it was a sacrifice without spot. How preposterous is it then to claim merit for the doings or sufferings of sinful, though regenerated men, who still need the atoning blood of Christ to purge and preserve them

from sin!

They say, "that their merits are derived from the merits of Christ, and receive all their value from his." Though they say so, yet, according to their system, something is done meritoriously by the sinner. If they believe that Christ's merits have rescued them from eternal punishment, they also believe that by their own merits the guilt of sin is effaced, and satisfaction is made for temporal punishment. To say that the efficacy of human works is derived from Christ is nothing to the purpose; it is maintained that they are meritorious, and thus, according to their own scheme, salvation cannot be wholly of grace, nor wholly by Christ, nor by sanctification of the Spirit.

Their authors constantly quote the corrections and judgments which befell David and the Israelites, as instances in which the temporal punishments were inflicted when the eternal were remitted. It is confessed that forgiveness of sins may be enjoyed, while the effects and consequences of sin are to be endured, to a certain extent, even to the end of life, as all suffering is the effect of sin. These afflictions are the chastening of the Lord, and designed for our instruction and purification through the Spirit. But this is very different from viewing them as a compensation or satisfaction to the justice of God in order to atone for our offences.

(3.) Bellarmine argues thus: "If good works may merit eternal life, much more may they avert temporal punishment. But the first is true. Matt. x, 8. The kingdom of God is called wages, reward. So it is a reward justly given to men's deserts. Therefore good works may much more redeem temporal punishments." We utterly deny that heaven can be merited by good works. St. Paul having first said, "The wages of sin is death," adds farther, "but the gift of God is eternal life," Rom. vi, 23. He calls eternal life a gift, and not wages. (4.) Our Lord required nothing of the woman taken in adultery but faith: "Go, sin no more; thy faith hath saved thee," John viii, 11. Therefore no satisfaction for sin is required by Scripture. Indeed, there is no other means to receive pardon but faith. See Romans iii, 22, 25, 26; Eph. ii, 8, 9.

(5.) Christ is the propitiation or satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, 1 John ii, 2; John i, 29; 1 Pet. ii, 24. Therefore Christ's redemption completely redeems us, consequently there is no other satisfaction.

(6.) The examples of pardon furnished by Scripture omit satisfaction as any condition of pardon. The publican, upon his repentance, was pardoned, and no satisfaction was required. So also Peter was forgiven without satisfaction. In like manner the man sick of the palsy. The same uniform course is to be seen in the other examples furnished by Scripture.

7. The distinction which Roman Catholics make respecting sins, by calling some mortal and others venial, tends to immorality and laxity of life.

The following view of mortal and venial sins is from the Sincere

* Bellar., c. 8, lib. 4, de Pœnitent.

Christian, pp. 258, 275: "What is mortal sin? Ans. Mortal sin is a grievous transgression of the law. What are the effects of mortal sin? Ans. It banishes the grace of God from our souls, renders us hateful and abominable in the sight of God, and worthy of eternal punishment." "What is venial sin? Ans. It is a smaller transgression of the law, a more pardonable offence, which, though it does not kill the soul, as mortal sin does, nor deserve eternal punishment, yet it obscures the beauty of the soul before God, and displeases him, and deserves a temporal chastisement. The malignity of mortal sin is such, that it banishes the grace of God entirely from the soul, and makes it positively ugly and loathsome in his sight; whereas venial sin does not banish the grace of God away from the soul, but it obscures its lustre, diminishes its splendour, and stains its brightness. It does not make the soul positively hateful to God, but it makes her less pure, less holy, less beautiful, and consequently less agreeable in his sight."... "Venial sins in general are divided into two kinds: (1.) Such as arise from human frailty, surprise, or inadvertency, and from objects to which the person has no inordinate attachment. (2.) Such as a person commits willingly or deliberately, or out of an ill custom, which he is at no pains to amend, or with affection to a sinful object." Our author considers petty theft a venial sin, p. 281.

(1.) Now though no sin be so venial or trivial, as the Romanists teach, so as neither to offend God nor deserve damnation in its own nature, and so only subject them to temporal punishment; yet all sober Protestants disallow a stoical parity or equality of sins, and hold that some sins are greater, other sins are less, though the least sin is offensive to God and deserves damnation.

That sins differ in magnitude is clear from Scripture. Our Lord declared the sin of Judas to be greater than that of Pilate. The same appears in the case of the servant who knew the will of his master and did it not. The difference appears in the several condemnations of the degrees and expressions of anger in the instances of calling men Raca, vain, or pope, fool. The distinction appears in our Lord's comparing some sins to gnats and others to camels; in his mentioning the many stripes; and in the greater condemnation spoken of by James. Thus, to rob a church is a greater sin than to rob a thief; to strike a father is a higher impiety than to resist a tutor. As every lie is a sin against truth, so every sin is a disobedience and departure from the rule. But some lies are more against charity, or justice, or religion, than others are, and so are greater; but against truth they are all equally opposed, and so are all lies contrary to the commandment.

(2.) In opposition to the Roman Catholic view of venial sins, we maintain that, instead of being of such a trivial nature, all sins are punishable as God pleases, even with everlasting perdition, as will appear from the following considerations.

1. Every sin is directly against God's law, and therefore is deadly and damnable in the account of divine justice. For though sins may be divided into greater and less, yet their proportion to punishment is not varied by temporal and eternal, but by greater and less punish

ments.

2. The law of God never threatens, nor does the justice of God inflict punishment, on any except transgressors of God's laws: but the

smallest offences are not only threatened, but may be punished with death; therefore they are transgressions of the divine law.

3. Every sin, even the smallest, is against charity, which is the end of the commandment.

4. When God appointed expiatory sacrifices for sins, though there was enough to show there is difference in the degrees of sin, yet because "without the shedding of blood there was no remission," all sins rendered the transgressor guilty and liable to punishment. "For cursed is he that continues not in all things written in the law to do them." There were no venial sins by virtue of that covenant; for there was no remission; and without the death of Christ there could be none. Since, therefore, any sin is venial or pardonable, it is only owing to the death of Christ and the grace of God. And since, through the death of Christ, God pardons all upon the condition of faith and repentance, and pardons none otherwise; it follows that, though sins differ in degree, they differ not in their essential character. The man that commits any sin dies, if he repents not; and he that does repent timely and effectually, dies for none. "The wages of sin is death;" of sin indefinitely, and therefore of all sin.

(3.) No good man can indulge in any sin, however small. All sins are estimated according to our affections; and if a man loves any sin, it becomes destructive to his soul. No man can love sin and love God at the same time. If a man about to commit a sin inquires whether it is venial or not, that sin cannot be trivial; for what is done by choice and affection cannot be of small moment where transgression or obedience is concerned. Besides, such a person, in this inquiry, asks leave to sin against God, and shows by his conduct that he would sin more, provided he could do it with impunity.

8. The distinction between mortal and venial sins, as taught by the Church of Rome, is a great cause of an unholy heart and wickedness of life.

Although we do, with the ancient doctors, admit of distinctions in sins as graviora et leviora, heavier and lighter; yet we teach, that in their own nature, and in the rigour of divine justice, every sin is damnable and deserves God's anger, and that in the unregenerate they are so accounted; yet, by divine mercy, the smaller sins, which come by surprise, by invincible ignorance, inadvertency, or unavoidable infirmity, shall not be imputed to those who love God and delight not in any sin, but use caution and prayers, watchfulness and remedies against them..

But the Church of Rome teaches that there is a whole kind of sins, which are venial or pardonable in their own nature; such, which if all of them in the world were put together, would not equal one mortal sin, nor destroy charity, nor deprive us of the favour of God; such, for which no man can perish, and for which the atonement of Christ is not needed; and yet such as may be done deliberately, with affection for the sin, out of an unresisted evil custom, &c., and which prepares for and leads to mortal sin. And though Christ said, "Of every idle word a man shall speak he shall give account at the day of judgment;" and, By your words ye shall be justified, and by your words ye shall be condemned:" Bellarmine expressly affirms, "It is not intelligible how * As quoted by Bishop Taylor, Diss., c. ii, sec. 5.

66

*

an idle word should, in its own nature, be worthy of the eternal wrath of God and eternal flames." Many such rash and unscriptural declarations are spoken by Roman doctors on this question, which we do not desire to aggravate, as the main question is acknowledged by them all. Now we appeal to the reason and conscience of all men, whether this doctrine of sins, as venial or pardonable in their own nature, be not greatly injurious to a holy life, when it is plain this gives rest to men's consciences for one whole kind of sins. And these sins are such as are of most frequent occurrence, to which we are most prone and liable, for which, too, we are the least excusable, which are left undefined, too, by their best divines, and constantly change from being venial to be mortal. Such a distinction must inevitably prevent the Christian from growing in grace, and hinder" the destroying of the whole body of sin." And, in short, "despising little things, they perish by little." A few observations on this topic will fully make out what we here maintain.

9. Their definition of venial sins is absurd. They represent one class of these sins as done" willingly and deliberately, out of an ill custom which he is at no pains to amend, or with affection to a sinful object" that "they are very great and pernicious evils;"* and yet such sins do not deprive men of the love and grace of God, or render them liable to eternal punishment. There is a palpable contradiction in their very definition of venial sins. Most of the Roman doctors make sins venial; 1. On account of the imperfection of the agent, as when a thing is done ignorantly, or by surprise or inadvertently: 2. Or by the smallness of the matter; as if a man steals a cent, or eats a little too greedily at his meal, or lies in bed too long in the morning 3. Or a sin is venial in its whole kind, such as idle words or the like: 4. Or they are venial as mentioned above. But these three last kinds of sins will be very difficult to reconcile with veniality.

10. The distinction of sins into mortal and venial leads to endless uncertainty in determining cases of conscience. For supposing the distinction to be believed, it is impossible to assign proper limits and measures to the several kinds. Between the least mortal and the greatest venial sins no man is able with certainty to distinguish; and therefore men call what they please venial. For in innumerable cases of conscience it is oftener inquired whether a thing be venial or mortal, or whether it be lawful or unlawful. There is the utmost uncertainty in what their casuists and most learned doctors say respecting mortal and venial sins. Indeed, they have no certain rule or standard by which to be guided in pronouncing what is and what is not mortal. Of this there needs no greater proof than to read their little summaries made by their leading guides; where one says such a thing is mortal, and two say it is not. Now, as purgatory is to hell, so venial is to sin. Men fear not hell, because the main thing is secured at last. Many will rather choose purgatory than suffer here an inconsiderable penance, or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it. So they choose venial sins, and enjoy the pleasures of trifles, and they love them so well, that rather than quit them they will suffer the pains of a temporary hell. If men will give themselves liberty as long as they are alive to commit one whole kind of sins, and hope to work * Sincere Christian, p. 275.

it out after death by works of charity and repentance which they refused to perform in this life; either they must pronounce the words of Christ as savouring of heresy, or they will find themselves deceived.

11. But the evil is still worse when this distinction between mortal and venial sins is reduced to practice. For in the decision of many questions the answer is, It is a venial sin. That is, though it be a sin, there is in it no danger of losing the favour of God by committing the sin, but it may be done, and repeated a thousand times; and "all the venial sins in the world cannot do what one mortal sin can, that is,

make God your enemy." 99* But since their doctors differ endlessly in their decisions, the laity and the common clergy, who believe what is told them by the confessors and authors whom they choose to follow, must be in infinite danger, because the whole body of practical divinity is perverted by the uncertain and endlessly varying distinctions made in the Church of Rome respecting sins as they are divided into mortal and venial.

12. The distinction referred to, as it represents sins as small, transgression will also be considered as of a corresponding magnitude. But this is one of the most deceitful delusions by which men are led into sin. The smaller the sin is, it is the less excusable, if it be done knowingly; for if it be small, it is more easily obeyed, and the more reasonably exacted. He that pursues his sins to obtain a kingdom, a vast estate, or the like, has something, not to warrant or render legitimate his crime, but to extenuate the offence by magnifying the temptation. But to lose the friendship of God for comparatively small offences or indulgences has no excuse, but loads the sinner with an aggravated condemnation. What excuse can be made for him who will not hold his peace to please God? What less can he do? How can it be expected that such a one would mortify his lusts, deny his ambition, part with his goods, lose an eye, cut off a hand, or give his life for God, when he will not lose the pleasure of speaking vainly, or indulging easily resisted appetites or passions?

If it be said that the person may be supposed to love God, because he only commits such small sins which he thinks not against the love of God, and if he would not think so he would not do them. But this, in the place of excusing, only aggravates the sin, for it is only turning the grace of God into wantonness. He that abuses the grace of God to licentiousness makes his sin to abound, because grace abounds. Because God is good, he takes leave to do evil. It is certain that persons in this case possess all the dispositions of unrenewed sinners : and though their theory may teach them to avoid the greater sins, their dispositions will lead them to the commission of almost every description of sin. And indeed, such is the general practice among the members of the Church of Rome, as will appear from the three following observations.

13. To distinguish a whole kind of sins as venial is a certain way to make repentance and amendment of life imperfect and false. For when men, under the terrors of God's law, are deterred from their sins, they may still retain strong attachments to sin, as they do not yet possess love to God. Yet by this doctrine of distinguishing sins into * Bellar., lib. i, de Amiss. Grat., cap. 13. Sect. alterum est, as quoted in Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, ch. iii, sec. i, No. 3.