as all other crimes which are repugnant to nature, is a thing intrinsically evil, and forbidden by the eternal law-and that this law is a light, which enlighteneth every man that comes into the world.

The third chapter treats of the sins of ignorance. Cicero, a heathen, has observed, that there is no nation, however fierce or savage, ignorant of the being of a God, however unacquainted they may be with the attributes which characterize him. Cicero farther proved, that the principal duties of the law of nature, viz.: those which forbid murder, adultery, and every other uncleanness, were not unknown even to such men as are only so in name. From whence it follows, that when he speaks of ignorance, he does not mean the ignorance of those first and principal duties: much less that he intended to treat of an ignorance which is the consequence of habit in a crime, and which stifles all light and all remorse of conscience, if such a thing can be, For whoever,' says this heathen, is ignorant of this law, namely, of right reason, which is the rule of commands and prohibitions, written or unwritten, the same is an unjust person. What! can a Heathen think the man unjust and a sinner, who is ignorant of certain duties of the law of nature? and shall a Cardinal, with a society of priests, pronounce him innocent, who is so ignorant as not to know that he has a God, and who, during such ignorance, shall rob, kill, steal, commit adultery, and other such acts. In a word, what would the Heathens have said, if they had heard it asserted-That a sin, mark what follows, though never so repugnant to reason, and by consequence, that which brought down fire from heaven, is but a slight and pardonable fault or it is not mortal when committed by a person who is ignorant of God--or, observe this, who at the time of committing it, does not consider that there is a God, or that God is offended with sin,' Verily the very Heathens would say there is not a more grievous evil or sin amongst men. Yet this is what is taught by the Jesuits. Platella says this very thing. Now if we can suppose it was ever possible for a nation to be ignorant of God, it was the barbarous and pagan men of Sodom and Gomorrah at least they did not consider that there was a God, or did not actually believe that he would be offended at their sins. Now, according to the Jesuits, this alone was sufficient to prevent their sin from being mortal, and to preserve them in the perfect charity and love of God, at the very time they were guilty. Nevertheless God brought down a shower of fire and brimstone upon the heads of that

people, which consumed them to ashes. Therefore, according to the Jesuits, it was not just in God thus to punish his friends, who at most committed a venial sin it was wrong in him to proceed to so strange an extremity. So full of blasphemy is the tenor of the Jesuits' doctrine.

Let the reader for a moment consider this system of the mystery of iniquity, before proceeding any farther. The expedients which they have contrived to exempt mankind from all mortal sins, and place them in one point of view. First. The ignorance of a God exempts the blackest actions from sin, though even the person who commits them should think he thereby does evil. Farther. The ignorance of the principal duties of the law of nature, gives the same privilege to such as violate those obligations in any manner whatsoever. Nay more, when they who know God have not the fear of God before their eyes, or barely do not consider that he is offended with sin, either of the two is sufficient to exempt those actions which are most grievously repugnant to reason, from 'mortal sin. Farther still.-'If any one commits murder or adultery, and at the same time considers the malignancy and heinous nature of those actions, but in such a manner only as is very imperfect and superficial, though the matter of it is very gross, yet his sin is venial. And the reason of it is this, viz.; as a person must necessarily know all that is evil in an action to make that action a sin, so he cannot commit a grievous sin if he does not fully know and consider all the evil of it.' So that unless a man sits down as it were to meditate and very seriously ponder all the enormity of adultery and murder, unless he does this, according to the Jesuit de Rhodes, there is no mortal sin in committing either the one or the other. But if a man reflects on those sins after a light superficial manner, and then suffers himself to be hurried away by pleasure or passion, he will only be guilty of a venial sin. Yet more.-' The most hardened sinners, even they who drink in iniquity like water, are no longer sinners, when once they have arrived at that happy state of stupidity, which stifles all thought and reflection: and this is the very thing which Pirot the Jesuit and the celebrated author of the apology for the casuists, teaches in the name of the whole society: 'If sinners, complete and thorough paced sinners, have no knowledge nor remorse when they blaspheme and plunge themselves all over in debauchery; if they have no knowledge of the evil they do, I maintain with all the divines, i. e. the Jesuits, that they do not sin by those actions that savor more of the beast than the

man.' And yet "a lower deep beyond the lowest depth," to carry impiety to its full extent, father Rhodes teaches, that in some cases crimes become virtues. If,' says he, 'you invincibly believe, that to tell a lie, in order to save your friend, is an act of virtue, your lie is a work of mercy. If you think it a good action to kill a person who blasphemes, even that murder will be a religious action.' Therefore a disciple of this Jesuit who should think he should do a good deed to kill a king who had suppressed in his dominions the troublesome subscription to the formula, which would be worse in the society's opinion than speaking blasphemy, would do an excellent action. Can any thing be more frightful than such tenets? More abhorrent to God's declared word-We must not do

evil that good may come. As to this father Rhodes, it is fit the reader should know he is no common Jesuit. For after having taught divinity thirteen years, he was advanced, for his merit, to the post of rector of the Jesuits' college at Lyons. His doctrine, of which we have here a specimen, has been approved by three divines of the society, and printed with the license of father Grannon, provincial of the province of Lyons. In a word, he is ranked amongst the illustrious of the society. See the bibliotheque of the Jesuit authors.

There is a fourth chapter on servile fear-and an extraordinary chapter it is. It thus commmences :-Nothing is more wonderful, as we have just now seen, than the care which the Jesuits take to teach men, not to practise virtues, but to commit all manner of crimes, though never so shocking without being criminal. But it was not enough to have taught this fine secret: they have also invented a new and easy expedient to get out of sin, and be restored to favour with God, after they have mortally offended him. For example, a person who, before the committing of murder, was so ill advised as to consider the evil of the action, and knew all the enormity of it, so as to become guilty of mortal sin for committing that murder after such reflection and so much knowledge: yet let him not be alarmed, he has no need to sigh and groan under this sin. Provided he is sorry he has committed the crime, not because God forbids it, but because he is afraid of being damned, he wants nothing more to procure his pardon in the sacrament. So that according to the Jesuits, with a fear not mixed with love, for of this care must be taken. Mark how fearfully this contrasts with that word of God, 1 John iv. 18:"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear; 'because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made per

fect in love."

But a fear entirely destitute of the love of God a fear purely servile, and which they call imperfect attrition or contrition with this fear only, say they, all sinners are reconciled to God, in the sacrament of penance.

6

Let us hear 'Sor

how clearly and precisely they determine this point. row,' says father Bauni, which has for its express object the pains of hell, is sufficient in the sacrament for a man's justification.' The Jesuits of Louvaine hold the same doctrine : "No wonder,' say they, 'that attrition, which is the result of the fear of hell torments, duly and sufficiently disposes the sinner to receive the benefit of the sacrament of penance.' And that no body may doubt that this is the opinion of the whole society, father Pinthereau, in a book which he published, called, "The Importance and the Ignorance of the Libel called the Moral Theology of the Jesuits,' says; "That all the Jesuits teach unanimously as true Catholic doctrine, which comes up very near to faith, and is exactly conform to the council of Trent-that attrition only grounded upon the single motive of the pains of hell, sufficiently disposes a man for the sacrament.'

say on

Such is the doctrine of the whole society towards the middle of the last century; and we shall find that the Jesuits who have flourished in the world since that time, were of the same sentiments. Father Roye maintained in a Thesis at Antwerp, July, 1710-That attrition which results singly from the fear of hell torments, without any explicit and formal love of God in it, is sufficient for obtaining justification in the sacrament.' The Jesuits of Rome talk the very same language in a Thesis maintained in their college at Rome, 1700. After reading these passages, what man would say with the Lord Jesus, that "few are the elect"-would he not the contrary, that the number is very great, and that "the gate which leads to life is very wide.' For is there one sinner in Christendom but fears hell, and is sorry for having provoked God, not because he is sovereignly good and amiable, but because he is terrible in the vengeance he takes on sin. Yet the Jesuits call these clear and positive decisions, according to which it is evident, that the more a man is pos'sessed with such fear, he is the better penitent and convert. Decisions opposed not only to Christ and Christian writers, who say, That fear only stops the hand, and that the heart is addicted to sin, so long as the love of God is not its governing principle." But also opposed to the very Pagans, who say "The man who does his duty by constraint, and

from a fear of punishment withholds his hand a little from committing a fault, when he thinks he shall be found out: but if he hopes to conceal himself, presently relapses into his natural depravity.'-Terence Adelph. The wise man,' says Cicero, that is the just good man, obeys the laws not for fear of the punishments which they threaten: but because he loves and honours them.' Nor have they been content to propagate their errors without causing these contrary truths to be condemned, agreeable as they are to piety and good sense, viz.: That fear only withholds the hand, and that the heart is abandoned to sin so long as it is not guided by a love for justice. And that he who only abstains from sin for fear of punishment, commits it in his heart, and is already guilty before God.'

Let every man now lay his hand upon his heart, and will he not acknowledge, that were he not restrained by fear, he would stick at nothing, provided he was sure of impunity. And whilst we admire the Pagans on the one hand, must we not denounce those men, who stifle all sentiments of religion and reason, and who, in defiance of the cry of all consciences, that it belongs to love alone to restrain from sin, assert with a rashness not to be conceived, that the fear of punishment alone is capable of producing that effect.

We have quoted fully from the writings of these meu, because there is no other way in which their character can be so truly given and because no hand could have so faithfully sketched out the hideous depravity of that character. We are anxious also to direct attention to a class of men, who, by their mixing with society, are calculated to effect so much, who have done so in days past, and who are likely to do so much in our own days in the land.

(TO BE CONTINUED.)

H.

PSALMODY.

SIR,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN.

HAVING seen in The Orthodox Presbyterian, some months ago, a very interesting history of the several different versions of the Psalms, I hoped the writer would have gone farther, and said something about the practical use of those inspired songs. What avails knowledge about any subject connected with religion, if it is not accompanied by practice.