Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/799

 EXTREME

719

EXTREME

several early commentaries on St. James's Epistle (by Clement of Alexandria, Didymus, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and others) in which chiefly we should look for reference to the unction. The earliest accurately preserved commentary is that of St. Bede (d. 735), who, as we shall see, is a witness for this sac- rament, as is also Victor of Antioch (fifth century), the earliest commentator on St. Mark. Second, it is clear, at the period when testimonies become abundant, that the unction was allied to penance as a supplementary sacrament, and as such was administered regularly before the Viaticum. We may presume that this order of administration had come down from remote antiq- uity, and this close connexion with penance, about which, as privately administered to the sick, the Fathers rarely speak, helps to explain their silence on extreme unction. Third, it should be remembered that there was no systematic sacramental theology be- fore the Scholastic period, and, in the absence of the interests of system, the interests of public instruction would call far less frequently for the treatment of this sacrament and of the other offices privately adminis- tered to the sick than would subjects of such practical public concern as the preparation of catechumens and the administration and reception of those sacraments which were solemnly conferred in the church. If these, and similar considerations which might be added, are duly weighed, it will be seen that the com- parative fewness of early testimonies is not after all so strange. It should be observed, moreover, that charis- matic and other unctions of the sick, even with conse- crated oil, distinct from the Jacobean imction, were practised in the early ages, and that the vagueness of not a few testimonies which speak of the anointing of the sick makes it doubtful whether the reference is to the Apostolic rite or to some of these other usages.

It should finally be premised that in stating the argument from tradition a larger place must be al- lowed for the principle of development than theolo- gians of the past were in the habit of allowing. Prot- estant controversialists were wont virtually to demand that the early centuries should speak in the language of Trent — even Mr. Puller is considerably under the influence of this standpoint — and Catholic theologians have been prone to accommodate their defence to the terms of their adversaries' demand. Hence they have undertaken in many cases to prove much more than they were strictly bound to prove, as for instance that extreme unction was clearly recognized as a sacrament in the strict sense long before the definition of a sacra- ment in this sense was drawn up. It is a perfectly valid defence of the Tridentine doctrine on extreme unction to show that St. James permanently pre- scribed the rite of unction in terms that imply its strictly sacramental efficacy; that the Church for sev- eral centuries simply went on practising the rite and believing in its efficacy as taught by the Apostle, with- out feeling the need of a more definitely formulated doctrine than is expressed in the text of his Epistle; and that finally, when this need had arisen, the Church, in the exercise of her infallible authority, did define for all time the true meaning and proper efficacy of the Jacobean prayer-unction. It is well to keep this principle in mind in discussing the witness of the early ages, though as a matter of fact the evidence, as will be seen, proves more than we are under any obligation to prove.

(2) The Evidence. — (a) Ante-Nicene Period. — The earliest extant witness is Origen (d. 2.54), who, in emmierating the several ways of obtaining remission of sins, comes (seventhly) to "the hard and laborious" way of (public) penance, which involves the confession of one's sins to the priest and the acceptance at his hands of " the salutary medicine ". And having quoted the Psalmist in support of confession, Origen adds: " And in this [in quo] is fulfilled also what St. James the Apostle says: if any one is sick, let him call in the

priests of the Church, and let them lay hands on him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him" (Hom. ii, in Levit., in P. G., XII, 419). We might be content to quote this as a proof merely of the fact that the injunc- tion of St. James was well known and observed in Origen's time, and that the rite itself was commonly spoken of at Alexandria as "a laying on of hands". But when it is urged that he here attributes the remis- sion of sins of which the Apostle speaks, not to the rite of unction but to the Sacrament of Penance, it is worth while inquiring into the reasons alleged for this interpretation of the passage. Some would have it that Origen is allegorizing, and that he takes the sick man in St. James to mean the spiritually sick or the sinner, thus changing the Apostolic injunction to the following: If anyone be in sins, let him call in the priests . . . and if he be in sins, they shall be remit- ted to him. But we cannot suppose the great Alexan- drian capable of such illogicalness on his own account, or capable of attributing it to the Apostle. According to Mr. Puller (op. cit., pp. 42 sqq.), Origen, while quo- ting the whole text of St. James, means in reality to refer only to the fulfilment of the concluding words, "and if he be in sins", etc. But if that be so, why quote the preceding part at all, which, in Mr. Puller's, and e.c hypothesi in Origen's, view, has nothing to do with the subject and can only lead to confusion; and why, above all, omit the words of St. James imme- diately following, "Confess your sins one to another", which would have been very much to the point and could not have caused any confusion? The truth is that the relation of the Jacobean rite to penance is very obscurely stated by Origen; but, whatever may have been his views of that relation, he evidently means to speak of the whole rite, unction and all, and to assert that it is performed as a means of remitting sin for the sick. If it be held on the obscurity of the connexion that he absolutely identifies the Jacobean rite with penance, the only logical conclusion would be that he considered the unction to be a necessary part of penance for the sick. But it is much more reason- able and more in keeping with what we know of the penitential discipUne of the period — Christian sinners were admitted to canonical penance only once — to suppose that Origen looked upon the rite of unction as a supplement to penance, intended for the sick or dying who either had never undergone canonical pen- ance, or after penance might have contracted new sins, or who, owing to their " hard and laborious" course of satisfaction being cut short by sickness, might be con- sidered to need just such a complement to absolution, this complement itself being independently efficacious to remit sins or complete their remission by removal of their effects. This would fairly account for the con- fused grouping together of both ways of remission in the text, and it is a Catholic interpretation in keeping with the conditions of that age and with later and clearer teaching. It is interesting to observe that John Cassian, writing nearly two centuries later, and proba- bly with this very text of Origen before him, gives similar enumeration of means for obtaining remission of sins, and in this enumeration the Jacobean rite is given an independent place (Collat., XX, in P. L., XLIX, 1161).

Origen's contemporary, Tertullian, in upbraiding heretics for neglecting the distinction between clergy and laity and allowing even women "to teach, to dis- pute, to perform exorcisms, to undertake cures [cura- tiones repromittere], perhaps even to baptize" (De Prae- script., c. xli, in P. L., II, 262), probably refers in the italicized clause to the use of the Jacobean rite; for he did not consider charismatic healing, even with oil, to be the proper or exclusive function of the clergy (see "Ad Scapulam", c. iv, in P. L., I, 703). If this be so, Tertullian is a witness to the general use of the rite and