X. AS TO ITS CHARACTER, IT IS A PRIEST

EXALTING CHURCH.

The Romish communion is evidently a manexalting church; for we have seen with what authority she invests the fathers, and with what reverence she regards the saints. Let us now observe the estimation in which she holds her priests. Much of this has been brought to light in our previous remarks. You can scarcely fail to have noticed how the Romanist is met by his priest at every turn. Is he ignorant? he must look to the priest for teaching. Is he laden with a sense of guilt? he must pour his confession into the priest's ear. Is he to work out his salvation by his own deeds of merit and satisfaction? he must perform his acts of penance according to the priest's directions. Is he panting for a sense of Divine forgiveness? he must receive his absolution from the priest's lips. Is he desirous to join in public acts of worship? he must leave it to the priest to recite the service in his presence. Is he to partake of the eucharist? he expects that the priest will command the bodily presence of Christ. Does he

fear to look beyond the grave? he pays the priest to offer oblations for the deliverance of his soul from torment. Do what he will, go where he will, the priest is well nigh his allin-all. Nor does this priestly influence end even here. It intrudes into his sick room; it deludes his last moments with vain and idle ceremonies.

We must briefly explain the Romish practice called " EXTREME UNCTION.” When a sick man seems in immediate danger of death, he sends for the priest, who brings consecrated oil with which to anoint the dying. The organs of sense (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and hands) are separately anointed, with an accompanying prayer, that the sins committed by each organ may be forgiven. The Council of Trent declares, that this rite was "instituted by Jesus Christ;" that the oil blessed by the bishop "most fitly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit, wherewith the sick man is invisibly anointed;" that this unction "cleanses away sin, confers grace, and sometimes obtains the restoration of his bodily health, if the same shall further the salvation of his soul."

The warrant urged for this custom is the

exhortation of James: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders 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," v. 14, 15. We shall not need to muster a large array of arguments to attack this strong hold of defence. We think a few strokes may cause it to crumble and fall. We only ask you to remember first, that this anointing (like that recorded in Mark vi. 13, "They cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them ") was with a view to recovery, and not to death; it aimed at the healing of the body, rather than the saving of the soul. See also, that no efficacy is attributed to the oil; it is not the "anointing, but the "prayer of faith" that "shall save the sick." Does the inquiry arise, Why is the oil mentioned? Simply, as we think, because in the east it was one of the most valuable medicinal agents.* The anointing was a means

* We have given above one view of the subject; but we must mention also that some regard the apostle James

used for recovery; the prayer of faith implied the acknowledgment, that no means can be effectual apart from the exercise of Divine power; the promise taught that the use of human instrumentality, combined with earnest entreaty for a blessing from above, will again and again secure for us the timely interposition of one who has styled himself, "The Lord that healeth." The direction of the apostle, if clothed in language suited to modern times, would be: Let the sick man employ all proper medical remedies; but let him not trust to these alone; let him use them only in the name of the Lord; and moreover let him invite the sympathy of Christian ministers or Christian friends; let them offer their united entreaties for his recovery; let those entreaties be quickened by a lively faith in the power of Him who can bring again even from the borders as referring wholly to a rite connected with miraculous cure, so that the observance of the ceremony was to last only so long as the age of miracles continued. Whichever opinion we hold, it is evident that this was not extreme unction to be administered only in the prospect of immediate dissolution. Even the Romish cardinal Cajetan (in the year 1532) himself made this admission: "The text does not say, Is a man sick unto death? but absolutely, Is a man sick?”

of the grave; the Divine aid, so sought, shall not be sought in vain; the restoration of the invalid shall be a direct answer to prayer, and he shall acknowledge that it is the Lord who has raised him up as all such prayers, too, will include an entreaty for spiritual blessings, the latter also shall be richly granted.' It is manifest that the promise is not an absolute one; had it been so, the death of Christ's disciples must have argued that faith was sadly lacking, even in an apostolic age. We see, then, that a Christian minister may be sent for, and ought to be sent for, not in the dying hour only, but in all seasons of severe illness. And we see for what purpose he is to attend on such occasions, not to confer, but to crave a blessing; not to work a charm, but to entreat a cure. We close with the following quotation:

"Perilous as is deception or delusion at any time in things spiritual, it is immeasurably so at the approach of death. It is then that the church of Rome 'lays the flattering unction to the soul.' The dying man sends for the priest, and makes confession to him; absolution is promptly bestowed; the eucharist is administered; and then the sacred chrism (or anoint