Verses 14, 15. - Directions in ease of sickness. Let him call for the elders of the Church. Of the original creation of the presbyterate no account is given, but elders appear as already existing in Judaea in Acts 11:30; and from Acts 14:23 we find that St. Paul and St. Barnabas "appointed elders in every Church" which they had founded on their first missionary journey. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded with regard to the date of the Epistle from this notice of elders. The elders were to be summoned for a twofold purpose:

(1) that they might pray over the sick person (on the accusative ἐπ αὐτόν, see Winer, p. 508); and

(2) that they might anoint him with oil in the Name of the Lord, The result anticipated is also twofold:

(1) "the prayer of faith shall save the sick" ("save," σώζειν, here as in other passages, e.g. Matthew 9:21, 22, etc., refers to bodily healing); and

(2) "if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." (From the manner in which this last clause is introduced, it may fairly be inferred that the sins in question are presumed to have had some connection with the sickness, and to have been its cause. Vulgate, Et si in peccatis sit dimittentur cf.) Anointing him with oil in the Name of the Lord. By the omission of the last words, τοῦ Κυρίου, B has the striking reading, "anointing him with oil in THE NAME" (compare the use of τὸ ὄνομα absolutely in Acts 5:41 3John 7). A similar use is also found in the Epistles of Ignatius. The Vatican Manuscript, however, appears to stand quite alone in this reading here. If the words, τοῦ Κυρίου, be admitted, they must be taken as referring to the Lord Jesus (contrast ver. 10, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Κυρίου). So also in ver. 15 the Lord (ὁ Κύριος) who shall raise him up is clearly the Lord Jesus. Had God the Father been alluded to we should probably have had the anarthrous Κύριος after the manner of the LXX. (see note on James 4:10). Unction is mentioned in connection with the sick also in Mark 6:13. The apostles "anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them;" and compare the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:34), "pouring in wine and oil." "Josephus mentions that among the remedies employed in the case of Herod, he was put into a sort of oil bath.... The medicinal use of oil is also mentioned in the Mishna, which thus exhibits the Jewish practice of that day" ('Dictionary of the Bible,' vol. it. p. 595; see Mishna, 'Shabbath,' 13:4; and compare Lightfoot, 'Horae Hebraicae,' vol. it. p. 415). According to Tertullian, "the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euhodus," cured with oil Severus, the father of Antonino (i.e. Caracalla), who "in gratitude kept him in his palace till the day of his death." Tertullian, 'Ad Scapulam,' c. 4. (see Oehler's notes on the passage). But in the case before us if, as in these other instances, the oil was used as an actual remedy,

(1) why was it to be administered by the elders? and

(2) why is the healing immediately afterwards attributed to "the prayer of faith"? These questions would seem to suggest that oil was enjoined by St. James rather as an outward symbol than as an actual remedy. A further question remains to which a few lines must be devoted. Is the apostle prescribing a rite for all times? On the one hand, we are told that the use of oil was connected with the miraculous powers of healing, and therefore ceased "when those powers ceased" (cf. Bishop Browne on the Articles, p. 589). On the other hand, the passage is appealed to as warranting the Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction. With regard to the practice of the early Church, there is a constant stream of testimony to the use of oil for purposes of healing; e.g. the case in Tertullian already quoted, and many others in the fourth and fifth centuries (see 'Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,' pp. 1455, 2004, 2053). But

(1) as originally practiced it was administered by laymen and even by women.

(2) After the blessing of the oil was restricted to bishops it was still regarded as immaterial by whom the unction was performed. So Psalm-Innocent, 'Ep. ad Decent.,' § 8, "Being made by the bishop, it is lawful not for priests only, but for all Christians, to use it in anointing in their own need or in that of their friends."

(3) Not till the middle of the ninth century do we meet with any express injunction to the priest to perform the unction himself.

(4) "The restraint of the unction to the priest had momentous consequences. The original intention of it in relation to healing of the body was practically forgotten, and the rite came to be regarded as part of a Christian's immediate preparation for death. Hence in the twelfth century it acquired the name of 'the last unction,' unctio extrema (Peter Lombard, ' Sent.,' 4:23), i.e. as the Catechism of Trent asserts ('De Extr. Unct.,' 3), the last of those which a man received from the Church. In the thirteenth it was placed by the schoolmen among the seven rites to which they limited the application of the term sacrament" ('Dictionary of Christian Antiquities,' p. 2004). In the sixteenth century it was definitely laid down at the Council of Trent,

(1) that it is a sacrament instituted by our Lord;

(2) that by it grace is conferred, sin remitted, and the sick comforted, "sometimes also" the recovery of health is obtained;

(3) that it should be given to those in danger of death, but if they recover they may receive it again (Session 14. c. 9.). Further, the Catechism of the Council condemns as a grievous error the practice of waiting to anoint the sick "until all hope of recovery being now lost, life begins to ebb, and the sick person to sink into lifeless insensibility." In spite of this, however, the common practice in the Roman Catholic Church at the present day appears to be to administer the rite only to persons in extremis. Turning now to the Eastern Church, we notice that a rite of unction has been continued there up till the present time. The service, which is a somewhat lengthy one, may be seen in Daniel's 'Codex Liturgicus,' bk. 4. c.v.; and cf. Neale's 'Holy Eastern Church,' Introd., vol. it. p. 1035, where it is noted that it differs from the Western use in three points:

(1) the oil is not previously consecrated by the bishop, but at the time by seven priests;

(2) the unction is not conferred only in extremis, but in slighter illness, and if possible in the church;

(3) it is not usually considered valid unless at least three priests are present to officiate. It has been thought well to give this slight historical sketch, as affording the best answer to the claims of Romanists by showing how they have gradually departed from the primitive custom and changed the character of the rite. But the sketch will also have shown that it is scarcely accurate to imply that unction ceased when the miraculous powers ceased. At the Reformation, when the English Church wisely rejected the mediaeval service for extreme unction, she yet retained in the first English Prayer-book a simple form of unction, to be used "if the sick person desire it," consisting of

(1) anointing, "upon the forehead or breast only," with the sign of the cross; and

(2) prayer for the inward anointing of the soul with the Holy Ghost, and for restoration of bodily health and strength. Thus the service was entirely primitive in character, and it is hard to see what valid objection could be raised to it. It was, however, omitted from the second English Prayer-book of 1552, and has never been restored. The justification, I suppose, of this disuse of unction must be sought in the entire absence of evidence that the primitive Church understood the passage before us as instituting a religious rite to be permanently continued. All the earliest notices of unction refer simply to its use for healing purposes.