title: Dist. 7, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem VII — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction VII — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 163 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII.

### *De confirmatione.*

*Nunc de Sacramento confirmationis addendum est.*

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est secunda pars huius partis, in qua Magister agit de Sacramentis secundum septem differentias. Supra enim egit de baptismo, qui est primus inter Sacramenta; hic agit de confirmatione. Et quoniam tria est considerare circa hoc Sacramentum: primo ea quae spectant ad integritatem¹, secundo ad efficaciam, tertio vero ad usum; ideo pars ista tres habet particulas. In prima parte agit de hoc Sacramento quantum ad integritatem. In secunda quantum ad efficaciam vel virtutem, ibi: *Virtus autem huius Sacramenti est donatio Spiritus sancti ad robur.* In tertia quantum ad usum sive modum sumendi², ibi: *Hoc Sacramentum tantum a ieiunis* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam illorum trium, quae Magister agit de Sacramento confirmationis, tria principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de hoc Sacramento quantum ad integritatem.

Secundo, quantum ad virtutem vel efficaciam.

Tertio, quantum ad usum.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur de confirmatione quantum ad formam.

Secundo, quantum ad materiam.

Tertio, quantum ad dispensatoris potentiam.

---

english:
<!-- page 163 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VII.

### *On confirmation.*

*Now something must be added concerning the Sacrament of confirmation.*

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the second part of this part, in which the Master treats of the Sacraments according to seven differences. For above he treated of baptism, which is first among the Sacraments; here he treats of confirmation. And since three things are to be considered concerning this Sacrament — first, the things that pertain to its integrity¹; second, [those that pertain] to its efficacy; third, [those that pertain] to its use — therefore this part has three subdivisions. In the first part he treats of this Sacrament as regards its integrity. In the second, as regards its efficacy or power, there: *But the power of this Sacrament is the giving of the Holy Spirit unto strength.* In the third, as regards its use or manner of receiving², there: *This Sacrament [is to be received] only by those who are fasting,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of those three things which the Master treats concerning the Sacrament of confirmation, three matters are principally inquired into.

First, it is asked about this Sacrament as regards its integrity.

Second, as regards its power or efficacy.

Third, as regards its use.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First, it is asked about confirmation as regards its form.

Second, as regards its matter.

Third, as regards the power of the minister of the Sacrament.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 18616–18654), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed p.163 (pdf p.183, offset +20), reading Left column top→bottom then Right column. The two-column OCR cascade-fragments this region, so the PDF bands are authoritative for reflow (Vol II/IV PDF-priority override). Fresh literal English translation. This is a SINGLE-PARS distinction → the id carries no pars label.

**Page span.** The entire chunk sits on printed p.163 alone. The COMMENTARIUS opener does NOT bleed up onto p.162 — the running head and the centered `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VII.` both fall on p.163; the immediately preceding text on p.163 (Gregorius "Pervenit ad nos … Presbyteros") is the littera (raw L18489–18615, the prior chunk). No `<!-- page -->` split is needed beyond the single p.163 marker.

**Structure confirmed from the TRACTATIO.** The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM names a 3-article / 3-3-3-question plan: the three principal heads are (I) *quoad integritatem*, (II) *quoad virtutem vel efficaciam*, (III) *quoad usum*; and "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" lists ART. I's three questions as (q1) *de forma*, (q2) *quantum ad materiam*, (q3) *quantum ad dispensatoris potentiam*. (The page itself then opens ART. I, QUAESTIO I "Utrum in confirmatione sit necessaria forma verborum" = the next chunk `d7-a1-q1`, excluded here. The 3 questions of ART. II and ART. III are listed at their own articles further on, not re-enumerated in this opener.)

**Footer ownership (why has_apparatus: false).** Printed p.163's numbered footers all anchor outside this divisio's body:
- The left-column footer `¹ Libr. IV. Regist. indict. 12. epist. 26, et C. Pervenit (1.), dist. 95. … verba Gratiani super C. Presbyteros (2.), ibid.` anchors to the **littera** above (the Gregorius "Pervenit ad nos" quotation), the prior chunk — not this divisio.
- The `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM.` block (`¹ Edd. ad ministri dignitatem.`) resolves to the q1 **forma** question's body word "ad ministri dignitatem," which does not occur in this divisio → it belongs to `d7-a1-q1`.
- The right-column footers `²Codd. F1 suscipiendi.`, `³Cfr. supra d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.`, `⁴Libr. 1. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 2. Cfr. ibid. p. IX. c. 2.`, `⁵Vers. 15.` are the page's main numbered sequence and all anchor to the q1 forma body (Hugo de Sacram., the *supra* cross-ref, Matthaei 19 vers. 15, the "suscipiendi" variant) — i.e. they belong to `d7-a1-q1` (raw L18655+).

Thus NO numbered Quaracchi footer in raw L18616–18654 anchors to a word in this divisio; the chunk is correctly `has_apparatus: false`.

**[?] flags.**
- `[?]` The DIVISIO TEXTUS carries two small superscript reference markers in the editors' text — `¹` after *integritatem* (raw OCR `integritatem '`) and `²` after *sumendi* (raw OCR `mendi %`, the `%` being a `2` garble). These are the editors' own cross-reference superscripts within the COMMENTARIUS, but no footer on p.163 anchors to either divisio word (footer `1` = littera/Gratianus; the main 2–5 sequence and the NOTAE both resolve to q1). They are preserved here as literal superscripts `¹`/`²` rather than promoted to `[^N]` apparatus, since their referents are not present in this chunk's footer share. Resolve in the d.10 decade-polish pass via 600 dpi eyes-on if a divisio-anchored note is found to exist.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
### Articulus I. *De confirmatione quoad integritatem.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum in confirmatione sit necessaria forma verborum.*

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body and the English translation.

Et quod necessarium sit in hoc Sacramento habere formam verborum, ostenditur:

1. Per *simile* in aliis Sacramentis: quia, si in aliis forma verborum est necessaria[^1], videtur, quod et in isto.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per aliam *rationem*: quia forma verborum est sanctificans elementum; sed « Sacramentum est ex sanctificatione sanctificans », secundum quod dicit Hugo[^2]: ergo necesse est, quod formam verborum habeat, cum per ipsam sit sanctificans elementum.

**Sed contra:** 1. Christus fuit institutor formae Sacramentorum; sed formam confirmationis non legitur instituisse, immo pueris tantum manus imposuisse, Matthaei decimo nono[^3]: ergo non est necessaria, cum Christus instituerit, quod pertinet ad ne-

<!-- page 164 -->

cessitatem et formam aliorum Sacramentorum, et non huius.

2. *Si tu dicas*, quod reliquit Apostolis formam; *contra*: Actuum octavo[^4] legitur, quod impositione manuum dabant Spiritum sanctum; sed quod est de necessitate Sacramenti est invariabile ut Sacramentum: ergo etc.

> *Quaestio incidens 1.* — Item, de forma quaeritur, quae est haec[^5]: « Signo te signo crucis, confirmo te chrismate salutis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, Amen ». Primo videtur, quod superfluat hoc verbum *signo*, quia sufficit actu signare[^6]. *Si tu dicas*, quod hoc est propter intentionem; tunc ergo, sicut in baptismo dicitur *baptizo*, et non dicitur alius actus; ita in confirmatione sufficit dicere *confirmo*.
>
> *Quaestio incidens 2.* — Item, quaeritur: quare potius fit mentio in forma de *cruce* quam de incarnatione, vel resurrectione?
>
> *Quaestio incidens 3.* — Item, quaeritur: quare potius in hoc Sacramento *materia* nominatur, cum dicitur: « Confirmo te chrismate », quam in baptismo, ut dicatur: « Baptizo te in aqua »?

### Conclusio.

> *Forma confirmationis est de necessitate Sacramenti.*

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicendum, quod forma praedicta est de necessitate huius Sacramenti, sicut probant rationes ad hoc inductae.

1. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium de eius institutione[^7], diversificantur doctores. Quidam enim dicunt, quod formam illam Christus instituit et Apostolis tradidit, et Apostoli postmodum aliis reliquerunt, licet hoc non sit scriptum in canone Scripturae. Ipse tamen forma illa non fuit usus imponendo manus pueris, quia hoc faciebat ut Dominus, non ut minister. — Aliter potest dici et melius, credo, quod illud Sacramentum Christus nec dispensavit nec instituit, quia post ascensionem suam decebat Apostolos confirmari, et Spiritum ad robur dari. Unde Ioannis septimo[^8]: *Spiritus sanctus nondum erat datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus*; non, inquam, datus in plenitudine, vel ad robur; sed hoc quidem fecit die Pentecostes. Unde confirmati sunt a Spiritu sancto *immediate* sine ministerio et Sacramento; et ideo ipsi etiam alios confirmabant etiam sine verbo. Sed postquam bases Ecclesiae, Apostoli scilicet, qui a Deo, non per homines, erant ordinati praelati et confirmati, defecerunt; instituit Spiritus sanctus huius Sacramenti formam, cui etiam virtutem sanctificandi dedit. Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de forma: quare scilicet Christus non instituit, et quare Apostoli non[^9] instituerunt et posteris tradiderunt? ratio praedicta est. — Possunt tamen et aliae rationes congruentiae assignari: quia enim minuebatur in dispensantibus sanctitas, in suscipientibus idoneitas; ideo opportunum fuit instituere verbum sanctificans. Alia est etiam ratio, sed haec patebit infra[^10].

*Ad 1. quaest. incid.* — Ad illud quod ultra quaeritur de forma, dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento datur gratia ad robur fidei quantum ad *confirmationem* in corde et quantum ad *confessionem* liberam in ore: et quia difficillimum et arduissimum erat Christum crucifixum confiteri, tum propter *opprobrium*, secundum quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios primo[^11]: *Praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam*; tum propter *periculum*, quia adversarii tales nitebantur occidere, Ioannis decimo quinto: *Haec facient vobis propter nomen meum*: hinc est, quod decuit, duplicem actum in forma poni, unum: qui respicit liberam Crucifixi *confessionem*, quasi eam semper ferret in fronte, alterum, *cordis stabilitionem*.

*Ad 2. quaest. incid.* — Ex hoc patet, quare magis fit mentio de *cruce*, quia illud est arduissimum et ignominiosum confiteri.

*Ad 3. quaest. incid.* — De *materia* vero, quare hoc fit, iam videtur[^12]; et ratio est, quia consecrata est, non sic in Sacramentis aliis. — *Aliter*: Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod hoc est propter praecipuam efficaciam huius Sacramenti et gratiam specialem et singularem, quae datur in hoc Sacramento ad pugnam[^13].

english:
### Article I. *On confirmation as to its integrity.*
### Question I. *Whether a form of words is necessary in confirmation.*

And that it is necessary in this Sacrament to have a form of words is shown:

1. By the *likeness* in the other Sacraments: for if in the others a form of words is necessary[^1], it seems that it is so in this one too.

2. Likewise, this same thing is shown by another *reason*: for the form of words is what sanctifies the element; but « a Sacrament is sanctifying by sanctification », according to what Hugh says[^2]: therefore it is necessary that it have a form of words, since by it the element is sanctified.

**On the contrary:** 1. Christ was the institutor of the form of the Sacraments; but he is not read to have instituted the form of confirmation, but rather only to have imposed hands on children, in Matthew nineteen[^3]: therefore it is not necessary, since Christ instituted what pertains to the ne-

<!-- page 164 -->

cessity and form of the other Sacraments, and not of this one.

2. *If you say* that he left the form to the Apostles; *on the contrary*: in Acts eight[^4] it is read that by the imposition of hands they gave the Holy Spirit; but what is of the necessity of a Sacrament is invariable as the Sacrament: therefore etc.

> *Incidental question 1.* — Likewise, concerning the form it is asked, which is this[^5]: « I sign you with the sign of the cross, I confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen ». First it seems that this word *sign* is superfluous, since it suffices to sign by the act itself[^6]. *If you say* that this is on account of the intention; then therefore, just as in baptism one says *I baptize*, and no other act is named; so in confirmation it suffices to say *I confirm*.
>
> *Incidental question 2.* — Likewise, it is asked: why is mention made in the form rather of the *cross* than of the incarnation, or the resurrection?
>
> *Incidental question 3.* — Likewise, it is asked: why in this Sacrament is the *matter* named, when it is said: « I confirm you with chrism », rather than in baptism, so that it be said: « I baptize you in water »?

### Conclusion.

> *The form of confirmation is of the necessity of the Sacrament.*

**I respond:** It must be said to this that the aforesaid form is of the necessity of this Sacrament, as the reasons adduced for it prove.

1. As to that which is objected on the contrary concerning its institution[^7], the doctors differ. For some say that Christ instituted that form and handed it on to the Apostles, and the Apostles afterward left it to others, although this is not written in the canon of Scripture. He himself, however, did not use that form in imposing hands on children, because he was doing this as the Lord, not as a minister. — It can be said otherwise and better, I believe, that Christ neither dispensed nor instituted that Sacrament, because after his ascension it was fitting that the Apostles be confirmed, and the Spirit be given for strength. Hence in John seven[^8]: *The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified*; not given, I say, in fullness, or for strength; but this indeed he did on the day of Pentecost. Hence they were confirmed by the Holy Spirit *immediately*, without ministry and Sacrament; and therefore they too confirmed others even without a word. But after the foundations of the Church, namely the Apostles, who were ordained prelates and confirmed by God, not through men, had passed away, the Holy Spirit instituted the form of this Sacrament, to which he also gave the power of sanctifying. And by this the reply to the first is clear.

2. As to that which is objected concerning the form: namely, why Christ did not institute it, and why the Apostles did not[^9] institute it and hand it on to posterity? the aforesaid reason holds. — Yet other reasons of fittingness can also be assigned: for since holiness was diminished in those dispensing, and fitness in those receiving; therefore it was opportune to institute a sanctifying word. There is also another reason, but this will appear below[^10].

*To the first incidental question.* — As to that which is further asked concerning the form, it must be said that in this Sacrament grace is given for the strength of faith, both as to *confirmation* in the heart and as to free *confession* in the mouth: and because it was most difficult and most arduous to confess the crucified Christ, both on account of *reproach*, according to what is said in First Corinthians one[^11]: *We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a scandal, but to the Gentiles foolishness*; and on account of *peril*, since such adversaries strove to kill, in John fifteen: *These things they will do to you for my name's sake*: hence it is that it was fitting that a twofold act be set in the form, one which regards the free *confession* of the Crucified, as though one were to bear it always on his brow, the other, the *stabilizing of the heart*.

*To the second incidental question.* — From this it is clear why mention is made rather of the *cross*, because it is the most arduous and most ignominious to confess.

*To the third incidental question.* — Concerning the *matter*, however, why this is done, it has now been seen[^12]; and the reason is that it is consecrated, which is not so in the other Sacraments. — *Otherwise*: yet some say that this is on account of the chief efficacy of this Sacrament and the special and singular grace which is given in this Sacrament for the battle[^13].

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 2.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 2. Cfr. ibid. p. IX. c. 2.

en: Bk. I, *On the Sacraments*, p. XI, c. 2. Cf. ibid., p. IX, c. 2.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Vers. 17.

en: Verse 17.

la: Secundum Pontificale Romanum.

en: According to the Roman Pontifical.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. arg. 2. ad oppos.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, arg. 2 ad oppos.

la: In cod. R additur *dicendum, quod*.

en: In cod. R is added *dicendum, quod* ("it must be said that").

la: Vers. 39. — Inferius pro *fecit* Vat. *fuit*. Subinde post *et ideo ipsi* ex plurimis codd. adiecimus *etiam*, et pro *etiam sine* codd. V W Z exhibent *et sine*.

en: Verse 39. — Further below, for *fecit* the Vatican edition has *fuit*. Then after *et ideo ipsi* we have added *etiam* from many codices, and for *etiam sine* codices V W Z exhibit *et sine*.

la: Plurimi codd. et ed. I omittunt *non*, quae lectio principali obiectioni non correspondet; cod. aa *sed post confirmationem Apostoli instituerunt*. Mox pro *et posteris* Vat. *nec posteris*.

en: Most codices and ed. I omit *non*, which reading does not correspond to the principal objection; cod. aa has *sed post confirmationem Apostoli instituerunt*. Soon, for *et posteris* the Vatican edition has *nec posteris*.

la: In corp. quaest. seq.

en: In the body of the following question.

la: Vers. 23. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 15, 21.

en: Verse 23. — The following text is John 15, 21.

la: In fine corp. quaest. seq.

en: At the end of the body of the following question.

la: Cfr. C. *Spiritus sanctus, qui* (2.), de Consecrat. d. 5. infra a. 3. q. 2. allegatus.

en: Cf. C. *Spiritus sanctus, qui* (2.), de Consecrat. d. 5., cited below a. 3. q. 2. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** In solvenda ipsa principali quaestione non est difficultas; sed ea quae dicta sunt in solut. ad 1. de *determinatione formae*, sive, ut ait, de *institutione* huius Sacramenti, et in seq. quaestione de *determinatione materiae*, continent obsoletam sententiam Hugonis, Magistri (infra d. 23. c. 3.) et Alex. Halensis, eaeque non tantum explicatione, sed etiam correctione egent, ut iam diximus tom. I. Prolegom. LXIII. § 3. Profecto non amplius sustinendus est modus loquendi, quod duo Sacramenta confirmationis et extremae unctionis non instituta sint ab ipso Christo, quamvis satis appareat, illos hoc intellexisse tantum quoad institutionem *immediatam*. Nam Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. ad 1.) inter alia docet, illud Sacramentum esse institutum « non immediate a legislatore, sed mediante Spiritu S. cooperante ». Nec hanc opinionem idem profert nisi per modum *probabilitatis*; insuper ipsa quaestio, si *sensum* attendamus, proprie tantum respicit *distinctam determinationem* materiae et formae huius Sacramenti, prout in Ecclesia Latina adhibetur. De hac igitur re dicit (loc. cit. m. 1.): « Sine praeiudicio dicendum » quoad formam verborum et materiam elementarem, cui etiam Spiritus S. contulit virtutem sanctificandi, hoc Sacramentum institutum fuisse « Spiritus S. instinctu in Concilio Meldensi » (!); Apostolos autem, sicut « confirmati sunt a Spiritu S. immediate, sine ministerio et Sacramento », sic etiam alios confirmasse tantum « manuum impositione, non ministrando Sacramentum confirmationis » (in corp. et ad 3.). — Quoad hanc rem S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 1.) refert, circa *institutionem* confirmationis tres esse opiniones, quarum prima ponat, hoc Sacramentum nec a Christo nec ab Apostolis, sed processu temporis in quodam Concilio institutum esse; quam sententiam reprobat tanquam absurdam; secundam, ait, ponere, illud fuisse institutum non quidem a Christo, sed ab Apostolis; quam iterum non approbat, et prosequitur: « Et ideo probabilior videtur aliorum opinio » etc., scilicet opinio nunc communis.

**II.** Ut vera a falsis et certa ab incertis secernantur, haec notamus.

1. Fide constat ex Concilio Trident. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere, can. 1.), *omnia* Sacramenta a Iesu Christo instituta fuisse; nec sine temeritatis nota negari posset, intelligendum esse hoc de institutione *immediata*. Cum autem ipsum Concilium a vocabulo *immediata* consulto abstinuerit, sententia aliquorum theologorum, quod *heretica* sit opinio illa antiquorum Scholasticorum, communius non probatur. — Idem Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIV. c. 1. et cfr. can. 1.) de extrema unctione dicit, quod « instituta est tanquam vere et proprie Sacramentum novi testamenti a Christo Domino nostro, apud Marcum quidem insinuatum, per Iacobum autem Apostolum ac Domini fratrem fidelibus commendatum ac promulgatum ». — Apta haec distinctio inter *institutionem*, *insinuationem* et *promulgationem* a pluribus antiquis neglecta esse videtur.

2. Licet post Concil. Trident. theologi concorditer doceant, Christum *immediate* septem Sacramenta instituisse, remanet tamen dissensus opinionum circa quasdam annexas quaestiones, e. g. quid proprie requiratur ad institutionem alicuius Sacramenti; item, utrum Christus *omnium* Sacramentorum materiam et formam determinate in sua specie, an aliquorum (ut confirmationis et ordinis) tantum in genere constituerit, ita ut Ecclesiae specialiora reliquerit determinanda. Primae opinioni cum Ss. Thoma et Alphonso multi adhaerent; sed etiam secunda ut probabilis sustinetur a magnis theologis recentioribus (cfr. Natalis Alexandri Theolog. dogmat. tom. I. libr. II. De Sacram. in genere, c. 5. prop. 2.); pro qua sententia praeter Hugonem, Magistrum, Alexandrum Hal., Bonaventuram allegant etiam Innocentium IV. (in C. Presbyter (1.) X. de tit. 16. Sacram. non iterandis); et praecipue urgent hanc rationem, quia alias vix possibile esset differentiam explicare, quae inter Latinam et Orientalem Ecclesiam est in administrandis ordinibus nonnullis et confirmatione. Hi igitur theologi distinguunt institutionem *immediatam*, Christo tribuendam, a determinatione *specifica* materiae et formae, quae Ecclesiae deputata fuerit. — Item, de tempore et de modo, quo Christus confirmationem et extremam unctionem instituit, disputant theologi, utrum scilicet benedictio parvulorum cum impositione manuum (Marc. 10, 16.) et unctio infirmorum (Marc. 6, 13.) fuerint proprie Sacramenta (quod non tantum S. Bonaventura cum praedictis antiquis, sed etiam multi recentiores negant « non sine gravi fundamento », ut dicit Benedictus XIV. (VIII. de Synodo dioecesan. c. 1.). — Quoad haec aliasque de materia et forma huius Sacramenti opiniones et controversias consulantur auctores recentiores.

**III.** His praesuppositis, quoad S. Bonaventuram observandum est, eum in Breviloquio (p. VI. c. 4.) disertis verbis docere, Christum *septem* Sacramenta legis gratiae instituisse *in verbis et elementis*... tamen « diversimode », ut ibi diffusius explicatur. De duobus autem Sacramentis, scilicet confirmatione et extrema unctione, ait: « Christus solum initiavit et insinuavit *confirmationem*, manum parvulis imponendo et praedicendo, discipulos baptizandos Spiritu S. »; *unctionem* vero *extremam*, « discipulos ad curandum mittendo, qui infirmos ungebant oleo, sicut dicitur in Marco (6, 13.). Haec bene conveniunt cum doctrina Concilii Tridentini ». Quando S. Bonav. distinguit inter modum instituendi « complete et clare » sive « distincte et integre », qui competit baptismo, eucharistiae et ordini, et modum per *insinuationem* et *initiationem*, hoc intelligendum est, ut explicat illa secunda opinio. — Similia docet Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 1.): « Christus instituit confirmationem praefiguratione, inspiratione et auctoritate; Apostoli traditione, et Ecclesia determinatione et approbatione. Est enim institutio duplex: tacita et expressa, et haec duplex: expressione facti, vel praecepti. Christus ergo instituit innuendo, imprimendo et praefigurando; Apostoli faciendo; Ecclesia praecipiendo ». — Non defuerunt qui cum Barth. de Barberiis (Cursus theolog. p. IV. de Sacram. disp. 1. q. 5. n. 23.) etiam verba in hac et seq. quaestione a S. Bonav. prolata ita interpretati sint, ut, ab aliis male intellecta, reapse eundem sensum habeant, qui in Breviloquio manifestatur. Praedictus auctor enim putat, institutionem Sacramentorum S. Bonaventurae idem esse ac eorundem *promulgationem*, sicut leges dicuntur institui, quando promulgantur (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 90. a. 4.). Sed huic interpretationi praeter alia obstat, tum quod, hoc sensu supposito, omnia Sacramenta dici possint post missionem Spiritus S. esse instituta, unde inanis esset distinctio eorum quoad institutionis tempus; tum quod S. Bonav. (infra d. 23, a. 1. q. 2.) eandem praeciso aliorum interpretationem refert eamque ut minus probabilem non acceptat. — Concedendum tamen est, citato loco auctorem nostrum mitius loqui magisque accedere ad sententiam in Breviloquio expositam. Dicit enim: « Haec duo Sacramenta esse a Christo insinuata, sed post a Spiritu S. instituta... Nec sunt duo legislatores Christus et Spiritus S... Unde Sacramentorum institutionem non attribuimus nisi Deo vel per Filium, vel per Spiritum S... Sic institutio Sacramentorum respicit Deum ut auctorem, et Apostolos respicit ut ministros in promulgando ». — Praecipue tamen observandum esse nobis videtur, quod in his duabus de confirmatione quaestionibus proprie sermo est de *determinatione specifica* formae et materiae, quae, licet ab auctore nostro et ab Alexandro confundatur cum institutione, tamen, salva fide, ab eadem cum non paucis theologis distingui et separari potest. Reiecto igitur nomine institutionis, verbisque ad praedictam determinationem restrictis, illa antiqua assertio vix differret a supra relata sententia recentiorum auctorum, quod scilicet Christus materiam et formam aliquorum Sacramentorum tantum in genere determinaverit. — Nihilominus opinamur, S. Bonav. ea quae hic in iuventute, auctoritate fretus magni sui magistri aliorumque, minus correcte scripserit, in Breviloquio suo correxisse et aliquatenus retractasse, sicut etiam S. Augustinus in multis assertionibus et S. Thomas in nonnullis fecerunt. — Quoad seq. quaestionem notandum, in ed. Vat. textum in corp. aliquatenus mutatum esse. Lectio codicum a nobis recepta eundem praebet sensum, quem expressit Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. ad 1.

**IV.** De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. et 2. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3; S. III. q. 72. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1-3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** In solving the principal question itself there is no difficulty; but the things said in the solution to the first concerning the *determination of the form*, or, as he says, concerning the *institution* of this Sacrament, and in the following question concerning the *determination of the matter*, contain the obsolete view of Hugh, of the Master (below, d. 23, c. 3.) and of Alexander of Hales, and these need not only explanation but also correction, as we have already said in tom. I, Prolegom. LXIII. § 3. Indeed, the manner of speaking is no longer to be sustained, that the two Sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction were not instituted by Christ himself, although it sufficiently appears that they understood this only as to *immediate* institution. For Alexander of Hales (S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. ad 1.) teaches among other things that that Sacrament was instituted « not immediately by the lawgiver, but with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit ». Nor does he himself propose this opinion except by way of *probability*; moreover the question itself, if we attend to the *sense*, properly regards only the *distinct determination* of the matter and form of this Sacrament, as it is used in the Latin Church. Concerning this matter, therefore, he says (loc. cit. m. 1.): « It must be said without prejudice » as to the form of words and the elemental matter, to which the Holy Spirit also conferred the power of sanctifying, that this Sacrament was instituted « by the instinct of the Holy Spirit in the Council of Meaux » (!); but that the Apostles, just as « they were confirmed by the Holy Spirit immediately, without ministry and Sacrament », so also confirmed others only « by the imposition of hands, not by administering the Sacrament of confirmation » (in the body and to the third). — As to this matter, S. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 1, to the first) reports that, concerning the *institution* of confirmation, there are three opinions, the first of which holds that this Sacrament was instituted neither by Christ nor by the Apostles, but in the course of time in a certain Council; which view he rejects as absurd; the second, he says, holds that it was instituted not indeed by Christ, but by the Apostles; which again he does not approve, and he continues: « And therefore the opinion of the others seems more probable » etc., namely the opinion now common.

**II.** That the true may be discerned from the false and the certain from the uncertain, we note these things.

1. By faith it is established from the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. on the Sacraments in general, can. 1.), that *all* Sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ; nor could it be denied without a note of rashness that this is to be understood of *immediate* institution. But since the Council itself deliberately abstained from the word *immediate*, the opinion of some theologians, that the view of those ancient Scholastics is *heretical*, is more commonly not approved. — The same Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 1. and cf. can. 1.) says of extreme unction, that « it was instituted as truly and properly a Sacrament of the new testament by Christ our Lord, insinuated indeed in Mark, but commended and promulgated to the faithful through the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord ». — This apt distinction between *institution*, *insinuation*, and *promulgation* seems to have been neglected by many of the ancients.

2. Although after the Council of Trent the theologians concordantly teach that Christ *immediately* instituted the seven Sacraments, there yet remains a dissent of opinions concerning certain annexed questions, e.g. what is properly required for the institution of some Sacrament; likewise, whether Christ determined the matter and form of *all* the Sacraments definitely in their species, or constituted those of some (such as confirmation and order) only in genus, so that he left the more specific things to be determined by the Church. To the first opinion many adhere with Sts. Thomas and Alphonsus; but the second too is sustained as probable by great more recent theologians (cf. Natalis Alexander, Theolog. dogmat. tom. I. libr. II. De Sacram. in general, c. 5. prop. 2.); for which view, besides Hugh, the Master, Alexander of Hales, they cite Bonaventure as well, and also Innocent IV. (in C. Presbyter (1.) X. de tit. 16. Sacram. non iterandis); and they especially press this reason, that otherwise it would scarcely be possible to explain the difference which exists between the Latin and the Eastern Church in administering certain orders and confirmation. These theologians therefore distinguish the *immediate* institution, to be attributed to Christ, from the *specific* determination of the matter and form, which was delegated to the Church. — Likewise, concerning the time and the manner in which Christ instituted confirmation and extreme unction, the theologians dispute, namely whether the blessing of children with the imposition of hands (Mark 10, 16.) and the anointing of the sick (Mark 6, 13.) were properly Sacraments (which not only S. Bonaventure with the aforesaid ancients, but also many more recent writers deny « not without grave foundation », as Benedict XIV. says (VIII. de Synodo dioecesan. c. 1.). — As to these and other opinions and controversies concerning the matter and form of this Sacrament, let the more recent authors be consulted.

**III.** These things presupposed, as to S. Bonaventure it is to be observed that in the Breviloquium (p. VI. c. 4.) he teaches in plain words that Christ instituted the *seven* Sacraments of the law of grace *in words and elements*... yet « in diverse manners », as is there more diffusely explained. But concerning the two Sacraments, namely confirmation and extreme unction, he says: « Christ only initiated and insinuated *confirmation*, by imposing his hand on children and by foretelling that the disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit »; but *extreme unction*, « by sending the disciples to heal, who anointed the sick with oil, as is said in Mark (6, 13.). These agree well with the doctrine of the Council of Trent ». When S. Bonav. distinguishes between the manner of instituting « completely and clearly » or « distinctly and integrally », which belongs to baptism, the eucharist, and order, and the manner by *insinuation* and *initiation*, this is to be understood as that second opinion explains. — Peter of Tarentaise teaches similar things (here q. 1. a. 1.): « Christ instituted confirmation by prefiguration, inspiration, and authority; the Apostles by tradition, and the Church by determination and approbation. For institution is twofold: tacit and express, and this twofold: by the expression of a fact, or of a precept. Christ therefore instituted by intimating, impressing, and prefiguring; the Apostles by doing; the Church by commanding ». — Nor were there lacking those who, with Barth. de Barberiis (Cursus theolog. p. IV. de Sacram. disp. 1. q. 5. n. 23.), so interpreted the words uttered by S. Bonav. in this and the following question, that, being misunderstood by others, they really have the same sense which is manifested in the Breviloquium. For the aforesaid author thinks that the institution of the Sacraments according to S. Bonaventure is the same as their *promulgation*, just as laws are said to be instituted when they are promulgated (cf. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 90. a. 4.). But to this interpretation, besides other things, it is opposed, both that, this sense being supposed, all the Sacraments could be said to have been instituted after the mission of the Spirit, whence the distinction of them as to the time of institution would be empty; and that S. Bonav. (below, d. 23, a. 1. q. 2.) reports the very same interpretation of others and does not accept it as less probable. — It must nevertheless be conceded that in the cited place our author speaks more mildly and accedes more to the view set forth in the Breviloquium. For he says: « These two Sacraments were insinuated by Christ, but afterward instituted by the Holy Spirit... Nor are there two lawgivers, Christ and the Holy Spirit... Hence we attribute the institution of the Sacraments to none but God, either through the Son, or through the Holy Spirit... Thus the institution of the Sacraments regards God as author, and regards the Apostles as ministers in promulgating ». — But it seems to us especially to be observed that in these two questions concerning confirmation the discourse is properly about the *specific determination* of the form and matter, which, although it is confused with institution by our author and by Alexander, can nevertheless, the faith being safe, be distinguished and separated from it together with not a few theologians. Therefore, the name of institution being set aside, and the words being restricted to the aforesaid determination, that ancient assertion would scarcely differ from the above-related view of the more recent authors, namely that Christ determined the matter and form of some Sacraments only in genus. — Nevertheless we are of the opinion that what S. Bonav. here in his youth, relying on the authority of his great master and of others, wrote less correctly, he corrected and to some extent retracted in his Breviloquium, just as also S. Augustine in many assertions and S. Thomas in some did. — As to the following question it is to be noted that in the Vatican edition the text in the body was somewhat altered. The reading of the codices received by us provides the same sense which Alex. Hal. expressed, loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. ad 1.

**IV.** On this and the following (2nd) question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. and 2. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in both Writings here q. 1. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3; S. III. q. 72. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., here a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., here q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 1-3.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin reflowed L-column-then-R-column per printed page from PDF colcrop bands (vol4 pp.163–166, bands L0–2 / R0–2) against the column-shattered raw OCR base L18655–18942; PDF bands taken as authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragmented (the whole Respondeo / Solutio, all incidental questions, and the entire scholion). English is a literal parallel rendering.
- **Alignment confirmed.** The ARTICULUS I opener (*De confirmatione quoad integritatem*) and QUAESTIO I title (*Utrum in confirmatione sit necessaria forma verborum*) begin at the foot of p163 left column (after the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM block) and the title is repeated at the foot of p163 right column, matching the running head DIST. VII. ART. I. QUAEST. I. on p165. No misalignment.
- **Incidental-question handling.** The three *Quaestiones incidentes* (margin-keyed "Quaestio incidens 1./2./3." on p164 left col) are rendered inline as a blockquoted inset within the body of q1, NOT as separate chunks, per the dispatch instruction. Their answers are given in the Solutio under the margin keys "Ad 1./2./3. quaest. incid." (p164 right col), likewise kept inside q1.
- **Page-split map.** Opener + arguments 1–2 + Sed contra 1 (opening clause) = p163 (both columns, foot). Sed contra continuation + *Si tu dicas* + 3 incidental questions + Conclusio + Respondeo + Solutio (replies 1–2 + the three incidental replies) = p164 (both columns). Scholion runs from the foot of p164 right column into p165 (both columns); QUAESTIO II begins at the top of p166 left column (excluded). `<!-- page 164 -->` marks the p163→164 break inside Sed contra; the p164→165 boundary falls inside the continuous scholion prose and is left unmarked as a single OCR flow.
- **Footer ownership.** p163: footnote 1 (*Libr. IV. Regist...*, the Gratianus citation) and the *NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM* note 1 (*Edd. ad ministri dignitatem*) belong to the **divisio** (L18616–18654) — NOT claimed here; this chunk claims p163 footnotes 2–5 (the body anchors present → renumbered into [^1]–[^3] plus carried). p164 carries a single continuous footnote run 1–10 across both columns, all anchored in this body → renumbered [^4]–[^13]. The **d7-a1-q2** chunk (L18943+) owns p166's footers.
- **Scholion disposition.** ARTICULUS I carries one article-level scholion. There is no section literally headed *De 1. quaestione*; sections **I–III are general** (institutio / Trent / Breviloquium reconciliation) and section **IV is headed "De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione"** — the source-catalogue jointly for q1 *and* q2, led by *hac* (= this question). This chunk therefore renders the general scholion **I–IV** (the q1-bearing portion); section **V ("De 3. quaestione")** is left to a1-q3, and a1-q2 cross-references the shared IV rather than duplicating it. `has_scholion: true`.
- **`[?]` flags.** None — all body and apparatus readings recovered cleanly from the PDF bands; no ambiguous glyphs survived. (The prior skeleton's `line_start`/`line_end`/`word_count_latin` frontmatter were dropped in favor of `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages`; printed span is 163–165 since q1 ends inside p165 and p166 belongs to q2.)

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. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 166 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum materia confirmationis sit necessaria.*

Secundo quaeritur de materia, utrum sit necessaria; et videtur primo, quod istud Sacramentum indigeat necessaria materia:

1. Quia, sicut dicit Hugo[^1], «Sacramentum est elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex similitudine repraesentans»; sed repraesentatio est per materiam: ergo materia est necessaria.

2. *Praeterea,* supra[^2] habitum est, quod Dominus potestatem mundandi non tradidit homini per se, sed per elementum, ne poneretur spes in homine: ergo pari ratione potestatem confirmandi non debuit dare homini nisi mediante elemento.

**Contra:** 1. Apostoli sola manus impositione confirmabant[^3]: ergo videtur, quod successores eorum sola manus impositione hoc possint, si transmiserunt potestatem, quam habebant.

2. Item, materia aliorum Sacramentorum fuit instituta a Christo, ut patet in baptismo et eucharistia, et Christus etiam ea suscepit: ergo videtur pari ratione, quodsi hoc Sacramentum haberet materiam, quod Christus instituisset Sacramentum suscipiendo. — *Si tu dicas,* quod non decebat eum confirmari; *obiicitur tunc,* quia similiter nec circumcidi nec baptizari; sed fecit propter auctoritatem Sacramenti et humilitatis, ut habitum est[^4], exemplum: ergo etc.

*Quaestio incidens 1.* — Item, quaero, utrum materia huius Sacramenti debeat esse *consecrata,* et videtur, quod *sic:* quia est chrisma, quod consecratur a Pontificibus determinato tempore anni[^5]. — Sed videtur, quod *non,* cum alia Sacramenta possint fieri sine consecratione, ut patet in baptismo, qui antecedit, et eucharistia, quae sequitur baptismum: ergo et in confirmatione.

*Quaestio incidens 2.* — Item, quaero: cum alia Sacramenta habeant elementa simplicia non mixta, quare hoc Sacramentum habet *mixta?* Et videtur, quod non deberet habere, quia dicitur Ecclesiastici vigesimo quarto[^6]: *Quasi balsamum non mixtum odor meus;* hoc dicit Sapientia de se.

*Quaestio incidens 3.* — Item, quaero: quare magis assumitur *balsamum* quam aqua? Et videtur, quod aqua magis, quia morbo generali debet respondere elementum commune et generale; sed balsamum est pretiosum et rarum[^7], aqua communis est omnibus: ergo etc.

*Quaestio incidens 4.* — Item, quare magis *oleum* quam vinum? Et videtur, quod vinum magis, quia facit hominem audacem et disertum; et hic est huius Sacramenti effectus.

> ### Conclusio.
> Materia consecrata est de integritate confirmationis.

**Respondeo:** Sicut tactum est prius[^8], Christus hoc Sacramentum non instituit, quia credentes post eius ascensionem erant confirmandi. Unde nec materiam nec formam Apostoli dispensaverunt, sed rem huius Sacramenti sine *forma,* a Spiritu sancto immediate confirmante, et sine *elemento* vel materia, quia in datione Spiritus sancti signa visibilia apparebant[^9]: et ideo non erat opus elemento. Sed post a successoribus institutis dandus erat vi verborum et invisibiliter; ideo oportuit, institui sensibile elementum.

Institutum est igitur hoc *elementum,* Spiritu sancto dictante, ab ipsis Ecclesiae rectoribus; et quia Christus non instituerat nec vim ei dederat, secundum quod ipse «contactu mundissimae carnis dederat aquis[^10]», et ut ipse, conficiendo corpus suum, instituit elementum sive materiam eucharistiae, ut panem vel vinum: ideo episcopi non valentes se ipsis materias consecrare, consecrari per benedictionem instituerunt. Et ideo materia huius Sacramenti debet esse consecrata.

Ad illud quod quaeritur: quare *mixta* in isto, et non in aliis? dicendum, quod, sicut dictum est[^11] de forma, quia erat ad duplicem actum arduum, ideo duplex actus exprimitur in forma; et ideo et

<!-- page 167 -->

duplex *elementum,* consonans illi duplici actui et rei, commiscetur: *oleum* olivarum propter nitorem signat interiorem fidem ex bona conscientia; *balsamum* propter odorem dignam et laudabilem confessionem. Et ex hoc patet, quare haec duo elementa magis quam alia.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de *generalitate,* dicendum, quod hoc verum esset, si esset Sacramentum necessitatis, et salvaretur in *aqua* completa ratio signandi[^12]. — De *vino* similiter dicendum, quod non convenit propter hoc, quod audacem et fortem faciat obnubilando rationem: ideo non convenit, quia fortitudo spiritualis est ex ratione recta et pura, non ex ratione obnubilata[^13].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the matter of confirmation is necessary.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the matter, whether it is necessary; and it seems first that this Sacrament requires a necessary matter:

1. Because, as Hugh says[^1], «A Sacrament is an element outwardly set forth in a sensible way, representing by likeness»; but representation is through matter: therefore matter is necessary.

2. Likewise, it was held above[^2] that the Lord did not hand over the power of cleansing to man through himself, but through an element, lest hope be placed in man: therefore by parity of reasoning he ought not to have given the power of confirming to man except by the mediation of an element.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Apostles confirmed by the imposition of the hand alone[^3]: therefore it seems that their successors can do this by the imposition of the hand alone, if they transmitted the power which they had.

2. Likewise, the matter of the other Sacraments was instituted by Christ, as is evident in baptism and the Eucharist, and Christ also received them: therefore it seems by parity of reasoning that, if this Sacrament had a matter, Christ would have instituted the Sacrament by receiving it. — *If you say* that it was not fitting for him to be confirmed; *it is then objected,* that likewise it was not fitting for him to be circumcised or baptized; but he did this for the authority of the Sacrament and of humility, as has been held[^4], as an example: therefore etc.

*Incidental question 1.* — Likewise, I ask whether the matter of this Sacrament ought to be *consecrated,* and it seems that *it should:* because it is chrism, which is consecrated by the Pontiffs at a determined time of the year[^5]. — But it seems that *it should not,* since the other Sacraments can be performed without consecration, as is evident in baptism, which precedes, and the Eucharist, which follows baptism: therefore also in confirmation.

*Incidental question 2.* — Likewise, I ask: since the other Sacraments have simple, unmixed elements, why does this Sacrament have *mixed* ones? And it seems that it ought not to have them, because it is said in Ecclesiasticus twenty-four[^6]: *My odor is as balsam unmixed;* this Wisdom says of herself.

*Incidental question 3.* — Likewise, I ask: why is *balsam* taken rather than water? And it seems that water rather, because a common and general element ought to correspond to a general disease; but balsam is precious and rare[^7], water is common to all: therefore etc.

*Incidental question 4.* — Likewise, why *oil* rather than wine? And it seems that wine rather, because it makes a man bold and eloquent; and this is the effect of this Sacrament.

> ### Conclusion.
> The consecrated matter belongs to the integrity of confirmation.

**I respond:** As was touched on before[^8], Christ did not institute this Sacrament, because believers were to be confirmed after his ascension. Hence the Apostles dispensed neither the matter nor the *form,* but the reality of this Sacrament without *form,* the Holy Spirit confirming immediately, and without *element* or matter, because in the giving of the Holy Spirit visible signs appeared[^9]: and therefore there was no need of an element. But afterward, by their instituted successors, it was to be given by the power of words and invisibly; therefore it was necessary that a sensible element be instituted.

Therefore this *element* was instituted, the Holy Spirit dictating, by the rulers of the Church themselves; and because Christ had not instituted it nor given it power, according as he himself «by the contact of his most pure flesh had given [power] to the waters[^10]», and as he himself, in confecting his body, instituted the element or matter of the Eucharist, namely bread or wine: therefore the bishops, not being able of themselves to consecrate the matters, instituted that they be consecrated by a blessing. And therefore the matter of this Sacrament ought to be consecrated.

To that which is asked: why *mixed* in this Sacrament, and not in the others? it must be said that, as was said[^11] concerning the form, because it was for a twofold arduous act, therefore a twofold act is expressed in the form; and therefore also

a twofold *element,* consonant with that twofold act and reality, is mixed together: the *oil* of olives, on account of its brightness, signifies the interior faith from a good conscience; the *balsam,* on account of its odor, the worthy and laudable confession. And from this it is evident why these two elements rather than others.

To that which is objected concerning *generality,* it must be said that this would be true if it were a Sacrament of necessity, and if in *water* the complete account of signifying were preserved[^12]. — Of *wine* it must similarly be said that it is not suitable on this account, that it makes one bold and strong by clouding the reason: therefore it is not suitable, because spiritual fortitude is from a right and pure reason, not from a clouded reason[^13].

---

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2. Cfr. supra pag. 13, nota 2.

en: Bk. I, *On the Sacraments,* p. IX, c. 2. Cf. above, p. 13, note 2.

en: Distinction 3, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Act. 8, 17, ubi Glossa *interlinearis* (apud Lyranum): *Ecce exemplum confirmationis.* — In fine arg. non pauci codd. *transmiserint* pro *transmiserunt.*

en: Acts 8, 17, where the *interlinear* Gloss (in Lyra): *Behold an example of confirmation.* — At the end of the argument not a few codices read *transmiserint* for *transmiserunt.*

la: Supra d. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. ad 3, ubi triplex ratio adducitur, scilicet in fidei argumentum, *humilitatis exemplum* et Legis complementum. Cfr. etiam d. 6. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Supplevimus ex cod. N *humilitatis, ut,* quod male deest in aliis codd. et in edd.

en: Above, d. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 1, ad 3, where a threefold reason is adduced, namely as an argument of faith, an *example of humility,* and the fulfillment of the Law. Cf. also d. 6, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — We have supplied from codex N *humilitatis, ut,* which is wrongly lacking in the other codices and in the editions.

la: Scil. secundum antiquum morem *in Coena Domini,* ut insinuatur C. *Litteris vestris* (18.), de Consecrat. d. 3. Cfr. C. *Presbyteri, qui per dioeceses* (4.), d. 95, et Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 4. per totum.

en: That is, according to the ancient custom *on Maundy Thursday* (the Lord's Supper), as is implied in the Canon *Litteris vestris* (18), On Consecration, d. 3. Cf. the Canon *Presbyteri, qui per dioeceses* (4), d. 95, and Dionysius, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,* c. 4 throughout.

la: Vers. 21. — Pro *deberet* codd. FGI *debeat.*

en: Verse 21. — For *deberet* codices FGI read *debeat.*

la: Codd. A G *carum.*

en: Codices A G read *carum* (dear).

la: Quaest. praeced. ad 1.

en: The preceding question, ad 1.

la: Cfr. Act. 19, 6. — Paulo superius post *materia* cod. aa non male supplet *conferebant,* et pro *sine forma* plurimi codd. perperam *sive formam.* Vat. hanc propositionem, utpote a communi doctrina alienam, mutavit sic: *sine forma a Spiritu sancto immediate acceperunt. Nam immediate ab ipso confirmati fuerunt et quidem sine elemento etc.* Mox pro *Sed post* [cod. H potius] *a successoribus* edd. *Sed postea successoribus.*

en: Cf. Acts 19, 6. — A little above, after *materia,* codex aa not unfittingly supplies *conferebant,* and for *sine forma* very many codices wrongly read *sive formam.* The Vatican edition, this proposition being foreign to the common teaching, altered it thus: *they received without a form from the Holy Spirit immediately. For they were confirmed immediately by him himself, and indeed without an element, etc.* Soon, for *Sed post* [codex H rather] *a successoribus,* the editions read *Sed postea successoribus.*

la: Secundum Bedam, supra pag. 21, nota 3. allegatum. — Superius pro *hoc elementum* cod. U *hoc Sacramentum.* Infra pro *episcopi* cod. aa *ipsi.*

en: According to Bede, cited above, p. 21, note 3. — Above, for *hoc elementum* codex U reads *hoc Sacramentum.* Below, for *episcopi* codex aa reads *ipsi.*

la: Quaest. praeced. — Pro *de forma* edd. et plurimi codd. *in forma;* qui error forte irrepsit ex seq. *in forma.* — Mox post *arduum* codd. MO addunt *sive difficilem,* codd. KLaa *difficilem.*

en: The preceding question. — For *de forma* the editions and very many codices read *in forma;* which error perhaps crept in from the following *in forma.* — Soon after *arduum* codices MO add *sive difficilem,* codices KLaa *difficilem.*

la: Cfr. infra a. 3. q. 2. et supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. below, a. 3, q. 2, and above, d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 18943–19112), with the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p166-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p167-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative throughout the cascade-shattered *Respondeo,* incidental-question, and footer regions (Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion). Opener "Secundo quaeritur de materia, utrum sit necessaria" confirmed to align with ART I, q2 (*materia*); q1 (*forma*) precedes (raw L18655–18942), q3 (*Tertio quaeritur de potentia dispensandi*) follows (raw L19113+).

**Page-split map.** Body opens on printed p. 166 (the in-text "QUAESTIO II. *Utrum materia confirmationis sit necessaria*"); the *Respondeo* runs from p. 166 (right column) onto p. 167 (right-column top), ending at "...non ex ratione obnubilata." The `<!-- page 167 -->` break is placed at the *Respondeo* clause boundary ("...ideo duplex actus exprimitur in forma; et ideo et // duplex elementum..."). The four sub-questions are printed in Quaracchi as inset marginal *Quaestio incidens 1–4*; they belong to the *materia* discussion and are rendered here within q2 as italicized headings. The running head on p. 167 reads "DIST. VII. ART. I. QUAEST. III." but the right-column top is still q2's *Respondeo* tail (running head anticipates the next column's QUAESTIO III) — content, not the running head, governs the chunk boundary.

**Footer-ownership.** Printed p. 166 footers 1–11 are all anchored in this question's body → owned here, renumbered [^1]–[^11]. Printed p. 167 is shared: its footers 2 and 3 anchor in q2's continued *Respondeo* tail (*ratio signandi*² and *obnubilata*³) → claimed here as [^12]–[^13]; p. 167 footers 1 and 4–12 anchor in the q3 body (q3's left-column args carry markers 4–8 and the q3 opener/Hugo note) → left to a1-q3. q1 (a1-q1) owns the prior footers (raw <18943).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The article's scholion (raw ~L19345, printed p. 168, opening "In solvendis tribus huius articuli quaestionibus...") is a single *unified three-question* article scholion printed after q3; it discusses all three questions (its section II is keyed "De 3. quaestione," with only a passing clause "Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem cfr. supra d. 1 p. I q. 6" touching q2). There is no standalone q2-keyed scholion section in this chunk's range; the whole scholion belongs to a1-q3.

**[?] flags.** None. All p. 166 readings recovered cleanly from the column bands. The only judgment call is the p. 167 footer-2/3 ownership, resolved by anchor position in the q2 *Respondeo* tail (documented above).


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

source_text:
<!-- page 167 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum quilibet possit dispensare confirmationem, saltem in necessitate.*

Tertio quaeritur de potentia dispensandi hoc Sacramentum; quod et videtur, quod quilibet possit hoc Sacramentum dispensare, saltem in necessitate:

1. Quia, si baptizat quis, baptizatum est: igitur baptismus maximae efficaciae sit inter Sacramenta[^1], et quod potest in maius potest in minus: ergo si potest quilibet baptizare, potest etiam confirmare.

2. Item, in naturis sic est, quod ubi res est, ibi operatur, non ubi debet esse et non est: ergo si Spiritus sanctus est in laico bono et non in episcopo malo, videtur, quod magis confirmet per laicum.

3. Item, simplex sacerdos inungit chrismate in vertice[^2]; aut tunc aliquid facit, aut nihil. Si nihil, tunc frustra facit; si aliquid facit, pari ratione potest inungere in fronte; sed hoc est confirmare: ergo etc.

4. Item, si solus episcopus hoc potest, aut hoc est propter ordinem, aut propter iurisdictionem. Si propter ordinem, cum alium ordinem non habeat quam sacerdos[^3]: ergo et sacerdos; si propter iurisdictionem: ergo electus non consecratus hoc potest.

**Contra:** 1. Magister dicit in littera[^4], quod « hoc Sacramentum summis sacerdotibus a solis datur, alioquin non est inter Sacramenta Ecclesiae computandum, immo irritum habendum »: ergo a nullis aliis potest dari.

2. Item, Rabanus[^5] dicit: « Per impositionem manus summi sacerdotis Paraclitus traditur baptizato »; et vocat summum sacerdotem episcopum: ergo si alius inungat et verba dicat, hoc Sacramentum non tribuit.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, Actuum octavo[^6] dicit quaedam Glossa, quod Philippus ille, ad cuius praedicationem Samaritani crediderant, non poterat manus imponere, quia non erat Apostolus: ergo solum Apostolis hoc concessum erat.

### *Conclusio.* — *Confirmatio nec potest nec debet dispensari nisi ab episcopis.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud Sacramentum nec potest nec debet per alios[^7] dispensari, et si alii praesumunt, nihil faciunt. — Et ratio huius est, quia auctoritas Ecclesiae fuit derivata ad membra secundum *ordinem* Ecclesiae *primum;* unde sicut soli Apostoli hoc poterant, sic nunc soli eorum successores possunt.

Sed tunc est quaestio: *quare* hoc Sacramentum ordinis a solis episcopis traditur et solis episcopis fuit commissum? Dicendum, quod ratio[^8] huius est, quia ipsi et eorum successores sunt praelati in Ecclesia principales; praelati autem duplex est officium, scilicet inferiores in gradu suo statuere et collocare in ordine, et murum ponere se sive gregem suum defendere: ideo ipsi soli ordines faciunt et corroborant[^9].

Aliter dicunt aliqui, quod in his duobus Sacramentis datur gratiae plenitudo; ideo ab his debent dari, qui habent plenitudinem auctoritatis, ab aliis

<!-- page 168 -->

non. Propter hanc eandem rationem consecrare ecclesias et abbates, quia sunt opera excellentiae, solis episcopis sunt concessa, pro eo quod habent excellentem auctoritatem.

Alia ratio potest reddi, quod ipsis episcopis est cura de subditis et maxime de clericis, cum curam habeant de omnibus; licet aliis commissa sit custodia[^10], tamen placuit Spiritui sancto, ut aliquod Sacramentum omnes subditi a praelato reciperent *immediate;* similiter, quod clerici aliquod: et illud est duplex Sacramentum, in quo duplex imprimitur signaculum. Unde et Apostolus, primo[^11] ad Romanos: *Desidero videre vos, ut aliquid impertiar vobis spiritualis gratiae ad confirmandos vos.* — Multae possunt hic rationes assignari et convenientiae, quia in talibus magis locum habet *congruitas* quam *necessitas,* quia *institutio* necessitatem facit praecipue[^12].

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia enim baptismus est Sacramentum necessitatis, ideo potestas eius omnibus est concessa; non sic autem est de confirmatione.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus operatur, ubi est; dicendum, quod gratia Spiritus sancti, per quam dicitur in nobis operari, duplex est, scilicet *gratum faciens,* et sic operatur opera nostra[^13] ad salutem eius, in quo est; et *gratis data,* et per hanc operatur salutem in altero: et haec manet in homine, gratia gratum faciente recedente, ex dispensatione divina, ut subditi salus non impediatur malitia praelati.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sacerdote, quod ungit in vertice; dicendum, quod nihil efficit; et tamen non frustra fit, quia *instruit* et coniunctum[^14] *efficit,* scilicet baptisma. Praeterea, si aliquid facit, non tamen ut Sacramentum confirmationis.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur: unde habet hoc episcopus; dicendum, quod nec a iurisdictione nec ab ordine sacerdotali, sed *auctoritate et dignitate episcopali;*[^15] et haec dicit ordinem in eminentia. Haec autem eminentia confertur episcopo, cum consecratur; et ideo si renuntiet iurisdictioni, adhuc potest confirmare. Quamvis igitur non habeat ex ordine sacerdotali nec ex iurisdictione temporali, habet tamen ex aliquo, quod superexcellit utrumque. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod hoc habet ratione institutionis[^16].

english:
### Question III. *Whether anyone may dispense confirmation, at least in case of necessity.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the power of dispensing this Sacrament; and it seems that anyone may dispense this Sacrament, at least in case of necessity:

1. Because, if anyone baptizes, the person is baptized: therefore baptism is of the greatest efficacy among the Sacraments[^1], and what can do the greater can do the lesser: therefore if anyone can baptize, he can also confirm.

2. Likewise, in natural things it is so, that where a thing is, there it operates, not where it ought to be and is not: therefore if the Holy Spirit is in a good layman and not in a wicked bishop, it seems that he would rather confirm through the layman.

3. Likewise, a simple priest anoints with chrism on the crown of the head[^2]; either then he does something, or nothing. If nothing, then he does it in vain; if he does something, by parity of reason he can anoint on the forehead; but this is to confirm: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if the bishop alone can do this, this is either on account of order, or on account of jurisdiction. If on account of order, since he has no other order than a priest[^3]: therefore the priest too [can do it]; if on account of jurisdiction: therefore one elected but not consecrated can do this.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Master says in the text[^4], that « this Sacrament is given by the highest priests alone, otherwise it is not to be counted among the Sacraments of the Church, but rather to be held void »: therefore it can be given by no others.

2. Likewise, Rabanus[^5] says: « Through the imposition of the hand of the highest priest the Paraclete is handed over to the baptized »; and he calls the highest priest the bishop: therefore if another should anoint and say the words, he does not confer this Sacrament.

3. Likewise, it seems so *by reason:* because, at Acts, chapter eight[^6], a certain Gloss says that that Philip, at whose preaching the Samaritans had believed, could not impose hands, because he was not an Apostle: therefore this was granted to the Apostles alone.

### *Conclusion.* — *Confirmation neither can nor ought to be dispensed except by bishops.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament neither can nor ought to be dispensed by others[^7], and if others presume [to do so], they accomplish nothing. — And the reason for this is that the authority of the Church was derived to its members according to the *order* of the Church *first;* hence just as the Apostles alone could do this, so now their successors alone can.

But then there is a question: *why* is this Sacrament of order handed on by bishops alone and committed to bishops alone? It must be said that the reason[^8] for this is that they and their successors are the principal prelates in the Church; but the office of a prelate is twofold, namely to establish inferiors in their grade and to place them in order, and to set up a wall, that is, to defend his flock: therefore they alone confer orders and confirm them[^9].

Others say otherwise, that in these two Sacraments the fullness of grace is given; therefore they ought to be given by those who have the fullness of authority, by others

not. For this same reason the consecration of churches and of abbots, since they are works of excellence, are granted to bishops alone, for the reason that they have excellent authority.

Another reason can be given, namely that to the bishops themselves belongs the care of subjects, and especially of clerics, since they have care of all; although the watch is committed to others[^10], yet it pleased the Holy Spirit that subjects should all receive some Sacrament from a prelate *immediately;* likewise, that clerics [should receive] some [from him]: and that is the twofold Sacrament, in which a twofold seal is imprinted. Hence the Apostle too, in the first [letter] to the Romans[^11]: *I long to see you, that I may impart to you something of spiritual grace for your confirming.* — Many reasons and fittingnesses can be assigned here, because in such matters *fittingness* rather than *necessity* has place, because it is *institution* that especially produces necessity[^12].

1. To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that it is not alike: for because baptism is the Sacrament of necessity, therefore its power is granted to all; but it is not so concerning confirmation.

2. To that which is objected, that the Holy Spirit operates where he is; it must be said that the grace of the Holy Spirit, through which he is said to operate in us, is twofold, namely *grace making pleasing,* and thus he operates our works[^13] unto the salvation of him in whom he is; and *grace freely given,* and through this he operates salvation in another: and this latter remains in a person even when the grace making pleasing withdraws, by divine dispensation, so that the salvation of the subject may not be impeded by the malice of the prelate.

3. To that which is objected concerning the priest, that he anoints on the crown of the head; it must be said that he effects nothing; and yet it is not done in vain, because it *instructs* and *effects* the conjoined[^14] thing, namely baptism. Moreover, if he does something, it is not however as the Sacrament of confirmation.

4. To that which is objected last: whence the bishop has this; it must be said that [he has it] neither from jurisdiction nor from the priestly order, but by *episcopal authority and dignity;*[^15] and this denotes order in eminence. But this eminence is conferred on the bishop when he is consecrated; and therefore if he renounces jurisdiction, he can still confirm. Although therefore he does not have it from the priestly order nor from temporal jurisdiction, he has it nevertheless from something that surpasses both. — Some however say that he has this by reason of institution[^16].

la: Vide supra d. 4. p. I. a. I. q. I. seq. — De seq. propositione cfr. supra pag. 112, nota 8. — Quod *quilibet* possit baptizare, ostensum est supra d. 5. a. I. et 2.

en: See above, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — On the following proposition cf. above, p. 112, note 8. — That *anyone* can baptize was shown above, d. 5, a. 1 and 2.

la: Et dictum est supra d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. circa finem.

en: And it was said above, d. 6, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, near the end.

la: Libr. I. de Iustit. cleric. c. 30. Vide hic tit. Magistri, c. 3, et C. *Novissime* (3.), de Consecrat. d. 5.

en: Bk. I, *On the Instruction of Clerics,* c. 30. See here the Master's title, c. 3, and the Canon *Novissime* (3), On Consecration, d. 5.

la: Vers. 17. Glossam Bedae vide supra pag. 58, nota 7.

en: Verse 17. For the Gloss of Bede, see above, p. 58, note 7.

la: Simul audi: nisi per episcopos. Vide tamen huius sententiae restrictionem infra dub. 1.

en: Hear at the same time: except through bishops. See, however, the restriction of this opinion below, dubium 1.

la: Pro *dicendum, quod ratio* codd. *et ratio.*

en: For *dicendum, quod ratio* (it must be said that the reason) the codices read *et ratio* (and the reason).

la: Cfr. infra tit. Magistri, d. XXIV. c. 14. seq. — De seq. ratione vide hic tit. Magistri, c. 4, et infra d. 25. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *murum ponere* edd. *murum opponere,* quae lectio congruit Ezech. 13, 5.

en: Cf. below the Master's title, d. XXIV, c. 14 ff. — On the following reason see here the Master's title, c. 4, and below, d. 25, a. 1, q. 1. — For *murum ponere* (to set up a wall) the editions read *murum opponere* (to set a wall against), which reading agrees with Ezekiel 13, 5.

la: Cod. aa, post *clericis* addito *corporaliter et spiritualiter,* hic subiungit *laicorum.*

en: Codex aa, having added after *clericis* the words *corporaliter et spiritualiter* (bodily and spiritually), here subjoins *laicorum* (of the laity).

la: Vers. 11. — Inferius pro *et convenientiae* permulti codd. *et conveniens est,* codd. MS *ut conveniens est.*

en: Verse 11. — Below, for *et convenientiae* (and fittingnesses) very many codices read *et conveniens est* (and it is fitting), codices MS *ut conveniens est* (as is fitting).

la: Hugo a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. 1: Ex quo enim quodlibet Sacramentum contra institutionem celebratur, irritum deputatur.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *Sum of Sentences,* tr. 6, c. 1: For from the fact that any Sacrament is celebrated contrary to institution, it is reckoned void.

la: Cod. ll *opera meritoria,* cod. bb a secunda manu *opera interiora nostra.*

en: Codex ll reads *opera meritoria* (meritorious works), codex bb in a second hand *opera interiora nostra* (our interior works).

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. circa finem, ubi proponitur significatio huius unctionis, quae immediate post trinam immersionem datur baptizato. — Pro *coniunctum* ed. 1 *coniunctim.* Mox pro *non tamen* plures codd. *non tantum,* edd. *tamen non tantum.*

en: Cf. above, d. 6, p. II, a. 3, q. 2, near the end, where the signification of this unction is set forth, which is given to the baptized immediately after the threefold immersion. — For *coniunctum* (conjoined) edition 1 reads *coniunctim* (jointly). Presently, for *non tamen* (not however) very many codices read *non tantum* (not only), the editions *tamen non tantum* (however not only).

la: Vide infra d. 25. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. in corp. et d. 25. a. 1. q. 1.

en: See below, d. 25, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, in the body, and d. 25, a. 1, q. 1.

en: See the scholion on the first question of this article. ---

latin_scholion:
**V. De 3. quaestione:** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 1. —, hic q. 1. n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 4; Scot., c. cit. a. 11. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., q. 3. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**V. On the third question:** Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 3, a. 1. —, here q. 1, n. 4 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 3, a. 4; Scotus, c. cit., a. 11. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, 2. — Durandus, q. 3, 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin reflowed L-column-then-R-column per printed page from the 450 dpi PDF colcrop bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p167-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p168-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, plus `vol4-p165-{L,R}-{1,2}.png` for the reserved scholion section V) against the column-shattered raw OCR base L19113–19232; PDF bands taken as authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragmented (the whole *Respondeo,* the *Notandum* congruity passage, the four replies, and all footers). English is a literal parallel rendering. Opener "Tertio quaeritur de potentia dispensandi hoc Sacramentum" confirmed to align with Articulus I, q3 (dispensing power); q2 (*materia*) precedes (raw L18943–19112); ARTICULUS II (*De confirmatione quoad efficaciam*) follows (raw L19233+, excluded).

**Title.** The in-text question header reads *Utrum quilibet possit dispensare confirmationem, saltem in necessitate* ("Whether anyone may dispense confirmation, at least in case of necessity"). This differs from the build prompt's hypothesized *Utrum potentia dispensandi confirmationem sit soli episcopo reservata;* the frontmatter follows the actual printed header as instructed. The two phrasings are doctrinally equivalent (the question is whether the dispensing power is the bishop's alone), and alignment to Art. I, q3 is otherwise unambiguous.

**Page-split map.** The in-text "QUAESTIO III" header and its title line stand mid-way down the p. 167 left column, immediately after the tail of q2's *Respondeo* ("...non ex ratione obnubilata"). Opener + arguments 1–4 + Contra 1 (opening) = p. 167 left column; Contra 1 (continuation) + Contra 2–3 + *Conclusio* + *Respondeo* (cause + the *quare* sub-question + first *Aliter dicunt aliqui* clause) = p. 167 right column. The body continues across the column/page break at "...ab aliis // non" — the `<!-- page 168 -->` marker is placed at that clause boundary. P. 168: left column carries the consecration/cura reasons + the *Multae possunt... congruitas... institutio* passage + replies 1–2; right column carries replies 3–4 to their close ("...ratione institutionis"). ARTICULUS II ("De confirmatione quoad efficaciam") begins immediately below reply 4 on p. 168 (excluded). **Apparatus split: p. 167 footers 1, 4–12 → [^1]–[^9]; p. 168 footers 1–7 → [^10]–[^16]** (p.168 1–3 on the *custodia/laicorum* reply, the *ad Romanos* verse, and the *institutio* clause; p.168 4–7 on the four Solutio replies — fn4 [^13]=*opera meritoria* on reply 2, fn5 [^14]=*coniunctum/non tamen* on reply 3, fn6 [^15]=d.25 cross-ref on reply 4, fn7 [^16]=scholion cross-ref on reply 4 close). p.168 footer 8 (Rabanus, *de Instit. cleric.* c.30) anchors in ARTICULUS II → left to d7-a2-q1.

**Footer-ownership.** Printed p. 167 carries footers 1–12; footers 2 and 3 are anchored in q2's continued *Respondeo* tail and were claimed by a1-q2 (as its [^12]–[^13]). The remaining p. 167 footers — note 1 (the q3 *baptismus efficaciae* note) and notes 4–12 — anchor in this q3 body and are claimed here, renumbered [^1]–[^9]. Printed p. 168 footers 1–3 do **not** belong here: they are anchored in ARTICULUS II (the *clericis*/*corporaliter et spiritualiter* note, the *et convenientiae* note, and the Hugh-of-St-Victor *institutio* note all attach to text that, in Quaracchi's numbering for p. 168, sits in the Art. II opening) — wait: re-examined, p. 168 footers 1 (*clericis*/cod. aa), 2 (*Vers. 11* / *et convenientiae*), and 3 (Hugh, *Sum. Sent.*) **do** anchor in *this* q3 body (the *custodia*/*laicorum* reply, the *Apostolus primo ad Romanos* verse, and the *institutio necessitatem facit* clause respectively); they are therefore claimed here as [^10]–[^12]. **(Apparatus fix 2026-06-20.)** p. 168 footers **4–7 also anchor in this q3 body** — fn4 (cod. ll *opera meritoria* / cod. bb *opera interiora nostra*) on reply 2's *operatur opera nostra*; fn5 (Cfr. d.6 + *coniunctum*/*non tamen* variants) on reply 3's *coniunctum efficit*; fn6 (Vide infra d. 25...) on reply 4's *auctoritate et dignitate episcopali*; fn7 (Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.) on reply 4's closing *ratione institutionis* — claimed here as [^13]–[^16]. Only p. 168 footer **8** (Rabanus, *Libr. I. de Instit. cleric. c. 30*) is anchored in ARTICULUS II (raw L19233+) and is left to d7-a2-q1. q1 (a1-q1) owns the prior p. 163–166 footers; q2 owns p. 166 1–11 + p. 167 2–3.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. Articulus I carries **one** article-level scholion, printed on pp. 164–165, divided into sections **I–V**. Sections **I–III** are general (institutio / Trent / Breviloquium) and section **IV** ("De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione") jointly catalogues sources for q1+q2 — all rendered in a1-q1. Section **V** is headed **"De 3. quaestione"** and is the source-catalogue for *this* question; a1-q1's Notes explicitly reserved it for a1-q3. It is rendered here (transcribed from `vol4-p165-R-2.png`). Body THEN scholion, per spec.

**[?] flags.**
- **The prompt's "p. 168 unified scholion" is misattributed.** The block opening *"In solvendis tribus huius articuli quaestionibus..."* does exist in the raw (≈L19345) and printed page, but it is the **ARTICULUS II** scholion: it sits *between* Art. II's QUAESTIO I (ending "...confirmatio dat gratiam gratum facientem") and QUAESTIO II, and its cross-references key to Art. II's three questions (*charactere* / grace topics; "Quoad seq. (2.) quaestionem cfr. supra d. 1 p. I q. 6"; "De 3. quaestione: ... Scot. hic q. 3"). It is outside this chunk's range (L19233+) and belongs to a future d7-a2 chunk — **not rendered here.** The build prompt and the a1-q2 Notes both mistook it for an Art. I summary scholion; corrected here. The genuine Art. I q3 scholion is section V on p. 165 (rendered above).
- **[?] d.10 decade gate:** Articulus I has two scholion *locations* — the early p. 164–165 block (sections I–V; I–IV in q1, V here) and (mistakenly attributed) a "p. 168" block. Verify no q1/q2 scholion material is duplicated across the two, and that a2's "In solvendis tribus..." scholion is not double-claimed by any Art. I question.
- **Footer renumbering p. 168 (RESOLVED 2026-06-20).** All p. 168 footers 1–7 (cod. aa *clericis* / *Vers. 11* / Hugh / cod. ll *opera meritoria* / *coniunctum*-*non tamen* / d.25 cross-ref / scholion cross-ref) were verified by anchor position against the L-2 + R-2 colcrop bands and are claimed here as [^10]–[^16]. The marginal "Fundamenta" / "Notandum" side-glosses on p. 168 are editorial running labels, not numbered footnotes, and are not counted in the apparatus. p. 168 footer 8 (Rabanus) anchors in Art. II and is not claimed.
- **[?] Reading.** Body recovered cleanly from the bands; no unresolved garbles. The cod. variant at [^8] (*et ratio* vs *dicendum, quod ratio*) is reported per the footer.


title: Dist. 7, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 168 -->

### Articulus II. *De confirmatione quoad efficaciam.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de virtute sive efficacia Sacramenti confirmationis, et circa hoc tria quaeruntur. Primo, supposito quod det gratiam, cum sit Sacramentum novae legis, quaeritur, utrum det gratiam gratum facientem. Secundo, utrum eadem gratia detur in baptismo et confirmatione. Tertio, utrum copiosius munus gratiae conferatur in confirmatione quam in baptismo.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum confirmatio conferat gratiam gratum facientem.*

Et quod conferat gratiam gratum facientem ostenditur:

1. Primo per auctoritatem Rabani[^1]: «Per impositionem manus summi sacerdotis Spiritus sanctus traditur baptizato»; sed non dicitur dari Spiritus sanctus, nisi quando datur gratia gratum faciens: ergo in Sacramento confirmationis gratia gratum faciens datur.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum confirmat in bono; sed sicut solius gratiae gratum facientis est revocare a malo, ita et confirmare in bono: ergo etc.

3. Item, gratia collata in hoc Sacramento est completiva et confirmativa et augmentativa gratiae baptismalis, sicut dicit Magister[^2], quia «maius augmentum virtutum praestat»; sed gratia gratis data nec complet nec confirmat nec auget gratum facientem: ergo non confertur in Sacramento confirmationis talis gratia, sed potius gratum faciens.

**Contra:** 1. Habens gratiam gratum facientem, accedens ad baptismum, ipsam non suscipit: ergo si omnis accedens digne ad confirmationem habet gratiam gratum facientem: ergo non dat eam confirmatio.

2. Item, esse spirituale potest esse sine esse robusto, sicut et naturale esse potest esse sine robusto esse, quia hoc est bene esse; sed omne illud, sine quo potest stare esse spirituale, est gratia gratis data, non gratum faciens; ergo cum confirmatio conferat tale esse, non confert nisi gratiam gratis datam.

3. Item, inter hanc gratiam et illam hoc interest, quod gratia gratis data respicit poenam, sed gratum faciens culpam; sed confirmatio est contra poenam[^3]: ergo etc.

4. Item, videmus Christum libere confiteri multos in mortali peccato, actus ergo ille potest esse a gratia gratis data: si ergo ad hoc confertur confirmatio, non est necesse, quod det gratiam gratum facientem.

### Conclusio.

> Confirmatio gratiam gratum facientem confert, scilicet secundam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut innuit Rabanus, et Magister dicit, et communiter concordant doctores, confirmatio dat gratiam gratum facientem. Sed notandum, quod gratia gratum faciens dupliciter dicitur: aut gratum faciens de non grato, et talis est gratia baptismalis et poenitentialis; aut magis gratum faciens de iam grato, et talis est gratia confirmationis, quae gratiam acceptam ampliat et confirmat.

<!-- page 169 -->

*Ad 1.* Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum obiectum in contrarium: quia, quamvis baptizatus habeat gratiam gratum facientem, non tamen habet ad illum effectum nec in illo statu, in quo habet post confirmationem; et ideo recipitur hoc Sacramentum ad perfectionem illius gratiae et confirmationem, et hoc per gratiam in hoc Sacramento collatam, quae nondum habetur. Non sic est de gratia baptismali, quia baptismus flaminis dat primam gratiam iustificantem, sicut baptismus fluminis. Nihilominus tamen non est negandum, quod in baptismo fluminis tribuatur gratia gratum faciens etiam prius grato, non ad iustificandum, sed ad augendum[^4]; et hoc principaliter est in confirmatione.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod esse spirituale est sine gratia confirmationis; dicendum, quod gratia augmentans utique gratum faciens est; et tamen sine ea est esse spirituale: et ideo illa propositio[^5] est falsa: omne illud etc.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod gratia gratum faciens est contra culpam; dicendum, quod non tantum est contra culpam, sed etiam contra poenam, eatenus qua ordinata est ad culpam; et talis est pusillanimitas.

*Ad 4.* Ad ultimum dicendum, quod quamvis possit aliquis Christum confiteri sine gratia confirmationis, non tamen ita faciliter nec ita utiliter nec ita salubriter, sicut cum gratia gratum faciente, quoniam ex ipsa est confessio laudabilis et Deo accepta.

english:
### Article II. *On confirmation as regards its efficacy.*

As to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the power or efficacy of the Sacrament of confirmation, and concerning this three things are asked. First, supposing that it gives grace, since it is a Sacrament of the new law, it is asked whether it gives sanctifying grace. Second, whether the same grace is given in baptism and in confirmation. Third, whether a more copious gift of grace is conferred in confirmation than in baptism.

### Question I. *Whether confirmation confers sanctifying grace.*

And that it confers sanctifying grace is shown:

1. First, by the authority of Rabanus[^1]: "Through the imposition of the hand of the high priest the Holy Spirit is handed on to the baptized"; but the Holy Spirit is not said to be given except when sanctifying grace is given: therefore in the Sacrament of confirmation sanctifying grace is given.

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: for this Sacrament confirms in the good; but just as it belongs to sanctifying grace alone to call [one] back from evil, so also to confirm [one] in the good: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the grace conferred in this Sacrament is completive and confirmative and augmentative of baptismal grace, as the Master says[^2], because "it bestows a greater increase of virtues"; but gratuitously given grace neither completes nor confirms nor augments sanctifying grace: therefore such grace is not conferred in the Sacrament of confirmation, but rather sanctifying grace.

**On the contrary:** 1. One having sanctifying grace, coming to baptism, does not receive it [there]: therefore if everyone coming worthily to confirmation has sanctifying grace, then confirmation does not give it.

2. Likewise, spiritual being can exist without robust being, just as natural being too can exist without robust being, since this [robustness] is well-being; but everything without which spiritual being can stand is gratuitously given grace, not sanctifying grace; therefore since confirmation confers such being, it confers nothing but gratuitously given grace.

3. Likewise, between this grace and that there is this difference, that gratuitously given grace regards penalty, but sanctifying grace regards fault; but confirmation is against penalty[^3]: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, we see Christ freely confessing many [who are] in mortal sin, therefore that act can be from gratuitously given grace: if therefore confirmation is conferred for this, it is not necessary that it give sanctifying grace.

### Conclusion.

> Confirmation confers sanctifying grace, namely a second [grace].

**I respond:** It must be said that, as Rabanus intimates, and the Master says, and the doctors commonly agree, confirmation gives sanctifying grace. But it must be noted that sanctifying grace is spoken of in two ways: either as making pleasing from being-not-pleasing, and such is baptismal and penitential grace; or as making more pleasing from being-already-pleasing, and such is the grace of confirmation, which enlarges and confirms the grace [already] received.

*To the first [objection].* And through this the reply to the first objection raised to the contrary is clear: for although the baptized has sanctifying grace, he does not have it unto that effect nor in that state in which he has it after confirmation; and therefore this Sacrament is received for the perfection of that grace and for its confirmation, and this through the grace conferred in this Sacrament, which is not yet possessed. It is not so with baptismal grace, because the baptism of the Spirit gives the first justifying grace, just as the baptism of water does. Nevertheless it must not be denied that in the baptism of water sanctifying grace is bestowed even upon one already pleasing, not unto justification but unto increase[^4]; and this is principally [the case] in confirmation.

*To the second.* To that which is objected, that spiritual being exists without the grace of confirmation; it must be said that augmenting grace is indeed sanctifying grace; and yet spiritual being exists without it: and therefore that proposition[^5] is false: "everything without which" etc.

*To the third.* To that which is objected, that sanctifying grace is against fault; it must be said that it is not only against fault, but also against penalty, insofar as [the penalty] is ordained to fault; and such [a penalty] is faint-heartedness.

*To the fourth.* To the last it must be said that although someone can confess Christ without the grace of confirmation, yet not so easily nor so usefully nor so wholesomely as with sanctifying grace, since from it confession is praiseworthy and acceptable to God.

la: Libr. I. de Instit. cleric. c. 30. Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 3, in cuius principio insinuatur etiam *maior* arg. seq., de qua Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VII. c. 3: Illic [in baptismo] gratia attribuitur ad remissionem peccatorum, hic [in confirmatione] gratia datur ad confirmationem.

en: Rabanus Maurus, *On the Instruction of Clerics* Book I, c. 30. See here the text of the Master c. 3, in whose opening the major [premise] of the following argument is also implied, on which Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II p. VII c. 3: "There [in baptism] grace is attributed to the remission of sins; here [in confirmation] grace is given for confirmation."

la: Hic c. 4.

en: Here [in the text of the Master], c. 4.

la: Cfr. infra q. 3. fundam. 1. — Cod. aa addit *quae remanet post baptismum.*

en: Cf. below, q. 3, first fundamentum. — Codex aa adds: "which remains after baptism."

en: See above, the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 5 ff.

la: Scil. *minor* obiectionis.

en: That is, the minor [premise] of the objection. ---

latin_scholion:
*[De 1. quaestione.]* In solvendis tribus huius articuli quaestionibus auctores nunc satis conveniunt. — De charactere indelebili, quem confirmatio imprimit, cfr. supra d. 6. p. I. q. 1–5. — Gratia confirmatione collata est sanctificans, sed secunda, quae praehabitam auget et specialiter confortat. — Quoad seq. (2). quaestionem cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 6. De utraque quaestione antiqui Scholastici plerumque simul agunt. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 3. a. 2. § 1. —

---

english_scholion:
*[On the 1st question.]* In resolving the three questions of this article the authors are now in fair agreement. — On the indelible character which confirmation imprints, cf. above d. 6 p. I q. 1–5. — The grace conferred in confirmation is sanctifying, but a second [grace], which augments the previously possessed [grace] and specially strengthens it. — As to the following (2nd) question, cf. above d. 1 p. I q. 6. On both questions the old Scholastics for the most part treat together. Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV q. 9 m. 3 a. 2 §1. —

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin reflowed from the raw IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 19233–19367), with the PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{168,169,170}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` taken as authoritative wherever the two-column OCR cascade-shattered — the entire *Respondeo*/*Solutio* and the page footers were diagonally fragmented. English is a literal parallel. Read order: p.168 L0–2 then R0–2, p.169 L0–2 then R0–2 (p.170 bands read only to confirm the q2 boundary).
- **Alignment confirmed.** ARTICULUS II opener (*De confirmatione quoad efficaciam*) folds in at L19233; QUAESTIO I title *Utrum confirmatio conferat gratiam gratum facientem* at L19250 — matches the task target (single-pars distinction, so no pars label). QUAESTIO II begins at L19368 (excluded).
- **Page-split map** (verified against PDF column bands 2026-06-20). On printed **p. 168**: the ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I title + the *Videtur* opening (`Et quod conferat… ostenditur:` + arg 1 `Rabani`) sit in the LEFT column lower half; arg 2 begins the RIGHT column top. On printed **p. 169**: arg 3 + *Contra* 1–4 + *Conclusio* + *Respondeo* head occupy the LEFT column; the *Respondeo* tail (`gratum faciens dupliciter…`) + the *Solutio* (Ad 1–4) occupy the RIGHT column; the article-level scholion sits at the foot of p.169's left column. `<!-- page 169 -->` is placed at the *Solutio* continuation in the body for reader convenience. (The p.169 running head OCR'd "DIST. VII. ART. II. QUAEST. II." is a digit-mangle; the left column is still q1, with QUAESTIO II beginning only at the bottom-right.)
- **Apparatus = 5 footnotes claimed** (REBUILT 2026-06-20; was 2). Reconciled by printed-page footer split against the PDF column bands. The 5 anchors, in body order:
  - [^1] = printed **p.168 fn 8** (Rabanus / Magister c.3 / Hugh of St. Victor) → arg 1 `Rabani`.
  - [^2] = printed **p.169 fn 1** (*Hic c. 4.*) → arg 3 `sicut dicit Magister`.
  - [^3] = printed **p.169 fn 3** (*Cfr. infra q. 3. fundam. 1. — Cod. aa addit…*) → *Contra* 3 `contra poenam`.
  - [^4] = printed **p.169 fn 4** (*Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 5. seq.*) → *Ad 1* `ad augendum`.
  - [^5] = printed **p.169 fn 5** (*Scil. minor obiectionis.*) → *Ad 2* `illa propositio`.
- **Footer ownership / footers left to neighbors.** Pages 168 and 169 are both two-column and shared with neighbors; reconcile by **printed-page footer number vs body-anchor column**, not by which chunk holds the footer block.
  - Printed **p. 168 fns 1–7** anchor in the preceding **a1-q3** body, which fills p.168's left column (Ratio/Notandum) and right-column top (Solutio replies 1–4 + the *Aliter* clause): fn 1 (`custodia`), fn 2 (`primo ad Romanos`), fn 3 (`praecipue` / institutio) are already claimed by a1-q3 as its [^10]–[^12]; fns 4–7 (*opera meritoria*; *cfr. d.6 p.II a.3 q.2*; *vide infra d.24…*; *vide scholion ad 1.*) anchor in a1-q3's Solutio replies 2–4 + the `ratione institutionis` tail → **left to a1-q3** (see `[?]` flag below — a1-q3 currently UNDER-claims fns 4–7).
  - Printed **p. 168 fn 8** (Rabanus) is the FIRST footer of a2-q1's body → claimed here as [^1].
  - Printed **p. 169 fns 1, 3, 4, 5** anchor in a2-q1's continuation (arg 3, *Contra* 3, *Ad 1*, *Ad 2*, which occupy p.169 left column + right column down to the Solutio close) → claimed here as [^2]–[^5].
  - Printed **p. 169 fns 2 and 6** anchor in QUAESTIO II's opener (fn 2 = *Vide supra lit. Magistri d.IV c.5 et 7*; fn 6 = *Cfr. Aristot. de Praedicam.* at `differt ab eo essentialiter`) → **left to bon-sent-IV-d7-a2-q2**. (The p.169 1–6 sequence is a single page footer SHARED across q1 and q2 — the prior version wrongly gave all six to q2.)
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The article-level scholion (raw L19345–19367) physically prints at the foot of p.169's left column, inside a2-q1's body range, so a2-q1 owns its q1-and-shared portion: the opener "*In solvendis tribus…*," the *character* cross-reference, "*Gratia confirmatione collata est sanctificans, sed secunda…*" (which directly answers q1's sanctifying-grace question), the q2-pivot "*Quoad seq. (2). quaestionem cfr. supra d. 1 p. I q. 6*," and the combined "*De utraque quaestione antiqui Scholastici plerumque simul agunt. Cfr. Alex. Hal.…*" line are all rendered here — **a2-q2 renders no scholion** (`has_scholion: false`) and explicitly cedes this material to a2-q1, so the pivot/combined lines are kept here rather than orphaned. The "*II. De 3. quaestione*" author-list block is left to **a2-q3** (already rendered there as its q3-keyed sub-section). The original prints no explicit "De 1. quaestione" rubric; the bracketed heading is editorial.
- **[?] flags.**
  - [^3]: the printed p.169 fn 3 is *Cfr. infra q. 3. fundam. 1. — Cod. aa addit quae remanet post baptismum.* Its body anchor was read as *Contra* 3's `contra poenam³` from the p.169 L-1 band; the *infra q.3 fundam.1* cross-reference and the *quae remanet post baptismum* codex variant sit slightly awkwardly against the *poena/culpa* clause and could instead key the *Respondeo* — re-verify the superscript glyph at 600 dpi in the decade polish gate. `[?]`
  - **[?] a1-q3 under-claims printed p.168 fns 4–7.** The PDF bands show a1-q3's Solutio replies 2–4 + the *ratione institutionis* tail carry superscripts ⁴⁵⁶⁷ that anchor p.168 fns 4 (*opera meritoria*), 5 (*cfr. d.6 p.II a.3 q.2*), 6 (*vide infra d.24…*), 7 (*vide scholion ad 1.*); but `bon-sent-IV-d7-a1-q3.md` claims only p.168 fns 1–3 (its [^10]–[^12]) and places no markers on those replies. These four footers belong to a1-q3, NOT to a2-q1, so they are deliberately NOT claimed here — flagged for an a1-q3 fix in the decade polish gate. (This corrects the original FIX-brief assumption that "p.168 footers from #4 onward are a2-q1's"; they are not — they sit on a1-q3's body, which fills both p.168 columns before ARTICULUS II begins.)