It is not worth while to reason against such a distinction. I only mention it, as one of the absurd and pernicious errors of the system to which it belongs.

10. The Deadly Sins.

In "The Christian's Guide to Heaven" I read, with some interest, an enumeration of what the Romanists are pleased to call "the seven deadly sins." Why this distinction, thought I? Are there only seven sins? Or are only some sins deadly? and is the number of sins that kill ascertained by the infallible church to be just seven and no more?-all other sins being venial, not mortal, according to another distinction which that church presumes to make?

They cannot mean that there are only seven sins; for heresy is not in this list of sins, and that I am sure they esteem a sin; neither is there any mention of falsehood and deception, which we Protestants regard as sins, even though their object should be pious. Besides, David says, that his iniquities were more than the hairs of his head-consequently many more than seven. And who is any better off than David in this respect? Moreover, even the Roman Catholics admit nine commandments. They do not leave out any but the second. They must therefore admit the possibility of at least nine sins.

They must mean, that there are only seven sins which are mortal to the soul. But if this be the case, why is it said, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in ALL THINGS written in the book of the law to do them"! It must be admitted, that there are more than seven things written in the book of the law. Again, why is it said that the wages of sin is death? This would seem to imply that death is due to every sin, of whatever kind. If there are only seven deadly sins, why does not the Apostles say, "The wages of these seven sins (enumerating them) is death"? But he does not say that. He regarded all sins as deadly-- every one of the multitude: as mortal in its consequences.

If there are only seven sins which are deadly, then I suppose we can answer for all the rest; but Job says he cannot answer Him one of a thousand. According to Job, then, who is a very ancient authority, there are at least a thousand sins for which we cannot answer.*

But let us hear what the seven are. They are Pride, Covetousness, Luxury or Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth. Well, these are, to be sure, sins,-all but one of them,-anger; which is not necessarily a sin, any more than grief is. We are directed to "be angry and sin not.' I wonder they should have put anger without any qualification among the seven deadly sins. It must be because they are not familiar with the Scriptures. But granting them all to be sins, then certainly they are deadly, since all sin is deadly. We could not there. fore object, if it had been said, in reference to them, seven deadly sins." But "the seven deadly sins" seems to imply that there are no more. We read in the book of Proverbs of six things which the Lord doth hate; yea, of seven that are an abomination to him. (Prov. vi. 16-19.) But there is no implication there, that those are the only things which the Lord hates. It is not said, "the seven things which the Lord doth hate." The language which I animadvert upon implies, that the seven sins enumerated are, if not exclusively, yet peculiarly deadly. Now that is not the case. There is nothing in those sins to entitle them to this distinction above other sins. There is no reason why we should be warned to avoid them more than many others.

I am surprised that, in the list of deadly sins, there is no mention of unbelief. Now surely that must be a deadly sin, when it is written "he that believeth not shall be damned— shall not see life, but the wrath of

* In this, and in the preceding paragraphs, our author seems to make some confusion between the number of sins (multiplied by repetion), and the number of kinds of sin (differing in their nature); and this weakens this argument.-A. S. T.

God abideth on him." Holy Ghost came primarily to reprove the world of unbelief: yet there is no recognition of it among the deadly sins! It is an oversight; which no wonder they fell into, who, in making out their religion, made no use of the word of God

Moreover, we are told that the

I perceive that neither heresy nor schism are in the list of deadly sins. I infer, then, that to differ from the Roman church in some particulars, and even to separate from her communion, is not fatal, even she herself being judge. I thank her for the admission.

There is one sin which, in all their catalogues, the Romanists omit; and which, I think, they need to be reminded of. It is the sin of idolatry-of worshipping the creature of paying divine honours to something else besides God. It used to be very deadly, under the Jewish dispensation. It doubtless is equally so under the Christian. They had better beware of it. They had better leave off praying to saints, and honoring the Virgin Mary above her Son, lest perchance this prove to be a deadly sin.

11. Infallibility.

Every body knows that the Church of Rome lays claim to infallibility. She contends that there is no mistake about her; that she cannot err. Now this very

modest claim of our sister of Rome (for, in the matter of churches, I reject the relation of mother and daughter). I am constrained to question it; and that for such reasons as the following :—

* And I suppose that (if the matter be carefully considered and truly stated,) we can no more consider the Church of Rome as our sister than as our mother. If she be a sister, she is a most grievously erring sister, and certainly her conduct to us has ever been anything but sisterly, or motherly either.

A. S. T.

1. She cannot herself tell us where her infallibility is to be found. She is sure that she has it somewhere about her, but for the life of her she cannot tell where. Some of her writers say that it is with the Pope. Others contend that it resides in General Council. And another opinion is, that both the Pope and a Council are necessary to it. Now I think they ought to settle it among themselves who is infallible, before they require us to believe that any one is. Let them find infallibility, and fix it. After that it will be time enough for us to think of admitting its existence. But,

2.-We will suppose that it is the Pope who is infallible each successive Pope. Well, where did they get their infallibility? Why say they, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure. Christ gave it to him, and he handed it down. But was Peter infallible? There was a day when I suspect he did not think himself infallible-when, smitten to the heart by the reproving look of his Lord, he went out and wept bitterly. (Luke xxii. 61-62.) There is no doubt that he made a mistake, when he so confidently pronounced, "Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee;" (Matt. xxvi. 35.) and let it be remembered that this was after Christ had said, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock," &c. (Matt. xvi. 18.)

If Peter was infallible, I wonder he did not at once settle the difficulty of which we have an account in Acts XV. Why was the matter suffered to be debated, in the presence of his infallibility? It seems that Peter, on that occasion, claimed no préeminence. Nor was any particular deference paid to him by the council. He related his experience, precisely as did Paul and Barnabas. James seems to have been in the chair on that occasion. He speaks much more like an infallible person than any of the rest. He says, "Wherefore my sentence is," &c. What a pity it is for the church of Rome, that Peter did not say that instead of James! We should never have heard the last of it. But it was

the bishop of Jerusalem, and not the bishop of Rome, who said it. It cannot be helped now. Will my Roman Catholic brother take down his Douay Bible, and read that chapter?

But again, if Peter was infallible, I am surprised that Paul "withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. 11.) Was that the way to treat a Pope? But Paul had always something of the Protestant about him. And yet Peter did not resent Paul's treatment of him; for in his second Epistle he speaks of him as our beloved brother Paul." I suppose, that Peter himself did not know that he was infallible. Men do not always know themselves.

Once more, if the superiority among the disciples belonged to Peter, it has struck me as strange, that, when a dispute arose among them who should be greatest, our Saviour did not take Peter, instead of a little child, “and set him in the midst of them," and remind the others, that the supremacy had been given to him. I think the other Apostles could not have understood Christ in that declaration, "Thou art Peter," &c., as the church of Rome now understands Him; otherwise the dispute about superiority could never have arisen.

Now, according to the Romish doctrine, Peter being infallible, each successive Pope inherits his infallibility; and therefore never a man of them could err in a matter of faith-nor even the woman Joan,- (for in the long list of Papas, there was by accident, in the ninth century, one Mama; though this, I am aware, is denied by some,)—even she retained none of the frailty of her

sex.

It is well for the church of Rome, that she does not contend, that her popes are infallible in practice; for if she did, she would find some difficulty in reconciling that doctrine with history. It is very true that one may err in practice, and not in faith. Nevertheless, when I see a man very crooked in practice, I cannot believe that he is always exactly straight in doctrine. I cannot be