EXTREME
722
EXTREME
and causality of a sacrament; only Victor attributes
the signification entirely to the matter and the causal-
ity to the form (the prayer) . Tliis was to be corrected
in the fully developed sacramental theory of later
times, but the attribution of sacramental effects to the
form (the prayer, the word, etc.) is characteristic of
patristic suggestions of a theory. Victor clearly attri-
butes both spiritual and corporal effects to the prayer-
unction; nor can the fact that he uses the imperfect
tense {iynpyei-. "effected"; {nrrjpxe, " v,-as") betaken
to imply that the use of the unction had ceased at
Antioch in his day. The use of the present tense in
describing the signification of the rite implies the con-
trary, and independent evidence is clearly against the
supposition. In the passage from John ilandakuni,
referred to above, the prayer-unction is repeatedly
described as "the gift of grace", "the grace of God",
Divinely instituted and prescribed, and which cannot
be neglected and despised without incurring "the
curse of the Apostles"; language which it is difficult
to understand unless we suppose the Armenian patri-
arch to have reckoned the unction among the most
sacred of Christian rites, or, in other words, regarded
it as being what we describe as a sacrament in the
strict sense (cf. Kern, op. cit., pp. 46, 47).
There remains to be noticed under this head the most celebrated of all patristic testimonies on extreme unction, the well-known passage in the Letter of Pope Innocent I (402-417), written in 416, to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium, in reply to certain questions sub- mitted by the latter for solution. In answer to the question as to who were entitled to the unction, the pope, having quoted the text of St. James, says: " There is no doubt that this text must be received or understood of the sick faithful, who may be [lawfully] anointed with the holy oil of chrism; which, having been blessed by the bishop, it is permitted not only to priests but to all Christians to use for anointing in their own need or that of their families." Then he diverges to point out the superfluous character of a further doubt expressed by Decentius: " We notice the super- fluous addition of a doubt whether a bishop may do what is undoubtedly permitted to priests. J'or priests are expressly mentioned [by St. James] for the reason that bishops, hindered by other occupations, cannot go to all the sick. But if "the bishop is able to do so or thinks anyone specially worthy of lieing visited, he, whose office it is to consecrate the chrism, need not hesitate to bless and anoint the sick person." Then, reverting to the original question, he explains the qualification he had added in speaking of " the sick faithful ": " For this unction may not be given to peni- tents [i, e. to those undergoing canonical penance], seeing that it is a sacrament [quia genus sacramenti e^t]. For how is it imagined that one sacrament [unum genus] may be given to those to whom the other sacra- ments are denied?" The pope adds that he has an- swered all his correspondent's questions in order that the latter's Church may be in a position to follow " the Roman custom" (P. L., XX, 559 sq., Denzinger, no. 99 — old no. 61). We do not, of course, suggest that Pope Innocent had before his mind the definition of a sacrament in the strict sense when he calls the Jaco- bean unction a sacrament, but since "the other sacra- ments" from which penitents were excluded were the Holy Eucharist and certain sacred offices, we are justi- fied in maintaining that this association of the unction with the Eucharist most naturally suggests an implicit faith on the part of Pope Innocent in what has been explicitly taught by Scholastic theologians and defined by the Council of Trent. It is interesting to observe that Mr. Puller, in discussing this text (op. cit., pp. 53 sqq.), omits all reference to the Holy Eucharist, though it is by far the most ob\'ious and important of " the other sacraments " of which Innocent is speaking, and diverts his reader's attention to the eulogia, or blessed bread {pain benit), a sacramental which was Ln
use in many churches at that time and in later ages,
but to which there is not the least reason for believing
that the pope meant specially to refer. In any case
the reference is certainly not exclusive, as Mr. Puller
leaves his reader to infer. What Pope Innocent, fol-
lowing the "Roman custom", expUcitly teaches is
that the " sacrament " enjoined by St. James was to be
administered to the sick faithful who were not doing
canonical penance; that priests, and a fortiori bishops,
can administer it; but that the oil must be blessed by
the bishop. The exclusion of sick penitents from this
"sacrament" must be understood, of course, as being
subject to the same exception as their exclusion from
" the other s;icraments", and the latter are directed to
be given before the annual Easter reconciliation when
danger of death is imminent: " Quando usque ad
desperandum venerit, ante tempus paschse relaxan-
dum [est] ne de sa»culo [a>grotus] absque communione
discedat." If the words of Innocent — and the same
observation applies to other ancient testimonies, e. g.
to that of Cspsarius of Aries referred to above — seem to
imply that the laity were permitted to anoint them-
selves or members of their household with the oil con-
secrated by the bishop, yet it is clear enough from the
text of St. James and from the way in which Pope
Innocent explains the mention of priests in the text,
that this could not have been considered by him to be
identical with the Jacobean rite, but to be at most a
pious use of the oil allowable for devotional, and possi-
bly for charismatic, purposes. But it would not be
impossible nor altogether unreasonable to understand
the language used by Innocent and others in a causa-
tive sen.se, i. e. as meaning not that the laity were per-
mitted to anoint themselves, but that they were to
have the blessed oil at hand to secure their being
anointed by the priests according to the prescription
of St. James. We believe, however, that this is a
forced and unnatural way of understanding such testi-
monies, all the more so as there is demonstrative evi-
dence of the devotional and charismatic use of sacred
oil by the laity during the early centuries.
It "is worth adding, as a conclusion to our sur\'ey of this period, that Innocent's reply to Decentius was incorporated in various early collections of canon law, some of which, as for instance that of Dionysius Exiguus (P. L., LXVII, 240), were made towards the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. In this way Innocent's teaching became known and was received as law in most parts of the W'estem Church.
(c) The Seventh Century and Later. — One of the most important witnesses for this period is St. Bede (d. 735), who, in his commentary on the Epistle of St. James, tells us (P. L., XCIII, 30) that, as in Apostolic times, so "now the custom of the Church is that the sick should be anointed by the priests with conse- crated oil and through the accompanjdng prayer re- stored to health". He adds that, according to Pope Innocent, even the laity may use the oil provided it has been consecrated by the bishop; and commenting on the clause, "if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him", after quoting I Cor., xi, 30, to prove that "many because of sins committed in the soul are stricken with bodily sickness or death", he goes on to speak of the necessity of confession: "If, therefore, the sick be in sins and shall have confessed these to the priests of the Church and shall have sincerely under- taken to relinquish and amend them, they shall be remitted to them. For sins cannot be remitted with- out the confession of amendment. Hence the injunc- tion is rightly added [by St. James], 'Confess, there- fore, your sins one to another.'" St. Bede thus appears to connect the remission of sins in St. James's text mth penance rather than the unction, and is therefore claimed by Mr. Puller as supporting his own interpretation of the text. But it should be observed that Ln asserting the necessity of confessing post-
