Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction
Chapter 1: Which Heretics Have Denied This Sacrament; and It Is Proved from the Scriptures
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Extremae Unctionis, the fifth general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The controversies on the sacrament of Extreme Unction are seven in all. The first, and the chief, is of its kind: whether it is a sacrament of the new law truly and properly so called. The second, of the matter. The third, of the form. The fourth, of the effect. The fifth, of the minister. The sixth, of the one who receives it. The seventh, of the ceremonies.
Chapter I. Which heretics have denied this sacrament
Very many heretics have tried to take the rite of the Unction of the sick out of the number of the sacraments. First the Waldenses, as Aeneas Sylvius relates in the book On the Origin of the Bohemians, chapter 35, and before him Guido the Carmelite in the summary of heresies. Secondly, the Albigenses, as Antoninus witnesses in the Summa of theology, part 4, title 11, chapter 7, section 5. Thirdly, John Wyclif, as Thomas Waldensis witnesses, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 163; and he himself witnesses it of himself clearly enough in book 4 of the Trialogus, chapter 25, where he contends that this sacrament was instituted neither by Christ nor by the apostles, and therefore is not truly a sacrament. The heretics of this time imitate them. Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Extreme Unction, does not reject this rite, yet denies that it is a sacrament properly so called. Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 18, 19, 20 and 21, and Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, from page 1102 to 1113, not only deny that it is a sacrament, but even mock it after their manner. Melanchthon does the same in the Common Places, under the title on Unction. John Brenz does the same also in the Württemberg Confession, chapter on Extreme Unction; and the Magdeburgers, Century 7 and following, chapter 6, on the rite of visiting the sick.
But the Catholic Church openly affirms that Extreme Unction is a sacrament truly and properly so called. For the Council of Florence has this expressly in the instruction of the Armenians, and that of Trent, session 14, canon 1 on Extreme Unction, and all the theologians on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 23. And this truth can be proved by three arguments: first, from the Scriptures; secondly, from ecclesiastical tradition; thirdly, from reason.
Chapter II. It is proved from the Scriptures that the Unction of the sick is a sacrament properly so called
As to the first, two Scriptures are brought forward by all: one from chapter 6 of Mark, the other from chapter 5 of James. Of the former not all agree whether, when the apostles anointed the sick with oil and healed them, that was the sacramental unction of which we now dispute, or only a certain figure and foreshadowing of this sacrament. Those who defend the former opinion, as Thomas Waldensis in the place cited, and Alphonsus de Castro in the book On Heresies, under the word Extreme Unction, are led by this reason, that Theophylact and Oecumenius, in the commentaries on Mark and James, seem to say that it is the same unction which is mentioned in both places. But surely the latter opinion is more probable, which is that of Ruard in the explication of article 12, and of Jansenius on chapter 6 of Mark, and of Dominic Soto on distinction 23, question 1, article 1, and of others. And to me certainly it is the more welcome for this reason too, that I see Luther, Calvin and Chemnitz, in the places cited, to be of the former opinion; for they think the unction of Mark 6 and of James 5 is the same.
I prove the latter opinion briefly, then. First, that unction which the apostles used was referred only, or chiefly, to the cure of bodily disease, as is plain from that place; whence also all who were then anointed were healed. But the sacraments of themselves pertain to the soul, to the body by accident, or at least secondarily. Then, secondly, the apostles at that time were not yet priests; and although Christ could confer sacraments even through those who are not priests, yet it is not probable that he did so, nor do we read that it was ever done in the more necessary sacraments, as in the sacrament of Penance or of the Eucharist. Nor does it stand in the way that the apostles baptised when they were not yet priests; for it is not so of the essence of Baptism that the minister be a priest, as it is of the essence of Unction. For if a layman baptises, even outside necessity, the Baptism is valid; but the Unction is not valid if a layman anoints. And that the apostles were not yet priests at that time is plain, because they were made so at the Last Supper, as the Council of Trent teaches, session 22, chapter 1. There is added, thirdly, that the apostles then anointed indiscriminately any sick whatever, as the blind, the lame and so on; but the sacrament of Unction is not given except to those who lie ill in danger of life, as all grant. Likewise, fourthly, the apostles, when they anointed then, did not ask whether those to be anointed were baptised, and it is altogether probable that many were anointed by them who were unbelievers; but certainly without Baptism the other sacraments profit nothing, nor can or ought they to be given to the unbaptised without sin. Nor is it valid what some object, that Confirmation was given to Cornelius before Baptism, Acts 10, God, namely, dispensing in this matter. For Cornelius did not have the sacrament of Confirmation before Baptism, but the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation from the Lord himself immediately, without the sacrament. Lastly, the Council of Trent, session 14, canon 1 on Extreme Unction, says that this sacrament is hinted at in Mark 6. And that is said to be hinted at which is not expressly set forth, but foreshadowed and obscurely indicated. And in this same way are to be understood the ancients who join the place of Mark 6 with the place of James 5; for they signify that in the one place the foundations were laid of that sacrament which is expressly set forth in the other place. For as, when in Matthew 19 and elsewhere Christ lays on hands, we do not say that he then instituted the sacrament of Confirmation or of Orders, but yet acknowledge a certain foreshadowing of a sacrament afterwards to come; so also, that the Lord ordered the apostles to cure the sick with oil, and not with some other thing, we understand to signify that there was to be a time at some point when oil would be the sacrament of the sick.
Let us come now to the other place, James 5, where we read thus: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Here we have all things which are required for the essence of a sacrament, namely an outward sign, a promise of grace and a divine institution; for these three, as we said above in the first controversy on Confirmation, the adversaries require. The outward sign is the anointing with oil with the prayer of faith; the promise indeed, the relief of the sick man and the remission of sins. And the institution is gathered from this so constant promise of the Apostle; for the Apostle would not promise it so constantly and absolutely unless the Lord had instituted and commanded it. So the apostle James does not institute the sacrament, but exhorts to receive that which he knew had been instituted by the Lord. But since Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, pages 41 and 42, requires five other things, although the three aforesaid are the chief, let us show that those also are found in Extreme Unction. He then first requires, besides the three aforesaid, that the rite be commanded in the New Testament, so that it may be distinguished from the ceremonies of the Old Testament. This indeed we manifestly see in this place, since it is agreed that the epistle of James is a book of the New Testament; and besides, such a rite was not in the Old Testament. Secondly he requires that the rite last not for a short time, but be perpetual. This also we have in those words, “Is any man sick among you”; for thence we gather that this rite will last as long as there are sick in the Church. Thirdly he requires that a promise of grace be annexed and as it were clothed with the sign, so that grace is understood to be given when the outward sign is shown; which Chemnitz sets against the Calvinists, who would have the sacraments to be signs of past grace, received long before. This indeed we have in this place, as is plain; for it is said, “anointing him in the name of the Lord, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he be in sins,” and so on; plainly in the manner in which it is said of Baptism in the last chapter of Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” Fourthly he requires that that promise be not of any grace whatever, but of the remission of sins; and this indeed is expressly had thus: “If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Fifthly he requires that it be not only a general promise, but also applied in particular to him who receives the sacrament. And this also we have; for it is said in particular, “anointing him,” and so on.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
LlBEri UNICUS
Coiilroversiae de sacramcnlo cxlremac UncUo-
nis, sunL omnino seplem. Prima , caque polissi-
ma , de geneie ; An sil lcgis novae sacramen-
lum vere acproprie diclum. Secwnda, dc maleria.
Terlia, de forma. Quarla, dc cffeclu. Qiiinta, de
minislro. Scxta, de suscipienle. Septima, de cae-
remoniis.
CAPIT l'RIMUM
Qai hacrelici hoc sacramentiwi negarint.
Ilaerelici permulli rilum Unclionis inlirmorum
e numero sacramenlorum aulerre conali sunl. J*ri-
mo Waldenses, ul refcriinl Aeneas Sylvius libro
(ic origine Boemorum cap, ,'>.>. el anle cum Guido
Carmelila in summa de haerelicis. Secundo, Albi-
genscs. lesle Anlonino in summa llieologica |)arl.
4. til. 11. cap. 7. § .■). Terlio, Joannes "\Viclerus,
lcsle Thoma Widdensi lom. 2. dc sacramenlis cap.
103. el salis ipse de se id leslalur in i. lib. Iria-
logi cap. 2j. ubi conlendil, lioc saciamenUim ne-
(lue a Clirislo,nequ(; ab aposlolis inslilulum,proiii-
de nec vcrc sacramoiilum osse.
IIos imilanlur Inierelici liujus temporis. Lulhe-
riis iii lib. de faplivil. babylouica ca[). d(! exiieina
UnclioiK;. non rcjicil liiinc rilum, bniKMi n(.'giil sa-
cramcnlum csse proprie dictun). Calviniis lib. 4.
Inslilul.cap. 19. § 18. 10. 20. r.[i\. el Kcmiiilius
in 2. par. exam. a pag. 1102. us^pn; ad \\',\'.i. iion
solum sacramcnlum csse negatil, sed etiam irri-
dcnl morc suo. Idcrn facil Melanchlhon in locis
lil. de Unctione. Idem facil cliam Joannes Ijreii-
lius in conf(!ssioiie Hirleinberg. cap. de exlrema
Unclione: el Magdeburgenscs cenlur. 7.et sequen-
libus, cap. G. de rilu visilalionis iiiliiinoriim.
Kcclesia vero calliolica pidain alliiTiial. linclio-
iiem exlreiiiam sacraiiicnlum c^ • vcri! a^; pr^qiric,
(liclum.Id enim cxpresse liabenl conciliiim Ibjren-
linnm iii inslrucl. Armcnorum . el liid. sess. li.
can. 1, de extrcma Unctione, el omnes Ihcologi,
lib. 4. scnt. disl. 2,3. Polest autem haec verilas
Iribus arguuienlis probari. Primo, ex Scripluris.
Secundo, ex Iradilione ecclcsiastica. Terlio cx ra-
l onc.
CAPUT 11.
Probatiir ex Scripturis Vnclioncm infirmorum
esse sacramentum proprie diclum.
Ouoil alliiiel ad priimim: duac ScripUirae prolc-
nintiirab omnibus, uua ex cap. 0. Marci , allera
ex cap. o. Jacobi.
Dc prioie iion oinnos conveniiiMl , an cum apo-
sloli ungebaiil oleo inlirmos el curabanl , illa Uie-
ril unclio sacramenlalis, de qua nunc dispiilamus:
an solum fuerit ligura (piaedam et adumbralio hu-
jus sac.ramenli. {}m lueiilur priorem sentenliam ,
"utThom. waldens. loco (;ilato , et Alphonsus d(^
Caslro lib. dc haercs. verbo, extrcina Unclio, ca
ralione (luctiiiUir. ipiod ncdn. Tlicophibiclus el Oe-
cumciiius in commciilariis M;ir('.i el Jacobi.vidcan-
hir dicere raudcm csse Uiiclioncm, cujus lil men-
iHi 10 iilroque loco. Sed profeclo probabilior e^t
.>>cnlcnl!a poslerior. (|uae csl r.u.irdi iii cxplica-
isi
i)K sAi;ii.vMi:Nro e\thi:mak iim.tio.ms
(ione iirl. 12. fl J.inst"inii in tap. (>. M;irci. cl Do-
miiiici n Solo ilisl. 2:i.t|iiaesl. l.arl. l. cl alit)riiiii.
Kl niilii corle eo eliam iiomiuo jiralior , quod vi-
deam Lulhenim, Oalviiuim el Kemnilium lt)eis
eilalis esse in priore oiiinioiie: e.xisliiuanl eniiii
illi eiimlem csse unclioncui. .Marci 0. el Jacobi ."».
IMolio i;;ilur brevilor senloiiliam posloriorom.
Priino illa Inclio, qua ulobantur aposloli.rororoba-
lur soUim aul praccipueml euralioncm morbl cor-
poraiis, ul c\ eo loco palet. uiulc cliam sanaban-
lur omnes, qui lum inunj];obanlur. Sacramonta au-
loin per sc aJ animam porlincnt, atJ corpus pcr
acciilens, aul ccrle sccuntlario.
Doiiule seouiulo: Aposlt)]i co tompore noncium
oraiil saccrdolos: cltiuamvis poluorit Clirislus el-
iam per non sacerdolcs sacramenta conferrc ; la-
men non esl jjrobabilc eum lioc fecissc, ncc legi-
mus itl unquam lactuin in sacramonlis majiis nc-
cessariis, ul in sacramonto Poenilenliac , vcl Eu-
cliarisliae.lNeque obslal quod aposloli bapli/.arunl,
eum nontlum ossont sacerdotcs: nam non ila cst
de essenlia Baplisini, ul niinister sil saccrdos, si-
cul dc essenlia Unciionis. Nam si laicus baplizet ,
eliain exlra neccssitalem.Baptisnuis esl ratus: non
autein esl rata Uiiclio, si laicus inungat. Quod au-
liun aposloli nomium fucrinteo tempore saccrdo-
tcs, palet, quia facti fuerunl in ultitna coena, ut
docel conciliuin Iriilentinuin sess. 22. cap. 1.
Accctlil lortio: Quod aposloli lunc proiniscue
nngebanl quoslibct aogrolos , ut coecos , claudos
«;tc. at sacramcntum Unclionis non dalur nisi iis ,
(jui decumbunt cum pcriculo vitae, ul omnes con-
ccdunt.
Ilem quarto: Apostoli lunc cum inungerent, non
quaerebaiil, cssenlnc baptizati , qui inungendi e-
rant, et omnino probabilc cst, rnullos ab eis inun-
ctos, qui innilcles erant; At certe sinc Baptismo
uiliil prosunl sacramenta cactera.nec dari possunt
aul dcbcnt non baptizatis sinc pcccato. Nec valet
quod quidam objiciunt, Cornelio datam Confirma-
tioncm ante Baptismura, Act. 10. Deo videlicet in
liac re dispensanle. IVain Cornclius non babuit sa-
craincntum Confirinationis ante Baptismum , sed
effcclum sacramcnli Confirmalionis ab ipso Domi-
no immediate sine sacramento.
Donique: Tridcntinum concilium sess. 14. can.
\. de cxirema Uiiclionc, dicit hoc sacramentum
insinualum Marci 6. Dicilur autcm insinuari id ,
quod non cxpresse proponitur, scd adumbratur, et
obscure indicatur. Et hoc eodem modo intclligendi
sunl veleies, qui locuin Marci G. conjungunl cum
loco Jacobi 5. significanl cnim uno in loco jacla
esse funtlameiita ejus sacramenti , quod in allero
loco cxpresse proponitur. Quemadinodiiin enim
cum Maltli. 19. elalibi Christus manus imponit ,
non diciinus tunc inslituisse sacramenlum Confir-
nuilionis. aut Ordinationis, sed laincn agnoscimus
adumbrdlioiieiii quandafii satrainenti postea futuii:
sic eliani quod Dominus jusserit apostolos oleo cu-
rare iiifirinos, el non alia aliqua re , intelligimus
significatuin ess',ruturyin fuissealiquando lcmpus,
iil oleiim esset sacramienlum infirmorum.
Vcniamus nuiic ad alterum locurn Jacobi '>. ila
legimu^: hifiniialur guis in rnbis ? inducal pre-
shijleros Ecdcaiiu', cl urcnl supcr cuiii, ituiicntc.s
cuiii ulcu innoniinc Doniini, el oralio fUtci sal-
vabil inlirinuni. cl aHcvahil cuni Uoininuf< . cl si
in pcccalia t^il, rcinillcniur ci. llio habcmiis o-
iiinia, tiuae atl sacramcnti esscntiam ro(|uirunliir ,
videlicet syinboluin exlcrnum , promissioncm gra-
tiao (!l divinam institulioiiom: liaec ciiiin tria, ut
siipra iliximus iu priiiia coiilrov(!rsiii dc conlirma-
lione, adversarii requirunt. Symbolum cxlcrnum
cst unctio olci cum oratione lidei: proinissio vcro,
alhMiitio iiilinni et remissio poccatorum. Inslitiilio
auloiii colligiiur cx liac tain conslanli promissioiui
Apostoli: nc(]uc onim Apostolus tam conslanter
el alisolule id promillerot, nisi Dominns id insli-
luisset cl mandiissct. Itaque apostolus Jiicobus
non inslituit sacriiinentuin , scd hortiitur ad illud
suscipicndum. quod a Domino novoral institulum.
Quiu vcro Kcmnitius in 2. par. cxain, pag. 41.
cl 12. rtuiuirit alia quintpie , licet tiia praedicla
sint praecipua: ostendamus illa ctiam repcriri ia
uuctione extrcma. lllc igitur primo requiril prae-
tor Iria pfaedicta, ut ritus mandatus sil iii novo
Teslamcnto; ul distinguatur a cacrcmoniis Testa-
nienti veteris.Id vero bnc loco manifestecernimus,
cum conslet Jacobi epistolam csse librum Testa-
menli novi: ct praetcrca lalis rilus non fuerit in
Tcstamento veteri.
Secundo requirit, ut ritus non ad brcve tempus
durct, sod porpotuus sit. Id quo(iue iKibemus in
iliis vcrbis: Infirniaiur quis in vobis, inde enim
colligimus taindiu duraturum hunc rilum,quamdiu
in Ecclcsia erunt aegroti.
Tcrtio requirit, ut promissio graliae sil annexa.
et quasi veslita symbolo , ita ut inteliigatur diiri
gratia,cuin symboluin extcrnum exhibotur:id quod
Kemnitius ponit contra Calvinistas , qui volunl sa-
cramcnla essesyinbola praetcritao , et jam oliin
acccptae gratiae. Id vero hoc loco habemus, ut pa-
tet; (Jicilur eniin: Vwjentes eum in nornine Doriii-
ni, el allevabil euni Doniinus, el si in pcccatis
fueril etc. plane ad cum modum, quo dicitur do
Baplismo Marc. ult. Qui crediderit et baptizalus
fuerit, salvus eril.
Quarlo requirit, ut illa promissio non sil cujusli-
bet gratiae, sed remissionis peccatorum: id vero
expressc sic habetur: Siin peccatis fuerit, rcrnil-
tentur ei.
Quinto rcquirit, ut non sit lantum promissio ge-
neralis, sed ctiam applicetur in particulari ei, qui
sacraincnlum pcrcipil. Ethoc etiam habemus; nam
in particulari dicitur: Vngentes eum etc.