He who causeth a sinner to be converted, &c. St. James concludes his epistle with a work of charity, one of the most acceptable to Almighty God, and most beneficial to our neighbour, when any one becomes instrumental in converting others from their errors, or from a wicked life; for it is only God that can convert the heart. But he who with a true and charitable zeal, animated with the love of God and of his neighbour, makes this the chief business of his life, has this comfort here given him, that this will cover in the sight of God a multitude of sins, which he may have contracted through human frailty. The Church of England, when they modelled the articles of their reformation, received this epistle of James as canonical. They profess to follow the holy Scriptures as the only rule of their belief: they find in the 14th and 15th verses of this chapter these words: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil….and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” In these words they find all that they themselves require, to be a sacrament of the new law; to wit, a precept or injunction, clear and unlimited as to time, a visible sign, with a promise of invisible grace, in remitting of sins, the minister of it, and the persons specified who are to receive it. They also found this practised at the time of the reformation by the Universal Church, by all Catholics, both in the east and west, both by the Latin and by the Greek Churches; and that all Christian Churches received it as a sacrament; and yet they thought fit to lay it quite aside, as if it was neither a sacrament nor a holy ceremony, nor a pious custom fit to be retained. They must have judged that they had convincing proofs both to contradict in other things the judgment and belief of the Catholic Church, and also in this particular; as to which latter case, I shall examine the reasons which they bring. I presume it may be needless to insist upon the groundless imagination of Wycliff, and some heretics about that time, who denied this to be a sacrament, fancying it was prescribed by St. James, because the oil of Palestine was a sovereign remedy to cure diseases. If so, any physician, any old woman or nurse to the sick, might have applied oil full as well, if not better than the priests. Calvin, and the reformation writers, give us the following reasons or conjectures, that this anointing, as well as that, [Mark 6:13] was only to be used for a time, by those who had the gift of curing diseases miraculously; so that like other miraculous gifts, (as the speaking of tongues, prophesying, &c.) it was but to last during the first planting of the Christian faith. Dr. Fulk, against the Rheims Testament, and Mr. Baxter, &c. affirm boldly, that Christ “appointed his apostles to anoint those with oil whom they cured.” And Dr. Hammond says, “that the anointing with oil, was a ceremony used by Christ and his apostles in their miraculous cures.” They assert this, as if it was taught by Scripture itself. They are no less positive that this anointing soon ceased, and was laid aside with the gift of miraculous cures, given sometimes to the first Christians at their baptism, or when they received the Holy Ghost in the sacrament of confirmation. Dr. Fulk, besides this, is positive that “the Greek Church, never to this day received this anointing and praying over the sick as a sacrament.” These are their arbitrary, groundless, and false expositions, which they bring against a clear text of the holy Scriptures. It might be sufficient to oppose the judgment and authority of the Church to their private judgment. But to answer in short each particular: we find by the evangelists, [Matt 10:8]; [Mark 6:13]; [Luke 10:9] that Christ gave to his twelve apostles, and afterwards to his seventy-two disciples, in their first mission before his death, (which was only into the cities of Israel) a power of casting out devils, of raising the dead, or curing diseases in his name. And St. Mark tells us, that they cast out many devils, and anointed many sick with oil, and cured them. But when Dr. Fulk and others add, that our Saviour appointed, ordered, or commanded them to anoint with oil those whom they cured, no such thing is said, nor insinuated, neither by St. Mark nor by any of the evangelists, nor any where in the holy Scriptures. And how Dr. Hammond could tell us that this “anointing with oil was a ceremony used by Christ himself,” I cannot imagine. As for the apostles and disciples, they might cure many, making use of oil, and many without it by laying hands upon them, by a prayer, or by calling upon the name of Jesus, as the seventy-two disciples returned to him with joy, [Luke 10:17] saying, Lord, even the devils are subject to us in thy name. Neither is it judge probable by the interpreters that the apostles, in their miraculous cures, were tied up or confined to the use of oil: especially since we find that after Christ’s resurrection, in their second mission to all nations, Christ foretells (Matthew xvi. 18.) that they who believe in him, shall have this miraculous gift of healing the sick, but mentions only the laying of hands upon them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well. Besides had Christ appointed or given orders to his disciples to make use of oil in such miraculous cures, it would scarce have happened but we should have some examples of it in the Acts of the Apostles, where so many miraculous cures are related to have been done by St. Peter, by St. Paul, and others, but no mention of this ceremony of oil. We agree with our adversaries that this gift of miraculous cures, of which St. Paul speaks, [1Cor 12] was common only for a short time, like the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were only necessary, as St. Augustine takes notice, at the first planting of the Christian faith; and so that anointing with oil, merely as it was made use of in miraculous cures of the body, soon ceased, perhaps even before our Saviour’s death; but we believe as our Saviour appointed water to be the matter of the sacrament of baptism, so he would have oil to be the matter of the sacrament of the sacrament of extreme unction, which he instituted to strengthen the souls of the sick, against the dangers and temptations at the approach of death, and of which St. James here speaks near upon thirty years after Christ’s ascension. And the anointing in St. Mark, used in corporal diseases, may be looked upon as a figure of the sacrament of extreme unction in St. James, as the frequent washings or baptisms, as they are called, of the Jews, and especially the baptism of St. John the Baptist, was a figure of the baptism of Christ. The miraculous gift of healing, as well as other gifts of the Holy Ghost, was often given with the sacraments, which were to be always continued, and not to cease, with those gifts. We may also take notice, that neither they who had this gift of healing, had any command or advice to make use of it to all that were sick, nor were all that were sick ordered to seek for a cure of those who had this gift; whereas here St. James orders every one to send for the priests of the Church to anoint him, and pray over him for spiritual relief. St. Timothy had frequent infirmities, as we read in [1Tim 5:23], nor yet did St. Paul, who had that gift, cure him. The same St. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletum. [2Tim 4:20] Epaphroditus, St. Paul’s companion in his labours, was sick, when he had St. Paul with him, even unto death; that is, so as to be at the point of death [Phil 2:27]; nor yet did St. Paul, but God, restore him to his health. And if St. James had spoken of a miraculous restoring of corporal health by that anointing, he should rather have said: bring in those who have the gift of healing; for we may reasonably suppose that many had this gift who were not priests, and we have no reason to suppose that all priests had this gift. Our adversaries tell us with great assurance, that this anointing mentioned by St. James was soon laid aside; which, say they, we may gather from the silence of the writers in the three following ages[centuries]. To this merely negative argument the Catholics answer: 1. That it is enough we have the tradition and practise of the Church, witnessed by the writers in the ages[centuries] immediately succeeding. 2. That the greatest part of the writings in those ages[centuries] are not extant. 3. The writers of those times seldom mentioned those things which were sufficiently known among the Christians by daily use, especially what related to the sacraments and mysteries of the Christian religion, which (as it appears by the writings that they were able to preserve) they made it their particular endeavour to conceal from the heathens, who turned them to derision and contempt. In the mean time, had not this anointing been always retained and continued, the ages[centuries] immediately following would not have conspired every where to practise it, and to look upon it as a sacrament. Not to insist on the authority of Origen, (1) in the beginning of the third age[century], (hom. ii. in Levit.) who numbering up the different ways by which sins are forgiven in the new law, says, that they were remitted when priests anoint the sick with oil, as in the epistle of St. James; St. Chrysostom (2) in the end of the fourth age[century], (in his third book de Sacerdotio, tom. i. p. 384. Nov. Ed. Ben., written before the end of the fourth age, about the year 375) says, that priests (and his word expresseth sacrificing priests, not elders) have now a power to remit sins, which he proves from those words in St. James, Is any man sick among you? &c. This shews, as do also Origen’s words, that this custom was then continued in the East, in the Greek Church, and that it was believed a sacrament, of which the priests only were the ministers. Innocent I (3) in his answers to Decentius, bishop of Eugenium, in Italy, at the beginning of the fifth age[century], in the year 416, calls this anointing and prayer over the sick, set down in St. James’ epistle, a sacrament in the same sense as other sacraments in the new law. See Labbe’s Councils, tom. ii, p. 1248. And as to what Innocent I and Ven. Bede relate of a custom by which lay persons, when a priest could not be had, anointed and prayed over a person in danger, it was only to testify their desire of having the sacrament: as it was likewise a pious custom in some places for sinners to make a confession to a layman, not that they them looked upon it as a sacrament, but only that they hoped God would accept of their private devotions and humiliation, when they could not have a priest to administer the sacraments to them. It is needless to mention authors in the following ages[centuries]. St. Gregory (Sacramentarium. fer. 5. in Cœna Dni.) describes the ceremony of blessing oil to be used in the anointing of the sick. Theodore, made archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 668, among other decrees, ordains that sick persons receive the holy unction, set down by St. James. The Capitularia of Charles the great, say that no one, when about to depart out of this world, ought to want the anointing of the sacrament of oil. The same is ordained in a council of Chalons, the year 813, canon 48; by a council at Aix la Chapelle, the year 830, canon 5; by the council of Mayence, in the year 847, canon 26, &c. Now since we find this anointing made use of as a sacrament at least from the fourth age[century], let our adversaries tell us when this anointing prescribed by St. James was left off, and when and how it came to be taken up again. They have no manner of proofs for either; and yet we have a right, as the authors of the annotations on the Rheims Testament observe, to demand clear and convincing proofs in this case, when the Scripture seems so clear for us and against them. Dr. Fulk affirms boldly, that this anointing was never to this day received in the Greek Church as a sacrament. This only shews how little credit is to be given to him. He might have found great reason to doubt of his bold assertion, since neither Photius, in the ninth age[century], nor Michael Cerularius, in the eleventh, ever objected this difference betwixt their Greek and the Latin Church, at a time when they reckoned up even the most minute differences either in doctrine or discipline, so as to find fault with the Latins for shaving their beards. He might have found it by what happened at the time of the council of Lyons, in the thirteenth age[century], when the pope, in his letter to the emperor of Constantinople, wrote that the Latin Church, and all in communion with him, acknowledged seven sacraments, which the Greeks never blamed. He might have observed the same when the Greeks and Armenians came to an union in the council of Florence, in the fifteenth age[century]. The same Dr. Fulk, who wrote about the year 1600, could scarce be ignorant of the ill success the Augsbourg confession met with among the Greeks, to whom, when the Lutherans had sent copies of their faith and of their reformation, Jeremy, the patriarch of Constantinople, with a synod of the Greeks, condemned their articles, and among other points, declared that they held “in the orthodox Catholic Church seven divine sacraments,” the same as in the Latin Church, baptism….and the holy oil. Had Dr. Fulk lived a little longer, he must have been more and more ashamed to find other Greek synods condemning him and all the said reformers. For when Cyrillus Lucaris, advanced to the see of Constantinople by the interest of the French Calvinists, began to favour and support the doctrine of the Calvinists, the Greeks in several synods under their patriarchs, (in the years 1639, 1642, 1671, and 1672) condemned Cyril and the new doctrine of the said reformers, and expressly declared that they held seven sacraments. See M. Arnauld, tom. iii. Perpetuitè de la Foy; and the dissertations of M. Le Brun, tom. iii. p. 34, and 572, disert. 12, where he shews that all the churches of the East, and all the Christian churches of the world, though separated from the communion and subordination to the Pope, agree with the Latin Church, as to the sacrifice of the Mass, as to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and as to the seven sacraments. (Witham) — If, with holy Scripture, we must allow that charitable persons on earth may prove instrumental, under God, to their neighbour’s salvation, why are we to deny this to the saints in heaven, whose charity for man is much greater?
Footnote(1) Origen, in hom. ii, in Levit. (p. 68. Ed. Par. in the year 1574) where he numbers the different ways by which sins are remitted in the new law, and speaking of penance, says, In quo impletur et illud quod Apostolus dicit, Si quis autem infirmatur, vocet presbyteros ecclesiĉ.
(2) St. Chrysostom, iereis….echousin exousian, habent potestatem.
(3) Innocent I. Pœnitentibus istud infundi non potest, quia genus est Sacramenti, nam quibus reliqua Sacramenta negantur, quomodo unum genus putatur concedi? By charisma, Innocent I understands, oleum ad ungendum.
