Sivut kuvina

that were sick and healed them (Mark vi. 13): which, say they, was a miraculous gift of healing the sick of their corporal diseases, that was to last only during the age of the apostles, and for some time after ; but not a sacrament of divine institution to endure for ever in the Church.

But this exception of Protestants against the sacrament of extreme unction cannot stand its ground. For, in the first place, all priests are here empowered to anoint the sick: yet all priests in St. James's time had not the miraculous gift of healing the sick mentioned by St. Mark; therefore this rite of anointing the sick mentioned by St. James, is not that miraculous gift of healing the sick mentioned by St. Mark. Secondly, Many others in the primitive Church, besides the apostles and priests, had the gift of curing diseases mentioned by St. Mark; yet the anointing of the sick in St. James's time was only to be administered by priests; this again proves that it is not the same mentioned by St. Mark. Thirdly, No oil, except it be the matter of some sacrament of divine institution, can be a means to remit sin and to impart health to soul as well as body; but it is expressly said of this anointing commanded by St. James : That it shall save the sick, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him; which words plainly signify that it heals the soul as well as the body. We conclude that this anointing of the sick, which we read of in St. James, is a sacrament ordained by Christ, to give grace and remission of sins, and cannot be the same with that mentioned in St. Mark, which was a gift of healing the sick only of their corporal diseases.

Now this sacrament was certainly administered' to the sick in the Apostolical Church, as St. James, one of the twelve apostles, witnesses; yet in none of the reformed churches of Protestants is this sacrament to the sick administered; therefore none of the reformed churches are the true Apostolical Church, which is proved by this token, because they use not the same sacraments as the apostles did; whereas, according to Protestants themselves, a due administration of sacraments is one of the principal marks by which the true Church is distinguished, which is certainly so far true, that whatever Church has laid aside any one of the sacraments of the new law ordained by Christ for the salvation of mankind, whether for the sick or those in health, whether for the living or the dying, the Church of Christ, that cannot be.

POINT XXIV. PROTESTANTS hold, That holy orders is not one of the sacraments of the new law ordained by Christ to

Contrary to the written word of God :

1. “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.". 1 Tim. iv. 14. .

2. “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

hands.” 2 Tim. i. 6. 3. “And when they had prayed they laid their hands on them,” (Acts vi. 6): the seven deacons mentioned in the Acts.

4. “ And when they had ordained them elders, (priests) with laying on of hands (as the Greek has it), in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Acts xiy. 23.

confer grace.


The three things essential to a sacrament of the new law are here also found in ordination. First, The outward and visible sign, which is laying on of hands, mentioned both in the ordination of deacons and in the ordination of priests, and in the consecration of bishops. Acts vi. xiv., 1 Tim. iv., 2 Tim. i. Secondly, Here is also the inward or spiritual grace of the sacrament mentioned both in the first (chap. iv. 14) and second (chap. i. 5) Epistles to Timothy; as also in St. John, where our Saviour, giving to the apostles the power to forgive sins, which is a principal part of priesthood, first imparted to them the Holy Ghost, saying: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. John xx. 21. Thirdly, That it was ordained by Christ, who can doubt? For will any one be so impious as to say that ordination, mentioned in so many places of Scripture, was a mere human invention of the apostles? Besides, how came the gift of God, the gift of grace, to be connected with an outward ceremony of laying on of hands, as is above mentioned in the text, unless it were of divine institution ? For we know the apostles had not power to institute sacraments that give grace. Those divines who maintain the contrary doctrine, that holy orders is no sacrament that gives grace, do they not give themselves a terrible blow ? For if holy orders give not grace, on what account do they prefer themselves to the laity? If ordination be not of divine institution, but human, then it may be laid aside by human authority, if occasion require, and that order of men be entirely abolished.

Quakers and some other Protestants reply: That laying on of hands, or ordination, is not needful to them who have in them already the Spirit of


God, the inward unction of the Holy Ghost, which of itself sufliciently authorizes any one to administer and preach the word of God, without any further ceremony.

I answer, that this doctrine was unheard of in the Church whilst it was governed by the apostles: for in those times we read that bishops, priests, and deacons, were constantly ordained by the laying on of hands, nor might any presume to preach and administer the sacraments, unless they were first so ordained and sent by those who had in like manner been ordained lawful pastors in the Church before them.

Nay, even St. Paul, though he had an immediate call to the apostleship from the mouth of our Saviour himself, was afterwards ordained with the laying on of hands by the apostles, and so sent to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as we read in the Acts (ix. 15, 16). “As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said : Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts xiii. 2.) Although St. Paul and Barnabas were called by the Holy Ghost, as the Scripture here testifies (Gal. i. 1), and St. Paul by God the Father, and by God the Son, and by God the Holy Ghost, as himself declares (Acts ix. 15; xiii. 2), yet we see that they were afterwards ordained with the usual ceremony of laying on of hands. This extraordinary example recorded in holy writ is a most convincing proof that ordination is a sacrament of divine institution, and therefore indispensably necessary to all who enter into the sacred ministry; not even St. Paul himself

excepted, who, if he had not been ordained had not partaken of the priesthood. And that it is high and sacrilegious presumption for any man (much more a woman) to take upon him to preach the Gospel, to administer sacraments, and to have the care of souls, unless he is first ordained and sent by those who were ordained lawful pastors in the Church before him, according to the sacrament which God has instituted. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John x. 1.) Now

a it is as plain as the sun in the firmament, that none but the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church have derived their ordination and mission from the apostles; and that the pastors of all other churches have climbed up into the fold by another way: consequently they are what is said in the text above.

POINT XXV. PROTESTANTS hold, That marriage is not one of the sacraments of the new law that confers sanctifying grace.

Contrary to the holy Scripture:

1. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Ephes. v. 31, 32.

2. “Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ; so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Christ, and gave himself for it.” Ephes. v. 24, 25.

« EdellinenJatka »