of the persecution of the early Christians, when they were compelled to meet in secret at that period their pastors heard the confessions in these small assemblies, which led to the abuse of the private confessional in the fifth century. The practice was not determined until the council of Lateran, in the thirteenth century, under Innocent III.-it was confirmed by the council of Trent.

What do you mean by Extreme Unction?

66

You have both the full description and proof of it. James v. 14, 15. Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders (weerburigs, the priests) of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

What is Holy Orders?

A sacrament instituted by Christ, by which bishops, priests, &c. are consecrated to their respective functions, and receive grace to discharge them well.

When did Christ institute the sacrament of Holy Orders?

At his last supper, when he made his apostles priests, by giving them the power of consecrating the bread and wine into his body and blood, Luke xxii. 19, "Do this in remembrance of me." To which he added, after his resurrection, the power of forgiving the sins of the penitent, John xx. 22, 23.

What scripture proof have you that Holy Orders give grace to those that receive them worthily?

The words of St. Paul to Timothy, whom he had ordained priest by imposition of hands, 2 Tim. i. "Stir up the gift (rò xágsoμa) of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands;" and 1 Tim. iv. 14. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."

It may, perhaps, strike our readers that the Church of Rome is always, as in the present case, much better able to give a full description" of some minor ceremony, than of matters which, according to her own account, are actually necessary to salvation. Here are eight lines of scripture quoted on the subject of "Extreme Unction;" whilst for her supremacy she chiefly relies upon two ("thou art Peter, &c.). But let the pastor be called in, and let the oil be applied,-will Papists-in the very teeth of the scripture they

have quoted-deny that it is "the prayer of faith,”—and not the oil nor the priest--that "shall save the sick?” We have already shown (page 90) how necessary Protestants deem the presence of their Clergy upon such occasions; but they do not believe in consecrations as though they were charms as do the Romanists, and therefore they trust to God's mercy, to be obtained through their repentance and faith in HIM alone, rather than to the opus operatum, or works wrought, as taught by Popery*. Protestants believe only in spiritual means of grace, to be conferred by HIM who alone can bestow it; but let a Popish priest merely consecrate his own night-cap, and his penitent-the more ignorant, the more assured--would gladly envelope his head in it as a certain means of grace, and close his eyes for ever, satisfied of its spiritual efficacy. Strange as this assertion may appear to some of our readers, we repeat that it is true; let those who doubt it look to the pontifical which consists of the forms of consecration of almost every thing we can think of; as palms, ashes, oil, salt, water, bells, books, candles, old clothes, even children's napkins, &c. &c. &c. The Protes

* We have shown (Note, p. 85) the veneration in which Popery holds the genuine chrism of her own manufacture, even when compounded in England; but it cannot be denied that France possesses the original recipe. In the fifth century, Clovis was baptized by Remigius, Bishop of Rheims (hence deriving the title of "Most Christian King.") However, when they arrived at the font, the person intrusted with the "holy cream," with which the king was to be anointed, was missing. What was to be done?-Remigius prayed-and down flew a white dove, with a phial full of the oil tied round its neck; Clovis was anointed; and, from the same phial, all his successors, until 1793, when Philip Rhul, a member of the Convention, went to Rheims to preach the hatred of monarchy; and determining to destroy every thing he could, connected with it, he seized upon the Sainte Ampoule, or holy phial, -which was carefully deposited in the custody of the prior of Rheims, and broke it in the public square, amidst the unsanctified shouts of "Vive la République!" It might have been supposed that thus ended the remaining stock-in-hand of this holy cream;-but miracles are miracles all the world over, and France was determined not to lose her papal patent. M. Suraine, we are told, a municipal officer, dipped the point of a needle into the phial before he delivered it to Rhul, and thus obtained a small (we should think very small) portion of the balsam; although the latter picked up the fragments of the beatified bottle, and sent them to the Convention where they were destroyed, yet, it seems, he did not gather up every particle of it, and those particles which escaped him were collected by the "faithful" adherents of Popery; and which, with the portion saved by Suraine on the point of his needle, has increased to a quantity sufficient for the anointing fifty (Popish) princes.

and

tant believes that spiritual Grace can only be bestowed by the Holy Ghost, and therefore relies upon his God.

:

Holy orders, we are told, is a sacrament instituted hy Christ Christ never did institute different sacraments for different orders of people; and therefore we deny it to be a sacrament at all; it is an ordinance of the Church of Christ, of which the apostles set the example: (Titus i. 5.) "For this purpose I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee." Had holy orders been a sacrament ordained by Christ at his last supper, how could it be "wanting" for half a century after his death?

We now turn to the Pope's scriptural proofs of what he has said; but we cannot understand how the words of our Saviour, "Do this in remembrance of me," can be interpreted into an institution of holy orders? What a religion must that be, which is ever under the miserable necessity of declaring that the scriptures mean the opposite of what they express; thus, indeed, making them "of none effect by the commandments of men."

Those who do their "duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call them," do it "worthily;" but we are not to make so great a merit of our bare duties as to claim spiritual graces for their performance, although such a correct attention to them in this world may be a means of assisting us to win those graces. Christ himself tells his disciples (Luke xvii. 10), " So, likewise, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants;—we have done that which was our duty to do." When Paul desires Timothy to "stir up the gift of God," &c. it is a proof that he possessed that gift; and, in the verse following, he says that God had given them the spirit of his power.-What proof is this of the grace of the Popish priests? The succeeding text quoted (1 Tim.) clearly expresses that, on Paul laying his hands upon him, he (Timothy) received the gift of prophetic revelation :-how

does this prove the grace of the Popish priests? We wish the Pope had given the whole of this chapter to the reading of his flock; it is the one from which we have already quoted (p. 82), in proof that those who forbid to marry and command to abstain from meats, speak lies in hypocrisy, and teach the doctrines of devils.

When was matrimony instituted?

It was first instituted by God Almighty, in Paradise, between our first parents; and this institution was confirmed by Christ in the new law (Matt. xix. 4, 5, 6), where he concludes, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder.”

How do you prove that matrimony is a sacrament?

Because it is a conjunction made and sanctified by God himself, and not to be dissolved by any power of man; as being a sacred sign, or mysterious representation of the indissoluble union of Christ and his Church (Ephes. v. 31, 32). "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (μusngior, a sacrament), but I speak concerning Christ and the Church,"-sis Xgisòu xai εἰς τὴν ἑκκλησίαν, in Christ and in the Church.

Why does the Church not allow of the marriage of the clergy? Because, upon their entering into holy orders, they make a vow or solemn promise to God and the Church to live continently: now the breach of such a vow as this would be a great sin; witness St. Paul (1 Tim. v. 11, 12), when speaking of widows that are for marrying after having made such a vow as this; he says, they "have damnation, because they have cast off their first faith," that is, their solemn engagement made to God.

But why does the Church receive none to holy orders but those that make this vow?

Because she does not think it proper that they, who by their office and functions ought to be wholly devoted to the service of God and the care of souls, should be diverted from these duties by the distractions of a married life. 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33. "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."

Why does the Church make use of so many ceremonies in administering the sacraments ?

To stir up devotion in the people, and reverence to the sacred mysteries; to instruct the faithful concerning the effects and graces given by the sacraments; and to perform things relating to God's honour and the salvation of souls with a becoming decency,

Have you any warrant from Scripture for the use of such ceremonies?

Yes we have the example of Christ, who frequently used the like ceremonies. For instance, in curing the man that was deaf and dumb, Mark vii. 33, 34. In curing him that was born blind, John ix. 6, 7. In breathing upon his apostles when he gave them the Holy Ghost, John xx. 22, &c.

We protest against marriage as a sacrament, although, had we the power, we would, in charity, confer it on the Popish clergy. People do not marry merely as fulfilling a duty towards God, but because it is their inclination, and sometimes because they deem it to be their interest or convenience to do so. The Pope's proof that it is a sacrament is as unfortunate as all his other proofs, when contrary to the written law from which he so equivocally quotes. When Christ said, "What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" it is, of course, to be understood as it is implied, that no person should make a breach between them. But the Pope need not have quoted from St. Paul (Ephes. v.), who himself quoted from CHRIST in the very chapter] (Matt. xix.) at the 5th verse, to which we refer. But in this chapter Christ does not say that it is an institution "not to be dissolved by any power of man;" on the contrary (verse 9), "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery," &c.

But in the next paragraph we are told as a reason why the Popish Clergy do not marry, it is because they make a vow to God and their "Church" that they will live continently, and the breach of such an oath would be a great sin. This is the first "infallible" publication that ever deemed marriage an incontinency! Surely both the Pope and Doctor had forgotten that they had just admitted it was instituted by God himself in Paradise! But why make the vow? Christ says, swear not at all. Let us see what the Pope quotes :"Because he that is unmarried careth for the things that