Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. With Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, part 15, chapter 1, there are in the Church militant three kinds of sacred oil and three kinds of unction by which the faithful are customarily anointed and, as it were, consecrated. The first is that with which catechumens and neophytes are anointed on the breast and between the shoulders in preparation for receiving the sacrament of baptism. The second is chrism, with which the baptized are anointed to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation. Hence Hugh calls it the oil of the principal chrism, because, as the Master of the Sentences says in distinction 23, the Paraclete is chiefly given with the unction; hence, because of the abundance of grace, it contains two mixed liquids, namely oil and balsam: oil of conscience and balsam of good faith. Chrism, however, is called chrism in Greek and unction in Latin. Yet not every oil consecrated for anointing is called chrism, but only that which is mixed with balsam: with it the heads of kings and pontiffs are anointed; with it, too, the priest anoints the baptized on the crown of the head, and the bishop anoints on the forehead those to be confirmed through the imposition of hands. The third kind of oil is what is called oil of the sick, and it alone will be discussed here. — In addition, another celebrated unction was customary among the faithful, used for the bodily cure of illnesses and the expulsion of demons. Tertullian mentions it in To Scapula, chapter 4, where he relates that Proculus, a Christian surnamed Torpacion, cured by oil Euhodia's steward and also the Emperor Antoninus. Blessed Jerome also mentions this custom of Christians who cured illnesses with oil, in the life of blessed Hilarion: farmers bitten by serpents and venomous animals received oil blessed by him, anointed their wounds with it, and were restored to their former health. Rufinus relates the same in Ecclesiastical History, book 2, chapter 4, concerning the disciples of blessed Antony; Sulpicius Severus, in the life of St. Martin, tells of a mute woman and a paralytic cured by his blessed oil; and Palladius relates similar things of the two Macarii. I pass over many others whose miracles through oil are recounted in the six volumes of Surius's Lives of the Saints, which may be located from the indexes. Likewise, St. Didacus used to anoint with the oil of the church lamp all the sick who came to him for a cure, and thus healed their illnesses and infirmities.

✳ “This is why the ancient Christians were called by the pagans ἄλειπθαι, that is, anointers. On this subject there is an excellent passage in the letter of the Emperor Hadrian to Servianus, in the life of St. Saturninus, in Vopiscus. There he speaks of Samaritan, Jewish, and Christian presbyters and bishops; after examining their customs, he seems to have wished to sum them up in this outburst: ‘There is no Samaritan, no Jewish synagogue leader, no Christian presbyter there who is not a diviner, astrologer, or anointer.’ The Samaritans were perhaps thought to cultivate divination because they examined the purity of victims with greater care than others, or because their name in Hebrew seemed to denote diligent and attentive observers. The Jews were very devoted to mathematics and astrology, and, since they acknowledged fate and admitted the force of the stars upon human will, the emperor could rightly list them among astrologers. But because Christian presbyters busied themselves with anointings, the emperor likewise called them anointers, for anointing was indeed very frequent among them, and the miracles performed through anointing won them great repute among all.” ✳

NOTE 2. Various heretics denied that extreme unction, which is customarily administered in the Church to the dangerously ill, is a true Sacrament of the New Law. First, the Waldensians and Albigensians openly denied it, as did Wycliffe, Trialogue, book 4, chapter 25, where he argues that this ceremony was instituted neither by Christ nor by the Apostles. Luther agrees with him in The Babylonian Captivity, where he speaks thus of Catholic doctors: If ever there has been delirium about extreme unction, it is especially now; it is a fiction, based on this saying of the Apostle: “If anyone among you is sick,” etc., that a person must be anointed by us, when it is not a Sacrament but a fiction. Calvin supports this view in Institutes, book 4, section 18 and following, where he contends that the unction mentioned by St. James pertained only to the grace of healings, which flourished only in the time of the Apostles. “That unction, he says, was used by the Apostles in healing the sick, not to be an instrument of healing but only a symbol, by which the ignorance of the unlearned might be taught whence such power came, lest they attribute its praise to the Apostles. That oil signifies the Holy Spirit and his gifts is common and well known; but that grace of healings has vanished, like the other miracles that the Lord willed to last for a time, in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel forever marvelous.” All the followers of these heresiarchs think the same; they acknowledge only two Sacraments with them, namely baptism and the Eucharist. Their error must be opposed in the present Question.

NOTE 3. Although many theologians have asserted that extreme unction is truly a Sacrament, they have nevertheless held that it was instituted not by Christ the Lord but only by the Apostles. Thus, among others, Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, book 2, in the chapter cited above; the Master of the Sentences, in In IV Sent., distinction 23; and the Seraphic Doctor, in the same place, part 1, question 2. After rejecting the opinion of those who say that all the Sacraments were instituted by Christ, he adds: “Therefore others say, more probably—and the Master seems to think this, indeed he says it expressly—that the Holy Spirit instituted this Sacrament through the Apostles, as was said above about the sacrament of confirmation. That this could have happened is clear, since he is the chief Teacher, just as Christ is. It is also clear by example: for the Apostles, at the Holy Spirit’s prompting, temporarily changed the form of baptism instituted and confirmed by Christ; how much more, then, could they institute what Christ had intimated? And that this was fitting is clear if we consider the diversity of the Sacraments. Some are common to the Old and New Laws, some are proper in the strictest sense to the New Law, and some occupy an intermediate place. Those that are common are in a certain way dictated by nature; because nature’s dictate always remains the same, those Sacraments have been in use from the beginning, such as marriage and penance, insofar as it reconciles one to God. The Lord Jesus perfected and confirmed these in the New Law and did not abolish them. Some are proper in the strictest sense to the New Law: those that signify grace in a state proper to the New Law, and there are two of these—confirmation and unction. In them is signified the grace of the Holy Spirit, by which one is anointed as a champion, so that he may dare to die for Christ, and as a king, so that he may enter the kingdom of heaven as his own. This is proper to the New Law; therefore these two Sacraments had no definite figure in the Old Testament. And because they signify the grace of the Holy Spirit in abundance, while the Holy Spirit was not given abundantly until Jesus was glorified, as John 7 says, these two Sacraments were intimated by Christ but later instituted by the Holy Spirit. Some Sacraments occupy an intermediate place: they did not exist in truth in the Old Law, but did exist in figure and signification, as baptism, the Eucharist, and order. Because Christ fulfilled the law and abolished its figures, he instituted these three himself. Thus it is clear how the Sacraments of the Church were established and instituted most fittingly, so that nothing was done through forgetfulness but all according to God’s ineffable dispensation.” Two things, therefore, must be established here: first, that extreme unction is a Sacrament; second, that it was instituted by Christ the Lord.

First conclusion. — EXTREME UNCTION, WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY ADMINISTERED TO THE FAITHFUL WHO ARE SICK, IS A TRUE SACRAMENT OF THE NEW LAW, PROPERLY SO CALLED. This is a matter of faith, declared at the Council of Chalon, held in the time of Charlemagne under Leo III, around the year 818, canon 48, where it is decreed: Following the teaching of blessed James the Apostle, with which the decrees of the Fathers also agree, the sick are to be anointed by priests with oil blessed by bishops. After citing the words of St. James, it adds: This kind of medicine, which heals ailments of soul and body, must not be treated as insignificant. The same is established at the Council of Florence, in the decree of Eugenius, where this extreme unction is numbered among the seven Sacraments of the New Law. The same is also taught at the Council of Mainz, held in the year of our Lord 1549, which decrees in chapter 34 concerning extreme unction: Our pastors teach that the sacred unction is a protection for the sick and for those nearing the end of life, and that it was handed down by the Lord and practiced at his command by the first Apostles. When it is administered to the sick through the prayer of faith, by the operation of divine power it gives those who rightly receive it relief and charity against bodily illnesses and terrors of conscience; it removes lesser sins and purges the remaining traces of graver ones, in keeping with the Apostle’s testimony and the received teaching of the consenting Church. The Synod of Constance also supports this, for in Session XV Martin V decrees that a person suspected of heresy is to be asked whether he believes that a Christian sins mortally by despising reception of the Sacraments of confirmation or extreme unction. — But the Council of Trent teaches this truth most clearly and plainly in Session XIV, chapter 1, On Extreme Unction, where it says: This sacred unction of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and properly so-called Sacrament of the New Testament; it was intimated, indeed, in Mark, but commended and promulgated to the faithful by the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord. And canon 1 says: If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James, but only a rite received from the Fathers or a human fiction, let him be anathema.

The conclusion is proved, first, as follows: that is a true and properly so-called Sacrament which is a visible sign divinely and permanently instituted, to which is attached the promise of grace to be conferred through it. But extreme unction has all three of these characteristics. Therefore it is a true and properly so-called Sacrament.

The major premise is established by what we said about the Sacraments in general. The minor premise is proved by the authority of St. James, chapter 5 of his Epistle, where he says: Is anyone among you sick? Let him summon the presbyters of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. These words of the Apostle declare the three conditions required for a Sacrament. First, there is an external and sensible sign, both with respect to matter and with respect to form, in the words: Anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; just as it is said of baptism, baptizing them in the name of the Lord, so that in both cases a sign is indicated that certainly produces its effect by God’s power. Second, a constant and permanent institution appears from the words: Is anyone among you sick? These words, uttered absolutely and without any limitation of time, are directed not only to those to whom the holy Apostle addressed his Epistle, but also to all the faithful who would come after, since that Epistle is Catholic—that is, universal—and addressed to all Christ’s faithful. Third, there is a promise of grace to be conferred through that rite in the words: The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. Here the Sacrament’s twofold effect is declared: its primary effect is remission of sin, and consequently the infusion of grace, for sin is not remitted in the ordinary way without the infusion of grace. Therefore that extreme unction has all the characteristics of a true Sacrament.

HERETICS REPLY: First, the unction of which St. James speaks was ordered only to bodily cures through the gift of miracles, which then flourished in the Church, and consequently was not a true Sacrament. They prove the antecedent: St. James prescribes no unction other than the one mentioned by St. Mark, chapter 6, when he reports of the Apostles sent to preach that they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. But that unction was only curative, not sacramental. Therefore the unction of which St. James speaks is no different. — On the contrary, the Apostle expressly asserts that sins are truly remitted through that unction: If he is in sins, he says, they are forgiven him. Therefore he speaks not only of bodily healing through the gift of miracles, but also of healing the mind through the infusion of grace and the remission of sins. In reply to the proof, however, I deny the major premise: the unction commended by St. James was quite different from the one mentioned by St. Mark, as is clear with respect to the minister, the recipient, and the effect. With respect to the minister: the unction of which St. James speaks must be performed by priests, whereas the one mentioned by St. Mark was performed by the Apostles, who were not yet priests, since they were initiated and constituted priests of the Gospel only on the night of the Supper, the day before Christ suffered. A distinction between the two kinds of unction also appears with respect to the subject: the unction mentioned by St. Mark was conferred indiscriminately on both the faithful who were baptized and unbelievers; indeed, it seems to have been instituted especially for unbelievers, so that, seeing the miracles performed through that unction, they might be moved more readily to the faith. “Signs,” says St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 14, “are not for believers but for unbelievers.” The unction of which St. James speaks, however, must be administered only to the faithful who have been baptized, since the Apostle addresses only the faithful when he says, Is anyone among you sick? Hence he also adds, Let him summon the presbyters of the Church, etc. Third and finally, the difference between the two unctions appears with respect to their effect: the unction mentioned by St. Mark was ordered only to bodily healing, especially to driving demons from the possessed; the unction mentioned by St. James, however, is ordered to the healing of souls.

THEY REPLY 2. By the words, If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him, St. James does not mean that remission of sins is an effect of that unction by divine promise. He means only that the Apostles, or presbyters, when using this unction to cure bodily illnesses, first admonished the sick to do penance and warned them that sins are usually the cause of illness, and therefore must be removed through penance so that the disease might be eradicated at its root. — But on the contrary, even if we freely grant that these things are so, heretics gain no support for their error from it and cannot infer that extreme unction is not a true Sacrament, since they teach that grace in baptism and the Eucharist is not caused by the work performed, but only through the faith and penance of the recipient, aroused by the words and preaching of the minister who confers the Sacrament. Add that this interpretation is wholly invented, since St. James does not say even a word there about such an admonition by ministers, which would have to arouse faith and penance in the sick person.

The conclusion is proved second by the authority and tradition of the ancient Fathers, who mention this kind of holy unction. In the first place, St. Dionysius the Areopagite seems to allude to it in the chapter On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, near the end, where he speaks of an anointing of the living that took place after Communion and sanctified a person. Likewise, in Homily 2 on Leviticus, Origen infers from the words of St. James cited above that the priests of the New Law have the power to remit sins. Tertullian teaches the same in book 1 of Against Marcion, where he mentions baptism, extreme unction, and the Eucharist, saying: Christ will reject neither the water with which he washes his own, nor the oil with which he anoints his own, nor the sharing of honey and milk with which he nourishes his infants, nor the bread by which he represents his own Body. The same appears in Burchard, book 18, chapter 11, in the canon of Pope and Martyr Eusebius, which orders a priest, when attending a sick person deprived of speech, if witnesses to his penance are present and the signs can be performed, to do all those things that are customarily done for others: that is, to say the prayers, anoint him with holy oil, and give him the Eucharist. — St. Chrysostom agrees in book 3 of On the Priesthood, chapter 6, where he compares this Sacrament in its effect with baptism. Among other things, commending the dignity of priests, he says: For they obtain the power not only to regenerate us, but also afterward to forgive us our sins. He confirms this from the words of James mentioned above. St. Augustine, too, in book 5 of On Baptism, chapter 20, recognizes four Sacraments of the New Law, namely baptism, extreme unction, the Eucharist, and penance. He says: If the saying in the Gospel means that Sacraments are not celebrated through a sinner, how will it excuse a murderer who prays over the water of baptism, or over the oil, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those on whom hands are laid? That is, through reconciliation. And in Sermon 215, On the Season, before the middle, he commends the sacramental use and effect of extreme unction in these words: Whenever some illness comes upon him, let the sick person receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and then (or afterward) anoint his little body, so that what is written may be fulfilled in him: “Is anyone among you sick?” More explicitly, the author of the treatise On the Rectitude of the Catholic Faith, among Augustine’s works, volume 9, says: Let the sick person trust in God’s mercy alone. Let him receive the Eucharist with faith and devotion and ask the Church for blessed oil, with which his body may be anointed; and, according to the Apostle, the prayer of faith will save the sick person. Likewise, Innocent I, a contemporary of Augustine and greatly praised by him, as well as by Chrysostom and Jerome, was asked by Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio, whether extreme unction should be given to penitents from whom the other Sacraments were withheld. He replies as follows in the letter written to him, chapter 8: This cannot be poured upon penitents (that is, the oil of extreme unction), because it is a kind of Sacrament: for if the other Sacraments are denied to them, how can it be thought that one kind may be granted? Peter Damian, in Sermon 1 on the dedication of a church, says: The third Sacrament is the unction of the sick. Finally, St. Bernard, near the end of The Life of St. Malachy, reports that he asked for this Sacrament at the end of his life. Add to this the agreement of the Greek Church with the Latin Church, which counts extreme unction among the Sacraments of the New Law. Thus Nicholas Cabasilas acknowledges in Exposition of the Liturgy, chapter 29, that extreme unction is a true Sacrament, writing: The priests’ prayer effects the remission of sins and the final sacrament of oil; he says that it has an Apostolic tradition, and proves this from the words of St. James cited above.

Finally, the Doctor proves this truth by reasoning, distinction 23, number 2. First, it was possible for God to institute an efficacious sign by which venial sins would be remitted for a person lying at the point of death; second, this institution was fitting; third, it was carried out. He proves the first point as follows: “It is possible, he says, for God to remit venial sins at the end; therefore it is possible for an efficacious sign of this remission to be instituted by him. The consequence is clear, because a person can institute an efficacious practical sign of any work of his; therefore it is much more possible for God. And so he can institute any sensible sign whose institution involves no contradiction as an efficacious practical sign of this effect. This is also fitting: namely, that a person about to depart this life be finally freed from venial sins, because, if unremitted, these would impede the attainment of glory; and they could remain unremitted until death, since a sinner commits such sins almost continually. This has also been done. It is proved from the saying of James 5, If he is in sins, they will be forgiven him. He does not mean mortal sins, because these are remitted only in baptism or penance; therefore he means venial sins.” — The Council of Trent gives another reason for this institution at the beginning of its doctrine on the sacrament of extreme unction, drawing it from the imminent danger that threatens people at the final period of life: both the fear of divine judgment and the more severe and fierce assaults of the demons’ temptations at that time. It says: Our most merciful Redeemer, who at every time has willed that his servants be provided with saving remedies against all the weapons of all their enemies, just as he prepared the greatest aids in the other Sacraments, by which Christians might keep themselves free from every graver spiritual distress while they live, so he fortified the end of life with the Sacrament of extreme unction as with a very strong defense. For although our adversary seeks and seizes opportunities throughout our whole life to devour our souls by whatever means he can, there is no time when he strains every sinew of his craft more fiercely to destroy us utterly and, if he can, to shake us from confidence in divine mercy than when he sees the end of life drawing near.

HERETICS OBJECT, first, that the rite of anointing was taken partly from the Valentinian heretics and partly from the pagans, as St. Irenaeus teaches in book 1, chapter 18; therefore the faithful should not use it. — I answer by first denying the antecedent: as St. Epiphanius observes, the Valentinians anointed with oil mixed with water, not the dying but the dead, so that such an unction might benefit them in place of baptism. For this they used certain Hebrew and unheard-of words, which inspired terror or astonishment in those who heard them. Likewise, the pagans did not anoint the dying but those already dead; consequently, the sacred rite of extreme unction has absolutely nothing in common with those profane anointings. Add that sacred unction ought not to seem objectionable because pagans used it; otherwise baptism, too, ought to be rejected, since pagans were accustomed to baptize the bodies of the dead as well as anoint them.

THEY OBJECT 2. As we have said, the power and efficacy of a Sacrament do not depend in any way on the minister’s faith. But the power of extreme unction is drawn from the minister’s own power and faith; for St. James says, The prayer of faith will save the sick person. By these words he indicates that the salvation and healing obtained through this unction arise from the efficacy of the minister’s prayer and faith. — I deny the minor premise; nor does the Apostle mean this. For there he is speaking not of the minister’s faith but of the Church’s, in whose faith the Sacraments are administered. In the words just cited, prayer of faith should not be understood as the minister’s subjective faith, but as objective faith: namely, the prayer used by the minister to confect this Sacrament contains the word of God and the mystery of faith, which the minister must at least hold objectively in mind while administering this Sacrament to the sick person. In this sense he must also have faith when administering the other Sacraments, that is, the intention of doing what the Church intends.

THEY OBJECT 3. The Sacraments of the New Law were instituted either for the remission of sin or for the conferral of sanctifying grace. But extreme unction serves neither purpose; therefore it is not a Sacrament of the New Law. The major premise is clear from what was said about the Sacraments in general. The minor premise is proved: extreme unction is not ordered to the remission of original sin, since that is already supposed to have been remitted through baptism; nor to actual mortal sin, which is blotted out through penance; nor to venial sin, which can be expiated not only through penance but also through many other remedies and means. Nor is it ordered to the conferral of grace, since first grace is conferred through baptism or restored through penance, while second grace is granted through reception of the Eucharist; consequently, extreme unction is useless for that purpose. — I deny the minor premise, and in reply to its proof I say that extreme unction is ordered both to the final remission of venial sins and likewise to an increase of final grace. The other Sacraments do not produce this effect in the same way, as we shall say in Question 3.

FINALLY, THEY OBJECT: If there were any foundation for this reasoning, it would be drawn especially from the Epistle of St. James. But this authority is of no weight, since that Epistle is of doubtful authenticity and it is not certain that St. James wrote it; therefore, etc. — I deny the minor premise: not only do the Councils of Laodicea, canon 59; Milevis, canon 7; the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 47, to which St. Augustine subscribed; Florence; and Trent place that Epistle among the canonical Scriptures, but so do the holy Fathers, especially St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, Jerome in his Letter to Paulinus, Augustine in book 2 of On Christian Doctrine, and many others whom our Hiquaeus cites in his commentary on distinction 23, number 6.

Second conclusion. — THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION WAS INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY BY CHRIST THE LORD, AND THIS TOOK PLACE AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. This conclusion consists of two parts, of which

The Doctor teaches the first part in distinction 23, number 7, where he says: This Sacrament is said to have been instituted by Christ.... James, however, was only the promulgator, or herald, of this Sacrament instituted by Christ. The Council of Trent also teaches this plainly, Session VII, On the Sacraments in General, canon 1, where it says: If anyone says that not all the Sacraments of the New Law were instituted by Christ our Lord, let him be anathema. And Session XIV, canon 1, On Extreme Unction: If anyone says that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by blessed James.... let him be anathema.

Theological reasoning also supports this truth: both because the power to institute Sacraments exceeds Apostolic and all created authority, since it belongs to God alone to employ an efficacious sign whose institution and application infallibly confer grace; and because, since Christ was the immediate founder of the Church, it was fitting that he be the immediate author and institutor of all the Sacraments. Thus, just as it was not in the power of Peter or James to establish a new article of faith, so the institution of a new Sacrament did not pertain to their power, but only the administration of those already instituted, in accordance with the Apostle’s words in 1 Corinthians 1: Let a man so regard us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Finally, there is no stronger reason why this Sacrament should not have been instituted immediately by Christ than there is for the other Sacraments, especially since it is ordered to the remission of sin, and it belongs to God alone to remit sins. Add that if Christ had to confer on one of the Apostles the power to institute this Sacrament, there is no apparent reason why he would have given that power to James rather than to Peter, the visible head of the Church, or to the whole Apostolic College. Nor is it an objection that only St. James among the Apostles speaks of such sacramental unction: he does not speak of it as its institutor and author, but only as its promulgator and herald—the first to promulgate this Sacrament in writing, whereas previously it had been promulgated only by others orally. — Therefore, what the Master of the Sentences asserts, following Hugh of St. Victor, namely that this Sacrament was instituted by the Apostles, is not to be understood, says Estius in distinction 23, section 3, as the original institution by which a law or any decree is enacted by a lawgiver’s or prince’s authority and power. Rather, it means the promulgation of a law or decree—not in just any way, but as though someone were the first among men to hand down and commend this Sacrament to posterity in writing. In this sense, one may say that he is in a way the institutor of this Sacrament. For we read that certain things were instituted by Roman pontiffs: by Linus, for example, that no woman should enter a church unless her head were veiled; by Alexander, that only bread and wine mixed with water should be offered at Mass; by Victor, that holy Easter should be celebrated on Sunday; and other things by others, which are nevertheless partly of divine and partly of Apostolic institution. But because these pontiffs promulgated them in written law, or restored them to use when they had fallen into neglect, they are said to have instituted them. Certainly, one can no more say that James properly instituted this Sacrament because he wrote something like its law in his Epistle than one can say that Peter instituted the sacrament of baptism when, in his first sermon, he spoke to the people as if commanding them: “Let each of you be baptized,” Acts 2, etc. Just as in the latter case there was only a promulgation, with exhortation and commendation of the Sacrament, so it was in the former. So says Estius.

The second part is also proved, namely, that the sacrament of extreme unction was instituted only after the Resurrection of Christ the Lord: first, because this Sacrament presupposes in its ministers the power to remit sins, as well as episcopal authority by which the oil is blessed so that it may be the proper and suitable matter of this Sacrament. But Christ the Lord conferred full power to remit sins on the Apostles only after his Resurrection, when he said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them: second, because the sacrament of extreme unction completes and consummates the sacrament of penance and presupposes its effect with respect to the remission of mortal sin. Consequently, it was fitting that its institution presuppose the institution of the sacrament of penance, which took place only after the Resurrection. Finally, since this Sacrament is the proximate disposition for attaining glory, there appears to have been no need to institute it except at the time when access to eternal happiness was to be opened to people through Christ’s triumphant Ascension.

YOU WILL SAY: The Council of Trent, chapter 1, On Extreme Unction, says that this Sacrament was intimated in Mark 6, where we read of the disciples sent by Christ to preach that they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them. But this indication was a true institution, since there are indicated there the matter of this Sacrament, namely oil; its subject, namely the sick person; and its effect, namely restored health. Therefore, etc. This is confirmed by the authority of the Doctor, who, speaking of extreme unction in In IV Sent., distinction 23, question 1, number 5, says: “It is said to have been instituted in James 5, Is anyone among you sick? etc. But although he promulgated that Sacrament there, it is better to say that it was instituted by Christ: for we read in Mark 6 that the Apostles anointed many sick people with oil and they were healed. It is clear, however, that they did this only by the power of Christ, who had instituted that efficacious unction.” By these words the Doctor signifies that this Sacrament was instituted at that time. — I deny the minor premise; for the unction used by the Apostles in Mark 6 was ordered not so much to the salvation of the soul as to the health of the body, and consequently was not properly sacramental. Moreover, it was performed by the Apostles before they were priests. Finally, it was conferred indiscriminately on all, both the faithful who were baptized and unbelievers who were not baptized. Hence, when the Council of Trent says that this Sacrament was intimated in Mark, it means only that it was then prefigured and foreshadowed—in the way that the baptism of Christ the Lord was prefigured in the baptism of John, because the latter was its shadow and figure. In reply to the confirmation, I say that in that passage the Doctor merely follows the more common opinion of the authors of that time, who argued that extreme unction was instituted not by St. James but by Christ the Lord, since Christ the Lord indicated it in Mark 6; whether Christ instituted it there or only later, the Doctor does not address. That this assertion of ours agrees with his teaching is clear from distinction 24, where in number 2 he says: The priest has two spiritual powers: namely, to confect the Eucharist and to absolve the penitent. They are not one power, because one seems to have preceded the other: God conferred the first at the Supper, but the second only after the Resurrection, John 20. Since, then, the Doctor holds that Christ the Lord did not confer the full and complete priesthood on the Apostles on the night of the Supper, but only a partial priesthood—namely, the power to consecrate his true and real Body, but not the power over the mystical body with respect to remitting sins, a power that the Apostles received only in John 20 and after Christ’s Resurrection—it follows that he likewise teaches that extreme unction was instituted only after the Resurrection, since it is ordered to the remission of sin. Nor is it an objection that the Evangelists did not mention the institution distinctly and expressly, as they did that of the other Sacraments. They recount and commend the institution of certain Sacraments because these pertain to salvation, to the necessity of salvation, or to the Church’s order and state and its distinction from others. But the sacrament of extreme unction is not absolutely necessary for salvation, nor for the Church’s order and state. Therefore, it should not seem surprising that the Apostles made no express mention of its institution: they judged that Tradition, whether promulgated in writing or by word of mouth, sufficed for this. For it is clear that Christ the Lord prescribed many things orally to his Church through the Apostles. This may be gathered from the first chapter of Acts, where it is said that Christ appeared to the disciples for forty days and, while dining with them, spoke of the kingdom of heaven, instructing and teaching them about all matters pertaining to the governance of the Church. Add that Christ also prescribed many things and the Apostles preached them that were not written down: Andrew, Thomas, and Bartholomew preached many things without writing them. Extreme unction, however, was not only preached by the Apostles but also committed to writing and promulgated by James; that writing presupposes that this sacramental unction had been instituted orally by Christ and preached by the Apostles.