_THE ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. THE ANOINTING OF
THE SICK AND EXTREME UNCTION._
"Is any among you sick? 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 him that is sick, and the
Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be
forgiven him."--ST. JAMES v. 14-15.
Two subjects stand out prominently in this interesting passage--the
elders of the Church, and the anointing of the sick. The connexion of
the passage with what immediately precedes is close and obvious. After
charging his readers in general terms to resort to prayer when they
are in trouble, St. James takes a particular and very common instance
of trouble, viz. bodily sickness, and gives more detailed directions
as to the way in which the man in trouble is to make use of the relief
and remedy of prayer. He is not to be content with giving expression
to his need in private prayer to God; he is to "call for _the elders
of the Church_."
I. The first thing to be noted in connexion with this sending for the
elders of the congregation by the sick man is, that in this Epistle,
which is one of the very earliest among the Christian writings which
have come down to us, we already find a _distinction made between
clergy and laity_. This distinction runs through the whole of the New
Testament. We find it in the earliest writing of all, the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which the Christians of Thessalonica
are exhorted "to know them that labour among you, and are over you in
the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in
love for their work's sake" (v. 12, 13). And here St. James assumes as
a matter of course, that every congregation has elders, that is a
constituted ecclesiastical government. Compare with these the precept
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, "Obey them that have the rule over you,
and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they
that shall give account" (xiii. 17); and the frequent directions in
the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. iii. 1-13; iv. 6, 13, 14; v. 17, 19, 22;
Tit. i. 5-9; ii. 15; 2 Tim. i. 6, 14; ii. 2; iv. 5). What the precise
functions of the clergy were is not told us with much detail or
precision; but it is quite clear, from the passage before us, and
those which have been quoted above, that whatever the functions were,
they were spiritual rather than secular, and were duties which a
select minority had to exercise in reference to the rest; they were
not such as any one might exercise towards any one. In the present
case the sick person is not to send for any members of the
congregation, but for certain who hold a definite, and apparently an
official position. If _any_ Christians could discharge the function in
question, St. James would not have given the sick person the trouble
of summoning the elders rather than those people who chanced to be
near at hand. And it is quite clear that not all Christians are over
all other Christians in the Lord; that not all are to rule, and all to
obey and submit; therefore not all have the same authority to
"admonish" others, or to "watch in behalf of their souls, as they that
shall give account."[93]
The reason why the elders are to be summoned is stated in different
ways by different writers, but with a large amount of substantial
agreement. "As being those in whom the power and grace of the Holy
Spirit more particularly appeared," says Calvin. "Because when they
pray it is not much less than if the whole Church prayed," says
Bengel. St. James, says Neander, "regards the presbyters in the light
of organs of the Church, acting in its name;" and, "As the presbyters
acted in the name of the whole Church, and each one as a member of the
body felt that he needed its sympathy and intercession, and might
count upon it; individuals should therefore, in cases of sickness,
send for the presbyters of the Church. These were to offer prayer on
their behalf." The intercession which St. James recommends, says
Stier, is "intercession for the sick on the part of the
representatives of the Church, ... not merely the intercession of
friends or brethren as such, but in the name of the whole community,
one of whose members is suffering." It is altogether beside the mark
to suggest that the elders were summoned as people of the greatest
experience, who perhaps also were specially _skilled in medicine_. Of
that there is not only no hint, but the context excludes the idea. If
that were in the writer's mind, why does he not say at once, "Let him
call for the physicians"? If the healing art is to be thought of at
all in connexion with the passage, the case is one in which medicine
has already done all that it can, or in which it can do nothing at
all. St. James would doubtless approve the advice given by the son of
Sirach: "My son, in thy sickness be not negligent; but pray unto the
Lord, and He will make thee whole" (Ecclus. xxxviii. 9). This exactly
agrees with the precept, "Is any among you suffering? let him pray."
"Then give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him: let
him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when
in their hands there is good success" (12, 13). To this there is no
equivalent in St. James; but he says nothing that is inconsistent with
it. Then, after the physician has done his part, and perhaps in vain,
would come the summoning of the elders to offer prayer. But it is
simpler to suppose that the physician's part is left out of the
account altogether.
II. The second point of interest is the anointing of the sick person
by the elders. That what is said here affords no Scriptural authority
for the Roman rite of Extreme Unction, is one of the commonplaces of
criticism. One single fact is quite conclusive. The object of the
unction prescribed by St. James is the recovery of the sick person;
whereas Extreme Unction, as its name implies, is never administered
until the sick person's recovery is considered to be almost or quite
hopeless, and death imminent; the possibility of bodily healing is not
entirely excluded, but it is not the main purpose of the rite. The
only other passage in the New Testament in which the unction of the
sick is mentioned is equally at variance with the Roman rite. We are
told by St. Mark that the Twelve, when sent out by Christ two and two,
"anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them" (vi. 13).
Here also recovery, and not preparation for death, was the purpose of
the anointing, which the Apostles seem to have practised on their own
responsibility, for it is not mentioned in the charge which Christ
gave them when He sent them out (7-11).
But there is this amount of connexion between these two passages of
Scripture and the Roman sacrament of Extreme Unction, viz. that the
latter _grew out of ecclesiastical practices which were based upon
these passages_. As in not a few other instances, development has
brought about a state of things which is inconsistent with the
original starting-point. But in order to understand the development we
must understand the starting-point, and that requires us to find an
answer to the question, What purpose was the oil intended to serve?
Was it purely symbolical? and if so, of what? Was it merely for the
refreshment of the sick person, giving relief to parched skin and
stiffened limbs? Was it medicinal, with a view to a permanent cure by
natural means? Was it the channel or instrument of a supernatural
cure? Was it an aid to the sick person's faith? One or both of the
last two suggestions may be accepted as the most probable solution.
And the reason why oil was selected as a channel of Divine power and
an aid to faith was, that it was believed to have healing properties.
It is easier to believe when visible means are used than when nothing
is visible, and it is still easier to believe when the visible means
appear to be likely to contribute to the desired effect. Christ twice
used spittle in curing blindness, probably because spittle was
believed to be beneficial to the eyesight. And that oil was supposed
to be efficacious as medicine is plain from numerous passages both in
and outside of Holy Scripture. "From the sole of the foot even unto
the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and
festering sores: they have not been closed, nor bound up, neither
mollified with oil" (Isa. i. 6). The Good Samaritan poured wine and
oil into the wounds of the man who fell among robbers (Luke x. 34). A
mixture of oil and wine was used for the malady which attacked the
army of Ælius Gallus, and was applied both externally and internally
(Dion Cass. LIII. 29; Strabo XVI., p. 780). His physicians caused
Herod the Great to be bathed in a vessel full of oil when he was
supposed to be at death's door (Josephus, _Ant._ XVII. vi. 5). Celsus
recommends rubbing with oil in the case of fevers and some other
ailments (_De Med._ II. 14, 17; III. 6, 9, 19, 22; IV. 2).[94] But it
is obvious that St. James does not recommend the oil merely as
medicine, for he does not say that the oil shall cure the sick person,
nor yet that the oil with prayer shall do so; but that "the prayer of
faith shall save him that is sick," without mentioning the oil at all.
On the other hand, he says that the anointing is to be done by the
elders "in the name of the Lord." If the anointing were merely
medicinal, it might have been performed by any one, without waiting
for the elders. And it can hardly be supposed that oil was believed to
be a remedy for all diseases.
On the other hand, it seems to be too much to say that the anointing
had nothing to do with bodily healing at all, and was simply a means
of grace for the sick. Thus Döllinger says, "This is no gift of
healing, for that was not confined to the presbyters; and for that
Christ prescribed not unction, but laying on of hands. Had he meant
that, St. James would have bidden or advised the sick to send for one
who possessed this gift, whether presbyter or layman.... What was to
be conveyed by this medium was, therefore, only sometimes recovery or
relief, always consolation, revival of confidence and forgiveness of
sins, on condition, of course, of faith and repentance" (_First Age of
the Church_, p. 235, Oxenham's translation, 2nd ed.: Allen, 1867). But
although the gift of healing was not confined to the elders, yet in
certain cases they may have exercised it; and although Christ
prescribed the laying on of hands (Mark xvi. 18), yet the Apostles
sometimes healed by anointing with oil (Mark vi. 13). And that "shall
_save_ him that is sick" (σώσει τὸν κάμνοντα) means "shall _cure_
him," is clear both from the context, and also from the use of the
same word elsewhere. "Daughter, be of good cheer; thy faith hath
_saved_ thee," to the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 22).
Jairus prays, "Come and lay Thy hands on her, that she may be _saved_"
(Mark v. 23). The disciples say of Lazarus, "Lord, if he is fallen
asleep, he will be _saved_" (John xi. 12). And "the Lord shall raise
him up" makes this interpretation still more certain. The same
expression is used of Simon's wife's mother (Mark i. 31). "The Lord"
is Christ, not the Father, both here and "in the Name of _the Lord_."
Thus St. Peter says to Æneas, "_Jesus Christ_ healeth thee" (Acts
ix. 34. Comp. iii. 6, 16; v. 10).
That St. James makes the promise of recovery without any restriction
may at first sight appear to be surprising; but in this he is only
following the example of our Lord, who makes similar promises, and
leaves it to the thought and experience of Christians to find out the
limitations to them. St. James is only applying to a particular case
what Christ promised in general terms. "All things, whatsoever ye pray
and ask for, believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have
them" (Mark xi. 24. Comp. Matt. xvii. 20). "If ye shall ask [Me]
anything in My Name, I will do it" (John xiv. 14). "If ye shall ask
anything of the Father, He will give it you in My Name" (John
xvi. 23). The words "in My Name" point to the limitation; they do not,
of course, refer to the use of the formula "through Jesus Christ our
Lord," but to the exercise of the spirit of Christ: "Not My will, but
Thine be done." The union of our will with the will of God is the very
first condition of successful prayer. The Apostles themselves had no
indiscriminate power of healing. St. Paul did not heal Epaphroditus,
much as he yearned for his recovery (Phil. ii. 27). He left Trophimus
at Miletus sick (2 Tim. iv. 20). He did not cure his own thorn in the
flesh (2 Cor. xii. 7-9). How, then, can we suppose that St. James
credited the elders of every congregation with an unrestricted power
of healing? He leaves it to the common sense and Christian submission
of his readers to understand that the elders have no power to cancel
the sentence of death pronounced on the whole human race. To pray that
any one should be exempt from this sentence would be not faith, but
presumption.
Of the employment of the rite here prescribed by St. James we have
very little evidence in the early ages of the Church. Tertullian
mentions a cure by anointing, but it is not quite a case in point. The
Emperor Septimius Severus believed that he had been cured from an
illness through oil administered by a Christian named Proculus
Torpacion, steward of Evodias, and in gratitude for it he maintained
him in the palace for the rest of his life (_Ad. Scap._ iv.). Origen,
in the second Homily on Leviticus (iv.), quotes the passage from
St. James, and seems to understand the sickness to be that of sin. He
interpolates thus: "Let him call for the elders of the Church, and
_let them lay their hands on him_, anointing him with oil," etc. This
perhaps tells us how the rite was administered in Alexandria in his
time; or it may mean that Origen understood the "pray _over_ him"
(ἐπ' αὐτόν) of St. James to signify imposition of hands. With him,
then, the forgiveness of sins is the healing. A century and a half
later Chrysostom takes a further step, and employs the passage to show
that priests have the power of absolution. "For not only at the time
when they regenerate us, but afterwards also, they have authority to
forgive sins." And then he quotes James v. 14, 15 (_De Sacerd_. III.
6). It is evident that this is quite alien to the passage. The
sickness and the sins are plainly distinguished by St. James, and
nothing is said about absolution by the elders, who pray for his
recovery, and (no doubt) for his forgiveness.
When we reach the sixth century the evidence for the custom of
anointing the sick with holy oil becomes abundant. At first any one
with a reputation for sanctity might bless the oil--not only laymen,
but women. But in the West the rule gradually spread from Rome that
the sacred oil for the sick must be "made" by the bishop. In the East
this has never been observed. Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of
Canterbury, says that according to the Greeks it is lawful for
presbyters to make the chrism for the sick. And this rule continues to
this day. One priest suffices; but it is desirable to get seven, if
possible.
But the chief step in the development is taken when not only the
blessing of the oil, but the administering of it to the sick, is
reserved to the clergy. In Bede's time this restriction was not yet
made, as is clear from his comments on the passage, although even then
it was customary for priests to administer the unction. But by the
tenth century this restriction had probably become general. It became
connected with the communion of the sick, which of course required a
priest, and then with the _Viaticum_, or communion of the dying; but
even then the unction seems to have preceded the last communion. The
name "Extreme Unction" (_unctio extrema_), as a technical
ecclesiastical term, is not older than the twelfth century. Other
terms are "Last Oil" (_ultimum oleum_) and "Sacrament of the
Departing" (_sacramentum exeuntium_). But when we have reached these
phrases we are very far indeed from the ordinance prescribed by
St. James, and from that which was practised by the Apostles. Jeremy
Taylor, in the dedication of the _Holy Dying_, says fairly enough,
"The fathers of the Council of Trent first disputed, and after their
manner at last agreed, that Extreme Unction was instituted by Christ;
but afterwards being admonished by one of their theologues that the
Apostles ministered unction to infirm people before they were priests,
for fear that it should be thought that this unction might be
administered by him that was no priest, they blotted out the word
'instituted,' and put in its stead 'insinuated' this sacrament, and
that it was published by St. James. So it is in their doctrine; and
yet in their anathematisms they curse all them that shall deny it to
have been instituted by Christ. I shall lay no prejudice against it,
but add this only, that there being but two places of Scripture
pretended for this ceremony, some chief men of their own side have
proclaimed these two invalid as to the institution of it;" and he
mentions in particular Suarez and Cajetan. But he states more than he
can know when he declares of Extreme Unction that "since it is used
when the man is above half dead, when he can exercise no act of
understanding, it must needs be nothing." Those who receive the rite
are not always unconscious; and is it certain that an unconscious
person "can exercise no act of the understanding," or that prayer for
one who can exercise no act of the understanding "must needs be
nothing"? With similar want of caution Stier speaks of "the
_superstition_ which sends for the minister to 'pray over the sick,'
when these have scarce any consciousness left." Whether or no Extreme
Unction is an edifying ceremony is a question worthy of argument, and
nothing is here urged on either side; but we are going beyond our
knowledge if we assert that it _can_ have no effect on the dying man;
and we are unduly limiting the power of prayer if we affirm that to
pray for one who has lost consciousness is a useless superstition. All
that is contended for here is, that the Roman rite is something very
different from that which is ordered by St. James.[95]
"And if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." We ought
perhaps rather to translate, "Even if he have committed sins, it shall
be forgiven him." (The Greek is not καὶ ἐάν or ἐὰν δέ, but κἄν,
for which comp. John viii. 14; x. 38; xi. 25). The meaning would seem
to be, "even if his sickness has been produced by his sins, his sin
shall be forgiven, and his sickness cured." It is possible, but
unnatural, to join the first clause of this sentence with the
preceding one: "the Lord shall raise him up, even if he have committed
sins." In that case "It shall be forgiven him" forms a very awkward
independent sentence, without conjunction. The ordinary arrangement of
the clauses is much better: even if the malady is the effect of the
man's own wrong-doing, the prayer offered by faith--his faith, and
that of the elders--shall still prevail. St. Paul tells the
Corinthians that their misconduct respecting the Lord's Supper had
caused much sickness among them, and not a few deaths (1 Cor. xi. 30);
and such direct punishments of sin were not confined to the Corinthian
Church nor to the Apostolic age. They still occur in abundance, and
those who experience them have the assurance of Scripture that if they
repent and pray in faith their sins will certainly be forgiven, and
their punishment possibly removed.
[93] The question of the Origin of the Christian Ministry has been
discussed in another volume of this series. See the _Pastoral
Epistles_, pp. 104-117 (Hodder and Stoughton, 1888).
[94] For additional evidence see J. C. Wolf, _Curæ Philol. et Crit._
V., pp. 79-81; Lightfoot, _Horæ Hebr._ II., pp. 304, 444, on Matt.
vi. 17 and Mark vi. 13; Launoi, _De Sacramento Unctionis Infirmorum_,
I., p. 444.
[95] See letters in the _Guardian_ of Mar. 12, 19, Apr. 9, 16, 23, May
7, 1890; pp. 447, 481, 594, 633, 682, 763.
In the Visitation of the Sick in the First Prayer Book of Edward
VI. there is provision for the older rite: "If the sicke person desyre
to be annoynted, then shall the priest annoynte him upon the forehead
or breast only, making the signe of the crosse, saying thus,
As with this visible oyle thy body outwardly is annoynted: so our
heavenly father almyghtye God graunt of his infinite goodnesse, that
thy soule inwardly may be annoynted with the holy gost, who is the
spirite of al strength, comforte, reliefe, and gladnesse. And vouchsafe
for his great mercy (yf it be his blessed will) to restore unto thee thy
bodely helth and strength, to serve him," etc.
Readers of the _Confessions_ will remember how St. Augustine on
one occasion asked his friends to pray that he might be freed from great
pain, and forthwith found relief. "I have neither forgotten nor will
be silent about the severity of Thy scourge, and the marvellous speed
of Thy mercy. Thou didst then torture me with toothache (he says
elsewhere that this was so grievous that he could learn nothing fresh,
but could only think of what he already knew), and when the pain
became so severe that I was unable to speak the thought rose in my
heart to urge all my friends who were present to pray for me to Thee,
the God of all health. And I wrote this on a waxen tablet, and gave
it to them to read. Presently, as with suppliant desire we bowed our
knees, that great pain fled away. But what pain? and how did it
flee? I confess, my Lord and my God, that it frightened me; for
from my earliest days I had experienced nothing like it" (IX. iv. 12).