Unction, which he states are (1) "An increase of habitual, sanctifying grace," (2) "For the remission of sins," with reservations; (3) “principally the removal of the remains of sin"; (4) "Nor is this all. There is yet another effect of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. It affects not only the soul, but even the body of the sick man."

Thus even at the present day there are not inconsiderable traces retained in the Roman Church of the Catholic and Apostolic practice of healing the sick by Unction. Only this use of it as a Sacrament of the Dying" (with possible bodily effects) is very far removed from "the prayer of faith which shall save him that is sick."

But, though Unction did undoubtedly come to be misused in the Middle Ages, it must always be clearly borne in mind that the spiritual healing of the sick was not given up in the Church. On the contrary, it flourished exceedingly, as we shall see in Chapter XXVII; and perhaps there is no stronger evidence of the reality of this religious power than the historic fact, that as Unction came to be reserved for a different purpose, the stream of spiritual healing did not evaporate but passed through other channels which also were primitive and scriptural.1

1 The Anglican use of Unction after the Reformation is mentioned in Chapter XXIX, the use of the Eastern Church on pp. 238, 257.

66

66

CHAPTER XXIII

THE MINISTERS OF UNCTION

66

ST. JAMES, speaking to Christians, tells them to call in the priests of the Church when anyone is ill. It is perhaps hardly necessary to point out that our word priest" is a contraction of the "presbyter" (presbuteros) of the original, which means elder – just as our word "bishop" is a contraction of the Greek "episcopos," which means overseer": the English Bible, with English inconsistency renders the one word "elder" and the other "bishop," although the English form of presbuteros is just as much "priest " as "bishop" is the English form of episcopos. This is a mere matter of words; but it is important to notice that St. James is clearly referring to a definite ministry when he speaks of "the elders of the Church." This does not, of course, mean that only priests can heal1nor indeed was it at first taken to mean that only priests could anoint- but it does mean that if a Christian seeks healing by Unction in Church order, the proper persons to call in are the regular ministry, the priests of the Church.

In the primitive Church another ministry was recognized the "charismatic ministry" of those who possessed special charismata or "gifts" of the

1 See p. 196.

Holy Spirit. Such charismatic persons, laymen and laywomen, as well as clergy, could consecrate as well as administer the oil. A saint, for instance, who in the Middle Ages would have healed by word or touch, with prayer, might in earlier times use oil as the means of his miraculous or charismatic healing, blessing the oil himself.2

Nor was the consecration of oil in the regular ministry confined to bishops: it is the priests in St. James Epistle who use the oil "in the Name of the Lord," and this custom, which lasted over a thousand years in the West, is still retained in the East to-day, where oil is newly blessed for each sick person, and priests may bless it. It was indeed natural for this blessing to be given by the bishop when he was present, just as is done on other occasions at the present day - we have for instance, in our own English Liturgy, the concluding rubric, "Then the Priest (or the Bishop if he be present) shall let them depart with this Blessing." So in the Apostolical Constitutions, which may be dated about A.D. 375, we read

"Let the bishop bless the water or the oil. But if he be not there, let the priest bless it, the deacon standing by. But if the bishop be present, let the priest and the deacon stand by."

The custom of confining the benediction of oil to the bishop happens to be a local Roman one: it grew up in the diocese of Rome as early as the fourth century, and the rule is for the bishops who

1 e.g., xapioμara laμáтwv, “gifts of healings," in 1 Cor. 129. 2 e.g., St. Simeon Stylites, who died in 460 and was a lay

man,

now follow the Roman rule to consecrate on Maundy Thursday enough oil to supply the parishes in their dioceses during the year. This local custom, however, only spread very slowly; and as late as 1050 (if not later) priests consecrated the oil at Milan, where indeed they could do so still if they chose.1

The oil, thus blessed by bishop, priest, or charismatic person, could in early times be administered by a priest, or by a layman or laywoman, or by the patient himself. For instance, Innocent I, Bishop of Rome, wrote in 416 to Decentius, who had asked him whether a bishop could administer as well as a priest, that of course, a bishop could do what a priest could do,2 and in the course of his answer he says of the oil

"the holy oil of chrism, which, being consecrated by the bishop, it is lawful not for the priests only, but for all Christians to use for anointing in their own need or in the need of members of their household." 3

The Venerable Bede, c. 710, refers to this letter of Innocent I as proof that the oil, duly consecrated by a bishop, may be administered by all Christians "in their own need, or in the need of any members of their household." 4 An instance

1 The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition, by F. W. Puller, p. 302, n. I.

2 See e.g., the Life of St. Germain, Bishop of Auxerre, 418448, who, during a terrible plague, the physicians being powerless, blessed some oil and anointed the swollen jaws of those who were sick, whereat they recovered. Qu. Puller, Ibid., p. 179.

3I give Fr. Puller's translation (Ibid., p. 54). The right of laymen to administer Unction is sometimes hidden by mistranslation in controversial books, as in Cardinal Gibbons' Faith of our Fathers (44th ed., p. 438).

4 Puller, Ibid., p. 48.

of a holy woman is St. Genevieve of Paris, who died c. 502 and used to heal the sick with oil which it appears was the ordinary Oleum Infirmorum that had been consecrated by the Bishop.1 It was probably in the ninth century, as the views about Unction changed, that the ministry was restricted to priests.

Now it is not difficult to summarise the lesson which we glean from these examples. The power of conferring physical benefit by the use of Unction lies in the whole Church; in different places and ages different rules have existed as to how this power should be exercised. Any local Church has still the right to make its own rules; but in any case, since the power belongs to the body as a whole, it should be exercised through that body and not irresponsibly by individuals: priests and bishops possess the authority inalienably and by Apostolic command to anoint the sick, and the function may be delegated to laymen, just as baptism is in cases of necessity; but such delegation, if it be necessary, should be done by the Church itself with due safeguards against disorder and superstition. In the earlier centuries of the Church Catholic, charismatic persons were recognised in addition to the regular ministry: this may be done again, but until it is done, the right of setting apart oil for the sick is reserved in Church order to bishops and priests; though it would seem that oil thus set apart might in cases of necessity be administered by laymen. These, I think, are sensible

1 For this and other instances, see Puller, The Anointing of the Sick in Scripture and Tradition, chap. iv.