it only takes him to the port of eter- Again what a low and sad view of the religion of God does this sacrament give to a dying man! It is administered to all that seek it on a dying bed. Let us suppose a case, which no doubt often occurs. There is a papist in the article of death. To this hour he has lived in sin. Feeling that death is upon him he sends for his priest. He thinks now of nothing but confession, the eucharist, and extreme unction. The priest appears in his robes. If the sick man is able he confesses. If not able, the anointing commences, and proceeds in the way already stated. He is crossed and anointed on his eyes, his nose, his ears, his hands and feet, and the prescribed prayers are said. The man now dies in peace, feeling that his sins are remitted, that his soul is healed of its infirmities, that his spiritual enemies are all subdued, through the efficacy of olive oil, blessed on Maunday-Thursday! a dying hour, and simply and only for the benefit of your priests. And what a tremendous use your church has made of it. Gaining access to the dying beds of kings, princes, and barons, in past days, with your olive oil, you have extorted millions of money from those who believed in your ghostly power. You have thus enriched the church and impoverished the people. You have built palaces for your bishops, and reduced the people to beggary. What will a dying sinner withhold from a man whom, he believes, has the power to lock him up in hell; or by a little olive oil rubbed on with his thumb, can conduct him to the port of eternal happiness? The man yet lives who narrates the following scene of which he was an eye and ear witness. The chief of one of our Indian tribes, a man of great sagacity and decision, was on his dying bed. Many of his people, by a French Jesuit, were converted to the faith of your church. He knew the wiles of your missionary, and forbade him admission to his dying bed. The priest came with his olive oil and pressed so hard for admission to him, that it was granted. Stay," said the dying chief to the man who relates the story, "stay outside the door, and if I knock come in." The Not priest entered and the door was thought of the dying man is directed closed. Soon a violent knocking to the cross of Jesus Christ, or to the is heard, and the man enters the efficacy of his atonement! So that room. "Take him out," said the extreme unction is a papal incantation dying chief: "Take him out--land by which the priest makes a deluded | ―land-give me land." The priest people to believe that the keys of would put on the olive oil, but wantheaven and hell hang by his girdle-ed first a grant of land. that by his olive oil he can procure for them all that the Bible suspends on faith in Jesus Christ! Esteem me not harsh, Rev. Sir, when I declare it as my deep conviction that by your sacrament of extreme unction your church is deluding and damning multitudes of souls, and from year to year. It is a wicked substitution of olive oil for the blood of Christ at the Rev. Sir, your church must annul this sacrament of extreme unction, before I can return to its embrace. To my mind it is extreme nonsense. Should not incantations over dying men beleft to Hottentots. I implore you to seek some other market for your olive oil than the chambers of the dying. With great respect, yours, THE PROTESTANT (Concluded from page 132.) ON THE SACRAMENTS. JESUS Christ appointed two positive institutions or sacraments, baptism and the eucharist. The authority to administer these has been assumed as exclusively belonging to the functions and perquisites of the ministerial office. With respect to the former we are told that "Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples." And Paul tells the Corinthians, that he baptized none of them but a few individuals, and that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. These passages strongly intimate, that baptism in the original church required no high functionary for its legitimate performance. With regard to the eucharist, when the Protestant churches abandoned the idea of transubstantiation, they ought at the same time to have abandoned the idea of the necessity of ministerial consecration of the elements of the sacrament. We may state in general, as a part of the liberty of the children of God, that any two or three of them are at liberty, and have scriptural authority and right, to celebrate the eucharist; and that it needs no further, as it can receive no higher consecration, than their united faith, thanksgiving, and charity, securing as these do the real presence of the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world. And hence the first Christians "broke bread from house to house," which has been regarded both by Catholic and Protestant divines, as referring to the celebration of this sacrament. At the same time, however, we would not only admit, but distinctly assert, that the church, in its public celebration of this great Christian solemnity, has a right to declare whom she will admit, and whom she will exclude, from participating in it. In like manner, with respect to baptism, the church has a right to determine whom she will admit or exclude from that ordinance. And here we have the real point connected with the sacraments, where judgment, discretion, and authority are required. Many circumstances would strongly indicate that the deacons were commonly entrusted with the administration of these ordinances. NOTE ON COR. XII. 29, XIII. 19. From the declaration of Paul in the above passage," Although I give my goods to feed the poor, &c. and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing,” works of kindness and benevolence some have hastily concluded, that this subject we would remark, are not essential to Christianity. On 1. That there are many other things mentioned by the apostle in the same connection with the above, and it is somewhat surprising that the same conclusion has not been drawn with respect to them, although honest consistency, and the most universally acknowledged rules of biblical interpretation, would require it to be so in every case. Thus the apostle affirms that a man may speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and not have charity-that he may have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge-and that he may have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and not have charity. 2. The apostle, so far from designing to depreciate the work of love, is endeavouring to show its pre-eminent value and importance. The structure of the passage is climactric. Commencing with what is of least consequence, as an index of moral and religious character, he accumulates in the weight and value of the objects as he advances, placing the work of mercy and love in immediate connection with the highest act of devotion that any man can render to his Cre ator, the laying down his life for his cause. 3. But in proportion to the conviction that the apostle entertained of the superlative importance of Christian charity, was his anxiety to preserve it free from all contact and intermixture with base and selfish principles, motives, or intentions. The gratification of self, the applause of men, advancement in worldly estimation and influence, with all reliance on its merit, must be renounced, if it is to stand the searching fire of God's approving judgment. 4. The real scope and design of the apostle in this passage has seldom been rightly stated by commentators. The apostle is demonstrating the superiority of charity as a moral agent -as a means for maintaining and diffusing the religion of Christ throughout the world; and hence, after treating of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church, and exhorting them earnestly to covet the best gifts, (solid, not showy and ostentatious accomplishments, such as were most useful for the church's edification and progress) he proceeds to point out to them "a more excellent way"-a way of greater power and efficacy for the spread of true religion in the world, than the most gifted efforts of human or even of angelic tongues. 5. We remark, in conclusion, that charity, considered as a notion or sentiment, as a verbal profession, or even as a feeling or experience, does not, and cannot, exercise any moral influence, unless consummated in action, in works, and deeds of mercy, kindness, and love. ON THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE Few there are of the modern forms of Christianity that have not attempted to claim some affinity with the original stock. Protestants have generally believed that it was Protestantism. That it was Protestantism as it now generally exists and manifests itself, is a position easier to advance than to sustain. Still more difficult would it be to verify the statement that it was Popery. To trace the peculiarities of Rome through the three first ages, from documents whose genuineness has stood the test of modern critical investigation, is a work of insuperable difficulty; and the attempt has more than once effected a revolution in the views of writers who have made it. Hence the most discreet defenders of the Papacy have admitted the deficiency of evidence, but accounted for it by stating that they were not mentioned because they were not questioned in these early ages. Protestants have, on the contrary, asserted that they were not mentioned because they were not known, held, or believeda position capable of the most conclusive proof. It would be matter of surprise to many to learn how much of the structure, institutions, and practices of modern Protestantism stand in the same position. We mention a few particulars wherein the practices of the moderns are most antagonistical to those of the ancients, briefly premising that with their theories we have nothing to do, but with their actions and proceedings. First. The primary object of modern Protestant churches is the maintenance of certain forms and services of worship. For these purposes the Church of England applies upward of £8,000,000 sterling per annum. The Congregational, Baptist, and Presbyterian denominations, it is probable, £1,500,000; and the Wesleyan Connection nearly £1,000,000. The income of the two latter divisions far exceeds the entire revenue of the British Isles 170 years ago; and there is reason to believe, that in a majority of their congregations, no regularly organized institutions exist for works of mercy and benevolence. In the ancient churches, on the contrary, the work of mercy and benevolence was the primary object of the No proposition admits of more abundant verification than this. All antiquity, Pagan as well as Christian, confirms it. As illustrating the ancient practice, we select the following facts and testimonies : church's arrangements and exertions. | wealth at their disposal such as was never owned by the ancients. In times of persecution they had no opportunity to accumulate property, and no security for its permanent possession. Even in succeeding ages, when wealth, and with it all manner of evils poured in upon the church, they could not all at once attain an amount of wealth such as that which many modern churches possess. But the principle that now regulates its 1. The church at Rome, anno 270, comprised 1 bishop, 47 presbyters, 1500 widows, orphans, and other poor being maintained by the liberality of the faithful (Eusebius.) terly unknown to the ancients. 2. The church at Antioch main-application and distribution, was uttained 3000, its revenues being, we are told, but small (Chrysostom.) During the last few years, some churches have received enormous accessions of wealth (witness the Wesleyan Centenary Fund); and during the same period hundreds of thou 3. The church at Alexandria maintained nearly 1000 individuals, many of whom, it is believed, were medical practitioners who visited, relieved, cured the sick, &c. A similar prac-sands of individuals, in some parts of tice prevailed in many other places. 4. In cases of general public calamity, the wealth of the churches was entirely expended, and it was no uncommon thing to sell the sacramental vessels and most valuable furniture of the churches, for the relief of the poor. 5. It was the uniform practice of the church throughout the world, to break bread every Lord's day, and to collect for the poor. 6. The benevolence of Christians was admitted and eulogized by Pagan writers. 7. The Christian apologists and others regarded it as the cause of the rapid and irresistible prevalence of Christianity. 8. The politic Emperor Julian took a similar view of the subject, and vainly endeavoured to infuse the same spirit into Paganism for its reanimation. The ancient Christianity was thus in a most eminent degree a benevolent religion. To this it may be replied, that the ancient Christians were so very liberal in their contributions, as to give the ancient church a power of doing good which the modern church does not possess. To this we reply, that modern churches have an amount of the British dominions, have perished for want of food. No part of these immense funds were appropriated to their relief. Let those who can, reconcile this fact with primitive Christianity, or with the teaching of the New Testament. In the churches of the Establishment all the available ecclesiastical funds are regarded as the property of the minister. Should these funds amount to £200 per annum, then the living is regarded as possessing that value. Should they amount to £1000 per annum, the income is still as absolutely the property of the minister as when it was a smaller amount. Should these revenues amount to £10,000 or £20,000 a year, the minister who assumes the title of Lord Bishop still appropriates the whole. But it may be said that it is not exactly fair to bring our examples of the practice of modern Christianity, from a church acknowledged on all sides to be greatly corrupted, and that Dissenting churches may furnish some more unexceptionable manifestations of modern Christianity. But even there the principle of distribution is not in the slightest degree different. If the funds of a congregation, after unavoidable expenses are paid, amount to £100 per annum, then the income of the minister will amount to that sum. If the funds amount to £200, £300, £400, or £500 per annum, then the income of the minister will amount to the same sum; and a very great increase may take place, and has taken place, in the ecclesiastical revenues of the country, without any increase whatever in the amount expended for purposes of benevolence. Now this principle of distribution was utterly unknown to the ancients, and its manifestation would have excited their astonishment and horror. True it is that a few cases occurred in the third, and a great many in the fourth century, wherein the unfeeling cupidity of the priesthood had endeavoured to personally appropriate the whole of the church revenues; and few there are of the councils of that age that do not contain accounts of the deposition of bishops and presbyters for that cause. Yet clerical avarice ultimately and most effectually attained its object. Having thus secured the ecclesiastical, and still feeling "an aching void," they next turned their attention to those funds bequeathed specifically for purposes of benevolence; and here, as the invaders were the strongest, and the objects of their attack the weakest of mankind, they gained an easy victory. The great bulk of these funds are now in their hands. Meanwhile they rejoice in their works, and say "doth God know, and is there intelligence with the Most High ?" We add, that the full development of these enormities has been reserved for Protestant times. Secondly. A second point of distinction between ancient and modern Christianity, appears in the almost universal preponderance given by modern divines and teachers to the theory over the practice of religion. It may be said with little exaggeration, that the moderns have drawn scarcely any but doctrines out of the sacred volume; and to this dangerous extreme there is a daily increasing tendency. The ancient Christians, on the contrary, while they neither despised nor neglected the doctrines, still gave the preponderance to the holy action and practice of true religion, that being, as they rightly judged, the great end, design, and consummation of the former. Thirdly. It appears in the notions commonly entertained respecting the impropriety of connecting a lawful calling with the public service of the church. It was no unfrequent thing for the most learned rabbins of Judea to exercise a trade: hence Paul, though bred at the feet of Gamaliel, was a tent-maker. The Saviour of men was first a carpenter, and afterwards a physician in most extensive, laborious, and successful practice. The original presbyters were numerous in every church, and on that and on other accounts we conclude that they were not, and could not, be maintained by the industry of the rest, Acts xxxiii. 34. The early Christians held that ease, sloth, and luxury, were enemies to true religion-that honest labour was in the highest degree conservative of its purity and vigour; and hence many of the ministers continued to follow a lawful employment, on the ground of its excellent moral and religious effects. True it is, that as the spirit of the early liberty declined---as wealth increased, and a spirit of pretension and exclusion began to be manifested by ministers, they sought to multiply to the furthest possible extent the points of distinction between themselves and their brethren, thereby acting in direct opposition to the example of Him who was made in all points like to his brethren. Still these prac tices continued more or less throughout the early ages: they survived great changes in the church's fortune, and the introduction of not a few corruptions; and in the days of St. Augustine they are still referred to in |