« FöregåendeFortsätt »
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 them to this distinction above other sins. There is no reason why we should be warned to avoid them more than many others.
THOUGHTS ON POPERY.
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 lest 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
Spirit, the Divine Sanctifier! But was it not their own fault? Is not the doctrine of the Trinity a part of the Catholic faith? It is--but that may be, and yet the priests never instruct the people in the character and office of the Holy Spirit, and in the necessity of his operations.
But had these men never been present at a baptism, when water, according to Christ's direction, with oil, spittle, &c. as the church directs, is applied to the body, and the name of each person of the Trinity is mentioned ? Yes, but, poor men, they had never stuilied Latin. How should they know what Spiritus Sanctus means, when they hear it? Why should all the world be presumed to understand Latin? Oh, why should the worship of the living God be conducted in a dead language ? But this is by the way.
These men knew not that there was a Holy Spirit—why did they not know it? I will tell you. Because so little is said of the Holy Spirit among the Catholics—there is so little need of any such agent, according to their system! They do not believe in the necessity of a change of heart. Why should there be a Holy Spirit ? The priest does not want any such help to prepare a soul for heaven. The Catholic system is complete without a Holy Spirit. Therefore nothing is said of him in the pulpit, and in the confession-box; and the sinner is not directed to seek his influences, or to rely on his aid. If I misrepresent, let it be shown, and I will retract. But if I am correct in the statement I make, look at it. Protestant, look at it.....a religion without a Holy Spirit! Catholic, look at it, and obey the voice from heaven which says. "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of ber plagues." This is one of her capital crimes. She does not speak against the Holy Ghost. No, she is silent about him!
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, and that for su reasons as the following:
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 a 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 admit 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, it was transmitted from St. Peter, to be sure. Christ gave it to him, and he