availeth much," he refers to the prayers of Elias, "who prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months; and he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." (Ver. 17, 18.) Saving the sick and raising him up, cannot be understood spiritually as signifying the pardon of sin and reconciliation with God, because they are opposed to sickness, which must be understood plainly of infirmity of body, and also because forgiveness of sins is mentioned afterwards as something different from saving and raising up; and in the 17th verse, healing is again mentioned as the effect of prayer. It was considered by the church, when it was first practised, as a service for the sick and infirm, and the words used in the prayers proved it. By Pope Gregory's ritual, the oil is consecrated to cure all pains, infirmities, and sicknesses of the body; and when the sick man is anointed, the prayer asks of God to cure him of his infirmities and to remit his sins, to restore him to health, that he may be recovered and healed: this prayer also refers to the case of Hezekiah's recovery, and to the cures performed by the Apostles. This is the idea which runs through the whole of the ancient service, and in the ancient missals; the recovery of the sick persons is usually the object of the service, while the remission of sins and other spiritual blessings were considered as belonging to it, as they did to every other service which was performed in faith; and even in the form that is used at present, the first prayer refers to recovery from sickness.

It makes little matter whether the church of Rome calls extreme unction a sacrament or not; the Protestants say, that whatever it be called, the ceremony performed by the priest when a person is dying, is altogether different from what St. James recommends. In

the first place, we have shown above, that St. James had in view the recovery of the sick person, and that the early writers of the church of Rome so understood his words; but now, according to the direction of the Council of Trent, the priest never anoints a man until he is considered as past recovery, and, so far from intending thereby to raise him up, it is well understood among them, that when once the sick man sets his foot upon the ground the anointing goes for nothing. The lower classes in Ireland do not wish to give the sick man any thing after he has been anointed; and in general they do not think it lucky for a man to recover after he has received extreme unction. Thus, as Cardinal Cajetan confesses, when writing upon the passage in St. James, the original object of the ceremony is quite changed; and by the authority of the Council of Trent, which first confirmed it in its present form, it is received, though totally different from St. James's anointing, as well as from the usage of the church, and from the ancient liturgies.

66

Another difference between St. James and the church of Rome is, that he says priests," but with them one priest only is required: this difference is important. The word translated priests here, occurs many times in the New Testament, and in almost all of them it is rendered ancients in the Doway Testament. The same expression, which in St. James is rendered

66

priests of the church," is found in Acts, xx. 17, and it is there, "ancients of the church." Now, had the church of Rome made the expression in St. James, "ancients (or elders) of the church," as should have been done; then it would have appeared at once, that there was no resemblance between his ceremony and theirs. Further, in their anointings, but one priest appears-in his, he directs the priests to be called. If the Apostle had considered this as a sacrament,

one priest would have been sufficient to administer it; but enjoining it as a religious service, he directs that the elders should be called, having perhaps in his recollection our Lord's promise," Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven; for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The practice of the Popish church ever since the Council of Trent, which established extreme unction as a sacrament for the dying, differs from the ancient practice of that church as much as it does from the directions of St. James; for we find that the ritual of Pope Gregory orders, that after anointing, the priest is to administer the communion of the body and blood of Christ—yet this is never done now. But when we speak of the early church, we do not mean the church that existed directly after the days of the Apostles. For, since the anointing in the apostolic days was accompanied with a miraculous power of healing the sick, as we have proved before; so this practice was discontinued when miracles ceased in the church: and though oil was much used in religious services, as in anointing catechumens before baptism, anointing the dead before burial, and anointing deacons and priests before they were ordained; yet we do not find that the sick were anointed until about the fifth century after Christ. This plainly shows that St. James's words were understood as relating to a miraculous power, and not to a service which was to continue in the church, and to be esteemed a sacrament. As, therefore, the Christian church, for four hundred years, considered the anointing ordered by St. James, to have a reference to healing, the priests now ought to possess the power of doing so, if they profess to follow him. But since they allow that a miraculous

gift of healing is not now possessed by any one, and confess that they do not expect a man to recover after he is anointed, then they must allow, that the anointing they use is not what St. James directed, but one of their own invention.

can

The Protestant church consider this practice as confined to the period of miraculous gifts. It is evident, from the silence of all the Christian writers for four centuries after Christ, that this practice was not continued when these gifts ceased; and the Romanists show no mention of this ceremony until the time of Pope Innocent, in the fifth century. After this, when superstition increased among the people, the priests began to anoint the sick and infirm when they visited them, using, at the same time, prayers for their recovery. This practice was frequently objected to; and it was the Council of Florence which first ordered that " this sacrament should not be given to a sick person unless his death be feared.”

the

The present custom is to anoint the organs of the five senses, priest repeating these words, "By this holy unction, and through his most bountiful mercy, may God forgive thee whatever thou hast sinned by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching." He then gives the final pardon for spiritual comfort in the last agony. If this institution be warranted by Scripture, it is a great matter of comfort; but if it be not warranted, it is indeed very great presumption. When such high pretensions are set forth by the priests, it is no wonder that the ignorant and superstitious should feel anxious about this ceremony. When a Protestant is dying, the clergyman visits him and prays with him; there is, however, no mystery or secrecy in the business; the family and friends of the sick man are invited to be present, and the service is designed for their instruction also. But when a Romanist is dying, the priest comes

with great ceremony-a candle is lighted-much secrecy and mystery is observed; and while Latin prayers are recited, and various ceremonies are gone through, there is an impression made upon the minds of the ignorant, that something is doing for the dying person which is, they know not how, to benefit his soul, and to help him forward towards heaven. Yet so great is their ignorance, and so strange are the inconsistencies of the priests' doctrines, that though in extreme unction they give a final pardon, and are paid for it, yet this pardon will not free the soul from purgatory; it must go thither notwithstanding, and remain there until more money is paid for prayers and masses to bring it out.

The great evil of this, and indeed of all the Popish errors, is, that the minds of the people are turned away from the true grounds of hope toward God, and they are led to think, that money paid for certain ceremonies will ensure them whatever they can require. It is in vain to say that money has nothing to do with the efficacy of the rite, for it is well known that the poorest wretch would part with his last shilling to ensure his anointing, and would be terrified and alarmed, were a charitable priest to refuse taking the money from him. The Bible gives no encouragement to any man who lives in sin and ignorance, to hope that he will be saved in that state: "all men are called upon every where to repent;" ""God hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of sinners;" "he has finished transgression, made an end of sin, made reconciliation for iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness" (Dan. ix. 24); and "whosoever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved;" because he that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation." The real Christian, consequently, is a person who believes what God has told us of his Son,

who came to call sinners to repent> ance; his faith purifies his heart (Acts, xv.), leads him to abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good (Rom. xii. 9). It makes a man love God, and loving God he keeps his commandments. Such a person feels that sickness or death are sent from his heavenly Father, and he is not only submissive but resigned, for he knows that all things shall work together for good to them that love the Lord; he can join humbly in the prayers which are offered to God for his recovery when he is sick; and can unite in those supplications by which his departing soul is commended to God. Let common sense therefore judge between the two cases: one man dies happy, because he has been anointed and received the rites of his churchanother dies happy, because he knows and feels the grace of the Lord Jesus, who when "he was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich." (2 Cor. viii. 9.) the one we must say, "he feedeth upon ashes, a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" (Isa. xliv. 20.) Of the other the Scripture saith, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord: even so saith the Spirit, for they rest from their labours." (Rev. xiv. 13.) Let no man, Protestant or Romanist, therefore, comfort himself by thinking that something may be done for him on his death-bed, which will make up for his present ignorance and sin. The present time is all we can call our own,

66

Of

now is the day of salvation," "acquaint now thyself with God;" -"the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent, and believe the Go9pel." Such are the declarations of the Bible, and everlasting condemnation will be the portion of all who neglect and despise them.

P. R.

CONSIDERABLE apprehensions have in various quarters been excited by the increase of Socinianism, and some have been induced to fear a still more extended success. We are aware, that great efforts have been recently made; that the Socinians have succeeded in obtaining the removal of some legal restraints, which impeded the propagation of their sentiments; that in consequence they have been encouraged to erect chapels, to establish a Socinian Tract Society, to send out missionaries among the lower orders, to assume a loftier tone, if possible, in their magazines, &c. and to triumph in the secession of one or two novices from the ministry of the Establishment. But with a perfect knowledge of all this, we do not ourselves feel any very serious apprehension on the subject. We are, indeed, pained at every instance of success on their part, because we must maintain, that every Socinian actually denies the Lord who bought him; and without at all presuming to intrude on the judgment-seat, or pronounce on any individual case, we are still compelled to regard the whole body as placed in a most perilous situation. But we see no reason to apprehend, that Socinianism will ever become a dominant persuasion. It has been well called the frozen zone of Christianity. It is a kind of restingplace on the road to Infidelity; a resort for the half-learned; a system well adapted for those who en

tertain exalted ideas of their own reasoning powers, but which can never be embraced by a humble and serious inquirer; which can never stand before solid argument and careful investigation, and which has furnished very few individuals of distinguished attainments in the literary world. We have never, indeed, been able to meet in the whole Socinian school, with a single instance of clear, solid statements, and accurate, well-maintained arguments, at all worthy of comparison with either of the publications at the head of this article.

The object of Mr. G.'s publication is stated to be the confirming his own and his reader's mind in Scriptural sentiments on the great subject proposed. He divides the dissertation into four parts. In the first the subject is introduced, and the apostolic declaration, Col. ii. 9, "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," is assumed as the basis of the argument: after a suitable explanation and illustration of this passage, Mr. G. proceeds, in the second part, to demonstrate the attributes of Deity as the attributes of Jesus Christ; and proves, that eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, and supremacy, are ascribed to the Lord Jesus Christ equally with the Father; and that he is also represented as possessed of the moral attributes of the Deity in an infinite degree, and able to communicate moral perfections and spiritual blessings according to the power of his own will. The third part contains an answer to objections founded on particular passages of Scripture, and on the consideration of the divine unity: and the fourth part points out the importance of the subject in its relation to doctrinal, practical, and experimental religion, to the consolations of a Christian, and to the religion and worship of heaven.

3