true ground why the Bible is not put into the hands of the people. They are not competent to judge of its doctrines and precepts, and their reading the Scriptures can therefore be of no use to the common people, and might fill their minds with notions contrary to the established doctrines of the church. See among Protestants the sad effects of leaving people to form their own opinions from reading the Scriptures. You are cut up into innumerable sects and parties, all professing to take their tenets from the Bible.

Colp. I see how the matter stands. You are under an intolerable yoke of slavery; for no slavery on earth is so dreadful as that which binds fast the understanding and conscience of men. Why did our Creator endow us with rational minds, if we are not permitted to exercise them in searching for and judging of truth? And how deplorable the condition of those who are secretly convinced that certain things would be both right and beneficial, but dare not follow the dictates of their own reason and conscience, because a set of domineering priests have undertaken to judge for them. This is a bondage to which I never could submit. I never will pin my faith to another man’s sleeve. Suppose he is mistaken or designedly misleads you, will he be answerable for the loss of your soul, or for the injury which your spiritual interests may sustain? No; every man must bear his own burden. Every man must account for the improvement of his own talents and opportunities of knowing the truth. Christ addressed himself to the understandings and consciences of the people, and called upon them to judge of the truth of what he said. Paul addressed the Corinthians as rational men, saying, “I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say.” Upon this principle it is perfectly useless for me to endeavor to convince you of the truth; for if you should see the truth ever so clearly, you dare not profess it, or act in accordance with it. You must believe what the church tells you to believe, however absurd or impossible the thing may be; and you can only know what the church requires you to believe from the priest. And if he should happen to be an ignorant or hypocritical man, you will of course be led astray, perhaps to your eternal undoing. It would be just as reasonable to shut your own eyes, and blindly follow the lead of others, when you have the right and the ability to see and choose your own path. And the only text that can be adduced which has the semblance of proving that all men may not read the Scriptures, is the one referred to by you, that “no prophecy is of any private interpretation.” But this text is, in my opinion, altogether perverted when thus applied. I am confident that that is not its true meaning. It implies nothing contrary to the right of private judgment or interpretation; but warns every one not to pervert an obscure prophecy by interpreting it according to his own pleasure or fancy, contrary to the design of God in uttering it. The prophecy, we are told in the next verse, was spoken by “holy men, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” and God will fulfil it, not according to our false glosses, but in its real import. What could be more absurd than for the apostles to address long epistles to the people, if they were not allowed to judge of the meaning of those epistles? I am sure you must admit that you are abused by your spiritual guides, and deprived of most important rights and privileges.

But, my friend, I have no desire to dispute with you, or any other man. I am not fond of controversy. It seldom does any good, and often increases the prejudices of those whom we wish to convince. All I aim at in what I have said is, what you will acknowledge to be right, namely, to give the subject a fair examination; and I do not see how you can do this, without the Scriptures as your guide; for if you are inclined to give implicit credit to every thing your priest tells you, then there is an end of all inquiry. But if you wish to be sure that what he teaches you is right, or if not, that you may know in what he errs, then you must refer to the Bible, as you believe that to be the word of God.

One thing, the importance of which you cannot deny, I would earnestly request of you, which is, that you accompany your examination with earnest prayer for divine direction. I have the opinion that no one ever sincerely sought divine direction who was not directed essentially in the right way. Indeedy it is a divine promise, “Seek, and ye shall find.77 “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.77 And seek not merely to have your understanding convinced, but pray that the truth may, by the power of the Spirit, have its due effect on your heart. I should think it a small matter to be able to persuade you to become a Protestant; my heart’s desire is that you become a true Christian, whether you become a Protestant or not. If your heart is truly renewed, and your faith fixed on the blessed Redeemer, whom your creed holds to be both God and man in one person — if your trust for salvation shall be in his atoning sacrifice and prevalent intercession, I shall be satisfied. My chief aim is to bring my fellow-sinners to that Saviour in whom I trust I have found redemption for my own soul. I would rather by far see you an humble Christian in the Catholic church than a zealous Protestant of any denomination, without giving evidence of being actuated by the Spirit of Christ; for “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,” says Paul, “he is none of his.” I am far from thinking that all Protestants are in a safe state, or that all Roman-catholics will be lost. I believe that every one, of whatever nation or religious denomination, who truly repents of his sins, and sincerely believes in Christ, will be saved; and that all who are destitute of cordial faith and repentance must be lost.

The point then which above all others I wish to press upon your attention is, the religion of the heart, a saving interest in the blessings of the covenant of grace. If your heart be right in the sight of God, then you will be led in the right way in your external conduct. Without vital piety, consisting in supreme love to God and love to our neighbor, it matters little what profession we make, or in what connection we stand. My dear fellow-sinner, I exhort and beseech you, by the love of God, and by the tender compassions of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you turn not

Prar. Trn«.s. 14 away from the consideration of this subject. Look back on your past life, from your infancy up to this day, and consider how many sins you have committed. Deceive not yourself, I entreat you, with the notion that the priest has forgiven them. No, no; he has no such power. If you have not sincerely repented of them all, and been washed in the blood of Jesus, applied by faith, the guilt of all these sins lies heavy on your soul. Listen then to the word of friendly exhortation. Look not unto man, but unto God for pardon. He is able and willing “to take away all iniquity, and to receive you graciously/7 if you will come unto him in the new and living way which he has ordained. Christ stands and knocks for admittance into your heart. Christ, as suspended on the cross, cries unto sinners, “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be ye saved.77 Christ invites the weary and heavy-laden to come unto him and find rest. He says,” If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.77 Behold, the fountain of life is open, and the water- of life is freely offered. “The Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.’7” Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.77 “Seek/7 therefore,” the Lord, while he may be found, and call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.77 Lay to heart these solemn, tender exhortations from the word of God, and let your heart bend in humble submission to the will of God, Behold, he waits to be gracious.

DIALOGUE V.

Rom. I find that you are disposed to refer to the Bible for the proof of all your doctrines; but we maintain that many things which Christ and his apostles ordered in the church can be learned only by tradition. It is a matter of no consequence whether a law is written or not, provided we know it emanates from the proper authority. And we know that the Christian church existed before any book of the New Testament was published. It is certain, then, that the primitive churches were first instructed by oral communication, and not by the Scriptures; and what they thus received, they handed down to their successors. And our learned men say that the church might have existed, flourished, and continued unto this time, without any of the books of the New Testament. For it was easy for one generation to teach the next generation what had been communicated to them by the apostles, and thus the original revelations and institutions would be handed down from age to age.

Colp. What you say is true, that an oral, or spoken law, if it can be proved to have been uttered by the lawgiver, is as binding as a written law; but such is the uncertainty of oral tradition, that it is impossible to know what is true and what false which comes down to us along this muddy stream, especially as it had to pass through many dark periods, when the learning and information of the people were at a very low ebb. It is impossible for doctrines and rules of conduct to be transmitted through a period of eighteen hundred years, without being grievously corrupted. In the beginning of the world, the revelations made to the first man were soon entirely lost or corrupted.

Whatever knowledge existed after the flood, was preserved by frequent divine communications.

I would ask any of your most learned priests to furnish a single discourse of Christ, or any one of the apostles, not recorded in the New Testament; yea, let them produce one single sentence from any inspired man which we can be sure was uttered by him. Now, if they cannot furnish the very words spoken by Christ or his apostles, they ought not to pretend that they are in possession of a portion of the word of God which was never committed to writing. And if we go up near to the times of the apostles, when it might be thought that many things would have come down by tradition to men living in the second and third centuries, yet we find by the writings of that age which remain, that the most learned doctors of the church knew nothing of the sayings and doings of Christ and his apostles, but what they read in the New Testament; or if some real facts did float down this stream, they were mingled with so much that was false, that it was impossible to distinguish the true facts from the lying legends.

When the early fathers, as Iraeneus, Tertullian, etc., appeal to tradition to prove the doctrine and usages of the church, they did not refer to doctrines and facts not in the New Testament, but to those which were commonly known and believed by all Christians; for when these fathers mention the things handed down by tradition, they are found to be the articles of the early creeds which were drawn up for the use of the new converts.

Rom. But if they had these things recorded in Scripture, why appeal to tradition?

Colp. Because they were contending with heretics who denied the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and did not receive the Scriptures as a true account of the Christian religion. Against such they appealed to the universal tradition of all the churches, all of which, in every part of the world, had received the same leading facts and doctrines.

Rom. In regard to the books of the New Testament, you are, after all, obliged to resort to tradition; for how do you know that the gospels and the epistles were really written by the evangelists and apostles, but by tradition?

Colp. This, I know, is an argument greatly boasted of by your writers; but if it were granted, that it is by the testimony of the early church that we know what books are canonical, it would go but a very little way to establish the Romish doctrine of tradition as a rule of faith. The fact that certain books were received as inspired by the universal church, is one of so public a nature, that it could easily be transmitted by written testimony of the successive ages; but this does not prove that a revelation distinct from that in the New Testament could be safely handed down in this way.

We know by tradition that Cicero delivered many orations, which were committed to writing, and have reached our times: and that Livy wrote a history of Roman affairs, a part of which has come down to us. That these authors did write these books has come down by an uncontradicted tradition, and on this ground is credible. But suppose some one should pretend that other orations of Cicero, which were never committed to writing, and other histories which

Llvy recited, but never -wrote, had come down to us by tradition, every man of sense would laugh at such a pretension. You see, friend, the vast difference between receiving by tradition a single fact in relation to the author of a book, and receiving a revelation — an unwritten word of God. It may be admitted that a ceremonial institution, such as baptism or the Lord’s supper, might be handed down by tradition; but so prone are men to add to and alter such institutions, and to invent others, that if we had no written record we should be at a loss to know what had been instituted. Just so is it now with respect to the sacra* ments.

In the New Testament we read of no more than two ordinances of this kind, but in the Romish church there are seven; and such changes have been made in the two which were instituted by Christ, that they can scarcely be recognized as the same. The existence of these seven sacraments, as they are called, in the Roman-catholic church, shows how uncertain is tradition; and in regard to a multitude of other ceremonies, they may be traced up, not to the apostles, but to a heathen origin. The holy water, the incense, the altar, the sacerdotal vestments, the holy days, and dedication of churches to saints and angels, are all borrowed manifestly from the pagan ritual, as has been demonstrated by learned men.

Rom. You are now going off in a strain in which my limited information does not permit me to follow you. Whether what you say is true or not I cannot judge. I only wish that our learned bishop, or even father Benedict were here — they would soon put an end to your boasting. But one thing I must say, that our church, is infallible; it cannot err in matters of faith. The decision of popes and councils is sufficient to satisfy the mind of any reasonable man.

Colp. If you could prove what you now say, all your other arguments are superfluous. Even tradition is of no use. All that is necessary is to hear the pope; for if he is infallible, he can decide every question of doctrine. An inspired man needs to bring no far-fetched arguments, or to resort to tradition for proof of any thing. All you have to do is to get the pope to open his mouth and utter his decree, or to send his bull to the whole church. But how is it possible that you can believe the pope to be infallible, when it is notorious that some of the popes have been among the wickedest of men. They have, in a number of instances, acknowledged themselves to be in error. They have, in numerous instances, contradicted one another, and reversed each other’s decrees. They have contradicted the plain declarations of Scripture; and as to councils, we are sure that any number of fallible men met together, cannot by merely assembling become infallible. The acts or canons of the councils have often been contradictory to one another; so that we are sure infallibility does not reside in them. The truth is, the claim to infallibility is ridiculous. There is no infallible tribunal upon earth, but the word of God. This is infallible, for “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

DIALOaUE VT.

Rom. I never wished for learning so much as I do now. I find that a man may have the right side, and yet not be able to maintain his cause for want of learning. There is one point, however, on which a child may confute a Protestant, because the Scriptures are plain and express on the subject. I lately heard our priest lecture on it, and he made it to my mind clear as the light at noon.

Colp. Pray let me know to what you refer?

Rom. Why, that Peter was the prince of the apostles, and had the whole church built on him,^and the popes of Rome are the regular successors of Peter, and inherit his authority. Now, according to this, which can be clearly established, all the churches in the world should be subject to the pope; for he has the keys — he has the power of binding and loosing — and the church founded on this rock, Peter, can never fail, and therefore can never fall into fatal error; for if that was possible, then would the promise of Christ fail, who declared that the gates of hell should never prevail against the church. The whole passage is found in Matt. 16:18, 19: “And 1 say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Our doctor says, as long as this text stands in the Bible the Catholic church cannot be overthrown; yea, he went so far as to say, that no Protestant had been able, even plausibly, to interpret this text to suit their scheme. He told us of several weak attempts to rescue the text from the hands of the Catholics, the mention of which caused a smile in his audience.

He said that the name Peter, in Greek, signified a rock, and that our Saviour gave him this name when he called him to be an apostle, because he knew that he would make him the foundation-stone of the church which he was about to establish in the world.

Colp. I wonder that any one should presume to maintain that one of the apostles was set up as a superior to the rest, who has ever read the reproof which Christ gave to the disciples for contending which should be the greatest. “And there was also a strife among them which of them should be the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” Luke 22: 24-26. Christ says nothing about any superiority of Peter over the other apostles. Indeed, as Peter spoke in the name of his brethren, in the noble confession which he made, what Christ addresses to him in reply should be understood as applying to them all. And this is found to be correct from consulting the parallel passage in John 20: 21, where the same power is expressly given to them all which is here given to Peter. “And Jesus said unto them, As my Father hath sent me, so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Here the power granted by the risen Saviour is the same to all. If Peter was to have a preeminence over the rest, now was the time to declare it, that all might understand that he was chief.

Bat such a superiority is neither given here nor anywhere else. Neither did Peter ever claim such superiority, nor was it ever in fact conceded to him, as the whole history of the apostles shows.

But if Peter had been constituted the pope over the other apostles, that does not prove that the same preeminence belongs to those falsely called his successors. The bishops of Rome were no successors of Peter. We never read in the New Testament that he had even visited Rome. He was the apostle of the circumcision, and Antioch seems to have been his head-quarters, and Asia Minor the field of his labors. But let us admit, in accordance with ancient tradition, that Peter visited Rome toward the close of his life, and that he governed the church there while he lived, and that he suffered martyrdom in that famous city; what does this prove in regard to the men who have been placed as bishops in that see ever since? Surely nothing. The bishops of Rome acquired their authority, not from being successors of Peter, but because this was the metropolis of the empire. We find that bishops, after ambition began to work, assumed authority from the dignity of the city where they resided. But why should the bishop of Rome, now when the glory of the city has departed for ever, claim not only a superiority, but an arbitrary authority over all other bishops? The claim is full of arrogance. If any church had a right to preeminence it was Jerusalem, the mother church; and if the bishops of any church had any peculiar claims as successors of Peter, the bishops of Antioch ought to have the preeminence.

DIALOGUE VIT.

Rom. There is one point where we Catholics have a great advantage over you Protestants, and that is in regard to the holy sacrament. In the eucharist you profess to have nothing but the naked bread and wine, whereas we have the real body and blood of Christ, which we take into our mouths for the nourishment of our souls; and when the priest celebrates mass, the body and blood of Christ are as truly present and offered as a present sacrifice for our sins, as when he was crucified on Golgotha.

Colp. On this point I admit that there is a great difference between us; and if all that you say was the truth, we should be in great error; but on the other hand, if your doctrine of transubstantiation is false and unscriptural, you will be convicted of the grossest idolatry in worshipping a wafer for a god; and if this doctrine is false, your mass, which your priests offer up with so much solemnity, is a vain offering, and is calculated to bring dishonor on the real sacrifice of Christ on the cross — “the one offering” by which the sins of his people are purged.

Rom. How can you, a Bible man, and so great a stickler for going according to the very letter of the Scriptures, pretend that the doctrine of transubstantiation is unscriptural? Does not our Lord say expressly, when he held the bread in his hand, “This is my body?77 Now, every one knows that the bread could not be his body without being changed into his body. We insist on the literal interpretation of the words. No doubt this is a great mystery, and so is the Trinity, and the incarnation of the Son of God; but a true faith embraces all mysteries, and the greater the mystery the greater the miracle, and the more worthy of God, with whom all things are possible.

Colp. Surely you will not say that every thing in the Bible must be taken literally. When it is said that God is a rock, a shield, a sun, a tower, or a consuming fire, we cannot take these words in any other than a metaphorical or figurative sense. So when Christ says, “I am the vine/7 would any one be so insane as to say that the phrase must be takeg. literally? In this very passage it is said,” This cup is the new testament,” or covenant, “in my blood;” but taken literally it would make no sense, for a cup is not a covenant. The question to be decided is, whether the words “this is my body77 should be taken literally or metaphorically. And I will assign such reasons against the literal interpretation as I think sufficient to convince any impartial man. They are these.

First, there is no apparent change in the bread, or wafer, after the priest’s benediction. To the eyes of every one it is still the same; to the feeling, to the smell, to the taste, it is bread, and nothing but bread. Take a piece of the same loaf not consecrated, compare them together, there is no difference perceptible by any of the senses. Now, in all miracles the appeal is made to our senses. The water is changed visibly into blood in Egypt. The water at the marriage feast in Cana is changed into wine, which the master of the feast judged to be good, better than what they had drunk before. When the loaves and fishes were multiplied, the abundance produced is visible to all, and is eaten by the whole multitude. When the dead were raised, the person no longer appeared to be dead, but came forth and spoke and acted; and so of all miracles. If the bread in the Lord’s supper were changed into flesh, and the wine into blood, instead of seeing the bread and wine remaining the same, we should see a piece of flesh dripping with blood. We have no conception of any substance but by its qualities. When these remain evidently the same, according to the testimony of all our senses, there can be no change in the substance. Besides, if we are to disbelieve our senses in this case, which is never required in any other case, the doctrine will overthrow itself; for how do we know that there is any such word in the New Testament? You may say, Here it is in plain letters. But how am I to know that those letters are written there? I see them, it is true, and I can run my hand over them, and they seem to be such as you say they are; but I see this consecrated wafer as plainly as I see the letters in the book, and I can examine it by more of my senses; and it is precisely, after consecration, what it was before.

Rom. I think there is something profane in your reasoning on such a sacred subject. There is no room for reasoning. What God says must be true, though all our senses and our reason should judge the contrary. Christ positively said,” This is my body/7 and it is our duty to believe his declaration. God is omnipotent, and can change any substance into another; and he can do this while to all appearance it remains the same. All we need is an implicit faith in the word of God.

Colp. You evidently take for granted what should be proved, namely, that those words must be taken literally. Surely this is not self-evident. Of a thou« sand intelligent readers who had never seen a New

Testament, I doubt whether one would ever dream that Christ, when he held up the bread, meant that that piece of bread was his body literally, No; he would naturally suppose that the words were used figuratively, and signified that the bread resembled his broken body, or represented his broken body.

But this brings me to my second reason against a literal interpretation, and that is, that unless Christ had two bodies, it was literally impossible th&t the piece of bread which he held in his hand was his body; for there was his real, living body present to the view. There was his whole body, and no part had been severed from it; therefore it was impossible for this bread to be his real body. According to this monstrous doctrine, one living body of Christ, visible and palpable, yet living, held another body in its hand, and distributed it to be eaten, while this real, living body remained entire and undivided. Can you believe this? or how do you explain it?

Rom. It is an awful mystery; I do not pretend to explain it.

Colp. It is much more than a mystery; it is an evident impossibility. But I am not done: I will now offer a third conclusive argument against the literal interpretation, which is this. Christ says, “This is my body, which is broken for you.” If we take these words literally, then we must believe that Christ was already crucified, before he was crucified. If we take one part of the declaration literally, we must take the whole literally. And can you believe that the body of Christ was already broken for us? Then he must not only have had two bodies, but was twice crucified; for all admit that by his body broken is meant crucified for us. But -when was this crucifixion? It must have been while the bread was broken in his hands. Then the living Christ crucified or broke the body, made out of the bread. But no one can believe that Christ was already crucified, or that his body was already broken; therefore the whole sentence must be interpreted metaphorically; and the meaning is, this bread broken is a lively representation of that death which I am shortly to endure. Here is evidently the true meaning. And I believe this with all my heart; and the charge of profaneness and infidelity may be rolled back on yourself, for making Christ declare what was in the first place impossible, and in the next place what was false, namely, that his body was already broken while he sat with his disciples at the sacred supper. What do you say to this?

Kom. I have told you that I receive the whole as an awful mystery; not a fit subject for reasoning, but only for faith. The more wonderful it is, the more readily I assent to it.

Colp. If this be the state of your mind, I do not see that any benefit can arise from continuing the conversation. But I intended to offer one other reason against the doctrine of transubstantiation, which I will briefly mention, and then quit the subject. It is this. The flesh of Christ being a natural substance, in its physical qualities like other human flesh, except that it never had the least stain of impurity, cannot be considered to be adapted to the nourishment of the divine life in the soul. No corporeal substance entering the mouth, and going thence into the stomach, can have any effect on the spiritual life — all that it can do is to nourish the body; and we cannot understand that any benefit could be spiritually derived from such eating of the body of our Lord, but by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit on the mind itself; and this divine efficacy would be as beneficial to the soul, if it accompanied sacramental bread, as if it accompanied the flesh of Christ.

Besides, we are at a loss to understand what becomes of the sacred body of Christ, after it is eaten and digested. Does it become, like other nutritious food, a part of our bodies? The idea is abhorrent; and more so the alternative, that it is rejected with that part of our food which is not incorporated with the human body. But indeed, sir, there are so many repulsive consequences flowing from this doctrine, that it becomes distressing to pursue the subject into all the legitimate conclusions which may be deduced from the literal interpretation. And the rule universally admitted is, that when taking a word or sentence literally leads to absurdity, impossibility, or falsehood, it should be understood figuratively. Indeed, the very idea of devouring the flesh and blood of Christ has something exceedingly repulsive to our feelings.

Rom. You seem to forget that Christ himself, in the sixth chapter of the gospel of John, speaks repeatedly of eating his flesh and drinking his blood; yea, makes such eating and drinking absolutely necessary to eternal life.

Colp. No, friend, the forgetfulness is on your side. Christ explains his own words, and already shows that they were misapprehended by the Jews, who understood them literally; for at the close he says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Now these words do

most clearly teach, that the eating his flesh, if it were possible, would profit nothing: that all vivifying energy was not from carnal and corporeal eating and drinking, but from the Spirit: and that all vrhich he had spoken vras to be understood in a spiritual sense. What other interpretation can be put on his declaration. “The words that I speak unto you. they are spirit, and they are life?”

DIALOGUE VIII.

Rom. You went away the other clay before I had time to say all that was in my mind. Bui I do not care to go back to the subject we were on. about fasting on Friday. I know that you Protestants are not fond of fasting. Our priest called here since you passed, and I told him something of our conversation. He laughed heartily, and observed that a dislike of fasting and other restraints of religion was the true secret of Protestantism. He said there was more of appetite and the love of ease, than of conscience, in what was falsely called a reformation. Luther, he said, being a priest and not being permitted to marry, broke his vow. and tempted a nun to break hers, and so they struck up an impious match. A reformation founded on perjury, he said, was a thing abhorrent to every honest man. He moreover said. Protestantism was downright heresy, no religion at all: or if it might be called religion, it was a system of the devil, to lead men to destruction. They have, said he. no priests rightly consecrated,, none who have derived their commission by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles. They therefore have no power to remit the sins of any, and they do not pretend to it. But what is more important than all, they have not the body of Christ to give; but our Lord says,” Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have no life in you.77 And above all, the sacrifice of the mass they utterly reject, and it is by this offering that God is propitiated for the living and the dead. What, said he, would become of your unhappy friends now suffering the torment of fire in purgatory, were it not for the masses which are said for them?

I told him, that from not knowing the Scriptures I was unable to dispute with you, and on that account I wished to obtain a Bible.

He answered, that I had no business to enter into any controversy with these men. “Turn away from them/7 said he, “or turn them over to me. I will soon dispose of half a dozen of these vagrants, who go about the country deceiving the simple-hearted people.77

I confess, however, that I am not perfectly satisfied with this kind of implicit faith; I do want to be able to give a reason for my religious belief. Friend, what is your opinion of the mass?

Colp. My dear sir, it is the most barefaced idolatry that was ever practised. It not only has no foundation in the holy Scriptures, but it is an institution of the most abominable idolatrous worship. It is nothing else than the worship of a piece of bread, under the notion that this bit of bread, by the priest’s words, has been changed into the real body of Jesus Christ. The whole superstition of the mass is founded on the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. When they have converted the sacred elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the priest offers it up as a sacrifice, a real sacrifice of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. This is the sacrifice of the mass, which the priests offer for the living and the dead. Well, if Christ be there visibly present, he ought to be worshipped; accordingly they elevate the host, that is, Christ, just formed out of the bread and wine, and that the object of divine worship may be fairly present, they maintain not only the presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, but of his soul and divinity; and yet the worshipper sees nothing but the outward appearance of a wafer and some wine in a vial, and this celebration of the mass forms now a principal part of the worship of the priests. And many are hired to say a multitude of masses for the deceased, which they celebrate in private. Now the very wafer which they pretend is the real body of Christ, may be kept until it is corrupted like any other bread: or it may be eaten by mice, or other vermin.

This whole service of the mass, celebrated with so much pomp and ceremony, has no manner of support from the holy Scriptures. Indeed, if a person well acquainted with the New Testament, should be introduced into a popish chapel while the priests were celebrating high mass, he would never suspect that he was in a Christian church. He would be ready to suppose that he was witnessing the worship of some heathen temple.

Rom. What you said about the doctrine of transubstantiation has made a considerable impression on my mind, and I told my father confessor that I could not disbelieve my own senses. I told him that I would not hesitate to believe that it was the real body and blood of Christ, if I could see any appearance of, or change of the bread into flesh. Upon this he solemnly assured me that in more instances than one blood had actually been seen dripping from the host when laid up in the sacred vessel where it was kept. But this rather makes the matter worse; for where there is no appearance of flesh or blood, we must think that no change has taken place. And then a want of right intention in the priest nullifies the sacrament; and who can ever know when the real body is present, since the appearance is the same, whether the change takes place or not?

Colp. Upon speaking of the errors of the Romanists respecting the sacraments, I neglected one, which all must admit to be in direct opposition to the plain words of our Lord; and this is so manifest, that even the most zealous advocates of the church of Rome do not pretend to deny the fact, that there has been a departure from what Christ ordained and practised when he instituted the sacred supper. You will understand me to refer to the universal practice in the Romish church of administering the bread only to the people, and withholding the wine, which is partaken of by the priests alone. Now, our Lord took the cup, and having blessed it, he gave it to his disciples, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, shed for the remission of the sins of many; take, and “drink ye all of it.” Matt. 26: 27. And Paul, who received his instructions for administering this ordinance immediately from the Lord Jesus Christ, makes mention of the wine equally with the bread; for he says, “After the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” Now we would ask, what human being has a right to change the ordinances of the Lord? Who has authority to break one of Christ’s commandments, and teach men to do the same? Here is an evident usurpation of divine authority. If the pope or a council can do this, then they may change the religion of Christ into something entirely different from the original institution — which in fact they have done. Neither prophets nor apostles ever pretended, without divine direction, to change the ordinances of the Almighty.

Rom. No doubt there was some weighty reason for this change. I have understood that it was found impracticable to administer the cup, without the risk of spilling some drops when the cup was placed in the hands of aged and paralytic persons. And when the wine was changed into the blood of Christ, it would have been a horrible profanity for a single drop of this precious blood to be suffered to be lost.

Colp. This impious mutilation of a divine ordinance, I find, is closely connected with the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, the unreasonableness of which has already been demonstrated. But I would ask, whether the danger of profaning the blood of Christ was not as great when the supper was first instituted as at present? Why did not the omniscient Saviour foresee this danger and provide against it? The apology for the change is really too ridiculous to deserve a serious consideration.

Rom. Our priests assure us, that by having the cup withheld, we suffer the loss of no real privilege; for the whole body and blood of Christ is contained in every particle of the bread; so that he who partakes of what appears to be bread, receives a whole Christ, just as much as if he partook of the cup also.

Colp. If this were true, it would furnish no apology for violating the plain command of our Lord, and mutilating a sacrament instituted by him. But if the use of the cup is altogether superfluous, why do the priests partake of the wine? Christ never appointed the bread to be a sign of the pouring out of his blood; and there is nothing in the breaking and eating of bread which is suited to represent the shedding of blood, which is strikingly represented by the use of the cup. I would appeal to your own good sense, whether this mutilation of the ordinance of the Lord can be justified. You have brought forward what your priests have told you; but do their apologies satisfy your own mind? Do you not see, that if they may do this, they may, on one pretext or another, set aside all the commandments of God, and pretend to bind the consciences of men by devices and institutions of their own? To them may be applied, in all its force, the rebuke of our Saviour to the Jews, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of nien.” I am sure that no mind which is not blinded by prejudice can believe that the priests can be justified in this thing. Now, friend, speak plainly the convictions of your conscience. Do you in your heart believe that they are right in thus violating the command, and going contrary to the example of the Lord Jesus? Come, speak.

Rom. Well, if I must tell the truth, I do not think that there is any warrant for this change; but I do not know what light father Benedict may be able to cast on the subject.

There is another point I would mention. I cannot understand what you Protestants have to bring against our clergy for not mar vying. Certainly your own Bible, which you put into my hands, clearly teaches that unmarried men can serve the Lord with less distraction and obstruction than those who have wives. No doubt you remember the passage. Surely then, priests, who should be entirely devoted to the sacred duties of their calling, ought not to encumber themselves with the cares of a family.

Colp. Let him who is able to act on this principle do so, according to that of our Lord, ,; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” And Paul, in the epistle to which you have referred, speaks of some who had not the gift of continence, and he advises such to marry; for he says,;’ It is better to marry than to burn.” But your system makes no provision for such cases; and yet these are so common, that Paul advises, on a consideration of the whole case, that “every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.”

Besides, what the apostle says about the inconvenience of married persons, has special relation to the times of distress in which they lived. Therefore he prefaces his discourse respecting marriage with these words: “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress; I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife, seek not to be loosed,” etc. 1 Cor. T.

We do not maintain that it is the duty of all men to marry, but we believe with Paul, that “marriage is honorable in all.” And we believe that any law or canon forbidding a whole class of men to marry, is contrary to the law of God, and is one of the signs given by the apostle Paul to Timothy of those evil times which at a future period would certainly come: “Forbidding,” says he, “to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath given to be received with thanksgiving.”

Rom. I have always understood that celibacy was a holier state than marriage, and on this principle we encourage young virgins to devote themselves to God, that they may give their hearts entirely to the Lord, and be free from every pollution.

Colp. I am aware that such is the doctrine inculcated in the Romish church; but it is one of the marks of an apostate church, which by its traditions sets aside the laws of God, and counteracts the principles of our nature. If marriage was an unholy state, it would have been forbidden to all men as well as the clergy. And it should not be overlooked, that in the passage where Paul seems to prefer a state of celibacy to a state of marriage, he has no special reference to the clergy. And Paul asserts his own liberty to “lead about a wife,” 1 Cor. 9:5, as well as the other apostles. Evidently then, marriage was not forbidden to the apostles, and in giving the characteristics of those who should be put into the ministry, he seems to take it for granted that the pastors would be married men; for he also gives the character of their wives, and rules for the government of their families. The only restriction he lays upon the bishop in regard to marriage is, that he should be “the husband of one wife,” which some interpret to mean, that every bishop must have a wife; but the better interpretation is, that he must not have more than one.

Rom. I think that in one respect an unmarried clergy has a great advantage; the church is not required to support their families, which I believe is felt to be a heavy burden among Protestants.

Colp. This disadvantage is greatly overbalanced by the fact, that marriage connects the clergy by intimate bonds with the rest of society; whereas celibacy cuts off the priesthood from all common interest in the affairs of men, and leads ecclesiastics to form a society entirely distinct from others, whose interests are opposed to those of society in general. The church is thus a separate concern, and the priests use every art and influence to draw into their hallowed circle all the wealth which they possibly can, And when once gained it never can be distributed for the benefit of society, but remains perpetually the property of the church in mortmain, as the lawyers say; and by this means, before the Reformation, a large part of the best landed property in England and Scotland belonged to the church.

But it would require a volume to reveal all the secret licentiousness and unnatural crimes which have been produced by this single cause. And these facts can be established by the testimony of Popish writers, and these witnesses not few but many. But I wish not to enter on this disgusting subject.

DIALOGUE IX.

Rom. I see, friend, that you continue, like one of old, to walk up and down through the earth — but observe, I do not say that your object is the same, though our father confessor thinks you are not a whit better than the person referred to. He says you are a troubler of the church, an emissary of the devil, and that the books you circulate are full of deadly poison, calculated to be ruinous to souls, and that already you have seduced some unwary souls by good words and fair pretences. I told him plainly that I could not entirely agree with him. I assured him that you had been a number of times in my house, and that I had never observed any thing in your conduct and conversation but what was becoming a Christian man. And as to your books, I told him that here was one, the Douay Bible, which I was sure he could not say was full of poison. And here, said I, is another, which the colporteur gave to my wife, written, as he says, by a good Catholic. Look at it; it is entitled, “The Imitation of Christ.’7 And what objection, said I, can you have to this, “A Call to the Unconverted?” I have been perusing it, and find nothing but what every good man must approve. Often, reverend father, you have warned us against sinful practices, and told us to forsake our evil ways. Yes, yes, said he, all this is true; but, John, do you not know that of all the sins which you can commit heresy is the worst, for it shuts the door of mercy, and cuts you off from forgiveness, by separating you from the true and only .church, and from the holy sacraments, without which there can be no absolution? He then got very warm, and chided me sharply for having any thing to say to you, and warned me most solemnly never to look into any of your books again, and took his leave rather abruptly.

Colp. I do suppose that the man is conscientious in opposition to me and to the truths which I endeavor to circulate. Paul said, “I verily thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus.” And while dragging men and women to prison, and while assisting in the murder of unoffending Christians, he acted agreeably to the dictates of an erring conscience. I have learned to pity and pray for such as are thus misled by their education, and by the errors which they have drunk in as it were with their mother’s milk. The power of prejudice, especially when it has become inveterate, can hardly ever be removed but by the special operations of the Holy Spirit. I know it by experience. I was as much opposed to evangelical truth as any one I ever met with. I was a self-righteous moralist, and when I heard men preach the necessity of the new birth, and of justification by the righteousness of another, I was often provoked to anger, and felt as if I would be glad to have it in my power to stop the mouths of all who preached such doctrines; and if I had been left to myself, I should have continued under the same delusion. But it pleased God to lead me to see something of the wickedness of my heart and life, and to show me that I was in the broad way to ruin. And my distress increased at such a rate, that if I had not found relief it must have driven me to distraction or despair.

Rom. I should like to know, friend, how you found relief; and my anxiety to know this is not a matter of vain curiosity, but ever since I read that little book, “A Call to the Unconverted,” I have had a strange sound in my ears, and many fearful thoughts starting in my mind. I have striven to banish these unpleasant thoughts, but my efforts are ineffectual. It is continually running in my mind, “You must be born again” — you must repent, or perish. I would have opened my mind to our priest, but I knew what he would say; and I had no thought of revealing the state of my mind to you until I found, by what you said just now, that you have once experienced distress of the same kind and found relief. Now, dear sir, do tell me how I am to get deliverance from this trouble of mind which has come upon me.

Colp. Yes, friend, I can point you to the effectual and only remedy for a soul wounded with a conviction of its sin and danger. The remedy is most simple, it is only to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” with all your heart. It is to look to a crucified Redeemer, who invites all laboring and heavy-laden sinners to come to him and learn of him, and they shall find rest. “Look unto me,” says he, “all ye ends of the earth, and be saved.” If you are enabled to trust in the righteousness of Christ alone, and to renounce all dependence on your own works and on the absolution of your priests, you will find relief.

Rom. But I cannot think he will receive such a sinner as I am. I once thought that I was in a fair way for heaven, but all my former hopes are fled, and I know not what to do; for I am so vile and unworthy that if I should come to Christ, I am afraid he would cast me off and spurn me from his presence.

Colp. Never, never. He has said, “Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out/7 Hear what Paul says: “It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief/7 Christ says that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; to seek and save the lost. But here, take this little treatise of John Bunyan,” Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.’7

DIALOG-UE X.

Colp. I am glad to meet with you. When I last was this way I left you in great trouble of mind. I do not believe you have been out of my thoughts a single day since; and to say the truth, I should not be here now, but for my anxiety to know what issue God had given to your concern of mind.

Rom. Friend, I thank you for the interest you take in my salvation. My trouble of mind continued for some weeks without abatement. I read over the little book which you were so kind as to lend me, but it did not seem to suit my case. Indeed, I was fully persuaded that no one had ever been in my sad condition. I fully believed that I was given over to a reprobate mind. I heard that God had mercy on whom he would have mercy, and whom he would he hardened. I said, Surely I am one whom God has hardened; for my heart felt as hard as any rock — as hard as the nether millstone. If my salvation had depended on it, I could not have shed a tear. And when I attempted to pray I was shut up — I could scarcely speak a word. I spent much time in reading the Bible; but every thing was dark and mysterious except one, and that was that I was a lost sinner — a castaway — a reprobate. Sleep departed from my eyes, or I was frightened with dreams. I almost forgot to eat my daily food, and my business was much neglected.

My wife, a good woman and conscientious Catholic, observed the change in me, and was much concerned about me. I had not revealed to her the cause of my trouble, but she suspected that jt was connected with my talking with you and reading your books. And one day she said to me, “John, what ails you? “Why are you melancholy, and so restless? We never see a smile on your face, and you seem to take pleasure in nothing. This has come from your acquaintance with that pedler and his vile books. I never wanted the man to come to the house, for I observed that he had an oily tongue which might easily mislead such simple folks as we are; and as to his tracts and books, I wish they were all this moment in the fire. Oh, John, go to father Benedict; he will give you comfort. Often have I gone to confession with a troubled mind, but father Benedict always had a kind word for me; and if you will go and confess your fault in meddling with those heretical books, you will find relief.”

I said, “Mary, I believe you are very sincere in your advice; but I tell you that I will never confess to a priest again as long as I live: I am sure he cannot pardon my sins. How can a poor sinful worm of the dust like ourselves pardon our sins? No, Mary, if I ever find rest it must come in a different way from that.”

“Well, John,” said she, “if you will not go to confession, throw away those heretical books which have already well-nigh turned your brain.”

“Why, my dear wife,” said I, “I read scarcely any thing now but the Bible, and do you call God’s holy word a heretical book?”

She replied, “It may be good for them to read it who are capable of understanding it; but it is not for such poor simple folks as we are to undertake to interpret the sacred Scriptures; let those who have learning do this, and we will hear what they say.”

“But,” said I, “what if they tell us wrong? What if they are ignorant of the truth themselves? How can we find out whether what they tell us is true, but by searching the Scriptures to see whether these things are so?”

“Well, John, I can’t dispute, but I can believe every thing which father Benedict tells me. And, John, I wish to let you know, that when the father was here he said it was full time that our daughter Susan should come to confession; that in the spring the bishop would come round to administer the sacrament of confirmation, and he wished to have all the young people in his parish ready.” I told her to do as she pleased; that I would not advise the girl to go, neither would I hinder her. Accordingly, she talked with Susan, who is distressingly diffident, and the girl was thrown into an agony.

After a severe conflict with her feelings, she agreed to go. But when they came to the priest’s residence, they found that he was confined to his room with a severe attack of the sciatica. But calling my wife into the room, he said that there was a young priest in the house just from Ireland, from Maynooth college, a fine, discreet, and learned young man. Let your daughter confess to him. Susan at first refused, but after much coaxing, and some threatening, she went into the confessional, and the mother remained in an adjoining room. In less than a quarter of an hour Susan ran to her mother and burst into tears, and seemed at the same time full of indignation. “What ’s the matter, Susan?” said the mother. “Oh,” said the girl, “I will never go to confession again. The priest asked such questions as I am ashamed to mention to you. 1 711 never go again.” My wife went immediately to father Benedict, who seemed much concerned, and sent for the young priest, and asked him what sort of questions he had asked the young woman. No others, said the young priest, than we are taught by our text-book to ask. What text-book? said father Benedict. “Dens’ Theology,” answered the young man. The old priest seemed to be confounded, but said, “Young man, that book will not answer for this country; the people here are wide awake on that subject, and an enemy of the Catholics has extracted many things from that book which greatly shock the feelings of the people. That book has done us much harm already. Several persons brought up in the true church have lately forbidden their wives and daughters to go any more to confession. I know that Dens’ Theology is in high repute at Maynooth, and is studied there; but we must denounce it here, or it will throw a mighty obstacle in our way.”

Colp. All this is very interesting, but I wish to learn from you how you obtained deliverance from the burden of sin which oppressed you.

Rom. I was about to tell you. One day I was sitting musing on my deplorable state. It was Sunday, and I was alone in a retired spot. The sun was near the horizon, and every thing was still. I opened my Bible and read, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.77 1 Tim. 1: 15. The thought struck me, If Jesus Christ can save the chief of sinners, why cannot he save me? Casting my eyes on the book, as I turned over the leaves, they fastened on these words: “For he is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us.” The thought again occurred with more force than before, If he is able to save to the uttermost, why is he not able to save even me? At that moment a ray of hope gleamed on my dark and desolate mind. It seemed to me as if a voice said within me, He is able, he is able to save to the uttermost. My heart was filled with joy; its hardness was melted into tenderness. I fell upon my knees and thanked God that I was out of hell, and that salvation for my soul was possible. If a world had been given me, it could not have produced a joy so great; and yet I perceived nothing but that my case was not desperate, as for a long time I had supposed. Oh, how precious did Christ appear! I felt my heart overflowing with gratitude to him as my Saviour, and I beheld a divine glory in his person: his love in dying for poor sinners affected me beyond expression. I said, Lord Jesus, I will follow thee whithersoever thou leadest me. Though I did not dream that I was a believer, yet I felt happy beyond any thing I ever experienced; and I cannot but believe that at that moment God gave

15# me a new heart. All my views were from this time greatly changed, and my heart went out not only in strong affection to my Saviour, but I felt a wonderful affection for all that I believed to be real Christians, and an unspeakable compassion for poor perishing sinners. I could have gone on my knees to entreat them to forsake their sins and come to Christ, who was” able to save to the uttermost.77 I could have taken my worst enemy in my arms; my heart was so full of love that it embraced the whole world.

Colp. How long did these joyful feelings last?

Rom. Not long. I turned away my thoughts too much from the blessed Saviour, and began to think what a happy change I had experienced, and some proud thoughts arose in my mind. Soon after this, thick darkness came over me. I thought that all I had experienced was a delusion. My old feelings in some measure returned, and I was sunk very low; but still there seemed to be a voice within me saying, “He is able, he is able.77 Then thought I, Oh, if he were as willing as he is able, then I should still have hope. And after laboring in the dark a few days, light broke in on my mind clearer than before. I now seemed to see clearly why it was necessary for Christ to die, and that salvation would have been impossible without the shedding of his blood. It was now clearly revealed to my mind that God could be just, and justify my soul on account of Christ7s merit. The plan of redemption appeared more glorious than any thing I had ever contemplated, and ever since I enjoy a settled peace, and entertain a good hope through grace.

Colp. Have you spoken to your wife respecting your new views and comforts?

Rom. I have, and she appears to be brought to a stand. She is dreadfully afraid of incurring the anathema of the priests; and though she now reads the Bible, she seems afraid of being seen with the Scriptures in her hand. But I hope the Spirit of God is at work with her conscience.

And poor Susan receives the truths of the gospel with an astonishing readiness. She spends all her spare time in reading, and she tells me that she prays every day for a new heart. May the Lord hear her supplications, and grant her requests.

Colp. But what will the priest say, when he comes to visit you? Will he not be filled with wrath?

Rom. I care not for his anger. I mean to tell him all my mind, and to declare my intention of leaving the Roman-catholic church. I am now convinced, that though there may be a few pious souls in that communion, the church is in an awful state of apostasy. May God have mercy on the people.

DIALOGUE XI.

Rom. My good friend, I never wanted to see any body in my life so much as I have wished to see you these many weeks. I have had sore conflicts since I saw you last. “Without were fightings, and within were fears.” But, my dear friend, I must tell you all. I have dishonored my Saviour, and betrayed him, like Judas, to his enemies. My soul has been worse burdened with a load of guilt than ever before. Oh, what a wretch am I! What a heinous sin I have committed! Do pray for me, if perad venture the Lord may give me repentance and forgiveness.

Colp. I beg you to tell me what ?s the matter? What crime have you committed that has cast you down into such depths of distress?

Rom. I will tell you all. And may the Lord enable you to speak a comfortable word to my poor, wretched soul.

As I expected, the old priest, as soon as he was able to go about, came round to our house, to make an apology for the imprudence of the young priest in the shameful questions which he put to Susan at the confessional. He said the young man, who had but just arrived from Ireland, was deeply mortified at what had happened, and solemnly declared that he had no other motive in proposing the objectionable questions than to do his duty, as he had been instructed at Maynooth. And he went and brought the book and showed the very questions which he had proposed to the young woman. I believe that he is a very pious young man. And, said he, in the old country they have very different notions about these things from what you have here in America. There they think it very necessary to search the secret sins of such as come to confession; and especially to bring young and bashful females to a free confession of their secret sins, who would otherwise be guilty of the dreadful sin of covering over their transgressions, and thus, as it were, lying unto the Lord. And, said he, John, I tell you these squeamish notions which are lately getting into the heads of our young females are all borrowed from the heretics. Formerly, John, I asked such questions and worse of some of the finest ladies in the land, and received their candid and penitent confession. Yes, John, I would have you to know, that your own wife has often been questioned in this manner, and it never offended her.

Upon this I could no longer restrain my wrath: said I, “It’s a lie, you old hypocrite, you yile old lecher; I believe that your whole religion is a vile system of hypocrisy and iniquity - and I will now call Mary, and see whether she will confirm what you say.”

Said father Benedict, “You need not do that, for no good Catholic dare tell what is said in confession. If your wife were to affirm or deny what I have told you, she would incur the heaviest excommunication of the church, a crime so flagrant that in other days it would have brought her to the stake.” My passion upon this rose higher, and I became very abusive, and, alas, was tempted to use profane language. O Lord, forgive my sin! My conscience is burdened. And I have not told you all. When Mary came in, I asked her whether any such questions had ever been put to her at confession, and she promptly answered, “Never” Upon finding that the old priest had deliberately told a shameful falsehood, to the dishonor of as virtuous a woman as ever lived, I was so incensed that I took him by the shoulders and pushed him out of the house. As soon as my passion cooled I regretted what I had said and done. I went out, like Peter, and wept bitterly. Lately I was one of the happiest men living. All day my heart seemed full of joy and peace, and even in the night, when I awoke, I would be singing the praises of my divine Saviour. But now, for three weeks, no sinner out of hell, I think, has suffered more. Oh, do you think it possible that I can be forgiven?

Colp. Yes; “the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.’7 Peter cursed and swore, and three times denied his Master, even in his presence, and he obtained forgiveness; and so may you, if you are penitent as he was.

Rom. But Judas repented, and yet found no forgiveness, though he restored the money which he had taken as the price of betraying his Lord. And often, often it has come powerfully into my mind, “Go and do as he did. There is no pardon for those who have sinned as you have done. The sooner you know the worst of your case the better. Go and hang yourself.” If I had not believed that this was a temptation of the devil, I know not what desperate act I mio;ht have committed against my own life. Do tell me, my dear friend, what you think. Let me know the worst of my case.

Colp. As I think you have truly repented, I cannot doubt that God hath pardoned your sin, and Christ seems to say to you as he did thrice to Peter, after his sin and repentance, “Lovest thou me?” What answer can you give to this?

Rom. Oh, if my heart does not deceive me, I can say with Peter, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.”

Colp. Then set your heart at rest. “My little children,” says the apostle John, “sin not: but if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.”

Rom. Thank God, thank God, for this visit. My heart is relieved. Oh, what a dear Saviour! Christ is more precious to my soul than ever.

DIALOGUE XII.

Rom. I am truly glad to see you at this time. I am like to be brought into trouble for my change of religion. My landlord, who has heretofore been very favorable, has sent me word that when the year is out I must remove. I know that he has been influenced by father Benedict to adopt this measure. Now, friend, I want your advice what course to pursue. I have been able to lay up but little, and I do not see where I shall find another home for myself and little family.

Colp. You need not disturb yourself about what you shall eat, and what you shall drink. Has not our blessed Lord pledged his word, that if we seek first the kingdom of God, all these things shall be added? “Consider,” said he,” the lilies, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, 0 ye of little faith?’7 The world is wide, and there are thousands of better places than this from which you are so reluctant to part. Next month I expect to go to the west as far as Iowa, and I will look out a place for you; and there you will soon be able to procure a farm for yourself, and not be any longer dependent for a home on the will of another. But let me hear how your soul prospers, and how it is with your wife and daughter. Have the rulers of the synagogue excommunicated you, or do they still hope to gain you back?

Rom. I have no doubt that we shall all be excommunicated by “bell, book, and candle,” but this requires some time. The bishop must be consulted, and he will not be round here for six months. As to myself I have but little to say that is favorable. I begin to find that I carry about with me a heart “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” I compare my inner man to a chamber in which filth has been accumulating for years, and into which the light has begun gradually to shine, revealing a degree of loathsome defilement which was never suspected to exist. I am sometimes greatly cast down, and much troubled; but then I speak to myself in the language of David, “Why art thou cast down, 0 my soul, and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God, who is the health of my countenance, and my God.”

Mary finds it very hard to give up the mother church, and her prayers to the blessed Virgin; but has at length come to the conclusion that she will study the Bible, and go by that, for she has lost all confidence in man. Father Benedict, she thought, was free from fault, and she was willing to trust her soul in his hands; but since he told a deliberate falsehood, and stuck to it, she thinks no man can be trusted, but God only. Had it not been for this detection of her father confessor in a known falsehood, I am of opinion that she never could have been induced to leave the old church. But this has broken the strongest tie that held her; and she says, If father Benedict is a false man, what must I think of the herd of priests and Jesuits who go about the country? Still, she makes this excuse for father Benedict, that he was brought up among the Jesuits, and belonged to that society, and I have heard that their doctrine is, that we may tell a lie to answer a good end; as, for exampie, to save the Catholic church from reproach, or to prevent its being known what secret doctrines are held and taught among them. This no doubt is the true secret of the old priest’s conduct. He was afraid that the imprudence of the young priest, in asking a young woman such indelicate questions from Dens’ Theology, would get abroad, and he wished to hush the matter up, and so pretended that such questions had been always common, and proposed by himself to the most virtuous matrons in the country. And he calculated that my wife would be afraid to say whether or not such questions had been propounded to her. But she is now on the right track, studying the Bible night and day. Sometimes she reads in the common English Bible, and then she will turn to the Douay Bible and compare them, and I am persuaded that she is incessant in her prayers at a throne of grace.

And as for Susan, she is as happy as the day is long. One of our neighbors lent her a hymn-book, and taught her to sing some of the hymns; and while at her wheel is either singing hymns, or has her New Testament spread out before her, on which she fixes her eye long enough to catch a verse, which she soon has committed to memory. She rejoices in her deliverance from the confessional and from the priests, and says Christ is her Priest, to whom she will confess; that she wants no other, and she reads of no other in the New Testament. Dear girl, she has greatly outstripped her father in the gospel race.