4a8 SXTStBWS uateTtoN. [Boat that ? gains were of that description! The inquiry would also arise, If some gains are w/cbd, what kind of gains may. be called rigAt OF just ! This leads us to the conclusion, that ga/s IS one object to be obtained in the distribution of indulgences. If the office of papal col- lectors, as administered by such men as Tetzel, was abolished, the same duties are now performed by the bishops, or those appointed by* them. And the enactment respecting tv?cied ga/ns and abus? is nuga- tory, because indulgences continue to the present day to form in im- portant pan of papal revenue, and a prime support of the superstitious of the Church of Rome. Nothing can be more abhorrent to a free gospel, a free invitation, andfre? pardon, witlout money and ugtlout price, than the traffic in in- dulgences. The following cutting reproof, addressed to Simon Magus, is applicable to every' one that purchases or gives an indulgence: "Thy ?noney perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money,"Acts viii, 20. Masses and indulgences alternately destroy each other. For if masses release sods, what need is there of indulgences ? And if an indulgence will do, what need of masses ? According to their doe- trine, the deliverance from purgatory is not immediate, but an indul- geuce remits the debt at once. CHAPTER XIV. EXTREME UNCTION. I. STITF?XNT OF THE DOCTamE. 1. Council of Florence quoted: ,2. Council Trent cited.--II. Issvrr?rrloN or xv. Uncertainty connected with their views. --111. THE MATTEn 0r ft.--IV, Twf FoltM OF IT.--V. ITS SVmEC?.--VI. ErrEcru OF EYTItEME Usc'rzos.--VII. OreSCiONS AOAIN-qT EYTItEME UNCTION AS �SAC ma- Mrzrr. 1. Its matter and form are unauthorized by Christ: 2. It is different from that mentioned by St. James v, 14, 15: 3. The effects ascribed to it do not exist: 4. Not instituted by Christ. Seven arguments to prove this: 5. The Romish and Scriptural anoiutings differ materially: 6. The testimony of antiquity is against it; (1.) The unction of the ancients ditfereut from extreme unction; (2.) The early fathers do not mention it; (3.) Nor those of the fourth century; (4.) Nor the biographies of the first six centuries: 7. It affects injuriously those who receive it: 8. It tends to produce strange views and feelings in dying Christians: 9. It is chargeable with many absurdities and inconsistencies. It is absurd in its institution. Is contrary to several doctrines of the Church of Rome: 10. It is the means of extortion by the clergy': 1 t. Some grave Romantats allow it is not taught by James. I. Statement of tie doctrine. 1. The following is the Decre? of tie Cannel of Florence fo? tle .vtruction of tie Armenians, on the sacrament of extreme unction: "The fifth sacrament is extreme unction, whose matter is oil of olives, blessed by a bishop. This sacrament ought not to be given to any except to a sick person, who is in danger of death; who is to be anointed in the following places: on the eyes, on accotint of sight; on the ears, ou account of hearing; on the nose, on account of sme!ihlg; ou the mouth, on account of tasting and speaking; on the hands, on account of touch; on the feet, on account of walking; on the veins, ou account of their being the seat of pleasure. The lbrm of this sacra- ment is this: Bit tlt/s uact/on, and ? own evr?at m?'c?,, may God 1
�
