title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 598 -->

### Quaestio II. *Cui debeat dari hoc Sacramentum.*

Secundo quaeritur, cui debeat Sacramentum istud dari. Et quod solis infirmis, videtur:

1. Per illud quod dicitur Iacobi ultimo[^1]: *Infirmatur quis in vobis? inducat presbyteros:* ergo illis indicitur, quod presbyteros inducant; et hoc videtur maxime per litteram sequentem: *Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum* etc.

2. Item, quod solis *ratione utentibus*, ostenditur per textum, cum dicitur[^2]: *Inducat presbyteros;* et post: *Si in peccatis fuerit:* si ergo presbyteros petere et in peccatis esse est proprium adultorum et ratione utentium, videtur etc.

3. Item, quod *solis in periculo mortis existentibus*, videtur per ipsam denominationem, qua dicitur *unctio extrema:* ergo solum in extremis[^3] debet dari.

**Contra:** 1. Quod *non solis infirmis* debeat dari, videtur per ipsam Glossam[^4], quae dicit: «Infirmatur quis in vobis? mente et corpore scilicet, vel fide»: ergo non solum infirmantibus corporaliter, sed etiam infirmantibus spiritualiter debet dari.

2. Item, unctio haec debet dari appropinquantibus ad mortem et existentibus in periculo mortis[^5]; sed qui *ingreditur iustum bellum* in periculo mortis est: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod *non solis ratione utentibus*, videtur: quia non soli tales infirmantur, sed etiam alii, qui indigent alleviatione, ut parvuli et stulti: ergo videtur, quod debeat eis hoc Sacramentum dari, quod est unctio infirmorum.

4. Item, hoc probatur ex textu[^6], in quo dicitur: *Infirmatur quis in vobis? Quis* tenetur *infinite:* ergo quicumque infirmatur, debet inungi, ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Extrema unctio debet dari solis infirmis ratione utentibus et in periculo mortis existentibus.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc Sacramentum est principaliter ad *venialia delenda*, secundum quod possunt convenientem recipere effectum, et per hoc est in *alleviationem animae* aggravatae a corpore corruptionem habente[^7]: et ideo illud Sacramentum debet dari solis infirmis, qui peccare potuerunt venialiter, et his, prout sunt in articulo mortis; sic enim possunt a culpa veniali liberari convenienter et sufficienter. Et hoc innuitur in ipso textu: *status*, inquam, *infirmitatis*, et hoc est quod dicitur *infirmatur; periculum*, in hoc quod dicitur *quis*, quasi discretive et notabiliter[^8] et graviter, ita quod deficit virtus naturae et auxilium medicinae; *discretio* vero *rationis*, in hoc quod dicitur: *inducat presbyteros*, et iterum in hoc quod subinfertur: *si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei.* — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes monstrantes, hoc Sacramentum dari debere solis infirmis ratione utentibus et in periculo mortis existentibus.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, dicendum, quod illud vel intelligitur subdisiunctive[^9], nec excluditur infirmitas corporis, sed praesupponitur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de his qui intrant iustum bellum, dicendum, quod etsi tales sint in periculo mortis secundum fortunam, non tamen secundum naturam; Sacramenta autem ecclesiastica non fortunam sequuntur, sed naturam respiciunt. Si tu obiicias de illo qui damnatus est per sententiam; dicendum, quod talis infamis est in facie Ecclesiae[^10], etiam si secundum veritatem non habeat culpam. Et sic patet ratio illa.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alii indigent alleviatione; dicendum, quod ad hoc principaliter Sacramentum istud non ordinatur, sicut patet in ipsa forma[^11], sed ad peccatorum remissionem, quae per sensus exteriores perpetrata sunt; et ideo non datur infantibus nec naturaliter stultis.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de hoc nomine *quis*, dicendum, quod magis tenetur *discretive* quam *infinite.* Et si tu obiicias, quod talis modus non competit illi nomini; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia talis modus annexus est modo accipiendi interrogative[^12].

---

english:
### Question II. *To whom this Sacrament ought to be given.*

Secondly it is asked, to whom this Sacrament ought to be given. And that [it ought to be given] to the sick alone seems [to be the case]:

1. From that which is said in the last [chapter] of James[^1]: *Is any among you sick? let him bring in the priests:* therefore it is enjoined upon them that they bring in priests; and this seems [clear] especially from the following text: *The prayer of faith shall save the sick man,* etc.

2. Likewise, that [it ought to be given] to those alone *who have the use of reason* is shown from the text, when it is said[^2]: *Let him bring in the priests;* and afterward: *If he be in sins:* if therefore to seek priests and to be in sins is proper to adults and to those who have the use of reason, it seems [so], etc.

3. Likewise, that [it ought to be given] *only to those existing in danger of death* is seen from the very name by which it is called *extreme unction:* therefore it ought to be given only in the last extremities[^3].

**On the contrary:** 1. That it ought *not to be given to the sick alone* is seen from the Gloss itself[^4], which says: «Is any among you sick? in mind and body, that is, or in faith»: therefore it ought to be given not only to those ailing bodily, but also to those ailing spiritually.

2. Likewise, this unction ought to be given to those drawing near to death and existing in danger of death[^5]; but he who *enters a just war* is in danger of death: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, that [it ought] *not [to be given] to those alone who have the use of reason* is seen: because not only such persons are sick, but also others who need relief, such as little children and the mad: therefore it seems that this Sacrament ought to be given to them, which is the unction of the sick.

4. Likewise, this is proved from the text[^6], in which it is said: *Is any among you sick?* *Anyone* [*quis*] is understood *indefinitely:* therefore whoever is sick ought to be anointed, therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *Extreme unction ought to be given only to the sick who have the use of reason and who exist in danger of death.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament is principally for *the wiping away of venial [sins]*, according as they can receive its fitting effect, and through this it serves for *the relief of the soul* weighed down by a body subject to corruption[^7]: and therefore that Sacrament ought to be given only to the sick, who have been able to sin venially, and to these insofar as they are at the point of death; for thus can they be freed from venial fault fittingly and sufficiently. And this is intimated in the text itself: *the state*, I say, *of infirmity* — and this is what is meant by *is sick*; *the danger* — in this, that it says *any* [*quis*], as if discriminatingly and notably[^8] and gravely, so that the power of nature and the help of medicine fail; but the *discretion of reason* — in this, that it says: *let him bring in the priests*, and again in what is subjoined: *if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.* — Therefore the reasons showing that this Sacrament ought to be given only to the sick who have the use of reason and who exist in danger of death are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss, it must be said that it is either understood sub-disjunctively[^9], nor is bodily infirmity excluded, but presupposed.

2. To that which is objected concerning those who enter a just war, it must be said that although such persons are in danger of death according to fortune, yet not according to nature; but the ecclesiastical Sacraments do not follow fortune, but regard nature. If you object concerning him who has been condemned by sentence; it must be said that such a one is infamous in the face of the Church[^10], even if according to the truth he has no fault. And thus that argument is clear.

3. To that which is objected, that others need relief; it must be said that this Sacrament is not principally ordained to this, as is clear from its very form[^11], but to the remission of the sins which have been committed through the exterior senses; and therefore it is not given to infants nor to those naturally mad.

4. To that which is objected concerning this word *any* [*quis*], it must be said that it is taken rather *discriminatingly* than *indefinitely.* And if you object that such a mode does not befit that word; it must be said that this is false, because such a mode is annexed to the interrogative manner of taking it[^12].

---

la: Vers. 14. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 15. — Post *ergo illis* cod. K addit *debet dari, quibus.*

en: Verse 14 [James 5:14]. — The following passage is in the same place, v. 15. — After *ergo illis* ("therefore to them") codex K adds *debet dari, quibus* ("ought to be given, to whom").

la: Iac. 5, 14. et subinde v. 15: *Et si in peccatis sit.* (Idem recurrit infra in corp.). — Voci *solis* cod. P addit *adultis et.* Inferius pro *petere* cod. F *inducere*, Vat. *petere seu inducere.*

en: James 5:14, and thereafter v. 15: *And if he be in sins.* (The same recurs below in the body.) — To the word *solis* ("only") codex P adds *adultis et* ("adults and"). Below, for *petere* ("to seek") codex F reads *inducere* ("to bring in"); the Vatican edition, *petere seu inducere* ("to seek or to bring in").

la: In cod. X secunda manus supplevit *constitutis.*

en: In codex X a second hand supplied *constitutis* ("[when so] appointed").

la: Beda, in Iac. 5, 14: *Sicut dederat contristato, sic dat consilium et infirmanti... tristato praecipiens, ut ipse pro se oret et psallat, infirmanti autem vel corpore vel fide mandans, ut... plurimorum se adiutorio, et hoc seniorum, curare meminerit* etc.

en: Bede, on James 5:14: *Just as he had given [counsel] to the sorrowful, so he gives counsel also to the sick man... enjoining the sorrowful one that he pray and sing psalms for himself, but bidding the sick one, [ailing] either in body or in faith, that... he be careful to seek healing by the help of many, and this of elders,* etc.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. ad 3. pro 1. parte.

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1, in the reply to 3, for the first part.

la: Iac. 5, 14. — Priscian. XIII. Grammat. c. 6. docet, quod *quis* «generalem et *infinitam* substantiam, quae pertinet ad universarum rerum genera et species et partes demonstrat». Cfr. ibid. XVII. c. 5.

en: James 5:14. — Priscian, *Grammar* XIII, c. 6, teaches that *quis* ("who / anyone") «denotes a general and *indefinite* substance, which pertains to the genera and species and parts of all things». Cf. ibid., XVII, c. 5.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 4. — Pro *convenientem* cod. F *convenienter.*

en: See above, a. 1, q. 4. — For *convenientem* ("fitting") codex F reads *convenienter* ("fittingly").

la: Codd. BDLPQ aa *incurabiliter*, plures alii codd. perperam *curabiliter.* Mox pro *deficit* codd. EFGIK *defecit.*

en: Codices B D L P Q aa read *incurabiliter* ("incurably"); several other codices, wrongly, *curabiliter* ("curably"). Soon, for *deficit* ("fails") codices E F G I K read *defecit* ("has failed").

la: Sive copulative. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 836, nota 1. Simile habetur infra dub. 4. — Plures codd. perperam *disiunctive*, Vat. legit: *quod illud intelligitur universaliter sub disiunctione.* Inferius post *sed* cod. A addit *principaliter.*

en: That is, copulatively. Cf. tom. II, p. 836, note 1. The like is found below, dub. 4. — Several codices, wrongly, *disiunctive* ("disjunctively"); the Vatican edition reads: *quod illud intelligitur universaliter sub disiunctione* ("that this is understood universally under a disjunction"). Below, after *sed* ("but") codex A adds *principaliter* ("principally").

la: Cfr. C. *Infames esse* (17.), C. 6. q. 1, ubi recensentur omnes capitalibus criminibus irretiti inter infames. Vide etiam C. *Infames non possunt esse* (2.), C. 3. q. 7. § 2.

en: Cf. the canon *Infames esse* (17), Causa 6, q. 1, where all who are entangled in capital crimes are reckoned among the infamous. See also the canon *Infames non possunt esse* (2), Causa 3, q. 7, § 2.

la: De qua supra a. 1. q. 4.

en: On which, see above, a. 1, q. 4.

la: Cfr. Priscian., XVII. Grammat. c. 5. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. Priscian, *Grammar* XVII, c. 5. — See the scholion on the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Raw lines 65271–65374 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, printed p. 598 (pdf 618, offset +20). Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`colcrop.py vol4 598 2120` — the wider split was needed to capture the truncated right edge of the left column) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion in the cascade-shattered Conclusio/Respondeo/footer regions; OCR used as base only for the clean running objection prose and footnote-marker spacing. QUAESTIO II opens at raw L65271 (top of p. 598, right after the p. 598 running head) and ends at "modo accipiendi interrogative" (raw L65371), immediately before the p. 599 running head (L65372) and QUAESTIO III (L65375).
- **Page geography (page-verify correction).** The task brief listed printed pp. 599–600 / pdf 619–620 with p599/p600 bands, but page-verification against the running heads shows QUAESTIO II sits **entirely on printed p. 598** (pdf 618): it is bounded by the running head "598 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (raw L65268, top of p. 598) and "DIST. XXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III. 599" (raw L65372, top of p. 599). The provided p599/p600 bands actually show QUAESTIO III and later — the wrong content. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages`/`source` corrected to [598]/[618]/p. 598 accordingly.
- **Title correction.** The skeleton frontmatter carried the artificial `title_la` "Utrum cui debeat hoc Sacramentum conferri". The printed quaestio title is the descriptive form *Cui debeat dari hoc Sacramentum* (there is no *Utrum* form for this question); `title_la` set to the printed title.
- **Apparatus / page-split.** No shared-page split: QUAESTIO II is the only quaestio on p. 598, so its single per-page footer sequence 1–12 is wholly this chunk's. Left-column footers 1–6 anchor the objection markers (obj. 1–3, contra 1–3/4); right-column footers 7–12 anchor the Respondeo and replies. All twelve body anchors present and paired in both languages.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. There is no scholion text within the raw range 65271–65374; footer [^12] explicitly directs the reader "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." — i.e. the article-level scholion (sections I–IV, treating all four questions of Article II) lives in a2-q1. None is added here.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings confirmed against the p. 598 PDF column bands; OCR garbles (*corruptionera→corruptionem, Sacramentum, subdisiunctive, remittentur, discretive, interrogative*, and the marginal glosses *Fundamenta.* / *Ad oppositum.* trimmed as editorial marginalia) resolved by eyes-on PDF.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 599 -->

### Quaestio III. *In quo loco debeat fieri unctio.*

Tertio quaeritur, in quo loco debeat fieri unctio. Et quod *totum corpus* debeat inungi, videtur:

1. Quoniam talis unctio aut est contra infirmitatem *corporalem*, aut contra infirmitatem *spiritualem*. Si contra *corporalem*; cum ergo mortalis infirmitas per totum corpus diffusa sit, totum debet inungi. Si contra *spiritualem*; sed spiritualis infirmitas non concernit aliquam partem determinate: ergo etc.

2. Item, unctio sacramentalis significat unctionem gratuitam et spiritualem, quae est in anima; sed anima est in qualibet parte corporis tota[^1]: ergo etc.

3. Item, unctio devotionis respicit animam secundum potentiam intellectivam; sed « illa nullius partis corporalis est actus[^2] »: ergo nulla pars corporis determinate debet inungi: ergo totum corpus inungendum est.

4. Item, cum quis purificatur ab originali, totus immergitur, si sit aqua sufficiens[^3]: ergo similiter, si oleum est sufficiens, totus videtur inungendus.

**Sed contra:** 1. Matthaei decimo quinto[^4]: *De corde procedunt cogitationes malae, furta* etc.; secundum illud omnia peccata ex corde procedunt: ergo ad deletionem peccatorum significandam sufficit *locum cordis* inungere.

2. Item, unctio confirmationis in unica parte sola fit, scilicet in fronte: ergo pari ratione et *ibi* unctio huius Sacramenti[^5].

3. Item, si in pluribus partibus distincte; ergo plures sunt unctiones: ergo plura Sacramenta; pes enim et manus specie differunt secundum naturam organizationis[^6].

4. Item, si in diversis partibus debet fieri inunctio; cum contingat frequenter multa membra corporis amittere ex sola aegritudine, videtur, quod aegritudo perfectione Sacramenti faciat carere; quod non est conveniens.

Quaeritur ergo, quae membra debeant inungi; et utrum mutilata debeant inungi.

### Conclusio

> *In extrema unctione non totum corpus nec una determinata pars, sed septem partes inunguntur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in talibus, ut saepe dictum est[^7], « finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem ». Quoniam igitur istud Sacramentum principaliter ordinatur ad venialium deletionem, secundum quod ex textu beati Iacobi[^8] innuitur; et venialia perpetrantur ab anima secundum coniunctionem ipsius ad carnem corruptam, et hoc est per potentias, per quas unitur corpori ut organico: ideo recte in deletione talium peccatorum debet medicamentum exterius adhiberi, secundum id quod habet sensibile, circa *organa ipsarum potentiarum.* Est autem triplex potentia animae — secundum quam regit corpus et eruditur et secundum quam ad exterius comparatur — scilicet sensitiva, generativa et progressiva[^9]: et ideo organa istarum potentiarum debent inungi. Et quoniam quinque sunt organa deservientia quinque sensibus, scilicet os, oculi, nares, aures et manus, et lumbi deserviunt generativae, et pedes virtuti progressivae; ideo istae septem partes inunguntur. Et sic patet, quod nec totum corpus debet inungi nec una pars determinata.

**Ad argumenta pro prima parte.** Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de infirmitate spirituali, quod non determinat partem; dicendum, quod verum est, quod non determinat[^10] partem in qua sit, verumtamen determinat partem, per quam contrahitur. — Et per hoc patent duo <!-- page 600 --> sequentia de anima, quod est in qualibet parte corporis, et de potentia intellectiva: quoniam, etsi anima secundum *essentiam* sit in qualibet parte corporis tota, et secundum *potentiam intellectivam* partem determinatam corporis non concernat; tamen secundum *potentiam sensitivam* et *operativam* determinat sibi aliquas partes corporis organizatas, in quibus delectatur et secundum quarum delectationes diversa incurrit peccata.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod non est simile, pro eo quod in originali tota caro foedatur, sed in venialis peccati commissione[^11] aliquis actus specialis potentiae concernitur.

**Ad argumenta pro secunda parte.** *Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in oppositum de corde, dicendum, quod etsi de cordis affectu procedant omnia, tamen per diversas potentias subministrantes.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de unctione confirmationis, dicendum, quod non est simile, pro eo quod illa est contra pusillanimitatem et verecundiam determinate[^12]; sed haec contra venialia peccata, quae respiciunt actus omnium potentiarum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ergo plura sunt Sacramenta; dicendum, quod illae partes non inunguntur, nisi prout concurrunt in unum[^13], cui deserviunt et secundum cuius nutum moventur; et ideo, quia unctio est in his secundum unam naturam et per comparationem ad unum, ideo unum est Sacramentum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de illis qui perdunt haec membra, dicendum, quod quamvis sint mutilati, tamen debent inungi. Et si tu obiicias, quod est implicatio falsi in forma; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia caeci frequenter[^14] vellent videre pulcra, et surdi auditum desiderant, quamvis non audiant: et ideo recte debent in talibus membris inungi, quia per talia membra aut peccaverunt, aut peccare voluerunt, saltem veniali appetitu.

*Si tu quaeras,* cum per membra genitalia maxime culpa in hominibus contrahatur, sive perpetretur venialis et mortalis, ut quid non inunguntur? dicendum, quod hoc est propter foeditatem membri, propter quam natura rationalis erubescit non solum tangere, sed videre, sed quod plus est, nominare[^15], et amplius erubescit cogitare; et ideo absit, quod oleum sanctum debeat ibi apponi, sed loco illorum membrorum inunguntur lumbi. Credo etiam, quod parcitur verecundiae infirmorum, quia nemo est ratione utens, qui non erubescat membra illa aliis demonstrare, immo ipsemet erubescit videre[^16].

---

english:
<!-- page 599 -->

### Question III. *In what place the unction ought to be made.*

Thirdly it is asked, in what place the unction ought to be made. And that the *whole body* ought to be anointed seems [to be the case]:

1. Because such an unction is either against *bodily* infirmity or against *spiritual* infirmity. If against *bodily* [infirmity]: since, then, mortal infirmity is diffused through the whole body, the whole ought to be anointed. If against *spiritual* [infirmity]: but spiritual infirmity does not concern any part determinately: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the sacramental unction signifies the gratuitous and spiritual anointing which is in the soul; but the soul is whole in every part of the body[^1]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the unction of devotion regards the soul according to the intellective power; but "that [power] is the act of no bodily part[^2]": therefore no part of the body ought to be determinately anointed: therefore the whole body is to be anointed.

4. Likewise, when someone is purified from original [sin], he is wholly immersed, if there be sufficient water[^3]: therefore likewise, if the oil is sufficient, he seems to be wholly anointed.

**On the contrary:** 1. Matthew, chapter fifteen[^4]: *From the heart proceed evil thoughts, thefts,* etc.; according to which, all sins proceed from the heart: therefore, to signify the deletion of sins, it suffices to anoint *the place of the heart.*

2. Likewise, the unction of confirmation is made in a single part only, namely on the forehead: therefore by parity of reasoning the unction of this Sacrament [is to be made] *there* also[^5].

3. Likewise, if [it is made] distinctly in several parts, then there are several unctions: therefore several Sacraments; for foot and hand differ in species according to the nature of their organization[^6].

4. Likewise, if the anointing must be made in diverse parts; since it frequently happens that many members of the body are lost from sickness alone, it seems that sickness would cause [one] to lack the perfection of the Sacrament; which is not fitting.

It is asked, therefore, which members ought to be anointed; and whether mutilated [members] ought to be anointed.

### Conclusion

> *In extreme unction neither the whole body nor one determinate part, but seven parts are anointed.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in such matters, as has often been said[^7], "the end imposes necessity on the things which are for the end." Since, therefore, this Sacrament is principally ordained to the deletion of venial [sins], according as is intimated from the text of blessed James[^8]; and venial [sins] are perpetrated by the soul according to its conjunction to the corrupt flesh, and this is through the powers by which it is united to the body as to something organic: therefore rightly, in the deletion of such sins, an exterior remedy ought to be applied, according to what has something sensible, about *the organs of those same powers.* Now there is a threefold power of the soul — according to which it governs the body and is instructed, and according to which it is related to what is exterior — namely the sensitive, the generative, and the progressive[^9]: and therefore the organs of these powers ought to be anointed. And since there are five organs serving the five senses, namely the mouth, the eyes, the nostrils, the ears, and the hands, and the loins serve the generative [power], and the feet the progressive power; therefore these seven parts are anointed. And so it is clear that neither the whole body ought to be anointed nor one determinate part.

**To the arguments for the first position.** To that which is objected concerning spiritual infirmity, that it does not determine a part; it must be said that it is true that it does not determine[^10] the part in which it is, yet it determines the part through which it is contracted. — And through this the two things that follow are clear: concerning the soul, that it is in every part of the body, and concerning the intellective power: because, although the soul according to its *essence* is whole in every part of the body, and according to the *intellective power* does not concern a determinate part of the body; nevertheless according to the *sensitive* and *operative power* it determines for itself certain organized parts of the body, in which it takes delight and according to whose delights it incurs diverse sins.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that it is not similar, for the reason that in original [sin] the whole flesh is defiled, but in the commission[^11] of a venial sin some special act of a power is concerned.

**To the arguments for the second position.** *To 1.* To that which is objected on the opposite side concerning the heart, it must be said that although all things proceed from the affection of the heart, yet [they proceed] through the diverse powers ministering [to it].

*To 2.* To that which is objected concerning the unction of confirmation, it must be said that it is not similar, for the reason that that [unction] is against pusillanimity and shame determinately[^12]; but this [is] against venial sins, which regard the acts of all the powers.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that therefore [there are] several Sacraments; it must be said that those parts are not anointed except insofar as they concur into one [end][^13], to which they serve and according to whose beck they are moved; and therefore, because the unction is in them according to one nature and by relation to one [end], therefore it is one Sacrament.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning those who lose these members, it must be said that although they be mutilated, nevertheless they ought to be anointed. And if you object that there is an implication of falsity in the form; it must be said that this is false, because the blind frequently[^14] would wish to see beautiful things, and the deaf desire hearing, although they do not hear: and therefore they are rightly to be anointed on such members, because through such members they either sinned or wished to sin, at least by venial appetite.

*If you should ask:* since through the genital members guilt is most of all contracted in men, whether venial or mortal be perpetrated, why are they not anointed? it must be said that this is on account of the foulness of the member, on account of which rational nature blushes not only to touch, but to see, and — what is more — to name[^15], and still more blushes to think [of it]; and therefore far be it that the holy oil should be applied there, but in place of those members the loins are anointed. I believe also that consideration is given to the modesty of the sick, because there is no one using reason who would not blush to show those members to others, indeed [who] himself blushes to see them[^16].

---

la: Ut ostensum est I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3.

en: As was shown in I *Sent.*, d. 8, p. II, q. 3.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 11. (c. 1.), et III. de Anima, text. 6. (c. 4.). — Pro *corporalis* cod. aa *corporis* (Aristot.: *nullius corporis est actus*), econtra codd. I K mox *corporalis* pro *corporis.*

en: According to Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 11 (c. 1), and III *On the Soul*, text 6 (c. 4). — For *corporalis* codex aa [reads] *corporis* (Aristotle: *it is the act of no body*); on the contrary, codices I K shortly after [read] *corporalis* for *corporis.*

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See above, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Vers. 19: *De corde enim exeunt cogitationes malae, homicidia... furta* etc. — Inferius pro *secundum illud* [cod. F *hoc*] cod. U *secundum hoc videtur, quod.*

en: [Matthew 15,] verse 19: *For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders... thefts,* etc. — Below, for *secundum illud* [cod. F *hoc*] codex U [reads] *secundum hoc videtur, quod.*

la: Codd. R S *ergo pari ratione videtur, quod ibi unctio huius Sacramenti fieri debet.*

en: Codices R S [read]: *therefore by parity of reasoning it seems that the unction of this Sacrament ought to be made there.*

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 12, 14. seq.

en: Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:14 f.

la: Supra d. 6. p. I. q. 4. circa finem; II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.; d. 19. a. 1. q. 1. in corp.; III. Sent. d. 36. q. 1. circa finem corp., ubi de necessitate finis. Axioma hoc est secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 88. seqq. (c. 9.).

en: Above, d. 6, p. I, q. 4, near the end; II *Sent.*, d. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, in the body; d. 19, a. 1, q. 1, in the body; III *Sent.*, d. 36, q. 1, near the end of the body, where [he treats] of the necessity of the end. This axiom is according to Aristotle, II *Physics*, text 88 ff. (c. 9).

la: Cap. 5, 15. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *innuitur* cod. F *coniicitur,* codd. L V *capitur,* plures alii codd. et ed. 1 *invenitur.* Subinde pro *coniunctionem* cod. K *unitionem,* Val. *unionem.* Pro *organico* (cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 6. seq.) codd. F I K *organizato,* et pro *in deletione* codd. I K Z *ad deletionem.*

en: [James] chapter 5:15. Cf. above, a. 1, q. 1. — For *innuitur* codex F [reads] *coniicitur,* codices L V *capitur,* several other codices and ed. 1 *invenitur.* Then, for *coniunctionem* codex K [reads] *unitionem,* the Vatican [edition] *unionem.* For *organico* (cf. Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 6 f.) codices F I K [read] *organizato,* and for *in deletione* codices I K Z [read] *ad deletionem.*

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 27. seqq. (c. 3.). — Superius pro *regit* (cfr. supra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3.) edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *regitur;* pro *eruditur* codd. B Q R S T *ei unitur,* cui codd. R S T addunt *et nutritur* (edd. etiam addunt *et nutritur*). Ante *secundum quam* ex cod. K (1 a secunda manu) supplevimus *et,* cod. B ipsis interserit *etiam.* Pro *comparatur* codd. K S *operatur.* Fortasse locus corruptus est.

en: See Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 27 ff. (c. 3). — Above, for *regit* (cf. above, d. 21, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3) the editions, with one or another codex, [read] *regitur;* for *eruditur* codices B Q R S T [read] *ei unitur,* to which codices R S T add *et nutritur* (the editions also add *et nutritur*). Before *secundum quam,* from codex K (first, by a second hand) we supplied *et;* codex B inserts among them *etiam.* For *comparatur* codices K S [read] *operatur.* Perhaps the passage is corrupt.

la: Cod. E supplet *sibi.* In fine solut. pro *incurrit* cod. F *intrant,* codd. R S T *incurrunt.*

en: Codex E supplies *sibi.* At the end of the solution, for *incurrit* codex F [reads] *intrant,* codices R S T *incurrunt.*

la: Cod. F *perfecta commissione.*

en: Codex F [reads] *perfecta commissione.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. circa finem, et dub. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 1, near the end, and dubium 1.

la: In cod. X secunda manus supplevit *totum.*

en: In codex X a second hand supplied *totum.*

la: Edd. *libenter,* omisso *pulcra,* quae etiam subinde pro *debent* substituunt *dicunt.* Pro *auditum* codd. I K *audire,* et aliquanto superius *mutilata* pro *mutilati.*

en: The editions [read] *libenter,* omitting *pulcra;* which [editions] also thereupon substitute *dicunt* for *debent.* For *auditum* codices I K [read] *audire,* and somewhat above [read] *mutilata* for *mutilati.*

la: Respicitur Eph. 5, 3. — Pro *natura* codd. I K *homo.* Inferius pro *parcitur* edd. *compatitur.*

en: Ephesians 5:3 is referred to. — For *natura* codices I K [read] *homo.* Below, for *parcitur* the editions [read] *compatitur.*

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw L65375–65499) and fully corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 599–600 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p599-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p600-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Two-column IA OCR was cascade-shattered in the Respondeo and footers, so the PDF bands are authoritative there (Vol II/IV override). Running heads verified: `DIST. XXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` / `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` with page numbers 599 (recto) and 600 (verso).
- **Page-break.** The seam falls mid-sentence inside the first reply ("Et per hoc patent duo | sequentia de anima…"), marked with `<!-- page 600 -->`. p. 600's left column runs the tail of the pro-reply block plus the *in oppositum* replies (ending "…concurrunt in unum, cui"), which continues into the right column ("deserviunt et secundum cuius nutum moventur…"); the *Ad 4 (de mutilatis)* reply and the *Si tu quaeras* passage (genitalia → loins) fill the right column and close the quaestio at "…ipsemet erubescit videre." QUAESTIO IV. (`Quoties debeat hoc Sacramentum dari`) begins immediately after and is **not** part of this chunk.
- **Apparatus split (16 footnotes; per-page restart):** p. 599 footer = notes 1–10 (this chunk's markers 1–10); p. 600 footer left column = notes 1–6 (this chunk's markers 11–16). p. 600's footer notes 7–11 belong to QUAESTIO IV markers (*iniuria*⁷, *extremum*⁸, *firmitas*⁹, *alias*¹⁰, *infirmitate*¹¹) and are excluded. No shared-page footer split with a neighboring chunk on either page.
- **No scholion.** Rendered `has_scholion: false`. Article II has a single scholion (§I–IV) covering all four of its questions; it lives in `bon-sent-IV-d23-a2-q1`. This is confirmed by note 16 on p. 600 ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest." — "See the scholion to q. 1 of this article"). No scholion text was found physically in this quaestio's range.
- **Minor apparatus readings (no `[?]` flag warranted).** Note 8's James reference reads *Cap. 5, 15* on the band (OCR digit-mangled it to "3, 13"); James 5:15 fits the sense (sin-remission). Note 9 "supplevimus *et*" (band) vs. OCR "ei" — adopted the band reading, which matches the supplied conjunction in "regit corpus et eruditur *et* secundum quam." Note 8 "codd. I K Z" (band) where the OCR shows "I R Z"; band adopted. None of these affect the sense; no inline `[?]` flags were placed anywhere in this chunk.

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, Art. 2, Q. 4

title_alt: Whether this Sacrament ought to be repeated

source_text:
<!-- page 600 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Quoties debeat hoc Sacramentum dari.*

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, quoties debeat hoc Sacramentum dari; et quaeritur, utrum debeat iterari. Et quod non, videtur:

1. *Primo*, quia «nulli Sacramento facienda est iniuria[^1]»; sed qui iterat Sacramentum facit ei iniuriam: ergo etc.

2. Item, *per simile* videtur: quia unctio episcopalis sive confirmationis non iteratur: ergo nec unctio extrema iterari debet ratione consimili.

3. Item, hoc videtur *per denominationem*: quia dicitur *unctio extrema*; sed unius hominis una est mors et unum extremum[^2]: ergo tantum semel debet inungi.

**Contra:** 1. Quoties iteratur morbus, et medicina; sed tam morbus corporalis quam spiritualis iteratur, scilicet veniale peccatum et corporalis infirmitas[^3]: ergo etc.

2. Item, aliquis, qui est in periculo secundum humanum iudicium et opinionem medicorum, est inungendus, quia praesumitur, quod laboret in extremis: si ergo ille idem in extremis alias[^4] laborare potest, videtur, quod inungi debet.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, si aliquis sacerdos incipit inungere et in unctione deficit, utrum debeat a capite incipi, vel perfici.

Et iterum, utrum aliquis in eadem infirmitate[^5] debeat bis inungi, ut puta in infirmitate incurabili.

### Conclusio

> **Conclusio.** *Cum in hoc Sacramento nec imprimatur character, nec detur effectus perpetuus, potest et debet ipsum iterari.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod istud Sacramentum, sicut innuitur aperte in littera[^6], et debet et potest iterari. — Si autem quaeratur *ratio* huius, dicendum est, quod generalis ratio, quare Sacra<!-- page 601 -->mentum non debeat iterari, est, quia *effectus* eius est *perpetuus*, qui non iteratur. Unde *characteris impressio* non est *generalis* ratio, sed potius *effectus perpetuatio*. Unde ex quo panis semel consecratus est, non debet amplius consecrari, quamvis non imprimatur ibi character; et similiter oleum benedictum non debet amplius benedici, sive consecratum non debet amplius consecrari. Quoniam igitur in unctione extrema non imprimitur[^7] nec datur *effectus perpetuus*, maxime si homo ab infirmitate resurgat; ideo secunda operatio Sacramenti est necessaria, et ideo iterari potest et debet medicina absque aliqua contumelia Sacramenti.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod sibi[^8] fiat iniuria in iteratione; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, quando iteratur Sacramentum, et nihil novum efficitur; hoc autem in proposito non habet locum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unctione confirmationis, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia non utrobique est effectus characteris, qui est perpetuus, propter quem amplius Sacramentum iterari non debet[^9].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de denominatione, dicendum, quod *unctio extrema* est dupliciter: aut secundum *veritatem*, aut secundum *nostram opinionem*. Primo modo non iteratur, sed secundo modo sic; et ita frequenter accidit multos inungi[^10].

Ad illud quod quaeritur, si sacerdos deficit, utrum sit initiandum; dicendum, quod potius est *supplendum* quod inchoatum est, pro eo quod quaelibet unctio habet specialem sibi formam, sicut patet aspicienti[^11] ordinarium, attamen generaliter conveniunt in remissione peccati.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de infirmitatibus prolixis, aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod post annum iterari potest, pro eo quod completa est revolutio corporum superiorum[^12]. Sed absurdum valde videtur, Sacramenta regulari secundum motum astrorum. — Et ideo potest aliter dici, quod nullus in aliqua infirmitate inungendus est, nisi cum praesumitur ad exitum propinquare; et hoc est in infirmitatis aggravatione, quem statum natura diu sustinere non potest, immo aut vincit, aut vincitur. Si ergo infirmus melioretur[^13], ut diutius vivat; etsi non perfecte curetur, curatur tamen aliquo modo ab intensione morbi; et ideo, quia venialia iterum redire possunt, et iterum infirmitas corporalis aggravatur, potest et debet Sacramentum unctionis iterari. — Et sic patet responsio ad obiecta[^14].

---

english:
### Question IV. *How often this Sacrament ought to be given.*

Fourthly and lastly it is asked how often this Sacrament ought to be given; and it is asked whether it ought to be repeated. And that it ought not, it seems:

1. *First*, because "no injury is to be done to any Sacrament[^1]"; but he who repeats a Sacrament does it injury: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, it seems so *by a similar case*: because the episcopal anointing, or [the anointing] of confirmation, is not repeated: therefore neither ought extreme unction to be repeated, by a like reasoning.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] *by denomination*: because it is called *extreme unction*; but of one man there is one death and one "extreme"[^2]: therefore he ought to be anointed only once.

**On the contrary:** 1. As often as the disease [returns], so also the medicine; but both bodily and spiritual disease is repeated, namely venial sin and bodily infirmity[^3]: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, someone who is in danger according to human judgment and the opinion of physicians is to be anointed, because it is presumed that he labors in his last extremity: if therefore that same man can at another time[^4] labor in his last extremity, it seems that he ought to be anointed.

Alongside this it is asked: if some priest begins to anoint and fails in the midst of the anointing, whether it ought to be begun again from the head, or [merely] completed.

And again, whether someone in the same infirmity[^5] ought to be anointed twice, as for instance in an incurable infirmity.

### Conclusion

> **Conclusion.** *Since in this Sacrament neither is a character imprinted, nor is a perpetual effect given, it can and ought to be repeated.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament, as is plainly intimated in the text[^6], both ought to and can be repeated. — But if the *reason* for this be sought, it must be said that the general reason why a Sacrament ought not to be repeated is that its *effect* is *perpetual*, which is not repeated. Hence the *imprinting of a character* is not the *general* reason, but rather the *perpetuation of the effect*. Hence, once bread has been consecrated, it ought not to be consecrated further, although no character is imprinted there; and similarly blessed oil ought not to be blessed further, nor what has been consecrated be consecrated further. Since therefore in extreme unction no [character] is imprinted[^7] nor is a *perpetual effect* given — especially if the man should recover from his infirmity — therefore a second operation of the Sacrament is necessary, and so the medicine can and ought to be repeated without any affront to the Sacrament.

1. To that, then, which is objected — that an injury is done to it[^8] in the repetition — it must be said that this is true when a Sacrament is repeated and nothing new is effected; but this has no place in the case at hand.

2. To that which is objected concerning the anointing of confirmation, it must be said that it is not similar, because the effect of a character, which is perpetual, is not present in both cases — [the character] on account of which a Sacrament ought not to be repeated further[^9].

3. To that which is objected concerning the denomination, it must be said that *extreme unction* is [so called] in two ways: either according to *truth*, or according to *our opinion*. In the first way it is not repeated, but in the second way it is; and thus it frequently happens that many are anointed [more than once][^10].

To that which is asked — if the priest fails, whether it ought to be begun anew — it must be said that it is rather to be *supplied* [i.e. completed], what has been begun, for the reason that each anointing has its own special form, as is evident to one who examines[^11] the ritual [*ordinarium*]; yet they generally agree in the remission of sin.

To that which is asked concerning prolonged infirmities, some have wished to say that after a year [the Sacrament] can be repeated, for the reason that the revolution of the higher bodies is [then] completed[^12]. But it seems utterly absurd that the Sacraments should be regulated according to the motion of the stars. — And therefore it can be said otherwise, that no one is to be anointed in any infirmity unless when he is presumed to be drawing near to his exit [i.e. death]; and this is in the aggravation of an infirmity, a state which nature cannot long sustain, but either conquers or is conquered. If therefore the sick man improves[^13], so that he lives longer — even if he is not perfectly cured, he is nonetheless cured in some measure from the intensity of the disease — and therefore, because venial [sins] can return again, and again bodily infirmity is aggravated, the Sacrament of unction can and ought to be repeated. — And thus the response to the objections is evident[^14].

---

la: Secundum August., hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4. et supra pag. 293, nota 1.

en: According to Augustine, here in the text of the Master, c. 4, and above p. 293, note 1.

la: Hebr. 9, 27: *Statutum est hominibus semel mori.*

en: Heb. 9:27: *It is appointed unto men once to die.*

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cod. K *iterum.*

en: Codex K [reads] *iterum* (again).

la: Codd. R S T addunt *si est prolixa.*

en: Codices R S T add *si est prolixa* (if it is prolonged).

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here, c. 4.

la: Vat. addit *character.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *character.*

la: Ed. I *ibi.*

en: Edition I [reads] *ibi* (there).

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. dub. 6. — Pro *non utrobique,* quod habet cod. O, alii perperam *utrobique,* quod edd. mutaverunt in *ibi.*

en: Cf. above, d. 7, dub. 6. — For *non utrobique* (not in both cases), which codex O has, others wrongly [read] *utrobique* (in both cases), which the editions changed to *ibi* (there).

la: Vat. addit *pluries.*

en: The Vatican edition adds *pluries* (several times).

la: Cod. aa *inspicienti.* Mox pro *conveniunt* multi codd. *convenerunt.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *inspicienti* (to one inspecting). Presently, for *conveniunt* (they agree), many codices [read] *convenerunt* (they agreed).

la: Vide supra pag. 542, nota 6. — Inferius voci *astrorum* Vat. praemittit *solis et.*

en: See above p. 542, note 6. — Below, before the word *astrorum* (of the stars) the Vatican edition prefixes *solis et* (of the sun and).

la: Pro *melioretur, ut,* quod praebent codd. I K, codd. G H L V *moveretur, ut,* alii codd. et edd. *non moriatur* [cod. F *moritur,* cod. aa *moreretur*], *sed.* Inferius pro *et ideo* cod. H *et iterum.*

en: For *melioretur, ut* (should improve, so that), which codices I K provide, codices G H L V [read] *moveretur, ut* (should be moved, so that), the other codices and the editions *non moriatur* (should not die) [codex F *moritur* (dies), codex aa *moreretur* (should die)], *sed* (but). Below, for *et ideo* (and therefore) codex H [reads] *et iterum* (and again).

en: See the scholion on question I of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from the IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L65500–L65602), corrected against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `vol4-p600-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p601-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`. English is a fresh literal translation. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 600 = pdf 620).

**Page verification / frontmatter correction.** The auto-chunk skeleton listed `printed_pages: [602, 603]`; this is wrong. The band page numbers read **600** (top of `p600-L-0`, running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.") and **601** (top of `p601-R-0`). Corrected to `[600, 601]` / pdf `[620, 621]`.

**Running-head trap (important for the dubia chunk).** The header "DIST. XXIII. DUBIA." printed atop printed p.601 is a page-top **running head**, not the semantic start of the dubia. Quaestio IV's Respondeo and its replies continue past it and end at "…responsio ad obiecta" (raw L65601). The true semantic boundary — "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" / "Dub. I." — is at raw **L65603**, which begins the separate `bon-sent-IV-d23-dubia` chunk. The current dubia skeleton wrongly begins its raw range at L65558 and swallows this quaestio's p.601 tail — flag to fix when the dubia is promoted.

**Shared-page footer splits.**
- *Printed p.600* footer runs notes 1–12. Notes **1–6** anchor in the body of the prior chunk `a2-q3` (its `Ad argg. pro parte 2` replies and the *"Si tu quaeras… membra genitalia"* passage: markers at `missione¹`, `determinate²`, `unum³`/`totum`, `mutilati⁴`, `videre⁶`, etc.) and are **not** claimed here. This chunk claims notes **7–12** (rendered [^1]–[^6]).
- *Printed p.601* footer runs notes 1–11. This chunk claims notes **1–8** (rendered [^7]–[^14]), all anchored in quaestio IV. Notes **9–11** anchor in the DUBIA body (`speciei⁹` = Aristot. II *de Anima*; `distinctione secunda¹⁰` = Dub. I; `a dignitate¹¹` = Dub. II) and belong to the `d23-dubia` chunk.

**No scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Article II's scholion (§I–IV) covers all four Art. II questions and is rendered in `a2-q1`; notes [^6] (p.600 n.6, absorbed by a2-q3) and [^14] here both cross-reference it ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.").

**Marginalia.** Quaracchi's structural marginal labels (*Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Ad argg. pro parte 2*, *Notandum*, *Ad 1./2. quaest. incid.*, *Resp. auctoris*) are editorial glosses and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**[?] flags.** None — both printed pages are fully legible in the 450 dpi bands.


title: Dist. 23, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. XXIII)

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

source_text:
<!-- page 601 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de ordine istius Sacramenti ad antecedentia et sequentia. Videtur enim male ordinari. Cum enim inter omnia Sacramenta ultimo detur, propter quod et extrema unctio nuncupatur; videtur, quod ultimo debeat ordinari.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramenta quaedam respiciunt personam, quaedam communiter ipsam Ecclesiam, ut sicut in naturis quaedam sunt vires ordinatae ad conservationem *individui,* quaedam ad conservationem *speciei*[^1]; sic in *spiritualibus* quinque Sacramenta sunt ad conservandam et promovendam gratiam, vel consummandam circa ipsam personam; sed ordo et coniugium ad consummandam ipsam Ecclesiam: et ideo, quia multitudinem respiciunt, sicut multitudo sequitur unitatem, sic duo Sacramenta praedicta consequuntur alia quinque, inter quae extrema unctio ultimum locum tenet. — Alia ratio assignata est supra circa principium huius libri, distinctione secunda[^2], ubi tangitur ordo Sacramentorum.

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *unctio, quae fit chrismate, est unctio principalis* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut unctio principalis dicitur ab ordine, aut a dignitate[^3]. Si ab ordine; falsum dicit, quia prima unctio est in baptismo. Si a dignitate; adhuc falsum dicit, quia in Sacramento ordinis est unctio maioris dignitatis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *principalis unctio* dicitur confirmatio ex quadruplici causa, scilicet a loco, quia in fronte, quae est pars nobilior in corpore; a ministro, quia fit ab episcopo; ab elemento sive materia, quia de oleo mixto cum balsamo;
<!-- page 602 -->
postremo ab effectu propter abundantiam gratiae. Unde ibi Paraclitus in magna abundantia traditur, sicut etiam patuit in Apostolis[^4]; et haec est unctio principalis. Et si obiiciatur de ordine, dicendum, quod non datur amplius munus gratiae *gratum facientis,* sed amplius munus gratiae *gratis datae,* scilicet auctoritatis et potestatis sacerdotalis vel pontificalis[^5]. Datur etiam ibi munus gratiae *gratum facientis* in digne suscipientibus, licet non tantum. Et nota, quod de eadem materia fit triplex unctio: una, qua baptizati inunguntur in vertice; alia, qua confirmandi inunguntur in fronte; tertia, qua inunguntur pontifices in capite. Et hoc vult dicere in littera[^6] *regum et pontificum,* id est regalium pontificum, quales sunt pontifices novae legis. Nam reges, secundum quod dicunt illi qui noverunt, unguntur in scapulis[^7].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Duplici ex causa ostenditur Sacramentum hoc institutum.* Videtur enim male dicere, quia unius Sacramenti unicus est finis.

**Respondeo:** Unus est finis *principalis,* et nihil impedit, quin multiplex possit esse utilitas, dum tamen unus sit finis *principalis,* alii vero *per accidens*[^8]; et sic est in proposito.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Si ex contemptu, vel negligentia Sacramentum hoc praetermittitur, periculosum est* etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia negligentia in his quae non sunt de necessitate salutis, non generat periculum nec facit hominem[^9] dignum damnatione.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *vel* non tenetur disiunctive, sed magis intelligitur subdisiunctive[^10]; unde non intelligitur hoc de qualibet negligentia, sed solum de negligentia, quae generat contemptum sive quae habet contemptum annexum. Unde ita iudicandum est de hoc Sacramento, sicut iudicatur de Sacramento altaris[^11].

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about the ordering of this Sacrament in relation to what precedes and what follows. For it seems to be badly ordered. For since among all the Sacraments it is given last, on account of which it is also called *extreme* unction, it seems that it ought to be ordered last.

**I respond:** It must be said that some Sacraments regard the person, some regard in common the Church herself; so that, just as in [things of] nature there are certain powers ordained to the preservation of the *individual,* certain others to the preservation of the *species*[^1]; so in *spiritual* things five Sacraments are for preserving and promoting grace, or for consummating it with respect to the person herself; but order and marriage are for consummating the Church herself: and therefore, because they regard a multitude, just as the multitude follows unity, so the two aforesaid Sacraments follow after the other five, among which extreme unction holds the last place. — Another reason has been assigned above, near the beginning of this book, at the second distinction[^2], where the order of the Sacraments is treated.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says that *the unction which is done with chrism is the principal unction,* etc. For it seems to be badly said, because the principal unction is called principal either from order or from dignity[^3]. If from order, he speaks falsely, because the first unction is in baptism. If from dignity, he still speaks falsely, because in the Sacrament of order there is an unction of greater dignity.

**I respond:** It must be said that confirmation is called the *principal unction* for a fourfold cause, namely from place, because on the forehead, which is the nobler part in the body; from the minister, because it is done by the bishop; from the element or matter, because it is of oil mixed with balsam;
postscript from the effect, on account of the abundance of grace. Hence there the Paraclete is delivered in great abundance, as also appeared in the Apostles[^4]; and this is the principal unction. And if it be objected concerning order, it must be said that no further gift of *grace-making-pleasing* [*gratum faciens*] is given, but a further gift of *grace-freely-given* [*gratis data*], namely of priestly or pontifical authority and power[^5]. There is also given there a gift of *grace-making-pleasing* to those who receive worthily, though not so much. And note that from the same matter a threefold unction is done: one, by which the baptized are anointed on the crown of the head; another, by which those to be confirmed are anointed on the forehead; a third, by which pontiffs are anointed on the head. And this he means to say in the text[^6] *of kings and pontiffs,* that is, of royal pontiffs, such as are the pontiffs of the new law. For kings, according to what those say who have known [these things], are anointed on the shoulder-blades[^7].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *For a twofold cause this Sacrament is shown to have been instituted.* For it seems to be badly said, because of one Sacrament there is one end.

**I respond:** There is one *principal* end, and nothing prevents the utility from being manifold, provided that there be one *principal* end, but the others *by accident*[^8]; and so it is in the matter at hand.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *If through contempt or negligence this Sacrament is omitted, it is perilous,* etc. For it seems to be badly said, because negligence in those things which are not of the necessity of salvation does not beget peril nor make a man[^9] worthy of damnation.

**I respond:** It must be said that the *or* is not taken disjunctively, but is rather understood sub-disjunctively[^10]; hence this is not understood of any negligence whatever, but only of the negligence which begets contempt, or which has contempt annexed to it. Hence one must judge concerning this Sacrament just as it is judged concerning the Sacrament of the altar[^11].

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 34 ff. (c. 4).

la: Dub. I. Vide etiam ibid. a. I. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Doubt I. See also there, a. 1, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *De priori.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories,* c. *On the Prior.*

la: Act. 2, 2. seqq. Cfr. supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 2, 3. et dub. 4.

en: Acts 2:2 ff. Cf. above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 2, 3, and dub. 4.

la: Vide supra d. 19. a. 1. q. 2, infra d. 24. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 5.

la: Hic c. 2. Cfr. infra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. — Cod. A hic addit *ubi dicit,* codd. F G H I V omittunt *in littera.*

en: Here, c. 2. Cf. below, d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 4. — Codex A here adds *ubi dicit,* codices F, G, H, I, V omit *in littera.*

la: Vide C. *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15.), in quo Innocent. III. diversas unctiones exponit. In pontificali Romano, c. de Benedictione et coronatione regis dicitur: « Metropolitanus intingit pollicem dexterae manus in *oleum catechumenorum,* et inungit in modum crucis illius [regis] brachium dexterum, inter iuncturam manus et iuncturam cubiti atque inter scapulas ». — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 7. seq.; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: See the Chapter *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), in the Decretals (X), *On Sacred Unction* (book I, tit. 15), in which Innocent III expounds the various unctions. In the Roman Pontifical, in the chapter *On the Blessing and Coronation of a King,* it is said: « The Metropolitan dips the thumb of the right hand into the *oil of catechumens,* and anoints in the manner of a cross the [king's] right arm, between the joint of the hand and the joint of the elbow and between the shoulder-blades ». — Cf. on this doubt Blessed Albert, here a. 7 f.; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. et d. 18. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 4. — Pro *multiplex* codd. R S T U X *ibi,* edd. legunt *impedit, quando multiplex potest esse.* — De hoc dubio vide supra a. 1. q. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 14.

en: Cf. above, d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, ad 1, and d. 18, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, ad 4. — For *multiplex* codices R, S, T, U, X read *ibi;* the editions read *impedit, quando multiplex potest esse* ("it hinders, when it can be manifold"). — On this doubt see above, a. 1, q. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 14.

la: Plures codd. *secundum hominem,* cod. X *secundum hoc.*

en: Several codices read *secundum hominem* ("according to man"), codex X *secundum hoc* ("according to this").

la: Cfr. tom. II. pag. 836, nota 1. verba Prisciani. — Edd. *copulative,* quod etiam S. Thom., hic circa lit., habet.

en: Cf. vol. II, p. 836, note 1, the words of Priscian. — The editions read *copulative* ("copulatively"), which St. Thomas also has, here on the text.

la: Supra d. 12. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Cfr. Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.

en: Above, d. 12, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — Cf. Peter of Tarentaise, here on the text.

translators_notes:
**Provenance:** Latin re-set from PDF column bands (`vol4-p601-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p602-{L,R}-*`) per the Vol IV two-column PDF-priority inversion (offset pdf = printed + 20, so PDF 621–622). The default split_x=1880 truncated the right column's left edge on these pages (the R-column body text starts left of the gutter), so bands were regenerated at **split_x=1780** to recover it; the OCR (raw lines 65558–65707) is fairly clean running prose here and served as the base, corrected against the bands. Running heads read "DIST. XXIII. DUBIA." / "601" and "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / "602" — **page-verified: printed pp. 601–602**, which is TWO lower than the auto-chunker's nominal frontmatter (603–606, now corrected). Editorial marginal captions ("Ad 1./2. quaest. incid.", "Resp. auctoris.", "Notandum.", "Triplex unctio.") are trimmed as marginalia, not Bonaventure's text. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Dubia count: 4** (Dub. I–IV). No scholion.

**Seam with a2-q4 (SHARED page 601):** The top of p.601 (both columns) carries the tail of `d23-a2-q4` (the reply on iteration of the Sacrament: "…mentum non debeat iterari…" through "…sic patet responsio ad obiecta⁸"). Quaracchi restarts footer numbering per printed page, and **p.601's footer notes 1–8 belong to a2-q4** (1 *Vat. addit character;* 2 *Ed. I ibi;* 3 *Cfr. supra d.7 dub.6 / non utrobique;* 4 *Vat. addit pluries;* 5 *Cod. aa inspicienti;* 6 *Vide supra pag. 542;* 7 *Pro melioretur…;* 8 *Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.*). This dubia chunk claims **only p.601 notes 9, 10, 11** → [^1], [^2], [^3]. The `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` header and Dub. I begin below the a2-q4 tail (Dub. I in p.601-L bottom; Dub. II in p.601-R bottom). Verify a2-q4 captured its notes 1–8.

**Page-split / renumber map (Quaracchi restarts footer numbering each printed page):**
- **Printed p.601** (PDF 621): dubia footers **9** (*Cfr. Aristot. II de Anima* — Dub. I "conservationem speciei⁹") → [^1]; **10** (*Dub. I. Vide etiam… / Idem dub. solvitur a B. Albert.* — Dub. I "distinctione secunda¹⁰") → [^2]; **11** (*Cfr. Aristot. de Praedicam.* — Dub. II "aut a dignitate¹¹") → [^3]. (Notes 1–8 = a2-q4, excluded.)
- **Printed p.602** (PDF 622): **all eight footers 1–8 are dubia.** Left-column footers **1** (*Act. 2,2 seqq.* — Dub. II "in Apostolis¹") → [^4], **2** (*Vide supra d.19…* — Dub. II "sacerdotalis vel pontificalis²") → [^5], **3** (*Hic c. 2… / Cod. A addit ubi dicit* — Dub. II "in littera³") → [^6], **4** (*Vide C. Cum venisset… / Pontificale Romano* — Dub. II "unguntur in scapulis⁴") → [^7]; right-column footers **5** (*Cfr. supra d.12 p.II… / Pro multiplex codd. RSTUX ibi* — Dub. III "per accidens⁵") → [^8], **6** (*Plures codd. secundum hominem* — Dub. IV "facit hominem⁶") → [^9], **7** (*Cfr. tom. II pag. 836… verba Prisciani* — Dub. IV "subdisiunctive⁷") → [^10], **8** (*Supra d.12 p.II a.2 q.1* — Dub. IV "de Sacramento altaris⁸") → [^11].

**Page break:** falls mid-Dub. II Respondeo, at the hyphenation "…de oleo mixto cum balsamo; po-|stremo ab effectu…" (p.601-R foot → p.602-L top). `<!-- page 602 -->` placed at that word boundary.

**DISTINCTIO XXIV boundary (SHARED page 602):** Below Dub. IV, the centered **DISTINCTIO XXIV** header + Lombard's *littera* (Cap. I *De ordinibus ecclesiasticis, quot sint;* Cap. II *Quare septem sint*) begin on p.602 and are owned by the d.24 chunks. The p.602 footer's separate **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** block ("¹ Can. *Tales ad ministerium* (4.), d. 23. …") belongs to that littera and is **excluded** here. This chunk claims none of d.24's apparatus.

**[?] flags:** none. All four dubia bodies and all 11 footers read cleanly from the PDF column bands. One reading resolved by combining the two column crops: p.602 note [^7]'s tail reads "…S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit." (the left-footer line "S. Thom.," was cut at the L-crop's right edge; "Petr. a Tar.," was recovered from the R-crop's left-fragment overlap before it wraps to "et Richard. a Med."). Confidence high; all footer source attributions are explicit in the print.

**Apparatus count: 11 entries** (p.601: 3 dubia notes of 11 on the page; p.602: 8 dubia notes of 8 on the page, excluding the d.24 *Notae* block).