The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 6 – Subpart 8
Of extreame Vnction.
Extreame Vnction is a Sacrament of the Church of Rome, wherein the Priest annointeth the eyes, eares, nose, mouth, hands and feete of the sicke person, with consecrated oyle, making the signe of the crosse with his thombe dipt in oyle, and beseecheth God to pardon the sicke person all the sins which he committed by those parts of his body. Then he turneth to the sicke person againe, and annointeth his reines, because in them is the seate of the sinne of lecherie. That done, he washeth his hands with Water and Salt, and casteth the water into the chimney.
All this is done after the reading of the Letanie, wherein fiftie Saints at the least are called vponupon, with diuers prayers which craue health and remission of sinnes for the sicke person.
This Sacrament is administred to none but to sicke persons, which are in danger of death. It is not permitted to be administred to those that go to be hanged, or which go to place a petard vnderunder a gate, or which enter into a dangerous combate, or which go a long voyage by Sea.
Catechesis Tridentina cap. de Extrema vnctione.The Catechisme of the Councell of Trent saith, that this Sacrament serueth to deface and blot out small and veniall sinnes: for touching mortall sinnes, penitentiall absolution hath defaced them before. The Councell of Trent in the 14. Session, saith, that by this Sacrament the rest of mens sins are cleansed.
To ground this pretended Sacrament they produce two places of the Scripture, the first is, Marke 6.13. where it is said, that the Apostles Cast out many diuels, and annointed many that were sicke with oyle, and healed them: The second is, Iames 5.14.15. where it is said, Is any sicke among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray for him, and annoint him with oyle in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp. If he hath committed sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him.
In the exposition of these places, our Aduersaries are diuided into contrary opinions, and their contention is great. Some of them, as Thomas Waldensis, Alphonsus de Castro, Alphons. de Castro libr. de Haeresib. verbo Extrema vnctio.and Maldonat in his Commentarie vponupon Saint Marke, are of opinion, that in the sixt of Saint Marke there is nothing spoken of extreame Vnction; and that both Saint Marke and Saint Iames speake of sacramentall Vnction.
Cardinall Bellarmine on the contrarie denieth that the Vnction spoken of in Saint Marke, Lib de extrema vnctione cap. 2.is the same that is spoken of in Saint Iames, and is not of opinion that that whereof Saint Marke speaketh, is the Sacrament of extreame Vnction.
Cardinall Caietan is of another opinion:Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectis verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali vnctione extremae vnctionis, sed magis de vnctione quam instituit Dominus Iesus in Euangelio à discipulis exercendam in aegrotos. Vide Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. libr. 6. Annot. 339. for he formally denieth that Saint Iames speaketh of sacramentall Vnction, and beleeueth not, that vponupon that place extreame Vnction can be grounded, saying: These words of Saint Iames are not meant of sacramentall Vnction, neither if we consider the words, nor the effect thereof, but rather of the Vnction which the Lord Iesus ordained in the Gospell, to be vsed by his Disciples to the sicke. For the Text saith not, Is anie sicke to death? but absolutely, Is any sicke? and saith, that the effect of that vnction is the easing of the sicke person.
Among these mixtures of opinions, the Councell of Trent takes a new way, saying in the 14. Session, that in the sixt of saint Marke Iesus Christ insinuateth the Sacrament of extreame Vnction. And the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent saith, that our Sauiour giueth a scantling, and a beginning or an entrance. It is the manner of this Councell when it findeth any thing against it, to vse ambiguous and wrested words, which eueryevery man may interpret for his owne aduantage.
All this difference and contention may be drawne to these two heads.
1 The first is, whether this ceremony of annointing the sicke ought to be perpetually in the Church.
2 The second, whether this Vnction practised in the time of the Apostles, is one of the Sacraments of the Christian Church
1 The first question is void, because these two places, one the sixt of Saint Marke, the other, the fift of Saint Iames, say,First point. that this Vnction serued for the healing of the sicke. They annointed diuers sicke persons with oyle, and healed them, Mar. 6. Let them annoint the sicke person with oyle in the name of the Lord, foreign.and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp. Whereby it appeareth, that while the gifts of healing, and the vertue of miraculous restoring of health, were in the Church, it was expedient to obserue that Vnction▪ as an exterior signe of the vertue of God wherunto God gaue efficacie. But since that vertue ceassed, there is no more reason to obserue that ceremony, then if a blind man should still vse spectacles: or if one should vse to combe himselfe when all his haire is fallen off and gonc. Interior vertue ceassing, exterior obseruation ought to ceasse. God himselfe giueth vsus an example thereof, in this, that he tooke the tree of life from Adam, when by sinne he fell into death. Not that life depended vponupon that tree, but because God will not hauehave vnprofitable signes.
2 From hence it appeareth▪ that Saint Iames speaketh not of extreme Vnction, seeing he speaketh of an Vnction whereby a man is restored to health. The Vnction is extreme which is giuen in extremitie, but this vnction is giuen to those which are to liue still, and that being restored to health might in the same necessitie vfe the same remedy againe.
3 Adde hereunto, that Saint Iames speaketh not of oyle consecrated by a Bishop, nor of oyle kept in the Church; for the Apostles (in that healing) vsed such oyle indifferently as was at hand; neither doth he speake of that heape of ceremonies at this day vsed in the …hurch of Rome. And as the Apostles annointed all those with oyle indifferently which were brought vntounto them, so Saint Iames makes no distinction of persons. But the Church of Rome giueth extreme Vnction to none but to those that are baptized, and which hauehave receiued the Sacraments of the Eucharist and of Penance, and which are not by iustice condemned to die.
4 The commandement therefore of saint Iames ought yet at this day to be practised, touching the prayer of faith made by Priests or Ministers, to the which remission of sinnes is promised, but not touching corporall annointing, which was vsed for healing. So Christians in the first ages vsed it. Tertullian against Scapula, chap. 4. saith, that the Emperour Seuerus *Seuerus Proculum Christianum, qui Toparchiō cognominabatur Euhodiae procuratorem, qui eum per oleum curauerat requisiuit.vntill he died, kept Proculus a Christian in his house, which had healed him of a disease by annointing him with oyle. And Sulpitius *Aegram intuens dari sibi oleū postulat, quod cum benedixisset, in os puellae vim sancti liquoris infudit.in the life of Martin, saith, that Martin healed a maide of the palsey, by powring oyle into her mouth. We hauehave the like example in*Hic à sancto Nepotiano visitatus & sancto oleo perunctus redditur sanitati. Gregory of Tours, in his 1. booke 46. chapter. Cassander, in the 22. Article of his Consultation, reciteth the forme of the ancient annointing of the sicke, which is worthy here to be set downe. In times past (saith he) the sicke person was annointed with oyle (which was called Oyle for sicke persons, or for lunaticke persons, or such as were possessed with euill spirits,) in all their members, but specially in that member or place where his paine was, and then they added this forme of praier: I annoint thee with sacred oyle▪ in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, beseeching the mercy of God, our onelyonly Lord and God, that all the paines and griefes of thy body being driuen away, thou maist recouer thy strength and thy health, in such manner, that b…ing healed by the operation of this mysterie, and by the vnction of this sacred oyle, and by our prayer, thou maiest receiue thy first and strongest health, by the power of our Lord. Words which testifie, that the principall end of this vnction, was the healing of the body.*Deus qui famulo tuo Ezechiae ter quinos annos ad vitā donasti, ita & hunc famulum tuū à lecto aegritudinis erigat ad salutem. Respice domine famulū tuum ininfirmitate corporis laborantem, vt castigationibus tuis emundatus cōtinuo se sentiat tua medicina sanatum. To the same end are the most part of the prayers, which the Priest saith ouer the sicke; specially that wherein he prayeth, that the sicke person may be healed by that medicine.
That which Saint Iames addeth, is nothing repugnant thereunto, when he saith, If he hath committed sinnes, they shall be forgiuen him. For those words are as much in …ffect, as if he had said, that health shall be restored vntounto him, those sinnes for the which God had afflicted him, being pardoned. Iesus Christ himselfe teacheth vsus that, Matth. 9.5. where he saith, that to say vntounto a sicke person, Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee, and to say, Take vp thy bed and walke, are all one in effect. For, the cause of the euill being taken away, by necessity the euill ceasseth. Saint Iames therefore in that place followeth the words of his Maister. Besides, he attributeth not this remission of sinnes to the vertue of the oyle, but to prayer made in faith, saying, The prayer of faith shall saue the sicke, and the Lord shall raise him vp; if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiuen him.
6 Thereupon our aduersaries aske vsus, why S. Iames in that place speaketh of sicke persons, and not of deafe and blind men. But this is not to dispute against vsus, but to demand of Saint Iames a reason of his speech. It may be that the Apostle by one kind of corporall infirmity, did also vnderstand others: and it may also be, that Vnction was vsed to none but to those that lay sicke in their beds, and that they vsed not that kind of remedy for deafe, blind and impotent persons, as we may see of the lame person spoken of, Acts 3.2.
It is to no purpose to obiect, that many also besides Priests had the gift of healing; and that therefore it was not needfull to call them to performe this annointing to heale the sicke. For then God more commonly conferred those gifts vponupon Pastors, and in a greater measure then vponupon others, to authorize their preaching.
It is also to no purpose to say, that if as often as Priests annointed the sicke they were healed, no man would hauehave died in those times: for many had no desire to call them, and many had not the meanes nor the leisure. And Saint Iames did not promise that they should heale all without exception. For in the ninth of Saint Marke, the Apostles could not heale a man possest with a diuell. And it is not vnlikely, that when God reuealed to an Apostle, that the time of the sicke parties death approched, the same Apostle abstained from vsing of that remedie which he knew would not preuaile.
Now for the second point,The second point, whether extreme Vnction be a Sacrament. which is to know whether the Vnction which the Apostles and their Disciples vsed, may be called a Sacrament.
Touching that I say, If we take the word Sacrament in the same sence which the ancient Fathers and Romish Bible ordinarily take it, that is, for a mysterie, or for a sacred signe, nothing hindereth but that we may call this Vnction a Sacrament, seeing it was a sacred signe of the grace and assistance of God.
But this Vnction cannot be called a Sacrament, in the same sence that Baptisme and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments, that is, sacred signes and seales of the Couenant made by God in Iesus Christ, instituted by Iesus Christ himselfe; I say that in this sence, the Vnction whereof Saint Iames speaketh cannot be called a Sacrament.
1 For Sacraments taken in this sence, are instituted for the health of the soule, but that Vnction specially and principally serued for the health of the body.
2 Not onelyonly the practise of Sacraments (as of Baptisme and of the Lords Supper) but also the institution of them by Iesus Christ are found in the Gospell. But none of the Euangelists do recite the institution of this Sacrament, neither where, when, nor how Iesus Christ did institute it. OnelyOnly we see a practise of this Vnction by healing of the sicke, which of a miraculous medicine is changed into an ordinary Sacrament, laden with a thousand ceremonies after the custome and manner of superstition, which is to multiply ceremonies after the vertue is lost. I do not deny that this Vnction was commanded by Iesus Christ: for it is not credible that the Apostles did any thing without his commandement. But eueryevery thing which Iesus Christ commanded his Apostles to do, is not a Sacrament. He commanded his Apostles to do many things which were personall to themselues, and which ought not to be perpetuall: as when he commanded them to go and preach the Gospell, without money, and without prouision for themselues. And if this Vnction were a perpetuall Sacrament, the Euangelists would carefully hauehave recited the Institution and the commandement thereof to be perpetually obserued in the Church.
3 The Sacraments of the Christian Church ought to be administred in the Church: but this extreme Vnction is neuer administred but in particular mens houses.
4 The fruit & vse of this extreme Vnction witnesseth that it is no Sacrament. For the Councell of Trent in the 7. Session, in the 6. and 7 Canon, saith, That Sacraments containe the grace which they conferre, and that they conferre the same to those which duly receiue them. Therefore the sacramentall words of other Sacraments are conceiued at the present time when they are conferred, as in Confirmation, Signo te signo crucis, & confirmo te Chrismate salutis, I marke thee with the signe of the crosse, and confirme thee with the chrysme of saluation. And in Baptisme, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. and so in all the rest. There is none but this Sacrament onelyonly, which doth not conferre grace, but onelyonly maketh a request: which saith not, I heale thee, or I absolue thee, but onelyonly asketh health and remission of sinnes. Then if it be a Sacrament, it must be an optatiue Sacrament, and not a Sacrament conferring the grace of God, an irregular Sacrament, which by his signes doth not represent graces but desires. For our aduersaries might perceiue, that if they had said, I heale thee, they had bene confuted by experience, because very few sicke persons escaped death after extreme Vnction, which was carried to none but to those that were at the point of death, as if that Sacrament serued onelyonly to end life, and not to prolong it. They might also consider, that if they said, I forgiue thee thy sins, this Sacrament should vsurpe vponupon the Sacrament of Penance.
5 In the meane time by this manner of optatiue speaking, they imprint a scruple in mens minds: for seeing that of two things which the Priest requireth of God, that is, healing of the sicke person, and remission of sins, it appeareth that God doth not heare him in the one: how then shall we be assured that God heareth him in the other? seeing that the place of Saint Iames whereon they partly ground this Sacrament, equally promiseth health and remission of sinnes?
6 Lastly, …eeing that before this Sacrament the sicke person hath receiued absolution by the which all his sinnes are remitted what sinnes were they which still remained to be remitted by this extreme vnction? If by the Sacrament of Penance mortall sinnes are remitted, why should not the same Sacrament remit small and veniall sinnes? Why should not that which effecteth the greater effect the lesser? Thereby it manifestly appeareth, that this Sacrament is vnprofitable, and is like a plaister laid vponupon a wound that is whole, and which seru…th to aske remission of sinnes, which are said to be pardoned before.
7 To prooue this Sacrament to be new, and vnknowne in the ancient Church, it app…areth by this, that there is no trace or signe thereof in all antiquitie. For the Canons of the Councell of Nice translated out of the Arabian tongue, are an inuention of Turrian the Iesuite: for, (if it may be credited,) none before him euer knew what the Canons of that so famous a Councell were. Innocent the first which wrote in anno 407. or 408. speaketh of this vnction, but calls it not a Sacrament. And eueryevery man knowes how much all those Decretals are suspected of falshood, and to be of small au…horitie. Bellarmine setteth downe a place of Chrysostome in the 3. booke of Priests, but such as placeth not this vnction among the Sacraments. The places of Saint Augustine which he produceth are drawne out of the Sermons De tempore, and out of the booke of the Glasse, and out of the book of the Visitation of the sicke, which are suspected bookes. The oldest witnesse that speaketh, is the eleuenth Councell of Chaalons vponupon Soame▪ holden 800 yeares after the birth of Iesus Christ;Tit. 21. De secundis nuptijs. cap. Vir autē. In Glossa. Quid enim impediret hanc iterari cum nō sit Sacramentum? and yet was but a particular Synode. But notwithstanding that Councell, the Canonist Doctors which hauehave written Glosses vponupon the Decretals, are of opinion that extreame vnction is not a Sacrament. What reason is there (say they) why it should not be reiterated, seeing it is no Sacrament.
Of the Sacrament of Orders.
Sect. 9 The conferring of sacred Orders in the Romish Church is called a Sacrament. Those orders are 7. viz. Porters, Readers, Exorcists or Coniurers, Acolyths or such as minister to the Priest at Masse, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests, vnderunder the which Bishops are contained. For the Church of Rome doth not make two orders of Priests and Bishops.
Our aduersaries do not say that Iesus Christ did institute these seuen Orders aforesaid: and no Sacrament is of force which was not instituted by Iesus Christ. But they say, that Iesus Christ did execute and exercise those seuen Orders, and supplied those functions. They say that he did the office of a porter, when he said, I am that doore of the sheepe, Ioh. 10.7. That he did the office of a Reader, when he tooke the booke of the prophesie of Esay, and read it in the Synagogue, Luk. 4.16.17. That he did the office of an Exorcist, when he draue out wicked spirits. Pope Inocennt 3. in the first booke of the mysteries of the Masse, cap. 3. saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of an Acolyth (or a seruer of the Priest at Masse,) when he said (I am the light of the world:) for that office was to beare waxe candels. And in the fourth chap. he saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Subdeacon, when he washed his disciples feet, and in the fift chapter he saith, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Deacon, when he distributed the Sacrament, and when he waked the disciples when they slept, Luk. 22.45.46 Lastly all of them say, that Iesus Christ did the office of a Priest, when he sacrificed his body in the Eucharist, vnderunder the signe of bread. But which of these seuen offices did he, when he preached the Gospell? That is a point wherewith those subtile Doctors do not trouble themselues: and in truth it is not a necessarie thing, for a man may be a Priest among them without being a preacher. There rested nothing but to make Iesus Christ an Abbot, or a Cardinal, or a Pope; for the Scripture would hauehave furnished these Doctors with places which they might wrest to their purpose with the like dexteritie.
EueryEvery one of these orders are conferred by words and ceremonies cleane differing one from the other. Whereupon it followeth, that each Order is a Sacrament apart, and that it is an abuse by them committed to reckon but seuen Sacraments in the Church of Rome, when there are thirteene.
To examine each of these Orders, were as much as to picke strawes, and to shew diligence where there is no need. The Order of Priests only deserueth and requireth some discourse, for that vponupon the puritie and lawfull exercise of Priesthood, the integritie of all other Orders, and the puritie of all religion dependeth.
Whether the order of Pristhood be a Sacrament.
The office of the Priest, or Minister, or Pastor of the Church, is conferred by imposition of the hands of those which conferre that Order, and which establish a Pastor in his office. This imposition of hands was vsed in the old Testament, as you may see Numbers 27. and 34. of Deut. where by Gods commandement Moses laid his hand vponupon Iosua to establish him in his office. This custome was practised by the Apostles wh…n they established Pastors. The Apostle Saint Paul saith to his disciple Timothee, 1. Tim, 4.14. Despise not the gift that is in thee, which was giuen thee by prophesie, and the laying on of the hands of the company of the Eldership. And in the 5. and 22. Lay hands sodenly on no man.
The question betweene vsus is, whether this Order may be called a Sacrament. I answer, that if the word Sacrament be taken simply for a sacred signe or for a mysterie, which is the sence wherein this word is ordinarily taken among the Latine Fathers, and in the translation of the Romish Church, we …asiely admit this imposition of hands to be called a Sacrament, because it is a visible signe of an inuisible grace, vsed by the Apostles.
But to be called a Sacrament, in the same sence that Baptisme and the holy Supper are called, there are many things that hinder. For this imposition of hands, is not a sacred signe of the couenant of God in Iesus Christ, and is not common to all the faithfull: neither is the expresse Institution thereof, found in the histo…ie of the Gospell. For Iesus Christ did not establish his Apostles in their offices by laying his hands on them, but by breathing on them, and saying vntounto them, Receiue the holy Ghost, whose sinnes soeuer you remit, they shall be remitted, &c.
The Church of Rome hath a particular reason not to place sacred Orders among the Sacraments: for by prohibiting Marriage to Priests, and calling a Priests Marriage sacriledge, it maketh the Sacraments fight together, and causeth one to exclude the other, and to become sacriledge.
But this disputation, whether the ordaining of Priests may be called a Sacrament, is not the principall difference betweene vsus; and we could be content to call it a Sacrament, so Priesthood did not change nature, and that the functions thereof were ruled and limited by the word of God. But the corruption therein is so great, that Priesthood at this day is not the ministery of the Gospell. For of Preachers of the Gospell and Ministers of the Sacraments, Priests are become sacrificers of the body of Christ, which they maintaine to be a reall and propitiatory sacrifice. Their office is to make Iesus Christ with words, to sacrifice him to his Father. By the same corruption the bishopricke among them is become an earthly principality, and a dignity of a Prince of the Popes Monarchie. This requireth a chapter apart.