set a most sure Guard about Christians to make good the end of their Life For what reason therefore does the same Council tell us that the sick Person having been anointed does sometimes when it is expedient for the welfare of the Soul obtain the Recovery of his Bodily Health Why I say do they in the Doctrine of this their Sacrament mention an accident so impertinent to the Nature and Design of it as the Recovery of Bodily Health I answer because they are driven to it by an extreme necessity of feigning some resemblance between the use of their Vnction and of that in St. James For 't is so plain that St. James promises bodily Health upon what he prescribes to be done that the Wit of Man is not able to disguise it And therefore it was absolutely necessary to give some hint of the same thing in their Doctrine about Extreme Vnction tho he must either have no Eyes or wink hard who sees not that 't is thrust in most impertinently and against the whole tenour of their Doctrine and Practice which plainly shew that 't is not administred by them for the prolonging of Life but for the Assistence of the Soul at the Hour of Death Which these Men are so sensible of that they dare not venture their Cause upon this weak Attempt of bending their Sacrament to the Text by pretending some regard in their Unction to the Recovery of Bodily Health but find themselves obliged also to bend the Text as unreasonably to their Sacrament by pretending that St. James does not speak of restoring Health only in those Words of saving the Sick and raising him up but of cleansing and strengthning the Soul too as Bellarmin and Estius would make us believe By which Artifice they have not done their Cause so much Service as they have discovered good will to it since we cannot but observe that themselves were conscious how impossible it is to make the Text and their Sacrament meet without forcing both the one and the other by an unnatural Representation And yet even thus much violence will never bring them together so long as 't is manifest that to the use of this Rite of Anointing in St. James as it is by him required the Recovery of Bodily Health is absolutely promised which they can with no Face pretend to be the constant or even frequent effect of their Extreme Unction since their Doctrine and Practice proclaim it to be the Sacrament of the Dying As for the forgiveness of Sins mentioned in the following Words of St. James it was promised upon a supposition that the sick Person had committed Sins And if he had committed Sins they shall be forgiven him Which plainly seems to be the supposition of a Case that was not common to all that were healed upon receiving the Vnction mentioned by the Apostle And that even this Promise does not afford the least ground for the Vnction of the Roman Church will appear when I come to explain the several Expressions in the Text. In the mean time to shew that the Power of Truth does sometimes prevail upon Men of the best note in the Church of Rome I shall close this Point with the Confession of no meaner a Man than Cardinal Cajetan who determines thus upon this place of St. James It neither appears by the Words nor by the Effect that he speaks of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather of that Vnction which our Lord appointed in the Gospel to be used upon sick Persons by his Disciples For the Text does not say Is any Man sick unto Death but absolutely Is any Man sick And it makes the effect to be the recovery of the Sick and speaks but conditionally of the forgiveness of Sins Whereas Extreme Vnction is not given but when a Man is almost at the point of Death and as the Form of Words then used sufficiently shews it tends directly to the forgiveness of Sins This was said like an honest Man and if all Men of sense would say what they think this Controversy with many more would soon be at an end §. 3. The true Interpretation of St. James 's Words THO what hath been said is enough to deprive the Roman Vnction of all relief and support from this place of Scripture yet for the benefit of those who possibly have not well considered the Text of which we have been speaking I shall first offter the plain meaning of it and shew for what end and purpose anointing with Oil was prescribed by St. James and then confirm the Interpretation by those Arguments that led me to it and by such Answers as may be sufficient to remove our Adversaries Objections against it We say then that several extraordinary Gifts were by the Spirit dispersed amongst the first Believers for the establishing of Christianity in the World and that one kind of these were the (g) 1 Cor. xii 9 28 30. Gifts of Healing That they who had this Power were directed by the Impulse of the Spirit when or upon what Persons to exert it That being thus directed they called upon the Name of the Lord with assurance of the Event and the Sick were accordingly restored to their Health That sometimes they did in this manner heal the Sick upon whom Diseases had been inflicted as a Punishment for some Sins they had been guilty of That in this Direction of St. James Is any Man sick c. he refers to these extraordinary Gifts of Healing and that he prescribes Anointing the sick Person with Oil in that case only when the Elders knew by the Spirit that the Gift of Healing was to be shewn and that the Lord would raise him up So that in case of Sickness St. James directs the sick Person to send for the Elders of the Church and adds a particular motive so to do from the Gift of Healing which then flourished in the Church viz. that if it seemed good to God which the Elders would assuredly know by the Instruction of the Spirit he should by their praying over him be restored to his Health In which case to signify the Supernatural Gift of God in raising him up they were accordsng to Custom to anoint him with Oil. Whereupon the Event would shew that their Prayer was not the Prayer of vain Confidence but of Faith and that they had not in vain anointed the Sick with Oil in testimony of their assurance of his Recovery for as he says the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up And to advise the sick Man more effectually to take this Religious Course he adds another Motive that if that Sickness were sent to punish him for some Sins that he had committed even that should not hinder his Recovery any more than if it had been inflicted only for the trial of his Faith and Patience for his Sins should be forgiven him In which Interpretation the main point of Controversy that remains between us and
first 800 Years He said no such thing nor supposed any such thing but only that for 800 Years they esteemed St. James's Unction to belong primarily to Bodily Cures which they might do and yet in less time than 800 Years they might bring in an Unction different from that of St. James though both of them were primarily designed for Bodily Cures In the following Discourse I have shewn that they not only might do so but that they did do so But I pass by this till you give further occasion to display the Artifice of these Insinuations which for the present I shall leave to your Reader 's Diligence to gather if he will take the pains to compare you with the Defender in this Article The other Tale is and 't is Brother to the former That Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as the Defender affirmed he did who affirmed that Cardinal Cajetan freely confessed the Words of St. James could belong to no other than Bodily Cures This Sir quite disheartned me for I took the Cardinal's Confession to be so positive that I translated it out of the Cardinal himself and inserted it into a convenient Place of the following Book ‖ Disc p. 13. where any one may find it and so may judg betwixt you and us in this Matter For I intend not to produce the Place here too and to argue the Point precisely because 't is so clear that there is no need of words to make an honest Man understand it and all the Words in the World will signify nothing if a Man be not so honest as he should be The only Pretence you have that the Cardinal did not positively say what the Defender affirmed him to have said is that the Defender did not give the Cardinal 's own Words but what he conceived to be his Sence For he did not translate him as I have done But Reverend Father it must be such another Man as you seem to be who reads the Cardinal's Words and will not allow him to be as positive for us as the Defender said he was But the worst of all is this that you do upon this very occasion accuse the Defender of Falsification that is of Falsifying Cajetan as you tell us in the Margin I told him said you First that Cardinal Cajetan did not positively say as he affirmed he did So that by your own Confession you told him so in your former Book and therefore this seems to be a very deliberate Business and you stand in it still But then you say what if he had Why truly then the Defender did not falsify Cajetan as you it seems are resolved to say that he does And thus where you accuse the Defender of one Falsification you are your self guilty of two Falsifications in the compass of five Lines one of which is so much the more inexcusable because it consists in accusing another falsly of the same Crime For these Reasons Sir we desire to be excused as to believing that all Antiquity goes this way and that way because you say so But because I would not be thought unreasonable I shall be content if instead of proving Antiquity to be for ye you will answer the Arguments of the Second Part to the contrary Only I desire you not to repeat any thing you have said here which you will find satisfied there For instance that the ancient Prayers made mention of Remission of Sins as well as of Bodily Cures for you will find that * Disc p. 99 100 106. this has been considered to your Hand And that your Work may still be less I think it were good advice if you would spare the Defender's pains too a little that is to say whereas you have solemnly ranged by Pages and Articles his Calumnies Falsifications false Translations Unsincerities uncharitable Accusations wilful Mistakes of your Doctrine affected Misapplications c. False Impositions Authors misapplied and plain Contradictions you would do well to put out an Advertisement signifying and confessing that there is not one Tittle of all this true nor any Colour for any part of this spiteful Charge excepting in the Translation of the 32 Can. of Sess vi of C. Tr. which you note p. 48 of your Reply In which the Defender trusting to one to translate that Canon for him who did not sufficiently remark the pointing of it was led into that Mistake which you there observe and which your self in the same place in good measure acquit him of by confessing that he understood that same Canon aright but in the very next Page And had you only added that he made no use of that Mistake in the management of his Argument from that Canon as in Justice you should have done you would then have exposed only your own Disposition to Cavil but have done as little prejudice by this as you have by all the rest to the Defenders Honesty or Understanding And 't is so very small a matter which here you tax him for and he I assure you has such an untoward business against you in this very place that I cannot afford to abate any thing of the foresaid Advice to confess once for all I know not but he may be perswaded to tarry a Month or thereabouts to see whether you will be thus ingenuous and discreet You may expect to have employment enough besides in vindicating the Doctrine of your Articles for I am told that God willing you will have another Defence in a little time and we are apt to think that it will give you and Monsieur de Meaux another Years work to put Words together I have but one Word more Reply p. 188. p. 173. The Bishop begs of Almighty God in the anguish of his Soul c. you conjure the Defender by all that is Sacred c. by the Eternal God and his Son Christ Jesus c. Reverend Sir Men that are not in earnest may use the most amazing Expressions to make the World believe they are But be not deceived God is not mocked as you will find And in the mean time those that are honest and wise will not so much consider who they are that break forth into the most vehement Exclamations as who they are that bring the clearest Proofs Sir I am Your Friend and Servant c. THE CONTENTS PART I. That the Places of Scripture produced for it are against it Sect. 1. WHAT the Doctrine of the Roman Church is concerning Extreme Vnction Pag. 1 § 2. That Extreme Vnction can by no means be proved from St. James chap. v. 14 15. Pag. 6 § 3. The true Interpretation of St. James 's Words Pag. 13 § 4. What was signified by Anointing with Oil in St. Mark Pag. 16 § 5. What is meant by the Prayer of Faith and by having committed Sins which shall be forgiven Pag. 24 § 6. That our Interpretation of the Vse of Anointing in St. James and not our Adversaries is favoured by the following Passages to
the Soul obtains the recovery of his Bodily Health But then as to the Persons who are designed whether to receive or to administer this Sacrament this also is delivered and that not obscurely in the foregoing Words For it is there shewn that the proper Ministers of this Sacrament are the Presbyters of the Church by which Word here we are not to understand the more Aged or Honourable amongst the People but either Bishops or Priests c. It is declared also that this Unction is to be ministred to the Sick but to those especially who are so dangerously ill that they seem to be past Recovery whence it is also called the †Sacramentum excuntium Sacrament of the Dying If the sick Persons recover after having received this Unction they may again be relieved by it when the like danger of Death happens Wherefore they are by no means to be hearkened to who against the manifest and clear Sense of the Apostle James teach either that this Unction is a device of Men or a Rite received from the Fathers that has neither a Divine Command nor a Promise of Grace and who assert that it is of no longer use as having been applied in the Primitive Church to the Gift of Healing only or who say that the Rite and Usage of the Holy Roman Church in the Administration of this Sacrament is repugnant to the Sense of St. James and therefore to be altered Lastly who affirm that this Extreme Unction may without Sin be contemn'd by the Faithful For all these things are most evidently contrary to the perspicuous Words of so great an Apostle c. So that in the Church of Rome Extreme Unction is a Sacrament administred to dying Persons the proper Effect whereof is the cleansing of them from the Remains of Sin by the Grace of the Holy Ghost and as appears by the Form of Words used in the Administration it is applied in order to the forgiveness of all Sins that have been committed by means of any of the Senses That Authority which they pretend for this Sacrament is indeed the highest for they say it was instituted by Christ The proof which they produce for this Institution is that it was insinuated by St. Mark and publish'd by St. James That the Evangelist did insinuate it and the other Apostle publish it we have the Word and Authority of the Council of Trent But I will be bold to say that if Men are not content to rely upon the Authority of the Council but will examine its proofs they may easily be convinced that neither did St. James publish nor St. Mark insinuate any such Doctrine or Practice as it has established And therefore the wisest Passage in the Declaration of the Council concerning this matter is that they are by no means to be hearkened unto who teach otherwise than it teaches For if we can but persuade Men to give us the hearing or the reading we are very confident to make it plain that not our Objections against this pretended Sacrament but their Pleas for it are most evidently contrary to the perspicuous Words both of the Evangelist who is said to insinuate it and of the Apostle who is said to publish it §. 2. That Extreme Unction can by no means be proved from St. James chap. v. 14 15. THE clearest proof they have for this pretended Sacrament are doubtless those Words of St. James ch v. 14 15. 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 Now supposing that the Institution of a Sacrament were implied in these Words and that the outward Sign thereof were anointing with Oil yet this could not by any means be the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction in the Church of Rome For according to St. James the Sick Person was to be anointed in order to the raising of him up or his Recovery from Sickness But the Sick are anointed in that Church for purging away the remains of their Sins when they seem to be past hopes of Recovery And tho perhaps one or other may recover afterward yet this is meerly accidental and besides the intention of administring their Sacrament which they therefore call the Sacrament of the Dying Nay the Sick Person in St. James was not to be anointed only in order to his Recovery but his Recovery was certainly to follow for 't is said the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Which one Observation is sufficient to overthrow all the hope they have in this Text. For St. James does indeed advise anointing with Oil but 't is in such a Case when most assuredly the sick Person should not die The Church of Rome also does require the same but 't is when nothing can be well expected but the Death of the Patient Now which way they can gather a Sacrament of Extreme Vnction from an Authority that requires an Vnction which is not Extreme how they can prove a Sacrament which they pretend to be proper for dying Persons from those Words of Scripture that mention a Rite never used upon dying Persons a Man must have a great deal of Wit or rather a good share of the contrary to be able to imagine Which one thing seems to have been so well considered by †Bellar. de Extr. Unct. c. 3. Dico secundo illa verba duo c. Bellarmin and others after him that they found it necessary to interpret these Words The Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up not so much of restoring Health to the Body as of cleansing forgiving and quieting the Soul And so they have made St. James to use Expressions in such a Sense as never Man of Understanding did either before or after him till the Cause of the Church of Rome made it necessary for these Men to interpret Words against all Rules of Speaking For according to the perpetual use of Words what is it to save the Sick but to save him from his Sickness What is it to raise up a sick Man but to restore him to Health And who would interpret these Expressions otherwise but they whose Cause is desperate if they be not otherwise interpreted But if it be asked what Grounds they pretend for this Liberty of Interpretation you must know that the Word saving indifferently refers to the healing of the Body or to the restoring of the Soul and the Word raising tho properly used of something that belongs to the Body yet by a Metaphor frequently used in Scripture signifies also to drive away sadness and dulness from the Mind Which is true indeed but nothing to the purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For tho these Words saving and raising may have
sure the Stream runs on this Side I shall need to do no more than to produce that Famous Passage in the Council of Trent concerning this matter which Soave has given us an account of We have already observed that part of the Doctrine of the Council concerning Extreme Unction was this that it was instituted by our Lord Christ as a Sacrament of the New Testament truly and properly so called INSINVATED by St. Mark and published to the Faithful by St. James Now says the Historian if any marvel why it is said in the first Head of the Doctrine that this Sacrament is insinuated by Christ our Lord in St. Mark and published in St. James tho the Reason of what goes before and of that which follows does require that it should not be said INSINVATED but INSTITVTED he may know that it was first written so History of the Council of Trent p. 351. But a Divine having observed that the Apostles who anointed the Sick of whom St. Mark speaketh were not Priests because the Church of Rome holdeth that Priesthood was conferred upon them not till the last Supper it seemed a Contradiction to affirm that the Unction which they gave was a Sacrament and that Priests only are Ministers of it Whereunto some who held it to be a Sacrament and at that time instituted by Christ did answer that Christ commanding them to minister the Unction made them Priests concerning that action only yet it was thought too dangerous to affirm it absolutely Therefore instead of the Word Institutum they put Insinuatum Which Word what it may signify in such a matter every one may judg who understandeth what Insinuare is and doth apply it to that which the Apostles then did and to that which was commanded by St. James and to the Determination made by this Council I am far from thinking that Divine's Reason against St. Mark 's speaking of a Sacramental Unction to be the very best that the Case affords However we see that tho the Council had a good mind to build their Doctrine upon St. Mark 's Text they yet distructed the Foundation and could not heartily venture upon it and therefore they durst not say their Sacrament was here Instituted But on the other hand they were loth to lose the Countenance of a Text in a Cause wherein they needed it so very much and therefore they were content to say modestly that it was Insinuated there A hard Case indeed that the Holy Synod should have so little Judgment as to say Instituted at first and so little honesty as to put Insinuated afterward instead of Instituted For I think no other account can be given of this but that themselves would fain insinuate what they durst not say that the Words of St. Mark did after a sort contain an Institution of their Sacrament tho their shifting plainly shewed that they were convinced of the contrary But that place belonging quite to another matter i. e. to the Gift of Healing and all reason requiring that St. James's Words be interpreted to the same Sence with St. Mark 's this alone is enough to overthrow their Pretence of proving Extreme Unction from St. James And here it may be observed that the Power of Truth has extorted from some or other of our Adversaries the Confession of both the Premises which infer our Conclusion That Vnction which St. James prescribes is the very same with that which is mentioned by St. Mark For this we have Maldonate and some few others with him But St. Mark does not speak of Extreme or of Sacramental Vnction For this we have Bellarmin and a great many more The Conclusion is evident Therefore neither does St. James prescribe any such thing And thus much for the first way of finding out the use and meaning of this Ceremony whereof St. James speaks viz. by comparing him with St. Mark §. 5. What is meant by the Prayer of Faith and by having committed Sins which shall be forgiven THE second way I propounded was to consider the meaning of that place where St. James mentions Anointing the Sick with Oil. I have already shewn that those Expressions of saving the Sick and the Lord 's raising him up cannot without extravagant Liberty be understood of any thing else but the Recovery of Bodily Health § 2. and I have laid down that Interpretation of the whole Text which this Supposition requires § 3. and shewn that the Unction there spoken of must therefore have been the Ceremony of a miraculous Cure Now there are but two passages there that seem to require any farther Illustration which I shall now consider more particularly and then leave the Reader to give his Judgment The one is the Prayer of Faith the other If he has committed Sins they shall be forgiven him Now 1. By the Prayer of Faith we must necessarily understand Prayer accompanied with a persuasion wrought by the Impulse of the Spirit that God would raise up the Sick not with that Faith only which is a persuasion of the general Promises of God made to the whole Church since there is no such absolute Promise in the Gospel that God will grant Health to the Sick upon our Prayer But St. James affirms that the Prayer of Faith shall save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Which makes it plain that the Faith here mentioned was the persuasion of the Elders that it was God's pleasure that at that time the Gift of Healing should take place For as I said before Prayer grounded upon the belief of the Promises of the New Covenant or upon that Faith only which is common to all Christians cannot warrant the obtaining of Health or of any other Temporal Blessing in particular Nor is this the only place where Faith is taken for a persuasion that God will do a Miracle For thus we are to understand it in that Saying of St. Paul (s) 1 Cor. xiii 2. Though I have all Faith so that I could remove Mountains and have no Charity I am nothing In which he seemed to refer to that Saying of our Saviour to his Disciples (t) Mat. xvii 20. If ye have Faith as a grain of Mustard-seed ye shall say unto this Mountain Remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove and nothing shall be impossible unto you And it is very evident that our Saviour spake of the Prayer of such Faith as this in that Promise to his Disciples (u) Joh. xiv 13.12 Whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son If ye shall ask any thing in my Name I will do it i. e. Upon their Prayer God would glorify himself and the Gospel of his Son by the Testimony of Miracles For these Words are a Continuation of the Promise made in the foregoing Verse He that believeth on me the Works that I do shall he do also and greater Works than these he shall do because
Apostle should make a Supposition of such a special Case as that of the Anointed Person 's having committed Sins if Unction was prescribed as a Sacrament for the Remission of Sins For the Supposition taken with the rest of the period plainly enough implies a Direction to anoint the sick Person for whom the Prayer of Faith was made whether he had committed Sins or not only if he had committed Sins they should be forgiven him Whatever St. James means here by having committed Sins it is yet evident that this was not the Case of all that were anointed and therefore whatever is meant also by the Forgiveness of Sins in this place neither was this promised to all that were anointed which seems to be a shrewd Argument that he did not prescribe Unction as a Sacrament for the Remission of Sins Especially if it be considered that the Case of all that were anointed was this that they were Sick and that the Promise absolutely made to all that were anointed was the Recovery of their Health for this shews as clearly on the other side that St. James's Unction was the Ceremony of a miraculous Cure of the Body Surely if we are to gather the meaning of this Rite from the Words of the Text where it was prescribed we are rather to refer it to that Effect which the Apostle tells us would certainly and always follow viz. the Recovery of Health than to that which would never follow but in a special Case viz. the Forgiveness of Sins And 't is certain that St. James makes the constant Effect of his Unction to be the Recovery of Bodily Health and he assures us that sometimes the Forgiveness of Sins would follow We therefore say that his Unction was properly a Rite of the Gift of Healing and thus it always signified something But our Adversaries will needs have it that his Unction was a Sacrament and that the proper end of it was Remission of Sins and that the Recovery of Bodily Health was a Thing by the Bye which fell out now and then as it might be expedient i. e. They will have the Apostle to promise Bodily Health as a Thing by the Bye in Words that express an absolute Promise of it and they will have him promise Forgiveness of Sins to all upon the due use of Unction in Words that manifestly suppose that he promises it but to some only and consequently that he established an Unction which would always be a Sacrament and yet sometimes would be no Sacrament at all I think therefore that I may conclude For any Man to make anointing the Sick to be a constant Means and Sign of that Grace which could not take place in many of those who were qualified for Unction and were duly anointed according to the Direction of the Apostle is to make the Apostle talk very vainly that himself might not seem to do so And not to make that to be the end and meaning of his Unction which took place in all that were anointed is to make the Apostle mean what we list and not what his Words mean If indeed St. James had said 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 his Sins shall be forgiven him and if it be expedient for the good of his Soul the Prayer of Faith shall also save the Sick and the Lord shall raise him up Had it been thus I say I would know if our Adversaries would not have exclaimed against us as the most obstinate Persons in the World if we had either denied forgiveness of Sins or affirmed the recovery of Bodily Health to be the true and proper end of that Unction whereof the Apostle speaks But now his Words are quite otherwise for on the other side the promise of Bodily Health is absolute and belongs to all that are anointed and that of forgiveness of Sins is conditional and belongs only to those who have committed Sins Let our Adversaries therefore judg impartially for once and if they do then I am sure they will reason against their own Sense of this place from the Apostles Words as they now stand as they would have argued against ours if they had stood as fairly for them as they do for us But to see how any thing will serve for an Argument in a desperate Case Bellarmin would make us believe that these very Words And if he have committed Sins they shall be forgiven him Bell. de Extr. Unct. c. iii. §. Quinto Et si in peccatis c. do so clearly bring the Text on their side that there is no room for Evasion For these Words says he expresly refer to the Soul but the Gift of Healing belongs to the Body A wonderful Reason surely But must not the Apostle speak of a Spiritual Effect which in one Case is consequent upon Unction of the Sick but it must always be the thing signified and intended by it and this tho he manifestly supposes that the Spiritual Effect is not and plainly tells us what is the constant Signification and Effect of it When Men of parts take invincible Arguments against their own Opinion and pretend that they are unanswerable Proofs for it what shall a Man say to it but that they labour under invincible Prejudice or something that is a great deal worse It appears already from that passage concerning Forgiveness of sins that the Anointing in St. James was properly a Rite that referred to the Gift of Healing And this will farther appear by considering what must be the sense of those words And if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him It may seem strange that the Apostle should make the anointed persons having committed sins the matter of a supposition as if some that were to be anointed had committed no sins at all But now because without all Question neither was the Apostles supposition vain and idle nor is it true of any mere Man that he never sinned therefore by committing sins the Apostle did not mean simply and absolutely having sinned but with reference to that matter only whereof he was then speaking viz. that bodily sickness which was to be removed by the Gift of Healing So that the meaning must necessarily be this And if he has committed such sins as it pleased God to punish by visiting him with sickness they shall be forgiven him Besides those places where committing and not committing sin are to be understood with some qualification such as that y 1 Joh. iii. 8 9. He that committeth sin is of the Devil And whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin and he cannot sin because he is born of God There is one saying of our Saviour that requires the same Interpretation with this passage in St. James z Joh. ix 2 3. When his Disciples asked him Master who did sin this man or his parents that he was born
blind Jesus answered Neither hath this man sinned nor his parents i. e. It was for no sin either of him or his Parents that he was born blind but that the works of God should be made manifest in him In like manner the supposition of the sick Man's having committed sins is to be limited by reference to the Case now discoursed of that is of his Sickness For whether it came in the ordinary and natural course of things or whether God sent it for the trial of his patience and submission the Prayer of Faith should save the sick or if it were inflicted as a punishment and for his Correction God would release him of the punishment and raise him up and his sins should be forgiven It is not perhaps unfit to remember in this place that in the beginning of the Church it pleas'd God to inflict bodily Diseases upon many Christians that had grievously offended in any kind and this not only in pursuance of Church Censures but sometimes without them which was the Case of those in the Church of Corinth who for their unworthy behaviour at their Assemblies for Celebrating the Holy Communion were visited with Gods hand 1 Cor. 11.30 For saith St. Paul For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep i. e. Many are dead of those Sicknesses which God sent to chastise you for that great fault that reigned amongst you and many of you remain under those Sicknesses still being not yet humbled under the mighty hand of God V. 31. If we would judge our selves we should not be judged i.e. By care to do our duty we should prevent Gods Chastisements but if upon neglecting our selves we are chastned by the Lord V. 32. it is that we should not be condemned with the World For God did not strike them with sudden Death but with some sudden Sickness and gave them time to repent to confess their fault and to satisfy the Church Now altho it was the congruity of this place to the passage in St. James concerning the supposition of having committed sins that led me to interpret the one by the other yet upon farther inquiry I found the notion not to be altogether destitute of Antiquity For Venerable Bede in his Notes upon this Clause applies St. Paul's Text to it in this manner * Bed in loc Tom. 5. Many for sins done by the Soul are punished with the sickness or with the death also of the Body Whence it is that the Apostle saith to the Corinthians who were wont to receive the Lords Body unworthily For this cause many among you are sick and weak and many sleep If therefore the sick are under the guilt of sins and shall confess them to the Presbyters of the Church and shall make it their business to forsake and amend them with a perfect heart they shall be forgiven them And then he goes on shewing That sins of the greater sort had need to be confessed in order to this end ‖ De Eccles Offic. lib. 1. c. 12. Tom. 10. B. P. Amalarius also delivers the very same interpretation in the account he gives of the Unction of the sick in his days as I shall have farther occasion to observe in a more proper place So that besides the reason of the thing we have some Authority too to interpret this place as I have done viz. That those words And if he has committed sins are to be referred to such Cases as that which St. Paul discourses of where the Sickness was inflicted for the punishment of some notable and scandalous fault not excluding those instances of such punishment for sins secretly committed But for whatever sin the sickness was sent it should be forgiven and God would shew that he had received â—he sick person into favour again by taking off his sickness For in this case also the Prayer of Faith should save the sick Thus our Saviour demonstrated the Truth of that saying to the Man sick of the (a) Matt. ix 2 6 7. Palsie Son be of good cheer thy sins be forgiven thee by adding Arise take up thy bed and go unto thy house and by that miraculous Cure that followed Thus after he had healed the diseased Man at the Pool of Bethesda he said unto him (b) Joh. v. 14. Behold thou art made whole sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee plainly intimating that his infirmity was the punishment of some sin that he had been guilty of which was now forgiven because he was made whole and should be dealt with hereafter not according to what he had been but as he should behave himself for the time to come In like manner and with like expression St. James does promise That upon the Prayer of Faith the Gift of Healing should take place even where the Disease was inflicted for the punishment of sins Which construction of the place is so natural and agreeable that I shall pursue the illustration of this passage no longer but leave the Reader to judge of it by what has been said already SECT VI. That our Interpretation of the use of Anointing in St. James and not our Adversaries is favoured by the following passages to the end of his Epistle THE third way of inquiry was to see what light is given to the meaning of St. James's Unction by those following passages that are in connexion with the place under debate 1. The very next words that follow are these Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that you may be healed But whether by praying one for another in this Verse be meant the Prayer of Faith in the former Verse which referred to the Gift of Healing and was accompanied with a persuasion that God would raise up the sick or only praying that God would raise him up when they had no absolute persuasion that so it would be is what I dare not positively say having no clear reason to determine me one way or other But in which sense soever the words be taken as they must be in one of them they seem to have a very reasonable connexion with what went before and either way this Exhortation is to be referred to that special Case mentioned just before And if he has committed sins they shall be forgiven him If the Prayer of Faith is here meant as I think it is then St. James exhorts the sick person whom God had visited for his sins to humble himself and give glory to God by confessing to the Elders those sins which lay upon his Conscience and likewise intimates that the gift of healing would not otherwise take place in his Case and therefore he was first to confess and then the Elders to pray over him As for Anointing with Oil it was enough that the Apostle mentioned that before it being a Ceremony which or some other of like signification was customarily used in the Church upon Healing by a miraculous Gift The main matters
doubt Whether a Bishop may do that which is undoubtedly lawful for Presbyters 4. Whether the Chrism might be given to Penitents in their Sickness Now if Chrism had been the Extreme Vnction of the Roman Church 't is not imaginable that Decentius should have asked such a Question as this For if by the Sick to be anointed he had meant only the dying there had been no room for that Question Whether sick i. e. dying Penitents might be anointed it being a notorious custom of the Church * Innoc. Ep. III. n. 2. in those days to communicate those that were admitted to Penance if they were in evident danger of Death But 't is evident that both Decentius and Innocentius spake of all that were visited with Sickness though in appearance the Sickness were not mortal for Innocentius speaks simply of the Sick and says that the Bishop cannot visit all the Sick and the like And the Question thus taken viz. Whether all sick Penitents might be anointed was a very ignorant Question if he meant Extreme Vnction and that because it was notorious that they who were in the state of Penitents were denied all manner of Sacraments unless in the Article of Death as Innocent observed in his Answer to this Question If it be objected That Decentius bewraied as much ignorance if he put this Question concerning the Unction of the sick Penitents with proper Chrism since Innocentius answering in the Negative thought fit to give this reason for his Answer That all Sacraments were denied to Penitents I Answer That there was a reasonable ground upon which Decentius might move such a Question For though Chrism was esteemed a kind of Sacrament yet whether it might not be applied for the recovery of their bodily health to whom Sacraments were yet denied was a doubt which a wise Man might make For since the Sick in that place desired to try the success of being anointed with Chrism in order to the same effect that they knew anointing with Oil by those that had the Gift of Healing produced upon sick Persons it might be thought that this use of Chrism just now started might be exempted from the common Rule especially because there were instances of some cured by Oil †Spondan A. C. 63. N. IV. that were not so much as Christians And though Innocent concluded in the Negative yet the Question would have born a Dispute in behalf of the Penitents if upon trial of the virtue of holy Chrism to cure the Sick the matter had been found to deserve it And here we are come to the place upon which Bellarmin triumphs as if Innocentius's Testimony alone would do the business He says expresly and clearly says the Cardinal That this Vnction is a Sacrament explain'd by S. James and therefore not to be given to those who are not capable of other Sacraments c. What a small matter will serve the turn where there is a good will but no manner of good reason for the Conclusion That this Vnction is a Sacrament What Unction I pray Not Bellarmin's Extreme Vnction for of that he speaks not a word and as I have abundantly shewn Innocentius cannot be understood as speaking of that by any Man that has a grain of sense and is withal as honest as he should be But here lies the secret that there is mention of Vnction and that of the Sick too and moreover that there is the word Sacrament and so without any more to do it must be the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction that is spoken of as if no other account were to be given of the place But let the place it self be produced which Bellarmin to be even with him for his censure of Chemnuius was afraid to produce and the impertinence of appealing to it will immediately appear But the Chrism is not to be given to Penitents because 't is a KIND of a Sacrament For how can one kind of a Sacrament be allowed to those to whom the rest are denied By which 't is evident that 't is not Vnction of the Sick much less Extreme Vnction of the Sick but the very Chrism it self the Chrism I say which had been blessed by the Bishop that Innocent calls a Sacrament With this Sacrament they anointed those that were baptized that were ordained Priests that were consecrated Bishops And the applying of it to the Sick made it not one jot more a Sacrament than it was before But then how does he stile it a Sacrament Far enough I am sure from Bellarmin's purpose He says 't is a kind of a Sacrament Now that which is a kind of a Sacrament is not a Sacrament properly so called such as Baptism and the Eucharist are but that which in some respect may be so called And many such Sacraments there were in those times more than seven times seven as every Man knows that is versed in the Antients Every sign of a holy thing every thing blessed to a Religious use and not only the Ceremonies of the Christian Church but sometimes the mysteries of Moses's Law and the Types of Christ that were amongst the Israelites were called Sacraments 'T is very much that Bellarmin did not produce for his Sacrament of Extreme Unction that saying of (z) Adv. Prax. C. 28. Tertullian Jesus was called Christ from the Sacrament of Vnction But to clear this matter from all shadow of scruple I will here transcribe out of this very Epistle what shall be able to do it alone †Ubi Supra n. 5. Concerning the Fermented Bread which we send about the * Tituli City Parishes upon Lords days you had no need to ask our opinion since all our Churches are within the City whose Presbyters because they cannot be with us upon that day by reason of their Flocks committed to them Therefore of the Acolytes they take the Bread which is blessed by us that they may especially upon that day be judged not to be separated from our Communion which should not be done through the Country Parishes as I conceive †Paroeciae because Sacraments are not to be carried a great way off Here he calls the blessed Bread or Holy Bread which was sent about to the Parishes of the Diocess but at Rome it seems only to the Parishes of the City to testifie unity of Communion he calls it I say a Sacrament not so much as qualifying it with that diminution A kind of a Sacrament which he bestowed upon Chrism And yet in a proper sence one was just such a Sacrament as the other that is not at all but both of them come under that sort of things which the Romanists themselves call Sacramentals or Rites that have some kind of likeness to Sacraments truely so called And thus much concerning the Testimony of Innocentius I. which had not deserved an Answer of ten lines but that All the Catholicks produce it and the Cardinal would bear us in hand that it ought to suffice though there