Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction
Chapter 5: The Same Is Proved by Reason; the Arguments of the Adversaries Are Solved; and On the Matter and Form
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).
There is added, lastly, a reason taken from the divine providence, which the Council of Trent also uses, session 14. For since the Lord instituted sacraments by which, as by divine aids, we might be helped at the entrance into the Church and in the progress within it, certainly it is in no way to be believed that his divine providence was wanting at the going out and passage from this temporal, militant Church to the other, everlasting one; especially since a man never more needs help and protection than at the point of death, as the Fathers everywhere teach, and especially Gregory, homily 39 on the Gospels, and book 24 of the Morals, chapters 17 and 18; Eusebius of Emesa, or whoever is the author of that book, homily 1 to the monks; and John Climacus, On the Thirty Steps, step 7. For then the enemies attack more strongly, because they see that they have but a short time; and the man himself is never less fit to resist, on account of the pain and the greatness of the sickness. For if “the corruptible body is a load upon the soul” even while it is in the best health, certainly in the very act of corruption it will weigh upon it most of all; and experience itself testifies that such sick persons can scarcely lift the mind to God.
But Chemnitz meets this at the beginning of his censure of the council's decrees on extreme unction, and says that no other aids are to be sought for the dying than those which are given to, and profit, the living: namely, the word of God and the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. For the word of God can at any time stir up faith, and the memory of Baptism and the receiving of the Eucharist profit even those who are about to die.
I answer: if this answer held, we should prove that there was no need even of the Eucharist. For in their own opinion the memory of Baptism always justifies; why then is the Eucharist received after Baptism? Namely because after Baptism, little by little, through the business of this life and the very fight of concupiscence, the fervor received at the beginning is lessened, and the memory of Baptism is not enough to repair it; therefore the Lord instituted a spiritual food, and so on. So, then, because in the going out from this world there are special difficulties, the Lord instituted a special aid: especially because it often happens that those who are in their last moments can neither hear the word of exhortation nor receive the Eucharist, being weighed down by the sickness and deprived of the use of the senses; but they can always be anointed and receive the fruit of this sacrament.
Chapter 6. The Arguments of the Adversaries Are Solved
Besides the arguments by which the adversaries strive to pervert the place of James, of which we spoke above, they have also certain others by which they attack this sacrament directly.
The first argument is Luther's: if the unction of the sick were a sacrament, it would have an infallible effect; but it has not, as is plain from this, that very few are healed, though the promise of this ceremony is bodily health.
I answer: Catholics answer this in two ways. Some, among whom is Dominic Soto, distinction 23, question 1, article 2, think that bodily health is the absolute and infallible effect of this sacrament; but they say that entire health is not promised nor given by this sacrament, but a certain degree of supernatural help, which will sometimes be enough to heal and sometimes will not be enough; but always, other things being equal, the one anointed is healed sooner than one not anointed.
This solution does not please me, since all the theologians, and the councils themselves of Florence and Trent, expressly declare that health is promised in this sacrament conditionally, that is, if it be expedient for the salvation of the soul. There is added also that it is not lawful to ask for such temporal goods absolutely, since it is not certain to us whether they are useful or useless to us.
But, says Soto, it sometimes happens that when the one anointed recovers, he becomes worse; therefore he obtained health through the sacrament, which yet was not expedient for the soul. I answer that he who is healed after the unction and becomes worse recovered his health not by the power of the sacrament but by natural remedies; unless perhaps he who has now become worse is a little later to become very good. For health is said to profit him whom it profits according to predestination, even if for a time it seems to harm him.
I say, therefore, that the absolute promise, or the promise to be understood absolutely, is not bodily health, but the remission of sins and spiritual help, which is always useful and never harmful; and that bodily health does indeed belong to the promise of this sacrament, but conditionally, that is, if it be useful to the soul.
The second argument is Calvin's: if, from the fact that the apostles anointed with oil and healed, a sacrament of the unction of the sick is gathered, then a sacrament ought also to be gathered from the fact that the Lord healed the blind man with clay, and spittle, and the water of Siloe, and from other like ceremonies.
I answer: Calvin's argument supposes that Catholics rely chiefly, for this sacrament, on the testimony of Mark, who relates in chapter 6 that the apostles healed many by the anointing of oil. But we taught the contrary above. Yet because some Catholics use the testimony of Mark not altogether improbably, let us solve this argument for their sake.
I say, then, that there is a great difference between this unction which Mark describes and the other ceremonies which the apostles, or the Lord himself, used in curing diseases. For of the other ceremonies there is no testimony of Scripture by which we are commanded to use them often; but of this there is James 5. Moreover, of the others there is no promise of spiritual grace; but of this there is, James 5, since James added what Mark had left out. Besides, in the other ceremonies no definite minister is appointed, and in fact we know that any persons, even laymen, had in the primitive Church the gift of healing; but in this ceremony definite ministers are appointed, namely the priests, James 5.
The third argument is Chemnitz's: the ceremony of unction, apart from the gift of healing, takes its origin partly from heretics and partly from pagans. For the first who began to use the ceremony of unction in the manner of a sacrament, without the gift of healing, were the Valentinian heretics, as is plain from Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 18. Moreover, the pagans were accustomed to anoint the dead, as is plain from that line of Virgil: “They wash the cold body and anoint it.” Hence Apuleius calls it the last washing, in book 9 of The Golden Ass. And like to these pagan superstitions are the things which Dionysius relates in chapter 7 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
I answer: the rite of those heretics was most different from ours. For they anointed not the dying, but the already dead, as is plain from comparing this place of Irenaeus with Epiphanius, heresy 36. For what Irenaeus says, that the heretics were accustomed to anoint at the end of life, which could have been ambiguous, Epiphanius says openly: that they were accustomed to anoint the dead themselves. Moreover, they anointed with water and oil mixed together, so that that unction might be in place of Baptism; but we separate this unction from Baptism, and do not mix water with oil. Lastly, they used certain unheard-of and horrible Hebrew words, whereas we use a simple and most open prayer.
As for the pagan superstitions, there are two faults of Chemnitz. The first, that his whole disputation is beside the point: for we treat of the unction of the living, and he takes his argument from the unction of the dead. And surely by the same argument he could have attacked the sacrament of Baptism, because after death bodies were washed by the gentiles; and even now they are washed by Christians, of which thing we have an example in Acts 9, for the Christians washed Tabitha when she was dead.
Second: he says falsely that the rite of Dionysius was taken from pagan superstitions, since rather the pagans in these things imitated the Hebrews, who are more ancient. For the Hebrews anointed the bodies of the dead, as is plain from the Gospel. For in Matthew 26, the Lord, praising the piety of Mary, who had anointed him, says: “She hath done it for my burial.” And John, in chapter 19, where he relates that the body of the Lord was buried with spices, adds: “As the manner of the Jews is to bury.” And we know that the same was practiced in the most ancient times, in the burial of the patriarchs Jacob and Joseph, in the last chapter of Genesis.
The fourth argument, of the same Chemnitz: the progress of this unction plainly teaches that it is not a sacrament. For at the beginning the apostles anointed the sick with simple oil, in order to heal them; afterward some began to add a blessing and to consecrate the oil, yet they used it for the same end for which the apostles formerly did, namely to heal the sick by a divine miracle, as is plain from the miracles which are related to have been done through oil blessed by St. Martin and many other holy men, as may be read in Sulpicius in the Life of blessed Martin, and in the Lausiac History of Palladius, and the Religious History of Theodoret. At length, when miracles had altogether ceased, lest the ceremony of anointing should remain idle, Felix IV willed that the sick be anointed.
I answer that the argument consists partly of light conjectures and partly of falsehoods. For that the apostles used simple oil Chemnitz neither proves nor can prove, except after his own manner, because Scripture does not name blessed oil. But we have Clement, who attributes to the apostles the teaching about blessing the oil, book 8 of the Constitutions, chapter 35; and Basil, who says that the blessing of the oil is an apostolic tradition, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27; and Bede on chapter 5 of James, where he says that James prescribes blessed oil. And certainly more belief is owed to three witnesses who affirm than to countless ones who say nothing. But that Felix IV instituted the oil of the sick we showed above to be a lie, even by the testimony of Calvin and of the Magdeburgers.
And that the ceremony of anointing the sick by way of a sacrament was born from that unction which worked by way of miracle, Chemnitz does not prove, except because he himself so thinks. But we conjecture that the progress of this oil went the contrary way: namely, that because it often happened in the sacrament of extreme unction that men were healed, certain holy men began from this to use oil even outside the sacrament to heal diseases, not indeed oil blessed by the bishop for the use of the sacrament, but oil simply sanctified by themselves with the sign of the cross.
In the same way also we see that it happened with water. Because in Baptism men were sometimes healed of bodily sickness, as Augustine testifies in letter 23, and he himself relates some examples of this thing in book 22 of The City of God, chapter 8, many began from this to use blessed water even outside Baptism to heal diseases, of which thing many examples are extant in the same authors, Palladius, Theodoret and others.
The fifth argument is Chemnitz's in the same place, and Illyricus's in the Centuries 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, chapter 6: namely, that there are no ancient examples of holy men who, when in their last moments, wished to be anointed with blessed oil.
I answer: such examples are not extant because things most well known and daily are not written down. For certainly St. Bernard would never have omitted such a sacrament, since it is certain that he made very much of this sacrament, from the Life of St. Malachy written by Bernard himself; and it is also certain that he had the fullest opportunity of receiving the sacrament, since he both foresaw and foretold his death; and yet it is not written that he received this sacrament.
Chapter 7. On the Matter and Form of This Sacrament
The matter of this sacrament is olive oil blessed by the bishop. So the Council of Florence has it, in the instruction of the Armenians, and that of Trent in the place cited; as do also the councils, popes and Fathers cited above. This indeed is to be so taken that the episcopal consecration and blessing in this sacrament is of the essence of the matter of the sacrament, and not accidental, as the consecration of the water in Baptism is. For the councils of Florence and Trent, which on account of the heretics explained all these things more distinctly, say that in Baptism the matter is simple water, and do not add “blessed”; but in extreme unction, as also in Confirmation, they teach that it is oil consecrated by the bishop.
Now the form is these words: “Through this holy anointing, and his most tender mercy, may God pardon thee whatever thou hast sinned by sight,” and so on. This form the councils of Florence and Trent hand down, and the Scholastics commonly.
Three things are to be noted here. First, that in these words all things are expressed which ought to be expressed in the form of a sacrament: namely, the principal cause, which is the mercy of God; and the instrumental cause, which is the holy unction; and also the effect, that is, the remission of sin, and in consequence bodily health, which depends on the perfect remission of sin, as sickness for the most part is wont to arise from sin. Whence the Lord, in Matthew 9, first said to the paralytic whom he meant to heal, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” that all might understand that his sins had been the cause of his sickness; as he also said to the other whom he healed at the pool, John 5: “Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee.”
Second, note that in this form the syllables are not to be counted, as if each one were of the essence. For only the sense belongs to the essence: that it have the form of a prayer, since James says expressly, “Let them pray over him”; and further, that it express the effect of the sacrament in such a way that it determines the matter, that is, that unction. But although each of those words is not of the essence, yet they ought not to be omitted, nor can they be without sin, since we have the express precept of the Church and a very long custom.
Third, note that various causes are assigned why the form ought to be a prayer; but this seems the chief one: because this sacrament is the completion of the sacrament of Penance, and as it were a certain penance of the sick, who can no longer do the works of penance. Therefore there is this difference between these two sacraments: that in the sacrament of Penance confession and satisfaction are required, and so laborious works on the part of the one who receives the sacrament, whence there is there both justice and mercy; but in this sacrament there is the mercy of God alone, and therefore it is said, “May God pardon thee.” And so, to signify that in this sacrament there is remission from mercy alone, we use a prayer.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT V.
Idcm probalur rationc.
Accedil ullimo ratio ex divina providentia dc-
sumpta, qua etiam utilur tridcntiiiiim coucilium
iiKLLiklDini Vol. ili
scss. U. P(am cum Dominus sacramenla instilue-
rit, quibus veluti divinis subsidiis juvaremur in
ingressu Ecclesiae, et in progressu , certe nulio
modo credcndum esl, defuisse divinam ejus pro-
videnliam in cgrcssu et Iransitu ab hac leinporali,
militanle Ecclcsia ad aliam sempilernam. praeser-
lim cum numqaam magis hoino indigeat auxilio
et praesidio, quam in articulo mortis , ul Patrcs
passim docenl. ac praescrlim Gregorius homilia
31). in evangclia, el lib. 24. Moraliuin cap. 17. et
18. Eusebius Emisscnus.seu quicumqiic cstauclor
illius lihri, liom. I. ad monachos, el Joannes Cli-
macus dc 30. gradihus, grad. 7.lunc enim, et ho-
stes forlius iuq)ugnanl, quia modicum lempus ha-
bere se videul: el ipse homo nuujquam est incptior
ad rcsislendum ob dolorem el aegriludinis nia-
gnitudinem. Si enim corpus, quod corrumpitur ,
aggriivat animam, eliiim dum optime valeJ , cerle
iii ipso actu corruplionis niaxime aggriivabil: et
experientia ipsa teslatur vix posse ejusmodi aegro-
tos mentem ad Deum attolleie.
Sed occurrit Kcmnitius initio censurae suoe in
decrela concilii de extrcma Unclionc, ac dicit,non
esse alia quaerenda praesidia pro morientibus ,
quam ea quac data suiit et prosunt vivciilibus. ni-
rairum vcrbum Dci et sacramenta Baplismi et Eu-
chansliae. Nam verbum Dci quocumque lempore
polest excilare fidem, el memoria Biiplismi atque
Eucharisliae perceptio etiam moriluris prosunl.
Respoudeo: Si haec responsio v;ileret, probare-
mus eiiiim non fuisse opus Eucharislia. Nam ipso-
rum opinionc.mcmoria Baplisiui sempcr justifical ,
cur igiliir poslBaplisma sumiturEucharislia? nimi-
rum quia posl Baptismum paulalim cx hujus vitae
negotiis, el ipsa pugna concupiscenliac , minuiltir
fervor inilio acceptus, nec sullicil mcmoria Baplis-
mi ad eum rcparanduiu: idco Dominus insliluil
spiritualem cibum elc. Il;i igitur quia in exitu de
hoc mundo existuut specialcs didicultatcs.inslituit
Dominus spccialc pracsidium : pracscrtim quia
saepe accidit, ul qui in exlrcmis aguiit.ncc possinl
iiudire verbum cxhorl;ilionis , ncc ?.]ucharis(iam
pcrcipere, nimirum morho gravati ct usu scnsuum
privati, inurigi aulcm.et sacramcnti liujus fructum
pcrcipere semper possunl.
CAPUT M.
Solvunlur argumenta aUversariorum.
Pracler argumcnla qiiihus nilunlur adversarii
locum Jacobi pcrvcrtcrc,de quibiis suprii diximus,
hiibiui*. ctiiim (piacdiiiii alia, quibus dircclc hoc
sacramenlum impugnant.
Primuni iirgumciitiim Lulhcri csl: Si Vnclio m-
(Irmorum sacramenlum essct,habcrcl elfcctum m-
faUibiiem: at non habet, iit cx eo constal , quod
paucisRimi sananlur. r.um tamen pro)uissio Jtu-
jus caoreinoniaesit sanilas corporalis. Ucspoii-
(lco: Diiobus modis ad hoc res|)(mdcnl calholici.
Qaidam enim.in quihus csl Dominicusa Solo disl.
23. 'luacsl. 1. arl. 2. cxislimanl corporalem suni-
7j6
UE LXTULMA l NCTIOM!:
lalem essc al)Si)Iiiliim el infallibiloiu oHVcliim hu-
jus sacrameuli: setl dlruiil iiou proinitli nec dari
|t»T lu)c sacramcnliMn inlc^M-am sanilaltMU,st>il ccr-
Inm qncn.lam gradnm anxilii snpernalnralis, qui
inlcnlnm salis eril ad sanaudum , inlcrdum nou
eril salis; sompcr aulcm caclcris parihns , sanan-
dum cilius iunncUun, tpjam non inuiuMum,
Haoc solnlio mihi uou placct, cum omnes llieo-
lojii. el ipsa concilia, norcnlinum el Iritlcnlinnm
diserte pronnncicnl sanilalem in lioc sacramcnlo
promilli condilionaliler, idosl , sl aniinac saluli
expe<]ial.
Accedil eliam. qnod non liccl ejnsmodi tempo-
ralia bona absolulc pclere.cnm nou conslel nobis,
sinlne nobis ntilia, vel inuiilia?
Scd, inquil Solus, inWrdum accidil, ul cum
inunctm convalcscU. pojor cvadal: oblinuil erno
Hinilalcmper sacramcnlnm, quac lamcn ani-
jnae non cxpcdiebat. Rcspondeo: Kum qni posl
unclionem sanalur, el pcjor evadil. sanilalcm rc-
cupcrassc. non vi sacraiuculi, scd naluralibus rc-
mt;diis: nisi forle is. qni nunc peior evasil, paulo
posl oplimus evasnrus sit; illi euim dicilur sanilas
prodesse. cui prodcsl sccnntium praodcslinalio-
uem, etiamsi ad lompus obesse vidoaiur.
Dico ijjilur promissionem absolulam, sive abso-
]nle inlelligendam non esse sanilalem corporalem,
sed romissionem peccalorum olanxilium spiritua-
]o. quod semper esl ulile, numqnam noxium:sani-
talem aulem corporalem. perlinere quidem ad hu-
jns sacramonli promissionem, sed conditionalam,
idesl, si ea fuerit animae ulilis.
Secundum Argumenlum Calvini esl: Si ex eo,
quod apostoli inungebant oleo et curabant, sa-
cramenlum colligitur Unctionis infirmorum; de-
bet eliam colligi sacramentum ex eo.quod Domi-
nus liilo. et sputo, et aqua Siloc snnavit caecum;
el ex cdiis similibus caeremoniis. licspondoo: Ar-
gumenlum Calvini praesnppduiL catholicos nili
praecipue in hoc sacramcnlo leslimonio Marci, qui
cap. 6. relerl apostolos olei unclione mullos cu-
rasse. Atqui nos supra contrariuin docuimus. Quia
lamen aliqni catholici nou omnino improbabililer
teslimonio Marci ulunlur, solvamus in corum gra-
liam hoc arffumentum.
Dico igilur: .Magnum esse discrimen inler lianc
unctionem, quam describit Slarcus, el alias caere-
monias. quibns apostoli, vel ipse Dominns uteban-
tur in morbis curandis. Piam de aliis caeremoniis
nullum exslat leslimonium Scriplurae, quo jubea-
nuir illas frequenlare: de hac aulem exslal Jacobi
i). Praelerea de aliis nulla exslat promissio graliae
.spirilnalis: de hoc aulcm exslal Jacobi o.siquidem
Jacobus addidil, quod Marcus omisil. Adhaecin a-
liis caeremoniis non designalur certus minister, el
reipsa scimus.qnosvis etiain laicos in primiliva Ec-
clesia donura habuisse curandi:al in hac caeremo-
nia designanlur certi minislri,nimirum presbyleri,
Jacobi 5.
Terlium argumenlnm heraniiii: Vnclionis cae-
remonia exlra donum curationis.pariim ab hae-
reticis, partim ab ethnicis originem ducit. iYam
quiprimi coeperunt uti cacremonia unctionis
j;er modum sacramenli sine dono curandi, fue-
runl hacrclici Valcntiniani. nl palcl cr Ircnaco
lih. I. ciip. iS. Praclrrca clhnii'! consucvcrunt
ungi^rc niortnos, nl palvt cx illo yirgiii:
Curpmqne htvanl fri<icnlis, cl vu<innt.
I'ndc,.\i)ulcjus iilud vocal ultimuni lavacru,m li~
bro [). de Asino Aurco. Sirniiiavc.ro sunt his el-
h)iicis siipcrslilionihiis, qiiac narral iJioni/sius
c<ip. 7. de ecclcsiastica hierarcliia.
Kcspoudoo: llaerclicorum illtirum rilus noslro
divorsissimns Cuit. Illi enim ungebanl nou morilu-
ruiu. scd jam niorlniim. ul palel cx collalione hii-
jns loci Ironaci cuin l^piphanio, hacrcsi 30. Quod
eniin Irenacus dicil, nngi solilos ab haereticis ad
fincm dc!'unclioiii.>, (]uod ambiguuiu esse poleral.
Lpiplianius apcilc dicil, ungi solilos ipsos delnii-
clos. l^raclcroa illi ungcbanl aqua ol olco simul
mixlis, ul essel illa unclio loco Baptismi; nos au-
loin scparamus lianc uiictioiiem a Ua|)lisino. ncc
miscemus aquain cum t)!co. Dcniquo illi ulebantur
inaudilis quibusdam: el horribilibus verbis he-
l)raicis, cum nos prece simplici el apcrlissiraa u-
lamur.
Quod aulem allinel ad elhnicas supersliliones,
duo sunl Kemnilii peccala. Primum, quod lola e-
jus dispulalio esl praelor roni:nos enim agimnsde
unclionc vivorum.ol ille argumeulum sumil ex un-
clione morlnorum. Et sane eodem argumonlo po-
iuissel oppngnare sacramenlum Bapiismi.quia post
moriom corpora lavabanlur a gcniilibns: oi nunc
eliam lavanlur a Chrislianis, cujus rci oxcmpluiu
liabemus Acior. 9. Tabithain enim morluam Chri-
sliani Iav;irunl.
Socundo: Falso dicil Dionysii rilum sumplum ab
elhnicis supersiiiionibus; cum polins elhnici iii
his rcbus Hcbraeos anliquiores sini imilari: naui
llcbraei ungebanl corpora mortuoium, ul palei ex
evangelio. IVam Miillh. 2(>.laudans Domiiuis Mariae
pielalem, quae ipsum inunxerai: Adsepeliendum,
jnquit, ?7ic /ociL lii Joaniics cap. 10. ubi narrai,
corpus Domini cum unguonlis sepullum, addil:Si-
cul nios csl Judaeis scpelire. El idcni scinius an-
iiquissimis temporibns usurpalum in sepullura pa-
Iriarchao Jacob ot Josepli, Genes. ull.
Quarlum arguiiHuUum ejusdem Kemnilii: Pro-
gressus istius unciionis apcjHe docet non esse sa-
cramentum. Nam initio apostoli ungcbant oieo
simplici aegrotos. ut illos curarent: deinde coe-
perunl atiqui addere benedictionem, oleumque
consecrarc, utebanlur tamen eo ad eundeni ji-
ncm, ad qucm apostoii quondam, nimirum ad
curandos aegrotos divino miraculo, ul patet ex
7niracidis, quae narrantur facla per oleum bene-
diclum a s. Martino. aliisque multis sanctis vi-
ris. ut legere esl opud Sulpitium in vila b. Ma,r-
tini. el in Palladii historia Lausiaca, cl Theodo-
reti historia religiosa. Tandem cum miracula o-
mnino cessassent, ne otiosa rnanerel caeremonia
ungendi, Feiix IV. voiuit ungiinfirmos.
liospondeo: Argumcnlum parlira ex levibus con-
jecturis, parlim ex falsis conslare. Nam quod apo-
sloli uterenlur oleo simplici, nec probat, nec pro-
bare polcsi Kemnilius nisi raore suo;quia Scriplu-
LII5i:i{ PRIMLS
7.S9
ra non noininal ohMiin bcnoiiicUini. Al nos IuiImv
mus Clenienlern, qui aposlolis Iribuil doclrinain de
oleo bcnedicendo, lib. 8. conslil, cap. 3j. elBasi-
lium. qiii olei bencdiclioncin aposlolicam Iraditio-
neni ess(^ dicil, lib. de SpiriUi sancto cap. 27. cl
Beda in cap. a. Jacobi. ubi dicil Jacobuin praescri-
bere oleuin benediclura. El cerlc magis crcdi dc-
bel Iribus leslibus aHirn^anlibus, quam infiiiilis ni-
bil diconlibns. Quod aulem Fclix IV. inslilneril o-
leum infirinorum, mcndaciuin esse supra deinon-
slravimus, etiam Galvini cl 3Iagdeburgcusium lc-
sliinonio,
Ouod vero caeremonia ungcndi innrmos pcrmo-
duni sacraMienli; nala sil cx Unclionc illa. qtiac
per niudum miraculi operabalur, non probal Ivcin-
nitiiis. nisi (piia sic ipse exislimat. Sed nos con-
Irario modo conjicimus factum esse progressum
istiiin olei. nimirum ex eo, quod in sacramento ex-
tremae Unclionis saepe accidebal, ut liomines cu-
rarenlur, inde coeperunl quidam viri sancli etiam
oxlra sacramentum uti oleo, non quidem ab epi-
scopo benediclo ad usum sacramenti.sed simplici-
ter signo crucis ab ipsis sancliDcato, ad curandos
morbos.
Ouo etiam modo videmns factum in aqua, quia
in Baptismo aliquando curabanlur bomincs ab ae-
gritudine corporali, ut Auguslinus testatur in e-
pisl. 23. et narrat ipso idem exerapla quaedam bu-
ju8 rei lib. 22, de Civit, Dci cap. 8. Inde coepc-
runt multi etiam exlra Baptismum uti aqua benedi-
cta ad curandos morbos, cujus rei multa exempla
nxstant apud eosdem auctores, Palladium,Tbeoclo-
rclum et alios.
Quintum argumentum est Remnilii ibidcm, ct
Jllyrici in Centur. 2. 3. 4. 5, (i. cap. G. quod sci-
licct non exslent cxempla anliqua. quod sancli viri
in extrcmis agentcs, oleo bcnediclo pcrungi volu-
erint.
Rcspondeo: Non exslare Cjusmodi exompla.quia
non scribuntur res nolissimac ct quotidianae. Nam
certe s. Bernardns, numquam oinisissel ejusmodi
sacramentum , cum constet eum maximi fecisse
lioc sarramcnlum , ex vita s. Malacliiac ab ipso
Hernardo scripta, ct simul conslel eum babuissc
summam commodilalcm sacramenli percipiendi,
cuin el morlom suain praevideril ct praedixeril, ct
lamen scriplum non cst, ciim acccpissc boc sacra-
fncnlnm.
GAPUT VU.
De malcria el fonna hujus sacraincnli.
Materia sacramenti hujus cst olcum olivae.ab c-
piscopo bcnedicliim. Id Iiabel conciliuin norcnli-
num in instrucliono Armenorum et tridimliniim lo-
co citato: necnon concilia ot |)ontificcs ac Patrcs
supra citati. Oiiod qiiidem ita accipiendum cst, ul
consccratio cl bencdiclo opiscopalis in boc sacra-
mcnlo, sit de cssentia malcriac sacramcnli; non
aiitein Jfccidcnlaria.ul consccraliu aquac in Baplis-
mo. Concilia siquidcm florcnlinum cl tridcnlinum,
quao propler baerelicos niagis dislincte baec o-
mnia cxplicuerunt, in Baptismo matcria esse di-
cunl aquam simplicem, nec addunl benedictam:
in extrema vero Unctione, ul ctiam in Confirma-
lionc,docent esse oleum ab episcopo consccratum.
Jam vero forma, sunt illa vcrba: Per islamsan-
clam unclionem, el suani piissiniam viisericor-
diam.induUjeal libi Deus quidqiiid deliquisli per
visum etc. Islam formam tradunt concilia florenti-
num et Iridentinum, et communiter Scbolastici.
Sunt autcm boc loco tria nolanda.Primo bis vcr-
bis exi)Iicari omnia quae in furma sacramenti cxpli-
cari debeiit, nimirum caussam principalem, quac
cst Dei misericordia; el inslrumentariam, quae est
sacra Unclio; nec non eireclum, idest.rcmissionem
peccati, el consequentcr corporalem sanitatem,
(luae Gx remissione perfecta pcccali pcndet, sicut
inorbus cx peccato ut plurimuin oriri solel. Unde
Dominus Matlli. 9. paralitico, quein curarc volc-
bat, prius dixil: Remiltimlur tibi peccata tua; ut
omnes intelligerent, peccala cjus caussam fuisse
morbi: ut eliam alteri, quem ad piscinam curavc-
Tiit Dominus, dixitJoannis 0. Ecce sanus faclus
es, jamnolipeccare, ne detetnus tibi conlinqat,
Secundo nota: Non csse in bac forma numeran-
das syllabjs, quasi singula sint de esscnlia; soluni
cnim sentcnlia ad essentiam pcrtinel,quae formam
babeat dtiprccatoriam, cum Jacobus diserlc dicat:
Orent super eum. Et praeterea exprimat effectum
sacrainenti, ila ut determinet maleriam, idest, un-
ctionem illam. Quamvis aulem non sint de essen-
lia singula illa vcrba; lamen omitti non dcbent,
nec possiint sinc peccato, cum habeamus Eccle-
siac disertum praeceptum, etlongissimam consue-
tudiiiem.
Tertio nola: Caussas cur forma debeat esse dc-
prccatoria, varias assignari, sed illam videri prae-
cipuara, quia hoc sacramcntum est complemcntum
sacramenti Pocnitenliae,el quasi poenilenlia quae-
dam infirmorum.qui non possunt jam facore opera
Poenitenliae. idcirco hoc interest inter baec duo
sacramcnta, quod in sacramento Poenilcntiae re-
quiritur confcssio et Satisfactio, ct proinde opera
laboriosa ex partc suscipientis sacramentum:unde
ibi est justilia ct miscricordia: in hoc autcm sa-
cramcnlo cst sola Dim miscricordia,ct idco dicitur:
Indulqeat libi Deus. llaquc ad significandum in
hoc sacramento csse remissioncm ex sola miseri-
cordia ulimur prece.