EXTREME UNCTION

Of extreme unction the Romish Council of Trent a erts, “The holy unction of the sick was instituted by our Lord Christ , as truly and properly a sacrament of the New Testament, as is implied, indeed, in St. Mark; but commended and declared to the faithful by James, the apostle and brother of the Lord . “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.”” From which words, as the Church hath learned from apostolic tradition handed down, she teaches the matter, form, proper minister, and effect of this wholesome sacrament; for the Church has understood that the matter is oil ble ed by the bishop, for unction most aptly represents the grace of the Holy Spirit wherewith the soul of the sick man is invisibly anointed: then that the form consists of these words, “By this anointing,” . The following are the canons upon the subject pa ed by that council. Canon I. If any shall say, that extreme unction is not truly or properly a sacrament instituted by our Lord Christ , and declared by the ble ed apostle James; but only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human invention; let him be accursed. Canon II. If any shall say, that the holy anointing of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sins, nor relieve the sick, but that it has ceased, as if it were formerly only the grace of healing; let him be accursed. Canon III. If any shall say, that the rite and usage of extreme unction, which, the holy Roman Church observes, is contrary to the sentence of the ble ed apostle James, and, therefore, should be changed, and may be despised by Christians without sin; let him be accursed. Canon IV. If any shall say, that the presbyters of the Church, whom St. James directs to be called for the anointing of the sick, are not priests ordained by the bishops, but elders in age, in any community; and that, therefore, the priest is not the only proper minister of extreme unction; let him be accursed. Here the institution of extreme unction by our Lord is implied by Mark vi. 13, where it is said of the apostles, that “they anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” But, by-and-by, (se ion 22, ch. 1,) we are told that the Christian priesthood was not instituted until our Lord’s last supper. Either, then, extreme unction is no sacrament, or they who are no priests can administer a sacrament; for the apostles were not priests, according to the Church of Rome, at the time spoken of by St. Mark. But, further, a sacrament is a visible form of invisible grace; but the pa age in St. Mark speaks only of healing the body; and, therefore, Cajetan, as cited by Catharinus, rejects this text as inapplicable to this sacrament; and Suarez (in part iii. disp. 39, sect. 1, n. 5) says, that “when the apostles are said to anoint the sick and heal them, (Mark vi. 13,) this was not said in reference to the sacrament of unction, because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the soul.” Nor will this pretended sacrament derive more a istance from the pa age in St. James, in which they say that the institution by our Lord is proclaimed and declared by that apostle, at least if Cardinal Cajetan is any authority, who is thus cited by Catharinus in his An not at i ones, Paris, 1535, p. 191, de Sacramento Unction is Extremæ. “Sed et quod scribit B. Jacobus, ‘Infirmatur quis in vobis?’ ., pariter neg at reverend is sim us ad hoc sac ramentum pertinere, ita scribens, nec ex verb is, nec ex effectu, verb a hæc loquuntur de sacramental i unctione extremæ unction is, sed mag is de unctione quam instituit Dominus Jesus exercendum in ægrot is. Textus enim non dicit, Infirmatur quis ad mortem? sed absolutè, Infirmatur quis?” . But that this rite, which they now call a sacrament, was originally applied chiefly to the healing of the body, is manifest from the prayers which accompanied it. “Cura quæsum us, Red empt or noster, gratia Spiritüs Sancti languores istius in firm i ,” and so the directions, “ in loco ubi plus dolor imminet, amplius perungatur .” Let the patient have most oil applied in the part where the pain is greatest.— Sacr. Gregor. by Menard, Paris, 1542, p. 252. From all which we come to the conclusion, that the allegations of the Council of Trent on this matter must be pronounced “not proven.” Which, if it were a mere opinion, would be of no great consequence. But when their a ertion is supported by anathema, and every communicant in their Church bound to believe it as nece ary to salvation, it serves to show the cruelty of this Roman mother both to her own children, and to them whom she reckons strangers. It is in vain that the Roman writers attempt to strengthen their cause by appeals to the Greek mysteries. The Greek mysteries and the Latin sacraments are not synonymous. And as concerns this of unction, which (as its epithet “extreme,” which the Romans have added, implies) is designed for persons in articulo mort is , or in exitu vitæ , as we have it in the third chapter, this derives as little countenance from the Greek Church as it does from St. James. For, in the Greek Church, the service of anointing is used to persons in any illne ; and is used by them solely for recovery from sickne , as the following prayer at the application of the oil clearly shows. “O holy Father , the physician of our souls and bodies, who didst send thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ , to heal all diseases, and to deliver us from death, heal this thy servant M. from the bodily infirmity under which he now labours, and raise him up by the grace of Christ .”— Perceval, Roman Schism. King’s Greek Church. Now that this miraculous gift (of healing all manner of diseases) is ceased, there is no reason why the mere ceremony of anointing with oil should continue; which yet is still used in the Church of Rome, and made a sacrament; though it signify nothing; for they do not pretend to heal men by it, nay, they pretend the contrary, because they never use it but in extremity, and where they look upon the person as past recovery; and if they do not think so, they would not use it.— Abp. Til lots on.