this might be done by the bishop. To the latter question, he answers in the affirmative, and to the former, that the words of St. James are to be understood of the faithful that were sick, who may be anointed with the chrism, not only by the priests but by all Christians. Now, as this testimony is much relied on a as a proof of the point in dispute, we may observe on it, 1. the epistle in which this passage is found, is so replete with absurdities, that many have been induced to deny its genuineness. 2. Granting, that it is genuine, the fact of a bishop asking such questions, and the style of the answers given to them, prove that this could be no sacrament practised from the beginning of Christianity, since no bishop could be ignorant on such a subject. 3. The subject of these questions was not pure oil, which was made the matter of this sacrament, but the oil of chrism, which had been used for other purposes. 4. This anointing was performed by priests and people in common, in the hope that those to whom it was applied might be cured; a practice which perhaps originated in the recollection of the miraculous use of the oil in the Church, as the use of holy water has arisen from that used in baptism. 5. In the same epistle, Innocent calls this anointing" a kind

a See Bell. de Ext. Unct. 1. 1. c. 4.

See Chamier Panstrat. Cathol. de sac. N. T. 1. 4. c. 21.

Y

of sacrament," which further proves, that it could be no real sacrament, for he applies the term indefinitely, when speaking of the bread in the Eucharist.

With this exception, we find no account of anointing the sick in the early ages. Even in the writers and councils of the fourth century, though the latter contain several rules in relation to the sacraments, no mention is made of it. The penitentiary canons, which define the sins which are to be forgiven to men in their last extremities, do not speak of extreme unction. The Apostolical constitutions, and the works of Dionysius, though they treat of the rituals of the Church in the fourth or fifth century, at which time they were first forged; the lives of the saints before the ninth century, and the writings which appeared in the eighth and ninth centuries, though treating of the sacraments, are all silent upon this point. From the seventh century a to the twelfth, however, they began to use an anointing of the sick, but this was only intended in order to the recovery of the person, for which purpose it is still used in the Greek Church. At first the credit of the rite was supported by reports of its efficacy; but as some of these proved untrue, it was upheld by asserting that even when the body was

а

2 See Lib. Sac. Gregor. Menurdi. Int. and Bede Hist. Ang. 1. 3. c. 15. Euchol. Græc. p. 408.

not healed by it, it was of use to the interests of the soul. Hence it was applied to the various organs of the body, derived from the original custom of applying it to the diseased part. In the twelfth century, the pardon of sin, which had formerly been prayed for, as preparatory to the patient's recovery, was retained in the offices, and considered as the principal part of it. At last it was decreed to be a sacrament by Pope Eugenius, and finally established in Trent.

III. The Article declares the use of the sacraments.

This declaration consists of two parts: the first is negative, that "the sacraments were not ❝ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or car"ried about, but that we should duly use them." This is evident from the words of the institution; that of baptism, is, " Go, preach and baptize," and that of the Eucharist; " take, eat, and drink ye all of it." Now the consecratory words," this is my body, and this is my blood," are given as the reason for the institution. It is plain, therefore, that the Eucharist is consecrated only that it may be used.

The second part of this paragraph is positive; that "to such only as worthily receive the sacraments, they have a wholesome effect." This has been already discussed in the first part of the exposition of this Article.

ARTICLE XXVI.

OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENTS.

ALTHOUGH IN THE VISIBLE CHURCH, THE EVIL BE EVER MINGLED WITH THE GOOD, AND SOMETIMES THE EVIL HAVE CHIEF AUTHORITY IN THE MINISTRATION OF THE WORD AND SACRAMENTS, YET FORASMUCH AS THEY DO NOT THE SAME IN THEIR OWN NAME, BUT IN CHRIST'S, AND DO MINISTER BY HIS COMMISSION AND AUTHORITY, WE MAY USE THEIR MINISTRY BOTH IN HEARING THE WORD OF GOD AND IN RECEIVING. THE SACRAMENTS. NEITHER IS THE EFFECT OF CHRIST'S ORDINANCE TAKEN AWAY BY THEIR WICKEDNESS, NOR THE GRACE OF GOD'S GIFTS DIMINISHED FROM SUCH AS BY FAITH AND RIGHTLY DO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS MINISTERED UNTO THEM, WHICH BE EFFECTUAL BECAUSE OF CHRIST'S INSTITUTION AND PROMISE, ALTHOUGH THEY BE MINISTERED BY EVIL MEN.

NEVERTHELESS, IT APPERTAINETH TO THE DISCIPLINE

OF THE CHURCH, THAT ENQUIRY BE MADE OF EVIL
MINISTERS, AND THAT THEY BE ACCUSED BY THOSE
THAT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR OFFENCES, AND
FINALLY, BEING FOUND GUILTY BY JUST JUDGMENT BE
DEPOSED.

THIS Article consists of two parts: I. It asserts that the effect of the sacraments on the receiver is independent of the character of the minister; and, II. It declares the discipline of the Church with respect to the conduct of ministers.

I. It asserts that the effect of the sacraments is independent of the character of the minister.

This assertion is opposed to an opinion held by some persons at the beginning of the Reformation, who being offended at the public scandal caused by the enormous vices of the Roman clergy, revived the conceit of the Donatists," and asserted that not only heresy and schism, but even personal sins, invalidated the sacred functions. This doctrine appears to have been favoured by St. Cyprian, but the Donatists and their defenders carried it still farther. They considered the effect of the sacraments as the answer to prayers, and since the prayers of the wicked

a The sect here alluded to are most probably the Anabaptists, who held this opinion.-See Bullinger adv. Anab. p. 101. and Rogers on the Articles.

b The origin of this sect was as follows: Cæcilianus had been elected bishop of Carthage in the year 311, without the concurrence of the Numidian bishops, and they being exasperated at the neglect, deposed Cæcilianus, on the ground, that one of the bishops who had consecrated him had denied the faith in time of persecution. Donatus being the most active among those who opposed Cæcilianus, the sect derived their name from him.-See Mosheim's Hist, v. i. cent. iv. par. ii. c. v. sec. ii. and Lardner's Works, v. 4. p. 96.