Hence the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church which divides sin into mortal and venial; a division which the Reformed Churches declare to be unscriptural, and against which, therefore, they protest.

It is difficult to determine from Roman Catholic writers, which sins are mortal and which venial; and it is surprising that in a matter of so great moment to man, a matter on which his endless interests are suspended, a holy and infallible Church, possessing such care and anxiety for the faithful as she professes to feel, should not, in some of her authorized formularies, have presented us with a list of those sins which are venial and of those which are mortal. The most consistent statement on the subject which I have been able to find is in the Theology of Peter Dens, the great text book of Maynooth College. It is found in the 1st vol., p. 362, &c. The work is written in Latin, but I shall give you a literal translation into English:

"What is vice (vitium)? Vitium properly and theologically is defined 'a habit inclining to sin (ad peccatum)' whence vitium is distinguished "from peccatum as the habit from the act; vitium and peccatum however are often taken for the same.

"What is mortal sin? It is that which of itself brings spiritual death to the soul, inasmuch as of itself it deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and charity in which the spiritual life of the soul consists.

"What is venial sin? That which doth not bring spiritual death to the soul; or that which does not turn away from its ultimate end, or which is only slightly

66

It is moreover

repugnant to the order of right reason. certain not only from the divine compassion, but from the nature of the thing, that there are venial sins, or so slight ones as in just men may consist with a state of grace and friendship with God." Mark, the following note, and see from it the terrible character of the evil which is involved in this unscriptural distinction:Although mortal sin differs much from venial, yet, by the testimony of St. Augustine, it is very difficult to discover, and most dangerous to define, what is mortal sin and what venial." "However," continues Dens, "some rules are every where assigned by theologians, by which it can generally be discovered what sins are in their own nature mortal or venial. When Scripture speaks of any sin in severe terms, that is to be considered mortal, e. g. if it call it scelus, nequitia, iniquita, abominatio, or says that it is worthy of death, hated by God, that it excludes from the kingdom of God, that it cries to heaven, if there be prefixed Alas,' &c., it is mortal. On the contrary, that sin is considered to be venial when Scripture uses milder expressions, as if it employs the word 'mote,' 'stubble,' 'hay,' &c., or but slightly blames it, as in Prov. x. 19., 'In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin,' and 'Every idle word which man shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment." "An idle word is of its own nature a venial sin, also a jocose or officious lie, excess in laughter, joy or sorrow, vain curiosity. The early motions of luxury, hatred, &c., are venial.

เ

"What sin is called venial from the smallness of the

matter? That which of its own nature Is MORTAL SIN, but in this act, here and now, is venial from the smallness of the matter about which it is concerned; thus THE THEFT OF ONE PENNY IS VENIAL from the smallness of the matter, A TRIFLING EXCESS OF DRINKING, &c."

The time will not permit me to quote more extensively, though I greatly desire to do so. But you have heard enough to show you what is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the nature of sin; and I shall wonder greatly if this extraordinary revelation does not strike every mind now present with astonishment and terror. I am sure there is not an intelligent Catholic in this Church whose conscience does not at once rebel against the immoral principles contained in these theological expositions. Where, in the word of God, have we ground for such doctrine? The Bible says thou shalt NOT STEAL-the command is absolute; but the Catholic Church says, thou mayest steal a penny, and yet continue in the grace and favor of God; thou mayest exceed a little in drinking, and yet not lose the grace of true religion! How different is this teaching from that of our Divine Jesus, when he explained on the Mount the spirituality of the law? When he showed that an immodest look involves the commission of adultery, and that to be angry with a brother without cause is to commit murder? Is the teaching of Dens, or of his great Master, Thomas Aquinas, accordant with that of the apostle James: "But if you have respect to persons, you commit sin, being reproved by the law as transgressors. And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all."

"So,"

says the Romish commentator, "the meaning is, that in matters relating to faith, the administering of the sacraments, and other spiritual functions in God's Church, there should be no respect of persons ; but that the souls of the poor should be as much regarded as those of the rich. See Deut. i. 17. That is, he becomes a transgressor of the law in such a manner, that the observing of all other points will not avail him to salvation; for he despises the lawgiver, and breaks through the great and general commandment of charity, even by one mortal sin. For all the precepts of the law are to be considered as one total and entire law, and as it were a chain of precepts where by breaking one link of this chain, the whole chain is broken, or the integrity of the law consisting of a collection of precepts. A sinner, therefore, by a grievous offence against any one precept, incurs eternal punishment: yet the punishment in hell shall be greater for those who have been greater sinners, as a greater reward shall be for those in heaven who have lived with greater sanctity and perfection."

Intimately involved in this distinction, is that other equally unscriptural dogma that the guilt and punishment of sin are two-fold. The following is the canon of the Council of Trent: "Whoever shall affirm, that when the grace of justification is received, the offence of the penitent sinner is so forgiven, and the sentence of eternal punishment reversed, that there remains no temporal punishment to be endured, before his entrance into the kingdom of heaven, either in this world, or in the future state, in purgatory: let him be accursed."

L2

But how is this canon to be reconciled with the statement of Paul in the epistle to Galatia, chap. iii., verse 13,"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." The usual argument which our friends adopt is this: that the punishment of spiritual death is removed by justification may not be questioned; but that because man is called to suffer the penalty of temporal death, it is clear that the temporal punishment is not removed. But it is forgotten that this temporal punishment as it is called, is no longer a punishment to the righteous man—that this curse of temporal death is converted by the grace of Christ into a blessing; so much so is this the case that the man of God desires to depart and to be with Christ, and that in his last moments the sting of death is extracted, the victory of the grave annulled, and the dying saint enabled to exclaim, "thanks be unto God which giveth me the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord."

It is upon these distinctions of sin unto mortal and venial, and of punishment into eternal and temporal, that the novel scheme of indulgences rests; a scheme at which we must at least glance in our present discussion.

And here we willingly accord that many Protestants have fallen into error by supposing the authorized teaching of the Church of Rome to be, that indulgences are granted to the faithful for the remission of the guilt of all sins; whereas her most eminent divines are careful to explain that mortal sins and spiritual guilt are not regarded by them at all; that these indeed are taken away in absolution. I wish to be very clear in