an idle word should, in its own nature, be worthy of the eternal wrath of God and eternal flames." Many such rash and unscriptural declara- tions 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 o� 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 de?,? of venial sins is ?nwd. 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 ;,,o 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 ignoranfiy, or by surprise or inadvertently: 2. Or by the smallness of the matter; as if a man 8teals 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 venialit)-. 10. The distinction of sins into mortal and venial leads to endless m?frtahty 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 ?eratest venial sins no man is able with certainty to distinguish; and efore men call what they please venial. For in innumerable case8 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 rtde or standant by which to be guided in pronouncing what i8 and what is not mortal. Of this there needs no greater proof than ? read their little summario8 made by their leadin? guides; where one says such �thing is mortal, and two say it is not. Now, as purgatory is to hell, m) venial is to 8in. Men fear not hell, because the main thing is secured at iasL Many will rather choose purgatory than outYet here an incouaideraldm penmine, or do those little ocrvice8 which themeelves think will prevent it. So they choose venial sins, and enjoy the pleasures of tridles, stud t!?.y love them so well, that rather than quit them they will suffer tim proms of a temlMmu' y hell If men will give themselves liberty as long us dioy are dive to commit one whole kind o( tdm? mad hope m) remit
- aimera Ghiesbm,
I ,Goocle
�
