the utmost readiness, and with every appearance of confidence in the validity of his apology, "O, that is not a mortal sin." Several similar examples of a resort to this distinction were reported to me. Now, can that system be the religion of Jesus Christ, which recognizes this horrible distinction, and puts such a plea as this into the mouth of a transgressor of one of the commandments of that Decalogue which God's own voice articulated and his own finger wrote? I cannot express the feelings I have, when I think of the multitudes who are forming a character for eternity under the influence of doctrines like these. What sort of a character must they form!

How completely at variance with the Scriptures is this distinction! "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them-the wages of sin is death-the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Gal. 3: 10; Rom. 6: 23; Ezek. 18: 4. Is not all sin disobedience to God? and may he be disobeyed in any respect without guilt ? Did ever a father of a family recognize such a distinction in the government of his children? Did Christ atone for what are called venial sins, or did he not? If he did not, then he did not atone for all sin. If he did atone for them, they must be worthy of death, since he died for them.

The truth is, all sin is mortal, if not repented of; and all sin is venial, that is, pardonable, if repented of. There is no sin which the blood of Christ cannot cleanse from. And nothing but that can take out any sin.

It is not worth while to reason against such a dis tinction. 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 Catholics 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 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 is 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 apostle 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 therefore 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. 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 em 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 "he that believeth not shall be damned-shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." Moreover, we are told that the Holy Ghost came primarily to reprove the world of unbelief-and 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.

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 Catholics omit, and which, I think, they need to be reminded of. It is the sin of idolatry-of worshiping the creature-of paying divine honors 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 they fall into deadly sin.

11. A Religion without a Holy Spirit.

A gentleman of intelligence, who was born of Catholic parents, and educated in the Catholic church,

but left it recently for Protestantism (for some do leave the Catholic for the Protestant church-the conversions are not all to Romanism-but we, Protestants, don't make such a noise about it when we receive a convert; and I suppose the reason is, that it is really no wonder that a Catholic should become a Protestant-the only wonder is, that any should remain Catholics)-this gentleman said to his brother, who is still a Catholic, "Why, brother, as long as I was a Catholic, I never knew that there was a Holy Spirit."

And what do you think was the brother's reply ? "Well, I don't know that there is one now!"

The narration of what passed between these two men struck me with great force. A religion without a Holy Spirit! and this the religion, according to the computation of Bishop England, of two hundred millions of mankind! It made me sorry. My religion, thought I, would be very imperfect without a Holy Spirit. I want a Sanctifier, as well as a Surety. I want one to act internally upon me, as well as one to act externally for me. What should I do with my title to heaven, without a fitness for it? As a sinner, I am equally destitute of both. There can be no heaven without holiness. And whence has any man holiness but from the Holy Spirit? And is it likely he will act where he is not acknowledged? If priests can pardon, as they say, yet can they purify?

Here were two men, educated in the Catholic religion, and attending weekly the Catholic church, and yet never having heard of the Holy Spirit! They had heard often enough of the Virgin Mary, and of this saint, and that saint, but never a word of the Holy