title: Dist. 7, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 170 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum eadem gratia conferatur in baptismo et in confirmatione.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum eadem gratia conferatur in baptismo et confirmatione. Et quod alia, videtur:

1. Quia baptismus et eius effectus praecedit Sacramentum confirmationis tempore et natura; sed quod praecedit alterum tempore et natura differt ab eo essentialiter: ergo differens gratia confertur in hoc Sacramento et in illo.

2. Item, signa sunt similia et proportionabilia signatis: sed aliud signum est in baptismo et alius in confirmatione character[^1]: ergo alius effectus et alia gratia.

3. Item, si omnino daretur eadem gratia, ergo qui haberet baptismum haberet confirmationem: ergo ulterius frustra confirmaretur.

**Contra:**

1. Utraque gratia est gratum faciens[^2]; sed in una anima est una gratia gratum faciens, quia duo accidentia et maxime accidentia simplicia in eodem subiecto esse non possunt, cum sunt eiusdem speciei: ergo constat, quod una numero.

2. Item, eadem per essentiam est virtus debilis et robusta: ergo gratia baptismalis similiter et gratia confirmationis eadem.

3. Item, gratia praeveniens et subsequens, sicut dicit Magister, secundi libri distinctione vigesima septima[^3], est eadem per essentiam; sed sic se habet gratia baptismalis et confirmationis, quia baptismalis praevenit, ut homo iuste velit, confirmationis confirmat, ne frustra velit: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> *Gratia baptismi et confirmationis est una, in quantum gratum faciens, sed diversa respectu effectus.*

**Respondeo:** Cum quaeritur, utrum gratia, quae datur in Sacramento baptismi et confirmationis, sit eadem, vel alia; ista quaestio dupliciter potest intelligi: vel quod in Sacramento confirmationis non conferatur aliqua gratia nec aliquis character, sed solum baptismalis confirmetur sine alicuius appositione; et hoc quidem est quaerere, utrum in confirmatione conferatur aliqua gratia. Si enim confertur; cum non conferatur quod collatum est, patet, quod ista quaestio ex praecedenti quaestione soluta est: quia ibi datur gratia, ut dicit Rabanus, Hugo et Magister[^4], cum dicunt, ibi gratiam augeri, ac per hoc et novam conferri. Quidquid enim voluerunt aliqui dicere, credo illud verum. — Vel potest quaeri, utrum sint eaedem; esto quod in utroque detur gratia, ita quod ex his una gratia per essentiam fiat, sicut fit de eo quod auget, et eo quod augetur. Et hic[^5] sunt tres positiones.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod *differunt* essentialiter virtutes et dona; quia in baptismo datur gratia, quae influens in potentias facit *virtutes,* in confirmatione gratia, quae influens in potentias facit *dona,* in *ordine,* quae facit *beatitudines.* — Etsi pulcra videatur haec positio, tamen veritatem non habet, quia in *virtutibus* et *donis* ponit gratiam *essentialiter* differre[^6]. Rursus, connexionem illorum dissolvit; in Sacramentis enim non est connexio, ut in virtutibus et donis.

Alia positio est, quod gratia haec et baptismalis, etsi sint gratum facientes, *differunt* tamen *essentia,* sicut *morbi,* contra quos ordinantur; et distinguuntur in *subiecto,* quia in diversis partibus animae potentialibus[^7]: ut, sicut partes animae partes corporis, sic partes gratiae partes animae sive potentias perficiant. Unde dicunt, quod *distinctae* manent in anima, nec una auget aliam nec confirmat nisi *per accidens,* scilicet quia confirmat hominem.

Tertio modo potest dici, quod gratia gratum faciens in anima est una, quia una est anima, quae gratificatur et uni[^8]; et rursus, tota gratia tollitur unico peccato. — Propter hoc dicendum aliter, sicut in *virtutibus gratuitis,* quod est ibi *gratia* et *habitus substratus,* et *gratia una* in omnibus, sed *habitus substrati alii* et *alii;* sic in sacramentali etiam gratia et est *gratia gratum faciens* et *effectus specialis,* quem habet virtute Sacramenti. Et in quantum *gratum faciens, una est,* sed ratione *effectuum distinguitur*[^9]; et quia Sacramentum significat gratiam ut in tali effectu, ideo signa et Sacramenta sunt diversa. — Concedendum est ergo, quod gratiae baptismali *superadditur* gratia confirmationis, quae habet alium effectum, scilicet ablationem pusillanimitatis; et hoc probant tres primae rationes. Concedendum est etiam, quod *cedit in unam,* sicut probant tres sequentes rationes. — Quamvis enim *gratia* per essentiam sit eadem, tamen *effectus,* ad quem ordinatur, est alius et alius; et ideo non est repugnantia inter rationes illas. Gratia enim in anima una est gratum faciens, sed effectus sunt multi et varii; et quoniam signa sacramentalia ordinantur ad gratiam secundum *effectus curationis:* ideo sunt varia signa et Sacramenta. et non solum signa *exteriora* et visibilia, sed etiam *interiora,* ut puta sunt characteres, qui sunt signacula distinctiva[^10].

<!-- page 171 -->

**[Solutio oppositorum.]**

1. Ad illud tamen quod obiicitur, quod non sunt duo accidentia eiusdem speciei in eodem subiecto; dici potest, quod[^11], in quantum sunt sacramentalia, non sunt eiusdem speciei, sed diversae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eadem est virtus debilis et roborata; dicendum, quod non solum differunt per *debile* et *roboratum* gratia baptismalis et confirmationis, sed etiam per *morbum,* contra quem sunt et quem curant.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia praeveniente et subsequente, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia ad eundem effectum ordinantur gratia praeveniens et subsequens, non sic gratia Sacramentorum istorum; nihilominus tamen concedo, quod illa gratia gratum faciens, secundum quod huiusmodi, cedit in unum cum gratia baptismali et illam auget: ideo prima ratio non valet, quod quae habent ordinem temporis non sunt idem. Illud enim fallit in his quorum unum se habet per additionem ad alterum[^12].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the same grace is conferred in baptism and in confirmation.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether the same grace is conferred in baptism and in confirmation. And that it is a different grace seems to be the case:

1. Because baptism and its effect precede the Sacrament of confirmation in time and in nature; but that which precedes another in time and in nature differs from it essentially: therefore a different grace is conferred in this Sacrament and in that.

2. Likewise, signs are similar and proportionate to the things signified: but the sign in baptism is one thing and in confirmation another, namely the character[^1]: therefore there is a different effect and a different grace.

3. Likewise, if entirely the same grace were given, then whoever had baptism would have confirmation: therefore he would furthermore be confirmed in vain.

**On the contrary:**

1. Each grace is sanctifying[^2]; but in one soul there is one sanctifying grace, because two accidents — and most of all simple accidents — cannot be in the same subject when they are of the same species: therefore it is established that it is one in number.

2. Likewise, the same virtue by essence is both weak and strong: therefore baptismal grace and the grace of confirmation are likewise the same.

3. Likewise, prevenient and subsequent grace, as the Master says in the twenty-seventh distinction of the second book[^3], is the same by essence; but so it stands with baptismal grace and the grace of confirmation, since the baptismal grace prevenes, that man may will justly, the grace of confirmation confirms, lest he will in vain: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> *The grace of baptism and of confirmation is one, insofar as it is sanctifying, but diverse in respect of its effect.*

**I respond:** When it is asked whether the grace which is given in the Sacrament of baptism and of confirmation is the same or different; this question can be understood in two ways: either that in the Sacrament of confirmation no grace nor any character is conferred, but only the baptismal grace is confirmed without the addition of anything; and this indeed is to ask whether in confirmation any grace is conferred. For if it is conferred — since that which has been conferred is not conferred again — it is clear that this question has been resolved from the preceding question: because there grace is given, as Rabanus, Hugh, and the Master say[^4], when they say that grace is there increased, and through this also a new grace is conferred. For whatever some have wished to say, I believe that to be true. — Or it can be asked whether they are the same; granted that grace is given in each, such that from these one grace by essence comes to be, as happens with that which increases and that which is increased. And here[^5] there are three positions.

For some say that the virtues and the gifts *differ* essentially; because in baptism a grace is given which, flowing into the powers, makes the *virtues,* in confirmation a grace which, flowing into the powers, makes the *gifts,* in their *order,* which makes the *beatitudes.* — Although this position may seem beautiful, nevertheless it does not hold the truth, because in the *virtues* and *gifts* it posits that grace differs *essentially*[^6]. Again, it dissolves their connection; for in the Sacraments there is no connection, as there is in the virtues and gifts.

Another position is that this grace and the baptismal grace, even though they are sanctifying, nevertheless *differ* in *essence,* like the *diseases* against which they are ordered; and they are distinguished in the *subject,* because in diverse potential parts of the soul[^7]: so that, just as the parts of the soul perfect the parts of the body, so the parts of grace perfect the parts of the soul, or its powers. Hence they say that they remain *distinct* in the soul, and the one neither increases the other nor confirms it except *per accidens,* namely because it confirms the man.

In a third way it can be said that the sanctifying grace in the soul is one, because the soul which is graced and to which it is given is one[^8]; and again, the whole grace is taken away by a single sin. — On account of this it must be said otherwise, as in the case of the *gratuitous virtues,* that there is there a *grace* and an *underlying habit,* and one *grace* in all, but the *underlying habits* are different and different; so also in the sacramental grace there is both *sanctifying grace* and a *special effect,* which it has by virtue of the Sacrament. And insofar as it is *sanctifying, it is one,* but it is *distinguished* by reason of its *effects*[^9]; and because the Sacrament signifies grace as in such an effect, therefore the signs and Sacraments are diverse. — It must therefore be granted that to the baptismal grace there is *superadded* the grace of confirmation, which has another effect, namely the removal of faint-heartedness; and this the first three arguments prove. It must also be granted that *it merges into one,* as the three following arguments prove. — For although the *grace* by essence is the same, nevertheless the *effect* to which it is ordered is one and another; and therefore there is no contradiction between those arguments. For the grace in the soul is one sanctifying grace, but the effects are many and varied; and since the sacramental signs are ordered to grace according to the *effects of healing:* therefore the signs and Sacraments are varied. And not only the *exterior* and visible signs, but also the *interior* ones, as for instance the characters, which are distinctive marks[^10].

**[Solution of the objections.]**

1. To that which is objected, however — that there are not two accidents of the same species in the same subject — it can be said that[^11], insofar as they are sacramental, they are not of the same species, but of diverse species.

2. To that which is objected — that the weak and the strengthened virtue is the same — it must be said that baptismal grace and the grace of confirmation differ not only by *weak* and *strengthened,* but also by the *disease* against which they are and which they heal.

3. To that which is objected concerning prevenient and subsequent grace, it must be said that it is not similar: because prevenient and subsequent grace are ordered to the same effect, but not so the grace of these Sacraments; nevertheless I concede that that sanctifying grace, as such, merges into one with the baptismal grace and increases it: therefore the first argument is not valid, that things which have an order of time are not the same. For that fails in those things of which the one stands by addition to the other[^12].

---

la: Ut dictum est supra d. 6. p. 1. q. 1. — Cod. F *et alius effectus: ergo alia gratia.*

en: As was said above, d. 6, p. 1, q. 1. — Codex F reads *and a different effect: therefore a different grace.*

la: Vide quaest. praeced. — *Minor* ostensa est II. Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. De ratione minori addita cfr. ibid. pag. 119, nota 8.

en: See the preceding question. — The *minor* was shown in II Sent., d. 27, a. 1, q. 1. On the minor premise added, cf. ibid., p. 119, note 8.

la: Cap. 1, ubi etiam dicit, gratia praeveniente voluntatem praeparari, *ut bonum velit,* gratia subsequente eam adiuvari, *ne frustra velit.* — Inferius pro *confirmationis confirmat* cod. U *confirmationis gratia subsequitur.*

en: Chapter 1, where he also says that by prevenient grace the will is prepared, *that it may will the good,* and by subsequent grace it is aided, *lest it will in vain.* — Below, for *the grace of confirmation confirms,* codex U reads *the grace of confirmation follows.*

la: Verba Rabani et Magistri allegata sunt fundam. 1. et 3. quaest. praeced.; verba Hugonis vide supra pag. 168, nota 8.

en: The words of Rabanus and the Master cited are at fundamenta 1 and 3 of the preceding question; for the words of Hugh see above, p. 168, note 8.

la: Permulti codd. *hinc.*

en: Very many codices read *hence.*

la: De hac et seq. ratione vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 6, ubi et de *tertia* positione. — Mox pro *connexionem* ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. *connexiones.*

en: On this and the following reasoning see above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 6, where the *third* position is also treated. — Soon, for *connection,* edition 1 with several codices reads *connections.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 24. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1; d. 27. a. 1. q. 2, et ibid. pag. 600, nota 1. — Cod. Z supplet *sunt.* Subinde post *corporis* cod. aa bene addit *perficiunt.* Aliquanto inferius pro *quia confirmat* ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. *qua* [codd. F G I *in quantum*] *confirmat.*

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 24, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1; d. 27, a. 1, q. 2, and ibid., p. 600, note 1. — Codex Z supplies *they are.* Then after *body* codex aa rightly adds *perfect.* Somewhat below, for *because it confirms,* edition 1 with several codices reads *by which* [codices F G I *insofar as*] *it confirms.*

la: In codd. W Y additur *scilicet Deo.* Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 2. in corp.

en: In codices W Y there is added *namely to God.* Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 2, in the body.

la: Ita codd. E K W, in aliis et edd. *distinguuntur.*

en: Thus codices E K W; in the others and in the editions, *they are distinguished.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, p. I, q. 1.

la: Supple: *gratia baptismi et confirmationis.*

en: Supply: *the grace of baptism and of confirmation.*

la: Aristot., II. Topic. c. 4. (c. 11.): *Si id, ad quod est appositum aliquid, facit magis tale, quale erat, et ipsum erit eiusmodi.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* II, c. 4 (c. 11): *If that to which something is added makes [the whole] more such as it was, then it too will be of that kind.* — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands of printed pp.170–171 (PDF pp.190–191; offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR base, raw lines 19368–19549. Vol IV is two-column; the Respondeo/Solutio cascade-shatter in OCR, so the PDF bands are authoritative for the body. Column split at x≈2050 (1880 truncated the wider left column on these pages); re-cropped at 2050/scale 1.5.
- **Alignment confirmed.** Opener "Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum eadem gratia conferatur in baptismo et confirmatione" (raw L19372) = ART II q2. QUAESTIO III ("Tertio quaeritur, utrum copiosius munus gratiae conferatur…") begins at raw L19550, excluded.
- **Page-split map.** q2 body (fundamenta, Contra, Conclusio, Respondeo) is wholly on p.170 (raw L19368–~L19360-region through the p.170-R Respondeo ending "…signacula distinctiva"). The Solutio oppositorum (three Ad-objection replies) continues at the top of p.171 left column and ends at "…ad alterum" just before QUAESTIO III. The p.171 running head reads "DIST. VII. ART. II. QUAEST. III" because q3 dominates that page, but the top-of-page replies belong to q2.
- **Footer ownership.** p.170 footnotes 1–10 are all anchored in the q2 body → claimed here as [^1]–[^10]. p.171 footnotes 1–2 are anchored in the q2 replies → claimed here as [^11]–[^12]. p.171 footnotes 3–11 are anchored in the q3 body → left to a2-q3 (raw L19550+). a2-q1 owns all p.169 footers and the article scholion.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The Articulus II SCHOLION block sits at raw L19345–19367 — i.e. BEFORE QUAESTIO II (L19368) and inside a2-q1's range (L19233–19367); a2-q1 owns it. That scholion is written as a combined treatment of q1+q2 ("De utraque quaestione antiqui Scholastici plerumque simul agunt"; the q2-keyed portion is "Quoad seq. (2). quaestionem cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 6"). Because no scholion section falls within this chunk's body range, none is rendered here. (Footnote [^12] above explicitly cross-references "scholion ad praecedentem quaest." = the a2-q1 scholion.)
- **`[?]` flags.** None. All readings resolved from the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 7, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 171 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum copiosius munus gratiae conferatur in confirmatione quam in baptismo.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum copiosius munus gratiae conferatur in confirmatione quam in baptismo.

Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Ratione effectus:* est enim haec ad confirmandum, illa ad iustificandum; haec est ad credendum, haec ad confitendum[^1]: si ergo maioris gratiae est confirmatum esse quam iustificari, maioris etiam publice confiteri quam occulte credere; videtur, quod gratia confirmationis sit copiosior.

2. Item, *ratione alia* videtur: quia signum in hoc Sacramento est pretiosius et carius: ergo et gratia signata pretiosior et maior in confirmatione, cum signum in Sacramentis debeat respondere signato[^2].

3. Item, *ratione dispensationis:* quia non ideo maius est Sacramentum, quia a maioribus, sed quia maius, ideo est eius dispensatio commissa maioribus[^3]; sed dispensatio huius Sacramenti est maioribus commissa quam baptismi: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *auctoritate* Rabani[^4]: «In baptismo Spiritus sanctus descendit ad habitationem Deo consecrandam, in hac vero eiusdem septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis et virtutis venit in hominem»: patet ergo, quod confert maius munus.

**Contra:**

1. Gratia baptismalis est contra culpam originalem et omnes eius sequelas, sed confirmationis contra *unam* sequelam, ut puta pusillanimitatem[^5]; sed congruum est, contra morbum maiorem et efficaciorem dari medicinam: ergo etc.

2. Item, ratione effectus primi videtur: quia maius donum est de inimico fieri amicum quam de amico magis amicum; sed in baptismo fit homo amicus, in confirmatione autem magis[^6]: ergo in baptismo confertur maius donum.

3. Item, baptismus facit hominem innocentem et statim aperit caelum[^7]; sed hoc non facit confirmatio nec aliud Sacramentum: ergo baptismus est efficacius Sacramentum.

4. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Magistri in litera[^8]: «Maius est hoc Sacramentum, non ob maiorem virtutem, vel utilitatem, quam conferat, sed quia a dignioribus datur»: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Gratia confirmationis non praecise, sed cum praesuppositione dici potest maior gratia baptismali.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod gratia confirmationis praesupponit gratiam baptismalem, sicut bene esse supponit esse. Quando igitur fit comparatio harum gratiarum, potest fieri dupliciter: uno modo cum praesuppositione; et sic omnino maior est gratia confirmationis quam baptismalis; sicut «bene et perfecte vivere melius quam vivere»[^9], quia hoc addit ad illud et complet. — Si autem intelligatur praecise, ut scilicet haec gratia, quae additur, sit maior, vel minor; dicendum sine dubio, quod non est tantae efficaciae, ut patet, quia vivificare mortuum maior gratia est et potentia, quam iam vivificatum sanare vel fortificare, praecise loquendo; sed cum praesuppositione maius est esse vivum et sanum quam vivum tantum.

[Notandum:] ente et subsequente, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia ad eundem effectum ordinantur gratia praeveniens et subsequens, non sic gratia Sacramentorum; nihilominus tamen concedo, quod illa gratia, gratum faciens, secundum quod huiusmodi, *cedit in unum* cum gratia baptismali et illam auget: ideo prima ratio non valet, quod quae habent ordinem temporis non sunt idem. Illud enim fallit in his quorum unum se habet per additionem ad alterum[^10][^11].

<!-- page 172 -->

**[Ad argumenta:]** Rationes ergo probantes, quod confirmationis gratia maior est, intelliguntur *cum praesuppositione,* quia auget gratiam baptismalem; sed rationes probantes contrarium, intelliguntur *cum praecisione,* hanc gratiam illi cui additur, comparando; et hoc patet per singulas rationes cuilibet inspicienti[^12].

english:
<!-- page 171 -->

### Question III. *Whether a more copious gift of grace is conferred in confirmation than in baptism.*

Thirdly it is asked whether a more copious gift of grace is conferred in confirmation than in baptism.

And that it is so, it seems:

1. *By reason of effect:* for this [grace] is for confirming, that one for justifying; this is for believing, this for confessing[^1]: if therefore it is of greater grace to be confirmed than to be justified, of greater grace also to confess publicly than to believe secretly; it seems that the grace of confirmation is more copious.

2. Likewise, *by another reason* it seems: because the sign in this Sacrament is more precious and more dear: therefore also the signified grace is more precious and greater in confirmation, since in the Sacraments the sign ought to correspond to the thing signified[^2].

3. Likewise, *by reason of dispensation:* because a Sacrament is not greater on the ground that it is from greater [persons], but because it is greater, on that account its dispensation has been committed to greater [persons][^3]; but the dispensation of this Sacrament has been committed to greater [persons] than that of baptism: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by the authority* of Rabanus[^4]: «In baptism the Holy Spirit descends to consecrate a dwelling-place for God, but in this [Sacrament] the sevenfold [grace] of the same [Spirit], with all fullness of holiness and virtue, comes into the human being»: it is clear therefore that it confers a greater gift.

**On the contrary:**

1. Baptismal grace is against original fault and all its consequences, but [the grace] of confirmation against *one* consequence, as for instance pusillanimity[^5]; but it is fitting that against a greater and more efficacious disease a [stronger] medicine be given: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason of the first effect: because it is a greater gift to be made a friend from an enemy than from a friend a greater friend; but in baptism a person is made a friend, while in confirmation [he is made] more [a friend][^6]: therefore in baptism a greater gift is conferred.

3. Likewise, baptism makes a person innocent and at once opens heaven[^7]; but confirmation does not do this, nor any other Sacrament: therefore baptism is the more efficacious Sacrament.

4. Likewise, to this there is the authority of the Master in the text[^8]: «This Sacrament is greater, not on account of a greater virtue, or usefulness, which it confers, but because it is given by worthier [ministers]»: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The grace of confirmation can be called greater than the baptismal grace not absolutely, but with a presupposition.

**I respond:** It must be said that the grace of confirmation presupposes baptismal grace, as well-being presupposes being. When therefore a comparison of these graces is made, it can be done in two ways: in one way with presupposition; and thus the grace of confirmation is altogether greater than the baptismal; just as «to live well and perfectly is better than to live»[^9], because the former adds to the latter and completes it. — But if it be understood absolutely, namely so that this grace which is added be greater or lesser; it must be said without doubt that it is not of such efficacy, as is clear, because to give life to a dead thing is a greater grace and power than to heal or strengthen one already given life, speaking absolutely; but with presupposition it is greater to be living and sound than merely living.

[Note:] [as to the preceding and following], it must be said that it is not similar, because preventing and subsequent grace are ordered to the same effect, not so the grace of the Sacraments; nevertheless I concede that that grace, as making pleasing, insofar as it is such, *coincides into one* with the baptismal grace and augments it: therefore the first reason is not valid, [namely] that things which have an order of time are not the same. For that fails in those things of which the one is related to the other by addition[^10][^11].

<!-- page 172 -->

**[To the arguments:]** The reasons therefore proving that the grace of confirmation is greater are understood *with presupposition,* because it augments the baptismal grace; but the reasons proving the contrary are understood *with absoluteness,* comparing this grace to that to which it is added; and this is clear through the individual reasons to anyone who inspects them[^12].

la: Supple: gratia baptismi et confirmationis.

en: Supply: the grace of baptism and of confirmation.

la: Aristot., II. Topic. c. 4. (c. 11.): Si id, ad quod est appositum aliquid, facit magis tale, quale erat, et ipsum erit eiusmodi. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Aristotle, Topics II, c. 4 (c. 11): If that to which something is added makes [it] more such as it was, then it too will be of that kind. — See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above, q. 1 ff.

la: Scil. chrisma. Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. q. incid. 3.

en: Namely the chrism. Cf. above, art. 1, q. 2, incidental question 3.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Minor ostensa est supra a. 1. q. 3. — Inferius post *quam* edd. supplent *dispensatio.*

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 1. — The minor was shown above, art. 1, q. 3. — Below, after *quam* the editions supply *dispensatio.*

la: Libr. 1. de Instit. cleric. c. 30. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Book 1, *On the Instruction of Clerics*, c. 30. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Sive infirmitatem, secundum Bedam, de quo vide supra pag. 33, nota 1. — De effectu gratiae baptismalis cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Subinde ante *morbum* codd. E ILU interserunt *maiorem*; deinde edd. ante *efficaciorem* omittunt *et.*

en: Or [against] infirmity, according to Bede, on whom see above, p. 33, note 1. — On the effect of baptismal grace cf. above, d. 1, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — Thereupon before *morbum* the codices E, ILU insert *maiorem*; then the editions before *efficaciorem* omit *et.*

la: Vat. addit *amicus.*

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *amicus.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, p. 2, doubt 3.

la: Hic c. 1. — Pro *conferat* cod. K *confert.*

en: Here, c. 1. — For *conferat* codex K [reads] *confert.*

la: Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2.

en: Aristotle, Topics III, c. 2.

en: See the scholion on the 1st question of this article.

latin_scholion:
*[De 3. quaestione — section of the unified ARTICULUS II scholion, which is printed in full after q2 (p.170); rendered here for the q3-keyed portion only.]*

**De 3. quaestione:** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. — Scot., hic q. 3. — S. Thom. hic loc. cit. — B. Albert. hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
*[On the 3rd question — section of the unified ARTICULUS II scholion, which is printed in full after q2 (p.170); rendered here for the q3-keyed portion only.]*

**On the 3rd question:** Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, member 4, art. 2. — Scotus, here q. 3. — St. Thomas, here in the place cited. — Bl. Albert, here art. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, in the place cited, little-question 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here art. 5, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p17{1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed pp.171–172 = pdf pp.191–192, offset +20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 19550–19657. ARTICULUS III (`De confirmatione quoad usum`, L19658+) is the next chunk (d7-a3-q1) and is excluded here. Opener alignment confirmed: QUAESTIO III, title *Utrum copiosius munus gratiae conferatur in confirmatione quam in baptismo* — this is q3 of ARTICULUS II.
- **Page-split map.** Body and Contra args + Respondeo + Conclusio sit on p.171 (both columns); the closing "Rationes ergo probantes… / bantes contrarium…" (the Ad-argumenta resolution) straddles the p.171→172 turn and finishes at the top of p.172 (left col continues into right col: "…cuilibet inspicienti¹"). ARTICULUS III opens immediately after on p.172.
- **Footer ownership.** p.171 footnotes 1–11 all anchor in this q3 body → rendered here as [^1]–[^11]. On p.172 only footnote **1** ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") anchors in this q3 body (at "inspicienti") → rendered here as [^12]. **p.172 footnotes 2–10 belong to ARTICULUS III** (d7-a3-q1) — left to that neighbor. The prior chunk **d7-a2-q2** owns all of p.170 and the p.170/171 q2 footers (incl. the p.171 q2-solutio "Notandum" marginal block) — nothing parked for it here.
- **Scholion disposition.** ARTICULUS II has a **single unified scholion printed after q2** (p.170, raw L19345), structured by question (it carries a "De 3. quaestione" sub-section, L19354). Per task scope, only the **q3-keyed "De 3. quaestione" sub-section** is rendered in this chunk; the scholion's header and "De 1./2. quaestione" sub-sections are owned by the d7-a2-q2 chunk where the block physically prints. `has_scholion: true` reflects this rendered sub-section.
- **`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Two minor editorial bracketings noted, not flagged: (a) the post-Respondeo "Notandum" paragraph ("ente et subsequente…") is the OCR/print continuation of the reply absorbing an objection about preventing/subsequent grace — opening word truncated in source margin, rendered "[Note:]"; (b) "[Ad argumenta:]" supplied as the resolution heading (Quaracchi prints it as a running "Ad argg." margin only).

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 7, Art. 3, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 172 -->

### Articulus III. *De confirmatione quoad usum.*

Consequenter quaeritur de usu Sacramenti confirmationis, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur de usu quantum ad generalitatem. Secundo, quantum ad necessitatem. Tertio, quantum ad modum dispensandi et ordinem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum usus Sacramenti confirmationis debeat esse generalis.*

Et quod non debeat eius usus esse generalis, videtur:

1. Et primo, quod debeant excludi *mulieres:* quia hoc Sacramentum ordinat ad pugnam[^1]; sed mulieres excluduntur a bello[^2]: ergo debent excludi ab hoc Sacramento.

2. Item, videtur, quod debeant excludi *parvuli,* per eandem rationem, cum non sint apti ad portandum arma[^3].

3. Item, videntur excludi illi qui sunt in *periculo mortis:* quia illi exeunt extra omnem pugnam: ergo liberi sunt a Sacramento pugnae.

4. Item, videtur, quod hoc Sacramentum non competat *mutis:* quoniam hoc Sacramentum est ad liberam nominis Christi confessionem[^4]; sed muti non possunt confiteri ore: ergo frustra recipiunt qui hoc recipiunt.

5. Item, aut ab hoc Sacramento excluduntur *aliqui,* aut *nulli.* Si *aliqui:* non ergo est omnium generaliter; si *nulli* excluduntur: ergo character impressus distinguit solum ab infidelibus: ergo a tot et eisdem, a quot et quibus character baptismalis[^5]: ergo videtur, quod alter istorum superfluat; quod est inconveniens[^6].

**Contra:**

1. Quod istud Sacramentum competat *omnibus,* videtur: quia, sicut dicit Magister et Rabanus, in hoc Sacramento datur septiformis gratia Spiritus sancti; sed iste effectus est omnibus generalis: ergo et hoc Sacramentum.

2. Item, quod conveniat *omni sexui,* videtur, et maxime muliebri: quia omnes qui pie volunt *vivere in Christo, persecutionem patiuntur*[^7]; ergo et sexus infirmus; sed infirmo, qui persecutionem patitur, sunt maxime necessaria arma fortitudinis: ergo cum haec dentur in confirmatione, videtur, quod mulieres maxime indigeant hoc Sacramento.

3. Item, quod sit necessarium *omni aetati* et maxime puerili, videtur: quia discreti ducis est armare milites suos ante pugnam et ante laesionem; sed pugna et laesiones et ictus[^8] statim incipiunt in annis discretionis: ergo competens est, Sacramentum confirmationis ante annos discretionis dari.

4. Item, videtur, quod *omni statui:* quia *certum* est de *viventibus,* et hoc *ostenditur* de *morientibus* auctoritate Hugonis, qui dicit in libro de Sacramentis[^9]: «Omnino periculosum esset, si ab hac vita sine confirmatione migrare contingeret»; et ita morienti etiam opportunum est.

### Conclusio.

> Sacramentum confirmationis competit omnibus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud Sacramentum omnibus competit propter gratiae ampliationem, quae ibi datur[^10], sed maxime competit his qui sunt de acie pugnantium in bello spirituali; et quia hoc competit omni sexui, ideo et hoc Sacramentum omnibus competit.

<!-- page 173 -->

**[Ad obiecta:]**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de *mulieribus,* patet: quia, licet non competat bellum *materiale,* competit tamen *spirituale.* Multae enim in hoc bello strenuae fuerunt, ut patet de sacris Virginibus, quae martyrizatae sunt pro confessione et nomine Christi.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *parvulis,* dicendum, quod parvuli non armantur pro statu illius aetatis, ut tunc pugnent, sed ut postmodum sint pugnaturi. Sed nec hoc fit nisi convenienter, quia arma illa non sunt aggravantia, sed alleviantia; nec solum sunt defendentia, sed praemunientia; et melius est, hominem muniri ante laesionem quam post.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de his qui sunt in *periculo mortis,* patet responsio: quia non recipiunt Sacramentum ad pugnam et conflictum, sed ad meritum obedientiae et virtutis augmentum; quod est eis utile et bonum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *mutis,* dicendum, quod Sacramentum istud est ad corroborationem fidei in corde; et hoc ita indiget mutus ut disertus; nec tantum in corde, verum etiam in nutu et passione potest Christum profiteri: et ideo hoc Sacramento indiget, sicut et alii.

5. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur de charactere, dixerunt aliqui, quod unus est character, differens solum secundum *statum;* ideo non est superfluitas, quamvis ab eisdem distinguat. — Sed tamen illud non est conveniens dicere, quod *idem* sit character, cum aliud sit signum exterius, cum etiam non confirmatus possit ordinari. Et ideo dicendum est aliter, quod alius est character et ab eisdem distinguit; sed tamen non superfluit, quia secundum alium et alium statum distinguit. Quamvis enim omnis Christianus sit Christi pugil, tamen ex gratia in alio et alio statu dicitur Christianus et pugil; et secundum alium et alium actum, scilicet confessionem exteriorem et credulitatem interiorem. Et quia secundum aliud distinguit character et ad alium actum gratiae disponit, ideo non superfluit; et cum alius sit status fidei, et character statum respiciat, quamvis fides sit eadem; character est alius, sicut signum exterius.

english:
<!-- page 172 -->

### Article III. *On confirmation with respect to its use.*

Consequently it is asked concerning the use of the Sacrament of confirmation, and about this three things are asked. First it is asked concerning the use with respect to generality. Second, with respect to necessity. Third, with respect to the manner of dispensing and the order.

### Question I. *Whether the use of the Sacrament of confirmation ought to be general.*

And that its use ought not to be general, it seems:

1. And first, that *women* ought to be excluded: because this Sacrament orders [one] to battle[^1]; but women are excluded from war[^2]: therefore they ought to be excluded from this Sacrament.

2. Likewise, it seems that *small children* ought to be excluded, by the same reason, since they are not fit for bearing arms[^3].

3. Likewise, those who are in *danger of death* seem to be excluded: because they go forth out of every battle: therefore they are free from the Sacrament of battle.

4. Likewise, it seems that this Sacrament does not belong to *the mute:* since this Sacrament is for the free confession of the name of Christ[^4]; but the mute cannot confess with the mouth: therefore those who receive this receive it in vain.

5. Likewise, either *some* are excluded from this Sacrament, or *none.* If *some:* then it is not of all generally; if *none* are excluded: then the impressed character distinguishes only from unbelievers: therefore from just as many and the same as the baptismal character does[^5]: therefore it seems that one of the two is superfluous; which is unfitting[^6].

**On the contrary:**

1. That this Sacrament belongs to *all,* it seems: because, as the Master and Rabanus say, in this Sacrament the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is given; but that effect is general to all: therefore this Sacrament also [is].

2. Likewise, that it is suitable to *every sex,* it seems, and most of all to the female: because all who wish to *live piously in Christ suffer persecution*[^7]; therefore the weaker sex also [does]; but for the weak one who suffers persecution the arms of fortitude are most necessary: therefore, since these are given in confirmation, it seems that women most of all need this Sacrament.

3. Likewise, that it is necessary to *every age* and most of all to the childish, it seems: because it belongs to a prudent commander to arm his soldiers before the battle and before injury; but battle and injuries and blows[^8] begin at once in the years of discretion: therefore it is fitting that the Sacrament of confirmation be given before the years of discretion.

4. Likewise, it seems [that it belongs] to *every state:* because it is *certain* concerning the *living,* and this is *shown* concerning the *dying* by the authority of Hugh, who says in the book *On the Sacraments*[^9]: «It would be altogether dangerous, if it should happen to depart from this life without confirmation»; and so it is also opportune for the dying.

### Conclusion.

> The Sacrament of confirmation belongs to all.

**I respond:** It must be said that that Sacrament belongs to all on account of the enlargement of grace which is given there[^10], but it belongs most of all to those who are of the line of battle in the spiritual war; and because this belongs to every sex, therefore this Sacrament also belongs to all.

<!-- page 173 -->

**[To the objections:]**

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning *women,* it is clear: because, although *material* battle does not belong [to them], yet the *spiritual* does. For many in this war were valiant, as is clear concerning the holy Virgins, who were martyred for the confession and name of Christ.

2. To that which is objected concerning *small children,* it must be said that small children are not armed for the state of that age, that they should fight then, but that they should afterward be those-about-to-fight. Nor does even this happen except fittingly, because those arms are not burdening but lightening; nor are they only defending, but fore-arming; and it is better that a person be fortified before injury than after.

3. To that which is objected concerning those who are in *danger of death,* the response is clear: because they do not receive the Sacrament for battle and conflict, but for the merit of obedience and the increase of virtue; which is useful and good for them.

4. To that which is objected concerning *the mute,* it must be said that this Sacrament is for the strengthening of faith in the heart; and the mute needs this just as the eloquent does; nor only in the heart, but also by gesture and by suffering can he profess Christ: and therefore he needs this Sacrament, just as others do.

5. To that which is asked last concerning the character, some have said that there is one character, differing only according to *state;* therefore there is no superfluity, although it distinguishes from the same [persons]. — But yet it is not fitting to say that the character is *the same,* since the outward sign is different, since even one not confirmed can be ordained. And therefore it must be said otherwise, that the character is different and distinguishes from the same [persons]; yet nevertheless it is not superfluous, because it distinguishes according to one and another state. For although every Christian is a champion of Christ, yet by grace he is called a Christian and a champion in one and another state; and according to one and another act, namely the outward confession and the inward belief. And because the character distinguishes according to something different and disposes to a different act of grace, therefore it is not superfluous; and since the state of faith is different, and the character regards the state, although the faith is the same; the character is different, as is the outward sign.

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

la: Cfr. infra q. 3. in corp. — Mox plurimi codd. *excludebantur* pro *excluduntur.*

en: Cf. below, q. 3, in the body. — Soon after, very many codices [read] *were excluded* for *are excluded.*

la: Cod. aa *videtur, quod debeant.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *it seems, that they ought.*

la: Ut ostensum est supra a. 1. q. 1. ad q. incid. 1. — In fine arg. codd. K N W V aa addunt *Sacramentum.*

en: As was shown above, a. 1, q. 1, to incidental question 1. — At the end of the argument, codices K, N, W, V, aa add *Sacrament.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 4.

la: Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Here in the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Epist. II. Tim. 3, 12, ubi Vulgata post *in Christo* addit *Iesu,* et pro *patiuntur* substituit *patientur.* Plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *in Christo.*

en: 2 Timothy 3:12, where the Vulgate after *in Christ* adds *Jesus,* and for *they suffer* substitutes *they shall suffer.* Very many codices and ed. 1 omit *in Christ.*

la: Vat. *lucta,* ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. *iocus,* aliquot codd. *locus.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *struggle,* ed. 1 with several codices *play,* some codices *place.*

la: Libr. II. p. VII. c. 3: In gestis pontificalibus legitur, quod Sylvester papa constituit, ut baptizatum presbyter in vertice chrismate liniat propter occasionem quidem mortis, ne forte per absentiam episcopi et difficultatem eum consequendi, sine manus impositione baptizatum ab hac vita migrare contingeret; quod quidem omnino periculosum esset. — Pro *contingeret* cod. Z *contingerent.*

en: Book II, part VII, c. 3: In the pontifical records it is read that Pope Sylvester established that a presbyter should anoint a baptized person on the crown with chrism on the occasion indeed of death, lest perhaps through the absence of the bishop and the difficulty of reaching him, it should happen that one baptized depart from this life without the imposition of hands; which indeed would be altogether dangerous. — For *it should happen* codex Z [reads] *they should happen.*

la: Vide supra a. 2. q. 1. seqq.

en: See above, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

latin_scholion:
*[Section I of the article-level ARTICULUS III scholion, printed in full after q3 (p.173) but keyed by question. Section I, "Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem," covers q1 (and q2) and is rendered here; section II, "De 3. quaestione," belongs to q3.]*

**I.** Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem omnino constat, confirmationem ad salutem non esse necessariam necessitate medii; item communiter tenetur, in quibusdam circumstantiis, ut si instat fidei periculum ob persecutionem, eandem esse necessariam necessitate praecepti divini, graviter obligantis. Quod autem generaliter omnes, etiam secluso contemptu et scandalo, gravi praecepto divino vel ecclesiastico teneantur hoc Sacramentum vel in re, vel in voto suscipere, a multis auctoribus negatum est. S. Alphonsus, Theol. moral. libr. VI. tr. 2. c. 2. dub. 3. n. 182, resolvit, negantem hanc opinionem post Benedictum XIV. (in Bulla *Etsi pastoralis*) hodie videri non esse satis probabilem.

**De utraque quaestione:** Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 3. a. 1. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. III. q. 72. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. et a. 5. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. et 2. circa finem.

---

english_scholion:
*[Section I of the article-level ARTICULUS III scholion, printed in full after q3 (p.173) but keyed by question. Section I, "On this and the following question," covers q1 (and q2) and is rendered here; section II, "On the 3rd question," belongs to q3.]*

**I.** As to this and the following question it is altogether established that confirmation is not necessary for salvation by a necessity of means; likewise it is commonly held that, in certain circumstances, as if danger to faith is imminent on account of persecution, the same is necessary by a necessity of the divine precept, gravely obliging. But that all generally, even apart from contempt and scandal, are bound by a grave divine or ecclesiastical precept to receive this Sacrament either in reality or in desire, has been denied by many authors. St. Alphonsus, *Moral Theology* book VI, tract 2, c. 2, doubt 3, n. 182, resolves that one denying this opinion, after Benedict XIV (in the Bull *Etsi pastoralis*), seems today not to be sufficiently probable.

**On both questions:** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* part IV, q. 9, m. 3, a. 1. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 2, little-question 2 and 3; *Summa* III, q. 72, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 1, 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2 and a. 5, q. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1 and 2, near the end.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p17{2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed pp.172–173 = pdf pp.192–193, offset +20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 19658–19817. ARTICULUS III opener (*De confirmatione quoad usum*, "Consequenter quaeritur de usu… tria") folds into this q1 per the locked chunking convention. Opener alignment confirmed: ARTICULUS III, QUAESTIO I, title *Utrum usus Sacramenti confirmationis debeat esse generalis* — the q1 of the *quoad usum* article (general use to every sex and age). QUAESTIO II (*Utrum gratia confirmationis sit de necessitate salutis*, L19818+) is the next chunk and is excluded.
- **Page-split map.** The ARTICULUS III opener, the full *Videtur/Contra* arguments, the Conclusio, and the Respondeo all sit on **p.172** (left column = arg.1–5 + Contra 1; right column = Contra 2–4 + Conclusio + Respondeo). The reply-block (*Ad obiecta* 1–5) and the article-level SCHOLION sit on **p.173** (replies straddle both columns; scholion printed full-width after the replies). QUAESTIO II opens at the bottom of p.173 (right column), excluded here.
- **Footer ownership.** **p.172 footers 1–10 all anchor in this q1 body** → rendered as [^1]–[^10] with Quaracchi's own straight 1→10 sequence preserved (no shift). Footers print in reading order: left column 1–7 (1 = arg.1 "ad pugnam" → scholion cross-ref; 2 = arg.1 "excluduntur a bello"; 3 = arg.2 "arma"; 4 = arg.4 "confessionem"; 5 = arg.5 "baptismalis"; 6 = arg.5 "inconveniens"; 7 = Contra-2 "patiuntur" → 2 Tim 3:12), right column 8–10 (8 = Contra-3 "ictus"; 9 = Contra-4 Hugh *de Sacramentis*; 10 = Respondeo "gratiae ampliationem"). Contra-1 ("Magister et Rabanus") carries **no** footer marker. **p.173 carries no numbered page-footer apparatus** — the references on p.173 are embedded inside the scholion text itself, not a footer block. Prior neighbor **d7-a2-q3** owns the p.172 q3-of-Articulus-II footer ("bantes contrarium…" tail at top of p.172) and is unaffected. Next neighbor **d7-a3-q2** owns all of p.174 and any p.173 footers anchored in the QUAESTIO II body (none present; the p.173 scholion is article-level and shared, see below).
- **Scholion disposition.** ARTICULUS III has a **single article-level scholion printed full-width after q3** (p.173, raw L19779). It is structured by question: **section I** ("Quoad hanc et seq. quaestionem…" + its "De utraque quaestione" reference list) covers **q1 and q2**; **section II** ("De 3. quaestione") covers **q3**. There is no dedicated "De 1. quaestione" sub-section, so per task scope the **q1-keyed section I (and its "De utraque quaestione" apparatus list)** is rendered here. `has_scholion: true`. Section II ("De 3. quaestione") is owned by the d7-a3-q3 chunk; the q2 chunk (d7-a3-q2) will reference section I as shared.
- **`[?]` flags.** None outstanding. Minor editorial bracketings, not flagged: "[Ad obiecta:]" supplied as the reply-block heading (Quaracchi prints it only as running margin notes "Solutio oppositorum / Solutio aliorum / Solutio auctoris"). Note that Contra-1's "Magister et Rabanus" citation is unfootnoted in the print (no marker, no footer entry) — the septiform-grace authority is named inline in the body and cross-referenced at a.1 q.2 q.incid.3, so nothing is lost.


title: Dist. 7, Art. 3, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 173 -->

### Articulus III. *Quoad usum.*
### Quaestio II. *Utrum gratia confirmationis sit de necessitate salutis.*

Secundo quaeritur de huius Sacramenti necessitate, et quaeritur, utrum gratia confirmationis sit de necessitate salutis; et quod sic, videtur.

1. Rabanus[^1]: « Omnes fideles per manus impositionem episcoporum accipere debent Spiritum sanctum, ut pleni Christiani inveniantur »; sed nullus salvatur, nisi sit plenus Christianus: ergo similiter nullus salvatur sine Sacramento confirmationis.

2. Item, Hugo[^2]: « Quid prodest, quod per baptismum a lapsu erigeris, nisi etiam per confirmationem ad standum confirmeris »? quasi dicat: nihil.

<!-- page 174 -->

3. Item, Hugo[^3]: « Omnino periculosum esset, si ab hac vita sine confirmatione migrare contingeret »; sed non esset omnino periculosum, nisi necessarium ad salutem: ergo etc.

4. Item, ad Romanos decimo[^4]: *Corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem*, utrumque ergo est ad salutem necessarium; sed nullus salvatur, nisi credat, vel habeat fidei Sacramentum: ergo nullus salvatur, nisi confiteatur, vel habeat Sacramentum ad hoc ordinatum.

**Contra:** 1. Baptismus delet culpam[^5], ergo dat gratiam; sed habens quantulamcumque gratiam habet quod sibi necessarium est ad salutem: ergo non est ulterius necessaria sibi confirmatio, vel aliquid aliud. Si dicas, sufficere ad salutem, si moritur, sed non ad pugnandum, si vivit; *contra*: in baptismo datur gratia cum omnibus virtutibus, sicut dicit Magister distinctione prima[^6]; sed qui habet virtutes habet arma sufficientia ad pugnam: ergo etc.

2. Item, nullus cadit nisi volens: ergo ex quo habet gratiam ipsum statuentem, potest stare: ergo non necesse est cadere[^7]: ergo gratia confirmationis non est necessaria.

3. Item, magna caritas sufficit ad tolerandam mortem; sed possibile est, eum qui baptizatur, antequam hoc Sacramentum percipiat, per bona opera ad caritatem magnam pervenire: ergo sine hoc Sacramento est salus pugnantibus.

### Conclusio

> Sacramentum confirmationis est necessarium non simpliciter, sed ex conditione; qui autem negligendo illud contemnit periculo se exponit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod est necessitas simpliciter, et est necessitas conditionata[^8]. Simpliciter non est gratia confirmationis necessaria, sed necessaria ex conditione, scilicet pugnanti et vincere volenti, sicut comedere necessarium est vivere volenti. Unde Melchiades papa dicit, et habetur de Consecratione distinctione quinta[^9]: « In hoc mundo tota aetate victuris inter hostes invisibiles et pericula gradiendum est; et baptismo regeneramur ad vitam, post baptismum confirmamur ad pugnam »; quia omnes viventes in pugna vivunt, quia militia est *vita hominis super terram*[^10].

Ex institutione ergo Ecclesiae est, quod nullus ab hoc Sacramento excipitur, sed omnes suscipere debent, ut sint strenui pugnatores; et ideo, si quis, cum habet locum et tempus et opportunitatem, negligendo contemnit, periculo se exponit.

1. 2. 3. Rationes igitur probantes, quod simpliciter necessarium sit, non valent. Et primo, auctoritas Rabani intelligitur de plenitudine copiae, non sufficientiae, vel de plenitudine non in esse, sed in robore[^11]. Auctoritas Hugonis intelligitur de eo qui vivere debet in pugna. Sequens auctoritas intelligitur ratione negligentiae et contemptus institutionis Ecclesiae.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de confessione fidei, dicendum, quod illud non est simile: quia credere necessarium est cuilibet[^12], ex quo est adultus; sed confiteri non tenetur nisi pro loco et tempore.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, quod non est necessaria simpliciter; verum est, quia morienti et non contemnenti sufficit gratia baptismalis.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod non est necessaria ad pugnam; dicendum, quod quamvis liberum arbitrium non cogatur, tamen ita infirmatum est pusillanimitate, quod nunquam staret, nisi gratia fortificante sustentaretur, et illa infirmitas curaretur: et ideo necessaria est ad statum[^13] non propter impellentem tantum, sed propter interiorem debilitatem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod magna caritas potest augeri; dicendum, quod sicut in baptismo contingit, quod homo bene se praeparando habet gratiam, quae datur in baptismo, antequam baptizetur; sic potest esse in gratia confirmationis; et tamen Sacramentum baptismi est necessarium, non superfluum, quia illam gratiam efficacius dat[^14] et illis dat, qui non per se poterant se sufficienter disponere sine Sacramento: per hunc igitur modum intelligendum est in confirmatione. — Est igitur necessaria gratia confirmationis, non sine qua simpliciter non sit salus, sed sine qua, vel per Sacramentum, vel alias accepta, pugnando non pervenitur ad salutem[^15].

---

english:
### Article III. *On the use.*
### Question II. *Whether the grace of confirmation is necessary for salvation.*

Secondly, inquiry is made about the necessity of this Sacrament, and it is asked whether the grace of confirmation is necessary for salvation; and that it is, seems to be the case.

1. Rabanus[^1]: « All the faithful ought to receive the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the bishops' hands, that they may be found full Christians »; but no one is saved unless he be a full Christian: therefore likewise no one is saved without the Sacrament of confirmation.

2. Likewise, Hugh[^2]: « What does it profit that through baptism you are raised up from the fall, unless you are also confirmed through confirmation so as to stand »? as if to say: nothing.

3. Likewise, Hugh[^3]: « It would be altogether dangerous, if one should happen to depart from this life without confirmation »; but it would not be altogether dangerous, unless it were necessary for salvation: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, to the Romans, chapter ten[^4]: *With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation*, therefore both are necessary for salvation; but no one is saved unless he believes, or has the Sacrament of faith: therefore no one is saved unless he confesses, or has the Sacrament ordained for this.

**On the contrary:** 1. Baptism blots out guilt[^5], therefore it gives grace; but one having grace, however little, has what is necessary for him for salvation: therefore confirmation, or anything else, is not further necessary for him. If you say that it suffices for salvation, if he dies, but not for fighting, if he lives; *on the contrary*: in baptism grace is given with all the virtues, as the Master says in the first distinction[^6]; but one who has the virtues has arms sufficient for the fight: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, no one falls except willingly: therefore from the fact that he has the grace establishing him, he can stand: therefore it is not necessary to fall[^7]: therefore the grace of confirmation is not necessary.

3. Likewise, great charity suffices for enduring death; but it is possible that he who is baptized may, before he receives this Sacrament, come through good works to great charity: therefore without this Sacrament there is salvation for those who fight.

### Conclusion

> The Sacrament of confirmation is necessary not absolutely, but from a condition; but he who, by neglecting it, despises it exposes himself to peril.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is an absolute necessity, and there is a conditioned necessity[^8]. Absolutely, the grace of confirmation is not necessary, but it is necessary from a condition, namely for one who fights and wills to conquer, just as eating is necessary for one who wills to live. Hence Pope Melchiades says, and it is found in *On Consecration*, distinction five[^9]: « In this world one must walk all one's life amid invisible enemies and dangers; and by baptism we are regenerated unto life, after baptism we are confirmed for the fight »; for all who live, live in a fight, because warfare is *the life of man upon the earth*[^10].

From the institution of the Church, therefore, it is that no one is excepted from this Sacrament, but all ought to receive it, that they may be vigorous fighters; and therefore, if anyone, when he has the place and time and opportunity, despises it by neglecting it, he exposes himself to peril.

1. 2. 3. The reasons, therefore, proving that it is absolutely necessary, are not valid. And first, the authority of Rabanus is to be understood of the fullness of abundance, not of sufficiency, or of fullness not in being, but in strength[^11]. The authority of Hugh is to be understood of him who must live in the fight. The following authority is to be understood by reason of negligence and contempt of the institution of the Church.

4. To that which is objected concerning the confession of faith, it must be said that this is not similar: because to believe is necessary for everyone[^12], from the time he is an adult; but one is not bound to confess except according to place and time.

1. To that which is objected on the opposite side, that it is not necessary absolutely; it is true, because for one who is dying and not despising it, baptismal grace suffices.

2. But to that which is objected, that it is not necessary for the fight; it must be said that, although free choice is not coerced, nevertheless it is so weakened by faint-heartedness that it would never stand, unless it were sustained by a strengthening grace, and that infirmity were healed: and therefore it is necessary for [maintaining] the state[^13] not only on account of the one impelling, but on account of the interior weakness.

3. To that which is objected, that great charity can be increased; it must be said that, just as it happens in baptism, that a man by preparing himself well has the grace which is given in baptism, before he is baptized; so it can be in the grace of confirmation; and yet the Sacrament of baptism is necessary, not superfluous, because it gives that grace more efficaciously[^14] and gives it to those who could not of themselves dispose themselves sufficiently without the Sacrament: in this manner, therefore, it is to be understood in confirmation. — Therefore the grace of confirmation is necessary, not as that without which there absolutely is no salvation, but as that without which, whether received through the Sacrament or received otherwise, one does not by fighting arrive at salvation[^15].

---

la: Haec sententia communiter a Scholasticis tribuitur Rabano; occasionem forsan praebuit Magister, hic in lit. c. 3. Gratianus, C. *Omnes fideles* (I.), de Consecrat. d. 5, allegat pro ipso Urbanum.

en: This sentence is commonly attributed by the Scholastics to Rabanus; the Master perhaps gave occasion for it, here in the text, c. 3. Gratian, in the canon *Omnes fideles* (1), *On Consecration*, dist. 5, cites Urban for it.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 3.

en: Book II, *On the Sacraments*, part VII, c. 3.

la: Loc. cit. Cfr. supra pag. 172, nota 9. — Inferius post *nisi* cod. H (Lb a secunda manu) bene supplet *esset*.

en: In the place cited. Cf. above, p. 172, note 9. — Below, after *nisi*, codex H (Lb in a second hand) rightly supplies *esset*.

la: Vers. 10.

en: Verse 10.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 1. q. 1. — De connexione inter deletionem culpae et gratiam cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in corp., et C. *Per aquam* (9.), de Consecrat. d. 4, ubi ex Ambrosio (l. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 12.) habetur: *Per aquam baptismi transitus est a terrenis ad caelestia... a peccato ad vitam, a culpa ad gratiam* etc.

en: As was shown above, d. 4, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1. — On the connection between the blotting out of guilt and grace cf. above, d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, in the body, and the canon *Per aquam* (9), *On Consecration*, d. 4, where from Ambrose (book *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 12) it is held: *Through the water of baptism there is a passage from earthly to heavenly things... from sin to life, from guilt to grace*, etc.

la: Cap. 9. in fine.

en: Chapter 9, at the end.

la: Codd. F G I *eum cadere*.

en: Codices F G I [read] *eum cadere* [for him to fall].

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 87. seqq. (c. 9.), et V. Metaph. text. 6. (IV. c. 5.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 87 ff. (c. 9), and *Metaphysics* V, text 6 (IV, c. 5).

la: Can. *Spiritus sanctus, qui* (2.). Cfr. Isidor. Mercator. (ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. tom. 130. col. 241). Pro *et baptismo* textus originalis et edd. *in baptismo*.

en: The canon *Spiritus sanctus, qui* (2). Cf. Isidore Mercator (ed. Migne, *Patrologia Latina*, vol. 130, col. 241). For *et baptismo* the original text and the editions read *in baptismo*.

la: Iob 7, 1. — Mox post *sed* cod. R suplet *hoc*.

en: Job 7:1. — Soon after *sed* codex R supplies *hoc*.

la: Melchiad., loc. cit., ait: *Spiritus sanctus... in fonte plenitudinem tribuit ad innocentiam, in confirmatione augmentum praestat ad gratiam... Et quamvis continuo transituris sufficiant regenerationis beneficia, victuris tamen necessaria sunt confirmationis auxilia* etc.

en: Melchiades, in the place cited, says: *The Holy Spirit... at the font bestows fullness unto innocence, in confirmation furnishes increase unto grace... And although for those who are about to pass on immediately the benefits of regeneration suffice, yet for those who are to go on living the aids of confirmation are necessary*, etc.

la: Non pauci codd. *alicui*.

en: Not a few codices [read] *alicui* [for someone].

la: Vat. *standum*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *standum* [for standing firm].

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 9. in fine et d. IV. c. 5. seqq. — Inferius pro *poterant* edd. *possunt*.

en: See above, the Master's text, d. 1, c. 9, at the end, and d. 4, c. 5 ff. — Below, for *poterant* the editions [read] *possunt*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin base from IA djvu OCR, raw lines 19818–19974 (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`). The Respondeo, replies, and all page-footers cascade-shattered in OCR; reflowed column-by-column (Left then Right) from the 450-dpi PDF column-bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{173,174}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, which are authoritative in the damaged regions per the Vol II/IV override. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page-split map.** Opener + objections 1–2 (Rabanus, Hugh) print on **p.173**; objection 3 through the end of the Respondeo print on **p.174**. The body closes on p.174 ("...pugnando non pervenitur ad salutem"); QUAESTIO III opens on p.175 (running head DIST. VII. DUBIA. 175) and is excluded.

**Footer ownership.** Apparatus renumbered continuously [^1]–[^15]:
- p.173 holds 6 footer notes (1–6); notes **1–4** anchor in the tail of q1's body and belong to **a3-q1**; notes **5–6** (the Rabanus and Hugh source-citations) anchor in q2's two opening objections and are claimed here as [^1]–[^2].
- p.174 holds 13 footer notes (1–13), all anchored in q2's body; claimed here as [^3]–[^15].
- No footers carry forward to a3-q3 from this body; q3 owns p.175+ (raw L20001+).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The ART III SCHOLION (raw L19789–19813) prints at the foot of q1's column (before the QUAESTIO II header) and its paragraph I covers "hanc et seq. quaestionem"; it is owned by **a3-q1** (and is what p.174 note 13 / [^15] "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." points back to). There is no `De 2. quaestione` scholion section keyed to this question.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF column-bands.


title: Dist. 7, Art. 3, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 175 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Sacramentum confirmationis possit dari ante baptismum.*

Tertio quaeritur de modo sumendi istud Sacramentum et de ordine. Et ostenditur, quod istud Sacramentum non possit dari ante baptismum.

1. Et primum ostenditur per hoc, quod baptismus est *fundamentum* et *ianua* Sacramentorum: ergo si quis recipit aliud de facto, cum non intret per ianuam nec habeat fundamentum, nihil habet. — Si tu dicas, quod baptismus sit fundamentum de congruo; *contra:* Innocentius dicit in quadam decretali[^1], quod non baptizatus, qui fuit ordinatus et promotus in sacerdotem, iterum erat rebaptizandus et ordinandus; sed ordo non potest iterari, sive recipiatur ab eo qui potest dare de facto, sive ab eo qui potest dare de iure: ergo si non potuit recipere ordinem, pari ratione nec confirmationem.

2. Item, confirmatio respicit aliquid praeexistens, quia quod non *est* non potest confirmari; sed nullum Sacramentum necessario praeit confirmationem aliud a baptismate: si ergo aliquid praesupponit, videtur, quod baptismum.

**Contra:** 1. Posterius est Sacramentum eucharistiae quam confirmationis; sed Sacramentum eucharistiae potest sumi ante baptismum de facto: ergo et confirmationis, ut videtur.

2. Item, video, quod aliquis non baptizatus potest mori pro Christo et confiteri Christum: ergo non baptizatus potest habere *rem* huius Sacramenti ante baptismum: ergo pari ratione et *Sacramentum.*

3. Item, quamvis ordines in Sacramento ordinis ordinati sint, tamen qui recipit superiores ordines, negligendo inferiores, non est reordinandus, immo est ordinatus[^2]: ergo si ibi est *ordo* etiam quantum ad characteres, et *comparatio* secundum maiorem convenientiam; multo fortius videtur in proposito, quod non baptizatus possit confirmari.

### Conclusio.
*Non baptizatus non potest confirmari, nisi prius baptizetur.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod non baptizatus non potest confirmari, nisi prius baptizetur. — Ratio autem huius venit ex duplici re huius Sacramenti: primo ex parte *gratiae:* quia ibi datur gratia iustificans, hic roborans, et ista praesupponit illam. Alia ratio venit ex parte *characteris:* quia character ille fundamentum est aliorum[^3], ideo, illo non impresso, alii non possunt imprimi; et quoniam, cum in Sacramentis non imprimitur character, in quibus aptus natus est imprimi, dicitur nihil fieri: et ideo non baptizatus non potest in tali statu confirmari; et concedo rationes ad hoc. — Quomodo autem character baptismalis *fundamentum* sit, patet: quia ille respicit *fidem* sive inchoationem fidei, et alii respiciunt *statum* fidei; et sicut se habet fides ad statum, vel alii status ad initium; sic character ad characterem.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eucharistia, iam patet responsio: quia ibi character nullus imprimitur, et ita non habet adeo essentialem ordinem[^4], sicut confirmatio et ordo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod potest confiteri et mori; dicendum, quod verum est sine *Sacramento,* sed non sine *re illius Sacramenti;* et sicut res huius non potest haberi sine re illius Sacramenti, sic nec character sine charactere[^5].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de ordinibus, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia, sicut patebit, non est ita essentialis comparatio ordinum superiorum ad inferiores propter diversitatem ministeriorum. Sed hoc melius patebit suo loco[^6].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the Sacrament of confirmation can be given before baptism.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the manner of receiving this Sacrament and concerning order. And it is shown that this Sacrament cannot be given before baptism.

1. And the first is shown by this, that baptism is the *foundation* and the *gateway* of the Sacraments: therefore if anyone receives another [Sacrament] in fact, since he does not enter through the gateway nor possess the foundation, he has nothing. — If you say that baptism is the foundation [only] fittingly; *on the contrary:* Innocent says in a certain decretal[^1] that one not baptized, who had been ordained and promoted to the priesthood, had to be rebaptized again and reordained; but order cannot be repeated, whether it be received from one who can give it in fact, or from one who can give it by right: therefore if he could not receive order, by parity of reasoning neither [could he receive] confirmation.

2. Likewise, confirmation regards something pre-existing, because what *is* not cannot be confirmed; but no Sacrament other than baptism necessarily precedes confirmation: therefore if it presupposes something, it seems [it presupposes] baptism.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Sacrament of the eucharist is later than [that] of confirmation; but the Sacrament of the eucharist can be received before baptism in fact: therefore [the Sacrament] of confirmation [can] also, as it seems.

2. Likewise, I observe that someone not baptized can die for Christ and confess Christ: therefore one not baptized can have the *reality* of this Sacrament before baptism: therefore by parity of reasoning [he can have] also the *Sacrament.*

3. Likewise, although the orders in the Sacrament of order are ranked, nevertheless one who receives the higher orders, neglecting the lower ones, is not to be reordained, but rather is [truly] ordained[^2]: therefore if there is an *order* there even as regards the characters, and a *comparison* according to greater fittingness; much more does it seem in the case at hand that one not baptized can be confirmed.

### Conclusion.
*One not baptized cannot be confirmed, unless he be first baptized.*

**I respond:** It must be said that one not baptized cannot be confirmed, unless he be first baptized. — The reason for this comes from the twofold reality of this Sacrament: first, on the part of *grace:* because there [in baptism] justifying grace is given, here [in confirmation] strengthening [grace], and this latter presupposes the former. The other reason comes from the part of the *character:* because that [baptismal] character is the foundation of the others[^3]; therefore, it not being imprinted, the others cannot be imprinted; and since, when the character is not imprinted in the Sacraments in which it is naturally apt to be imprinted, nothing is said to be done: and therefore one not baptized cannot in such a state be confirmed; and I grant the arguments to this effect. — But how the baptismal character is the *foundation* is plain: because that one regards *faith* or the beginning of faith, and the others regard the *state* of faith; and as faith stands to the state, or the other states to the beginning, so [stands] character to character.

1. To that which is objected concerning the eucharist, the response is already plain: because there no character is imprinted, and so it does not have so essential an order[^4] as confirmation and order [do].

2. To that which is objected, that one can confess and die [for Christ]; it must be said that this is true without the *Sacrament,* but not without the *reality of that Sacrament;* and just as the reality of this [Sacrament] cannot be had without the reality of that Sacrament, so neither can [its] character without [the other] character[^5].

3. To that which is objected concerning the orders, it must be said that it is not alike: because, as will be shown, the comparison of the higher orders to the lower is not so essential, on account of the diversity of the ministries. But this will appear better in its own place[^6].

---

la: Cap. *Si quis presbyter,* (1.), X. (lib. III. tit. 43.) de presbytero non baptizato: Si quis presbyter ordinatus deprehenderit, se non esse baptizatum; baptizetur et iterum ordinetur. — De *minori* vide infra d. 24. p. II. a. I. q. I. et d. 25. a. I. q. 2.

en: Chapter *Si quis presbyter,* (1.), X. (bk. III, tit. 43), on the unbaptized presbyter: If any ordained presbyter should discover that he is not baptized, let him be baptized and ordained again. — On the *lesser* [case] see below, d. 24, p. II, a. I, q. I, and d. 25, a. I, q. 2.

la: Cfr. C. *Sollicitudo* (1.), d. 52, ubi Alexander II. docet, quod qui, praetermisso subdiaconatus ordine, ad maiorem ordinem ascenderit, tamdiu a maioribus abstineat, quousque congruo tempore praetermissum accipiat.

en: Cf. canon *Sollicitudo* (1.), d. 52, where Alexander II teaches that one who, having omitted the order of subdiaconate, has ascended to a higher order, should abstain from the higher [orders] until he receives the omitted one at a fitting time.

la: Vide supra d. 6. p. I. q. 4. in fine. — Aliquanto inferius ante *concedo* cod. G omittit *et.*

en: See above, d. 6, p. I, q. 4, at the end. — Somewhat lower, before *concedo,* codex G omits *et.*

la: Cod. G *ordinationem.*

en: Codex G [reads] *ordinationem.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. p. II. a. I. q. 2. et dub. 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 4, p. II, a. I, q. 2, and dub. 3.

la: Dist. 24. p. II. a. I. q. 3. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: Dist. 24, p. II, a. I, q. 3. — See the scholion to the 1st question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column-bands for printed p.175 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p175-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the OCR raw text (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 20001–20058) used as the base. The right column on p.175 is clipped at its left edge in the bands (initial letters of each line shorn); those line-openings were reconstructed from the raw OCR and the sense of the passage. English is a fresh literal parallel.
- **Page-split map.** The entire question (title, objections, *Contra,* *Conclusio,* *Respondeo,* and three solutions) fits on a single printed page, p.175. No page break inside the body. The *Dubia circa litteram Magistri* begins lower on the same page (raw L20059, excluded here).
- **Footer ownership.** p.175 carries seven Quaracchi footnotes. Footers 1–2 (left column) and 3–6 (right column) are anchored within this question and are rendered above, renumbered 1–6 to match the in-text markers. Footer 7 is anchored at *«…scandalum de veritate vitae vel doctrinae nihil immutat»* in the opening *Dubia* and belongs to the dubia chunk; the immediately preceding question (a3-q2) owns no footers on this page.
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. No ARTICULUS III scholion section keyed to q3 (*De 3. quaestione*) is printed within this question's span, and there is no unified ART III scholion block following q3 (the next material is the *Dubia*). Footer 6 itself cross-references "the scholion to the 1st question of this article," confirming the article's scholion apparatus is keyed to q1, not q3.
- **`[?]` flags.** None. All readings are secure; the only reconstructions are the left-clipped right-column line-openings, which are unambiguous against the OCR base and confirmed by the partially visible glyphs in the bands.