Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction
Chapter 3: The Heretics' Answers to the Scripture Are Refuted; and It Is Proved from the Tradition of the Ancients
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
To this argument four solutions are usually given by the heretics. The first is that that epistle is not canonical, nor came from the apostolic spirit. So Luther in the place cited, with whom Chemnitz agrees, page 1113, where he says that this epistle is not of such authority that it can institute sacraments without testimonies of canonical Scripture. And he proves it from Jerome, who noted in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under James, that the ancients judged that epistle was not written by the apostle James; and from Eusebius, book 3 of the History, chapter 25, who says of it: “It must be known that it is spurious.” But this first solution is the refuge of the wretched. For all the ancients who wrote catalogues of the sacred books counted this epistle with the rest, as is plain from Clement, in the last of the apostolic canons, from Innocent I, letter 3, and Gelasius I in the council of seventy bishops; likewise from the councils of Laodicea, last canon, the third of Carthage, canon 47, of Florence, and of Trent, session 4. Lastly from the Fathers: Origen, homily 7 on Joshua; Athanasius in the Synopsis; Epiphanius, heresy 76; Jerome, the letter to Paulinus; Augustine, book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 8; Rufinus on the Creed; Isidore, book 6 of the Etymologies, chapter 1; and Damascene, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 18. But if no faith is had in so many and so great authors, the authority of all the other books will fall; for we know from nowhere else which books are canonical except from the tradition and testimony of the ancient pontiffs, councils and Fathers, those especially who wished to weave an index of the sacred books. Nor have I ever read any of the ancients who openly wrote that the epistle of James is not canonical. For Jerome, whom Chemnitz cites for himself, does indeed say that to some the epistle seemed of doubtful credit, yet that in the progress of time it obtained authority. And Eusebius says that in the opinion of some that epistle is spurious; yet he adds at once: “But we know that it is publicly received in very many churches.” And certainly the public authority of the churches, which by the witness of Eusebius received this epistle as canonical, ought to weigh more with us than the obscure opinion of certain men, which by the witness of the same Eusebius rejects the same epistle.
The second solution is that of the same Luther in the same place, who says thus: “If it were of the apostle James, I would say that it was not lawful for an apostle to institute a sacrament by his own authority, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign joined; for this belonged to Christ alone.” This solution is far worse than the former; for Luther dares to set himself against the apostle James and to withstand him to the face, as if he openly erred and arrogated to himself what did not become him. But certainly James does not take to himself what Luther says; for he himself does not institute the sacrament, but exhorts to the use of a sacrament instituted; and if he did take this to himself, he would rather be believed than Luther. For it could not happen that so great an Apostle, after receiving the Holy Spirit, should err in so great a matter; nor is it like the error of blessed Peter, for he erred in example, not in doctrine; but this man would have erred in doctrine, and in Scripture itself, which cannot happen. Wherefore if James said that the sacrament was instituted by himself, we ought to believe that this was granted him by Christ by a singular privilege; but there is no need to be driven into these straits.
The third solution is that of the same Luther in the same place, and also of Wyclif, Philip, Brenz, Calvin and others in common: that James speaks of the unction which was used at that time for curing bodily diseases. And indeed Wyclif thinks the Apostle speaks of natural cure, and that he mentioned oil because it is naturally medicinal and abounds in that region. Philip thinks he speaks of an unction which cured partly naturally, partly also by a divine gift; whence he says that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah and the other prophets were physicians by profession, and knew most well the natures of herbs and other medicines, and at the same time were adorned with the gift of miracles. But Luther, Calvin, Brenz and Chemnitz simply expound the Apostle of cure by the gift of God; therefore they say that that unction was no more a sacrament than was the pool of Bethsaida, or the clay with spittle, or the water of Siloe, and so on; but now, when that gift has ceased, the unction is not only not a sacrament, but even a useless and superstitious thing. Their arguments are three. First, because James took what he teaches about the anointing with oil from the Gospel of Mark; but Mark speaks of that unction which those used who had the gift of cures. Second, because James uses words which pertain to bodily health, namely egerei and iathete. Third, because James speaks only to the men of his own time, when the grace of healings lasted. And this is plain from this, that he added no particle to signify that this rite was to be propagated to posterity, as the Scriptures do when they speak of true sacraments, as of Baptism, Matthew 28, “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”; and of the Eucharist, 1 Corinthians 11, “As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.”
But against these arguments we can set far more and better ones. And first, that he does not speak of natural cure, and at the same time that the prophets were not accustomed to cure after the manner of physicians, can easily be proved against Wyclif and Philip. First, because although oil is medicinal, yet it is not medicinal for curing any diseases whatever; nay rather, for very many it will profit nothing, or will even harm; but the Apostle generally commands that the sick be anointed with oil. Then, the prophets and apostles for the most part used things by their nature harmful, or at least not healthful, to cure, so that all might understand that it was done by the miracle of God, not by the powers of nature. So Moses raised the brazen serpent, that by the sight of it those bitten by serpents might be cured. So Eliseus cured the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian with the water of the Jordan. So Isaiah cured the ulcer of Ezechias with a lump of figs, which medicine was contrary to the cure of that disease, as Jerome notes from the opinion of the Hebrews in the commentary on chapter 38 of Isaiah. So the Lord cured the blind man with clay and spittle; so Peter with the shadow of his body; so Paul with handkerchiefs and aprons. There is added that if they had ordinarily used useful things for curing, they would have taken away faith from themselves and obscured the gift of God.
And that James speaks neither of an unction which healed the body by the gift of miracles, but of one which healed the soul, and sometimes the body also by sacramental power, is proved against Luther, Calvin and the others from the single words of this place. First, “Is any man sick,” he says, “among you?” But if he treated of miracles, he would speak more generally; for he would provide not only for those who lie weighed down by some dangerous disease, as he does, but also for the blind, the deaf, the lame and other wretched men, who do not lie in bed nor are in peril of life, and yet would need cure. Secondly, “Let him bring in,” he says, “the priests.” But if he treated of a miracle, he would rather say, Let him bring in the prophets, or others who have the gift of cures; for neither the priests alone, nor all the priests, had the gift of curing even then. Nor does it matter that by presbyters the adversaries will not have priests signified but elders; for neither did all the elders have the gift of cure, for that gift was not tied to age or dignity, as is plain from Paul, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. Besides, it is not probable that the Apostle ordered the faithful to seek miracles; for signs are for unbelievers, not for the faithful, 1 Corinthians 14. Thirdly, “Let them pray,” he says, “over him, anointing him with oil.” But if it were a matter of miracles, James would not prescribe the matter; for he who has the gift of cure applies what God inspires in him, nor can the power of miracles be tied to any fixed thing, which is plain enough from the divine letters and the examples of all the saints. “But,” says Calvin, “it was useful to prescribe oil, that it might be a sign that the miracle was done not by the powers of man but by the might of the Holy Spirit; for it is settled that by oil the Holy Spirit is signified.” But water also signifies the Holy Spirit. And besides, if that were the cause why oil is prescribed, it ought to have been kept in every cure, and most of all in the raising of the dead. But nowhere do we read that the dead were anointed when they were to be raised. Fourthly, “And the prayer of faith,” he says, “shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up.” This surely is an absolute promise; therefore it cannot be referred chiefly to bodily health. For either those sick who were anointed as James prescribes were always healed, or not always. If always, then none would have died in the time of the apostles except those who did not obey James, who would have been very few. And besides, bodily health, because it is not always useful to the soul, is not always obtained from God, whoever it is that prays, even if he has the gift of cure. Wherefore those who were anointed were not always healed; therefore either that absolute promise of James is false, which cannot be, or, what is most true, it is to be referred chiefly and absolutely to the soul. Fifthly, “And if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” This particle indeed pertains so expressly to the soul that there is no room for evasion; but the gift of cure, as we have often said, is referred to the body. Sixthly, all the other things which are had in that epistle, whether before this place or after, pertain not to those alone who were then living, but also to us, who were to be afterwards, as is plain from those preceding, “Be you therefore also patient,” and, “strengthen your hearts,” and, “Grudge not,” and, “Is any of you sad? Let him pray. Is he cheerful in mind? Let him sing.” Likewise from those immediately following, “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved.” All these without doubt pertain to us also; therefore also those things which are set in the middle in the same tenor of words, “Is any man sick among you,” and so on, pertain to us. Wherefore it is not a question of the gift of cure, which is most rare and cannot always be had, but of a sacrament, which always lasts and can easily be had by anyone.
Nor do their arguments brought against us convince. To the first I answer that the unction of Mark 6 and of James 5 is not the same, except in the way in which the figure and the thing figured are called the same. For as much as the washing of the man born blind in the water of Siloe, which was a figure of Baptism, John 9, differs from Baptism itself of water and the Holy Spirit, John 3, so much do these two unctions differ. Whence also we see that in Mark 6 no mention is made of words, nor of a spiritual promise, which are necessarily required for a sacrament; but both are expressly had in James 5. But if anyone wishes to defend that Mark 6 treats of the sacrament of Extreme Unction itself, he can say that Mark did not express all things, but that what is wanting in him is to be sought from James; for often in the sacred writers this must necessarily be done, that what one omits is sought from another. To the second argument, which is wholly grammatical, and therefore suits Chemnitz aptly enough, I answer first that we do not deny that Extreme Unction sometimes brings bodily health, and therefore that James could set down some words which pertain to bodily health. Meanwhile, however, as those two words in Chemnitz’s opinion pertain to bodily health, so also there is an entire sentence which beyond all controversy is referred to the salvation of the soul, namely, “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” I say secondly that those two words in this place pertain chiefly not to the body but to the soul. For although egeiro properly signifies to rouse and raise up, which pertains to the body, yet by a metaphor familiar to holy Scripture it signifies also to drive away grief, sadness, negligence, drowsiness and sloth of mind. Hence are those words of the Apostle, Romans 13, “It is now the hour for us to rise from sleep”; Ephesians 5, “Rise thou that sleepest”; and that of Luke 3, “God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham”; and that of 2 Peter 3, “I stir up by way of admonition your sincere mind.” And in this place, “the Lord shall raise him up” signifies deliverance from a certain torpor, grief and anxiety which is accustomed greatly to weigh down and burden those near death, so that they cannot easily lift their mind to God. The other word, iaomai, is not set down by James in the sentence where he treats of the sacrament of Unction, but below, where he says, “pray one for another, that you may be saved”; for there is iathete. Wherefore it is ineptly dragged by Chemnitz to the purpose of this place. And besides, that word also is taken in this place for the salvation of the soul, as is plain from what precedes. And lest Chemnitz wonder if a medicinal word is used for the health of the soul, let him think that in the Scriptures this word is had a thousand times in this sense: Psalm 146, “Who healeth the broken of heart”; Matthew 13, “lest they should be converted, and I should heal them,” for which Mark has, chapter 4, “and their sins should be forgiven them”; and 1 Peter 2, “by whose stripes you were healed.” To the third I say that it is necessary indeed that the sacraments remain as long as the Church remains, but not necessary that to signify this some word denoting perpetuity be set in Scripture. For of Baptism no such word is extant anywhere; nor does “Behold I am with you” stand in the way, for Christ could be with us even if he had instituted Baptism to last only one day. But we evidently know that the unction of which James speaks will always last, both because the sick, the priests, the prayers, the remission of sins and the rest which James named will always remain in the Church, and also because hitherto this custom of anointing the sick has always been in the Church.
The fourth solution, of the same Luther, Chemnitz and Calvin, is theirs who affirm that this place makes nothing for us, because the rite of anointing in the time of James was altogether other than in our time. Which they prove by these arguments. First, because James orders any sick whatever to be anointed, but we anoint only men half dead; whence with us it is truly the Extreme Unction, because it is given to the dying, but James willed it for those who were to be healed. I answer: the Church anoints those who are in peril of life; for then supernatural remedies are to be sought, when there is no hope any longer in natural ones. And although the sick are anointed that they may be healed, if that is expedient for eternal salvation, yet it is rightly called extreme, because it is the last in respect of the unctions which we receive in the other sacraments, in Baptism, Confirmation and Orders. And that James meant this same thing is plain, first, from those words egerei and kamnonta. For to rouse and raise up properly befits those who lie greatly oppressed and weighed down; and kamnein signifies to faint, and also to die, whence the dead also are called kamnontes. Secondly the same is plain from this, that he says, “Let him bring in the priests.” For if he were not lying down he could himself go to the priests; and even if he were lying down, but not so gravely, there would be no need to bring in the priests. For otherwise, if for any disease whatever the priests had to run out to the sick, they would never stay at home, for the number of the sick is infinite. Lastly it is not credible that James willed Christians to have recourse to supernatural remedies when they could easily be cured by natural medicines. Add lastly that this place fights wonderfully with the adversaries from their own opinion. For if the Apostle orders all the sick to be anointed, why do they themselves anoint none? Secondly they prove it because James orders the elders of the Church to be called, but we call not many but one, and him a priest. I answer that the name of presbyter, or elder, in the New Testament is almost everywhere taken for an ecclesiastical minister; and that James was concerned not so much about number as about quality. For as, when we say that sins are to be confessed to priests, we do not understand that they are to be confessed to many, but to one; nor yet meanwhile do we deny that it is good that many should come, as is accustomed to be done in certain places. Thirdly Calvin proves it because James wills the sick to be anointed with simple oil, but now blessed oil is applied. Chemnitz adds that James did not prescribe in what part the sick man ought to be anointed, but that now fixed members are determined. I answer that James in this place addresses the sick, not the priests; but to know what the oil ought to be, and in what part it is to be applied, does not pertain to the sick man but to the priest. Besides, it ought to be enough for us that James does not deny that the oil is first to be blessed, nor deny that those parts are to be anointed which are now anointed in the Church; wherefore his words do not fight with the custom of the Church, but on the contrary the custom of the Church explains the words of James. Add that Bede, on chapter 5 of James, says that blessed oil is signified by those words, “anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
Fourthly Luther, Calvin and others prove it because James attributes this effect to the prayer of faith: “The prayer of faith,” he says, “shall save the sick man.” From which Luther gathers that the unction in James is not a sacrament, nor the same as ours; for the sacraments, and our unction too, do not depend on the faith of the minister. But Calvin and Chemnitz gather by this reasoning that it is not the same Unction as ours, because James attributes the whole effect to prayer, but we attribute almost the whole to the Unction, when we say, “By this holy Unction,” and so on. I answer to Luther’s consequence that it is called the prayer of faith in this place, not because it necessarily requires the faith of the minister, but because it is a prayer dictated by faith and understood by faith alone, in the way in which Augustine calls the sacramental word, which with the element makes the sacrament, the word of faith, and says that it works not because it is said, but because it is believed, tractate 80 on John. Add that even miracles do not always necessarily depend on faith. For Epiphanius, heresy 30, relates that a certain Joseph, a Jew, worked miracles by water blessed with the sign of the cross, although he himself did not believe; for the mere invocation of Christ often works miracles. So if what Luther assumes were true, it could not be shown that James treats either of the sacrament, as we say, or of a miracle, as Luther says. To the consequence of Calvin and Chemnitz I answer that the prayer of faith which saves the sick man does not exclude the working of the unction, but rather includes it. For this is the prayer of faith: “By this holy unction and his most loving mercy may God pardon thee,” and so on. As when someone asks something of God to be given him through the passion of Christ, if that prayer obtains it, the prayer is said to save him, but not without the passion of Christ. I add also that even if in that prayer of faith no mention were made of the unction, still the adversaries would gain nothing. For in the other sacraments too the effect is often attributed to one part of the sacrament itself, although it is settled that that part does not work without the other. Titus 3: “He saved us, by the laver.” Acts 8: “When Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given,” and so on; and yet a little before Luke had said that the apostles prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Fifthly Calvin proves it from the testimonies of our own. For Sigebert in the Chronicle writes that this unction was instituted by Innocent I; therefore it is not that of which James speaks. But Chemnitz, page 1105, writes more boldly that the unction of the sick was without doubt instituted by Felix IV, about the year of the Lord 528, nor does he deign to bring even one witness of this narration of his. I answer: Chemnitz’s lie is sufficiently refuted by Calvin; for Innocent I preceded Felix IV by a hundred years and more. But neither in the life nor in the writings of Felix IV is anything had about the unction of the sick. There is indeed something about the anointing of altars and basilicas when they are consecrated, in the first letter of this pontiff; but about the unction of the sick nothing. But Chemnitz is free to call the things that are not as though they were. Unless perhaps Chemnitz took it from the Supplement of the Chronicles of Philip of Bergamo; for he writes that Pope Felix admonished that the teaching of Saint James about anointing the dying should be kept. But what is this against Catholics? nay, why is it not rather for them? But to Calvin I answer that Sigebert relates in the same words what is had in the very letter of Innocent, letter 1, chapter 8; in which place Innocent does indeed say that the unction of the sick of which James speaks is a sacrament, but does not say that it was instituted by himself; nay, he says the contrary in express words, while he brings the testimony of James, and while he calls it a sacrament, and while he answers the question proposed to him about this sacrament by the bishop of Gubbio.
Chapter IV. It is proved from the tradition of the ancients that the unction of the sick is a sacrament
Now in the second place the truth is to be proved from the testimonies of pontiffs, councils, Fathers and other authors. And first, from the pontiffs we have first Innocent I, who in express words, in letter 1 to Decentius, chapter 8, mentions this sacrament. And secondly we have Innocent III, who also gives testimony to this sacrament copiously and clearly, chapter “Cum venisset,” on holy Unction. But the testimony of Innocent I, even if it alone were extant, ought to suffice. For the author is ancient, since he began to sit in the year 402; and he is a man learned and holy, and wonderfully commended by Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom; his letter is certain; he says expressly and clearly that this Unction is a sacrament explained by James, and therefore is not given to those who are not capable of the other sacraments, and so on; nor did any of the ancients ever reprehend him for having taught that the unction of the sick is a sacrament. Add that the Magdeburgers, Century 5, chapter 6, on the rite of visiting the sick, prove by this testimony that in that age there was a custom of anointing the sick. Lastly Chemnitz, who tries to expound almost all the others who are brought by Catholics for this sacrament, did not dare even to name this author, although he could not be ignorant of him, since all Catholics bring forward this testimony. From this testimony we also gather why not many testimonies of this kind are extant, that is, so ancient and so express: namely because they had no occasion to write about this matter. For neither would Innocent have written about this matter unless that doubt had come into the mind of the bishop of Gubbio, whether a bishop could give the sacrament of Extreme Unction, or only a presbyter; for that is the question to which the pope answers. For otherwise the Fathers did not write about the sacraments which were in daily use unless compelled by some occasion, or unless the heretics had to be answered.
Then from the councils we have first the Nicene, made Latin from the Arabic, canon 69, where mention is openly made of the Oil of the sick, and it is distinguished from the Chrism and the Oil of catechumens. Likewise particular but ancient councils, as the second of Châlon, canon 48, which, speaking of this sacrament, says that the decrees of the Fathers agree with the epistle of James; that of Worms, canon 72, where the decree of Innocent I is again renewed; that of Meaux, in Burchard, book 4, canon 75, orders that on Thursday of the Lord’s Supper the parish priests receive from the bishop an ampulla of holy oil for anointing the sick, according to the apostolic tradition; the second of Aachen, in the time of the emperor Louis, canon 8, admonishes that this sacrament be not neglected, in which the salvation of the sick is contained. The Council of Mainz under Archbishop Rabanus has like things, canon 26. Now from the Fathers we have two kinds of testimonies. One of those who do not indeed say expressly that this is one of the sacraments, yet say expressly that the words of James pertain to us, and that even now and at every time presbyters ought to do what James writes. So Origen, homily 2 on Leviticus; Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood; Augustine in the Mirror, where he sets down from the whole of Scripture only those sentences which serve us at every time, and he wrote down also this sentence of James, “Is any man sick among you,” and so on. The same also, sermon 215 on the season, admonishes that those who are sick keep the precept of James. The author of the work On the Visitation of the Sick has the same, book 2, chapter 4, which book is had in volume 9 of the works of Augustine; and although it seems falsely attributed to Augustine, yet it cannot be denied to be an ancient and good book. Bede has the same on chapter 6 of Mark and 5 of James, Theophylact on chapter 6 of Mark, and Oecumenius on chapter 5 of James. And these testimonies prove sufficiently what we want, if we observe that the adversaries denied that this unction is a sacrament chiefly for this reason, that they thought James spoke only to the men of his own time. Certainly Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 20, speaks thus: “Since we require these two things in a sacrament, that it be a ceremony instituted by God and have the promise of God, we at the same time demand that this ceremony be delivered to us and the promise regard us. For no one contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both the institution of God and had a promise annexed, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise which had been joined to it given to us on the same condition. The promise which they fiercely boast in the unction we have evidently shown was not given to us,” and so on. So he. The Fathers cited, therefore, who openly affirm that this ceremony and promise pertain to us, will have this unction to be a sacrament, even by the witness of Calvin himself.
We have then others who expressly count this unction among the sacraments, as Alcuin, in the book On the Divine Offices, chapter on the sick; Amalarius, book 1 On the Ecclesiastical Offices, chapter 12; Peter Damian, sermon 1 on the dedication of a church; Hugh, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 15, chapters 2 and 3. Where this is to be noted by the way, that what this author says, that this sacrament was instituted by James, ought to be understood of the institution by promulgation, not of institution properly so called; in the way in which Moses is often called the author of the old law, although he only promulgated it. Bernard in the life of Saint Malachy, where he also relates a notable miracle. Lastly Peter Lombard, on book 4, distinction 23, and all the theologians who followed him. To these let be added the examples of very many saints who willed to be anointed before they departed from life, which can be read in Surius among the Catholics, especially volume 2, and in Illyricus among the heretics, Century 8 and following, chapter 6. Let there be added lastly the testimony of the Greek Church, which has its own weight for this reason, that since it is settled that the Greeks did not receive their rites from the Roman Church, especially for more than five hundred years, during which they have been separated from us, it is certain that those things in which we agree are more ancient than the schisms and heresies which arose afterwards. Further, that the Greeks acknowledge Extreme Unction as a true sacrament is plain, first, from the Council of Florence, where without any contradiction they received the instruction of the Armenians, in which among the other sacraments Extreme Unction is counted. Besides, Jeremias, patriarch of Constantinople, in the answer to the confession of the Lutherans, chapter 7, sets down seven true and proper sacraments, and says that there are neither more nor fewer; and among them he sets Extreme Unction, and calls it a divine sacrament, and says it was explained by the apostle James. The more recent Greek writers also hand down the same, as Simeon of Thessalonica in the book On the Seven Sacraments, Nicholas Cabasilas in the exposition of the sacred liturgy, chapter 26; and lastly the Euchologion itself, that is, the ritual book of the Greeks, has the same rites in this sacrament which we Latins also have.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III.
Rcfelluntur haereticoruni solntiones
ad Scripturam cicatam.
Ad hoc argumentum quatuor solutiones ab hac-
rcticis dari solcnt. Prima est, epistolam illam non
csse canonicam , nec a spirilu apostolico profe-
ctain. Ila Lutherus lococitato, cui assenlilur Rcm-
nitius pagina lli:]. ubi dicit lianc c[)islolam nori
LlliEU P1U31US
/j;>
csse lanlae auclorilalis, ut possit sinc leslimoniis
Scrlpturae canonicae , sacramenla inslilueie. Et
probat ex Hicronyuio qui annolavil in lib. dc scri-
ptoribus ecclesiaslicis in Jacobo, veteres judicas-
se non esse epislolam illam a Jacobo aposlolo scri-
plam,et ex Euscbio lib.3.bist.cap.23.qui de ilia sic
ait: Sciendam io^ voS-cUc-e idesl, quod notlia sil.
At haec prima solulio est reiugium miserorum.
Nam omnes vuleres, qui calalogos scripserunl sa-
crorum librorum, hanc epislolam cum caeleris nu-
merarunl, ut pnlet ex Clemente can. ull. aposlolo-
rum ex Innoccnlio 1. epislol. 3. et Gelasio I. in
concilio LXX. episcopornm: Ilem ex conciliis lao-
(iiceno, can. ull. carlbag. III. can. 47. iloreulino
cl tridenlino sess. 4. Denique ex Palribus.Origene
liomil. 7. in Josue, Allianasio in synopsi, Epipba-
nio baeres. 7G. Ilieronymo epist. ad Paulinum ,
Auguslino lib. 2. doclrinae christianae cap.S.Ruf-
iino in symbolum, Isidoro lib. 4. elymolog. cap.
1. et Damasceno lib. 4. de tlde cap. 18. Quod si
liis lol ac laulis aiictoribus fides non habelur;Con-
cidel auctoritas onmium iiliorum librorum: nec e-
nim iiliunde sciinus, qui libri sint caiionici , nisi
cx Iradilioue el leslimonio veleruin poutificum ,
conciiiorum et Patriim, eorum praeseriim. qui in-
dicein texere voluerunt sacrorum librorum.
Neque ulium unquam legi veleriim. qui aperte
scriberel, Jacobi cpislolam non esse canonicarn.
Nam Hieronymus, quem pro se Remniiius citat ,
dicil quidem quibusdam visam fuisse dubiae fidei
epistoliim, lamen tciuporis |)rogressu oblinuisse
auctoritalem. Eusebius autem dicil eain epislolani
quorundam opinione esse adullerin!im;lamen sub-
jungil contiiiuo: A'os aalem scimus in plurimis
ccclesiis yublicc csse veceptam. El cerle plus ad
iios valere debel publica ecclesiaruin auclorilas ,
quae lesle Eusebio banc epislolam recepit ut ca-
uonicam , quam obscura quoruiidam opinio, (|uae
(iodem teste Eusebio, eandem epistolain rejicil.
Secunda solulio est ejusdem Lulberi ibidem ,
qui sic ail : Si essel Jacobi nposloli. dicerem non
licere aposlolo sua aacloritate sacramcntum iu-
stilucre, idest, divinam promissionem cuni ad-
juncto svjno dare, lioc enim ad Clirislum solum
perlinebdl.
Haec solulio longe delerior cst superioreraudel
enim Lulherus se aposlolo Jacobo opponere, ctin
faciem illi resistere, qiiiisi aperte crriinti, el sibi
arrogiinti ipiod ei rion conveniebat. At certe nec
Jiicobiis sil>i assiimil qiiod Lutlierus dicit : iion (>.-
nim ipse siicrainenliiiii inslituit, sed hortiiturad u-
siiin Siicriimenli in^tiluli ; el si id sibi assiinierel ,
illi polius, (|Uiim l.iithcro criMlendum cssel. INec
ciiim litMi pusset, ut lanliis Apostolus pust ;icce-
ptuiii Spiriliiiii siiiicliim. in re tam magna crriiret:
neque est simih; de b. Pclii errore ; ille eiiim er-
ravil exenqilo. non doclrina, isle aiitcm crrasset
in doclrinii, et in ipsa Scriplurii , (juod licri non
pulesl. Qiiiiie si Jacobus dicerel siicr;iiiiciiliiiii ;i
se in.^liluiiiiii; cre(|i;re debcieiiius, id illi ii Cliri-
slo concessum singulari privilegio, sed non esl o-
pus iid Iiijs angusliiis redigi.
ierlia solulio esl ejiisdeiu hiitlieri ibidern , iiec-
iion Wicleli, Pliili{)pi, Hreiilii, Calvini et alioruiu
communis , quod Jacobus loqiiatur de unctione,
qua iilebanlur eo tempore ad curiiiulos inorbos cor-
porales. Elquidein Wiclefus pulat luqui aposloluiu
de naturali curalione, et ideo meminisse olei, quia
esl naluraliter medicinale, el in illa rcgione abun-
dal. Philippus exislimat euiii loqui de unclioue,
quae partim naturaliter, piirlim eliam dono diviiio
curabat: unde dicit Ahrahain, Isaac, Jacob. Isaiam,
et caeteros prophelas fuissi; |)iofessiou!; iiiedicos,
el babiiisse nolissimas herbarum el aliuruiu uiedi-
Ciimentordm naluras, et simul eliam ornulos dono
miriiculorum, Lutherus tamen, Calviuus, Brenlius
et Keinnitiiis simpliciter Apostulutu expouunt de
curalione ex dono Dei, pruiude dicuul non magis
fuisse sacramenlum istam uncliouem, quam fucrit
probatica piscina, vel lutum cum sputo, vcl aqua
Siloe clc. nunc aulem quando donum illud ccssa-
vit, non modo unctionem non esse sacramenlum,
se{J etiam esse rem inulilem el supersliliosam.
Argumenlum eorum sunt Iria. Primum, quia Ja-
cobus ex Marci evangelio accepil, quud ducel dc
unclione olei: Marcus autcm de unclione illa lu-
quilur, quain adhibebanl qui habuerunl donum cu-
ratiouum.
Secundum: Quia Jacobus ulitur vocibus quae ad
corpnralem sanilatem pertinent , nimirum i^zirAO
el iaoij.ai.
Terlium: Quia Jacobus lantum loquilur ad homi-
nes sui lemporis,quando durabal gralia saniiatum.
Idque piitel cx eo. quod non ;iddidit aliquam par-
liculam, qua signilicaret, huuc rilum propagaiiduui
esse ad posteros, sicul Scripturae faciunl, cum lo-
qiiunlur de veris sacramentis. ut de Daplismo 3Iat-
tli. ult. Ecce ego vobiscum smmisque ad muiidi
consummntioncm. El de Eufhurislia 1. Coriiilh.
11. Quotiescumque manducabilis panem liunc
el caliccm bibetis, mortem Domini annunciabiliii
donec venial.
Sed his argumcnlis nos longe plura , ct meliora
possumus opponere. Ac Primum.quod non Joqua-
tur de niiiurali ciiriilione, etsimul quud pruiihclac
iion consueverinl curare more nicdicorum, conlra
AVicIefum ct Pbilippum facilc prob;iri potcst. Pri-
nio. quia clsi oleuui sit mediciiiale. laiucii nun esl
n)(MliciuaIe,l;imen iion esl mcdiciuale ad curiiinlus
(|uosvis inorbos. immo vero plurimis , aut niliil
pruderil, iiuteliam obcrit. Aposlolus auteni geiie-
raiim jubel, ul aegroti ungaulur oleo.
Dcindc. prophetae et aposloli , ul plurimum rc-
biis noxiis nalura sua, aut certc non salulanbus u-
lcbanlur; ul curarent. iil nimirum oiiincs iiitelli-
g(!r(Mil, Dci miriiciilo illii licrMiou viribus naturae.
Sic Moyscs aciicum serpenlein erexil , ut ejus a-
spcclu curarentur lacsi a serpenlibus.SiclIelisacus
jupiii Jordanis (■iiravit lcpraiii IViiiiiuaii Syri. Sic 1-
saias massa (;x licis curavil ulciis E/.ecliiae , qu;ic
Micdicina conlraria crat cnralioni illius morbi, ul
lliiMonymiis nolat cx senlciiliii llcbracorum iii
com. ad ca|). iiS. Isiiiae.Sic Doiiiiuus lulo ct spulo
ciiecum niitiiiii: Sic Pctrus uiiibra corporis sui: Sic
Paulus sudariis el semicinctiis.
Accedil: Qiiod si iisi fnisseiil ordinarie rcbus ii-
lilibiis iid (Miriindum, i|)si sibi lldciu abrogassent
cl Dci donuiii ohocurassciil.
754
SACIIAMKMO KAillKMvr.
Quoil iiiiloin noc loqnnUir Jiicobus ile nncliono,
«|uye Siinarel corpus e\ ik»no niiriicuUiruni , sed
(|uue siuiurel iiniiiuin), cl i.'li(]u:iiulo eliiini corpus
virlulo sacraincnUili , conlra Lullieruin. (laiviiium,
cl alios probalur cx siii^Milis vocilnis laijiis loci.
l'riiiio, lnfirnuilur, iiupiit. (luis in robis. Al si de
iniraculis ujiercl, lionoralius loqucrclur: non enini
soliim consulirel iis qui dccnmbuiil j,'ravali peri-
culoso alicpio iiiorbo. ul facit. scil cliaiii caecis .
surdis, claudis. aliisqne. iniscris Iioiniiiibiis , (pii
non decumbunl, nec de vila periclitanlur , el ta-
men ejjenl curalinno.
Sccuiido: Inducdl. inquil, prC!<bi/lcros. At si do
miruculo agcrel. dicerol potius, Inducal proplie-
las, aul alios, qui doiuim babcnl curalioniim: iiec
•'iiim soli, aut omnes iiresbylcri cliani liinc liabc-
banl donum curandi. INeque reforl, quod per prc-
.sbyleros noluiil adversarii signiticari sacerdotes ,
scd scnioros: nain noc senioros omncs liabebant
doiium curaiioiiis, non ciiim ilkid donum eral al-
iigatuin aetati. aul dignilati. ut palet ex Paulo Ro-
iiiaii. 12, I. Cor. 12. et Eplics. 4. l'raolerea non
est probabilc Aposlolum jussisse fidclibns, ul mi-
racula quaercrent. signa cniin inlidelium sunl ,
iion fnkdium, 1. Cor. 14.
Terlio: Orenrinquil, siiper euinjmgenlcs eum
oleo. Al si de niiraculis agcrelur, non pracscribc-
rcl Jacobus maleriam: qui enim donum habel cu-
raiionis. adbibcl quod Deus illi inspirat , ncc po-
losl alligari certac alicui rci virlus miraculornm.
Id quod satis patel cx divinis lilcris, el excmplis
oinnium snnciorum: Sed , inquit Calvinus , utile
fuil praescribcre oleum, ut esselsignum, miracu-
lum lierinon viribus hominis , sedpolenlia Spi-
rilus sancli: constal cnim oleo significari Spiri-
lum sanctum. Al etiam aqua significal Spirilum
sanctum.Et practerea si illa esset caussa,cur prae-
scribatur olciim, dcbuissel iliud servari in omni
curalione cl in excitatione mortuorum maxime.
-Vusquam aulem legiraus inunclos fuisse raorluos,
cum cxcilandi erant.
Quarto: El oratio, inquit, fidei salvabit infir-
nnim, cl allevabit eum Dominus. Haec sane abso-
luta promlssio est, proindc rcferri non potcst prae-
cipue ad corporalcm sanilatem. Nara aut seraper
sanali fuissenl acgroti illi, qui ungebantur, ut Ja-
cobus piraescribil, aui non serapcr: si scmper,ergo
iiulli fuissenl inorlui aposlolorura lempore , nisi
illi, quiJacobonon obedivissenl, qni paucissirai
fuisscnl. Etpraelerea sanitas corporalis, quia non
serapcr utilis esi animae, non ctiam scmper obli-
netur a Deo, quif-umque sil, qui oret, eliamsi do-
num babcal curationis. Quare non sempor sana-
banlur qui ungebanlur: crgo vel falsa esl absolula
illa promissio Jacobi, quod ficri non potest, aut
quod vcrissimum est, ad animain praccipue ct
absoluic rcferenda esl.
Quiulo: Etsiinpeccalisfuerit, dimillenlur ei.
Ilaec vero parlicula lani exprcsse ad animam porli-
iicl, ul iion sil locus tergiversalioni. Donum aulcra
( urationis. ul saopc diximus, ad corpus referlur.
Sexto: Omnia alia quac babcnlur in illa epislola,
sive aiilc buiic locum, sivc postca, non ad cos so-
los perlincnl. qui tunc vivcbanl, sed etiam ad nos,
qtii i)osloa ruliiri ornmus. ul palet (!x illis praccR-
dcntibus: Paticntcs estote , ct: (Umfiruuilc corda
vcstra. el: noUlcpbrare, el: Trislalur (juis invo-
bis? orel: acquo animo csl? ps(dL(it. Ilcm cx illis
immodiatc scipiontilnis: Confilcmini (dlcrulrum
pcccala vcstra, ct orate pro inviccm, ut salvcmi-
ni. Ilacc omnia sinc dubio ad nos eliani pcrlinenl:
igilur cliam illa. quao oodom tonorc vorborum iii
mcdio posita siiiit: Jnfirm(dur quis in vobis ctc.i\(\
nos pcrtincnt.Quarc non agilur di» doiio cuialionis.
(luod eslrarissirauin, ct non scmpcr babcri polcst,
sed dc sacramcnto, quod scmpcr durat, et lacilc
a quolibcl liabcri polost.
Ncquc argumenta ipsorum coiilra allata convin-
cunl. Ad Priinum Rcspondoo: Non esse candera
unclioncm Manu 0. cl Jacobi ">. nisi co modo.quo
dicuntur idem figura ct figuralnm: Quantura enim
inlercst. intcr lolionem cacci nati in aqua Siloc ,
quac fuil figura Baplismi, Joan. 9. el ipsiim Daptis-
miim cx aqua, ct Spiritui sanclo, Joan. 3. tanlum
inlcresl inter lias duas unclioncs.Undc eliam vidc-
mus Marci G. nullain fiori inentionem vcrborura ,
ncc proraissionis spirilualis, quac ad sacramentum
necessarie rcquirunlur: ulrumque aulcm expressc
habctur Jacob. 5.
Si quis aulcm dcfendcrc velil Marci 6. traclari
de ipso sacramento Unclionis cxtreraac , diccrc
potesl, Marcuin non omnia exprcssisse, sed quac
illi desunt, ex Jacobo csse pelenda. Saepe enim
in scriploribus sanctis id necessario faciendum est.
ut quod unus omiltit, petatur ab alio.
Ad Secundum argumcnlum , quod tolura gram-
malicale est, el ideo salis apte convenit Kemnilio.
Respondeo in prirais nos non negare,quincxlreraa
Unctio inlerdura adferat corporalem sanilatem, et
ideo Jacobura aliqua verba ponere poluisse, quae
ad sanilalera corporalera pertineant.Interim iamen
sicul illa duo verba, Reranilii opinione , ad corpo-
ris sanilalem pertinent: sic eliam inlegra sentenli;i
cst, quac citra oranera conlroversiara referlur ad
aniraae salulera, nirairura illud: Sii7ipeccalisfue-
rit, remittcnlur ei.
Dico Secundo: Illa verba duo, hoc loco non ad
oorpus, sed animara praecipue perlinere. Nam elsi
e-(ci^io proprie significal excitarc et cIevare,quod
ad corpus pertinel.tamen per raelapliorara Scriplu-
rae sanclae familiarcrn , significat eliam pellerc
mocrorem, tristitiam , negligentiam , soporem ct
dosidiam animi. Hinc sunt illa Aposloli Rom. 13.
Hora est jam nos de sommo surgere z-^zp^wai
Ephes. 5. Surge, iyzirjai. quidormis etc. Etillud
Luc. S.Po^ens esl Deus de lapidibus istis excitare
filios Abrahae. Et illud 1. Pelr.-^.Zi^ccci/o sinceram
veslram mentem. Hoc aulem loco. Allevabit eum
Domihus, significat liberalionem a quodam lor-
pore, moerore, anxietale, quae propinquos morli
valde deprimere et gravare solet, ut non facile
possinl mentem ad Doum atlollere.
Allerum illud verbum idio, non ponilur a Jacobo
in ea senlentia, ubi agil de sacramento Unclionis,
seii infra cum ait: Oraie pro invicem, ul salvemi-
ni: ibi enim est, iaaizr-^-c. Quocirca ineplo a Kcin-
nitio Irahitur ad proposilura liujos loci. Et Praele-
rea illa eliam vox hoc loco accipilur pro salutea-
-IllKii PHIMUS
7a.)
iiimac, ul palel cx prncccdcnlibiis. El ne mirclur
Kemnilius, si verbum medicinale usurpclur pro
sanilale animae, cogilel in Scripluris millies bnbe-
ri banc vocem in boc scnsu, psal. 141). Qui sanat
cojilritos cordc. iMallb. 13. Nc forle convertantur
(itsanem eos. Pro quoMarcus babcl cap. 4. El di-
millanlur eispeccala. El 1. Pclr. 2. Cujus livore
sanali eslis.
A(i Terliura dico: Keccssarinm quidem essc ul
sacrnmenla mancant, quamdiu Ecclcsia manel,scd
non essc necesse, ul ad boc signilicanduin ponalur
in Scriplura vcrbum aliquod dcnolans perpelnila-
lem. Nam de Baplismo nusquam exlal ejusmodi
verbum: nec obslal: Ecce egovobiscumsum, nam
poluil Cbrislus nobiscum esse,eliamsi Bapiismum
insUlnisscl sohim ad unum diem duralurum. Co-
frnoscimus aulem evidenler, unclionem , de qua
loquilnr Jacobus, semper dnraluram. tum quia in-
llrmi. prcsbylcri. oraliones, reinissio pcccatorum,
et caetcra, quae Jacobus nominavit, sempcr mari-
sura sunl in Ecclesia; tum eliam quia baclenus
semper in Ecclcsia fuil isla consucludo ungendi
infirmos.
Ouarta solutio ejusdcm Lulberi, Kemnitii et Cal-
vini est. qui airirmant locum islum nibil pro no-
bis racerc, quod alius omnino fucril ritus ungendi
tcmpore Jacobi, alius nostro lempore, Id quod bis
argumentis probant. Primo, quia Jacobus jubel
iMiingi quoslibet infirmos, nos autem solum iiuin-
ijimus bomines semimorluos. Unde apiid nos vere
est Unclio exlrema, quia datur morientibus, Jaco-
bus autem noluit iis, qui sannndi cranl.
Rcspondeo: Inungit Ecclcsia eos , qui de vila
periclitanlur: tunc enim quaerenda sunt remedia
supernaturalia, quando nulla spcs am|)Iiiis esl in
n.iluralibus. Et quamvis inunganlur aegroti ut sa-
nenlur, si id expcdil aeteriiae saluli, lamen recle
dicilur cxtrema, quia est ultima respeclu unctio-
nnm, qiias in aliis sacramentis percipimus, in Ba-
plismo. Conlirmalionc et Ordinalione.
El boc idcm voluisse Jac.obum. palel Primo ex
illis vocibus sYcpcl, et xa[7.v5VTa. Nam excitarc. ct
allcvare propric iis convcnit.qui decumbunl valde
oppressi ct gravati, et ■/.d;;.vciv significal (leQc(!re,
cl rliam mori . undc etiam y.dixvovTS^ dicunlur
mortni. Scrundo idcm palct cx co, qiiod ail: /ici-
ducul presbyleros. 'Snm si iion decnmberct.posset
ipse ire ad prcsbyteros: et etiamsi dccuinbcrct,scd
110(1 adeo gravitcr, non oporlercl adduci presbyle-
ros. Alioqui enim si ob qucmlibct inorbum debe-
riMit prcsbytcri excurrcre ad acgrolos , niinK|uaiii
d(jmi manercnt, est cnim iidinilus numerus aegro-
torum.bcniquc non cst crcdibile voluisscJatobum,
ut ad rcMicdiii snpcrnaturalia (^brisliani recurrc-
rcnl,(|uaiido facile poss(!nt naliiralihusmcdicamcn-
lis curari. Addc 1'llimo biinc locum inirc pugnarc
ciim iidversariis cx i[isa eorum scnlcnliii. Nam si
jubel Apostolus omncs acgrutus inungi,quare ipsi
uulluin inungunl.
Scciindu probanl: Quia Jacobus jnbet advocari
scnidrcs Ecclesiac, nos aulcm non innltos , scd
unum vocamus et eum s.iccrdulcm.
Hcspondco: iVomcn prcsbyleri, seu scnioris in
Teslamenlo novo ferc ubiquc accipi pro minislro
ccclcsiaslico; el Jacobum non lam dc numcro ,
quam de qualitalc fuissc sollicilnm. Qucmadmo-
dum eniin cum dlcimus confitcnda csse peccata
sacerdolibus , non inlelligimus confilcnda csse
raullis, sed uni: Nec tamen inlerim negamus bo-
num esse, ut raulti veniant , sicul in quibusdam
locis fieri solct.
Tcrtio probat Calvinus, quia Jacobus oleo sim-
plici vuU inungi acgrolos: nunc aulcin adliibctur
oleum benedictum. Addil Kcmnitius , Jacobum
non praccepissc in qua parle ungi debcat aegrotus
nunc autem determinari certa membra.
Uespondeo: Jacobum alloqui infirmos boc loco,
non sacerdotcs: scirc aulcm (lualc dcbcat csse o-
leum, et in qua parte sit adbibendum,ad infirmum
non pcrlinet, scd ad sacerdotem. Salis Praelerca
nobis esse debcl, quod JacoLus non negat olcuni
esse prius benedicendum, ncque negat ons partcs
inungendas, qnae modo ungunlur in Ecclcsia ;
quocirca non pugnant cjus verba cum Ecclesiae
consueludine, scd conlra polius Ecclcsiac consue-
tudo explicat vcrba Jacobi. Addc, quod Biida in
cap. 5. Jacobi, dicil significari olcum bcnediclum
per illa verba: Ihicientes oleo in nomine Domini.
Quarto probant Lutbcrus, Calvinus ct alii.qiiiii
Jacobus, Iribuit bunc cfTeclum oriilioni fidei: Ora-
lio, inquit, fidci, salvabit infirmum. Ex quo Lu-
therus colligit, unclionem apud Jacobum non esso
sacraincnlum, nec eandcm cuin noslra: nam sa-
cramenla et nostra eli;im unclio non iicndcnl a
fidc ministri. Calvinus autem ct Kcmnitius, ea ra-
tione colligunl, non essc candem Unclioucm cum
noslra, quia Jiicobus totum encclum tribuil oralio-
ni; nos aiilein tolnm fcre Iribnimus Unclioni, cuin
di(dmus: Per hanc sacram Vaclionam elc.
Rcspondeo:Ad conscqncntiam Lulhcri orationcm
fidei dici boc loco.non (piia rcquiriit ncccssiirio li-
dem minislri, sed quia est oratio diclata a lide, el
soli! fidc intcIligilur,qiiomodo vcrhum sacramcnla-
le, quod cum clemcnlo facit siicramcnlum. Angii-
slinus vocal verbum fidci, et dicil opcrari non quia
dicitur, scd quia creditur tract. 80. in Joan. Addc,
qiiod cliiiin miraculo non scmpcr nccessario pcn-
(lcnt a fidc. Narral cnim Epiphaiiiis biicrcs. 30.
(luendam Joscpbum judaeum miraciila fccissc pcr
atjuam bcncdiclam signo crucis, (itiamsi i|)sc non
credercl: miiiicnla eniin siicpc opcriilnr sobi Clirisli
invociitio. Itaquc si esscl vcnim quod Lntbcrus as-
sumit, non possel oslendi Jacobum agcrc dc sacra-
mento, qiiod nos dicimus; nec de miraculo (pioil
Lulberus dicil.
Ad consequenliam Calvini ct Rciniiilii; rcspon-
dco: orationcm (idci, (piiic iiifirmum salval, non cx-
cludere operalioiicm nnctionis, ininio i)olius inclu-
dcic. H.icc cnim csl oriilio Ihlci: l'cr lianc sacram
nnctionem, et suam piissimam misericordiam in-
duUjeat libi Dc.us clc. Sicul ciim (piis aliquid a Oco
pclil pcr Cbrisli passioiicm sibi thiri; si oratio ill.i
impelriit, or;ilio dicilur illiim s;ilvare. scd non siiic
Cliristi passione. Addo ctiam, quod licct iii ilhi o-
riilionc lidci iiulla licrct nicnlio iinctionis.iidbnc ni-
bil iidvcrsiirii oblincrcnt. .\am cliiiiu in iiliis sacra-
mcntis saepc Iribuitur cfTcctus uiii j^arti ipsiiis sa-
cramcnli, cum lamcn coiislel c;im partcm noii ope-
1al>
DK SACij.vMK.NTo i:xTm;.)i.\i;
liiri sinc alia.Til. '.\. Salviiti noa fncit jwr lavacniin.
Vclor. 8. Cum viderel SiiinnL, (juia pcr inaiias
imitusitioncm apostol >niin ilarclnr Spiritns san-
vlUii ctv. cl l;iincii iiiilfii ilixcriil Liicas. ;i|Mt.sU)los
unisse pro i^iiiiuiriUinis , iil ucci|)crcnl iSpiriUiiii
SUPCtlllU.
Oumio: Prol)iil C;ilviiuis ex lcsliinoniis noslro-
ruin. .\uin Si^ebcrUis iu Clironico scribiU luiiic
iiiiclioncin «ib liuiocenlio I. insliUiUnn; non igitur
ilhi esl, <ic (iu;i lotiuitur Jiicobus. 8cd Kciiiuilius
piijiiiui l\Mi. iiKi^is ;iuil;iclcr scribit, unclionciii
lulirinoruin sine ilubio insliUit;im ;i Fclice IV.circ;i
aniuiin Doiniiii o28. nec digniilur vcl unuui leslciu
iiiliiibcrc liujus su;ie iuirr;ilionis.
ilcspouileo: .Meiuhiciuin Kciuiiitii Siitis relelli a
(.'.alvino. Nam Innocenlius 1. praecessit Feliccm
IV. aiinis cciituiu cl aiii[>lius. Scd nec in vila, iicc
111 scri[)lis Felicis IV. ;ili(]uid liabciur dc unclio-
iie inliriiioruin. llabclur (]uidciii aliquid de unclio-
iie allariuin el basilicaruui, dum consecrantur, iu
cpistola 1. liujus ponUricis.al de unclione inilruio-
luiii niliil. Sed Keiuiiilio iiccl vocare ca (]Ucie noii
sunl tainquam ea quae sunl. .^isi forle id acceperit
Kcinnilius e.x supiilemeiito Clironicorum IMiilippi
iJcrgomensis : is enim scribil , Fclicem papam
inonuisse.ut scrvarcUir doctriiia s. Jacobi de inuu-
^'cndis inoriluris. 6ed quid hoc advcrsus callioli-
cos? iinmo cur iion pro illis polius?
Ad Calvinum aulem respondeo : Sigebcrtum rc-
lcrre iisdcm verbis id quod habetur in ipsaliino-
cenlii epist. 1. ca[). 8. (juo loco dicil quidera In-
iiucenlius uuctioiiciu iulirmorum, de qua loquilur
J.icobus. esse sacramciituiii, sed ;i sc insliiutum
iion dicil, imuio contrarium diserlis verbis dicit ,
dum Jacobi lcsliuionium profcrl , cl dum sacra-
inciituiii iippcllut, el dum rcspondel ad quaeslio-
iicra sibi propositain circa hoc sacramealum ab
episcopo Eugubino.
C.\PUT IV.
ProhaluT ex tradilione veterum, unclionem
infirmorum esse sacramenlum.
Jam secundo loco probanda esl verilas c.x lesti-
moniis ponlificura, conciliorum, patrum, aliorura-
que auctorum. .\c primuin ex ponlificibus habe-
nujs Primo Innoccnlium I. qui diserlis verbis in
cpisl. 1. ad Decentium cap. 8. meminil hujus sa-
cramcnli. Et secundo haberaur Innocenliura III.
qui cliam copiose el perspicue huic sacfamcnlo
lcsiimonium perliibel, cap. Cum venisset , de sa-
cra Unctione.
Sed Innocenlii I. teslimonium eliamsi solum ex-
tarel, sunicore deberel. Nain auclor est anliquus ,
siquidcm anno 402. sedere coepit , eslque vir do-
ctus et sanclus , et ab Augustino , Hieronymo
Ciirysoslomo mirifice coramendolus epislola ejus
certa csl; dicit c.xpresse el clare banc Unctionera
essesacraraenlum a Jacobo e.xplicalum, et ideo
non dari iis, qui non sunl capaces aliorum sacra-
mentorum elc. nec uUus unquam velerum oum
reprehendil, (juod uiu.iioncm inrirmoriim sacra-
incnlum cssc docueril. Adde, quod Maj^dcburgcii-
scs Cciil. ."». c;i|). G.de rilu visiUitionis inlirmoriim.
lioc lesliiiionio iirobaul.illo sacciilo 1'uisse consiic-
ludincni uiijj;ciuli iuvgrolos.
Dciiique Kcmniiius, qui omncs fcrc alios cona-
liir c.\[)oiicrc, (jui a Ciilholicis iinihiruiitur [iro lioc
s;icriiiiiciito, liuiic iiuctorcm iie nomiiuirc (iiiidciii
ausus esl, nec Inmcn eum ignorarc potuil, cuiii o-
iiiues catholici lioc lcslimonium prolcriint.
iv\ lioc etiani lcslinu)nio collij^Minus. cur noii e.\-
tent inulla liujus generis lcsliiiiuiiiii, idcsl,Uiiii aii-
tiqua el lam cxiiressa: quia videlicct non habuc-
runl occasioncm dc liac rc scribendi. Nain nec In-
nocciitius (lc liac re scripsisscl, nisi cpiscopo Lu-
gubino dubiUilio illa in menlcm venissel, utrum
episcopus possil darc sacramcnlum Unclionis cx-
tremae, an solus presbytcr: isla cnim csl quacstio
ad quam papa rcs[)ondel. Alioqui enim de sacra-
nienlis, quae in usu quotidiano erant, non scribe-
banl Patrcs, nisi coacti aliqua occasione , vel nisi
baereticis respondendum csset.
Deindc ex conciliis habemus in primis nicacnuni
ex arabico hilinum faclum canon. G9. ubi a|)crlc
menlio fit Oiei infirmorum, cl dislinguitur a Chris-
mate el Olco catachumcnorum. Ilcra concilia par-
licularia, sed antiqua, ul cabilonense li. canone
'i8. dc hoc sacramento loquens, dicit Palruni de-
crela Jacobi epislolae consonare. Wormalicnse
can. 72. ubi ilerum renovalur decrclum Innocen-
tii I. meldense apud Eurchardum lib. 4. can. 75.
jiibet feria 5.in coena Domini, parochos ab episco-
po accipere ampullara olei sancli pro infirrais inun-
gendis, juxta apostolicam Iraditionem. Aquisgra-
nense II. lempore Ludovici imperaloris canone 8.
monet, ne hoc sacramentum negligalur , in quo
salvalio infirmorum conlinelur. Similia habel mo-
guntinum sub Rabano archicpiscopo can. 26.
Jara vero ex Patribus habemus duo genera lesli-
nioniorum. Unum eorum, qui non dicunt quidem
expresse hoc esse unum ex sacramenlis , tamen
expresse dicunt verba Jacobi ad nos pcrtinere et
debere eliam nunc, ct omni lempore presbyteros
id facere, quod Jacobus scribit. Ita Origcnes hom.
2. in Levil. Chrysoslomus lib. 3. de sacerdolio,
Augustinus in speculo, ubi ponit ex lola Scriptura
eas senlenlias lanlum, quae nobis omni terapore
deserviunl: adscripsil etiam banc Jacobi senten-
tiain: Infirmalur quis in vohis etc. Idem eliam
serm. 213. de tempore, monet, ut qui aegrolant.
Jacobi pracceplum servent. Idem habet auctor o-
pcris de visitalione infirmorum lib. 2. cap. 4. qui
liber habelur lomo 9. operum Augustini, et licet
falso tribui videatur Auguslino, antiquum tamen
ct bonuni librura esse negari non polesl.Idera ha-
bent Beda in cap. C. Marci, et 5. Jacobi. Theophi-
lactus in cap. 7. Marci, et Oecumenius in cap. 5.
Jacobi.
Haec vero teslimonia salls probant quod volu-
mus, si observeraus, adversarios ideo praecipue
negasse unctionem istam esse sacramentum, quia
exislimabanl, Jacobum non loqui nisi ad homines
sui temporis. Cerle Calvinus lib. 4. cap. 19. § 20.
Inslilut. ita loquilur: Cum duoislainsacramento
LlHi:i'. PHIMUS
757
fxigiinus lU cacrcinonia iiil. a Dco inslilvla , cL
Deipromissionem habeat: sinutl poshdanius, ut
caeremonia isla nobis tradila sit, et proniissio
ad nos spcctet. iSon enim circunieisionem jam
sacranienliLni chnstianae Ecclesiae .quisquam es-
se contendit, lametsi, et Dei inslituhim eral et
promissioneni anncxani habeb(it,quia nec nobis
mandala fuit,necproinissio, quae illi adjuncta
fuerat, nobis eadcm condilione data. Promissio-
neni, quani in unclione fcrociter jactant , nobis
non esse datani evidenter demonstrqvinms etc.
Hacc ille. Palres igitur ciiali, qui aperte aflliinanl,
caeremoniani et promissionem haric ad nos per-
lincre. sacrainenlum esse volunl hanc unclionem,
vel ipso leste Calvino.
Ilabemus deinde alios.qui expresse inler sacra-
menla numeranl hanc unclionem, ul Aicuinus lib.
(ic divinis ofTiciis cap. de infirmis, Amnlariu.-> lib.
i. de ollioiis eccles. cap. 12.Pelrus Damiani s<'rm.
1. de dedicalione lempli, Hui^o lib. 2. de sacra-
nienl. par. 15. cap. 2. et 3.Ubi illud obiler esl no-
tandum, quod liic auctor dicit a Jacobo hoc sacra-
menlum inslitulum,debere intelli^M de inslilulione
promulgaloria, non dc proprie dicla inslilutione :
quomodo saepe dicilurMoyses auclor h^gis veleris,
cum eom solum promulgaverit. Bernardus iii vita
s. Malachiae, ubi eliam insigne miraculum referi.
Denique Pelrus Lombardus in 4. dist. 23. el qui
cum sequuli sunt theologi omnes.
His acccdanl cxcmpla plurimorum sanctoriim ,
qui inungi voluerunt, anlequam e vila migrarunl,
quae legi possuiil apud Surium ex catliolicis ,
j)racscrtiin tom. 2. el apud Illyriciim ex liaerclicis
ccnlur. 8. el sequenlibus cap. 6.
Accedal dcnique leslimonium Ecclesiae graecae,
quod ideo suum pondus iiabet, quia cum conslet,
Graecos non acccpissc suos ritus a romaiia Kccle-
sia: praesertim ab annis plus quingcnlis, quibus a
riobis separali lueruiit, ccrtum est ea, in quibus
coiivenimus, esse antiquiora schismatibus el hae-
rcaihus, quae postea natae sunl. Porro Graccos a-
guosccre pro vero sacramento cxlremain Unctio-
neiii, palel primo ex concilio florentino , ubi sine
ulia coiitradiclioue leceperunt iiisliuctionem Ar-
jneuorum, ubi inlcr alia sacramcnla numeraliir
extrcma Uiiclio.
Practerea lliercmias palriarcha conslanlinopoii-
tanus in respoiisione ad confcssionein Lulhcrano-
rum cap. 7. ponil scplem vera el propria sacra-
menla, ac dicit noii csse pliira nec paiiciora: ct
inler ea ponil cxlrcinam Uiictionem, eaiTKpie divi-
iiuin sacramentuin vocal, et ab aposlolo Jacobo ex-
plicatum dicit.
IdiMu etiam tradunl gracci scriptorcs reccnlio-
rcs, ul biiiicon Ihcssaloniccnsis in lib. dc sepiem
sacramenlis, Nicolaus Cabasilas in expositione sa-
crac lihiriiiac ciip. 2(1, ac dcinuni ipsum iu/oAOY^.^v,
idc.^t, libcr nluiiiis ()iaecoruin,cosdc(ii riiiis lii'h(!i
in hoc sacraiiicnlo.quos etiani nosLalini habcmus.