ARTICLE ONE
CONCERNING THE INSTITUTION OF EXTREME UNCTION
With respect to its end, the question is whether this sacrament is principally ordered to corporeal illness or to the spiritual. That it is to the corporeal, would appear:
a. From its institution in James 5:14: Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters, and he says later, The prayer of faith will save the sick.
b. Again, Mark 6:13: They anointed many of the sick with oil, and they were cured. If then they made use of this sacrament, according to what is said in the Glossa, and this for the cure of the bodily infirmed, then it would seem principally ordered to this.1
c. Again, a sacrament is ordered finally to that on account of which it is dispensed. This sacrament is principally dispensed on account of bodily infirmity, because it is never given except to those who are in grave bodily sickness. Therefore it would seem that this sacrament exists principally for this.
d. Again, if it is against infirmity like medicine, I ask, Against which infirmity, corporeal or spiritual? If it is against spiritual, since it is not against actual mortal sin, nor against original sin, it must be against venial sin. Since venial is repeated every day, therefore too must be this sacrament. However, this sacrament is not given frequently, but very rarely. Thus it is not against venial sin, but against corporeal infirmity. If you should say that it is against the consequences of sins I ask, Is it either against some determined ones or against them all? If against some, why not similarly against others? If against all of them, since they are diverse according to the diversity of illnesses, it would seem there would need to be diverse sacraments for this purpose.
To the contrary: 1. It would seem that it is not for curing bodily disease per se, because the sacraments of the New Law accomplish what they signify in those who receive them worthily. If holy persons receive the sacraments worthily, then Unction would forever have the efficacy of healing them. Therefore holy persons would never die.
2. Again, many are the perfect persons who after the example of Paul desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.2 If then the sacrament of Unction is ordered to preserve the life of the body, then it ought not to be received by such persons.
3. Again, a sacrament is spiritual medicine. Therefore just as bodily medicine heals only bodily disease and this is the principal and universal purpose that it exists, so it would seem that spiritual medicine would cure only spiritual disease in such a way that it be for this purpose universally and totally and principally.
4. Again, if Unction heals bodily illness, it does so either by way of natural power or by way of supernatural. It is not by way of natural power; this is evident, because the operation of the sacraments is not according to natural powers of external elements. Therefore this sacrament operates by power beyond nature. That power can act equally upon an incurable illness as with a curable one. Therefore it would seem that this sacrament would free one from leprosy. But this is false; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that it was the opinion of some that this sacrament was principally ordered against the consequences or remainder of sin which are burdensome, and which are the remainder both of original sin and of actual sin. These remainders are spiritual punishment, but which frequently have corporeal punishment connected with them on account of their expurgation. Hence this sacrament is principally against spiritual punishment, but consequently it is to heal corporeal disease. Against this opinion is what is said in James 5:15 within the institution of this sacrament, “If he committed sins, they will be remitted him.” Therefore this sacrament is ordered against some disease of sin, and this is mentioned in the Glossa.3 Since it is not against original sin or mortal sin, it remains that it is against venial sin. This is what the common opinion holds.
However, it should be noted that venial sin is spoken of in two ways: either as the sin of one who is on the journey, or as the sin of one who is at the point of departure. If it is one who is on the way or the journey, then venial disease is practically inseparable and repeatable by a certain necessity, and in some manner incurable. Hence, there should not have been some medicine ordered especially and principally against these venial sins committed along the way. Rather, in some manner all the sacraments have the power to cure these venial sins more or less. However, if we should speak of the soul’s condition at departure, then venial sin can be cured without repetition. Thus, when the soul might be burdened by such things to be purged, which hold it back from glory, the divine mercy established a remedy by which the soul could be cured with respect to the guilt as well as the part of the punishment. This is the sacrament of Extreme Unction.
The manner of curing venial sin in this sacrament corresponds to the manner of sickness. For, venial sin weighs on the soul by pressing it downward. The result of this is that the soul does not stretch out toward God through devotion and love. There is in the soul an inordinate turning toward a changing good, and for this reason venial sin lessens love for God, as Augustine mentions in the book of Confessions.4 Hence, since the cure is directly by way of the contrary, it is cured by that which lifts the weighed down soul upward through devotion. Thus because, “the corruptible body is a burden upon the soul,”5 this sacrament exists to elevate the soul by way of devotion, in which the soul receives a certain vigor, in which there is always a deletion of venial sins, if there are any in the soul. As a consequence there is a repression of bodily annoyances, if that is for the good of the soul. Thus this sacrament is principally for the cure and alleviation of spiritual illness, namely of venial sin, and per accidens for the cure and alleviation of bodily illness, by strengthening the soul which directs the body.
And thus in this sacrament it is clear what is the res tantum, what is the signum, and what is the res et signum. The res tantum is the cure of venial sin. The signum tantum is the external anointing. The res et signum is the excitation of devotion in the soul, which is none other than a certain kind of spiritual anointing. Thus the reasons that prove that this sacrament is able to cure bodily illnesses are to be conceded. To be conceded also are the arguments which prove that it is not principally valid against bodily illnesses, because this healing of bodily illnesses is per accidens. Consequently this sacrament is able to heal bodily ills, as was previously shown.
To the objections: c. To the objection, then, that this sacrament is not given except in the condition of illness, it must be said that this is not because of illness, but because one is drawing near to one’s departure, in which venial sins can be perfectly cured. That this is true is apparent because to whatever extent one is ill, it is not given to him unless it is presumed that he will die, or that he is in the moment of death.6 If it is apparent to us that he would be freed or was to be freed, this sacrament should not be given to him, as will be evident below.7
d. To the objection concerning venial sin, which is repeated daily, the response is already evident, because this sacrament is not given against that species of sin except in the condition in which it is presumed that the recipient would be freed both of guilt and from the necessity of sinning.8
1-2. To the objection that it is not principally capable, this is true, and the form of the prayer hints at this, because in it there is no mention except of the remission of sins.9
3. But to the objection that it should in no way be efficacious, by comparison, because bodily medicine does not cure a spiritual illness, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is because the spirit contains the body. Hence animal passions greatly resound in the flesh, as Wisdom says, “a sorrowful spirit dries up the bones.”10 Thus there is no wonder that if the soul is made tranquil and is invigorated and is gladdened, that this also overflows to the body. Therefore this sacrament has regard for uplifting the body by way of elevating the spirit.
4. To the question, Through what power does it do this? it must be said that it is through a power beyond nature. However it acts according to divine institution, which was unwilling by means of this sacrament to bring forth a secret of faith, and thus not to free from incurable illnesses according to the common law. Again, in this sacrament there is something natural, and something beyond nature. For its effect, which is in the spirit, is above nature. Nevertheless this effect overflows upon the flesh, which is natural, according to what the devout person says in Psalm 62:2, “My soul thirsts for you,”11 and again elsewhere, “And my flesh has flourished.”12
WHETHER CHRIST OR SOME DISCIPLE INSTITUTED THIS SACRAMENT
The second question concerns the efficient or instituting cause of the sacrament of Extreme Unction, and the question is whether Christ or one of his disciples instituted this sacrament. That it was Christ would appear:
1. Because it belongs to the legislator to institute. All the sacraments are laws and statutes in the Gospel Law; therefore, not only did Christ institute this one, but also all of them.
2. God on his own instituted all the sacraments of the Old Law by speaking and giving commands to Moses. Hence at the beginning of any sacramental precept it says, as is recorded in Leviticus, “The Lord spoke to Moses saying.…”13 If then the Gospel sacraments are much more worthy, it would seem, etc.
3. Again, the sacrament, as was held above, in the thirteenth distinction, is the place where the divine power works more secretly. If, then, the divine power works principally in the sacraments, since to institute a sacrament is of greater dignity than to act in a sacrament, and the operation is of divine power, so too its institution.
4. Again, in Mark 6:13 it is said that the disciples anointed many of the sick with oil and they were cured. It is evident that the Apostles did not yet have such authority that they would dare by themselves to institute anything; therefore it would seem that the Lord ordered them. Thus it would seem that the Lord instituted it himself.
To the contrary: a. The Master says in his text, “it is read that this sacrament was instituted by the Apostles.”14
b. Again, nowhere else do we have a command concerning this sacrament except in James 5:14. Therefore it would seem that it was instituted there.
c. Again, every sacrament that Christ instituted, he explicitly presented himself.15 However Christ did not present this sacrament, because he never healed the sick with oil, but only with a word; therefore, etc.
d. Again, every sacrament that Christ instituted had its figure in the Old Testament. This sacrament has no figure there, because we have never read in the Old Testament that the sick were anointed to bring about a cure. Therefore it would appear that the institution of this sacrament did not pertain to Christ.
I respond: To understand these matters it should be noted that some held that all the sacraments were instituted by Christ, because he was the legislator. Hence, although nothing is expressly mentioned about Confirmation and Extreme Unction, still it is to be believed that he himself instituted them. Concerning Confirmation, this is in some manner insinuated when he placed his hands upon the children in Matthew 19:15. Similarly Extreme Unction was insinuated when he sent his disciples to preach, and they anointed the sick with oil and they were cured, as Mark 6:13 says. That they did this at his command is by no means in doubt. If the Apostles are said to institute some things, this is because they promulgated their institution, as blessed James does concerning Confession and Unction.16 However, since the Gospel Law is sufficiently expressed, and the Gospel Law contains the statutes and deeds of Christ, and more statutes than deeds, how probable is it that all the Evangelists pass by in silence such noble sacraments, if Christ had instituted them, since from these a support of our salvation is drawn?
So others hold with more probability, and the Master seems to have felt this way. He even says so openly, that the Holy Spirit instituted this sacrament through the Apostles, as was said above concerning the sacrament of Confirmation.17 That this could happen is clear, since the Spirit is the principal teacher just as Christ is;18 and it is evident through an example, because the Apostles, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, changed for a time the form of Baptism that was instituted and confirmed by Christ. How much more, then, were they able to institute what Christ had insinuated.
It is evident that this was thus fitting if the diversity of sacraments is noted. For, some sacraments are common to the Old and New Law, some are most proper to the New Law, and some stand midway between. The common sacraments are those which are instituted in some manner by dictate of nature. These sacraments, because of the dictate of nature, always remain the same. The sacraments common to the Old Law ran together from the beginning, such as Matrimony and Penance, the latter to the extent that it reconciles to God. These two then the Lord Jesus did not purge, but brought to consummation and confirmation in the New Law.
Some are most proper to the New Law, and these are those that signify grace in such a condition as properly befits the New Law. These are two: Confirmation and Unction, in which the grace of the Holy Spirit is signified, according to which a person is anointed as a fighter, so that he may dare to die for Christ, and as a king so that he might be able to enter the kingdom of heaven as if into his own. This is proper to the New Law, hence in the Old these two sacraments have no set figure. Thus because they signify the grace of the Holy Spirit in abundance, and the Holy Spirit was not given in abundance until Jesus was glorified as is said in John 7:39, so these two sacraments were insinuated by Christ, but afterwards they were instituted by the Holy Spirit.
Some are midway sacraments, which in the Old Law did not exist in reality, but existed in figure and in signification, such as Baptism, the Eucharist and Orders. Thus because Christ fulfilled the Law and emptied the figures, these three sacraments he instituted himself. Therefore it is clear how these statutes and institutions are most fittingly the ecclesiastical sacraments, that nothing was brought about through forgetfulness, but according to God’s indescribable dispensation. Thus the arguments that prove that the Holy Spirit instituted this sacrament through the Apostles are to be conceded.
To the objections: 1. To the objection then that this belongs to the legislator, it must be said that the Holy Spirit supplemented what the Lord himself left out in doctrine, as is said in John 16:12-13: I have many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things whatsoever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you. Hence just as he filled in what was lacking in doctrine according to God’s ordered arrangement, so too for a fitting reason what was left out concerning institution. Nevertheless, Christ and his Spirit are not two legislators.
2-3. To the objection that God operated on his own, it must be said that he spoke directly to Moses, and afterwards Moses gave precepts to the people as God’s messenger and minister. Thus as the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles, they in turn as ministers taught the people. Hence we attribute the institution of the sacraments to God, either through the Son or through the Holy Spirit. Neither is it to be believed that any of the Apostles set this out on his own, but that the whole college did so. Yet James promulgated it, just as he pronounced the decision about the observance of the laws in Acts 15:13.19
And this explains the following one, because just as God acts principally, and the priest as minister, so the institution of the sacraments belongs to God as author, and the priest as minister, and it belongs to the Apostles as ministers in their promulgation.
4. To the objection that the Apostles anointed with oil, it must be said that in that case this sacrament had not been instituted, but insinuated.20 This is evident because that anointing was done principally for bodily health and not for a spiritual cure. Hence just as the Apostles then had the grace of healing and not the power to bind and absolve, so also that oil served or worked for the health of the body. Now, however, it works principally for the health of the spirit, just as is evidently expressed in the very form [of the words].
WHAT IS THE MATERIAL ELEMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION
The third question about this sacrament is its material element. The Master says that the material of this sacrament is “oil consecrated by the bishop.”21 However, initially it would seem that some element other than oil ought to be used:
1. First, because this sacrament is for those in danger and approaching death, and these occur especially in a moment of necessity. Therefore especially for such occasions some common element ought to be provided. If, then, water is more common, it would seem, etc.
2. Again, in Confirmation, in which abundant grace is given, not only is the element oil, but also balsam which is precious. Therefore it seems that in this sacrament, since it introduces a person into the kingdom, which is the most precious reward, it ought to be balsam.
Again, it seems that it need not be consecrated:
3. Because Baptism and the Eucharist, in which there is greater grace and efficacy, do not need material consecrated with any other sanctification than what takes place in the form of the sacrament. Therefore by the same token neither does Extreme Unction need consecration.
4. Again, two things are sufficient for the perfect essence of a sacrament: signification and sanctification. Signification exists by way of the element, and sanctification exists by way of the word. However, these two exist if one is anointed with simple oil. Therefore it seems that there exists in that case a complete sacrament.
5. Again, if it is necessary that the sacrament of Unction be celebrated with consecrated oil, I ask, To which belongs the name and character of a sacrament, to the oil or to the anointing? That it belongs to the anointing is apparent from the very name of the sacrament.
That consecrated oil is required would appear, because oil is a sign, and consecrated oil is a sacred sign of something sacred, which does not have only signification but also a certain type of causality through blessing. Therefore it appears that the consecrated oil contains in itself the complete character of a sacrament.
Again, consecrated bread is a sacrament, not the eating of it, which is rather its use. Therefore it would seem similarly in this case that consecrated oil is the sacrament, and anointing its use. Therefore it is not properly named. If this is not true, then it would seem that in this case consecrated matter is not required.
6. Again, it would seem that the oil need not be consecrated by a bishop, because it is greater to consecrate or to celebrate the body of the Lord, where transubstantiation takes place, than to consecrate oil, where the same substance remains. However since a simple priest can do the first, therefore also the second.
From these questions arise, Why should it be oil? and, Why simple, not mixed? and, Why consecrated by a bishop? and, Does that consecration make consecrated oil a sacrament?
I respond: In order to understand these things it should be noted that some held that the material element in this sacrament is oil, but that the subsequent consecration by a bishop makes the sacrament exist, and that the subsequent anointing is the sacrament’s use or dispensing.
However, this collides with the name of the sacrament and with the common opinion. It is better stated that just as water is the element in Baptism, so in Confirmation it is chrism, and in anointing it is oil consecrated by a bishop.
An argument can be derived from the role of the efficient cause or the one who institutes, as well as from the end or purpose. First is from the perspective of the one who institutes: for since Christ himself instituted Baptism and Eucharist, and he was able himself to sanctify them. Hence no other preparatory consecration is necessary for those two sacraments, but only to bring them to celebration. In contrast the Holy Spirit instituted this sacrament through the Apostles, who were unable to sanctify except through God. Hence the material is not a simple element, but oil consecrated through a word and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and this through the word of the bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles.
This is so that just as the Holy Spirit instituted it through the Apostles, so also now the Spirit consecrates it through the bishops. Second, an argument is considered from the perspective of the sacrament’s purpose or end. Here grace is given that heals spiritual ills, and grace is given that orders toward complete health, which indeed is that of glory. Hence it ought to be signified by oil, which is curative by reason of its curing power. Further, this ought to be consecrated oil by reason of its ordering to the all-surpassing cure. Last, this ought to be simple oil, not mixed, because for entry into glory a good conscience is required and suffices. With this it is easy to resolve the objections.
To the objections: 1. To the objection concerning the common nature of the material, it must be said that this is not a sacrament of necessity. Besides, a small amount of the element suffices, and this can be had everywhere and so there is no particular danger. Further, the avoidance of danger should not prejudice the dignity and fittingness of the sacrament. 2. To the objection that it ought to be mixed with balsam as in Confirmation, it must be said that there is no similarity between the two. This is because, in Confirmation, grace is given for fighting in life, for which it is necessary to walk not only according to that which pleases God, but also one’s neighbor. However in Unction is given the grace to resist the devil, lest he detain. What is necessary for resisting the devil is not a good reputation, but a good conscience. This is because balsam with its aroma signifies a good reputation, and oil expresses a good conscience; hence, etc.22
3. To the objection that the Eucharist does not require another consecration, it must be said that there is no similarity, either to the instituting part, or to the part of its end or purpose, as has been shown above.
4. To the objection that in the case of non-consecrated oil, as long as an anointing is done both signification and sanctification occur, it must be said that this is false. The first reason is because it actually lacks signification, which not only requires representation, but also institution. In this way, with consecrated oil, was this sacrament instituted. The second reason is because it also lacks sanctification because the word does not have efficacy unless the proper element is used.23
5. To the objection that consecrated oil is a sacrament it must be said that properly speaking it is not a sacrament but is ordered to a sacrament. The reason for this is because it has neither complete signification nor sanctification until it is applied to the sick person, and the priestly prayer is added. For, then the internal anointing grace is signified, and then it is first present and not before. Hence it is not similar to the body of the Lord, where in the first sanctification conversion takes place and afterward there is not added a further sanctification which introduces a new power.
7. To the objection that priests can consecrate the body of the Lord, and so can consecrate oil, it must be said that this is not valid. This is because power is distributed to the ministers of the Church insofar as the Lord distributes to its members. Neither was it necessary for him to communicate the power to consecrate oil as to consecrate the body of Christ because one bishop can easily consecrate the oil of Unction for a whole province, but he cannot sing the Mass daily in all of the parishes, as is fitting, since that is daily bread and is common to all. So that is clear.
WHETHER THE FORM OF THE WORD IS OF THE ESSENCE OF EXTREME UNCTION
The fourth question concerns the form of this sacrament, and the question is whether the form of the word is of the essence of this sacrament. And that it is appears:
a. First, through the rite of the universal Church, which in every place imparts anointing with the priestly blessing.
b. Again, it is proved by way of James 5:14: Let him bring in the presbyters, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil. Therefore prayer precedes the anointing, and thus appears to be as much a part of the integrity of the sacrament as the anointing. This is proven through the following expression: “the prayer of faith shall save the sick.”24 Therefore the efficacy of the sacrament rests principally in the words of the prayer.
c. Again, the same can be seen by comparison with the other sacraments. The sacraments of the New Law sanctify by way of the word, as Hugh says.25 Therefore by the same token it would seem so for this sacrament.
d. Again, just as in the other sacraments intention is necessary, hence the word specifies the intention such that in this too the intention is necessary. Therefore by the same token the pronouncement of the word that expresses or narrows the intention is necessary.
To the contrary: 1. All the sacraments have their origin in the font of sacred Scripture, for there is no sacrament in the Church that is not described in Scripture. However, the form of this sacrament is described neither by an Evangelist nor by an Apostle; therefore, etc.
2. Again, all the sacraments which have a form, ought to have the same one throughout the whole catholic Church. A variation in form is a variation of sacrament, and a sacrament cannot be anything but uniform, just as the faith and the Church. However, this sacrament does not have the same form. For in the Gregorian Church is found this form: “Through this holy anointing and his most tender mercy may the Lord forgive you whatever you offended by the sight of your eyes.”26 In the Ambrosian Church there is this: “I anoint you with sanctified oil in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, so that prepared for battle like an anointed soldier you may overcome the ethereal forces,” or something similar to this. Therefore it does not seem that any form is substantial.
3. Again, all the forms of the sacraments have been handed down through indicative prayer. However, the form of this sacrament is given through intercessory prayer. Therefore this mode seems inappropriately assigned, or is not the form, because the sacraments of the New Law have their effect with certainty. Thus they ought to be expressed by indicative prayer, not by intercessory prayer.
4. Again, according to blessed James the prayer of faith is what is necessary.27 If, then, the prayer is toward God, and prayer to God is best expressed with a cry of the heart rather than a word on the lips, it would seem that for this sacrament’s perfection no oral expression is required to be expressed.
So the question is whether it has a form, what is the form, and through what mode [of prayer].
I respond: It must be said that some held that this sacrament did not have an essential form of words, but that it was only about well-being. Hence it was not expressed; nor in the Church is there found a single one, but a diversity. Still it is not safe to say this according to the text of Scripture, since in the institution of this sacrament James would seem to locate the greatest power in the prayer and to attribute all of its efficacy to it when he says, the prayer of faith will save the sick.28 He does not say anointing will do this. The prayer of faith spoken of is not that of the one who anoints, but of the Church herself, in whose faith the sacraments are administered. So then just as in the other sacraments, it does not suffice to believe in the heart, unless a profession of it in external words takes place. So it is to be understood here that mental prayer does not suffice without vocal prayer.
Hence the form of the word belongs to the integrity of the sacrament—the form of the word, I say, which expresses the prayer of faith. This is due to the distinctive institution of this sacrament.
So note that it is the form of the word which expresses the act and the intention. This form of the word is in the indicative mood, and this form is not necessary but, rather, fitting. This indicative mood is used in some churches, but not in the Roman, which especially avoids anything that could be the occasion of deviation. It is however the form which expresses the prayer that belongs to the necessity of this sacrament. Thus, it is because prayer is in the intercessory mode that the form is intercessory. This is adhered to in all the churches, because it is mentioned in the institution of this sacrament. Further, because a determined word is not expressed, but only the prayer of faith, so it is not necessary that there be uniformity in the words of the prayer, but only that it be there in meaning.
If you should ask why the prayer is of the essence in this sacrament as opposed to the other sacraments, the answer is that the principal reason is its institution. If you should ask the rationale of the institution, it can be said that this has a multiple rationale of congruity. The first is on the part of the recipient, who because of his sickness is destitute. Hence by way of prayer he is to be raised up. The second is on the part of the means of cure, which is through devotion and the elevation of the soul to spiritual things. Above all what excites the soul to this is prayer; hence, etc. The third reason is from the part of the illness, because here there is the remission of sin, by way of the intervening ministry of the priest. This is because in the remission of sin the priest does not perform his role except as an intercessor. Hence in absolution as well he uses intercessory prayer, as was concluded above.29 Hence it is that anointing was most fittingly instituted not to take place without prayer, which expression is the form of the sacrament, as the arguments above demonstrate. With these considerations it is easy to respond to the objections.
To the objections: 1. To the objection that it does not have its origin from the font of sacred Scripture, it must be said that this is false, as is evident. Further it is from the words of blessed James, The prayer of faith will save the sick.30
2. To the objection that the form is not the same, it must be said that whatever is necessary and essential for the sacrament must be the same. However, the form of the word is not necessary by reason of its external expression, but rather to the extent that it expresses the internal word.
3. To the objection concerning indicative prayer, it must be said that there is no similarity between this sacrament and the others, in that this sacrament has a special oration which the others do not, as has been seen.
4. To the objection that prayer is better done with a cry of the heart, it must be said that in the sacraments, because they are exterior signs, not only what is internal is considered, but also the exterior sign. For this reason they have the character of a sacrament. Thus that clears up everything. For although someone believes in the Trinity, unless it is expressed while baptizing, the sacrament is not conferred. So it is to be understood in our case.
THE DISPENSING OF THIS SACRAMENT
QUESTION ONE
WHO OUGHT TO ADMINISTER THIS SACRAMENT
The first question thus follows that it seems that the administration of Extreme Unction belongs only to bishops:
1. First, by comparison. The sacrament of Confirmation, which is done with a consecrated material element, is given only by bishops; therefore, for the same reason, this sacrament.
2. Again, customarily it is more noble to put an artifact to use than to make it. For example, the soldier who uses a spear is more noble than the carpenter who made it. Therefore if the bishop alone consecrates oil, it would seem that he alone ought to anoint with this oil.
3. Again, in the realm of nature we see that the same force which prepares the material provides the form, and this belongs to the right order of action. If, then, grace and virtue conform to nature, since the bishop prepares the material element, it would seem that he alone consummates the sacrament. This consists in the anointing; therefore, etc.
But to the contrary it can be shown that the administration of this sacrament extends to any person:
4. Because a word and an element constitute a sacrament. Consecrated oil can be administered and the word pronounced by a simple layman. Therefore the sacrament may be administered in this way.
5. Again, so it ought to be, it would seem, because this is the sacrament of those who are in the last moment of life. It is frequently impossible for such people to be assisted by a priest. Therefore it seems that at least in this case they should be able to be assisted by a layman.
6. Again, this is demonstrated by an example in the legend of St. Genevieve that she anointed the sick with oil and cured them.31 Therefore it seems that this belongs at least to holy persons.
I respond: It must be said that the administration of this sacrament belongs by reason of office to priests. Both authority and reason confirm this. Authority confirms this because in James 5:14 it says, Let him bring in the presbyters and let them pray over him.32 Reason also confirms this. Since the material element of this sacrament is consecrated oil, it should not be administered or handled except by one who has consecrated hands. Such is the priest. Therefore it does not extend to any person. Nor does the administration of this sacrament extend to bishops only. This is because this is the sacrament of those in danger, who are not able to approach prelates. To the contrary, if this sacrament were given only by bishops, many would perish. Hence the Holy Spirit arranged that the oil be not only be upon the head and upon the beard of Aaron, but would also run down to the skirt of his garment,33 namely down to the lesser priests. This argument is taken not only from the role of anointing, but also from the role of the prayer. This role of mediation—to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins—belongs not only to bishops but also to priests. It does not belong to laypersons, and so neither does the administration of this sacrament, the efficacy of which consists principally in the prayer of faith, of which the priest is the minister by reason of his office.
To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, concerning Confirmation, it must be said that in no way is there any similarity. The primary reason is because those to be confirmed can approach the bishop, but not so those to be anointed. Further, the imposition of hands was entrusted solely to the Apostles, but the cure of the sick was handed down to other disciples. The sacrament of Confirmation is a sacrament of the imposition of hands, while the sacrament of Unction is ordered to curing.
2. To the objection that customarily it is more noble to use an instrument, it must be said this captures the truth for the most part. The reason for this is that there are grades of worthiness according to their ordering to their end, and the one who uses an instrument is closer to the end than the one who made it. However, in these works of the Church there is a gradation according to a comparison with the first principle, from which flows the whole rule and activity in the body of the Church. Hence the prior virtue is the higher. Thus the bishop who ordains the priest for celebration is superior to the priest who celebrates. So it is to be understood in this proposition. Besides, consecrating oil does not require as much servitude as anointing the sick. For the first can be done by one person, but the latter can in no way be done by one person alone. Hence the Holy Spirit willed that the second, the ability to anoint, be shared with more than the first.
3. To the objection that it belongs to the same one who causes the form as the one who prepares the material, it must be said that this is true when the form completes that preparation. This is just like the worker who in shaping the metal introduces the form of the spear. So also the bishop, when he blesses, introduces the consecration. However, on this account it is not necessary that he apply that oil, just as neither the worker the spear.
4. To the objection that the word and the element produce a sacrament, it must be said that this is true of some sacraments, when their administration is confided to everyone. However, it is not true of all of them, such as the Eucharist, and so it is to be understood with regard to Unction.
5. To the objection concerning the last moment of death, it must be said that devotion can supply for the absence of the priest. Hence it is not necessary to extend it to everyone, especially since the priest can easily enough be present, unless he is absent on account of the negligence of the sick person.
6. To the objection concerning St. Genevieve, it must be said that, just as was held above, some absolve by merit and some by office, so it is to be understood here.34 Hence just as it belongs only to priests to absolve, still some holy persons frequently request by a life of merit what others do by reason of their office. In this way it can also be understood with Unction.
TO WHOM THIS SACRAMENT OUGHT TO BE GIVEN
The second question is to whom this sacrament of Unction ought to be given. That it is to be given only to the sick appears:
a. Through what is said in James 5:14, Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters. Therefore the sick are enjoined to bring in the presbyters. This especially appears in the following sentence, The prayer of faith shall save the sick person.35
b. Again, that it is only to those having use of reason is shown through the text when it says, Let him bring in the presbyters, and afterward, if he has committed sins he will be forgiven. 36 If, then, to ask for the presbyters and to be in a state of sin is proper to adults and to those who have use of reason, it would seem, etc.
c. Again, that it is only to those who are in danger of death appears through the very name by which it is called Extreme Unction. Therefore it ought to be given only in the last moments.
To the contrary: 1. That it should be given not just to the sick is seen from the Glossa, which says, “Is anyone sick among you? Namely in mind, body, or in faith.”37 Therefore it should be given not only to those who are sick bodily, but also to those who are spiritually sick.
2. Again, this anointing ought to be given to those who are approaching death and those in danger of death. The one who enters a just war is in danger of death; therefore, etc.
3. Again, not only to those who have use of reason, it seems, because they are not the only ones who are sick, but there are others who need uplifting, such as children and the mentally disabled. Therefore it would seem that this sacrament ought to be given to them, since it is the anointing of the sick.
4. Again, this is proven from the text, in which it says, “Is anyone sick among you?”38 The “anyone”39 holds infinitely. Therefore anyone who is sick ought to be anointed; therefore, etc.
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament serves principally to wipe away venial sins, according to which those anointed are able to receive a fitting effect. Through this it serves for the uplifting of the soul, which is weighed down by a body that harbors corruption. Hence this sacrament ought to be given only to those sick persons who can sin venially, and to these to the extent that they are at the moment of death. For thus they can be freed of venial sin fittingly and adequately. This is suggested in the text itself:40 the condition, I say, of sickness, and this is what is meant by infirmatur; a danger, in that it says quis,41 as if discretely, notably, and gravely, such that the power of nature and the help of medicine is deficient; the discretion of reason, in that it says inducat presbyteros,42 and again in what is conjoined, si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei.43 So the arguments that demonstrate that this sacrament ought to be given only to those sick who have the use of reason and to those who are in danger of death are to be conceded.
To the objections: 1. To the objection from the Glossa, it must be said that the vel is understood subdisjunctively; nor is bodily illness excluded, but is presupposed.
2. To the objection concerning those who enter a just war, it must be said that such are in danger of death according to their fortune, but not however according to nature. The sacraments of the Church do not follow fortune, but are concerned with nature. If you should object about the one who is condemned by sentence, it must be said that such a one is infamous before the Church, even if in truth he should have no fault. So that argument is clear.
3. To the objection that others need uplifting, it must be said that this sacrament was not principally ordered toward this, as is apparent in its very form. It is, however, ordered toward the remission of sins that have been committed through the exterior senses. For this reason it is not for infants or to those who are naturally mentally disabled.
4. To the objection about the word quis, it must be said that it is understood distinctively rather than infinitely. If you should object that such a mode does not fit that word, it must be said that this is false, because such a mode is connected to the mode of receiving an interrogation.
WHERE ON THE BODY SHOULD ONE BE ANOINTED
The third question is where the anointing should take place. That the whole body should be anointed appears:
a. Because such anointing is either against bodily illness or against spiritual illness. If it is against the bodily, since then the mortal illness is spread throughout the body, then the whole body should be anointed. If it is against the spiritual, then spiritual illness does not concern some determined part; therefore, etc.
b. Again, sacramental anointing signifies a gratuitous and spiritual anointing which is in the soul. The soul is wholly in every part of the body; therefore, etc.
c. Again, an anointing of devotion considers the soul according to its intellectual potency. That is an act of no bodily part, therefore no determined part of the body should be anointed. Thus, the whole body is to be anointed.
d. Again, if there is sufficient water, when someone is purified of original sin he is totally immersed. Therefore similarly, if there is sufficient oil, it would seem that the whole body should be anointed.
But to the contrary: 1. According to Matthew 15:19, From the heart come forth evil thoughts, thefts…, all sins proceed from the heart. Therefore to signify the wiping away of sins it is enough to anoint the place of the heart.
2. Again, the anointing of Confirmation is done in only one part, namely on the forehead. Therefore by the same token the anointing of this sacrament is done there.
3. Again, if it is done in many parts separately, then the anointings are many—therefore many sacraments. For the foot and the hand differ in species following the nature of their organization.
4. Again, if the anointing is to be done on diverse parts, since it frequently happens that with old age many members of the body are lost, it would seem then that aging would make the sacrament lack its perfection, which is not fitting.
The question, then, is what members should be anointed, and whether those mutilated ought to be anointed.
I respond: It must be said that in such matters, as has often been said, the end imposes necessity on the things that are ordered toward the end.44 This sacrament is principally ordered to the wiping out of venial sins, according to what is suggested in the text of blessed James,45 and venial sins are committed by the soul according to its conjunction to the corrupt flesh. This takes place through the potencies of the soul, through which these are joined to the body as an organ of the senses. Hence, it is right that in the wiping out of such sins an external medicine must be applied to those external organs. This is according to the nature of sensible things, which connect through sensible organs to those potencies of the soul. Now there is a threefold potency of the soul according to which it directs the body and is instructed and according to which it is put in touch with what is external, namely the sensitive, generative, and the mobile. Therefore the organs of these potencies should be anointed. Since there are five organs which serve the five senses, namely the mouth, the eyes, the nostrils, the ears and the hands, and the loins serve the generative, and the feet the power to be mobile, so these seven parts are anointed. And so it is evident that neither the whole body, nor one determined part should be anointed.
To the objections: a-c. To the objection, then, concerning spiritual illness, that it does not determine a part, it must be said this is true, that it does not determine the part in which it exists, but still it determines the part through which it is contracted. Thus two consequences for the soul become apparent, that it is in every part of the body, and for the intellectual potency. This is because, although the soul is essentially complete in every part of the body, and according to the intellectual potency it does not concern any determined part of the body, nevertheless according to its sensitive and operational potency it determines for itself certain organized parts of the body, in which it takes delight, and following such delights it incurs a variety of sins.
d. To the objection concerning Baptism, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is for the reason that in original sin the whole flesh is stained, but in the commission of venial sin some act of a special potency is concerned.
1. To the objection to the contrary concerning the heart, it must be said that although all things proceed from the movement of the heart, still they do so by way of the subservice of diverse potencies.
2. To the objection concerning the anointing of Confirmation, it must be said that there is no similarity. This is for the reason that the former is determinedly against timidity and shame, but the latter is against venial sins which concern the acts of all the potencies.
3. To the objection that then there are many sacraments, it must be said that those parts are not anointed unless they coalesce into one that they are subject to and according to whose instance they are moved. Hence, because the anointing exists in them according to one nature and by comparison to one, so the sacrament is one.
4. To the objection concerning those who lose these members, it must be said that, although they are mutilated, they should still be anointed. If you should object that this introduces a falsity into the form, it must be said that this is false, because the blind frequently wish to see beautiful things, and the deaf to hear, though they do not hear. Thus it is right that they should be anointed in those members, because by way of such members they have either sinned or wanted to sin, at least with a venial appetite.
If you should ask, since sin in people is especially contracted by way of the genital members, whether venial or mortal sin is committed, why are they not anointed? It must be said this is by reason of the filthiness of the member, on account of which rational nature is ashamed not only to touch it, but to look at it, but even more to say its name. Moreover the rational nature is ashamed even more to think of it. Therefore let there be no thought of applying holy oil there, but in place of those members the loins are anointed. I also believe that this spares the embarrassment of the sick, because no one who has use of reason would not be ashamed to show these members to others, which he himself is ashamed to look at.
HOW OFTEN SHOULD THIS SACRAMENT OF UNCTION BE GIVEN
The fourth and last question is how often this sacrament ought to be given. The question is whether it ought to be repeated. That it should not appears:
1. First, because injury should be done to no sacrament. The one who repeats a sacrament does it injury; therefore, etc.
2. Again, it appears from likeness, because the episcopal anointing or Confirmation is not repeated. Therefore for a similar reason neither then should Extreme Unction be repeated.
3. Again, this appears from its name, because it is called Extreme Unction. For any person death happens only once, and thus there is only one extremity of life. Therefore a person should be anointed only once.
To the contrary: a. So often as the illness is repeated, so also the medicine. Both corporeal and spiritual illness are repeated, namely venial sin and bodily sickness; therefore, etc.
b. Again, someone who is in danger according to human judgment and the opinion of doctors, is to be anointed, because it is presumed that he is laboring through his last. If, then, that same person can at another time labor in his last, it seems that he ought to be anointed again.
c. In this vein, there arises a question, if some priest begins to anoint but has to stop before completing it, whether he should start over from the head or complete the anointing from where he left off.
d. And again, whether someone ought to be anointed twice in the same illness, as for example in an incurable illness.
I respond: It must be said that this sacrament, as is openly suggested in The Master’s text, can and ought to be repeated.46 If the reason for this is sought, it must be said that the general reason why a sacrament should not be repeated is that its effect is perpetual and is not repeated. Hence the impression of character is not a general reason, but rather the perpetuation of its effect. Thus from the moment that bread is once consecrated it ought not be further consecrated, even though no character is imprinted there. Similarly blessed oil ought not be further blessed, or what is consecrated ought not be further consecrated. However, because then in Extreme Unction there is neither impression nor perpetual effect, especially if the person rises from his illness, hence a second application of the sacrament is necessary. Therefore the medicine can and should be repeated without any contempt for the sacrament.
To the objections: 1. To the objection, then, that it does injury to itself in repetition, it must be said that this is true when a sacrament is repeated and nothing new is accomplished. This however has no place is this case.
2. To the objection concerning the anointing of Confirmation, it must be said that there is no similarity, because both cases do not possess the effect of character, which is perpetual, on account of which the sacrament ought not be further repeated.
3. To the objection concerning its name, it must be said Extreme Unction can be understood in two ways: either according to truth or according to our opinion. In the first sense it is not repeated, but in the second sense it is. Thus it frequently happens that many are anointed.
c. To the question if the priest falls short, whether he should start over, it must be said that he should rather complete what he has begun. This is for the reason that each anointing has its own special form, as is evident to anyone who examines the ritual, although they generally come together in the remission of sin.47
d. To the question concerning prolonged illnesses, some have held that after a year it can be repeated, for the reason that the revolution of the heavenly bodies is completed. However, it seems very absurd that the sacraments be regulated according to the movement of the stars—hence an alternative that no one who is sick is to be anointed unless it is presumed that he is nearing his death. This lies in the worsening of illness, which state nature is not able to sustain for very long. Rather it either conquers or is conquered. If, then, the sick person gets better so as to live on longer, although he is not perfectly cured, he is in some manner cured of the intensity of the sickness. Hence because venial sins can return again, and the bodily illness again worsens, the sacrament of Unction can and should be repeated. Thus the response to the objections is clear.
_______________
1 Cf. Biblia cum glossa ordinaria, vol. 4, Mark 6:13, 104. See also PL 114, 201B, which is Jerome’s Commentary on Mark 8:10-23: Et ungebant oleo. Jacobus dicit: Infirmatur quis in vobis? Inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et orent super eum ungentes eum oleo, etc. Unde patet ab apostolis hunc morem esse traditum ut energumeni et alii aegroti ungantur oleo a pontifice consecrato.
2 Phil 1:23.
3 Biblia cum glossa ordinaria, vol. 4, James 5:14-15, 519; See also PL 114, 679B: Et si in peccatis. Multi propter peccata etiam corporis plectuntur morte, etc. ,,,Usque ad unde recte subditur: Confitemini, etc.
4 Augustine, Confessions, b. 10, c. 29, n. 40 (PL 32, 796; CCSL 27, 176): Minus enim te amat qui tecum aliquid amat quod non propter te amat.
5 Wis 9:15.
6 Thus since for Bonaventure the sole purpose of the sacrament is to heal venial sins at the time of death, it should be given only if the person is at the point of death, because if one does not die, then one has not been cured of venial sins.
7 Cf. below, d. 23, a. 2, q. 2. See also Prov 17:22.
8 This would be at death.
9 The Greek word which is used in James 5:15, can mean either “to save” or “to heal.” However, the Latin word salvo has only the connotation “to save.” This could be influencing Bonaventure’s understanding of the sacrament, and may be the reason why he restricts this sacrament to the point of death.
10 Prov 17:22.
11 Ps 63:1 in most English translations.
12 Ps 27:7 (Vulgate), 28:7 in most English translations.
13 Cf. Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1.
14 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 23, c. 3, n. 1, 391: Hoc sacramentum unctionis infirmorum ab apostolis institutum legitur. Bonaventure’s word order is different from the text above, but this is the sentence he is quoting.
15 Latin: …ipse per se exhibuit.
16 Cf. James 5:16 for Confession, and James 5:14-15 for Unction.
17 Cf. above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 1, ad objecta 1 and q. 2.
18 John 14:26.
19 This was the decision of the Jerusalem council that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses.
20 Latin: Ad illum quod obicitur, quod Apostoli ungebant oleo, diciendum quod ibi non fuit hoc sacramentum institutum, sed insinuatum. The editors have chosen to remain close to the Latin text. In this case, insinuatum is translated “insinuated.” This word appears to be a subtle and technical term in Bonaventure’s sacramental theology, indicating a practice pointing toward subsequent institution. This is distinct from prefiguration.
21 Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 23, c. 1, 390: Praeter praemissa, est etiam aliud sacramentum, scilicet, unctio infirmorum, quae fit in extremis, oleo per episcopum consecrato.
22 Bonaventure takes the distinction between balsam and oil from Peter Lombard. Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 23, c. 2, 390: Unde et propter abundantiam gratiae duos liquores mixtos habet, oleum scilicet et balsamum, oleum conscientiae, balsamum famae. Chrisma vero graece, unctio dicitur Latine. Nec tamen omne oleum ad Unctionem sanctificatum chrisma vocatur, sed illud solum quod miscetur cum balsamo, quo capita regum et pontificum unguntur, quo etiam baptizatos sacerdos ungit in vertice, et Pontifex per impositionem manus confirmandos ungit in fronte.
23 Here Bonaventure makes an important sacramental principle explicit, namely that the signification of the material elements in the sacrament rests not only upon that which the element naturally represents, but also on the manner of the institution of said sacrament. This is because the efficacy of the sacrament comes from the power which God gives, and this has to be according to its institution. To stray from its institution is to remove its signification, sanctity, and efficacy. Thus, for Bonaventure, using non-consecrated oil when consecrated oil was instituted would be the same as using non-instituted elements in the Lord’s Supper—beer and pizza, for example, which signify delight and nourishment, but were not instituted by God.
24 James 5:15.
25 Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, I, p. 9, c. 2 (PL 176, 318B, Corpus Victorinum, 210): Hoc autem interesse videtur quod omne sacramentum similitudinem quidem habet ex prima conditione, institutionem ex superaddita dispensatione, sanctificatione ex apposita verbi vel signi benefictione.
26 Gregory I, Romani ordines, X, n. 33 (PL 78,1021): Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam parcat tibi Dominus quidquid oculorum vitio deliquisti.
27 James 5:15.
28 James 5:15.
29 Cf. above, d. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.
30 James 5:15.
31 Cf. Ioannes Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum I, c. 10 (Antwerp: apud Ioannem Meurisum, 1643), 142b-143a: Aegros vero iugiter olea sacro delibutos, sospites reddebat. Factum est vt quemdam a daemonio vexatum oleo vellet perungere, cui cum secundum praeceptionem sui, ampulla, quae oleum benedictum habuerat, vacua fuisset allata, vehementissime sancta Dei famula Genouefa turbata quidnam ageret haesitabat. Nam Pontifex qui olemn ei benediceret aberat. Interea solo recubans auxilium sibi affore de caelo ad absoluendum infirmum sacris precibus implorabat. Mox vt ab oratione surrexit, in manibus eius ampulla oleo repleta est. Et ita demum geminae in uva hora virtutes, Christo operante, per eam apparuerunt, vt & ampulla, quae oleum non habebat, inter manus eius vacua repleretur, & ab ipso oleo energumeno delibuto, a vexatione daemonum incolumis redderetur.
32 In medieval Latin, and in Bonaventure’s usage, sacerdos and presbyter are used synonymously to refer to the same office of priest, though the two words certainly emphasize different aspects of the priestly calling.
33 Ps 133:2 (132:2 Vulgate).
34 Cf. d. 17, p. 3, dub. 1 in the Quaracchi edition. There are no translations of the dubia in this edition.
35 James 5:15.
36 James 5:14.
37 Cf. Biblia cum glossa ordinaria, vol. 4, James 5:14-15, 519.
38 James 5:14. Cf. Bede, Super divi Jacobi epistolam, c. 5, v. 14 (PL 93, 39BC; Bedae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II, Opera Exegetica 4: Expositio Actuum Apostolorum … In Epistolas VII Catholicas. Ed. David Hurst et alii. CCSL 121 [Turnholt: Brepols, 1983], 221): Sicut dederat contristato, sic dat et infirmanti consilium, qualiter se a murmurationis stultitia tueatur, juxtaque modum vulneris, modum ponit et medelae, tristato praecipiens ut ipse pro se oret et psallat, infirmanti autem vel corpore vel fide mandans ut quo majorem sustinuit plagam, plurimorum eo se adjutorio, et hoc seniorum, curare meminerit, neque ad juniores minusque doctos causam suae imbecillitatis referat, ne forte quid per eos allocutionis aut consilii nocentis accipiat. See The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Translated by David Hurst. CSS 82 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cisterian Publications, 1985), 61: “Just as he had given advice to the one who was sad, so he gives advice also to the one who is sick, how he should be on his guard against the foolishness of murmuring, and according to the measure of the wound he assigns as well the measure of the cure. He admonishes the one who is sad to pray for himself and sing psalms, but commands the person who is sick either in body or faith that as the blow he has suffered is greater he should remember to cure himself with the help of more persons, and this of the presbyters; and let him not report the reason for his weakness to the younger and less learned, lest by chance he receive from them some harmful advice or counsel.”
39 Latin: …quis.
40 James 5:14-15 VUL: Infirmatur quis in vobis inducat presbyteros ecclesiae et orent super eum unguentes eum oleo in nomine Domini et oratio fidei salvabit infirmum et adlevabit eum Dominus et si in peccatis sit dimittentur ei.
41 Quis, here could be translated “anyone.”
42 Inducat presbyteros here would be translated “Let him bring in the presbyters.”
43 Si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei here would be translated “if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
44 Cf. above, d. 6, p. 1, q. 4; b. 2, d, 2, p. 2, a. 1, q. 1, respondeo; b. 3, d. 19, a. 1, q. 1.
45 James 5:14-15.
46 Cf. Lombard, Sententiae, IV, d. 23, c. 4, 391-93. The whole chapter takes up this question.
47 Since each anointing has its own unique form, the anointings need not be repeated. However, the fullness of the sacramental sign comes together with the completion of all the anointings.