Dist. 23, Dubia
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-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

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

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

### Doubt II

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

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

### Doubt III

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

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

### Doubt IV

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

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