title: Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 590 -->

### Articulus I. *De institutione extremae unctionis.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum hoc Sacramentum fuerit institutum a Christo, an ab aliquo eius discipulo.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each apparatus entry gives the Quaracchi Latin note (**La.**) followed by an English rendering (**En.**). Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the markers here are renumbered sequentially across the whole question.

Secundo quaeritur de causa efficiente sive instituente, et quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum instituerit Christus, vel aliquis eius discipulus. Et quod *Christus*, videtur:

**Ad oppositum.**

1. Quia legislatoris est leges instituere; sed Sacramenta omnia sunt leges et statuta in lege evangelica: ergo non solum hoc instituit Christus[^1], verum etiam omnia.

2. Item, Deus per se ipsum instituit omnia Sacramenta veteris legis, Moysi loquendo et praecipiendo — unde in principio cuiuslibet sacramentalis praecepti dicitur in Levitico[^2]: *Locutus est Dominus* etc. — si ergo Sacramenta evangelica sunt multo digniora, videtur etc.

3. Item, «Sacramentum, sicut habitum est supra distinctione decima tertia[^3], est, in quo divina virtus secretius operatur»: si ergo virtus divina operatur in Sacramentis principaliter; cum instituere Sacramentum sit maioris dignitatis quam operari in Sacramento, et operatio est a divina virtute: ergo et institutio.

4. Item, Marci sexto[^4] dicitur, quod discipuli inungebant oleo multos infirmos, et curabantur; sed constat, quod Apostoli nondum erant tantae auctoritatis, quod per se auderent aliquid instituere: ergo videtur, quod Dominus eis mandaverit: ergo videtur, quod ipse instituit.

**Contra:**

1. Magister dicit in littera[^5]: «Hoc Sacramentum legitur ab Apostolis institutum».

2. Item, alibi non habemus mandatum de hoc Sacramento nisi Iacobi quinto[^6]: ergo videtur ibi institutum fuisse.

<!-- page 591 -->

3. Item, omne Sacramentum, quod Christus instituit, ipse per se exhibuit[^7]; sed Christus hoc Sacramentum non exhibuit, quia nunquam infirmos oleo, sed solo verbo sanavit: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne Sacramentum, quod Christus instituit, habuit figuram in veteri testamento; sed hoc non habuit ibi figuram, quia nunquam legimus, infirmos propter curationem in veteri testamento inungi: ergo videtur, quod institutio huius Sacramenti non pertinuerit ad Christum.

### Conclusio.

> Praefertur opinio, quod extrema unctio a Spiritu sancto per Apostolos instituta et a sancto Iacobo promulgata sit.

**Respondeo:** Ad horum intelligentiam notandum est, quod aliqui dicere voluerunt, omnia Sacramenta instituta fuisse a Christo, quoniam ipse fuit legislator. Unde quamvis non expresse legatur de *confirmatione* et *extrema unctione*; tamen credendum est, ipsum instituisse; et hoc aliquo modo innuitur de *confirmatione*, cum manus pueris imposuerit, Matthaei decimo nono[^8]; de *extrema unctione*, cum discipulos ad praedicandum misit, qui oleo ungebant infirmos, et curabantur, sicut dicitur Marci sexto; haud dubium, quin per mandatum ipsius hoc fecerint. Si autem Apostoli dicuntur aliqua *instituisse*, hoc est, quia institutionem promulgaverunt, sicut beatus Iacobus[^9] confessionis et unctionis. — Sed tamen — cum in Evangelio sufficienter lex evangelica exprimatur, et evangelica lex contineat Christi *statuta* et *facta*, et magis *statuta* quam *facta*[^10] — quomodo probabile est, ut omnes Evangelistae sic sub silentio tam nobilia Sacramenta pertransissent, si Christus instituisset, cum ex his nostrae salutis adminiculum eliciatur? Et ideo probabilius alii dicunt — et Magister videtur hoc sentire, immo aperte dicit — quod Spiritus sanctus per Apostolos hoc Sacramentum instituit, sicut supra[^11] dictum est de Sacramento *confirmationis*. — Et quod hoc *potuerit esse*, manifestum est, cum ipse sit doctor praecipuus, sicut et Christus; et exemplo patet: quia Apostoli, Spiritu sancto dictante, formam baptismi a Christo institutam et confirmatam ad tempus mutaverunt[^12]; quanto magis quod Christus insinuaverat instituere potuerunt?

Et quod ita fuerit *congruum*, manifestum est, si attendatur diversitas Sacramentorum. Quaedam enim sunt Sacramenta *communia* legis veteris et novae, quaedam *propriissima* legis novae, quaedam *medio modo*[^13]. *Communia* sunt illa quae sunt quodam modo ex dictamine naturae, quod quia semper idem manet, illa Sacramenta ab initio cucurrerunt, ut matrimonium et poenitentia, secundum quod *Deo* reconciliat; et haec quidem Dominus Iesus consummavit et confirmavit in lege nova, non evacuavit[^14]. — Quaedam sunt *propriissima* legis novae, et haec sunt quae significant gratiam in tali statu, quae proprie competit legi novae; haec autem duo sunt: confirmatio et unctio, ubi significatur gratia Spiritus sancti, secundum quam inungitur quis in *pugilem*, ut pro Christo audeat mori, et in *regem*, ut in regnum caelorum possit introire tanquam in suum. Hoc est novae legis *proprium*; ideo in veteri non habuerunt certam figuram haec duo Sacramenta. Et quia significant Spiritus sancti gratiam in aliqua abundantia; et Spiritus sanctus abundanter non fuit *datus*, quousque *Iesus non fuit glorificatus*, sicut dicitur Ioannis septimo[^15]: ideo haec duo Sacramenta a Christo fuerunt *insinuata*, sed post a Spiritu sancto fuerunt *instituta*. — Quaedam sunt Sacramenta *media*, quae in veteri lege non fuerunt in *veritate*, fuerunt tamen in *figura* et significatione, sicut *baptismus*, *eucharistia* et *ordo*. Et quia Christus *Legem implevit*[^16] et figuras evacuavit, haec tria Sacramenta per se ipsum instituit. — Et sic patet, quomodo congruentissime statuta et instituta sunt ecclesiastica Sacramenta, ut nihil sit gestum per oblivionem, sed secundum inenarrabilem Dei dispensationem. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, Spiritum sanctum per Apostolos hoc Sacramentum instituisse.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod hoc est legislatoris; dicendum, quod Spiritus sanctus supplevit hoc quod ipse Dominus dimiserat in doctrina, sicut dicitur Ioannis decimo sexto[^17]: *Multa habeo vobis dicere, quae non potestis portare modo;* et post: *Cum venerit* etc. Unde sicut supplevit quod deerat de *doctrina* secundum Dei ordinatam dispensationem, ita etiam quod de *institutione* ex causa

<!-- page 592 -->

congrua dimissum erat. Nec sunt duo legislatores Christus et Spiritus eius.

*Ad 2 et 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod per semetipsum; dicendum, quod[^18] ipse immediate loquebatur Moysi, et post Moyses praecipiebat populo sicut nuntius Dei et minister; sic Spiritus sanctus Apostolis, et ipsi ut ministri populis exponebant. Unde Sacramentorum institutionem non attribuimus nisi *Deo* vel per *Filium*, vel per *Spiritum sanctum*. Nec credendum est, quemquam Apostolorum hoc *per se instituisse*, sed totum collegium; sed Iacobus *promulgavit*, sicut sententiam tulit de observantia legalium, Actuum decimo quinto[^19]. — Et per hoc patet sequens, quia, sicut Deus operatur principaliter, et sacerdos ut minister; sic institutio Sacramentorum respicit Deum ut *auctorem*, et Apostolos respicit ut *ministros* in promulgando.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Apostoli ungebant oleo; dicendum, quod ibi non fuit hoc Sacramentum *institutum*, sed *insinuatum*; et hoc patet, quia unctio illa principaliter fiebat ad sanitatem *corporalem*, non ad curationem *spiritualem principaliter*. Unde sicut gratiam sanitatum tunc habebant Apostoli et non potentiam ligandi et absolvendi; sic oleum illud deserviebat sive operabatur ad salutem *corporis*; nunc autem principaliter operatur ad salutem *spiritus*, sicut in ipsa forma[^20] evidenter exprimitur.

---

english:
### Article I. *On the institution of extreme unction.*
### Question II. *Whether this Sacrament was instituted by Christ, or by one of his disciples.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the efficient or instituting cause, and it is asked whether Christ instituted this Sacrament, or one of his disciples. And that *Christ* [did], it seems:

**On the opposite side.**

1. Because it belongs to the lawgiver to institute laws; but all the Sacraments are laws and statutes in the evangelical law: therefore not only this did Christ institute[^1], but indeed all.

2. Likewise, God by his very self instituted all the Sacraments of the old law, by speaking and commanding to Moses — whence at the beginning of every sacramental precept it is said in Leviticus[^2]: *The Lord spoke* etc. — if therefore the evangelical Sacraments are much more worthy, it seems etc.

3. Likewise, «a Sacrament, as was held above in the thirteenth distinction[^3], is that in which the divine power more secretly operates»: if therefore the divine power operates in the Sacraments principally; since to institute a Sacrament is of greater dignity than to operate in a Sacrament, and the operation is from the divine power: therefore also the institution [is].

4. Likewise, in Mark chapter six[^4] it is said that the disciples anointed many sick with oil, and they were healed; but it is agreed that the Apostles were not yet of such authority that they would dare of themselves to institute anything: therefore it seems that the Lord commanded them: therefore it seems that he himself instituted [it].

**On the contrary:**

1. The Master says in the text[^5]: «This Sacrament is read to have been instituted by the Apostles».

2. Likewise, elsewhere we have no mandate concerning this Sacrament except in James chapter five[^6]: therefore it seems to have been instituted there.

3. Likewise, every Sacrament that Christ instituted he himself exhibited in his own person[^7]; but Christ did not exhibit this Sacrament, because he never healed the sick with oil, but by word alone: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every Sacrament that Christ instituted had a figure in the old testament; but this had no figure there, because we never read of the sick being anointed for healing in the old testament: therefore it seems that the institution of this Sacrament did not pertain to Christ.

### Conclusion.

> The opinion is preferred, that extreme unction was instituted by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and promulgated by Saint James.

**I respond:** For the understanding of these matters it must be noted that some have wished to say that all the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, since he himself was the lawgiver. Whence, although it is not expressly read concerning *confirmation* and *extreme unction*, nevertheless it must be believed that he instituted them; and this is in some way intimated concerning *confirmation*, since he laid his hands upon the children, Matthew chapter nineteen[^8]; concerning *extreme unction*, when he sent the disciples to preach, who anointed the sick with oil, and they were healed, as is said in Mark chapter six; there is no doubt that they did this by his mandate. But if the Apostles are said to have *instituted* certain things, this is because they promulgated the institution, as blessed James[^9] [did] for confession and unction. — But nevertheless — since in the Gospel the evangelical law is sufficiently expressed, and the evangelical law contains Christ's *statutes* and *deeds*, and rather *statutes* than *deeds*[^10] — how is it probable that all the Evangelists would thus in silence have passed over such noble Sacraments, if Christ had instituted them, since from these the support of our salvation is drawn? And therefore others say more probably — and the Master seems to hold this, indeed openly says it — that the Holy Spirit instituted this Sacrament through the Apostles, as was said above[^11] concerning the Sacrament of *confirmation*. — And that this *could be so* is manifest, since he himself is the chief teacher, just as also Christ; and it is clear by example: for the Apostles, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, changed for a time the form of baptism instituted and confirmed by Christ[^12]; how much more could they institute what Christ had intimated?

And that it was thus *fitting* is manifest, if the diversity of the Sacraments is considered. For some Sacraments are *common* to the old law and the new, some are *most proper* to the new law, some are of a *middle manner*[^13]. The *common* ones are those which are in some way from the dictate of nature, which, because it always remains the same, those Sacraments ran their course from the beginning, as matrimony and penance, according as it reconciles to *God*; and these indeed the Lord Jesus consummated and confirmed in the new law, he did not abolish[^14]. — Some are *most proper* to the new law, and these are those which signify grace in such a state as properly belongs to the new law; and these are two: confirmation and unction, wherein is signified the grace of the Holy Spirit, according to which one is anointed into a *combatant*, that he may dare to die for Christ, and into a *king*, that he may be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven as into his own. This is proper to the new law; therefore in the old these two Sacraments did not have a fixed figure. And because they signify the grace of the Holy Spirit in a certain abundance; and the Holy Spirit was not abundantly *given* until *Jesus was glorified*, as is said in John chapter seven[^15]: therefore these two Sacraments were *intimated* by Christ, but afterward were *instituted* by the Holy Spirit. — Some are *middle* Sacraments, which in the old law were not present in *truth*, yet were present in *figure* and signification, as *baptism*, the *eucharist*, and *order*. And because Christ *fulfilled the Law*[^16] and voided the figures, these three Sacraments he instituted through his very self. — And thus it is clear how most fittingly the ecclesiastical Sacraments have been established and instituted, so that nothing was done through forgetfulness, but according to the ineffable dispensation of God. — Therefore the reasons proving that the Holy Spirit instituted this Sacrament through the Apostles must be granted.

*To the 1st.* To that, then, which is objected, that this belongs to the lawgiver; it must be said that the Holy Spirit supplied that which the Lord himself had left out in his teaching, as is said in John chapter sixteen[^17]: *I have yet many things to say to you, which you cannot bear now;* and afterward: *When he shall come* etc. Whence, just as he supplied what was lacking of the *teaching* according to God's ordained dispensation, so also [he supplied] what concerning the *institution* had for a fitting cause

been left out. Nor are there two lawgivers, Christ and his Spirit.

*To the 2nd and 3rd.* To that which is objected, that [God instituted] through his very self; it must be said that[^18] he himself spoke immediately to Moses, and afterward Moses commanded the people as a messenger of God and minister; so the Holy Spirit [spoke] to the Apostles, and they as ministers expounded to the peoples. Whence we do not attribute the institution of the Sacraments except to *God*, either through the *Son* or through the *Holy Spirit*. Nor must it be believed that any one of the Apostles *instituted* this *of himself*, but the whole college; but James *promulgated* [it], just as he passed the sentence concerning the observance of the legal precepts, Acts chapter fifteen[^19]. — And through this the following point is clear, that, just as God operates principally, and the priest as minister; so the institution of the Sacraments regards God as *author*, and regards the Apostles as *ministers* in promulgating.

*To the 4th.* To that which is objected, that the Apostles anointed with oil; it must be said that there this Sacrament was not *instituted*, but *intimated*; and this is clear, because that unction was principally done for *bodily* health, not for *spiritual* healing *principally*. Whence, just as the Apostles then had the grace of healings and not the power of binding and loosing; so that oil served or operated for the health of the *body*; but now it operates principally for the health of the *spirit*, as is evidently expressed in the very form[^20].

---

la: Isai. 33, 22: *Dominus legifer noster.*

en: Isaiah 33:22: *The Lord is our lawgiver.*

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: The Master's text, c. 1.

la: Vers. 13.

en: Verse 13.

la: Hic c. 3.

en: Here, c. 3.

la: Vers. 14. — In fine arg. cod. K addit *ab eo.*

en: Verse 14. — At the end of the argument codex K adds *ab eo* (by him).

la: Cfr. supra pag. 440, nota 9.

en: Compare above, p. 440, note 9.

la: Vers. 15. — Seq. locus est Marc. 6, 13.

en: Verse 15. — The following passage is Mark 6:13.

la: Cap. 5, 14. seqq.

la: Ioan. 21, 25: *Sunt autem et alia multa, quae fecit Iesus, quae si scribantur* etc.

en: John 21:25: *But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written* etc.

en: Distinction 7, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 1, and q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.

en: See above, d. 3, p. 1, a. 2, q. 2, reply to 3.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2, ubi haec divisio ab aliis aliter et non bene explicatur, quasi confirmatio et extrema unctio Sacramenta sint aliis perfectiora.

en: Compare above, d. 8, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1, reply to 2, where this division is explained by others otherwise and not well, as though confirmation and extreme unction were Sacraments more perfect than the others.

la: Vide supra d. 22. a. 2. q. 1. et infra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2.

en: See above, d. 22, a. 2, q. 1, and below, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Vers. 39: *Nondum enim erat Spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus.*

en: Verse 39: *For the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.*

la: Matth. 5, 17: *Non veni solvere, sed adimplere.* Mox — post *evacuavit* codd. E (X a secunda manu) supplent *ideo,* plures codd. *et,* cod. K *ideo et.* Inferius verbis *ut nihil* codd. R S T interserunt *ibi.*

en: Matthew 5:17: *I came not to abolish, but to fulfill.* Further on — after *evacuavit* codices E (X by a second hand) supply *ideo,* several codices *et,* codex K *ideo et.* Below, at the words *ut nihil,* codices R S T insert *ibi.*

la: Vers. 12: *Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non* etc. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 13. — Inferius post *Unde sicut* cod. F supplet *Spiritus.* Subinde post *de institutione* a cod. aa suppletur *Sacramentorum,* et post *ex causa* in cod. F additur *tamen.* In fine solut. pro *eius* cod. K *sanctus.*

en: Verse 12: *I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot* etc. — The following passage is ibid. v. 13. — Further on, after *Unde sicut* codex F supplies *Spiritus.* Then after *de institutione* codex aa supplies *Sacramentorum,* and after *ex causa* codex F adds *tamen.* At the end of the solution, for *eius* codex K [reads] *sanctus.*

la: Codd. I K addunt *sicut,* in cod. X secunda manus addidit *sicut Deus.*

en: Codices I K add *sicut*; in codex X a second hand added *sicut Deus.*

la: Vers. 13. seqq. De cessatione legalium cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. 2. — Cod. aa *observatione.*

en: Verse 13 ff. On the cessation of the legal observances compare above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1–2. — Codex aa [reads] *observatione.*

la: De qua infra q. 4. — Superius pro *et non potentiam* non pauci codd. perperam *et ideo potentiam* (cod. Y *potestatem*). — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: On which see below, q. 4. — Above, for *et non potentiam* not a few codices wrongly [read] *et ideo potentiam* (codex Y *potestatem*). — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 64502–64679) corrected against 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p590..592-{L,R}-*`, regenerated with `colcrop.py vol4 <page> 2120` — the default 1880 split truncated the right edge of the left column). Printed pp. 590–592 (pdf 610–612), offset pdf = printed + 20. Read column-by-column, left then right.

**Page-split map (shared pages).**
- **p.590 is shared with a1-q1.** The top of p.590 (both columns) carries q1's body-tail and the **Article I scholion** (Scholion I–III, covering both q1 and q2's topics — Scholion III explicitly treats "Circa 2. quaestionem"). Per the article convention, that combined scholion is anchored in **a1-q1**, so this chunk renders `has_scholion: false` and does not reproduce it. q2 begins mid-page at the centered `QUAESTIO II.` heading. On p.590 the footer runs notes 1–8; **notes 1–2 belong to q1** (note 1 = *secretum fidei* at p.590 top = q1 body; note 2 = *in Psalmo* = q1 body). This chunk claims only **p.590 notes 3–8** (renumbered here [^1]–[^6]).
- **p.591 lies wholly within q2** — footer notes 1–11 all belong here ([^7]–[^17]).
- **p.592 is shared with a1-q3.** q2 ends at the top of the right column (`...in ipsa forma evidenter exprimitur.`); `QUAESTIO III.` (*Quae sit materia extremae unctionis*) begins lower in the left column. On p.592 the footer runs notes 1–9; **notes 1–3 belong to q2** ([^18]–[^20]), **notes 4–9 belong to q3** (note 4 = *dicit Magister* materia; note 5 = *balsami pretiosum*; note 6 = *significatio et sanctificatio*; etc.). This chunk claims only p.592 notes 1–3.

**Apparatus count:** 20 entries (p.590 ×6, p.591 ×11, p.592 ×3).

**No scholion in this chunk** — confirmed. The only scholion on these pages is Article I's combined scholion at the top of p.590, which is q1's (note [^20] itself cross-refers: "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.").

**`[?]` flags:** none. All body text and all 20 footer notes were legible in the 450 dpi bands and cross-checked against the OCR. Marginal editorial side-glosses (*Notandum*, *Genus 1/2/3*, *Fuit congruum*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Ad oppositum primo/Secundo*) were trimmed as Quaracchi marginalia per the corpus convention; the structural labels *Ad oppositum* and *Contra* are retained as bold headings.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt:
Quae sit materia extremae unctionis
What the matter of extreme unction is

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 592 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quae sit materia extremae unctionis.*

Tertio quaeritur de huius Sacramenti materia; et dicit Magister[^1], quod materia huius Sacramenti est «oleum ab episcopo consecratum». Sed primo videtur, quod magis deberet adhiberi *aliud elementum* quam oleum:

1. *Primum*, quia hoc Sacramentum est periclitantium et morti appropinquantium, et hi maxime sunt in articulo necessitatis: ergo talibus maxime de elemento communi provideri debet: si ergo aqua communior est, videtur etc.

2. Item, in confirmatione, in qua datur gratia abundans, non solum est elementum *olei*, sed etiam *balsami*, quod est pretiosum[^2]: ergo videtur, quod in hoc Sacramento, cum introducat hominem in regnum, quod est pretiosissimum praemium; videtur, quod deberet esse balsamum.

Item, videtur, quod non oporteat esse *consecratum*:

3. Quia baptismus et eucharistia, in quibus est magna gratia et efficacia, non indigent materia consecrata alia sanctificatione, quam quae fit in Sacramenti forma: ergo pari ratione nec unctio extrema.

4. Item, ad perfectum esse Sacramenti ista duo sufficiunt, scilicet *significatio* et *sanctificatio*[^3], significatio est per elementum, sanctificatio est per verbum; sed haec duo sunt, si quis inungatur de simplici oleo: ergo videtur, quod sit ibi Sacramentum perfectum.

Item, si oportet Sacramentum unctionis fieri de oleo *consecrato*; quaero: cui competit nomen vel ratio Sacramenti, an *oleo*, an *unctioni*? — Quod *unctioni*, videtur per ipsam denominationem Sacramenti.

5. Sed quod oleo *consecrato*, videtur, quia *oleum* est signum, et *oleum consecratum* «signum est sacrum sacrae rei», quod non tantum habet significationem, sed etiam quoddam genus causalitatis per benedictionem[^4]: ergo videtur, quod habeat in se completam Sacramenti rationem.

6. Item, panis consecratus est Sacramentum, non ipsa manducatio, immo potius est usus[^5]: ergo videtur similiter in proposito, quod oleum consecratum sit Sacramentum, et unctio sit usus: ergo non convenienter nominatur. Quod si non est verum, non videtur hic exigi materia consecrata.

7. Item, videtur, quod nec oporteat esse *consecratam ab episcopo*, quia plus est consecrare sive corpus Domini conficere, ubi est transsubstantiatio, quam oleum, ubi manet eadem usia[^6]; sed simplex sacerdos potest primum: ergo et secundum.

Iuxta hoc est quaestio: quare debet esse oleum; et quare simplex, non mixtum; et quare consecratum ab episcopo; et si illa consecratio faciat, oleum consecratum esse Sacramentum.

<!-- page 593 -->

### Conclusio

> *Extremae unctionis materia est oleum consecratum ab episcopo.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod aliqui dicere voluerunt, quod *materia* in hoc Sacramento est oleum, sed *consecratio* episcopalis superveniens facit esse *Sacramentum*; sed *inunctio* consequens est Sacramenti *usus* sive dispensatio.

Sed quoniam istud repugnat nominationi Sacramenti et etiam communi opinioni; ideo melius dicatur, quod sicut aqua in baptismo est elementum, sic in confirmatione chrisma et in unctione oleum consecratum ab episcopo.

Ratio autem sumi potest a parte *efficientis* sive *instituentis*, et etiam a parte *finis*. A parte *instituentis*: quoniam enim Christus per semetipsum instituit, qui per semetipsum potuit sanctificare, baptismum et eucharistiam; ideo non est alia consecratio praeparans necessaria, sed solum ad solemnitatem facit. Sed hoc Sacramentum Spiritus sanctus instituit per Apostolos, qui non poterant sanctificare nisi per Deum; ideo materia est non simplex elementum, sed oleum per verbum et invocationem sancti Spiritus consecratum, et hoc per verbum episcoporum, qui sunt successores Apostolorum; ut, sicut Spiritus sanctus instituit per Apostolos, sic etiam nunc consecret per episcopos[^7]. — A parte *finis* sumitur ratio: quoniam hic datur gratia sanans languores spirituales, et datur gratia ordinans ad sanitatem perfectam, quae quidem est gloriae; ideo debet significari per *oleum*, quod est curativum, ratione curationis, et per *oleum consecratum*, ratione ordinationis ad supereminentem curationem, et per *oleum simplex*, non mixtum, quia ad ingressum in gloriam requiritur et sufficit bona conscientia[^8]. — His visis, facile est solvere ad obiecta.

1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur de communitate materiae, dicendum, quod istud non est Sacramentum *necessitatis*; et *praeterea*, modicum de elemento sufficit, et hoc potest ubique locorum haberi, et ideo non est periculum aliquod. *Praeterea*, evitatio periculi non debet praeiudicare dignitati et congruitati Sacramenti.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod deberet misceri cum balsamo, sicut in confirmatione; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia in *confirmatione* datur gratia ad pugnandum in vita, per quam oportet ambulare non solum secundum placentiam ad Deum, verum etiam ad *proximum*; sed in unctione datur gratia ad resistendum diabolo, ne possit detinere, et ad hoc non est necessaria *fama*, sed *bona conscientia*; et quia *balsamum* aromatizans significat bonam famam[^9], et *oleum* nitens bonam conscientiam: ideo etc.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eucharistia non indiget alia consecratione; dicendum quod non, est simile tum ex parte *instituentis*, tum ex parte *finis*, ut visum est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in oleo non consecrato, si fiat unctio, est significatio et sanctificatio; dicendum, quod falsum est. Primo enim deficit significatio, quae non tantum exigit *repraesentationem*, sed etiam *institutionem*; sic autem institutum est fieri. Secundo vero deficit sanctificatio, quia non habet verbum efficaciam, nisi habeat competens elementum[^10].

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod oleum consecratum est Sacramentum; dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, non est *Sacramentum*, sed *ad Sacramentum ordinatum*. Et ratio huius est, quia non habet nec perfectam *significationem* nec *sanctificationem*, quousque applicetur infirmo, et superveniat sacerdotalis oratio; tunc enim significatur gratia intus ungens, et tunc est primo praesens[^11], non ante: et ideo non est simile de corpore Domini, ubi in prima sanctificatione fit conversio, et post non additur ulterior sanctificatio, quae novam introducat virtutem.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sacerdotes possunt corpus Domini conficere, et ita oleum consecrare; dicendum, quod non valet: quia tanta est potestas in ministris Ecclesiae, quantam distribuit Dominus membris; nec oportuit, potestatem consecrandi oleum ita communicari sacerdotibus, sicut conficiendi corpus Christi, quia unus episcopus faciliter toti provinciae potest unctionis oleum consecrare; sed non potest quotidie in singulis parochiis Missam cantare, sicut decet, cum ille sit panis quotidianus[^12] et communis omnibus: et sic patet illud.

<!-- page 594 -->

english:
### Question III. *What the matter of extreme unction is.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning the matter of this Sacrament; and the Master says[^1] that the matter of this Sacrament is «oil consecrated by a bishop». But at first it seems that *some other element* rather than oil ought to be employed:

1. *First*, because this Sacrament is [the Sacrament] of those in peril and drawing near to death, and these are most of all in the article of necessity: therefore for such people provision ought most of all to be made from a common element: if therefore water is more common, it seems [it should be used], etc.

2. Likewise, in confirmation, in which abundant grace is given, there is not only the element of *oil*, but also of *balsam*, which is precious[^2]: therefore it seems that in this Sacrament, since it introduces a man into the kingdom, which is a most precious reward, it seems that it ought to be balsam.

Likewise, it seems that it ought not to be *consecrated*:

3. Because baptism and the eucharist, in which there is great grace and efficacy, do not need matter consecrated by another sanctification than that which is done in the form of the Sacrament: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does extreme unction.

4. Likewise, for the perfect being of a Sacrament these two suffice, namely *signification* and *sanctification*[^3]: signification is through the element, sanctification is through the word; but these two are present, if someone is anointed with simple oil: therefore it seems that there is there a perfect Sacrament.

Likewise, if the Sacrament of unction must be made from *consecrated* oil, I ask: to which does the name or account of Sacrament belong, to the *oil* or to the *unction*? — That [it belongs] to the *unction*, seems [to follow] from the very denomination of the Sacrament.

5. But that [it belongs] to the *consecrated* oil, seems [to follow], because *oil* is a sign, and *consecrated oil* is «a sacred sign of a sacred thing», which not only has signification, but also a certain kind of causality through benediction[^4]: therefore it seems that it has in itself the complete account of a Sacrament.

6. Likewise, consecrated bread is the Sacrament, not the eating itself, which rather is the use[^5]: therefore it seems likewise in the case at hand that consecrated oil is the Sacrament, and the unction is the use: therefore it is not fittingly named. But if this is not true, it does not seem that consecrated matter is here required.

7. Likewise, it seems that it need not be *consecrated by a bishop*, because to consecrate — that is, to confect the body of the Lord, where there is transubstantiation — is a greater thing than [to consecrate] oil, where the same substance remains[^6]; but a simple priest can [do] the first: therefore also the second.

Bound up with this is the question: why it must be oil; and why simple, not mixed; and why consecrated by a bishop; and whether that consecration makes the consecrated oil to be the Sacrament.

### Conclusion

> *The matter of extreme unction is oil consecrated by a bishop.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that some have wished to say that the *matter* in this Sacrament is oil, but the episcopal *consecration* supervening makes it to be the *Sacrament*; while the *anointing* that follows is the *use* or dispensation of the Sacrament.

But since this is repugnant to the naming of the Sacrament and also to common opinion, it is therefore better to say that, just as water in baptism is the element, so in confirmation chrism, and in unction oil consecrated by a bishop [is the matter].

Now the reason can be taken from the side of the *efficient* cause, that is, of the *institutor*, and also from the side of the *end*. From the side of the *institutor*: for since Christ instituted baptism and the eucharist through Himself — He who through Himself was able to sanctify — therefore there is no other preparatory consecration necessary, but it only makes for solemnity. But this Sacrament the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, who could not sanctify except through God; therefore the matter is not a simple element, but oil consecrated through the word and invocation of the Holy Spirit, and this through the word of bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles; so that, just as the Holy Spirit instituted through the Apostles, so also now He may consecrate through bishops[^7]. — From the side of the *end* the reason is taken: for here is given grace healing spiritual languors, and grace is given ordering [one] to perfect health, which indeed is [the health] of glory; therefore it ought to be signified through *oil*, which is curative, by reason of the curing, and through *consecrated oil*, by reason of the ordering to a supereminent curing, and through *simple oil*, not mixed, because for entrance into glory a good conscience is required and suffices[^8]. — These things being seen, it is easy to resolve [the objections].

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the commonness of the matter, it must be said that this is not a Sacrament of *necessity*; and *besides*, a small amount of the element suffices, and this can be had everywhere, and therefore there is no danger. *Besides*, the avoidance of danger ought not to prejudice the dignity and fittingness of the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that it ought to be mixed with balsam, as in confirmation: it must be said that it is not similar, because in *confirmation* grace is given for fighting in life, by which one must walk not only according to what is pleasing to God, but also toward one's *neighbor*; whereas in unction grace is given for resisting the devil, lest he be able to detain [the soul], and for this a [good] *reputation* is not necessary, but a *good conscience*; and because aromatic *balsam* signifies a good reputation[^9], and shining *oil* a good conscience: therefore etc.

3. To that which is objected, that the eucharist does not need another consecration: it must be said that it is not similar, both from the side of the *institutor* and from the side of the *end*, as has been seen.

4. To that which is objected, that in unconsecrated oil, if unction be done, there is signification and sanctification: it must be said that this is false. For first signification is lacking, which requires not only *representation*, but also *institution*; but it has been instituted to be done thus. Secondly sanctification is lacking, because the word does not have efficacy unless it have a fitting element[^10].

5. 6. To that which is objected, that consecrated oil is the Sacrament: it must be said that, properly speaking, it is not the *Sacrament*, but *ordered to the Sacrament*. And the reason for this is that it has neither perfect *signification* nor *sanctification*, until it be applied to the sick person, and the priestly prayer supervene; for then is signified the grace inwardly anointing, and then it is first present[^11], not before: and therefore it is not similar to the body of the Lord, where in the first sanctification the conversion takes place, and afterward no further sanctification is added that would introduce a new power.

7. To that which is objected, that priests can confect the body of the Lord, and so consecrate oil: it must be said that it does not hold, because the power in the ministers of the Church is as great as the Lord distributes to the members; nor was it fitting that the power of consecrating oil be communicated to priests in the same way as [the power] of confecting the body of Christ, because one bishop can readily consecrate the oil of unction for a whole province; but he cannot daily sing Mass in the individual parishes, as is fitting, since that [body] is the daily[^12] bread, common to all: and thus that [objection] is clear.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1.

en: Here in the [Master's] text, c. 1.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. et supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 2, ubi etiam de seq. arg.

en: Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2, and above d. 7, a. 1, q. 2, where [there is] also [something] about the following argument.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 4.

en: See above the Master's text, d. 1, c. 4.

la: Duplex definitio Sacramenti supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 2. et 4, proposita in his respicitur. Cfr. etiam ibid. Comment. p. 1. q. 2. ad 5.

en: The twofold definition of a Sacrament set out above [in] the Master's text, d. 1, c. 2 and 4, is what is referred to in these [words]. Cf. also there [in the] Commentary, p. 1, q. 2, reply to 5.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. fundam. 2.

en: See above d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, foundation 2.

la: Graece οὐσία i. e. substantia sive essentia.

en: In Greek οὐσία, that is, substance or essence.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. et d. 7. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro *Sed hoc Sacramentum* codd. communiter legunt *Sed in hoc Sacramento* (plures codd. *Sacramentum*; in cod. A secunda manus substituit nostram lectionem, quae est etiam lectio edd.). Subinde pro *per Deum* codd. RST *per Christum*.

en: Cf. the preceding question and d. 7, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for *Sed hoc Sacramentum* the codices commonly read *Sed in hoc Sacramento* (several codices *Sacramentum*; in codex A a second hand substituted our reading, which is also the reading of the editions). Then, for *per Deum*, codices RST [read] *per Christum*.

la: Quae per oleum significatur, ut insinuatur a Magistro hic in lit. c. 2. — Innocent. III. in C. *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15. § 2.), ait: *Per oleum enim nitor conscientiae designatur, iuxta quod legitur: Prudentes virgines acceperunt oleum in vasis suis cum lampadibus* [Matth. 25, 4.]... De nitore conscientiae dicit Apostolus [II. Cor. 1, 12.]: *Gloria nostra haec est testimonium conscientiae nostrae; nam omnis gloria filiae regis ab intus* [Ps. 44, 14.]. — Mox pro *solvere* codd. RST *respondere*.

en: [The good conscience] which is signified through oil, as is intimated by the Master here in the text, c. 2. — Innocent III, in the [decretal] *Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem* (1), X, on holy unction (bk. I, tit. 15, § 2), says: *For through oil the brightness of conscience is designated, according to what is read: The prudent virgins took oil in their vessels with their lamps* [Matt. 25, 4]... Of the brightness of conscience the Apostle says [II Cor. 1, 12]: *Our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience; for all the glory of the king's daughter is from within* [Ps. 44, 14]. — Presently, for *solvere* codices RST [read] *respondere*.

la: Innocent. III., loc. cit.: *Per balsamum odor bonae famae exprimitur, propter quod dicitur* [Eccli. 24, 20.]: *Sicut balsamum aromatizans odorem dedi.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius post *sed in* codd. RST addunt *extrema*.

en: Innocent III, loc. cit.: *Through balsam the odor of good reputation is expressed, on account of which it is said* [Ecclus. 24, 20]: *Like aromatic balsam I gave forth an odor.* Cf. here the Master's text, c. 2. — Above, after *sed in* codices RST add *extrema*.

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. ad 5.

en: See above d. 1, p. 1, q. 2, reply to 5.

la: Vat. *primo Sacramentum*, et, quae etiam post pauca pro *ulterior* [codd. B H K *interior*] cum ed. exhibet *uberior interior*. Superius pro *ordinatum* codd. G H V aa *ordinatur*. — De ipsa solut. cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *primo Sacramentum*, and, [as] also shortly after, for *ulterior* [codices B H K *interior*] with the edition it exhibits *uberior interior*. Above, for *ordinatum* codices G H V aa [read] *ordinatur*. — On the solution itself cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I.

la: Luc. 11, 3: *Panem nostrum quotidianum* etc.

en: Luke 11, 3: *Our daily bread* etc. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Oleum olivae per episcopum benedictum esse materiam remotam huius Sacramenti, docetur in Decreto pro Armenis toties citato. Controversia autem est, utrum illa benedictio episcopi non tantum sit de necessitate *praecepti*, sed omnino de *essentia* Sacramenti. Certa tamen videtur esse sententia, quod ex *concessione Summi Pontificis* etiam a presbyteris praevia benedictio valide dari possit.

De hac 3. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; Suppl. q. 29. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 2.

**II.** Quoad 4. quaestionem de *forma* praenotandum est, quod ab antiquo diversae formae in hoc Sacramento administrando a diversis Ecclesiis adhibebantur, pleraeque quidem modo tantum *deprecativo* (ut forma nunc in Ecclesia Romana usitata), sed nonnullae modo tantum *indicativo*, aliae partim *indicativo*, partim *deprecativo*. De validitate Sacramenti cum forma tantum *indicativa* (*Inungo te* etc.) administrati controvertitur; *negativae* sententiae favent S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar. (Durandus nihil determinat), *affirmativae* vero B. Albert., Richard. a Med. et recentiores. Omnes autem antiqui opinionem primo loco hic relatam reprobant. B. Albert. testatur de «tota Ecclesia Alemanniae», quod «antiquissimi libri in illis terris habent indicativam orationem pro forma, et postea subiungitur oratio. Et haec sunt verba scripta in libris antiquissimis, quos prae antiquitate vix legere valebam: *Ungo hos oculos oleo sanctificato in nomine* etc.; et postea sequitur: *Per istam sanctissimam unctionem et suam piissimam*» etc. Consentit autem idem communi sententiae, quod forma indicativa non sit de necessitate Sacramenti, sed de *bene esse*, ut dicit. Pro eadem sententia affertur etiam S. Bonav. a Maurinis (nota 912. ad S. Gregorii librum Sacrament., ed. Migne col. 521.); sed cum ibi agatur de *forma mixta*, ex ipsis verbis auctoris (conclusio 2. et ad 3.) concludendum est, eum consentire potius positioni S. Thomae.

De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; Suppl. q. 29. a. 7-9. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 3. n. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That olive oil blessed by a bishop is the remote matter of this Sacrament is taught in the Decree for the Armenians so often cited. But there is a controversy whether that blessing of the bishop is not only of the necessity of the *precept*, but altogether of the *essence* of the Sacrament. Nevertheless it seems to be a certain opinion that, by *concession of the Supreme Pontiff*, a previous blessing can be validly given even by presbyters.

On this 3rd question: S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; Suppl. q. 29, a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 2.

**II.** As to the 4th question, concerning the *form*, it must be premised that from antiquity diverse forms in administering this Sacrament were employed by diverse Churches, most indeed in the merely *deprecative* mode (as the form now customary in the Roman Church), but some in the merely *indicative* mode, others partly *indicative*, partly *deprecative*. Concerning the validity of the Sacrament administered with a merely *indicative* form (*I anoint thee*, etc.) there is dispute; the *negative* opinion is favored by S. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise (Durandus determines nothing), but the *affirmative* by B. Albert, Richard of Mediavilla, and the more recent [authors]. All the ancients, however, reprove the opinion related here in the first place. B. Albert testifies concerning «the whole Church of Germany» that «the most ancient books in those lands have the indicative prayer for the form, and afterward a prayer is subjoined. And these are the words written in the most ancient books, which on account of their antiquity I could scarcely read: *I anoint these eyes with sanctified oil in the name* etc.; and afterward there follows: *Through this most holy unction and His most loving [mercy]*» etc. But the same [author] agrees with the common opinion that the indicative form is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but of its *well-being*, as he says. For the same opinion S. Bonaventure is also adduced by the Maurists (note 912 on S. Gregory's book on the Sacraments, ed. Migne col. 521); but since the matter there treated is of the *mixed form*, from the very words of the author (conclusion 2 and reply to 3) it must be concluded that he agrees rather with the position of S. Thomas.

On the 4th question: S. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4; Suppl. q. 29, a. 7-9. — B. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 3, n. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, raw lines 64680–64881), corrected throughout against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{592,593,594}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, read left column top-to-bottom then right column (per the VOL II/IV OVERRIDE — the PDF column bands are authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions; OCR is the base for clean running prose and marker spacing). Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads confirmed: p. 592 (verso) "592 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 593 (recto) "DIST. XXIII. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 593"; p. 594 (verso) "594 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."

**Title.** The printed heading of this quaestio is descriptive, not an *Utrum* — "QUAESTIO III. *Quae sit materia extremae unctionis*" (the body opens "Tertio quaeritur de huius Sacramenti materia"). The auto-chunker's placeholder `title_la` ("Utrum materia huius Sacramenti sit oleum") was replaced with the printed form. (By contrast, the sibling q4 on p. 594 does carry an *Utrum* title, "Utrum forma verbi sit de essentia Sacramenti".)

**Page-split / shared-footer map.**
- p. 592 (shared with a1-q2): the upper-left of the column is q2's reply-tail ("…congrua dimissum erat… Actuum decimo quinto². — Et per hoc patet sequens…"), carrying p. 592's footer notes **1, 2, 3** — these belong to **a1-q2**, not to this chunk. This quaestio (q3) begins at the "QUAESTIO III" heading and its first marker is *Magister* (p. 592's note **4**). q3 therefore claims p. 592 footer notes **4–9** only (renumbered [^1]–[^6] here). q3 fills the remainder of both columns of p. 592.
- p. 593 (recto): CONCLUSIO, Respondeo, and replies 1–7 in full; footer notes **1–6** all belong to q3 (renumbered [^7]–[^12]). The page-break `<!-- page 593 -->` falls between "Iuxta hoc est quaestio…" (end of p. 592 right column) and the CONCLUSIO (head of p. 593 left column).
- p. 594 (verso): the SCHOLION (printed at the top of the page, before q4's body begins) is a single block covering **q3 (§I) and q4 (§II)**; it is rendered in full here as the last subsection. q4's own body ("QUAESTIO IV. *Utrum forma verbi sit de essentia Sacramenti*", Fundamenta 1–4, Contra 1–3…) begins lower on p. 594 and belongs to **a1-q4** (which renders no scholion). p. 594 carries no footer apparatus for the scholion — its references (Decree for the Armenians, Migne col. 521, the doctor-lists) are inline.

**Marginalia trimmed** (editorial side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text): p. 592 *Ad oppositum primo.*, *Secundo.* (and the outer-margin *Tertio.* / *Quarto.* rubrics beside args 5 and 7); p. 593 the repeated *Notandum.* side-notes beside the replies. Per corpus convention these are omitted from the body.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved cleanly against the bands. One note of low residual uncertainty (not flagged inline): [^11] (p. 593 note 5) is a dense textual note; the reading "cum ed. exhibet *uberior interior*" is taken from the band with a stray glyph after "ed." left unrendered — the sense (Vat./ed. variant *uberior interior* for *ulterior*) is secure.

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. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 594 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum forma verbi sit de essentia Sacramenti.*

Quarto loco quaeritur de forma huius Sacramenti, et quaeritur, utrum forma verbi sit de essentia huius Sacramenti. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Primo* per ritum universalis Ecclesiae, quae ubique locorum unctionem tribuit cum benedictione sacerdotali.

2. Item, probatur per illud Iacobi[^1]: *Inducat presbyteros, et orent pro eo, ungentes eum oleo*: ergo praemittitur oratio ante unctionem, et videtur, quod ita sit de integritate, ut unctio; et hoc probatur per litteram sequentem: *Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum*: ergo efficacia Sacramenti principaliter residet penes verbum orationis.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *per simile* in aliis Sacramentis: quia Sacramenta novae legis sanctificant per verbum, ut dicit Hugo[^2]: ergo pari ratione videtur, quod istud Sacramentum.

4. Item, sicut in aliis necessaria est intentio, et ideo est verbum etiam arctans intentionem[^3]; ita et in hoc necessaria est intentio: ergo pari ratione et verbi exprimentis sive arctantis intentionem prolatio.

**Contra:**

1. Omnia Sacramenta ex fonte sacrae Scripturae ortum habent, quia nullum Sacramentum est in Ecclesia, quin describatur in Scriptura; sed huius Sacramenti forma nusquam describitur, nec ab Evangelista nec ab Apostolo: ergo etc.

2. Item, omnia Sacramenta, quae habent formam, eandem debent habere per totam Ecclesiam catholicam, quia variatio formae est variatio Sacramenti, et Sacramentum non potest esse nisi uniforme, sicut fides et Ecclesia; sed hoc Sacramentum non habet eandem formam. Nam in Ecclesia Gregoriana[^4] est haec forma: « Per istam sanctam unctionem et suam piissimam misericordiam indulgeat tibi Dominus, quidquid oculorum vitio deliquisti »; in Ambrosiana est haec: « Ungo te oleo sanctificato in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ut more militis uncti praeparatus ad certamen, aereas possis superare potestates », vel similis huic. Ergo non videtur, quod aliqua forma sit substantialis.

3. Item, omnes Sacramentorum formae traditae sunt per orationem indicativam; sed forma huius <!-- page 595 -->Sacramenti tradita est per orationem deprecativam[^p595-1]: ergo non videtur convenienter assignata, aut non est forma, quoniam Sacramenta novae legis certitudinaliter ponunt suum effectum: ergo per orationem indicativam debent exprimi, non per deprecativam.

4. Item, secundum beatum Iacobum[^p595-2] oratio fidei est illa quae est necessaria: si ergo oratio est ad Deum, et ad Deum oratur melius gemitu cordis quam voce oris; videtur, quod ad istius Sacramenti perfectionem non oporteat aliquid oretenus exprimi.

Quaeritur igitur, si formam habet, et quae sit forma, et per quem modum.

### Conclusio

> Forma extremae unctionis essentialis est oratio deprecativa.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod istud Sacramentum non habebat[^p595-3] formam verbi essentialem, sed quae solum erat de bene esse; et ideo non fuit expressa nec in Ecclesia invenitur unica sed diversa. — Sed tamen illud non est securum dicere nec secundum textum Scripturae, cum in istius Sacramenti institutione maximam vim videatur Iacobus in oratione constituere et sibi totam efficaciam attribuere, cum dicit: *Oratio fidei salvabit*; non dicit: *unctio*. Oratio autem fidei dicitur non ipsius inungentis, sed ipsius Ecclesiae, in cuius fide administrantur Sacramenta. Sicut ergo in aliis Sacramentis non sufficit corde credere, nisi fiat professio in verbo exteriori[^p595-4]; sic intelligendum est hic, quod non sufficit oratio mentalis sine vocali.

Et ideo forma verbi est de integritate Sacramenti, forma, inquam, verbi, secundum quod est expressiva orationis fidei; et hoc propter talem institutionem istius Sacramenti.

Unde nota, quod est forma verbi, quae exprimit actum et intentionem[^p595-5]; et talis est per modum indicativum et non est de Sacramenti necessitate, sed congruitate; et haec in aliquibus habetur Ecclesiis, sed non in Romana, quae maxime vitat ea quae possunt esse occasio deviandi. Et est forma, quae exprimit orationem; et quoniam oratio est per modum deprecativum, talis forma est deprecativa; et haec est de necessitate Sacramenti huius et habetur in omnibus Ecclesiis, quoniam haec tangitur in institutione huius Sacramenti. Et quoniam non exprimitur verbum determinatum, sed solum oratio fidei; ideo non oportet, quod sit uniformitas in verbo[^p595-6] orationis, sed solum, quod sit in sensu.

Si autem quaeras, quare in isto Sacramento potius est oratio de essentia quam in alio; respondetur, quod ratio principalis est institutio. Si quaeras rationem institutionis; dici potest, quod haec habet rationem congruitatis multiplicem. Prima est ex parte suscipientis, qui propter infirmitatem est destitutus; ideo oratione est relevandus. — Secunda est ex parte modi curandi, qui est per devotionem et elevationem animae ad spiritualia; et quia quod super omnia excitat animam ad hoc est oratio; ideo etc. — Tertia ratio est ex parte morbi, quoniam hic fit remissio peccati, interveniente ministerio sacerdotis; et quoniam in remissione culpae sacerdos non se habet nisi per modum deprecantis — unde et in absolutione sua utitur oratione deprecativa, ut in praecedentibus[^p595-7] habitum est — hinc est, quod optime institutum fuit; unctionem non fieri sine oratione, cuius expressio est forma Sacramenti, ut ostendunt rationes. — His visis, facile est respondere ad obiecta.

1. Ad illud enim quod obiicitur, quod non habet ortum ex fonte sacrae Scripturae; dicendum, quod falsum est, ut patet; immo ab illo verbo beati Iacobi: *Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est eadem forma; dicendum, quod secundum id quod est necessarium et essentiale Sacramento, eandem oportet esse; sed forma verbi non est necessaria ratione vocis exterioris, sed prout est expressiva verbi interioris[^p595-8].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de oratione indicativa, dicendum, quod non est simile de hoc Sacramento et de aliis, pro eo quod illud habet aliquam specialem orationem, quam non habuit[^p595-9] aliud, ut visum est.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod melius oratur gemitu cordis; dicendum, quod in Sacramentis, quia sunt signa exteriora, non tantum consideratur quod est interius, sed etiam signum exterius, ratione cuius habent rationem Sacramenti; et sic patet totum. Quamvis enim aliquis crederet Trinitatem, nisi exprimeretur in baptizando, non daret Sacramentum[^p595-10]. Sic in proposito est intelligendum.

---

english:
<!-- page 594 -->

### Question IV. *Whether the form of the word belongs to the essence of the Sacrament.*

In the fourth place inquiry is made concerning the form of this Sacrament, and it is asked whether the form of the word belongs to the essence of this Sacrament. And that it does, seems [to be shown]:

1. *First*, by the rite of the universal Church, which everywhere confers the anointing together with a priestly blessing.

2. Likewise, it is proved by that [text] of James[^1]: *Let him bring in the presbyters, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil*: therefore a prayer is set before the anointing, and it seems that it belongs to the integrity [of the Sacrament] just as the anointing does; and this is proved by the following text: *The prayer of faith shall save the sick man*: therefore the efficacy of the Sacrament resides principally in the word of the prayer.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to hold] *by a parallel* in the other Sacraments: for the Sacraments of the new law sanctify through the word, as Hugh says[^2]: therefore by like reasoning it seems that this Sacrament [does so too].

4. Likewise, just as in the others an intention is necessary, and therefore there is also a word restricting the intention[^3]; so too in this one an intention is necessary: therefore by like reasoning [there is required] also the utterance of a word expressing or restricting the intention.

**On the contrary:**

1. All the Sacraments take their origin from the fount of sacred Scripture, because there is no Sacrament in the Church that is not described in Scripture; but the form of this Sacrament is nowhere described, neither by the Evangelist nor by the Apostle: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, all the Sacraments that have a form ought to have the same [form] throughout the whole catholic Church, because a variation of the form is a variation of the Sacrament, and a Sacrament cannot be otherwise than uniform, just as faith and the Church [are]; but this Sacrament does not have the same form. For in the Gregorian Church[^4] this is the form: « Through this holy anointing and His most merciful mercy may the Lord forgive you whatever you have done amiss by the fault of the eyes »; in the Ambrosian [Church] this is [the form]: « I anoint you with sanctified oil in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that, prepared after the manner of an anointed soldier for the contest, you may be able to overcome the aerial powers », or one similar to this. Therefore it does not seem that any form is substantial.

3. Likewise, all the forms of the Sacraments have been handed down through an indicative utterance; but the form of this <!-- page 595 -->Sacrament has been handed down through a deprecative prayer[^p595-1]: therefore either it does not seem suitably assigned, or it is not a form, since the Sacraments of the new law posit their effect with certainty: therefore they ought to be expressed through an indicative utterance, not through a deprecative one.

4. Likewise, according to blessed James[^p595-2] it is the prayer of faith that is necessary: if therefore prayer is [directed] to God, and God is better prayed to by the groaning of the heart than by the voice of the mouth; it seems that for the perfection of this Sacrament it is not necessary that anything be expressed orally.

It is asked, therefore, whether it has a form, and what the form is, and in what mode.

### Conclusion

> The essential form of extreme unction is a deprecative prayer.

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to say that this Sacrament did not have[^p595-3] an essential form of the word, but [only] one that was for its well-being; and therefore it was not expressed, nor is it found single in the Church, but various. — But nevertheless it is not safe to say this, nor [is it] according to the text of Scripture, since in the institution of this Sacrament James seems to place the greatest force in the prayer and to attribute the whole efficacy to it, when he says: *The prayer of faith shall save*; he does not say: *the anointing*. But the prayer of faith is said [to be] not that of the anointer himself, but that of the Church herself, in whose faith the Sacraments are administered. Just as, therefore, in the other Sacraments it does not suffice to believe with the heart, unless a profession be made in the outward word[^p595-4]; so it must be understood here, that a mental prayer without a vocal one does not suffice.

And therefore the form of the word belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament — the form, I say, of the word, insofar as it is expressive of the prayer of faith; and this on account of such an institution of this Sacrament.

Hence note that there is a form of the word which expresses the act and the intention[^p595-5]; and such a [form] is by way of the indicative and is not of the necessity of the Sacrament, but of its congruity; and this is had in some Churches, but not in the Roman [Church], which especially avoids those things that can be an occasion of deviating. And there is a form which expresses the prayer; and since the prayer is by way of deprecation, such a form is deprecative; and this belongs to the necessity of this Sacrament and is had in all the Churches, since it is touched upon in the institution of this Sacrament. And since a determinate word is not expressed, but only the prayer of faith; therefore it is not necessary that there be uniformity in the word[^p595-6] of the prayer, but only that there be [uniformity] in the sense.

But if you ask why in this Sacrament the prayer belongs to the essence rather than in another; the answer is that the principal reason is the institution. If you ask the reason of the institution; it can be said that this has a manifold ground of congruity. The first is on the part of the recipient, who because of his infirmity is destitute; therefore he is to be relieved by prayer. — The second is on the part of the manner of curing, which is through devotion and the elevation of the soul to spiritual things; and because that which above all things excites the soul to this is prayer; therefore etc. — The third reason is on the part of the disease, since here the remission of sin takes place, the ministry of the priest intervening; and since in the remission of guilt the priest bears himself only in the manner of one who prays deprecatingly — whence also in his absolution he uses a deprecative prayer, as has been treated in the preceding[^p595-7] — hence it is that it was most excellently instituted, that the anointing not take place without a prayer, whose expression is the form of the Sacrament, as the reasons show. — These things having been seen, it is easy to reply to the objections.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that it does not take its origin from the fount of sacred Scripture; it must be said that this is false, as is evident; indeed [it takes its origin] from that word of blessed James: *The prayer of faith shall save the sick man*.

2. To that which is objected, that the form is not the same; it must be said that, according to that which is necessary and essential to the Sacrament, it must be the same; but the form of the word is not necessary by reason of the outward voice, but insofar as it is expressive of the inward word[^p595-8].

3. To that which is objected concerning the indicative prayer, it must be said that it is not the same with this Sacrament and with the others, because this one has a certain special prayer which no other had[^p595-9], as has been seen.

4. To that which is objected, that one prays better by the groaning of the heart; it must be said that in the Sacraments, because they are outward signs, not only is that which is inward considered, but also the outward sign, by reason of which they have the character of a Sacrament; and thus the whole is clear. For although someone were to believe the Trinity, unless it were expressed in baptizing, he would not confer the Sacrament[^p595-10]. So it must be understood in the case at hand.

---

la: Cap. 5, 14: *Inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et orent super eum, ungentes* etc. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 15. — Inferius pro *et videtur* codd. F I K *videtur ergo*, et pro *ita* cod. F *oratio*, edd. cum aliquot codd. *illa*.

en: Chapter 5, 14: *Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him* etc. — The following passage is in the same place, v. 15. — Below, for *et videtur* codices F I K [read] *videtur ergo*, and for *ita* codex F [reads] *oratio*, the editions with some codices *illa*.

la: Libr. 1. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2, ubi docet, Sacramentum praeter significationem et institutionem habere ex appositi verbi vel signi benedictione sanctificationem et efficax esse ad eandem sanctificandis conferendam; accedit enim verbum sanctificationis ad elementum et fit Sacramentum (cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1. verbum *August.*). — Cod. F *Augustinus*. Idem cod. F cum codd. H I K post *quia* addit *alia*.

en: Book 1, On the Sacraments, part IX, ch. 2, where he teaches that the Sacrament, besides its signification and institution, has sanctification from the blessing of the added word or sign, and is efficacious for conferring that same [sanctification] on those to be sanctified; for the word of sanctification is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament (cf. above, the Master's text, d. III, ch. 1, the word *August.* [Augustine]). — Codex F [reads] *Augustinus*. The same codex F, with codices H I K, after *quia* adds *alia*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: As was shown above, d. 6, part II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide in Appendice operum Gregorii librum X. Roman. ordin. n. 33, ubi pro *indulgeat* ponitur *parcat*. Cfr. tamen Liber Sacramentorum, n. 903. seqq. (ubi alia formula exhibetur) et Notae (n. 903. seqq.), quas Hugo Menardus praenotato libro adiecit, in quibus (n. 912.) refertur inter alias formulas Ambrosiana inferius allegata.

en: See in the Appendix of the works of Gregory, book X of the Roman Ordinal, n. 33, where for *indulgeat* is put *parcat*. Compare, however, the Liber Sacramentorum, n. 903 ff. (where another formula is exhibited) and the Notes (n. 903 ff.), which Hugo Menard appended to the aforementioned book, in which (n. 912) is reported, among other formulas, the Ambrosian one cited below.

la: Vat. omittit verba *indicativam* usque ad *deprecativam*. Inferius post *exprimi* codd. N aa addunt *potius*.

en: The Vatican [edition] omits the words from *indicativam* to *deprecativam*. Below, after *exprimi*, codices N aa add *potius*.

la: Cap. 5, 15. — De oratione eiusque definitione cfr. supra pag. 368, nota 3.

en: Chapter 5, 15. — On prayer and its definition, cf. above, page 368, note 3.

la: Cod. A *habeat*.

en: Codex A [reads] *habeat*.

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius post *salvabit* cod. E supplet *infirmum*.

en: See above, d. 3, part I, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, after *salvabit*, codex E supplies *infirmum*.

la: Codd. F I K N aa (A primitus) addunt *verbi*, codd. E U S T W Z et ed. I *Iacobi*. Mox post *Sacramenti* in cod. T (X a secunda manu) additur *huius*.

en: Codices F I K N aa (A originally) add *verbi*; codices E U S T W Z and edition I, *Iacobi*. Soon after, following *Sacramenti*, in codex T (X by a second hand) *huius* is added.

la: Codd. I K *forma*.

en: Codices I K [read] *forma*.

en: Distinction 18, part I, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 8, part II, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Cod. E *habet*, edd. *habent alia*.

en: Codex E [reads] *habet*, the editions *habent alia*.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: As was shown above, d. 3, part I, a. 2, q. 2. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 64882–65058), corrected line-by-line against the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p59{4,5}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` per the VOL II OVERRIDE (two-column cascade-shattered OCR; the PDF bands are authoritative for the Respondeo, the replies, and both footer blocks). Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 594–596 = pdf 614–616). Column reading order: entire left column top→bottom, then entire right column, per page.

**No scholion in this chunk (`has_scholion: false`).** The upper portion of printed **p.594** physically carries Article I's *second* SCHOLION (its header is legible in band `vol4-p594-R-0.png`). That is the shared Art. I scholion covering **q3 + q4**: part I treats the materia remota (Decretum pro Armenis), part II opens "*Quoad 4. quaestionem de forma praenotandum est…*", and it closes with the doctrinal register "*De 3. quaestione…*" and "*De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4…*". Although part II discusses **this** q4, the whole block is assigned to **a1-q3** (per the chunk brief, and confirmed by [^p595-10] "*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*"), and it lies **above** this chunk's raw range (which begins at `QUAESTIO IV.` L64882). It is therefore intentionally **not** transcribed here and must be captured in `bon-sent-IV-d23-a1-q3.md`.

**Shared page p.594 (with a1-q3).** p.594 top columns = the a1-q3/q4 scholion (a1-q3's); p.594 lower columns = this q4's opening — the QUAESTIO IV title (centered below the scholion), then Fundamenta 1–4 in the left column and Contra 1–2 plus the start of Contra 3 in the right column.

**Per-page apparatus split.** 14 footnotes total, all claimed by this chunk: **p.594 → notes 1–4** (Iacobi/James; Hugh, De Sacramentis; the *arctans intentionem* cross-reference; the Ecclesia Gregoriana / Ambrosiana formulae); **p.595 → notes 1–10** (labeled `p595-1…10`). p.594's footer block spans both columns (notes 1–2 begin in the left footer column and run into the right; notes 3–4 in the right footer column). p.595's footer block likewise spans columns (notes 1–5 left, note 5 running into the right; notes 6–10 right). **p.596 carries no footer notes for this question** — the page opens with the running head, and ARTICULUS II begins there.

**Page break inside Contra 3.** The 594→595 boundary falls mid-sentence in the third *contra* argument ("*…sed forma huius* | *Sacramenti tradita est…*"); the `<!-- page 595 -->` marker is placed at that exact splice in both Latin and English.

**Elliptical Fundamentum 3.** "*…ergo pari ratione videtur, quod istud Sacramentum.*" ends abruptly in the printed text (band `vol4-p594-L-1.png` and the OCR agree); the predicate (*sanctificet per verbum*) is left implicit by Bonaventure. Rendered as printed; not flagged.

**Minor codex-siglum uncertainty (does not affect the reading).** In [^p595-5] the siglum after *E* reads *U* in the IA OCR but resembles *R* in band `vol4-p595-L-2.png`; in [^p595-6] the second siglum reads *K* in the band but *R* in the OCR. Both are codex sigla inside variant lists and do not change the sense; the band readings (…E U S T W Z; Codd. I K) are followed. No inline `[?]` placed.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


title: Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 596 -->

> Notae numeratae infra respondent signis in corpore latino superiore atque in versione anglica; numeratio Quaracchi in singulis paginis impressis a novo incipit, hic autem in seriem unam (1–14) redacta est.

### Articulus II. *De dispensatione huius Sacramenti.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaestionis quaeritur de huius Sacramenti dispensatione. Et circa hoc quatuor quaeruntur. Primo quaeritur, quis debeat administrare hoc Sacramentum. Secundo, cui debeat dispensari. Tertio, in quo membro sive loco. Quarto et ultimo, quoties.

### Quaestio I. *Quis debeat administrare hoc Sacramentum.*

Circa primum proceditur sic. Videtur, quod huius Sacramenti administratio solis episcopis competat:

1. *Primo per simile.* Sacramentum confirmationis, quod habet materiam consecratam, a solis episcopis traditur[^1]: ergo pari ratione et Sacramentum istud.

2. Item, in *moralibus* nobilioris artificis est uti instrumento facto quam ipsum facere — unde nobilior est miles, qui utitur ense, quam faber, qui facit — ergo si episcopus solus oleum consecrat[^2], videtur, quod ipse solus hoc oleo inungere debeat.

3. Item, in *naturalibus* videmus, quod eadem vis, quae praeparat materiam, inducit formam, et hoc spectat ad rectum ordinem operandi[^3]: si ergo gratia et virtus conformis est naturae; cum episcopus materiam praeparet, videtur, quod ipse solus Sacramentum consummet; et hoc est in ipsa unctione: ergo etc.

**Sed contra** ostenditur, quod extendat se ad *omnes*:

4. Quia verbum et elementum constituunt Sacramentum[^4]; sed oleum consecratum *potest* administrari per simplicem laicum, et verbum dici: ergo et Sacramentum administrari.

5. Item, quod ita *debeat esse*, videtur: quia illud est Sacramentum eorum qui sunt in extremo mortis articulo; sed talibus frequenter non potest subveniri per sacerdotem: ergo videtur, quod saltem per laicum eis subveniri possit.

6. Item, hoc ostenditur *exemplo*, quia legitur in legenda sanctae Genovefae[^5], quod ipsa inungebat oleo infirmos et curabat eos: ergo videtur, quod hoc saltem spectet ad viros sanctos.

> **Conclusio.** *Extremae unctionis minister est sacerdos, tum ratione materiae, quae est oleum consecratum, quod contingi non debet nisi manibus consecratis, tum ratione formae, quae est per modum orandi, quod est officium sacerdotum.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod huius Sacramenti dispensatio ex officio spectat ad *sacerdotes*; et istud confirmat *auctoritas* et *ratio*: auctoritas, quia Iacobi ultimo[^6] dicitur: *Inducat presbyteros, et orent super eum*; ratio, quia, cum huius Sacramenti *materia* sit oleum consecratum, non debet administrari nec contingi nisi ab eo qui habet manus consecratas; et talis est sacerdos: ideo non se extendit ad *omnes*. — Nec ad solos *episcopos*: quia, cum hoc sit Sacramentum periclitantium, qui non possunt adire praelatos, sed magis e converso, oporteret, multos perire, si a solis episcopis dari deberet. Ideo disposuit Spiritus sanctus, quod *unguentum* non solum esset *in capite*, vel *in barba Aaron*, sed etiam *descenderet usque in oram vestimenti*[^7], scilicet usque ad inferiores sacerdotes. — Nec solum sumitur ratio a parte *unctionis*, verum etiam a parte *orationis*. Quoniam enim officium mediationis
<!-- page 597 -->
sacerdotibus competit; sicut competit offerre dona et sacrificia pro peccatis[^8] nec solis episcopis nec etiam laicis; sic etiam dispensatio huius Sacramenti, cuius efficacia principaliter consistit in oratione fidei, cuius est sacerdos minister de ratione sui officii.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de confirmatione, dicendum, quod nullo modo est simile: primum, quia confirmandi possunt adire episcopum, non sic inungendi. Praeterea, manuum impositio solis Apostolis competebat, sed infirmorum curatio usque ad alios discipulos descendebat; et Sacramentum confirmationis est Sacramentum impositionis manuum, Sacramentum unctionis est ad curationem ordinatum[^9].

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in moralibus nobilius est uti instrumento etc.; dicendum, quod illud veritatem[^10] habet ut plurimum in moralibus. Et ratio huius est, quoniam gradus dignitatis est in eis secundum ordinationem ad *finem*, et utens instrumento immediatior est fini quam fabricans; sed in his operibus Ecclesiae est gradus secundum comparationem ad *primum principium*, ex quo fluit totum regimen et operatio in corpore Ecclesiae: et ideo virtus prior est superior. Unde superior est episcopus, qui ordinat sacerdotem ad celebrandum, quam ipse sacerdos, qui celebrat; sic in proposito est intelligendum. *Praeterea*, non est tantae servitutis oleum consecrare, sicut infirmos inungere; primum enim sufficienter potuit fieri ab uno, secundum vero minime: ideo magis voluit Spiritus sanctus secundum communicari quam primum.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eiusdem est formam inducere, cuius est materiam praeparare; dicendum, quod verum est de forma, quae perficit illam praeparationem; sicut faber fabricando ferrum[^11] inducit formam ensis, sic episcopus, quando benedicit, inducit consecrationem; sed propter hoc non oportet, quod illo oleo utatur, sicut nec faber ense.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod verbum et elementum faciunt Sacramentum; dicendum, quod verum est in aliquibus Sacramentis, quorum dispensatio omnibus est commissa; sed non est verum in omnibus, ut in eucharistia; et sic intelligendum de unctione extrema[^12].

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de extremo mortis articulo, dicendum, quod devotio potest supplere absentiam sacerdotis; et ideo non est necesse omnibus committi, maxime cum sacerdos satis de facili possit adesse, nisi absit[^13] propter negligentiam infirmi.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de sancta Genovefa, dicendum, quod, sicut supra[^14] habitum est, quod quidam absolvunt *merito*, quidam ex *officio*; sic intelligendum est in proposito. Unde sicut ad solos sacerdotes pertinet absolvere, tamen viri sancti frequenter impetrant vitae merito quod alii faciunt ex officio; sic in unctione intelligendum est.

english:
<!-- page 596 -->

### Article II. *On the dispensing of this Sacrament.*

Next, with regard to the second article of the question, inquiry is made concerning the dispensing of this Sacrament. And concerning this, four things are asked. First it is asked, who ought to administer this Sacrament. Second, to whom it ought to be dispensed. Third, in what member or place. Fourth and last, how often.

### Question I. *Who ought to administer this Sacrament.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus. It seems that the administration of this Sacrament belongs to bishops alone:

1. *First, by a similitude.* The Sacrament of confirmation, which has consecrated matter, is conferred by bishops alone[^1]: therefore by parity of reasoning also this Sacrament.

2. Likewise, in *moral matters* it belongs to the nobler craftsman to use the finished instrument rather than to make it — whence the soldier who uses the sword is nobler than the smith who makes it — therefore if the bishop alone consecrates the oil[^2], it seems that he alone ought to anoint with this oil.

3. Likewise, in *natural things* we see that the same power which prepares the matter induces the form, and this pertains to the right order of operating[^3]: if therefore grace and power are conformed to nature; since the bishop prepares the matter, it seems that he alone should complete the Sacrament; and this is in the anointing itself: therefore etc.

**But on the contrary** it is shown that it extends to *all*:

4. Because word and element constitute the Sacrament[^4]; but consecrated oil *can* be administered by a simple layman, and the word can be spoken: therefore the Sacrament also can be administered.

5. Likewise, that it *ought to be* so seems [true]: because it is the Sacrament of those who are in the extreme article of death; but such persons frequently cannot be assisted by a priest: therefore it seems that at least by a layman they may be assisted.

6. Likewise, this is shown by an *example*, because it is read in the legend of St. Genevieve[^5] that she anointed the sick with oil and cured them: therefore it seems that this at least pertains to holy men.

> **Conclusion.** *The minister of extreme unction is the priest, both by reason of the matter, which is consecrated oil, which ought not to be touched except by consecrated hands, and by reason of the form, which is by way of praying, which is the office of priests.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the dispensing of this Sacrament by office pertains to *priests*; and this both *authority* and *reason* confirm: authority, because in the last [chapter] of James[^6] it is said: *Let him bring in the presbyters, and let them pray over him*; reason, because, since the *matter* of this Sacrament is consecrated oil, it ought not to be administered nor touched except by one who has consecrated hands; and such is the priest: therefore it does not extend to *all*. — Nor to *bishops* alone: because, since this is the Sacrament of those in peril, who cannot approach prelates, but rather the reverse, it would be necessary that many should perish, if it had to be given by bishops alone. Therefore the Holy Spirit disposed that the *ointment* should be not only *on the head*, or *on the beard of Aaron*, but should also *run down to the hem of the garment*[^7], namely down to the lower priests. — Nor is the reason taken only from the side of the *anointing*, but also from the side of the *prayer*. For since the office of mediation
<!-- page 597 -->
belongs to priests; just as it belongs [to them] to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins[^8] neither to bishops alone nor also to laymen; so also the dispensing of this Sacrament, whose efficacy consists principally in the prayer of faith, of which the priest is minister by reason of his office.

*To the first,* then, that which is objected concerning confirmation: it must be said that it is in no way similar: first, because those to be confirmed can approach a bishop, but not so those to be anointed. Moreover, the imposition of hands belonged to the Apostles alone, but the curing of the sick descended even to the other disciples; and the Sacrament of confirmation is the Sacrament of the imposition of hands, [while] the Sacrament of unction is ordained to healing[^9].

*To the second,* that which is objected, that in moral matters it is nobler to use the instrument, etc.: it must be said that this holds true for the most part in moral matters[^10]. And the reason for this is that the degree of dignity in them is according to ordination to the *end*, and the one using the instrument is nearer to the end than the one making it; but in these works of the Church there is a degree according to comparison to the *first principle*, from which flows the whole governance and operation in the body of the Church: and therefore the prior power is superior. Whence the bishop, who ordains the priest to celebrate, is superior to the priest himself, who celebrates; so it must be understood in the matter at hand. *Moreover*, it is not of such [great] servitude to consecrate oil as to anoint the sick; for the first could sufficiently be done by one, but the second by no means: therefore the Holy Spirit rather willed the second to be shared than the first.

*To the third,* that which is objected, that it belongs to the same [agent] to induce the form whose it is to prepare the matter: it must be said that this is true of the form which perfects that preparation; just as the smith by forging the iron[^11] induces the form of the sword, so the bishop, when he blesses, induces the consecration; but on account of this it is not necessary that he use that oil, just as neither [does] the smith [use] the sword.

*To the fourth,* that which is objected, that word and element make the Sacrament: it must be said that this is true in some Sacraments, whose dispensing is committed to all; but it is not true in all, as in the Eucharist; and so it is to be understood of extreme unction[^12].

*To the fifth,* that which is objected concerning the extreme article of death: it must be said that devotion can supply the absence of a priest; and therefore it is not necessary that it be committed to all, especially since a priest can readily enough be present, unless he be absent[^13] through the negligence of the sick person.

*To the sixth,* that which is objected concerning St. Genevieve: it must be said that, as was held above[^14], some absolve by *merit*, some by *office*; so it is to be understood in the matter at hand. Whence just as it belongs to priests alone to absolve, yet holy men frequently obtain by the merit of [their] life what others do by office; so it is to be understood in unction.

la: De quo supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 3.

en: On which, see above, d. 7, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Superius pro *in moralibus* (sensu largiore accipiendum) Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *in artificialibus*. Idem recurrit infra in solut. huius obiect.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Above, for *in moral matters* (to be taken in the broader sense), the Vatican edition with one or two codices [reads] *in artificial matters*. The same recurs below in the solution of this objection.

la: Quem tollit Avicenna supra pag. 42, nota 4. allegatus. — Superius post *formam* codd. N aa subiiciunt exemplum *sicut patet de igne, qui praeparat et inducit igneitatem*. Circa finem arg. pro *consummet*, quod habent codd. G N Y aa, alii codd. *confirmet*, edd. *conferat*.

en: Which Avicenna, cited above p. 42, note 4, removes. — Above, after *form*, codices N and aa append the example *as is evident in the case of fire, which prepares [the matter] and induces fieriness*. Near the end of the argument, for *consummet* (which codices G N Y aa have), other codices [read] *confirmet*, the editions *conferat*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 594, nota 2.

en: Cf. above, p. 594, note 2.

la: Bolland., Act. Sanctor. in prima vita S. Genovefae (3. Ian.) ex veteribus mss. c. 10. n. 51.: *Aegros vero iugiter, oleo sacro delibutos, sospites reddebat*. Cfr. ibid. n. 48. (idem narratur in secunda vita c. 10. n. 38.) et c. 9. n. 45.

en: Bolland., Acts of the Saints, in the first life of St. Genevieve (Jan. 3), from ancient manuscripts, c. 10, n. 51: *She continually restored the sick to health, having anointed them with holy oil*. Cf. ibid. n. 48 (the same is narrated in the second life, c. 10, n. 38) and c. 9, n. 45.

la: Vers. 14: *Inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae* etc.

en: Verse 14: *Let him bring in the presbyters of the Church*, etc.

la: Psalm. 132, 2: *Sicut unguentum in capite, quod descendit in barbam, barbam Aaron, quod descendit in oram vestimenti eius*.

en: Psalm 132:2: *Like the ointment upon the head, which ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron, which ran down to the hem of his garment*.

la: Hebr. 5, 1: *Ut offerat dona et* etc. — Pro *mediationis* cod. G *mediatoris*.

en: Heb. 5:1: *That he may offer gifts and* etc. — For *of mediation* codex G [reads] *of the mediator*.

la: Cod. aa addit *et ideo, quia sacerdotes gerunt typum 72 discipulorum, ideo* etc.

en: Codex aa adds *and therefore, because priests bear the type of the 72 disciples, therefore* etc.

la: Plurimi codd. et ed. 1 *necessitatem*.

en: Very many codices and edition 1 [read] *necessitatem* [in place of *veritatem*].

la: Codd. F L M U X *in ferrum*.

en: Codices F L M U X [read] *in ferrum* [into the iron].

en: Cf. above, a. 1, q. 3, to [replies] 5, 6. [OCR/band reads "ad 56"; a. 1 q. 3 would not have 56 objections, so read as "ad 5. 6." — see Notes.]

la: Fere omnes codd. *sit*, cod. bb *fit*.

en: Nearly all codices [read] *sit*, codex bb *fit*.

la: Dist. 17. p. III. dub. I. Cfr. ibid. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Dist. 17, p. III, dub. I. Cf. ibid., a. 1, q. 1. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIV. de extr. unct. c. 3.) docet, «proprios huius Sacramenti ministros esse Ecclesiae presbyteros, quo nomine eo loco [Iacobi] non aetate seniores aut primores in populo intelligendi veniunt, sed aut episcopi, aut sacerdotes ab ipsis rite ordinati per impositionem manuum presbyterii»; et can. 4. contrarius error Lutheri et Calvini condemnatur.
De eadem quaestione: S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Suppl. q. 31. a. 1-3. — B. Albert. rem tangit hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3.

**II.** De 2. quaestione est observandum, apud Graecos invaluisse usum, vel abusum etiam sanos eodem oleo, et adhibitis iisdem verbis, inungendi; quod cum usu et doctrina Ecclesiae Latinae non potest facile componi. Concil. Florent. (Decret. pro Armenis) dicit: «Hoc Sacramentum nisi infirmo, de *cuius morte timetur*, dari non debet». A Tridentino (cap. cit.) vero non ita stricte declaratur, «hanc unctionem infirmis adhibendam, illis vero *praesertim*, qui tam periculose decumbunt, ut in exitu mortis constituti videantur; unde et *Sacramentum exeuntium* nuncupatur»; quae verba, ut videtur, ideo sic mitigata sunt, ut non directe censurent usum Graecorum.
De 2. quaestione: S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-4; Suppl. q. 32. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., hic a. 9-11. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3. 4. — Durand., hic q. 4.

**III.** Quaestio 3. agit de partibus corporis inungendis, inter quas praeter quinque sensus etiam pedes et lumbi a cit. Decreto pro Armenis recensentur. Sed unctio ultimae partis in feminis semper omittenda est, et iuxta ritualia et praxim multarum dioecesium etiam in viris plerumque omittitur.
De 3. quaestione: S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3; Suppl. q. 32. a. 5-7. — B. Albert., hic a. 15. 16. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 5.

**IV.** Circa 4. quaestionem communis sententia et praxis media via incedit inter duo extrema, reprobando scilicet tum errorem paucorum doctorum saeculi XII. asserentium, hanc unctionem, utpote *extremam*, absolute non posse iterari, tum Graecorum usum in *eadem* infirmitate ipsam iterandi.
De 4. quaestione: S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 20. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, on extreme unction, c. 3) teaches that "the proper ministers of this Sacrament are the presbyters of the Church, by which name in that place [of James] there are to be understood not the elder in age or the leading men among the people, but either bishops, or priests rightly ordained by them through the imposition of the hands of the presbyterate"; and by can. 4 the contrary error of Luther and Calvin is condemned.
On the same question: St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Suppl. q. 31, a. 1-3. — Bl. Albert touches the matter here, a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 2, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 3.

**II.** On the 2nd question it must be observed that among the Greeks there prevailed a usage, or rather an abuse, of anointing even the healthy with the same oil, and with the same words applied; which cannot easily be reconciled with the usage and doctrine of the Latin Church. The Council of Florence (Decree for the Armenians) says: "This Sacrament ought not to be given except to a sick person of *whose death there is fear*." By the Council of Trent (chap. cit.), however, it is declared not so strictly: "this unction is to be applied to the sick, but *especially* to those who lie so dangerously ill that they seem set at the point of death; whence it is also called the *Sacrament of the departing*"; which words, as it seems, were for this reason so softened, that they might not directly censure the usage of the Greeks.
On the 2nd question: St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 2, quaestiunc. 1-4; Suppl. q. 32, a. 1-4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 9-11. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., q. 3, 4. — Durandus, here q. 4.

**III.** Question 3 treats of the parts of the body to be anointed, among which, besides the five senses, also the feet and loins are enumerated by the cited Decree for the Armenians. But the anointing of the last part is always to be omitted in women, and according to the rituals and practice of many dioceses it is for the most part omitted also in men.
On the 3rd question: St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 3; Suppl. q. 32, a. 5-7. — Bl. Albert, here a. 15, 16. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., q. 5.

**IV.** Concerning the 4th question the common opinion and practice goes by a middle way between two extremes, reprobating namely both the error of a few doctors of the 12th century asserting that this unction, as being *extreme*, absolutely cannot be repeated, and the usage of the Greeks of repeating it in the *same* illness.
On the 4th question: St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4. — Bl. Albert, here a. 20. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit., a. 4. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit., q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 65059–65267), verified column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p596..597-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, regenerated with column split x=2120 because the default 1880 truncated the left column's right edge). Offset pdf = printed + 20, verified via running heads (p.596 "596 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." / p.597 "DIST. XXIII. ART. II. QUAEST. I.").

**Page span.** This q1 occupies **printed pp. 596–597 only** (pdf 616–617). The frontmatter skeleton's [596,597,598,599] was too wide: printed p.598 opens QUAESTIO II ("Cui debeat dari... Secundo quaeritur, cui debeat Sacramentum istud dari") immediately after the running head, verified on band `vol4-p598-L-0.png`. printed_pages corrected to [596, 597].

**Article II opener folded here.** Per the Vol II/III/IV chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaestionis quaeritur de huius Sacramenti dispensatione. Et circa hoc quatuor quaeruntur…") is folded into this q1 rather than made a standalone divisio chunk.

**Title corrected.** The skeleton's `title_la` "Utrum hoc Sacramentum debeat conferri per solum sacerdotem" was a fabricated/paraphrased title. The actual Quaracchi question heading (verified on band `vol4-p596-R-0.png`) is **"Quis debeat administrare hoc Sacramentum"**; frontmatter updated accordingly.

**Apparatus (14 footnotes).** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page; here renumbered into one sequence 1–14.
- **p.596** carries notes 1–7 ([^1]–[^7]): left-column footer 1–3 (`De quo supra…`, `Vide hic lit. Magistri…`, `Quem tollit Avicenna…`), right-column footer 4–7 (`Cfr. supra pag. 594…`, `Bolland., Act. Sanctor.…`, `Vers. 14…`, `Psalm. 132, 2…`).
- **p.597** carries notes 1–7 ([^8]–[^14]): left-column footer 1–3 (`Hebr. 5, 1…` + the *mediationis/mediatoris* variant, `Cod. aa addit…`, `Plurimi codd. et ed. 1 necessitatem`), right-column footer 4–7 (`Codd. FLMUX in ferrum`, `Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. ad 56`, `Fere omnes codd. sit, cod. bb fit`, `Dist. 17. p. III. dub. I. Cfr. ibid. a. 1. q. 1`).

**Scholion disposition.** The Article II scholion (OCR garbled the header as `SCHOLIOK`; the band `vol4-p597-L-1.png` shows the printed centered header **SCHOLION**) sits entirely on p.597 and is rendered in full here (La + En) as the last subsection. Its four sections cover **all four questions of Article II**: **I** = q1 (the minister — Trent on presbyters as proper ministers), **II** = q2, **III** = q3 (parts of the body anointed), **IV** = q4 (repetition of the unction). Therefore siblings **a2-q2, a2-q3, a2-q4 render no scholion** (`has_scholion: false` on each).

**[?] flags.**
- [^12]: the p.597 right-column footer note 5 reads "Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. ad 56" in OCR and on the band. Since a. 1, q. 3 would not have 56 objections, this is almost certainly "ad 5. 6." (to replies 5 and 6). Rendered as "ad 5. 6.[?]" pending 600 dpi confirmation at the d.20-decade polish gate.

**Marginalia trimmed.** Quaracchi's inline editorial marginal glosses ("Ad oppositum.", "Conclusio", "Notandum.") were dropped per the corpus OCR-cleanup convention (centered section headers CONCLUSIO / SCHOLION are preserved as structural headings).

**Cross-page footer split.** Both printed pages that this chunk spans are wholly contained within q1 (no chunk boundary falls inside a shared footer block), so there is no shared-footer hand-off to a sibling chunk; all 14 footnotes belong to this chunk.