of celestial blessedness. The Douay Catechism teaches, that they go "to a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never see the face of God." One of the fathers, for maintaining that they will suffer positive evil, received the appellation of Tormen tor of Children.

A furious controversy arose respecting the Virgin Mary. The Franciscans maintained that she should be excepted under the general declaration that the sin of Adam passed into all mankind. The Dominicans, on the other hand, insisted that as Paul had not excepted her neither should they. It required all the artifice of the legates and the authority of the Pope himself, to prevent a schism upon this point. A compromise was finally agreed upon between the parties to the effect that it should be said, that the synod had no reference to the Virgin Mary in their decree. "Declarat tamen hæc ipsa sancta synodus, non esse suæ intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam, Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Xysti Papæ quarti, sub pænis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas inno

vat."

We should think it important to exempt the Virgin wholly from human imperfection if such prayers as the following are to be addressed to her. "The litanies of the blessed Virgin Mary. Holy Mary, pray for us. Holy Mother of God, Holy Virgin of virgins, Mother of Christ, Mother of divine grace, Mother most pure, Mother most chaste, Mother undefiled, Mother untouched, Mother most amiable, Mother most admirable, Mother of our Creator, Mother of our Redeemer, Most prudent Virgin, Venerable Virgin, Renowned Virgin, Powerful Virgin, Merciful Virgin, Faithful Virgin, Mirror of Justice, Seat of Wisdom, Cause

of our joy, Vessel of Spirituality, Vessel of honor, Noble vessel of devotion, Mystical rose, Tower of David, Tower of ivory, House of gold, Ark of the Covenant, Gate of Heaven, Morning Star, Health of the weak, Refuge of sinners, Comfort of the afflicted, Help of Christians, Queen of angels, Queen of patriarchs, Queen of prophets, Queen of apostles, Queen of martys, Queen of confessors, Queen of virgins, Queen of all saints. Pray for us."

Thus far we have found no greater diversity of opinion upon the fall and its effects between Roman Catholics and Protestants, than exists among different sects of Protestants. But when we advance a step farther, and inquire into the nature of sin, we find an irreconcilable difference between Romanists and the great body of Protestants. The church of Rome divides the sins of men into two classes, mortal and venial. Mortal sin is "that which of itself brings spiritual death upon the soul; since it inevitably deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and love, in which spiritual life consists." Venial sin is "that which does not bring spiritual death upon the soul, or which does not turn the mind aside from its ultimate end, (i. e. which does not produce aversion to God,) or which is but slightly repugnant to reason rightly exercised." (Dens, Vol. I, Nos. 153, 154.)

These definitions do not enable us to distinguish clearly between these two classes of offenses, for they are based upon effects which are to some extent beyond our cognizance. We can not see that mortal and venial sins differ in their nature. The Douay Catechism attempts to distinguish them thus; to constitute an offense mortal "it is requir ed that it be deliberate and perfectly voluntary; and that it be a matter of weight against the law of God; one or both of which conditions are always wanting in a venial sin."

But this does not remove our perplexity. We can not conceive of a sin which is not "perfectly voluntary," or which is not "a matter of weight against the law of God." Again we inquire for the true ground of distinction; but the only answer we receive is, that mortal sin is any great offense against the love of God," an offense which "kills the soul," and that venial sin is " small and very pardonable offense against God, or our neighbor;" i. e. mortal sin is sin which is mortal, and venial sin is sin which is venial.

66

a

We are not alone, however, in our perplexity. Dens himself admits that "it is extremely difficult to discover and very dangerous to define what is mortal and what venial sin," and that sins are to be weighed in the judgment of God and not of men, since they may interchange their natures and effects.

The proof that some sins are venial, is derived from such passages as these. "In many things we all offend.' 'The just man falleth sev. en times,' not mortally, for then he were no longer just; therefore venially.

"But I say to you, every idle word which men shall speak, they shall render an account for it at the day of judgment.' Now God forbid that every idle word should be a

mortal sin !"

This is the only attempt at an argument from the Scriptures in favor of a distinction which is insisted on with so much confidence, and which leads to such tremendous results. Not a single passage is named in which the Scriptures speak of venial sins. No such passage can be found. Sin is the transgression of the law; it is opposition to the will of God, and can not in any circumstances be a trivial thing. There is indeed a sense in which the sins of a Christian differ from those of an unregenerate man. The former are to be traced to the imperfection of holy principle; the latter to the predom

"Whoever

inance of selfishness. is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him;”— the germ of the divine life is in his soul; that holy principle which em. anated from the Spirit of God never fully dies, though its activity may be for a while suspended under the power of temptation. He that has once been truly regenerated, can not be again brought under the absolute control of selfishness; "he can not sin," therefore, as he once did, or as others do," for he is born of God." But there is no such distinction between the sins of Christians and those of other men as to warrant us in calling the one class venial and the other mortal. Both are odious in the sight of God; both call for retribution; both create the same necessity for repentance and the application of the blood of Christ. Yet Peter Dens maintains, that "there are sins so trivial that in just persons they are consistent with a state of grace and friendship with God." He does not say simply that a Christian may enjoy the divine favor notwithstanding his imperfect sanctification, but that his sins may be so trivial as not to detract from his character or enjoyment as a Christian. "For," he argues, 66 as in all social intercourse, certain light offenses occur which do not dissolve friendship, there are such also in that friendly intercourse which man enjoys with God. And though the remission of venial sin is an act of divine mercy, it is yet in a sense due to the just man who seeks it, since venial sin destroys neither the ground of God's friendship, nor the power of self-recovery."

Let it not be supposed that this division of human transgressions into two classes, is a mere metaphysical nicety to tax the ingenuity of theologians. It is a practical distinction affecting every branch of human conduct. But if we were perplexed at the definitions of these two classes of offenses, we are still more so

at the illustrations which are given under each. It is a mortal sin to eat flesh on a day of fasting or abstinence, though it may become venial from the trifling quantity which is taken. He who deliberately omits the mass or a considerable part of the mass on a festival day sins mortally; but he who omits hearing mass through ignorance of the day, or who omits but a small portion of it, sins only venially. To anticipate the time appointed for taking refreshment on a day of fasting, by one hour, is according to some writers, a mortal sin; though to eat half an hour before the time is a light offense.

Theft is a mortal sin only "when the thing stolen is of a considerable value, or causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbor;" when the article taken is insignificant, or the injury sustained by the owner is comparatively slight, it is a venial offense.

A lie is a mortal sin, "when it is any great dishonor to God, or notable prejudice to our neighbor; otherwise, if it be merely officious or trifling, it is but a venial sin." These are specimens of the Roman Catholic code of morals, taken at random from the writings of Dens, the Douay Catechism, and other authentic sources. In view of such arbitrary distinctions, we do not wonder that Dens has furnished chapters upon "conduct which is safe, safer, and not so safe;" upon a "doubtful conscience;" a "perplexed conscience;" a "probable conscience;" and "opinions more probable, but less safe." To complete the list, he should have added a chapter upon opinions which are neither "probable" nor "safe," which would have been an admirable summation of the series.

The Douay Catechism enumerates "seven deadly or capital sins, viz. pride, covetousness, lechery, anger, gluttony, envy and sloth ;"--"six sins against the Holy Ghost, viz. despair

of salvation, presumption of God's mercy, to impugn the known truth, envy at another's spiritual good, obstinacy in sin, and final impeni. tence;" and also, "four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, viz. willful murder, the sin of Sodom or carnal sin against nature, oppressing of the poor, and to defraud working men of their wages." Where does the word of God authorize such a classification of sins? There is no error of the Romish church more dangerous than that of measuring off the sins of men upon an imaginary line, and attaching different degrees of guilt to offenses which involve the same spirit of rebellion against God, and which may be equally heinous in His sight. The practical influ ence of the belief that certain sins are only venial is most disastrous to good morals; especially when of fenses against the moral law are made trivial in comparison with of fenses against the custom of "the church." The Apostle James (who is a favorite authority with Roman. ists on some points) tells us that whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. In transgressing a single precept, he resists the authority of the lawgiver which lies back of it, and betrays a spirit which in the appropriate circumstances would transgress the law in every particu lar. There can be no such thing as a venial sin against God; sin as a principle, however developed, is that "abominable thing" which he hates.

This division of sins into two classes, mortal and venial, calls for a corresponding diversity in the mode of remitting sin. According ly we are told, that mortal sin can be remitted only by "hearty penance and contrition," but that venial sin is remitted "by the sacraments, by holy water, devout prayer, almsdeeds, and the like good works." Here we are brought to the doctrine of JUSTIFICATION. This has always

glory of the Catholic church that she insists, above all things, on a radical internal change." But Protestants surely insist no less upon such a change. The question is, what is that change and how is it effected? We call it regeneration, a change of heart, of moral principle, in which the will of man becomes obedient to the will of God. This change though "internal" and "radical," does not necessarily make its subject perfect, but is succeeded by a process of sanctification in which the soul approximates more and more to a state of sinless perfection. The Romanist calls this change justification, and maintains that its subject is wholly and absolutely freed from sin. In his view "the justified man is identical in every respect with the sanctified;" so that the works which we regard as fruits of sanctification, with him contribute to justification. Dr. Moehler, indeed, admits that the act of justification, properly considered, which he makes synonymous with the infusion of spiritual life into the soul, is instantaneous, yet its development is progressive, and the soul must be prepared for it by a series of preliminary steps. Says Bellarmine," those whom God chooses, he first calls to faith; next he inspires them with hope and fear and inchoate love; and finally he justifies them and infuses into them perfect love."

What we term regeneration is regarded by Romanists as the first stage of justification. According to the Council of Trent, the soul of an adult is prepared for justification by passing through several successive states or exercises, such as faith, fear, hope, seeking after God as the fountain of all righteousness, hatred of sin, contrition for it, a purpose to receive baptism, to enter upon a new life and keep the divine commandments.

Upon the doctrine of regeneration Dr. Moehler makes an unfair

distinction between the views of Roman Catholics and Protestants. He charges the Reformers with holding that man is entirely passive in regeneration, because by the fall he lost all power of co-operating with God; in other words, he imputes to them the doctrine of natural inability. We are less familiar with the writings of Luther than with those of Calvin, and we must admit that there is much in the Institutes of the latter which seems to substantiate Dr. Moehler's assertion. But to understand the views of the Reformers upon human freedom, we must remember that their writings were controversial; directed against the vagaries of the schoolmen; and that their use of terms and modes of statement were necessarily affected by the errors which they opposed. We must not interpret them by the technical rules of modern theology, for theological science was yet inchoate in their minds. It is true that Calvin says, that "the will is so bound by the slavery of sin, that it can not excite itself, much less devote itself to any thing good."* But he almost immediately adds, that such a declaration can give offense only to those "who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion;" thus showing that the thing which he aimed to express was what we now denote by the term moral inability; and that he meant by necessity mere certainty, implying no constraint or "compulsion" whatever. Again he says, the "will is removed (in conversion) not considered as the will; because, in the conversion of man, the properties of our original nature remain entire. I assert also, that it is created anew, not that the will then begins to exist, but that it is then converted from an evil into a good one ;" i. e. the faculty remaining the same, its original, natural properties being un