Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary: James
Calvin, and the reformation writers, give us the following reasons or conjectures, that this anointing, as well as that, (Mark vi. 13.) was only to be used for a time, by those who had the gift of curing diseases miraculously; so that like other miraculous gifts, (as the speaking of tongues, prophesying, &c.) it was but to last during the first planting of the Christian faith. Dr. Fulk, against the Rheims Testament, and Mr. Baxter, &c. affirm boldly, that Christ "appointed his apostles to anoint those with oil whom they cured." And Dr. Hammond says, "that the anointing with oil, was a ceremony used by Christ and his apostles in their miraculous cures." They assert this, as if it was taught by Scripture itself. They are no less positive that this anointing soon ceased, and was laid aside with the gift of miraculous cures, given sometimes to the first Christians at their baptism, or when they received the Holy Ghost in the sacrament of confirmation. Dr. Fulk, besides this, is positive that "the Greek Church, never to this day received this anointing and praying over the sick as a sacrament." These are their arbitrary, groundless, and false expositions, which they bring against a clear text of the holy Scriptures. It might be sufficient to oppose the judgment and authority of the Church to their private judgment. But to answer in short each particular: we find by the evangelists, (Matthew x. 8.; Mark vi. 13.; Luke x. 9.) that Christ gave to his twelve apostles, and afterwards to his seventy-two disciples, in their first mission before his death, (which was only into the cities of Israel) a power of casting out devils, of raising the dead, or curing diseases in his name. And St. Mark tells us, that they cast out many devils, and anointed many sick with oil, and cured them. But when Dr. Fulk and others add, that our Saviour appointed, ordered, or commanded them to anoint with oil those whom they cured, no such thing is said, nor insinuated, neither by St. Mark nor by any of the evangelists, nor any where in the holy Scriptures. And how Dr. Hammond could tell us that this "anointing with oil was a ceremony used by Christ himself," I cannot imagine. As for the apostles and disciples, they might cure many, making use of oil, and many without it by laying hands upon them, by a prayer, or by calling upon the name of Jesus, as the seventy-two disciples returned to him with joy, (Luke x. 17.) saying, Lord, even the devils are subject to us in thy name.
Neither is it judged probable by the interpreters that the apostles, in their miraculous cures, were tied up or confined to the use of oil: especially since we find that after Christ's resurrection, in their second mission to all nations, Christ foretells (Matthew xvi. 18.) that they who believe in him, shall have this miraculous gift of healing the sick, but mentions only the laying of hands upon them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall be well. Besides had Christ appointed or given orders to his disciples to make use of oil in such miraculous cures, it would scarce have happened but we should have some examples of it in the Acts of the Apostles, where so many miraculous cures are related to have been done by St. Peter, by St. Paul, and others, but no mention of this ceremony of oil. We agree with our adversaries that this gift of miraculous cures, of which St. Paul speaks, (1 Corinthians xii.) was common only for a short time, like the other gifts of the Holy Ghost, which were only necessary, as St. Augustine takes notice, at the first planting of the Christian faith; and so that anointing with oil, merely as it was made use of in miraculous cures of the body, soon ceased, perhaps even before our Saviour's death; but we believe as our Saviour appointed water to be the matter of the sacrament of baptism, so he would have oil to be the matter of the sacrament of extreme unction, which he instituted to strengthen the souls of the sick, against the dangers and temptations at the approach of death, and of which St. James here speaks near upon thirty years after Christ's ascension. And the anointing in St. Mark, used in corporal diseases, may be looked upon as a figure of the sacrament of extreme unction in St. James, as the frequent washings or baptisms, as they are called, of the Jews, and especially the baptism of St. John the Baptist, was a figure of the baptism of Christ. The miraculous gift of healing, as well as other gifts of the Holy Ghost, was often given with the sacraments, which were to be always continued, and not to cease, with those gifts. We may also take notice, that neither they who had this gift of healing, had any command or advice to make use of it to all that were sick, nor were all that were sick ordered to seek for a cure of those who had this gift; whereas here St.
James orders every one to send for the priests of the Church to anoint him, and pray over him for spiritual relief. St. Timothy had frequent infirmities, as we read in 1 Timothy v. 23., nor yet did St. Paul, who had that gift, cure him. The same St. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletum. (2 Timothy iv. 20.) Epaphroditus, St. Paul's companion in his labours, was sick, when he had St. Paul with him, even unto death; that is, so as to be at the point of death (Philippians ii. 27.); nor yet did St. Paul, but God, restore him to his health. And if St. James had spoken of a miraculous restoring of corporal health by that anointing, he should rather have said: bring in those who have the gift of healing; for we may reasonably suppose that many had this gift who were not priests, and we have no reason to suppose that all priests had this gift. Our adversaries tell us with great assurance, that this anointing mentioned by St. James was soon laid aside; which, say they, we may gather from the silence of the writers in the three following ages[centuries]. To this merely negative argument the Catholics answer: 1. That it is enough we have the tradition and practise of the Church, witnessed by the writers in the ages[centuries] immediately succeeding. 2. That the greatest part of the writings in those ages[centuries] are not extant. 3. The writers of those times seldom mentioned those things which were sufficiently known among the Christians by daily use, especially what related to the sacraments and mysteries of the Christian religion, which (as it appears by the writings that they were able to preserve) they made it their particular endeavour to conceal from the heathens, who turned them to derision and contempt. In the mean time, had not this anointing been always retained and continued, the ages[centuries] immediately following would not have conspired every where to practise it, and to look upon it as a sacrament. Not to insist on the authority of Origen,[4] in the beginning of the third age[century], (hom. ii. in Levit.) who numbering up the different ways by which sins are forgiven in the new law, says, that they were remitted when priests anoint the sick with oil, as in the epistle of St. James; St. Chrysostom[5] in the end of the fourth age[century], (in his third book de Sacerdotio, tom. i. p. 384. Nov. Ed. Ben., written before the end of the fourth age, about the year 375) says, that priests (and his word expresseth sacrificing priests, not elders)