title: Dist. 22, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 584 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum poenitentia habeat rationem tabulae.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc de poenitentia sub ratione tabulae. Et primo videtur, quod ista duo non compatiantur se circa poenitentiam, scilicet *tabula* et *fundamentum*:

**Ad oppositum.**

1. Quoniam fundamenti est subsistere, et tabulae est superefferri: ergo si poenitentia recte dicitur *fundamentum*, improprie a Magistro[^1] *tabula* appellatur.

2. Item, Hieronymus super illud[^2]: *Peccatum suum sicut Sodoma* etc.: «Secunda tabula post naufragium est peccati absconsio»; sed poenitentia consistit in peccati detectione: ergo etc.

3. Item, fundamentum est primum: ergo si poenitentia est fundamentum et est tabula, ergo est *prima* tabula: ergo male dicit Hieronymus, quod sit *secunda* tabula. — Videntur enim ista incompossibilia, quod sit fundamentum, et quod sit secundum. *Si dicas*, quod est *tabula*, secundum quod est Sacramentum, et *fundamentum*, secundum quod est virtus; *contra*: si est tabula[^3] in quantum Sacramentum, ergo est *secundum* Sacramentum: ergo immediate de ipsa debet determinari post baptismum.

4. Item, tabula dicitur, quia liberat a naufragio; sed poenitentia liberat a naufragio secundum quod virtus: ergo est tabula secundum quod virtus.

**Quaestio incidens.** Quaeritur ergo, secundum quem tropum dicatur tabula.

### Conclusio.

> *Poenitentia secundum diversas acceptiones recte ut virtus dicitur fundamentum, et ut Sacramentum, tabula.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod poenitentia, sive dicatur *fundamentum*, sive *tabula*, sub tropo dictum est, tamen secundum aliam et aliam acceptionem, secundum quam fit duplex translatio. Poenitentia enim est virtus, et sic competit ei ratio *fundamenti*; poenitentia Sacramentum est, et sic secundum hoc competit ei ratio *tabulae*.

Ratio autem huius est, quia virtus, ut vult Augustinus, de Quantitate animae[^4], nihil aliud est quam «aequalitas mentis undique rationi consentientis»; unde est quaedam quadratura, per quam anima in spirituali aedificio collocatur. Et quoniam in hac collocatione poenitentiae virtus *primo* occurrit in aedificatione; ideo competit ei ratio primae partis aedificii, haec autem est fundamentum; et ideo poenitentiae virtuti rectissime aptatur nomen et proprietas *fundamenti*[^5].

Sed nomen et proprietas *tabulae* competit poenitentiae Sacramento. — Ad quod intelligendum oportet nosse, quid sit *mare*, quid *naufragium*, quid *navis* et quid *tabula*. *Mare* est praesens saeculum, secundum illud Psalmi[^6]: *Hoc mare magnum* etc. — *Navis*, quae perducit ad portum salutis, est unitas ecclesiastica, de qua dicitur Sapientiae decimo quarto: *Transeuntes mare per ratem liberati sunt*; et Actuum vigesimo septimo: *Nisi in navi manseritis* etc. — *Naufragium* navis est per separationem et scissionem membrorum, secundum illud Iudae[^7]: *Hi sunt qui segregant semetipsos* etc. — *Tabula* est adiutorium aliquod collatum, per quod possit ille qui est in periculo naufragii, sublevari a periculo peccati; et hoc est Sacramentum. — Et cum duplex sit peccati periculum, duplex et naufragium; duplex est Sacramentum liberans a duplici naufragio, scilicet a naufragio *originalis*, et hoc est *baptismus*; et quia originale est primum, ideo baptismus est *prima tabula*. Et secundum naufragium est per *actuale*, et quia ab hoc liberat *poenitentia*, ideo dicitur *secunda tabula*[^8].

<!-- page 585 -->

1. Et sic patet, quod recte dicitur *fundamentum*, et recte dicitur *tabula*, secundum diversas acceptiones; et recte in quantum virtus dicitur *fundamentum*, recte in quantum Sacramentum liberans a naufragio dicitur *secunda tabula*.

3. Et sic patet illud argumentum: est secunda tabula: ergo *secundum* Sacramentum. Patet etiam *secundo*[^9] obiectum de incompossibilitate horum duorum.

2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de absconsione, dicendum, quod est absconsio per *hypocrisim* et per *poenitentiam veram*, quae totum remittit[^10]. Et Hieronymus loquitur de absconsione secunda, quae fit per revelationem, non de prima.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitentia liberat secundum quod virtus, dicendum, quod sicut fides supplet locum baptismi, ubi quis non potest baptizari[^11]; sic poenitentia-virtus locum Sacramenti; attamen, quia hoc non habet nisi in articulo necessitatis, ut possit a naufragio liberare, Sacramentum autem habet de se: ideo ratio *tabulae* debet Sacramento attribui, non *virtuti*. Praeterea, Sacramentum respicit liberationem a malo sive a periculo, non sic virtus; et quia tabula sonat in rationem refugii et liberationis a malo naufragii[^12] et periculo peccati: ideo magis competit Sacramento quam virtuti. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta omnia circa partem oppositam. Solum hoc diligenter attendendum est, quod quamdiu sumus in hoc mari, stringamus tabulam propter periculum evitandum a mari magno[^13].

english:
### Question II. *Whether penance has the character of a plank.*

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning this — about penance under the character of a plank. And first it seems that these two do not go together in the case of penance, namely *plank* and *foundation*:

**For the opposite.**

1. Since it belongs to a foundation to lie beneath, and to a plank to be borne up on top: therefore if penance is rightly called a *foundation*, it is improperly called a *plank* by the Master[^1].

2. Likewise, Jerome, on that text[^2]: *Their sin like Sodom* etc.: "The second plank after shipwreck is the hiding of sin"; but penance consists in the disclosure of sin: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, a foundation is first: therefore if penance is a foundation and is a plank, then it is the *first* plank: therefore Jerome speaks wrongly in saying that it is the *second* plank. — For these seem incompossible, that it be a foundation and that it be second. *If you say* that it is a *plank* insofar as it is a Sacrament, and a *foundation* insofar as it is a virtue; *on the contrary*: if it is a plank[^3] insofar as it is a Sacrament, then it is the *second* Sacrament: therefore it ought to be treated of immediately after baptism.

4. Likewise, it is called a plank because it frees from shipwreck; but penance frees from shipwreck insofar as it is a virtue: therefore it is a plank insofar as it is a virtue.

**Incidental question.** It is asked, then, according to what trope it is called a plank.

### Conclusion.

> *Penance, according to its diverse acceptations, is rightly called a foundation insofar as it is a virtue, and a plank insofar as it is a Sacrament.*

**I respond:** It must be said that penance, whether it be called a *foundation* or a *plank*, is said tropically, yet according to one and another acceptation, according to which a twofold transferred sense arises. For penance is a virtue, and thus the character of a *foundation* belongs to it; penance is a Sacrament, and thus according to this the character of a *plank* belongs to it.

Now the ground of this is that a virtue, as Augustine holds in *On the Greatness of the Soul*[^4], is nothing other than "an equality of the mind everywhere consenting to reason"; whence it is a kind of squaring, by which the soul is set in place in the spiritual building. And since in this setting-in-place the virtue of penance *first* occurs in the building-up; therefore the character of the first part of the building belongs to it, and this is the foundation; and therefore to the virtue of penance the name and property of *foundation* is most rightly fitted[^5].

But the name and property of *plank* belongs to penance as a Sacrament. — To understand which, one must know what the *sea* is, what *shipwreck* is, what a *ship* is, and what a *plank* is. The *sea* is the present world, according to that text of the Psalm[^6]: *This great sea* etc. — The *ship*, which leads to the harbor of salvation, is ecclesiastical unity, of which it is said in Wisdom, chapter fourteen: *Those crossing the sea by a raft were freed*; and Acts, chapter twenty-seven: *Unless you remain in the ship* etc. — *Shipwreck* of the ship is by the separation and rending of the members, according to that text of Jude[^7]: *These are they who separate themselves* etc. — A *plank* is some aid bestowed, by which he who is in the peril of shipwreck may be lifted up from the peril of sin; and this is the Sacrament. — And since the peril of sin is twofold, the shipwreck too is twofold; there is a twofold Sacrament freeing from the twofold shipwreck, namely from the shipwreck of the *original* [sin], and this is *baptism*; and because original sin is first, therefore baptism is the *first plank*. And the second shipwreck is by *actual* [sin], and because penance frees from this, therefore it is called the *second plank*[^8].

<!-- page 585 -->

1. And thus it is plain that it is rightly called a *foundation*, and rightly called a *plank*, according to diverse acceptations; and rightly, insofar as it is a virtue, it is called a *foundation*, and rightly, insofar as it is a Sacrament freeing from shipwreck, it is called the *second plank*.

3. And thus that argument is plain: it is the second plank: therefore the *second* Sacrament. And the objection about the incompossibility of these two is likewise plain in the second place[^9].

2. To that, then, which is objected concerning the hiding, it must be said that there is a hiding through *hypocrisy* and through *true penance*, which remits all[^10]. And Jerome is speaking of the second hiding, which comes about through disclosure, not of the first.

4. To that which is objected — that penance frees insofar as it is a virtue — it must be said that, just as faith supplies the place of baptism where one cannot be baptized[^11], so penance-as-virtue supplies the place of the Sacrament; yet, because this holds only in a case of necessity, so as to be able to free from shipwreck, whereas the Sacrament has this of itself: therefore the character of *plank* ought to be attributed to the Sacrament, not to the *virtue*. Moreover, the Sacrament regards deliverance from evil or from peril, not so the virtue; and because "plank" sounds toward the notion of refuge and of deliverance from the evil of shipwreck[^12] and the peril of sin: therefore it belongs more to the Sacrament than to the virtue. — And thus the response to all the objections concerning the opposite side is plain. Only this must be diligently attended to: that as long as we are in this sea, we should clutch the plank on account of the peril to be avoided in the great sea[^13].

la: Supra d. XIV. c. 4. — Plures codd. *Hieronymo*.

en: Above, d. XIV, c. 4. — Several codices read *Hieronymo* [by Jerome].

la: Isai. 3, 9, quem locum exponens dicit: *Secunda enim post naufragium tabula est et consolatio miseriarum impietatem suam abscondere.* — In fine arg. fere omnes codd. et ed. I *detestatione* pro *detectione* (cfr. supra pag. 439, nota 5, ubi idem occurrit).

en: Isaiah 3:9, expounding which passage he says: "For the second plank after shipwreck, and the consolation of miseries, is to hide one's own impiety." — At the end of the argument nearly all the codices and the first edition read *detestatione* [detestation] for *detectione* [disclosure] (cf. above p. 439, note 5, where the same occurs).

la: Codd. B E W *secunda tabula*.

en: Codices B, E, W read *secunda tabula* [second plank].

en: [*On the Greatness of the Soul*] c. 16, n. 27. Cf. Book II of the Sentences, d. 27, dub. 3.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Psalm. 103, 25. — Seq. locus est Sap. 14, 5; tertius Act. 27, 31: *Nisi hi in navi manserint, vos salvi fieri non potestis.*

en: Psalm 103:25. — The following passage is Wisdom 14:5; the third, Acts 27:31: "Unless these remain in the ship, you cannot be saved."

la: Vers. 19. Plurimi codd. et edd. omittunt *sunt*.

en: Verse 19. Very many codices and editions omit *sunt* [are].

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. I. dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, p. I, dub. 1.

la: Id est secunda ratio contra horum compossibilitatem.

en: That is, the second reason against the compossibility of these [two].

la: Prov. 28, 13: *Qui abscondit scelera sua non dirigetur; qui autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea misericordiam consequetur.* Cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2. pro parte negativa.

en: Proverbs 28:13: "He who hides his crimes shall not be directed; but he who confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy." Cf. above, d. 17, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2, for the negative side.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et dub. 4. nec non pag. 432, nota 4.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and dub. 4, as well as p. 432, note 4.

la: Codd. F G omittunt *naufragii*, codd. E L W legunt *a naufragio*.

en: Codices F, G omit *naufragii* [of shipwreck]; codices E, L, W read *a naufragio* [from shipwreck].

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p584-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, `vol4-p585-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (two-column IA djvu OCR cascade-shattered). Raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines ~63890–63960) used as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page split (p.584 shared with a3-q1).** QUAESTIO II begins partway down p.584: the running head, the article-master **SCHOLION** (§I *Duas huius articuli quaestiones…* / §II *De 2. quaestione cfr. supra d. 14…*) printed at the top of the p.584 right column belongs to **a3-q1** (it opens above the QUAESTIO II heading and carries no numbered footnote markers), so this q2 chunk claims **has_scholion: false**. All eight numbered footnotes on p.584 (nn.1–8) anchor in q2's body (arguments + Respondeo) and are claimed here.

**Page 585 shared footer (DUBIA boundary).** p.585 carries q2's Solutio replies (col. L + top of col. R) and then opens `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (DUB. I, DUB. II). Its single footnote series runs 1–10 across the whole page; **nn.1–5 anchor in q2's body** ([^9]–[^13] here) and **nn.6–10 belong to the DUBIA** (n.6 = *origine* in DUB. I; nn.7–10 = DUB. I/II) and are NOT claimed here — they migrate to the d22 dubia chunk.

**Cascade recovery.** The raw OCR dropped the final word `magno⁵` of q2's last sentence (…*evitandum a mari magno*) — the p.585 R/L bands recover it plus its footnote marker 5 ([^13]). Reply blocks are printed in the order 1, 3, 2, 4 (preserved verbatim).

**Marginalia.** The editorial side-glosses *Ad oppositum.*, *Quaestio incidens.* (rendered as bold labels), and the redundant *Conclusio.* and *Notandum.* side-notes appear in the Quaracchi margins; *Conclusio* is carried by the `### Conclusio` heading and *Notandum* (beside "Solum hoc diligenter attendendum est…") is left inline rather than breaking reply 4.

**[?] flags:** none. Codex sigla (B, E, F, G, L, W), scriptural citations (Isai. 3:9, Prov. 28:13, Ps. 103:25, Sap. 14:5, Act. 27:31, Jude 19), and cross-references verified against the 450 dpi bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 22, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. XXII)

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 585 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; this chunk carries two per-page series (p.585 notes 6–10, p.586 notes 1–3), renumbered consecutively 1–8 for this file. On p.585 notes 1–5 belong to the preceding chunk (a3-q2), which shares the page.

### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit, quod *originalia reputabuntur ei ad poenam*. Videtur enim dicere falsum, quia originale est a naturali origine[^1]; sed aliquis non bis potest nasci carnaliter: ergo non potest originale iterari. — Item, originale non est in uno nisi unum: ergo male dicit, quod redeunt originalia pluraliter. — Item quaeritur, utrum similiter possit dici, quod redeunt *venialia*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in originali duo sunt, scilicet carentia debitae iustitiae et ulterius pronitas; non fiat vis, utrum ista duo differant secundum *rem*[^2]. Ratione primi privat a visione Dei, sed ratione secundi frequenter in malum trahit; ratione utriusque dicitur quodam modo *redire*, quia pronitates intenduntur, et homo indignus visione Dei efficitur, et ita quodam modo redit in consimili reatu[^3].

Quod ergo dicitur, quod non potest iterari; verum est in se. — Quod obiicitur, quod dicitur pluraliter; dicendum, quod hoc est ratione plurium pronitatum. — Quod quaeritur de veniali, dicendum, quod potest aliquo modo dici, sed adhuc magis improprie quam peccata alia. Est tamen ibi quodam modo ingratitudo[^4].

### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Tot debuit cogitare dona Dei* etc. Ex hoc enim videtur, quod ad tot gratiarum actiones teneatur quis, quot percepit beneficia; sed quilibet nostrum recipit quotidie innumerabilia beneficia: ergo ad innumerabiles tenemur gratiarum actiones. — Item, si ad tot tenemur gratiarum actiones, quot peccata sunt dimissa: ergo videtur similiter, quod si aliquis dedit alicui centum denarios, tenetur similiter centies gratias agere.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut de peccatis sufficit *conteri in communi*, ita quod omnia detestetur, ita tamen quod nullum placeat[^5]; sic de omnibus sufficit *gratias agere in communi*, ita tamen, quod de nullo in speciali ingratus existat; et secundum quod plura sunt beneficia, maiores debet gratias agere; et per oppositum, si non agit, magis ingratus iudicatur esse. Et pro tanto dicitur, quod debet pro *omnibus* gratias agere, non ita, quod pro quolibet divisim suam oportet gratiarum actionem <!-- page 586 --> exhibere, sed quanto plura fuerint, magis accusant ingratum de ingratitudine et faciunt dignum increpatione[^6].

### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod propter ingratitudinem ita reus et peccator constituitur, ut ante fuerat; utrum scilicet ista ingratitudo dicatur genus peccati, vel circumstantia. Si genus; videtur tunc, quod necessario quilibet peccet duplici genere peccati in quolibet peccato, quia quilibet immemor est beneficii accepti, cum Deum offendit. Si circumstantia solum: non videtur ita aggravare peccatum. — Item quod non tantum sit circumstantia, videtur, quia gratiarum actio est actus virtutis, quae est gratitudo[^7]: ergo ingratitudo est speciale vitium.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod aliquis sit *vere gratus*, duo requiruntur, scilicet quod pro loco et tempore sit *memor* beneficiorum ad gratias agendum, et quod sit *promptus* ad obsequendum et ad reddendum bonum pro bono. — Similiter *ingratitudo* dupliciter dicitur: uno modo *oblivio* beneficii cum contemptu, ut puta, quando est locus et tempus agendi gratias et recognoscendi; et sic est peccatum *speciale* contentum sub omissione. Alio modo dicitur ingratus qui recipit bonum et *reddit malum*, et haec est circumstantia peccati; et sic est in omni peccato, et tanto magis aggravans, quanto homo plura bona percepit[^8].

---

english:
### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first about what he says, namely that *original [sins] shall be reckoned to him for punishment*. For it seems to say something false, since the original [sin] is from natural origin[^1]; but no one can be born carnally twice: therefore the original [sin] cannot be repeated. — Likewise, the original [sin] is not more than one in any one person: therefore he speaks badly when he says that original [sins] return in the plural. — Likewise it is asked whether it can similarly be said that venial [sins] return.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the original [sin] there are two things, namely the lack of the owed justice and, further, the proneness [to evil]; let no force be made of whether these two differ in reality[^2]. By reason of the first it deprives of the vision of God, but by reason of the second it frequently draws toward evil; by reason of both it is said in a certain way to *return*, because the pronenesses are intensified, and the man is made unworthy of the vision of God, and thus in a certain way he returns into a like guilt[^3].

What is said, therefore, that it cannot be repeated, is true in itself. — As to what is objected, that it is said in the plural, it must be said that this is by reason of the many pronenesses. — As to what is asked about the venial [sin], it must be said that it can in some way be said [to return], but still more improperly than the other sins. Yet there is there, in a certain way, ingratitude[^4].

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about what he says: *He ought to have considered so many gifts of God*, etc. For from this it seems that one is bound to as many thanksgivings as the benefits he has received; but each of us daily receives innumerable benefits: therefore we are bound to innumerable thanksgivings. — Likewise, if we are bound to as many thanksgivings as the sins that have been remitted: then it seems similarly that, if someone has given another a hundred denarii, he is likewise bound to give thanks a hundred times.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as regarding sins it suffices *to be contrite in general*, so that one detests them all, yet in such a way that none is pleasing[^5]; so regarding all [benefits] it suffices *to give thanks in general*, yet in such a way that one be not ungrateful for any in particular; and according as the benefits are more, the greater thanks he ought to give; and, on the contrary, if he does not give [them], he is judged the more ungrateful. And to this extent it is said that he ought to give thanks for *all*, not in such a way that for each one separately he must render his thanksgiving <!-- page 586 --> [distinctly], but the more they have been, the more they accuse the ungrateful man of ingratitude and make him worthy of rebuke[^6].

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about what he says, namely that on account of ingratitude one is made guilty and a sinner just as he had been before; that is, whether this ingratitude be called a genus of sin, or a circumstance. If a genus: it seems then that necessarily everyone sins with a twofold genus of sin in every sin, since everyone is forgetful of the benefit received when he offends God. If a circumstance only: it does not seem so to aggravate the sin. — Likewise, that it is not merely a circumstance seems [to follow] because thanksgiving is an act of virtue, which is gratitude[^7]: therefore ingratitude is a special vice.

**I respond:** It must be said that, for anyone to be *truly grateful*, two things are required, namely that in due place and time he be *mindful* of benefits so as to give thanks, and that he be *prompt* to serve and to render good for good. — Similarly *ingratitude* is spoken of in two ways: in one way [as] the *forgetting* of a benefit with contempt, as for instance when there is a place and time for giving thanks and acknowledging [them]; and thus it is a special sin contained under omission. In another way he is called ungrateful who receives good and *renders evil*, and this is a circumstance of sin; and thus it is in every sin, and aggravating the more, the more goods a man has received[^8].

---

la: Secundum Anselm., de Conceptu virg. et orig. pecc. c. 1. — In *minori* respicitur Ioan. 3, 4. — Inferius pro *in uno* edd. *ab uno*.

en: According to Anselm, *On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin* c. 1. — In the *minor* [premise] reference is made to John 3:4. — Below, for *in uno* [in one] the editions read *ab uno* [from one].

en: Cf. Book II of the Sentences, d. 30, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. seq. et d. 33. a. 2. q. 2, ubi etiam solut. seqq. obiect. habetur. — Superius pro *et homo* plurimi codd. et edd. *et huiusmodi*, pro quo in cod. X secunda manus substituit *et ratione huiusmodi*. Inferius pro *quod hoc* est cod. G *quod hoc verum est*. Circa finem solut. pro *quod potest* non pauci codd. perperam vel *quod non potest*, vel *quod non habet*. Subinde pro *Est tamen* edd. *Est enim*.

en: Cf. Book II of the Sentences, d. 32, a. 1, q. 1 and following, and d. 33, a. 2, q. 2, where also the solution of the following objections is found. — Above, for *et homo* [and the man] very many codices and editions read *et huiusmodi* [and of this kind], in place of which in codex X a second hand substituted *et ratione huiusmodi* [and by reason of this kind]. Below, for *quod hoc* [that this] codex G has *quod hoc verum est* [that this is true]. Near the end of the solution, for *quod potest* [that it can] not a few codices wrongly [read] either *quod non potest* [that it cannot], or *quod non habet* [that it does not have]. Thereupon, for *Est tamen* [Yet there is] the editions [read] *Est enim* [For there is].

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2. — Idem dub. solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 2. seq.; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 2. — The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 2 and following; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra d. 16. p. I. a. 4. q. 2.

la: Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 4.

en: The same doubt is solved by Blessed Albert, here a. 4.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 728, nota 2, ubi ex Cicerone *gratia* sive *gratitudo*, qua redditur debitum benefactoribus, inter partes potentiales iustitiae enumeratur.

en: Cf. vol. III, p. 728, note 2, where, from Cicero, *gratia* or *gratitude*, by which what is owed to benefactors is repaid, is enumerated among the potential parts of justice.

la: Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. et circa lit. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. et circa lit. Cod. B hic plura nullius fere momenti addit, quibus complectitur dicta supra a. 1. q. 1. et nonnulla verba Magistri litteraliter explicat.

en: The same doubt is solved by St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text; Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1, and on the text. Codex B here adds much of almost no importance, in which it comprises the things said above at a. 1, q. 1, and explains some words of the Master literally.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Three dubia (Dub. I–III) forming the *Dubia circa litteram Magistri* for Dist. XXII. Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`vol4-p585-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`, `vol4-p586-{L,R}-{0,1,2}`), per the VOL II OVERRIDE (two-column IA djvu OCR cascade-shattered). Raw OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines ~63986–64092) used as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20. No scholion.

**Reading order / column flow.** On p.585 the *Dubia circa litteram Magistri* full-width header sits mid-page; above it the top of both columns belongs to the preceding chunk (a3-q2). Below the header: left column = Dub. I; right column = the tail of Dub. I (`...improprie quam peccata alia. Est tamen ibi quodam modo ingratitudo`) followed by Dub. II. Dub. II's Respondeo runs to the foot of p.585 R-col and continues at the top of p.586 L-col (`exhibere, sed quanto...`) — the `<!-- page 586 -->` break is placed at that seam. Dub. III occupies the top of p.586 (L-col objections, R-col Respondeo); below it DISTINCTIO XXIII begins full-width (not part of this chunk).

**Apparatus / page-footer split (p.585 seam with a3-q2).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. p.585 carries ten footers (nn.1–10): the left footer column prints nn.1–6, the right footer column nn.7–10. Numbering runs sequentially down the whole page, so the top-of-page article (a3-q2) owns nn.1–5 and the dubia below own **nn.6–10** — even though note 6 physically sits in the left footer column alongside a3-q2's nn.1–5. This chunk therefore claims p.585 nn.6–10 (→ [^1]–[^5]); the sibling `bon-sent-IV-d22-a3-q2` claims p.585 nn.1–5 (its [^9]–[^13]). p.586 carries three dubia footers (nn.1–3 → [^6]–[^8]) anchored in the Dub. II tail and Dub. III; the further footers on p.586 (Hugo a S. Vict., *Graece χρίσμα*, etc.) belong to Distinctio XXIII and are not claimed here.

**Marginalia.** The Quaracchi outer-margin reading labels (*Notandum*, *Duplex ingratitudo*, etc.) that print beside the Dub. II/III Respondeones are editorial side-notes, not Bonaventure's text, and are omitted from the body per the corpus marginalia-trimming convention.

**[?] flags.** None. Every reading was resolved against the PDF column bands.

**Apparatus health-scan false positive (2026-07-17).** The corpus scanner reports `defs=8 la=10 en=8`, flagging this chunk unhealthy. This is **not a real defect** — it's the same class of false positive documented for `IV-d21-p1-littera`/`III-d33-dubia` in `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §2. The `## Latin` intro blockquote (line 29 above) explains the per-page footnote-renumbering scheme using literal `[^1]` and `[^8]` as plain-text example markers ("renumbered consecutively [^1]–[^8] for this file") — not even backtick-quoted, an even plainer instance of the same bug. The count-mismatch scanner and the live site's regex-based footnote renderer both fail to distinguish this explanatory prose from real body anchors, so it double-counts `[^1]` and `[^8]` as extra Latin-only anchors (confirmed via the duplicate-label finder: `la dupes/extras: ['1', '8']`, `en dupes/extras: []` — no such intro note exists in `## English` to trigger the same false count there). All 8 real apparatus entries are correctly anchored once each in both Latin and English bodies; nothing was changed in this chunk. Per the handoff, this is added to the running list of backtick/plain-text blockquote false positives for Wilson's decision on the corpus-wide notation fix — not fixed here.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 23

title_alt: Littera Magistri (Lombard), Distinctio XXIII

title_alt: The text of the Master (Lombard), Distinction XXIII

source_text:
<!-- page 586 -->

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page (p. 586 nn. 1–3, p. 587 nn. 1–4); they are renumbered sequentially 1–7 here.

### Cap. I. *De Sacramento unctionis extremae.*

« Praeter praemissa est etiam aliud Sacramentum, scilicet unctio infirmorum, quae fit in extremis oleo per episcopum consecrato[^1] ». « Et sunt tria genera unctionis ».

### Cap. II. *De tribus generibus unctionis.*

« Est enim unctio, quae fit chrismate, quae dicitur principalis unctio, quia in ea principaliter Paraclitus datur. Unde et propter abundantiam gratiae duos liquores mixtos habet, oleum scilicet et balsamum, oleum conscientiae, balsamum famae. Chrisma[^2] 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. Est et alia unctio, qua catechumeni et neophyti unguntur in pectore et inter scapulas in perceptione baptismi. Tertia vero unctio est, quae dicitur oleum infirmorum, de qua nunc agitur ».

### Cap. III. *A quibus fuerit hoc Sacramentum institutum.*

« Hoc Sacramentum unctionis infirmorum ab Apostolis institutum legitur. Ait enim Iacobus[^3]: *Infirmatur quis in vobis? inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo in nomine Domini, et alleviabit eum Dominus; et si in peccatis sit, dimittentur ei.* In quo ostenditur duplici ex causa Sacramentum hoc institutum, scilicet ad peccatorum remissionem et ad corporalis infirmitatis alleviationem. Unde constat, eum qui hanc unctionem fideliter devoteque percipit, et in corpore et in anima alleviari, si tamen expedit, ut in utroque allevietur. Quodsi forte corporis valetudinem illi habere non expedit, illam quae est animae sanitatem in hoc Sacramento acquirit ». « Et sicut in aliis Sacramentis, ita et in isto aliud est *Sacramentum*, aliud *res Sacramenti*. *Sacramentum* est ipsa unctio exterior, *res Sacramenti* unctio interior, quae peccatorum remissione et virtutum ampliatione perficitur. Et si ex contemptu, vel negligentia Sacramentum hoc praetermittitur, periculosum est et damnabile ».

<!-- page 587 -->

### Cap. IV. *De iteratione huius Sacramenti.*

Quaerunt aliqui, si hoc Sacramentum iterari possit, cum baptismus et alia quaedam Sacramenta semel suscepta non iterentur. Augustinus dicit[^4]: « Sacramentum non iterandum, et Sacramento non esse faciendam iniuriam »; sed hoc dicit, ubi agit de Sacramento baptismi et ordinationis. Unde non videtur illud generaliter accipiendum, sed de Sacramento baptismi, confirmationis et ordinationis, quae nullatenus repetenda sunt, quia semel tantum et non saepius datur baptismus, confirmatio et ordinatio. Sacramentum vero altaris et poenitentiae et coniugii saepe iterari videtur; quia saepe Sacramentum corporis percipitur, frequenter poenitentia agitur, coniugium saepe contrahitur. Quare ergo unctio similiter non potest iterari? Si morbus non revertitur, medicina non iteretur; si vero morbus non potest cohiberi, quare medicina debet prohiberi? Sicut oratio iterari potest, ita et unctio iterari posse videtur; utraque enim illic commemorat Iacobus, et utrumque alteri cooperatur ad conferendam alleviationem corporis et animae. Cur ergo negetur, unctionem super infirmum posse iterari ad impetrandam saepius sanitatem mentis et corporis, cum propter idem[^5] saepe iteranda sit oratio? — Quidam autem de omni Sacramento intelligi volunt, quod non sit iterandum, scilicet secundum totum illud, quod pertinet ad Sacramentum, dicentes quaedam Sacramenta saepius posse suscipi, quaedam vero non; nec tamen quae saepius sumuntur totaliter iterantur, ut Sacramentum altaris et unctionis, quae licet saepius sumantur, tamen, quia non iterum benedicitur eadem hostia vel idem oleum, non iteratur Sacramentum cum iniuria. — Sed dicet quis: sic et baptismus non iteratur, etsi aliquis frequenter baptizetur, dum eadem aqua non iterum benedicatur. — Sed aliud est, inquiunt illi, de benedictione aquae, qua fit baptismus, aliud de benedictione panis et olei. Potest enim baptismus celebrari in aqua etiam non benedicta, quia illa benedictio pro reverentia tantum fit et decore, non virtute Sacramenti. Sed corpus Christi non potest confici nisi de pane consecrato[^6], nec unctio illa fieri potest nisi de oleo ab episcopo consecrato; ideoque illa sanctificatio ad virtutem Sacramenti pertinere videtur. In coniugio quoque semel tantum benedicitur quisque, non saepius. Benedicitur enim, ut ait Ambrosius[^7], cum prima et non cum secunda uxore. Si igitur, cum dicitur, Sacramentum non esse iterandum, nec iniuria ei facienda, rationem dicti referas ad sanctificationem rei, qua Sacramentum expletur; de omni Sacramento generaliter id verum est. Si vero ad susceptionem Sacramenti, de quibusdam verum est, quod non iterantur crebra susceptione, de aliis vero quibusdam non, quia frequenter sumuntur, ut hoc unctionis Sacramentum, quod in omni pene Ecclesia saepe repetitur.

---

english:
<!-- page 586 -->

### Chapter I. *On the Sacrament of extreme unction.*

« Besides the foregoing there is also another Sacrament, namely the anointing of the sick, which is done at the last extremity with oil consecrated by a bishop[^1] ». « And there are three kinds of anointing ».

### Chapter II. *On the three kinds of anointing.*

« For there is an anointing which is done with chrism, which is called the principal anointing, because in it the Paraclete is principally given. Hence also, on account of the abundance of grace, it has two liquids mixed together, namely oil and balsam: the oil of conscience, the balsam of good repute. *Chrism*[^2] in Greek is called *unction* in Latin. Yet not every oil sanctified for anointing is called chrism, but only that which is mixed with balsam, with which the heads of kings and of bishops are anointed, with which also a priest anoints the baptized upon the crown of the head, and a bishop, by the laying on of the hand, anoints those to be confirmed upon the forehead. And there is another anointing, with which catechumens and the newly-born [in baptism] are anointed on the breast and between the shoulder-blades in the receiving of baptism. But the third anointing is that which is called the oil of the sick, of which we now treat ».

### Chapter III. *By whom this Sacrament was instituted.*

« This Sacrament of the anointing of the sick is read to have been instituted by the Apostles. For James says[^3]: *Is any sick among you? let him bring in the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the Lord will relieve him; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.* In which it is shown that this Sacrament was instituted from a twofold cause, namely for the remission of sins and for the relief of bodily infirmity. Hence it is established that he who faithfully and devoutly receives this anointing is relieved both in body and in soul, if nevertheless it is expedient that he be relieved in both. But if perchance it is not expedient for him to have bodily health, he acquires in this Sacrament that health which is of the soul ». « And as in the other Sacraments, so also in this one the *Sacrament* is one thing, the *reality of the Sacrament* another. The *Sacrament* is the exterior anointing itself; the *reality of the Sacrament* is the interior anointing, which is accomplished by the remission of sins and the increase of virtues. And if out of contempt or negligence this Sacrament is omitted, it is dangerous and damnable ».

<!-- page 587 -->

### Chapter IV. *On the repetition of this Sacrament.*

Some ask whether this Sacrament can be repeated, since baptism and certain other Sacraments, once received, are not repeated. Augustine says[^4]: « A Sacrament is not to be repeated, and no injury is to be done to a Sacrament »; but he says this where he treats of the Sacrament of baptism and of ordination. Hence it does not seem that this is to be taken generally, but of the Sacrament of baptism, of confirmation, and of ordination, which are in no way to be repeated, because baptism, confirmation, and ordination are given only once and not more often. But the Sacrament of the altar and of penance and of marriage seems to be repeated often; because the Sacrament of the body is received often, penance is done frequently, marriage is contracted often. Why therefore can unction not likewise be repeated? If the disease does not return, let the medicine not be repeated; but if the disease cannot be checked, why should the medicine be forbidden? As prayer can be repeated, so too unction seems able to be repeated; for James there commemorates both, and each cooperates with the other toward conferring the relief of body and soul. Why therefore should it be denied that unction over the sick person can be repeated to obtain more often the health of mind and body, since for the same end prayer is to be repeated often[^5]? — But some wish it to be understood of every Sacrament that it is not to be repeated, namely according to the whole of that which pertains to the Sacrament, saying that certain Sacraments can be received more often, but certain ones not; nor yet are those which are received more often repeated in their entirety, as the Sacrament of the altar and of unction, which, although they be received more often, nevertheless, because the same host or the same oil is not blessed again, the Sacrament is not repeated with injury. — But someone will say: thus baptism too is not repeated, even if someone be baptized frequently, so long as the same water is not blessed again. — But it is one thing, they say, concerning the blessing of the water by which baptism is done, another concerning the blessing of the bread and of the oil. For baptism can be celebrated even in water that is not blessed, because that blessing is done only for reverence and seemliness, not by the power of the Sacrament. But the body of Christ cannot be confected except from consecrated bread[^6], nor can that unction be done except from oil consecrated by a bishop; and therefore that sanctification seems to pertain to the power of the Sacrament. In marriage too each is blessed only once, not more often. For one is blessed, as Ambrose says[^7], with a first and not with a second wife. If therefore, when it is said that a Sacrament is not to be repeated, nor injury done to it, you refer the ground of the saying to the sanctification of the reality by which the Sacrament is completed, then of every Sacrament this is generally true. But if to the receiving of the Sacrament, then of some it is true that they are not repeated by frequent reception, but of certain others not, because they are received frequently, as this Sacrament of unction, which in almost every Church is often repeated.

---

la: Hugo a S. Vict., *Sum. Sent.* tr. 6. c. 15. Seq. locus cum toto c. 2. est eiusdem, II. *de Sacram.* p. XV. c. 1; etiam locus tertius (c. 3.) est ibid. c. 2.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 15. The following passage, together with the whole of chapter 2, is from the same author, *On the Sacraments* II, part XV, c. 1; the third passage (c. 3) is likewise in the same place, c. 2.

la: Graece χρῖσμα.

en: In Greek, χρῖσμα.

la: [Iac.] Cap. 5, 14. 15. Seq. locus iterum est ex Hug., *Sum. Sent.* tr. 6. c. 15.

en: [James] ch. 5, 14–15. The following passage is again from Hugh, *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. 15.

la: [August.,] Libr. II. *contra Epist. Parmenian.* c. 13. n. 28. Etiam praecedens propositio est ex Hug., II. *de Sacram.* loc. cit. c. 3.

en: [Augustine,] *Against the Letter of Parmenianus*, book II, c. 13, n. 28. The preceding proposition too is from Hugh, *On the Sacraments* II, at the passage cited, c. 3.

la: Plures edd. *infirmitatem eadem.* — Etiam haec et alia [ex Hug., l]occ. citt., sumta sunt, saltem secundum sententiam.

en: Several editions read *infirmitatem eadem*. — This too and other matter are taken from Hugh, at the passages cited, at least according to the sense.

la: Codd. A B C D *sanctificato.*

en: Codices A B C D read *sanctificato* [instead of *consecrato*].

la: [Ambrosiaster,] In I. Cor. 7, 44 [?] (inter eius opera), et I. Tim. 5, 3.

en: [Ambrosiaster,] *On 1 Corinthians* 7, 44 [?] (among the works of Ambrose), and *1 Timothy* 5, 3. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines L64093–L64206) and corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p586-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p587-*` (column split x=1880). Two-column cascade-shattered OCR → the column bands are authoritative for the reflow (VOL II OVERRIDE recipe). Offset `pdf = printed + 20` (pp. 586–587 = pdf 606–607) verified by running heads and page numbers on the bands.

**Structure.** The littera comprises the Master's four chapters (Cap. I–IV). Cap. I–III are on printed p. 586 (Cap. III overflows into the right column, whose head continues Cap. II's closing clause *«…de qua nunc agitur»*); Cap. IV is on p. 587. The chunk ends where `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII.` begins (raw L64207); `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` is not part of this chunk.

**Apparatus split.** Quaracchi restarts note numbering per page. The `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` footer on p. 586 supplies nn. 1–3 (rendered [^1]–[^3]); the p. 587 footer supplies nn. 1–4 (rendered [^4]–[^7]). The left-column footer on p. 586 (*Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert.…* etc.) and the `TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM` footer notes on p. 587 belong to the surrounding **Bonaventure commentary** (d.22 dubia and the d.23 commentarius), not to the littera, and are excluded.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi's marginal structural side-notes (*Obiicitur.*, *Replicatur.*, *Ambrosius.*, *Resolutio.*) beside Cap. IV are editorial and are omitted from the body per the corpus rule on marginal glosses.

**[?] flag.** [^7]: the printed footer reads *In I. Cor. 7, 44*, but 1 Corinthians 7 has only 40 verses — likely a misprint/OCR error for *7, 40* (Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 7:40, on the once-married). Rendered as printed with a [?]; resolve at the d.30 decade-polish 600 dpi pass.

**Health-scan false positive (confirmed 2026-07-17, J4 Class D/E pass, per `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §2).** The health scanner reports `defs=7 la=9 en=7`, but this is NOT a real apparatus defect. The `## Latin` intro blockquote (line 26) explains Quaracchi's per-page footnote-restart convention using a plain-text example range, `...renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^7] here`, and the classifier regex (like the live-site renderer) doesn't distinguish this explanatory prose from real body anchors — it double-counts the literal `[^1]` and `[^7]` tokens in that sentence, inflating the Latin anchor count from 7 to 9. The real apparatus is fully healthy: `[^1]`–`[^7]` each appear exactly once in both the Latin and English bodies, matching all 7 `## Apparatus` defs 1:1. No `[^N]` markers or defs were changed. This chunk is the same false-positive class already documented for `IV-d21-p1-littera` and `III-d33-dubia`; the underlying blockquote-notation bug (also affecting the live text-reader's clickable-footnote rendering) is tracked corpus-wide and awaits Wilson's decision per the handoff §2 — not something to fix chunk-by-chunk.


title: Dist. 23, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 587 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII.
#### *De Sacramento extremae unctionis.*

*Praeter praemissa est etiam aliud Sacramentum, scilicet unctio infirmorum.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinatum est de quatuor Sacramentis. Haec est quinta pars, in qua agitur de quinto, scilicet de unctione extrema. Dividitur autem haec pars in duas. In prima agitur de huius Sacramenti institutione. In secunda de instituti dispensatione. Et hoc, ibi: *Quaerunt aliqui, si hoc Sacramentum.*

Prima pars duas continet. In prima distinguit hanc unctionem ab aliis. In secunda determinat causas suae institutionis, scilicet a quo institutum et propter quid et in qua materia, et hoc ibi: *Hoc autem Sacramentum unctionis infirmorum* etc.

Similiter secunda pars principalis duas habet, secundum duas opiniones, quas ponit circa frequentationem sive iterationem Sacramenti. Et primum modum ponit ibi: *Quaerunt aliqui* etc. Secundum vero modum ponit ibi: *Quidam vero de omni Sacramento.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praesentis distinctionis secundum duo, quae Magister determinat de unctionis Sacramento, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de ipso quantum ad ipsius institutionem.

Secundo, quantum ad usum sive dispensationem.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de causa eius finali. Secundo, de efficiente. Tertio, de materiali. Et quarto, de formali.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XXIII.
#### *On the Sacrament of extreme unction.*

*Besides the foregoing, there is also another Sacrament, namely the anointing of the sick.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the four Sacraments have been determined. This is the fifth part, in which the fifth is treated, namely extreme unction. Now this part is divided into two. In the first, this Sacrament's institution is treated. In the second, the dispensation of what has been instituted. And this, at: *Quaerunt aliqui, si hoc Sacramentum* ("Some ask whether this Sacrament").

The first part contains two [members]. In the first he distinguishes this unction from the others. In the second he determines the causes of its institution, namely by whom it was instituted and for what purpose and in what matter, and this at: *Hoc autem Sacramentum unctionis infirmorum* etc. ("But this Sacrament of the anointing of the sick").

Likewise the second principal part has two [members], according to the two opinions which he sets out concerning the frequenting or repetition of the Sacrament. And the first manner he sets at: *Quaerunt aliqui* etc. ("Some ask"). But the second manner he sets at: *Quidam vero de omni Sacramento* ("But certain ones concerning every Sacrament").

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of the present distinction, according to the two things which the Master determines concerning the Sacrament of unction, two things are principally asked.

First it is asked about it in respect to its institution.

Second, in respect to its use or dispensation.

As to the first, four things are asked. First, about its final cause. Second, about the efficient [cause]. Third, about the material [cause]. And fourth, about the formal [cause].

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw L64207–L64260) and corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for p. 587 (`vol4-p587-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Page number verified as **587** on the band (top-right running number; running head `DIST. XXIII. DIVISIO TEXTUS.`). Offset pdf = printed + 20 → pdf 607.
- **Two-column reflow:** the OCR cascade-shattered the DIVISIO body across columns (e.g. `sas suae … institutionis, scilicet` / `a quo institutum et` and `propter quid … qua materia`). Reflowed column-by-column from the bands: left column then right column. DIVISIO right-column reads `…determinat causas suae institutionis, scilicet a quo institutum et propter quid et in qua materia, et hoc ibi: Hoc autem Sacramentum unctionis infirmorum etc. Similiter secunda pars principalis duas habet…`.
- **Apparatus split (cross-chunk):** p. 587's 4 footer notes belong entirely to the Cap. IV littera chunk (`De iteratione huius Sacramenti`), whose body holds the markers ¹–⁴. This divisio chunk claims none; `has_apparatus: false`. Footnote 2 itself spans both footer columns (`Plures edd. infirmitatem eadem. — Etiam haec et alia ex Hug., locc. citt., sumta sunt, saltem secundum sententiam.`) — noted here so the littera chunk captures it whole.
- **TRACTATIO scope:** p. 587 enumerates only the general two-question split plus Art. I's four sub-questions (final / efficient / material / formal cause). Art. II's four questions are enumerated later (at the head of Art. II), not on this page.
- **[?] flags:** none.


title: Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 1

title_alt: Utrum Sacramentum extremae unctionis principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem an ad spiritualem

title_alt: Whether the Sacrament of extreme unction is principally ordained to bodily illness or to spiritual

source_text:
<!-- page 588 -->

### Articulus I. *De institutione extremae unctionis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Sacramentum extremae unctionis principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem, an ad spiritualem.*

Quantum ad finem quaeritur, utrum istud Sacramentum *principaliter* sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem, an ad spiritualem. Et quod ad corporalem, videtur:

1. Ex eius institutione, Iacobi quinto[^1]: *Infirmatur quis in vobis? inducat presbyteros* etc., et post dicit, infra: *Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum*.

2. Item, Marci sexto[^2]: *Ungebant oleo multos infirmos, et curabantur*; si ergo utebantur hoc Sacramento, secundum quod dicitur in Glossa, et hoc ad curationem infirmantium corporaliter: ergo principaliter videtur ad hoc ordinari.

3. Item, Sacramentum ad illud finaliter ordinatur, propter quod principaliter dispensatur; sed illud[^3] principaliter dispensatur propter infirmitatem corporalem, quia nunquam datur nisi existentibus in gravi infirmitate corporali: ergo videtur, quod principaliter sit ad hoc.

4. Item, si est contra infirmitatem sicut medicina, quaero, contra quam; aut contra *corporalem*, aut contra *spiritualem*. Si contra *spiritualem*; cum non sit contra actuale mortale[^4] nec originale, erit contra veniale; sed veniale quolibet die iteratur: ergo et hoc Sacramentum. Sed hoc Sacramentum non datur frequenter, sed rarissime: ergo non est contra peccatum veniale: ergo est contra infirmitatem corporalem. Si tu dicas, quod est contra peccatorum sequelas; quaero: aut contra aliquas determinate, aut contra omnes. Si contra aliquas; quare non similiter contra alias? Si contra omnes; cum sint diversae secundum diversitatem morborum, videtur, quod debeant diversa ad hoc esse Sacramenta.

**Contra:** 1. Quod non sit ad morbum corporalem curandum per se, videtur: quia Sacramenta novae legis in digne suscipientibus efficiunt quod significant[^5]: si ergo viri sancti digne suscipiunt Sacramenta, ergo haberet unctio semper in eis efficaciam sanandi: ergo viri sancti nunquam morerentur.

2. Item, multi sunt viri perfecti, qui secundum Pauli exemplum desiderant *dissolvi et esse cum Christo*[^6]: si ergo Sacramentum unctionis ordinatur ad vitam corporis conservandam, ergo a talibus nullo modo debet suscipi.

3. Item, Sacramentum est medicina *spiritualis*: ergo sicut medicina *corporalis* sanat solum morbum corporalem et ad hoc est principaliter et universaliter, ita videtur, quod medicina *spiritualis* curet solum morbum spiritualem, ita quod ad hoc sit universaliter et totaliter et principaliter.

4. Item, si unctio sanat morbum corporalem, aut per virtutem *naturalem*, aut per virtutem *supra naturam*. Non per virtutem *naturalem*; hoc constat, quia operatio Sacramentorum non est secundum virtutes naturales elementorum exteriorum: ergo per virtutem *supra naturam*; sed illa aeque potest in infirmitatem incurabilem ut curabilem: ergo videtur, quod istud Sacramentum liberaret[^7] a lepra; sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** *Extrema unctio principaliter est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis spiritualis, scilicet peccati venialis, et per accidens ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis corporalis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliquorum opinio fuit, quod Sacramentum istud principaliter est ordinatum contra *sequelas* vel reliquias peccati, quae gravant, quae relictae sunt tam ex originali quam ex actuali; quae quidem reliquiae sunt poenae spirituales, habentes tamen frequenter poenas corporales annexas propter sui expurgationem: et ideo principaliter hoc Sacramentum est contra *poenam spiritualem*, sed ex consequenti est ad sanandum morbum corporalem. — Sed contra hoc est,

<!-- page 589 -->

quod dicitur Iacobi quinto[^1b] in institutione istius Sacramenti: *Si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei*: ergo istud Sacramentum est ordinatum contra aliquem *morbum peccati*; et hoc ipsum tangitur in Glossa. Et cum non sit contra originale nec contra mortale, relinquitur, quod sit contra peccatum *veniale*. Et hoc communis opinio tenet.

Sed notandum, quod de *veniali peccato* est loqui dupliciter: aut prout est quis in *statu viae*, aut prout est in *egressu*. Si prout est in *statu viae* sive in itinere, sic morbus venialis est quasi inseparabilis et[^2b] quadam necessitate iterabilis, ac per hoc quodam modo incurabilis. Et ideo non debuit contra ipsum aliqua medicina specialiter et principaliter ordinari; immo quodam modo omnia Sacramenta valent ad eius curationem secundum plus et minus. — Si autem loquamur, prout anima est in *statu egrediendi*; sic potest[^3b] curari sine *iteratione*; et sic, cum anima possit trahere talia cremabilia, quae retraherent a gloria, instituit divina misericordia remedium, quo anima curari posset quantum ad remissionem *culpae* et etiam partis *poenae*; et hoc est Sacramentum unctionis extremae.

Modus autem curandi veniale peccatum in hoc Sacramento respondet modo infirmitatis. Veniale autem peccatum gravat animam deprimendo deorsum, ut non ita intendat in Deum per devotionem et amorem, pro eo quod est ibi conversio inordinata ad commutabile bonum, et pro eo quod est minor amor Dei, sicut tangit Augustinus in libro Confessionum[^4b]; et ideo, cum curatio directe sit per contrarium, per illud curatur, quod animam aggravatam per devotionem sursum elevat. Et quoniam *corpus, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam*[^5b]; cum illud Sacramentum sit ad elevandam animam per devotionem, in qua anima recipit vigorem quendam, in quo semper est deletio venialium, si sunt in anima, et per consequens repressio molestiarum corporalium, si expedit ipsi animae: hinc est, quod istud Sacramentum *principaliter* est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis *spiritualis*, scilicet peccati venialis, et *per accidens* est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis *corporalis*, quodam modo roborando[^6b] animam, quae regit corpus.

Et sic patet, quid sit in hoc Sacramento *res tantum*, quid *signum*, et quid *res et signum*. *Signum tantum* est unctio exterior, *res tantum* est venialis curatio, *res et signum* ipsa in anima devotionis excitatio, quae non est aliud quam quaedam spiritualis unctio[^7b]. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, istud Sacramentum valere ad infirmitates corporales curandas. Concedendae etiam sunt rationes probantes, quod non valet principaliter contra illas, quoniam solum *per accidens* et *ex consequenti* valet, ut prius ostensum est.

Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non datur nisi in statu infirmitatis; dicendum, quod non est propter infirmitatem, sed propter hoc, quod appropinquat egressui, in quo possunt venialia perfecte curari. Et quod istud sit verum, patet, quia quantumcumque quis infirmetur, non datur ei hoc Sacramentum, nisi praesumatur, quod moriatur, vel quod sit in articulo mortis. Et si constaret nobis de aliquo, quod liberaretur sive liberandus sit, non deberet dari ei hoc Sacramentum, sicut patebit inferius[^8b].

Ad illud quod obiicitur de veniali, quod quotidie iteratur; patet iam responsio: quia non datur Sacramentum contra illud peccati genus nisi in statu, in quo praesumitur, quod liberetur et a culpa et a peccandi necessitate.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non valet principaliter[^9b]; dicendum, quod verum est, et hoc innuit ipsa forma orationis, in qua non fit mentio nisi de remissione peccatorum.

Quod tamen obiicitur, quod nullo modo debet valere, *a simili*, quia corporalis medicina non sanat spiritualem morbum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia spiritus continet corpus — unde passiones animales multum redundant in carnem, unde Sapiens[^10b] dicit: *Spiritus tristis exsiccat ossa* — ideo non est mirum, si tranquillatur anima et vigoratur et laetificatur, si etiam hoc redundat ad corpus. Et sic hoc Sacramentum respectum habet ad corpus relevandum propter alleviationem spiritus.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: per quam virtutem hoc facit? dicendum, quod per virtutem *supra naturam*; sed illa operatur secundum divinam institutionem, quae noluit per hoc Sacramentum prodere

<!-- page 590 -->

secretum fidei[^1c], et ita nec secundum legem communem ab infirmitatibus incurabilibus liberare. Et *iterum*, in hoc Sacramento aliquid est *naturale*, aliquid *supra naturam*. Effectus namque, qui est in spiritu, est supra naturam, sed quod ille redundet in carnem, istud naturale est, secundum quod in Psalmo[^2c] dicit homo devotus: *Sitivit in te anima mea* etc.; et iterum alibi: *Refloruit caro mea* etc.

english:
### Article I. *On the institution of extreme unction.*
### Question I. *Whether the Sacrament of extreme unction is principally ordained to bodily illness, or to spiritual.*

As to the end it is asked, whether this Sacrament is *principally* ordained to bodily illness, or to spiritual. And that [it is ordained] to bodily [illness], it seems:

1. From its institution, James five[^1]: *Is any among you sick? let him bring in the priests* etc., and afterward he says, below: *The prayer of faith shall save the sick man*.

2. Likewise, Mark six[^2]: *They anointed with oil many sick, and they were healed*; if therefore they used this Sacrament, according to what is said in the Gloss, and this for the healing of those sick bodily: therefore it seems to be principally ordained to this.

3. Likewise, a Sacrament is finally ordained to that for the sake of which it is principally dispensed; but this[^3] is principally dispensed on account of bodily infirmity, since it is never given except to those existing in grave bodily infirmity: therefore it seems that it is principally for this.

4. Likewise, if it is against infirmity as a medicine, I ask, against which; either against *bodily* [infirmity] or against *spiritual*. If against *spiritual*; since it is not against actual mortal[^4] nor original [sin], it will be against venial; but venial [sin] is repeated every day: therefore this Sacrament also [would be]. But this Sacrament is not given frequently, but very rarely: therefore it is not against venial sin: therefore it is against bodily infirmity. If you should say that it is against the *sequelae* of sins; I ask: either against some determinately, or against all. If against some; why not likewise against the others? If against all; since they are diverse according to the diversity of diseases, it seems that there ought to be diverse Sacraments for this.

**On the contrary:** 1. That it is not for healing bodily disease *per se*, it seems: because the Sacraments of the new law in those worthily receiving [them] effect what they signify[^5]: if therefore holy men worthily receive the Sacraments, then anointing would always have in them the efficacy of healing: therefore holy men would never die.

2. Likewise, many are perfect men who, according to Paul's example, desire *to be dissolved and to be with Christ*[^6]: if therefore the Sacrament of anointing is ordained for preserving the life of the body, then by such [men] it ought in no way to be received.

3. Likewise, a Sacrament is a *spiritual* medicine: therefore just as a *bodily* medicine heals only bodily disease and to this it is principally and universally [ordained], so it seems that a *spiritual* medicine should heal only spiritual disease, so that it is [ordained] to this universally and totally and principally.

4. Likewise, if the anointing heals bodily disease, [it does so] either by *natural* power or by power *above nature*. Not by *natural* power; this is agreed, because the operation of the Sacraments is not according to the natural powers of the external elements: therefore by power *above nature*; but that [power] can equally [act] upon incurable infirmity as upon curable: therefore it seems that this Sacrament would free[^7] from leprosy; but this is false: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** *Extreme unction is principally for the healing and alleviation of spiritual infirmity, namely of venial sin, and per accidens for the healing and alleviation of bodily infirmity.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the opinion of some was that this Sacrament is principally ordained against the *sequelae* or relics of sin, which weigh [the soul] down, which are left behind both from original and from actual [sin]; which relics indeed are spiritual penalties, having nevertheless frequently bodily penalties annexed for their own purgation: and therefore this Sacrament is principally against *spiritual penalty*, but as a consequence it is for healing bodily disease. — But against this is

<!-- page 589 -->

what is said in James five[^1b] in the institution of this Sacrament: *If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him*: therefore this Sacrament is ordained against some *disease of sin*; and this very thing is touched upon in the Gloss. And since it is not against original nor against mortal [sin], it remains that it is against *venial* sin. And this the common opinion holds.

But it must be noted that of *venial sin* one may speak in two ways: either as one is in the *state of the way*, or as [one is] in *departure*. If as one is in the *state of the way* or on the journey, thus venial disease is as it were inseparable and[^2b] by a certain necessity repeatable, and through this in a certain way incurable. And therefore no medicine ought to have been specially and principally ordained against it; nay, in a certain way all the Sacraments avail for its healing according to more and less. — But if we speak as the soul is in the *state of departing*; thus it can[^3b] be healed without *repetition*; and thus, since the soul can draw upon itself such combustible things as would draw [it] back from glory, divine mercy instituted a remedy by which the soul might be healed as to the remission of *fault* and even of part of the *penalty*; and this is the Sacrament of extreme unction.

Now the manner of healing venial sin in this Sacrament corresponds to the manner of the infirmity. Venial sin weighs the soul down, depressing it downward, so that it does not so attend to God through devotion and love, because there is there a disordered turning to changeable good, and because there is less love of God, as Augustine touches upon in the book of the Confessions[^4b]; and therefore, since healing is directly by the contrary, it is healed by that which lifts the soul, weighed down, upward through devotion. And since *the body, which is corrupted, weighs down the soul*[^5b]; since that Sacrament is for lifting up the soul through devotion, in which the soul receives a certain vigor, in which there is always the blotting-out of venial [sins], if they are in the soul, and consequently the repression of bodily troubles, if it is expedient for the soul itself: hence it is that this Sacrament is *principally* for the healing and alleviation of *spiritual* infirmity, namely of venial sin, and *per accidens* is for the healing and alleviation of *bodily* infirmity, in a certain way strengthening[^6b] the soul, which rules the body.

And thus it is plain what in this Sacrament is *the reality only*, what *the sign*, and what *the reality and the sign*. *The sign only* is the exterior anointing, *the reality only* is the healing of venial [sin], *the reality and the sign* is the very arousal of devotion in the soul, which is nothing other than a certain spiritual anointing[^7b]. — Therefore the reasons proving that this Sacrament avails for healing bodily infirmities are to be granted. Likewise the reasons proving that it does not avail principally against those [infirmities] are to be granted, since it avails only *per accidens* and *as a consequence*, as was shown before.

To that, then, which is objected, that it is not given except in a state of infirmity; it must be said that it is not on account of the infirmity, but on account of this, that [the soul] approaches departure, in which venial [sins] can be perfectly healed. And that this is true is plain, because however much one is infirm, this Sacrament is not given to him unless it is presumed that he will die, or that he is at the point of death. And if it were established to us concerning someone that he would be freed or is to be freed, this Sacrament ought not to be given to him, as will be plain below[^8b].

To that which is objected concerning venial [sin], that it is repeated daily; the response is already plain: because the Sacrament is not given against that kind of sin except in the state in which it is presumed that he will be freed both from fault and from the necessity of sinning.

To that which is objected, that it does not avail principally[^9b]; it must be said that it is true, and this the very form of the prayer intimates, in which no mention is made except of the remission of sins.

But as to what is objected, that it ought in no way to avail, *from a likeness*, because bodily medicine does not heal spiritual disease; it must be said that it is not alike, because the spirit contains the body — whence the passions of the soul greatly redound upon the flesh, whence the Wise man[^10b] says: *A sorrowful spirit dries up the bones* — therefore it is no wonder if the soul is calmed and invigorated and gladdened, [and] if this also redounds to the body. And thus this Sacrament has regard to the relieving of the body on account of the alleviation of the spirit.

To that which is asked: by what power does it do this? it must be said that [it does so] by power *above nature*; but that [power] operates according to the divine institution, which did not will through this Sacrament to betray

<!-- page 590 -->

the secret of faith[^1c], and thus neither, according to the common law, to free from incurable infirmities. And *again*, in this Sacrament something is *natural*, something *above nature*. For the effect which is in the spirit is above nature, but that it redound into the flesh, this is natural, according to what the devout man says in the Psalm[^2c]: *My soul has thirsted for thee* etc.; and again elsewhere: *My flesh has flourished again* etc.

la: Vers. 14. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 15.

en: Verse 14. — The following passage is in the same place, v. 15.

la: Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata *aegros* pro *infirmos*. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum sumta est ex Beda, qui (in hunc loc.), recitatis verbis Iac. 5, 13, ait: *Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolis hunc sanctae Ecclesiae morem esse traditum, ut energumeni vel alii quilibet aegroti ungantur oleo, pontificali benedictione consecrato.*

en: Verse 13, where the Vulgate [has] *aegros* [the sick] for *infirmos* [the infirm]. — The ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyranus is taken from Bede, who (on this passage), having recited the words of James 5:13, says: *Whence it is plain that this custom of holy Church has been handed down from the Apostles themselves, that the possessed or any other sick persons be anointed with oil consecrated by pontifical benediction.*

la: Cod. F *hoc*.

en: Codex F [reads] *hoc* [this].

la: Ita codd. E O U, alii cum edd. tantum *actuale*, codd. R S T *mortale*. Eadem diversitas lectionum occurrit supra pag. 472, nota 8.

en: So codices E O U; the others, with the editions, [read] only *actuale* [actual], codices R S T *mortale* [mortal]. The same variety of readings occurs above p. 472, note 8.

la: Ut insinuatur supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1.

en: As is intimated above in the Master's text, d. IV. c. 1.

la: Philip. 1, 23.

en: Philippians 1:23.

la: Edd. *liberet*, cod. F *curaret*. Superius pro *ut curabilem* multi codd. *ut incurabilem*.

en: The editions [read] *liberet*, codex F *curaret*. Above, for *ut curabilem* [as [upon] the curable] many codices [read] *ut incurabilem* [as [upon] the incurable].

la: Vers. 15: *Et si in peccatis sit* etc. — Strabus et Lyranus in hunc loc. exhibent ut Glossam *ordinariam* verba Bedae, in quibus pro remissione peccatorum respicitur etiam *confessio*. — Superius non pauci codd. omittunt *principaliter*.

en: Verse 15: *And if he be in sins* etc. — Strabus and Lyranus on this passage set forth as the *ordinary* Gloss the words of Bede, in which, for the remission of sins, *confession* also is regarded. — Above, not a few codices omit *principaliter*.

la: Ita plures codd., alii et edd. *vel*, codd. E R S T *sed*, cod. V *sed et*, cod. Y *sed in*. Mox pro *incurabilis* codd. R S T *curabilis*.

en: So several codices; others and the editions [read] *vel* [or], codices E R S T *sed* [but], codex V *sed et*, codex Y *sed in*. Soon, for *incurabilis* [incurable], codices R S T [read] *curabilis* [curable].

la: Ita codd. F G V aa, scil. *morbus*, in aliis et edd. *possunt*.

en: So codices F G V aa, namely *morbus* [the disease (as subject)], in the others and the editions *possunt* [they can].

la: Libr. X. c. 29. n. 40. Cod. aa verba August. addit: *Minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat quod propter te non amat* (cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3.). — De seq. propos. vide supra pag. 37, nota 4.

en: Book X. c. 29. n. 40. Codex aa adds the words of Augustine: *He loves thee less who loves anything along with thee which he does not love for thy sake* (cf. above d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundamentum 3.). — On the following proposition see above p. 37, note 4.

la: Sap. 9, 15. — De deletione venialium per vigorem devotionis cfr. supra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Wisdom 9:15. — On the blotting-out of venial [sins] through the vigor of devotion cf. above d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Ita codd. E L Y bb, cod. A *relevando*, cod. F *tranquillando*, cod. G *sublevando*, alii *tolerando*, edd. *ad vigorandam*. — Cfr. Glossa *interlinearis* in Iac. 5, 14. apud Lyranum.

en: So codices E L Y bb; codex A *relevando* [by relieving], codex F *tranquillando* [by calming], codex G *sublevando* [by raising up], others *tolerando* [by bearing], the editions *ad vigorandam* [for invigorating]. — Cf. the interlinear Gloss on James 5:14 in Lyranus.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et Innocent. III. in C. *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15.).

en: See here the Master's text, c. 3, and Innocent III in the [decretal] *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X, on holy anointing (book I. title 15.).

la: Art. 2. q. 2. — Pro *sive liberandus sit* [cod. E *esset*] non pauci codd. perperam *si non liberandus sit*, edd. *ab infirmitate*.

en: Article 2. q. 2. — For *sive liberandus sit* [or is to be freed] [codex E *esset*] not a few codices wrongly [read] *si non liberandus sit* [if he is not to be freed], the editions *ab infirmitate* [from the infirmity].

la: Supple: ad infirmitates corporales curandas. — De *forma* orationis pro hoc Sacramento cfr. infra q. 4.

en: Supply: for healing bodily infirmities. — On the *form* of the prayer for this Sacrament cf. below q. 4.

la: Prov. 17, 22. — Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 90. (c. 5.): *Videtur enim contra magis anima corpus continere; egrediente enim exspirat et putrescit.* — Pro *animales* Vat. *animae spirituales*. Inferius pro *respectum habet* cod. F *valet*.

en: Proverbs 17:22. — Aristotle, I *On the Soul*, text 90 (c. 5.): *For, on the contrary, the soul seems rather to contain the body; for when it departs, [the body] expires and rots.* — For *animales* the Vatican [edition reads] *animae spirituales*. Below, for *respectum habet* codex F [reads] *valet*.

la: Vide supra pag. 98, nota 2. Cfr. etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. XIII. c. 1. — Plures codd. omittunt *per* et *secretum fidei*.

en: See above p. 98, note 2. Cf. also above the Master's text, d. XIII. c. 1. — Several codices omit *per* and *secretum fidei*.

la: Psalm. 62, 2. — Seq. locus est Ps. 27, 7.

en: Psalm 62:2. — The following passage is Ps. 27:7.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Contra novatores saeculi XVI. Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIV. de Sacram. extremae unctionis, can. 1.) definivit: «Si quis dixerit, extremam unctionem non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum, a Christo Domino nostro institutum et a B. Iacobo Apostolo promulgatum... a. s.». Ibid. autem in c. 1. additur, quod sit «apud Marcum quidem insinuatum» (cfr. Concil. Florent., Decret. pro Armenis).

**II.** Circa 1. quaestionem notandum est, doctores convenire in assignandis generaliter effectibus huius Sacramenti, nempe quod augeat gratiam et remittat venialia, quod sanatio corporis non sit nisi effectus secundarius et sub conditionibus, denique quod attrito bonae fidei etiam mortalia remittere possit. Attamen iidem dissentiunt aliquatenus in solvenda quaestione, quisnam inter istos effectus sit *principalis*. S. Thom. cum B. Alberto praefert opinionem primo loco positam; S. Bonav. cum Alexandro Hal., Richardo, Scoto, Durando et plurimis aliis docet, principalem effectum esse remissionem venialium, non tamen *simpliciter*, sed quatenus in extremo vitae periculo non sint impedimentum, quod retardet possessionem gloriae. Alii cum Suarez primarium effectum ponunt in confortatione animi contra difficultates in articulo mortis occurrentes.

Cum Summa Alexandri Hal., imperfecta relicta, non se extendat ultra Sacramentum poenitentiae, in seqq. qq. non nisi raro a nobis allegari potest. De hac autem et seq. q. idem obiter loquitur S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2. — Item Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Supplem. q. 30. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 6. quaestiunc. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**III.** Circa 2. quaestionem fuit opinio antiqua, quod Christus non *immediate*, sed per Apostolos, quibus commisit suam in hoc auctoritatem, Sacramentum hoc instituerit; quae nunc est obsoleta. Hanc cum nostro auctore professi sunt Hugo a S. Vict., Magister, Alex. Hal.; cui videtur re ipsa favere Thom. de Argentina (hic a. 2.), cum recipiat verba Magistri hoc sensu intellecta, quod unctio extrema sit instituta ab Apostolis «*instrumentaliter et exsecutive et non principaliter et auctoritative*». Haec enim praecise est sententia illorum antiquorum. Attamen ipse S. Bonav. in Breviloq. (p. VI. c. 11. et 4.) aliam et communem sententiam recepit et clare expressit. — S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; cfr. Suppl. q. 29. a. 3.) verba Magistri sic benigne interpretatur: «Dicit ab Apostolis *institutum*, quia per doctrinam Apostolorum nobis *promulgata* est eius institutio». Ibid. in corp. dicit tantum, aliam (quam ipse sequitur) opinionem *videri esse probabiliorem*. Petr. a Tar. utrumque modum loquendi ut aeque probabilem approbat. — Si quis autem attendit ad verba (solut. ad 2. 3.): «Institutio Sacramentorum respicit Deum ut *auctorem*, et Apostolos respicit ut *ministros* in promulgando», aliaque in solut. oppositorum dicta; patet, quod magna ex parte haec differentia reducitur ad *modum loquendi*, de quo fusius actum est supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. in scholio; et cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. scholion n. II.

De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med. pro hac quaestione solvenda remittit lectorem ad d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Against the innovators of the sixteenth century the Council of Trent (Session XIV, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, canon 1) defined: «If anyone shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the Blessed Apostle James... let him be anathema». And in the same place, in chapter 1, it is added that it is «intimated in Mark indeed» (cf. the Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians).

**II.** Concerning the first question it must be noted that the doctors agree in assigning generally the effects of this Sacrament, namely that it increases grace and remits venial [sins], that the healing of the body is only a secondary effect and under conditions, and finally that it can remit even mortal [sins] in one contrite by good faith. Nevertheless the same [doctors] dissent somewhat in solving the question, which among these effects is *the principal one*. St. Thomas with Blessed Albert prefers the opinion placed in the first position; St. Bonaventure with Alexander of Hales, Richard, Scotus, Durandus, and very many others teaches that the principal effect is the remission of venial [sins], not however *simply*, but insofar as in the extreme peril of life they may not be an impediment which would delay the possession of glory. Others with Suarez put the primary effect in the strengthening of the mind against the difficulties occurring at the point of death.

Since the Summa of Alexander of Hales, left imperfect, does not extend beyond the Sacrament of penance, in the following questions it can be cited by us only rarely. On this and the following question the same [author] speaks in passing, Summa p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2. — Likewise Scotus, on this and the following questions, in both Writings here, the single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. 2; Supplement q. 30. a. 1. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1. 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 6. quaestiunculae 1-3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 5. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

**III.** Concerning the second question there was an ancient opinion that Christ instituted this Sacrament not *immediately*, but through the Apostles, to whom he committed his authority in this [matter]; which [opinion] is now obsolete. This [opinion], with our author, professed Hugh of St. Victor, the Master, Alexander of Hales; to whom Thomas of Argentina (here a. 2.) seems in fact to favor, since he receives the words of the Master understood in this sense, that extreme unction was instituted by the Apostles «*instrumentally and executively and not principally and authoritatively*». For this precisely is the opinion of those ancients. Nevertheless St. Bonaventure himself in the Breviloquium (p. VI. c. 11. and 4.) received and clearly expressed another and common opinion. — St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 3. ad 2; cf. Supplement q. 29. a. 3.) interprets the words of the Master thus benignly: «He says [it was] instituted by the Apostles, because through the doctrine of the Apostles its institution has been promulgated to us». In the same place, in the body [of the article], he says only that the other opinion (which he himself follows) seems to be more probable. Peter of Tarentaise approves both modes of speaking as equally probable. — But if anyone attends to the words (solution to 2. 3.): «The institution of the Sacraments regards God as author, and regards the Apostles as ministers in promulgating», and the other things said in the solution of the opposing [arguments]; it is plain that for the most part this difference is reduced to the *mode of speaking*, on which it was treated more fully above d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. in the scholion; and cf. above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. scholion n. II.

Concerning the second question, besides those already praised: Blessed Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, for the solving of this question, refers the reader to d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{588,589,590}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, regenerated at the vol4 split `split_x=1880`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 64261–64501) as the base for clean running prose (affirmative/contra arguments) and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF bands are authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p. 588 top "588 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (with the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers); p. 589 "DIST. XXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 589"; p. 590 "590 ... SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (OCR digit-mangling: 589 printed "889", 590 printed "S90").

**Chunk boundaries.** This chunk owns ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I onward. It begins at the top of **printed p. 588** — the tail of the Master's littera (Cap. IV, *De iteratione huius Sacramenti*) plus the COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XXIII and its DIVISIO TEXTUS fill printed **p. 587** and belong to the `d23-divisio` chunk (the auto-chunker skeleton's `printed_pages` incorrectly listed 587; corrected here to 588–590). The chunk ends with the article Scholion; QUAESTIO II (*Utrum hoc Sacramentum fuerit institutum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius discipulo*) opens on p. 590 immediately after the scholion and belongs to the a1-q2 chunk.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 588: ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I headers; the "Quantum ad finem quaeritur…" opener + affirmative args 1–4 (marginal rubric *Pro 1. parte*); *Contra* args 1–4 (marginal rubric *Pro 2. parte*); CONCLUSIO; opening of the RESPONDEO (opinion 1 stated). Break falls inside the RESPONDEO ("…Sed contra hoc est | quod dicitur Iacobi quinto").
- p. 589 (running head "DIST. XXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. I."): refutation of opinion 1 + Bonaventure's own solution (*statu viae* / *statu egrediendi*, *modus curandi*, the *res tantum / signum / res et signum* analysis, the general concession), then the replies — to the affirmative (pro-1) args 3 and 4, then to the contrary (pro-2) args 1–2, 3, and the opening of reply 4. Break falls inside reply 4 ("…quae noluit per hoc Sacramentum prodere | secretum fidei").
- p. 590: reply-4 tail (the *naturale / supra naturam* distinction + the Psalm citations); then the full-width **SCHOLION** (§I Trent, §II *Circa 1. quaestionem*, §III *Circa 2. quaestionem*) printed after q1's body and before QUAESTIO II.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 19 entries, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 588 (7 footers, `^1`–`^7`): `^1` Iac. 5:14–15 (arg 1); `^2` Marc. 6:13 + Beda/Glossa (arg 2); `^3` cod. F *hoc* var. (arg 3); `^4` *actuale/mortale* var. + pag. 472 (arg 4); `^5` lit. Magistri d. IV (Contra 1); `^6` Philip. 1:23 (Contra 2); `^7` *liberet/curaret* + *curabilem/incurabilem* var. (Contra 4).
- p. 589 (10 footers, `^1b`–`^10b`): `^1b` Iac. 5:15 + Beda-Glossa + *principaliter* var. (Respondeo refutation); `^2b` *et/vel/sed* var. + *incurabilis/curabilis* (statu viae); `^3b` *potest/possunt* var. (statu egrediendi); `^4b` August. *Conf.* X.29.40 (modus curandi); `^5b` Sap. 9:15 (modus curandi); `^6b` *roborando* var. + Glossa interlin. (conclusion of solution); `^7b` lit. Magistri c. 3 + Innocent. III (res et signum); `^8b` cross-ref a2-q2 + *liberandus sit* var. (reply to pro-1 arg 3); `^9b` "supple: ad infirmitates corporales curandas" + forma orationis (reply to pro-2 args 1–2); `^10b` Prov. 17:22 + Aristot. *De Anima* + *animales* var. (reply to pro-2 arg 3). All ten anchor in this q1.
- p. 590 (2 footers claimed, `^1c`–`^2c`): `^1c` pag. 98 nota 2 + lit. Magistri d. XIII + *secretum fidei* var. (reply-4 tail); `^2c` Ps. 62:2 + Ps. 27:7 (reply-4 tail, Psalm citations). **Notes 3–8 on p. 590** (Isai. 33:22; Levit. capp.; lit. Magistri c. 1; Marc. vers. 13; "Hic c. 3"; Iac. 5:14 + cod. K var.) anchor in QUAESTIO II's *videtur*/*Contra* arguments and belong to the a1-q2 chunk.

**Scholion disposition (TASK FINDING).** `has_scholion: true`. The **Articulus I scholion** is the article's only scholion; the OCR garbled its header as `SCHOLIOK`. It prints full-width on p. 590 immediately after q1's replies, before QUAESTIO II, and **covers both questions of the article**: §I is a general Tridentine note; **§II opens "Circa 1. quaestionem"** (this q1, on which effect is principal — with the closing doctor-list "De hac et seq. q."); **§III opens "Circa 2. quaestionem"** (the a1-q2 question, on institution by Christ vs. the Apostles — with the closing "De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos" doctor-list). It is **rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last)**. The sibling **a1-q2 renders no scholion** by design and should point here. The scholion carries all its citations inline (no footnote markers).

**Silent OCR→PDF corrections (cascade-shattered regions).** Title re-set from the p. 588 band: full form is *…principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem, an ad spiritualem* (the skeleton's frontmatter "…ad remedium" was inaccurate). Respondeo/Solutio re-set from bands: *pari*-type garbles resolved (*sequelas vel reliquias peccati*, *poenam spiritualem sed ex consequenti*, *statu viae / statu egrediendi*, *cremabilia quae retraherent a gloria*, *modus curandi veniale peccatum*, *corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam*, *res tantum / signum / res et signum*, *spiritus continet corpus*, *Spiritus tristis exsiccat ossa*, reply-4 *prodere secretum fidei*). Header `SCHOLIOK` → **SCHOLION**; running-head digits "889"/"S90" → 589/590. Marginal side-rubrics in the columns (*Pro 1. parte*, *Pro 2. parte*, *Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Opinio*, *Notandum*, *Quid hic res, signum, res et signum*, *Ad argg.*, *Ad argg. pro 1. parte*, *Ad argg. pro 2. parte*) are editorial side-glosses, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**[?] flags.** None. All body, scholion, and footer regions were legible in the 450 dpi bands.