Commentaria in Summam contra Gentiles, Liber IV

After St. Thomas treated of the sacrament of Penance, he subsequently treats of the sacrament of Extreme Unction¹. And he posits ten conclusions.

I. The first of these is²: The sacrament of Extreme Unction is fittingly instituted. It is proved. From an infirmity of the soul, which is sin, infirmity is sometimes derived to the body, by the dispensation of the divine judgment. Although this is sometimes useful for the health of the soul, in so far as one endures it patiently, and it is reckoned to him as a satisfactory punishment; nevertheless, it is sometimes an impediment to spiritual salvation, in so far as the virtues are impeded by it. Therefore it was fitting that some spiritual medicine should be applied, in accordance with the way bodily infirmity is derived from sin, through which bodily infirmity may be healed when it is expedient for salvation. Therefore extreme unction was fittingly instituted.

The first consequence is proved. Because the body is the instrument of the soul. But since an instrument exists for the use of the principal agent, it is necessary that its disposition be such as to suit the principal agent: whence also the body is disposed, namely in natural generation, according to what is congruent with the soul.

The second consequence is proved: because the sacrament of extreme unction is ordained to that healing, as is clear from James 5, Is any man sick etc.

2. Concerning the antecedent, it must be noted, first, that bodily infirmity is not naturally adapted to follow from actual sin, but nevertheless it sometimes follows by divine disposition, when God brings man into sickness on account of his sins: either that he may thus make satisfaction for sin; or that through sickness he may be relieved from sin; or on account of something of this kind. On this account St. Thomas says that from an infirmity of the soul infirmity is sometimes derived to the body, by the dispensation of the divine judgment.

3. It must be noted, secondly, when it is said in the text that a man's infirmity is sometimes reckoned to him as a satisfactory punishment, that the scourges with which a man is afflicted by God for sins become in some way the property of the suffering man himself, in so far as God accepts them for the purgation of sins. And thus they have the character of satisfaction: because when the recompense of an offense is made by the very one who offended through something of his own, such recompense has the character of satisfaction. — On this see the Fourth Book, d. xv, q. 1, a. 4³.

4. If it is said that this sacrament is ineffective and useless, because sometimes the sick to whom it is conferred are not entirely delivered: — St. Thomas answers, and says, first, that this does not prejudice the power of the sacrament: because sometimes to be healed bodily is not useful for spiritual salvation, even for those receiving this sacrament worthily. Supply: Now this sacrament is ordained to induce bodily health at the time when this contributes to spiritual salvation.

He says, secondly, that it is also not received uselessly, even though bodily health does not follow. Both because, since it is ordained against the infirmity of the body in so far as it follows from sin, it is manifest that it is ordained against the other remnants of sin, which are proneness to evil and difficulty toward the good; and all the more so as they are closer to sin than bodily infirmity is. For because man, on account of negligence or other such things, does not perfectly cure the aforesaid defects in himself through satisfaction, it is wholesomely provided for him that through this sacrament the aforesaid cure may be completed, and he may be freed from the liability to temporal punishment, lest through anything at the departure of the soul from the body he be impeded from the perception of glory. Therefore the Apostle James adds, And the Lord shall raise him up. — And also because it happens that a man does not have knowledge or memory of all the sins he has committed, so that he might⁴ purge each one through penance; and there are daily sins, without which the present life is not lived; from which it is necessary that man be cleansed at his departure through this sacrament. Therefore the Apostle adds that, if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven⁵ him.

From which St. Thomas infers that it is manifest that this sacrament is the last, and in a certain way the consummative one, of the whole spiritual cure. Both from its effect: namely because through it man is prepared with respect to the perception of glory. — And from its name: namely because it is called Extreme Unction.

II. Concerning what was said, that this sacrament is ordained to the health of the body, it must be noted, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the Fourth Book, d. XXIII, q. I, a. 2, quᵃ 2, that this is understood secondarily, but not primarily. For it is ordained primarily to induce the health of the soul: but secondarily to the health of the body according as it is useful for the salvation of the soul, to be induced not indeed from the natural property of the matter of this sacrament, but from divine power.

It must be considered, secondly, that bodily health does not always follow from this sacrament for the reason that an operating power never induces a secondary effect except according as it is expedient for the principal effect: but it always induces it when it is expedient. Now the health of the body is not always expedient for the salvation of the soul. Therefore St. Thomas rightly proves by this reason that it does not prejudice the power of this sacrament that full health of the body does not sometimes follow, because sometimes it is not useful for spiritual salvation.

III. Concerning the spiritual effects of this sacrament which St. Thomas touches upon here, it must be considered, first, from his doctrine in the article cited above, quᵃ 1, that although the sacrament of extreme unction removes these three things, namely the remnants or sequels of sin, guilt both of mortal and of venial sins, and liability to punishment; nevertheless not all of these are equally the effect of this sacrament; but its principal effect, to which namely it is primarily and principally instituted, is the remission of sins with respect to their remnants, which are weakness and a certain ineptitude for the flight from evil and the pursuit of the good. But the remission of sins with respect to guilt and with respect to liability to punishment are its effects by consequence. For in so far as through this sacrament strength is given which grace produces, which does not tolerate sin with itself, by consequence, if it finds any sin with respect to guilt, it removes it: whence it does not always remove guilt, but only when it finds it. Similarly, to the removal of this kind of weakness, or remnants of sin, there follows deliverance from liability to punishment. Therefore deliverance from liability to punishment is also its secondary effect.

It must be considered, secondly, that this weakness of the soul, and ineptitude for the acts of grace and glory, left behind from sin, is said to be removed through extreme unction, in so far as through it there is caused a certain interior devotion, namely habitual devotion, which is a spiritual anointing, and is a disposition to grace, and to the effect to which it is principally instituted. Whence such interior devotion is the reality and sacrament (res et sacramentum). But the strength against this weakness following upon grace, according as it is caused by the reception of this sacrament, is the reality of the sacrament (res sacramenti). Which strength is nothing other than a certain disposition and preparation of the soul for the acts of glory, for which it was previously in a certain contrary way inept, from proneness to evil; which ineptitude was caused from sin, and even when sin is removed with respect to guilt, remains, though somewhat weakened.

IV. But concerning the aforesaid a twofold doubt arises. The first is, because it does not seem that guilt can be removed through the sacrament of extreme unction. For since actual guilt is not removed except through penance, if he who receives Extreme Unction has received the sacrament of penance, guilt is no longer in him: and thus through extreme unction no guilt is blotted out. But if he has not received the sacrament of penance, guilt is not remitted to him: and thus it also follows that guilt is not forgiven through extreme unction; or it is necessary to say that the sacrament of penance is not necessary for sinners, but extreme unction suffices.

The second is, because St. Thomas in this place seems to mean that man is freed from all liability to temporal punishment through this sacrament, since he says that he is freed from liability to punishment for this reason, that there may be nothing in him which, at the departure of the soul from the body, could impede him from the perception of glory. But from this it follows that he who departs having received this sacrament is bound to no satisfaction after death, but immediately flies away to glory; and thus it will not be necessary that suffrages or prayers be made for him; which does not seem to be according to the intention of the Church.

2. To the first of these it is said, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the place cited, that guilt is understood to be forgiven through extreme unction in such a way that penance is nonetheless present in the intention of the one receiving extreme unction itself, when he cannot receive exterior penance itself. For then from this sacrament, together with the intention and desire of confession, grace is conferred, through which guilt is remitted. And thus it does not follow that the sacrament of penance is superfluous.

Moreover, when St. Thomas means that through this sacrament man is cleansed from the sins which he does not have in memory, it must be observed that this is to be understood when such sins were not previously forgiven through penance, for instance because man did not use due diligence to recall them. For then a man placed at the end, if there is general sorrow for those things of which he was forgetful through carelessness, is cleansed from all of them through this sacrament.

3. To the second it is said, first, as seems to be the mind of St. Thomas in the article cited above⁶, ad 2, that the liability to temporal punishment is not always totally remitted so that after death a man is bound to no satisfaction: but only then when there is present an interior disposition sufficient for the removal of such liability, together with this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained to the removal of all liability remaining after guilt, when there is a fitting disposition in the recipient.

It is said, secondly, that the liability to punishment is always in some way remitted: in so far as, once the weakness that was from sin is removed, the punishment becomes lighter; for, as St. Thomas says⁷, a strong man bears the same punishment more lightly than a weak man.

V. The second conclusion is: This sacrament is not to be administered to any sick persons whatsoever, but only to those who on account of infirmity seem to draw near to death.⁸ St. Thomas does not prove this conclusion, but leaves it manifest from the premises. For if it is the last sacrament, by which man is prepared to receive glory, it is manifest that it ought not to be given except to those about to depart from this life to glory.

2. It must be noted, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas⁹, that, although in any sickness this sacrament can be given if the kinds of sicknesses are considered, because any infirmity when increased can induce death: nevertheless it ought not to be given in every state of sickness, but only when someone is in danger of death from sickness. Therefore, when it is said here that this sacrament is not to be administered to any sick persons whatsoever, this is not to be referred to the kinds of infirmities, but to their manner and state.

V. The third conclusion is: This sacrament can be repeated when a man who has recovered has come to a similar state of proximity to death. It is proved. Because the reason why some sacraments are not reiterated is that their anointing, or washing, is ordained to consecrate: for a consecration always remains as long as the consecrated thing lasts, on account of the efficacy of the divine consecrating power. But the anointing of this sacrament is not ordained to consecrate, but is a medicine ordained to heal, which ought to be repeated as often as the infirmity is repeated. Therefore etc.

It must be noted, from the doctrine of St. Thomas¹⁰, that a sacrament having a perpetual effect ought not to be repeated, because an injury would be done to it, from the fact that it would be shown not to have been efficacious in inducing the effect. On this account it is rightly argued here that a sacrament which is ordained to consecrate ought not to be repeated, because a consecration always remains as long as the consecrated thing lasts.

VI. The fourth conclusion is: This sacrament ought not to be given to those near to death without infirmity, for instance to those condemned to death. It is proved. This sacrament is administered under the appearance of a bodily medicine. Which is clear: Both because signification must be preserved in the sacraments. And because its matter is oil, which has efficacy for healing bodily, by mitigating pains: just as water, which washes bodily, is the matter of the sacrament in which spiritual washing takes place: but bodily medicine is not suited except to one who is bodily sick. Therefore etc.

It must be noted that that proposition, Signification must be preserved in the sacraments, ought to be understood in this way, that the sacrament must be so disposed that by it there is signified that which is effected, just as by the washing of water the washing of the soul from sin is signified. Whence, since extreme unction is ordained to the healing of the soul, from this it very well follows that it is administered to the sick person as a kind of medicine of the body: for thus the one receiving the sacrament is signified as in need of healing.

It must also be noted that the confirmation brought from the fact that oil is the matter of this sacrament is not posited as a necessarily concluding proof, but as a kind of persuasion with other concurring factors. For this is not an adequate sign that some sacrament is applied under the appearance of a bodily medicine because oil is its matter: since oil is the matter also in confirmation, and yet confirmation is not administered under the appearance of a bodily medicine.

VII. The fifth conclusion is: This anointing is fittingly applied to the instruments of the senses, and to the hands and feet, by which the works of sin are exercised: and also, according to the custom of some, to the loins, in which the power of lust flourishes. It is proved. This anointing is fittingly applied to those parts from which the infirmity of sin proceeds: for bodily medication must also be applied to the origin of the infirmity. But the aforesaid are such. Therefore etc.

It must be noted, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the Fourth Book¹¹, that this anointing is performed by all on the organs of the five senses, namely on the eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, and hands, as though these pertain to the necessity of the sacrament, because these organs are the principle of knowledge, and consequently the first origin of sin. But by some the loins are anointed, on account of the concupiscible appetitive power flourishing there; and the feet on account of the motive power, of which they are the more principal instrument. But although this has a certain rationale, it nevertheless does not seem to be of the necessity of the sacrament: because the appetitive and motive powers are not the first principles and first root of sin. Whence some do not observe the anointings of the loins and feet: while some observe the anointing of the feet, but not of the loins. Yet the anointing is more fittingly administered to the feet, as also to the hands, because by them the works of sin are exercised.

VIII. The sixth conclusion is: In this sacrament grace is conferred. It is proved. Through this sacrament sins are forgiven. Therefore in it grace is conferred. — The consequence is proved. Because sin is not forgiven except through grace.

2. The seventh conclusion is: To confer this sacrament pertains only to priests. It is proved. Because to administer those things in which grace illuminating the mind is conferred pertains only to priests, whose order is illuminative, according to Dionysius.

3. The eighth conclusion is: A bishop is not required for conferring this sacrament. It is proved. Because through it an excellence of state is not conferred, as in those sacraments whose minister is a bishop.

But it seems that this reason is not conclusive. For through Confirmation one is not placed in an excellence of state, since it is administered to all: and yet it is conferred by a bishop. Therefore etc.

It is answered, from the doctrine of St. Thomas in the Fourth Book, d. VII, q. II, a. 1¹²; and d. XXIII¹³, that it is false that through the sacrament of confirmation a man is not placed in a certain excellence of state over other faithful. For it is given for persisting bravely in the battle in which one fights against the name of Christ, to which battle not all are exposed, but only the confirmed.

When it is argued to the contrary, because it is conferred on all: it is said that it is indeed conferred on all, because it places one above the common state as regards the confession of the faith, which excellence belongs to all members of the Church, according as they are confirmed: but this does not prevent the confirmed from having an excellence of state over the non-confirmed.

If it is urged that St. Thomas, in the Fourth Book¹⁴, argues that a man is not constituted through extreme unction in a state of perfection above others because it is given to all: — it is answered that that reason is to be understood thus, because it is given to all without the imprinting of any character: as can be gathered in the same place from the response to the first argument.

IX. The ninth conclusion is: It is fitting for this sacrament that many priests be present. It is proved. Because it has the effect of a perfect cure, and in it an abundance of grace is conferred: for inducing which effect it is fitting that the prayer of the whole Church should assist.

It is confirmed by the authority of James, Let him bring in the priests etc.

Moreover, St. Thomas adds that nevertheless, if only one priest is present, he is understood to perform this sacrament in the power of the Church, whose minister he is, and whose person he bears.

2. The tenth conclusion is: The effect of this sacrament is impeded by the insincerity of the recipient. It is proved. Because it happens thus in the other sacraments.

It must be noted that this sacrament is not absolutely necessary, but only for well-being. For it completes penance, in so far as through it the remnants of sin are removed.