Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 42
XLII. That Sacramental Ʋnction is not to be uſed to the Sick.
Anſwer.
THERE are many things Sacramental, which are not Sacraments: and others called Sacraments by the Ancients, which are not properly ſo; as the Sign of the Croſs, the Bread given to Catechumens, waſhing of the Saints Feet, &c. becauſe they were Signs and Symbols of ſome ſacred thing. So was Ʋnction; but not appointed by our Saviour to be a Sacrament of the New Teſtament. This he ſhould have proved, if he could have perform'd any thing; and that it confers grace from the work done; or hath a power by Divine Inſtitution, to cauſe holineſs and righteouſneſs in us, as the Roman Catechiſm defines a Sacrament. But it was impoſſible; and therefore he uſes theſe dubious words, Sacramental Ʋnction: which we ſee no reaſon to uſe; unleſs we could hope for ſuch miraculous Cures, as were performed therewith by the Apoſtles.
V. Jam. 4.His firſt Text, V. Jam. 4. hath not a word of Sacrament, or Sacramental in it: and plainly ſpeaks not of their Extream Ʋnction, which is for the health of the Soul, when a man is a dying: but of anointing for the health of the Body, and the reſtoring a man to life. Therefore he might have ſpared his Diſcourſe about the matter and form, &c. of a Sacrament: for their Sacrament is not here deſcribed, but an holy Rite, for a purpoſe as much different from theirs, as the Soul is from the Body, and Life from Death.
VI. Mark 13.Mark VI. 13. His own beſt Writers confeſs belongs not to this matter; containing only an adumbration, and a figure of the Sacrament, but was not the Sacrament it ſelf, as Menochius expounds the place, according to the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, which ſaith, this Sacrament (as they call it) was inſinuated in VI. Mark: Now that is ſaid to be inſinuated, which is not expreſly propounded (mark that) but adumbrated and obſcurely indicated. See how ignorant this man is, in his own Religion.
XVI. Mark 18. makes not any mention of anointing, but only of laying on of hands: and yet this man hath the face to ask (as if the Cauſe were to be carried by impudence) if they are not ſick in their wits who oppoſe ſo plain Scriptures? When nothing is plainer, than that theſe places ſpeak of Miraculous Cures; as they themſelves would confeſs, If they would ſpeak the truth (to uſe his words) and ſhame the Devil. For Cardinal Cajetan, a man of no ſmall learning, expreſly declares, neither of the two places where anointing is mentioned, ſpeak of Sacramental Ʋnction. Particularly upon thoſe words of St. James (which is the only place the beſt of them dare rely upon) he thus writes. It doth not appear that he ſpeaks of the Sacramental Ʋnction of Extream Ʋnction, either from the words, or from the effect: but rather of the Unction our Lord appointed, in the Goſpel, for the cure of the Sick. For the Text doth not ſay, Is any man ſick unto death; but abſolutely, is any man ſick? And the effect, was the relief of the ſick man, on whom forgiveneſs of ſins was beſtowed only conditionally: Whereas Extream Ʋnction is not given, but when a man is at the point of death, and directly tends, as its form ſheweth, to remiſſion of ſins. Beſides, St. James bids them call more Elders than one unto the ſick man to pray, and anoint him; which is diſagreeing to the Rite of Extream Ʋnction. Nothing but the force of truth could extort this ingenuous Interpretation from him: for he was no Friend to Proteſtants; but would not lie for the Service of his Cauſe. And before him, ſuch Great men, as Hugo de S. Victori, Bonaventure, Alex. Halenſis, Altiſiodor. all taught, that Extream Ʋnction was not inſtituted by Chriſt.
His Fathers ſay not a word of this Extream Unction. Both Origen and Bede, as Eſtius acknowledges, accommodate the words of St. James unto the more grievous ſort of ſins, to the remiſſion of which there is need of the Miniſtry of the Keys; and ſo they refer it to another Sacrament (as they now call it) viz. that of Abſolution. See the Faith of this man, who thus endeavours to impoſe upon his Readers; as he doth alſo in the citing of St. Chryſoſtome, who ſaith the ſame with the other two; and of St. Auſtin, who only recites the Text of St. James in his Book de Speculo, without adding any words of his own to ſignify the ſenſe. As for the 215. Serm. de Temp. it is none of his. Next to this, he makes us ſay,