can the catechist propose this objection, and at. the same time maintain the doctrine expressed in the following part of the Book of Common Prayer. 66 6 Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power in the church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen1." Here let me propose to the catechist two questions, which truly are of difficult solution. How happens it, that the power of forgiving sin is left by Christ in the hands of the parson, whilst it is denied to the Catholic priest? And, again why is the practice of confession enforced by the minister of the Anglican church, when, according to the catechist, confession is not authorized by the Scripture? In plain truth, error may be pardoned ; but artifice and inconsistency deserve to be held up to the glare of day. III. Then the catechist affirms, that the confession used in the primitive church, was that made by scandalous sinners in public, but not au' The Visitation of the Sick-the Book of Common Prayer. ricular confession. as ignorant of Christian antiquity, as of every other branch of sacred learning. Let him therefore know, that the public penance used in the primitive church was imposed for public and scandalous crimes only; certainly in no instance for sins of thought: which latter transgressions, as we learn from the authorities before cited, were a necessary matter of the sacrament1. The catechist really appears IV. When the catechist denies that penance, of which confession forms a leading part, is a sacrament, because it wants Christ's institution, I content myself with asking him, by whose institution and order does the minister of his church, as we have seen, urge confession, grant absolution from sin, and thus claim the power of conferring a sacrament? Let him give a clear explanation of this assumption of authority, and the claim of the Catholic church will be no longer with any consistency disputed. V. The assertion contained in this corresponding number, will be found to convey a complete falsehood2. 1 Besides our decisive testimonies before produced, see Cardinal Bona, de Rebus Liturg. lib. ii. c. 1. The words of this learned writer deserve to be cited. Referring to St. Cyprian's words quoted above, from the treatise on the Lapsed, he adds: Quæ verba de secretâ et auriculari confessione intelligenda esse quis dubitet? publicam enim de cogitationibus, deque modicis peccatis Ecclesia nunquam admisit. ? See the Observations. VI. Again, I ask, if confession is not mentioned by St. John, xx. 23, why does the catechist approve the practice as adopted in the Book of Common Prayer? VII. When the catechist says, "that confession, as it is managed in the church of Rome, is a mere formality, which gives no check to sin,' he betrays a degree of profound ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation, which will ever be deemed inexcusable in a writer. The penitent who expects the benefit of absolution in the Roman Catholic church, must necessarily and indispensably manifest a hearty and sincere sorrow for past offences, with a firm determination of not sinning in future; he must, make a clear, full, and humble confession of all deadly sins to his spiritual guide; if he has wronged his neighbour in any way, whether in his property, his honour, his reputation, or if he should have been accessary to any similar loss, he must either make immediate restitution to the best of his power, or give full security, that such restitution will not unnecessarily be delayed. Finally, he is pledged to lead a holy and penitential life, and to labour to satisfy the divine justice by the due performance of penitential works. Come now, catechist! thou man of superior wisdom, stand forth and tell me-is all this nothing, vox et præterea nil? Is this laborious 1 process a mere formality, unavailable in its nature and effects, to produce any fruit? Or will ignorance be pleaded in extenuation of a false statement? The first plea is inadmissible; the second insures infamy to a writer. QUESTION XXI. Why do you not believe that extreme unction is a sacrament necessary to salvation? ANSWER. 1. It can be no sacrament, because it wants Christ's institution. The place, Mark vi. 13. is no institution of a sacrament, but a command to heal the sick miraculously. 2. Anointing the sick was a miraculous gift in the apostles' days, and therefore not necessary to be continued, after a sufficient promulgation of the gospel. 3. The unction they use in the church of Rome differs very much from the unction, or anointing with oil, St. James speaks of, chap, v. 14, 15. and the apostles used; for, 1. That in the church of Rome hath no miraculous effects, which theirs had. 2. The apostles anointed sick persons that they might recover. In the Roman church, they anoint dying persons that are past all hopes of recovery. 3. We read of no such ceremonies used by the Apostles, as the Roman priests do use in their unction, anointing the eyes, and mouth, and hands, and feet, and and ears, 4. Whereas spiritual grace is pretended to be conferred by this unction; it is evident, that in that place of St. James, the saving of the sick person is ascribed to the prayer of faith, not to the anointing. 5. Whereas it is pretended, that it is fit there should be a sacrament for dying men, we say that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament sufficient to comfort a dying man, without extreme unction. OBSERVATIONS. WHEN the catechist proceeds to treat the question of extreme unction, he appears determined not to |