Dist. 23, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 23
Articulus I. De institutione extremae unctionis.
Quaestio I. Utrum Sacramentum extremae unctionis principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem, an ad spiritualem.
Quantum ad finem quaeritur, utrum istud Sacramentum principaliter sit ordinatum ad morbum corporalem, an ad spiritualem. Et quod ad corporalem, videtur:
1. Ex eius institutione, Iacobi quinto1: Infirmatur quis in vobis? inducat presbyteros etc., et post dicit, infra: Oratio fidei salvabit infirmum.
2. Item, Marci sexto2: Ungebant oleo multos infirmos, et curabantur; si ergo utebantur hoc Sacramento, secundum quod dicitur in Glossa, et hoc ad curationem infirmantium corporaliter: ergo principaliter videtur ad hoc ordinari.
3. Item, Sacramentum ad illud finaliter ordinatur, propter quod principaliter dispensatur; sed illud3 principaliter dispensatur propter infirmitatem corporalem, quia nunquam datur nisi existentibus in gravi infirmitate corporali: ergo videtur, quod principaliter sit ad hoc.
4. Item, si est contra infirmitatem sicut medicina, quaero, contra quam; aut contra corporalem, aut contra spiritualem. Si contra spiritualem; cum non sit contra actuale mortale4 nec originale, erit contra veniale; sed veniale quolibet die iteratur: ergo et hoc Sacramentum. Sed hoc Sacramentum non datur frequenter, sed rarissime: ergo non est contra peccatum veniale: ergo est contra infirmitatem corporalem. Si tu dicas, quod est contra peccatorum sequelas; quaero: aut contra aliquas determinate, aut contra omnes. Si contra aliquas; quare non similiter contra alias? Si contra omnes; cum sint diversae secundum diversitatem morborum, videtur, quod debeant diversa ad hoc esse Sacramenta.
Contra: 1. Quod non sit ad morbum corporalem curandum per se, videtur: quia Sacramenta novae legis in digne suscipientibus efficiunt quod significant5: si ergo viri sancti digne suscipiunt Sacramenta, ergo haberet unctio semper in eis efficaciam sanandi: ergo viri sancti nunquam morerentur.
2. Item, multi sunt viri perfecti, qui secundum Pauli exemplum desiderant dissolvi et esse cum Christo6: si ergo Sacramentum unctionis ordinatur ad vitam corporis conservandam, ergo a talibus nullo modo debet suscipi.
3. Item, Sacramentum est medicina spiritualis: ergo sicut medicina corporalis sanat solum morbum corporalem et ad hoc est principaliter et universaliter, ita videtur, quod medicina spiritualis curet solum morbum spiritualem, ita quod ad hoc sit universaliter et totaliter et principaliter.
4. Item, si unctio sanat morbum corporalem, aut per virtutem naturalem, aut per virtutem supra naturam. Non per virtutem naturalem; hoc constat, quia operatio Sacramentorum non est secundum virtutes naturales elementorum exteriorum: ergo per virtutem supra naturam; sed illa aeque potest in infirmitatem incurabilem ut curabilem: ergo videtur, quod istud Sacramentum liberaret7 a lepra; sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Extrema unctio principaliter est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis spiritualis, scilicet peccati venialis, et per accidens ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis corporalis.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliquorum opinio fuit, quod Sacramentum istud principaliter est ordinatum contra sequelas vel reliquias peccati, quae gravant, quae relictae sunt tam ex originali quam ex actuali; quae quidem reliquiae sunt poenae spirituales, habentes tamen frequenter poenas corporales annexas propter sui expurgationem: et ideo principaliter hoc Sacramentum est contra poenam spiritualem, sed ex consequenti est ad sanandum morbum corporalem. — Sed contra hoc est,
quod dicitur Iacobi quinto1b in institutione istius Sacramenti: Si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei: ergo istud Sacramentum est ordinatum contra aliquem morbum peccati; et hoc ipsum tangitur in Glossa. Et cum non sit contra originale nec contra mortale, relinquitur, quod sit contra peccatum veniale. Et hoc communis opinio tenet.
Sed notandum, quod de veniali peccato est loqui dupliciter: aut prout est quis in statu viae, aut prout est in egressu. Si prout est in statu viae sive in itinere, sic morbus venialis est quasi inseparabilis et2b quadam necessitate iterabilis, ac per hoc quodam modo incurabilis. Et ideo non debuit contra ipsum aliqua medicina specialiter et principaliter ordinari; immo quodam modo omnia Sacramenta valent ad eius curationem secundum plus et minus. — Si autem loquamur, prout anima est in statu egrediendi; sic potest3b curari sine iteratione; et sic, cum anima possit trahere talia cremabilia, quae retraherent a gloria, instituit divina misericordia remedium, quo anima curari posset quantum ad remissionem culpae et etiam partis poenae; et hoc est Sacramentum unctionis extremae.
Modus autem curandi veniale peccatum in hoc Sacramento respondet modo infirmitatis. Veniale autem peccatum gravat animam deprimendo deorsum, ut non ita intendat in Deum per devotionem et amorem, pro eo quod est ibi conversio inordinata ad commutabile bonum, et pro eo quod est minor amor Dei, sicut tangit Augustinus in libro Confessionum4b; et ideo, cum curatio directe sit per contrarium, per illud curatur, quod animam aggravatam per devotionem sursum elevat. Et quoniam corpus, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam5b; cum illud Sacramentum sit ad elevandam animam per devotionem, in qua anima recipit vigorem quendam, in quo semper est deletio venialium, si sunt in anima, et per consequens repressio molestiarum corporalium, si expedit ipsi animae: hinc est, quod istud Sacramentum principaliter est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis spiritualis, scilicet peccati venialis, et per accidens est ad curationem et alleviationem infirmitatis corporalis, quodam modo roborando6b animam, quae regit corpus.
Et sic patet, quid sit in hoc Sacramento res tantum, quid signum, et quid res et signum. Signum tantum est unctio exterior, res tantum est venialis curatio, res et signum ipsa in anima devotionis excitatio, quae non est aliud quam quaedam spiritualis unctio7b. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes probantes, istud Sacramentum valere ad infirmitates corporales curandas. Concedendae etiam sunt rationes probantes, quod non valet principaliter contra illas, quoniam solum per accidens et ex consequenti valet, ut prius ostensum est.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non datur nisi in statu infirmitatis; dicendum, quod non est propter infirmitatem, sed propter hoc, quod appropinquat egressui, in quo possunt venialia perfecte curari. Et quod istud sit verum, patet, quia quantumcumque quis infirmetur, non datur ei hoc Sacramentum, nisi praesumatur, quod moriatur, vel quod sit in articulo mortis. Et si constaret nobis de aliquo, quod liberaretur sive liberandus sit, non deberet dari ei hoc Sacramentum, sicut patebit inferius8b.
Ad illud quod obiicitur de veniali, quod quotidie iteratur; patet iam responsio: quia non datur Sacramentum contra illud peccati genus nisi in statu, in quo praesumitur, quod liberetur et a culpa et a peccandi necessitate.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non valet principaliter9b; dicendum, quod verum est, et hoc innuit ipsa forma orationis, in qua non fit mentio nisi de remissione peccatorum.
Quod tamen obiicitur, quod nullo modo debet valere, a simili, quia corporalis medicina non sanat spiritualem morbum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia spiritus continet corpus — unde passiones animales multum redundant in carnem, unde Sapiens10b dicit: Spiritus tristis exsiccat ossa — ideo non est mirum, si tranquillatur anima et vigoratur et laetificatur, si etiam hoc redundat ad corpus. Et sic hoc Sacramentum respectum habet ad corpus relevandum propter alleviationem spiritus.
Ad illud quod quaeritur: per quam virtutem hoc facit? dicendum, quod per virtutem supra naturam; sed illa operatur secundum divinam institutionem, quae noluit per hoc Sacramentum prodere
secretum fidei1c, et ita nec secundum legem communem ab infirmitatibus incurabilibus liberare. Et iterum, in hoc Sacramento aliquid est naturale, aliquid supra naturam. Effectus namque, qui est in spiritu, est supra naturam, sed quod ille redundet in carnem, istud naturale est, secundum quod in Psalmo2c dicit homo devotus: Sitivit in te anima mea etc.; et iterum alibi: Refloruit caro mea etc.
I. Contra novatores saeculi XVI. Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIV. de Sacram. extremae unctionis, can. 1.) definivit: «Si quis dixerit, extremam unctionem non esse vere et proprie Sacramentum, a Christo Domino nostro institutum et a B. Iacobo Apostolo promulgatum... a. s.». Ibid. autem in c. 1. additur, quod sit «apud Marcum quidem insinuatum» (cfr. Concil. Florent., Decret. pro Armenis).
II. Circa 1. quaestionem notandum est, doctores convenire in assignandis generaliter effectibus huius Sacramenti, nempe quod augeat gratiam et remittat venialia, quod sanatio corporis non sit nisi effectus secundarius et sub conditionibus, denique quod attrito bonae fidei etiam mortalia remittere possit. Attamen iidem dissentiunt aliquatenus in solvenda quaestione, quisnam inter istos effectus sit principalis. S. Thom. cum B. Alberto praefert opinionem primo loco positam; S. Bonav. cum Alexandro Hal., Richardo, Scoto, Durando et plurimis aliis docet, principalem effectum esse remissionem venialium, non tamen simpliciter, sed quatenus in extremo vitae periculo non sint impedimentum, quod retardet possessionem gloriae. Alii cum Suarez primarium effectum ponunt in confortatione animi contra difficultates in articulo mortis occurrentes.
Cum Summa Alexandri Hal., imperfecta relicta, non se extendat ultra Sacramentum poenitentiae, in seqq. qq. non nisi raro a nobis allegari potest. De hac autem et seq. q. idem obiter loquitur S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2. — Item Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Supplem. q. 30. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 14. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 6. quaestiunc. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.
III. Circa 2. quaestionem fuit opinio antiqua, quod Christus non immediate, sed per Apostolos, quibus commisit suam in hoc auctoritatem, Sacramentum hoc instituerit; quae nunc est obsoleta. Hanc cum nostro auctore professi sunt Hugo a S. Vict., Magister, Alex. Hal.; cui videtur re ipsa favere Thom. de Argentina (hic a. 2.), cum recipiat verba Magistri hoc sensu intellecta, quod unctio extrema sit instituta ab Apostolis «instrumentaliter et exsecutive et non principaliter et auctoritative». Haec enim praecise est sententia illorum antiquorum. Attamen ipse S. Bonav. in Breviloq. (p. VI. c. 11. et 4.) aliam et communem sententiam recepit et clare expressit. — S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; cfr. Suppl. q. 29. a. 3.) verba Magistri sic benigne interpretatur: «Dicit ab Apostolis institutum, quia per doctrinam Apostolorum nobis promulgata est eius institutio». Ibid. in corp. dicit tantum, aliam (quam ipse sequitur) opinionem videri esse probabiliorem. Petr. a Tar. utrumque modum loquendi ut aeque probabilem approbat. — Si quis autem attendit ad verba (solut. ad 2. 3.): «Institutio Sacramentorum respicit Deum ut auctorem, et Apostolos respicit ut ministros in promulgando», aliaque in solut. oppositorum dicta; patet, quod magna ex parte haec differentia reducitur ad modum loquendi, de quo fusius actum est supra d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. in scholio; et cfr. supra d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. scholion n. II.
De 2. quaestione praeter laudatos: B. Albert., hic a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med. pro hac quaestione solvenda remittit lectorem ad d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.
---
Article I. On the institution of extreme unction.
Question I. Whether the Sacrament of extreme unction is principally ordained to bodily illness, or to spiritual.
As to the end it is asked, whether this Sacrament is principally ordained to bodily illness, or to spiritual. And that [it is ordained] to bodily [illness], it seems:
1. From its institution, James five1: Is any among you sick? let him bring in the priests etc., and afterward he says, below: The prayer of faith shall save the sick man.
2. Likewise, Mark six2: They anointed with oil many sick, and they were healed; if therefore they used this Sacrament, according to what is said in the Gloss, and this for the healing of those sick bodily: therefore it seems to be principally ordained to this.
3. Likewise, a Sacrament is finally ordained to that for the sake of which it is principally dispensed; but this3 is principally dispensed on account of bodily infirmity, since it is never given except to those existing in grave bodily infirmity: therefore it seems that it is principally for this.
4. Likewise, if it is against infirmity as a medicine, I ask, against which; either against bodily [infirmity] or against spiritual. If against spiritual; since it is not against actual mortal4 nor original [sin], it will be against venial; but venial [sin] is repeated every day: therefore this Sacrament also [would be]. But this Sacrament is not given frequently, but very rarely: therefore it is not against venial sin: therefore it is against bodily infirmity. If you should say that it is against the sequelae of sins; I ask: either against some determinately, or against all. If against some; why not likewise against the others? If against all; since they are diverse according to the diversity of diseases, it seems that there ought to be diverse Sacraments for this.
On the contrary: 1. That it is not for healing bodily disease per se, it seems: because the Sacraments of the new law in those worthily receiving [them] effect what they signify5: if therefore holy men worthily receive the Sacraments, then anointing would always have in them the efficacy of healing: therefore holy men would never die.
2. Likewise, many are perfect men who, according to Paul's example, desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ6: if therefore the Sacrament of anointing is ordained for preserving the life of the body, then by such [men] it ought in no way to be received.
3. Likewise, a Sacrament is a spiritual medicine: therefore just as a bodily medicine heals only bodily disease and to this it is principally and universally [ordained], so it seems that a spiritual medicine should heal only spiritual disease, so that it is [ordained] to this universally and totally and principally.
4. Likewise, if the anointing heals bodily disease, [it does so] either by natural power or by power above nature. Not by natural power; this is agreed, because the operation of the Sacraments is not according to the natural powers of the external elements: therefore by power above nature; but that [power] can equally [act] upon incurable infirmity as upon curable: therefore it seems that this Sacrament would free7 from leprosy; but this is false: therefore etc.
Conclusion. Extreme unction is principally for the healing and alleviation of spiritual infirmity, namely of venial sin, and per accidens for the healing and alleviation of bodily infirmity.
I respond: It must be said that the opinion of some was that this Sacrament is principally ordained against the sequelae or relics of sin, which weigh [the soul] down, which are left behind both from original and from actual [sin]; which relics indeed are spiritual penalties, having nevertheless frequently bodily penalties annexed for their own purgation: and therefore this Sacrament is principally against spiritual penalty, but as a consequence it is for healing bodily disease. — But against this is
what is said in James five1b in the institution of this Sacrament: If he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him: therefore this Sacrament is ordained against some disease of sin; and this very thing is touched upon in the Gloss. And since it is not against original nor against mortal [sin], it remains that it is against venial sin. And this the common opinion holds.
But it must be noted that of venial sin one may speak in two ways: either as one is in the state of the way, or as [one is] in departure. If as one is in the state of the way or on the journey, thus venial disease is as it were inseparable and2b by a certain necessity repeatable, and through this in a certain way incurable. And therefore no medicine ought to have been specially and principally ordained against it; nay, in a certain way all the Sacraments avail for its healing according to more and less. — But if we speak as the soul is in the state of departing; thus it can3b be healed without repetition; and thus, since the soul can draw upon itself such combustible things as would draw [it] back from glory, divine mercy instituted a remedy by which the soul might be healed as to the remission of fault and even of part of the penalty; and this is the Sacrament of extreme unction.
Now the manner of healing venial sin in this Sacrament corresponds to the manner of the infirmity. Venial sin weighs the soul down, depressing it downward, so that it does not so attend to God through devotion and love, because there is there a disordered turning to changeable good, and because there is less love of God, as Augustine touches upon in the book of the Confessions4b; and therefore, since healing is directly by the contrary, it is healed by that which lifts the soul, weighed down, upward through devotion. And since the body, which is corrupted, weighs down the soul5b; since that Sacrament is for lifting up the soul through devotion, in which the soul receives a certain vigor, in which there is always the blotting-out of venial [sins], if they are in the soul, and consequently the repression of bodily troubles, if it is expedient for the soul itself: hence it is that this Sacrament is principally for the healing and alleviation of spiritual infirmity, namely of venial sin, and per accidens is for the healing and alleviation of bodily infirmity, in a certain way strengthening6b the soul, which rules the body.
And thus it is plain what in this Sacrament is the reality only, what the sign, and what the reality and the sign. The sign only is the exterior anointing, the reality only is the healing of venial [sin], the reality and the sign is the very arousal of devotion in the soul, which is nothing other than a certain spiritual anointing7b. — Therefore the reasons proving that this Sacrament avails for healing bodily infirmities are to be granted. Likewise the reasons proving that it does not avail principally against those [infirmities] are to be granted, since it avails only per accidens and as a consequence, as was shown before.
To that, then, which is objected, that it is not given except in a state of infirmity; it must be said that it is not on account of the infirmity, but on account of this, that [the soul] approaches departure, in which venial [sins] can be perfectly healed. And that this is true is plain, because however much one is infirm, this Sacrament is not given to him unless it is presumed that he will die, or that he is at the point of death. And if it were established to us concerning someone that he would be freed or is to be freed, this Sacrament ought not to be given to him, as will be plain below8b.
To that which is objected concerning venial [sin], that it is repeated daily; the response is already plain: because the Sacrament is not given against that kind of sin except in the state in which it is presumed that he will be freed both from fault and from the necessity of sinning.
To that which is objected, that it does not avail principally9b; it must be said that it is true, and this the very form of the prayer intimates, in which no mention is made except of the remission of sins.
But as to what is objected, that it ought in no way to avail, from a likeness, because bodily medicine does not heal spiritual disease; it must be said that it is not alike, because the spirit contains the body — whence the passions of the soul greatly redound upon the flesh, whence the Wise man10b says: A sorrowful spirit dries up the bones — therefore it is no wonder if the soul is calmed and invigorated and gladdened, [and] if this also redounds to the body. And thus this Sacrament has regard to the relieving of the body on account of the alleviation of the spirit.
To that which is asked: by what power does it do this? it must be said that [it does so] by power above nature; but that [power] operates according to the divine institution, which did not will through this Sacrament to betray
the secret of faith1c, and thus neither, according to the common law, to free from incurable infirmities. And again, in this Sacrament something is natural, something above nature. For the effect which is in the spirit is above nature, but that it redound into the flesh, this is natural, according to what the devout man says in the Psalm2c: My soul has thirsted for thee etc.; and again elsewhere: My flesh has flourished again etc.
I. Against the innovators of the sixteenth century the Council of Trent (Session XIV, on the Sacrament of extreme unction, canon 1) defined: «If anyone shall say that extreme unction is not truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord and promulgated by the Blessed Apostle James... let him be anathema». And in the same place, in chapter 1, it is added that it is «intimated in Mark indeed» (cf. the Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians).
II. Concerning the first question it must be noted that the doctors agree in assigning generally the effects of this Sacrament, namely that it increases grace and remits venial [sins], that the healing of the body is only a secondary effect and under conditions, and finally that it can remit even mortal [sins] in one contrite by good faith. Nevertheless the same [doctors] dissent somewhat in solving the question, which among these effects is the principal one. St. Thomas with Blessed Albert prefers the opinion placed in the first position; St. Bonaventure with Alexander of Hales, Richard, Scotus, Durandus, and very many others teaches that the principal effect is the remission of venial [sins], not however simply, but insofar as in the extreme peril of life they may not be an impediment which would delay the possession of glory. Others with Suarez put the primary effect in the strengthening of the mind against the difficulties occurring at the point of death.
Since the Summa of Alexander of Hales, left imperfect, does not extend beyond the Sacrament of penance, in the following questions it can be cited by us only rarely. On this and the following question the same [author] speaks in passing, Summa p. IV. q. 5. m. 7. a. 2. — Likewise Scotus, on this and the following questions, in both Writings here, the single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 1. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. 2; Supplement q. 30. a. 1. 2. — Blessed Albert, here a. 1. 14. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 6. quaestiunculae 1-3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1. q. 5. — On this and the following question Durandus, here q. 1; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.
III. Concerning the second question there was an ancient opinion that Christ instituted this Sacrament not immediately, but through the Apostles, to whom he committed his authority in this [matter]; which [opinion] is now obsolete. This [opinion], with our author, professed Hugh of St. Victor, the Master, Alexander of Hales; to whom Thomas of Argentina (here a. 2.) seems in fact to favor, since he receives the words of the Master understood in this sense, that extreme unction was instituted by the Apostles «instrumentally and executively and not principally and authoritatively». For this precisely is the opinion of those ancients. Nevertheless St. Bonaventure himself in the Breviloquium (p. VI. c. 11. and 4.) received and clearly expressed another and common opinion. — St. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. quaestiuncula 3. ad 2; cf. Supplement q. 29. a. 3.) interprets the words of the Master thus benignly: «He says [it was] instituted by the Apostles, because through the doctrine of the Apostles its institution has been promulgated to us». In the same place, in the body [of the article], he says only that the other opinion (which he himself follows) seems to be more probable. Peter of Tarentaise approves both modes of speaking as equally probable. — But if anyone attends to the words (solution to 2. 3.): «The institution of the Sacraments regards God as author, and regards the Apostles as ministers in promulgating», and the other things said in the solution of the opposing [arguments]; it is plain that for the most part this difference is reduced to the mode of speaking, on which it was treated more fully above d. 7. a. 1. q. 1. in the scholion; and cf. above d. 17. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. scholion n. II.
Concerning the second question, besides those already praised: Blessed Albert, here a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, for the solving of this question, refers the reader to d. 2. a. 1. q. 3.
---
- 1Vers. 14. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 15.Verse 14. — The following passage is in the same place, v. 15.
- 2Vers. 13, ubi Vulgata aegros pro infirmos. — Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum sumta est ex Beda, qui (in hunc loc.), recitatis verbis Iac. 5, 13, ait: Unde patet ab ipsis Apostolis hunc sanctae Ecclesiae morem esse traditum, ut energumeni vel alii quilibet aegroti ungantur oleo, pontificali benedictione consecrato.Verse 13, where the Vulgate [has] aegros [the sick] for infirmos [the infirm]. — The ordinary Gloss in Strabus and Lyranus is taken from Bede, who (on this passage), having recited the words of James 5:13, says: Whence it is plain that this custom of holy Church has been handed down from the Apostles themselves, that the possessed or any other sick persons be anointed with oil consecrated by pontifical benediction.
- 3Cod. F hoc.Codex F [reads] hoc [this].
- 4Ita codd. E O U, alii cum edd. tantum actuale, codd. R S T mortale. Eadem diversitas lectionum occurrit supra pag. 472, nota 8.So codices E O U; the others, with the editions, [read] only actuale [actual], codices R S T mortale [mortal]. The same variety of readings occurs above p. 472, note 8.
- 5Ut insinuatur supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1.As is intimated above in the Master's text, d. IV. c. 1.
- 6Philip. 1, 23.Philippians 1:23.
- 7Edd. liberet, cod. F curaret. Superius pro ut curabilem multi codd. ut incurabilem.The editions [read] liberet, codex F curaret. Above, for ut curabilem [as [upon] the curable] many codices [read] ut incurabilem [as [upon] the incurable].
- 1bVers. 15: Et si in peccatis sit etc. — Strabus et Lyranus in hunc loc. exhibent ut Glossam ordinariam verba Bedae, in quibus pro remissione peccatorum respicitur etiam confessio. — Superius non pauci codd. omittunt principaliter.Verse 15: And if he be in sins etc. — Strabus and Lyranus on this passage set forth as the ordinary Gloss the words of Bede, in which, for the remission of sins, confession also is regarded. — Above, not a few codices omit principaliter.
- 2bIta plures codd., alii et edd. vel, codd. E R S T sed, cod. V sed et, cod. Y sed in. Mox pro incurabilis codd. R S T curabilis.So several codices; others and the editions [read] vel [or], codices E R S T sed [but], codex V sed et, codex Y sed in. Soon, for incurabilis [incurable], codices R S T [read] curabilis [curable].
- 3bIta codd. F G V aa, scil. morbus, in aliis et edd. possunt.So codices F G V aa, namely morbus [the disease (as subject)], in the others and the editions possunt [they can].
- 4bLibr. X. c. 29. n. 40. Cod. aa verba August. addit: Minus te amat qui tecum aliquid amat quod propter te non amat (cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 3.). — De seq. propos. vide supra pag. 37, nota 4.Book X. c. 29. n. 40. Codex aa adds the words of Augustine: He loves thee less who loves anything along with thee which he does not love for thy sake (cf. above d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundamentum 3.). — On the following proposition see above p. 37, note 4.
- 5bSap. 9, 15. — De deletione venialium per vigorem devotionis cfr. supra d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.Wisdom 9:15. — On the blotting-out of venial [sins] through the vigor of devotion cf. above d. 21. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.
- 6bIta codd. E L Y bb, cod. A relevando, cod. F tranquillando, cod. G sublevando, alii tolerando, edd. ad vigorandam. — Cfr. Glossa interlinearis in Iac. 5, 14. apud Lyranum.So codices E L Y bb; codex A relevando [by relieving], codex F tranquillando [by calming], codex G sublevando [by raising up], others tolerando [by bearing], the editions ad vigorandam [for invigorating]. — Cf. the interlinear Gloss on James 5:14 in Lyranus.
- 7bVide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, et Innocent. III. in C. Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1.), X. de Sacra unctione (lib. I. tit. 15.).See here the Master's text, c. 3, and Innocent III in the [decretal] Cum venisset ad Apostolicam sedem (1.), X, on holy anointing (book I. title 15.).
- 8bArt. 2. q. 2. — Pro sive liberandus sit [cod. E esset] non pauci codd. perperam si non liberandus sit, edd. ab infirmitate.Article 2. q. 2. — For sive liberandus sit [or is to be freed] [codex E esset] not a few codices wrongly [read] si non liberandus sit [if he is not to be freed], the editions ab infirmitate [from the infirmity].
- 9bSupple: ad infirmitates corporales curandas. — De forma orationis pro hoc Sacramento cfr. infra q. 4.Supply: for healing bodily infirmities. — On the form of the prayer for this Sacrament cf. below q. 4.
- 10bProv. 17, 22. — Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 90. (c. 5.): Videtur enim contra magis anima corpus continere; egrediente enim exspirat et putrescit. — Pro animales Vat. animae spirituales. Inferius pro respectum habet cod. F valet.Proverbs 17:22. — Aristotle, I On the Soul, text 90 (c. 5.): For, on the contrary, the soul seems rather to contain the body; for when it departs, [the body] expires and rots. — For animales the Vatican [edition reads] animae spirituales. Below, for respectum habet codex F [reads] valet.
- 1cVide supra pag. 98, nota 2. Cfr. etiam supra lit. Magistri, d. XIII. c. 1. — Plures codd. omittunt per et secretum fidei.See above p. 98, note 2. Cf. also above the Master's text, d. XIII. c. 1. — Several codices omit per and secretum fidei.
- 2cPsalm. 62, 2. — Seq. locus est Ps. 27, 7.Psalm 62:2. — The following passage is Ps. 27:7.