ties in the Romish church, inevitably leads to a familiarity with vice, which cannot but produce the most frightful effects.

Mr. Nolan, another Romish priest, has lately borne witness to this fact. He says,

'There is not a Romish priest extant, who has acted in the capacity of a confessor, but must admit the truth of this observation, that each day's confessions had been the continued causes of unchaste excitements in his mind. Oh, my friends, there is no Romish clergyman, no matter how sanctified he may appear in your estimation, but must allow, that the first subject of his own confession to another priest, is an acknowledgment of his having indulged in unchaste thoughts, on account of the indecent recitals made before him in the confessional.'1

But he goes further, and asks,

'Has not this practice of inquisitorial debasement often exposed the weakness of the penitent, and has it not consequently furnished the lecherous dispositions of many priests with an easier and more appropriate mode of seduction? Has not the innocence of virginity been often despoiled through the confessional, and has not the morality of otherwise virtuous women been frequently corrupted through its lewdness? Yes! hellish instruction has frequently been imparted at this mock tribunal, whilst clerical criminality there has often become the substitute for priestly absolution. Am I asserting what is false, or does not your own knowledge of circumstances bear me out in the truth of my observations? Is there a single diocese in Ireland but furnishes proofs of

1 Nolan's Third Letter, p. 23.

Romish clergymen who have been suspended for the notorious crime of having converted the tribunal of confession into an apology for wickedness? The very diocese in which I officiated as a Romish clergyman, affords sufficient proofs of the correctness of my statement.'

1

These are some of the peculiar inventions and practices of the Romish church, all brought into being in the days of her greatest power, and all protested against alike by the Waldenses and the reformed churches. But, we must further add, that in the exposition of the Moral Law, that church shews herself to be far from holiness or sanctity. It would not be difficult, as we just now remarked, to shew that she has abrogated every one of the ten commandments. But we will only now advert to two or three of the more flagrant instances of this perversion.

Her divines teach, in the Maynooth class-books, that small thefts, practised by domestics, or by the poor towards the wealthy, are only venial sins:

They teach, that it is lawful, or rather praiseworthy, to violate an oath, if the interests of their church may be served by such violation :

They teach, that it is lawful, and in fact a duty, to take away the lives of those who oppose their church.

On these three points we must not here enlarge, as it would be easy to do. On the last two, indeed, we shall have to speak hereafter, when we come to treat of the conduct of the Romish church towards Protestants. The first, however, we must deal with in this place, since nothing can be more obviously and

1 Nolan's Third Letter, p. 24.

inherently unholy, than the whole Romish theory of venial sin.

This theory, too, shews how groundless is the boast, that their doctrine is still, at this moment, what it was in the days of the apostles. No such fancy as that of venial sin was ever heard of in the apostolic times.

The Catechism approved and recommended by the four Roman Catholic archbishops of Ireland,' and published in Dublin in 1833, thus states this doctrine :

'Does venial sin deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and deserve everlasting punishment?'

No, but it hurts the soul by lessening its love for

God; and by disposing it to mortal sin.'

'Where do they go who die in venial sin?' To purgatory??

And, in the

Abridgment of the Christian doctrine,' revised and prescribed by the Right Reverend James Doyle, Romish bishop of Kildare, &c., we find this question and answer :

6

By what kinds of sin are the commandments broken?'

By mortal sins only; for venial sins are not, strictly speaking, contrary to the end of the commandments, which is charity.'

Then we come to the distinction between mortal and venial sins, in the same Catechism, revised and put forth by Dr. Doyle :

'When is theft a mortal sin?'

When the thing stolen is of considerable value, or causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbour.'

Clearly, then, the valet of a duke, who should merely abstract a moderate sum from his master's

purse, would only be guilty of a venial sin; and venial sin, this Catechism tells us, does not amount to a breach of the commandments! But we go on :'When is a lie a mortal sin?'

'When it is any great dishonour to God, or notable prejudice to our neighbour.'

But in another Catechism, published by the pope's legate, for the use of all the churches in France, we find this question and answer :

'Repeat the sixth commandment (of the church).' 'Thou shalt eat meat neither Friday nor Saturday.' 'What does this commandment forbid ?'

Eating meat on Fridays or Saturdays, without necessity, under pain of mortal sin.'

.

Thus is it taught by the HOLY Catholic church, that to rob is not a breach of God's commandments, except the sum taken is considerable ;'—but that to eat meat on Fridays is a mortal sin, and is punished by hell-fire to all eternity!

"

Well may we apply the words of Christ to such teachers: 66 Why do ye transgress the commandments of God by your traditions? "Woe unto you, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." "Ye make clean the outside of the cup and platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess." And what can be more monstrous than to allege, that a church which teaches to all her people such principles as these, is to be called holy in her doctrine?

But it is time we proceeded to Dr. Milner's second head, which concerns the Means of Sanctity. This part of his case he rests chiefly on the possession of seven sacraments by his church, while Protestants

6

have only two. Before, however, he can be allowed to assume these things to be means of sanctity, he must shew them to be the ordinances of Christ; otherwise they will come under the apostle's indignant denunciation; " If ye be dead with Christ, why are ye subject to ordinances, after the commandments and doctrines of men; which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in willworship, and humility, and neglecting the body; " but possess no real value or utility. Now we know that Christ instituted Baptism and the Supper commemorative of his death, and we may be sure, therefore, that these are really means of sanctity.' But what like certainty have we of those other five things which the Romish church chooses to call "sacraments?" That church makes marriage, for instance, a sacrament; and also, orders. Now we maintain the religious nature of marriage, and cherish it far more than the Romanists, who openly and avowedly prefer celibacy; but we find no where in holy writ that it is called a sacrament. So of orders, too, and confirmation, we have them both; but we follow scripture in their practice. And we must continue still to believe that this plan is the safest and most advisable. We hold that "marriage is honourable in all,” as St. Paul instructs us. They, on the other hand, declare it to be, in many cases, criminal and dishonourable. We "lay hands” on those admitted into the church by confirmation, and in scripture we find nothing more. We" confess our sins one to another," as the apostle enjoins; but we do not permit unmarried priests to put interrogatories to our wives and daughters which it' is a shame even to speak of,'1 for their lewdness and

1 See the chapter on Confession in Dens' Theology.