Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/23/q/bon-sent-IV-d23-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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, 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: *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, 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 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: «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: therefore it seems to have been instituted there.

3. Likewise, every Sacrament that Christ instituted he himself exhibited in his own person; 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; 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 [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* — 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 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; 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*. 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. — 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: 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* 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: *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 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. — 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.

---