Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 9: The Objections Against the Matter of Confirmation Are Answered
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Confirmationis, the second general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The first objection is Brenz's, in the Württemberg Confession, the chapter on Baptism. The use of chrism belongs to the elements of this world, and to the Jewish ceremonies, from which Paul calls us back, Colossians 2: “If you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?” I answer: If the argument were worth anything, it would prove also that water is not to be used in Baptism, nor bread in the Eucharist, because the Jews too used these things, since they had the water of expiation and the loaves of proposition; wherefore, as water and bread could serve both the shadow and the truth, so can oil too. And Paul calls us back from the Jewish ceremonies, which truly were elements, and weak ones, as he says elsewhere, since they could not justify; but not from the Christian sacraments, although they consist in the same matter.
The second objection. Dionysius the Areopagite signifies not obscurely that the rite of chrism was taken from the athletic anointings of the heathens, and partly from the law of Moses. But Moses, Deuteronomy 12: “Beware,” he says, “lest thou imitate the nations, and seek after their ceremonies,” and so on. I answer: Dionysius ascribes the teaching of chrism to the apostles of Christ, not to heathens or Jews, as we showed above. And what he says of the Jews belongs to the figure of this sacrament, not to its essence and truth. And what he says of athletes does not belong to ceremony and worship, as Brenz dreams, but to the effect of the sacrament explained by a likeness: for as athletes were anointed to conquer in bodily contest, so we are anointed with holy chrism to conquer in spiritual contest. Which likeness very many Fathers use, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine and others. The testimony of Deuteronomy, then, does not bear on the matter; for athletes are not anointed to worship God by that ceremony.
The third objection. The acts of the councils testify that chrism was instituted by Sylvester; it could not, then, have been in use among the apostles, as Fabian writes. I answer: The acts of the councils, or rather Damasus in the Life of Sylvester, testifies only that Sylvester commanded that presbyters should touch the crown of the head of the baptized with chrism; which anointing is distinct from the sacrament of Confirmation, which is given on the forehead by the bishop. And that chrism could not have been instituted by Sylvester is evidently plain from Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, Cyprian, Cornelius and the others cited above, who were before Sylvester and expressly mentioned chrism.
Chemnitz objects the first argument against the first proposition from the Scriptures. For in Acts 2 and 10 the Holy Spirit is given without any chrism. Likewise in Acts 8 and 19 mention is made of the laying on of hands, but not of chrism.
I answer: As regards Acts 2 and 10, the Holy Spirit was not given in those places by the ministry of the sacraments, but the effect of the sacrament was given by God by a singular privilege, without the sacrament.
And as regards the other two places, two answers are usually given. The first is of certain Scholastics, who say that the apostles ministered this sacrament in various ways: and in the first times indeed, because the Holy Spirit came down visibly, they did not use any anointing, but the simple laying on of hands; since that outward fire which appeared from God testified the inward effect enough. But afterwards, when those visible forms had ceased, then they began to use the anointing, that by it they might signify what before was signified by the visible appearance appearing from God. If you object that the apostles could not institute the matter of a sacrament, they answer that they did not institute it, but received this command from Christ, that they should use now the laying on of hands, now chrism, as they judged it opportune. This solution is not altogether improbable, and St. Thomas does not shrink from it, part 3, question 72, article 2; and perhaps the testimonies of the Council of Florence could be drawn here, and of Innocent in the chapter Cum venisset, in the Extravagants on holy anointing, who say that the sacrament of Confirmation is given in the Church in place of the apostolic laying on of hands.
There is yet another solution, which seems to me far more probable, of Thomas Waldensis, volume 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 113, and of Hugh of St. Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 7, chapter 2, who say that the anointing with chrism and the laying on of hands are the same; for he who anoints lays on hands; and therefore both are signified, even if only one seems to be expressed. This solution is more probable. For it is established that the apostles used chrism in Confirmation, since Dionysius and Clement assert it; and besides the most ancient authors mention the anointing, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cornelius, Origen and others, before whom there was no ecumenical council in which it could have been instituted. It is established also that it is to be wished that it can be defended that the apostles always used the same matter, and not now one, now another; for that is safer and more convenient. But why, I ask, can it not be defended? Because, they say, Luke mentions the laying on of hands, and did not mention chrism. But neither does Luke anywhere, nor other Scripture, nor even any of the ancients say that the apostles ministered this sacrament in various ways. And besides, we can prove in many ways that in Luke's words chrism too can be understood; but that the apostles changed the matter I do not know whether it can be proved in any way, except by the authority of more recent writers.
First, then, I prove so that the apostles, in laying on hands, always signed with chrism, and so that Luke touched on that rite in brief, and meant the whole thing by one part. For the Fathers, who in one place say that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of the hand, the same in another place say that he is given through the anointing with chrism, and sometimes join both together: from which it appears that both belong to this rite, and that it was the same to them whether they expressed the one or the other. Tertullian, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh cited above, treating this rite, says that the flesh is anointed, signed, and overshadowed by the laying on of the hand; in the book On Prescription he expresses only the signing on the forehead; and in book 1 against Marcion he expresses only the anointing; in the book On Baptism he expresses the anointing and the laying on of hands. Here we see one author express now one part, now two, now three of the same rite; and yet always signify the same thing. Cyprian, book 1, the last letter, mentions only the anointing; book 2, letter 1, mentions only the laying on of hands, though he speaks of one and the same thing; but in the letter to Jubaianus he adds to the laying on of hands the Lord's seal, of which he had said nothing in the two former letters. So too the First Council of Arles, canon 8, names only the laying on of hands; and yet the Second Council of Arles, celebrated a little after and treating the same matter, canon 17, names the anointing with chrism. Damasus and Leo, cited above, say that it is not lawful for country bishops to anoint the forehead of the baptized with chrism; and yet John III, citing this very decree, and alleging Damasus and Leo by name, does not once mention chrism or the forehead, but always calls this rite the laying on of hands; and very many examples of this kind could be brought. What wonder, then, if St. Luke signified the whole rite by one part?
Second, I prove the same by another reason. For the Fathers, when they say that bishops alone give the Holy Spirit through the anointing with chrism, always allege the words of Luke, Acts 8, as is plain from Innocent, letter 1; Damasus, letter 4; Leo, letter 88; Cyprian to Jubaianus; Augustine, book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 26; and the others cited above. Therefore either the apostles in Acts 8, in laying on hands, anointed with chrism, or all these Fathers argue badly. You will say: they argue well, because although the apostles in Acts 8 did not use chrism, yet chrism succeeded in the place of the laying on of hands which they used. But on the contrary: for if it were so, at least one of the Fathers would at some time have signified it, that we might understand the force of their argument.
Third, I prove the same from other like places of Scripture, where something is taken in very briefly and yet more things must be understood. An example can be that Paul, in the letters to Timothy and to Titus, always calls ordination the laying on of hands. Augustine brings an example, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 9, from Acts 8. For there we read that the eunuch was baptized by Philip when he had said, “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” And Augustine rightly notes that Luke touched on the matter in brief, but that it is altogether to be believed that the eunuch was asked about many other things, and that many other ceremonies were used in that Baptism. Another example can be what Luke says, that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ, Acts 8, 19 and elsewhere. For, as we showed above, the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but Luke preferred to say it in brief, knowing that the thing was very well known. Another example can be in what Paul says, Titus 3, that we are saved through the laver of regeneration: where he said nothing of the word, and yet understood without any doubt the laver with the word, as he himself expressed elsewhere, Ephesians 5. And there are many things of this kind, which it would be long to go over.
There is one difficulty here: that this solution of ours seems to go against Innocent III, the chapter Cum venisset, in the Extravagants on holy anointing, and the Council of Florence in the instruction of the Armenians. For Innocent says that by the anointing of the forehead with chrism the laying on of the apostles' hands is marked; and the council says that in place of that laying on of hands Confirmation is now given in the Church.
I answer: in the first place, not everything which is had in decrees or councils belongs to the faith, but only those things which are defined; and this, of which we treat, is not defined, but only said in passing to explain the matter.
Yet I say second, and better and more safely, that Innocent and the council do not mean to say that chrism is in place of the laying on of hands, as if the apostles did not use chrism and we do not use the laying on of the hand; but mean to say that the very thing which the apostles did when they were said to lay on hands, the bishops now do when they are said to confirm or to anoint with chrism. For in these places not rite is distinguished from rite, but manner of speaking from manner of speaking, and persons from persons; and lastly that particular laying on of hands from this one which now is: since then this sacrament was commonly called the laying on of the hand, now it is commonly called Confirmation; besides, the apostles gave that one, the bishops this; lastly, that one was more effective, because with the inward effect it gave also an outward one, and with the grace that makes pleasing it gave also the graces freely given, of tongues and of miracles and so on. In this way, then, what is done now can be said to be in place of what was done then, although it is the same as to substance. And that this is the sense of those places is proved in two ways. First, because the council and Innocent do not say that chrism is in place of the laying on of hands, but that the sacrament of Confirmation is in place of the laying on of hands. But surely the apostles, by the consent of all, gave the sacrament of Confirmation, whether they used chrism or not. Second, because the council and Innocent say in the same place that the bishops are in the Church in the place or stead of the apostles. But surely the apostles were true bishops, although they had something more besides.
Chemnitz's second objection against the same proposition is taken from the Fathers. For, as he says, Tertullian, in the book On Baptism, says that this anointing was taken from the old discipline, that is, from the Old Testament; and so it was not instituted by Christ. Cyprian, in the sermon on the washing of the feet, says that these ceremonies were instituted not by Christ but by men; and in the sermon on chrism says that this anointing was left from the Old Testament. Basil says that there is no written word about the anointing with chrism. And from these authors, Chemnitz says, the lie of Fabian, pope and martyr, is refuted plainly enough, who asserted that this anointing was handed on to the apostles by Christ himself.
I answer: Tertullian asserts only this, that figures of this sacrament went before in the Old Testament; from which it does not follow that it was not instituted by Christ: for in the same place he asserts that the flood was a figure of Baptism, and yet Chemnitz admits that Tertullian did not deny that Baptism was instituted by Christ. Cyprian, in the sermon on the washing of the feet, is not speaking of the sacrament of Confirmation when he says that the ceremonies of the sacraments were instituted by men, but means other rites which we use; nay, the contrary is gathered from this author, for in that sermon on the washing of the feet he says that Christ is the author of his sacrament, and in the following sermon, which is on chrism, he says that this anointing was instituted by God, and is a sacrament; from which it is surely gathered that it was instituted by Christ. Nor does it stand in the way that he asserted that it flowed from the Old Testament, because he means this by reason of the figures, as we said of Tertullian. Further, Basil affirms nothing against us or against St. Fabian; for neither St. Fabian nor we say that the institution of chrism is written in the divine letters; but we say that it is had from tradition not written, and yet most certain, and to which faith is to be given as to the written word itself, as Basil writes in the same place, namely the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27. Nor does this go against what was said at the beginning of the preceding chapter. For in the letters of Paul and of John mention of chrism is had, but not its institution.
Chemnitz's third objection, against the second proposition. It is established that native balsam has now perished together with its trees. For Pliny writes, book 12, chapter 25, that true balsam used to grow only in two gardens of Judea, which gardens were long ago laid waste. “The matter of Confirmation has perished,” says Chemnitz, “if it necessarily requires balsam; nor can natural balsam be supplied by artificial and feigned balsam, as neither the water of Baptism by feigned water, nor the wine of the Eucharist by some feigned wine.” To these certain Catholics add that it is not probable that Christ willed to institute a sacrament in a thing so uncertain, rare and costly, which can scarcely be got with great labour and expense.
I answer: There is a question among the theologians whether balsam is required in chrism by necessity of the sacrament, or only by necessity of precept. And indeed all the older theologians, on distinction 7 of book 4 of the Sentences, and the canonists on the chapter Pastoralis, in the Extravagants on sacraments not to be repeated, teach that balsam is required by necessity of the sacrament, so that the sacrament is void if it is given without balsam. Yet certain more recent writers, Cajetan on part 3, question 72, article 2, Dominic Soto on book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 7, question 1, article 2, and Francisco de Vitoria in the Summa on the sacrament of Confirmation, think that balsam is not required for the essence of the sacrament, but is necessarily to be used by divine precept. Both rely on a certain text of the canon law, the chapter Pastoralis, in the Extravagants on sacraments not to be repeated, which text each opinion draws to itself. Neither opinion is of faith or against faith; and Chemnitz is mistaken, page 309, where he teaches that the Council of Florence defined against the Scholastics that balsam is required in chrism. For the council did not express in what way it is required, but said that the matter is oil with balsam, as also in the Eucharist it said that the matter is wine with water; and yet all admit that water is not so of the essence that without it there is no sacrament.
And to Chemnitz's argument I deny that true and native balsam has perished. For although at one time, in Pliny's opinion, balsam grew only in two gardens of Judea, yet it grows in the Indies, and is brought from there. Nor does it matter if Pliny did not know it; for he could not know everything. Nor ought the balsam which is brought from the Indies to be called artificial or feigned, although perhaps it is not the same in species with that which grows in Palestine. For there can be various species of balsam, as there are various species of wine; and any of them is fit for making the sacrament. Add that Pliny relates what he tells of the two gardens of the ancient time; for he admits that in his own time there were many trees of balsam in Palestine; and Jerome, who lived three hundred years after Pliny, on chapter 27 of Ezekiel, nay and Gregory too, who lived two hundred years after Jerome and five hundred after Pliny, on chapter 1 of the Song of Songs, affirm that in their time balsam used to grow in the vineyards of Engaddi. It is false, then, that native balsam has perished. To the confirmation the practice of the Church answers. For although balsam is rare and costly, yet it has never yet failed the Church, nor has Confirmation ever been left out through want of balsam. And if God has provided it for almost sixteen hundred years, surely it will not fail hereafter.
The fourth objection is against the third proposition: that the rite of consecrating chrism seems to be a certain kind of magic and enchantment. But of this argument we spoke above in the matter of the sacraments in general, and will speak again afterwards when we treat of the ceremonies of this sacrament.
Chemnitz takes the fifth objection, against the fourth proposition, from Cyril and Ambrose. For Cyril, mystagogical catechesis 3, says that almost all the senses of the body are anointed with chrism; and Ambrose, in the book On Those Who Are Initiated into the Mysteries, chapter 6, says that the head is anointed, and that from there the ointment flows down to the beard. It is not certain, then, what we said, that chrism is to be applied on the forehead. I answer: Cyril, in the place cited, wills chiefly that the forehead be anointed, as he himself expressly says, and then the other senses; which indeed is not against us; since we assert only this, that unless chrism is applied on the forehead there is no sacrament; yet we do not deny that afterwards, according to the various customs of the Church, some other part of the body too can be anointed. Further, Ambrose, in the place cited by Chemnitz, is not treating of Confirmation, but of the anointing which is done in Baptism, which we too admit is to be done on the crown of the head; and Ambrose treats of Confirmation in the following chapter.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX.
Solvuntur ohjcctiones contra materiam
Confirmationis.
Priina objeclio Brentii in Confessione wirlem-
bergensi, cap. de Baptismo. Usus Chrismatis ad
elementa hujiis muiidi perlinet.et ad judaicas cae-
riMHonias. a qiiihus iios revocal Paulus Coloss. 2.
Si rnortui estis cuni Cliristo, ab elementis mundl
hujus, quid adhuc liis detincniini? Uespondeo:
Si arguinentum valeret, prubiirel etiam non essc
utemJum aqiia in Baplismo, nec panc in Euchari-
stia, quia his rebus ulebantur etiam Jiidaei, cuin
liaberent aquam expiationis, et panes proposilio-
nis: quare sicut poluit aijua, et panis deservirc
umbrae, et veritali, sic polesl etiam oleiiin. Paulus
aulem revocat nos a caeremoniis judaicis, qiiac
vere clemenla crant, et egena, ut ipse alibi dicit,
cumjuslilieare nun possenl:non aulem a sacramen-
tis chrislianis, licel in eadem maleria consistant.
Secunda objeclio. Dionysius areo|)ogila non ob-
scure signilicat riluin Chrismalis desumptum ab a-
thlelicisunctionibus Elhnicorum, ct partim ex je-
ge mosaica. Al Moyses Deuleronom. 12. Cave, in-
quit. ne iniiteris Gentes. ct requiras cacremoni-
as corum etc. Respondeo: Dionysium trihuere
Chrismalis doctrinam apostolis Chrisli. non Elhni-
cis, aut Judacis. ul supra osleiidimiis.Qiu) 1 aulem
ait de Jiidaeis, perlinet ad hguram hiijus sacra-
menti, non ad ipsam essenliam,et verilatem. Quod
vero de alhhitis dicit, non pertinet ad cacremoni-
ain et cultum,ut somnial Brenlius.sed ad cfTcclum
sacramenli per simililudincm explicauitum: ut e-
niin athl(!tac niigebantur, ul vincerent in certami-
ne corporali, ita nos ungimur sanclo Chrismale.ul
vincamus in eertamine spirituali. Qua simililudine
iilunlur plurimi Patres, Chrysoslomu>, Ambrosius,
Augustiniis, et alii. Non igitur facit ad rcm testi-
monium Deulcronomii: non cnim athlctae ungun-
tur. ut ea caeremonia Deiim colaut.
Tcrlia objeclio.Acta conciliorum lestanlur Cliris-
ma inslitutum csse a Sylvcstro: non igilur aposlo-
lis in usu essc |)otuil, ut Fabiiuius scrihil. Rcspon-
deo,- Acla conciliorum. scu polius Damasus iii vila
Sylveslri, solum lestalur, Sylvestruin pniccepisse,
ui preshyleri tangiirent vcrticem baj^tizati Chris-
male, quae nnclio dislincla est a sacrimenlo Coii-
lirmationis, (piod in fronte ab cpiscopo datur. INon
poluisse autem Chrisma a Sylvcslro iiistilui, cvi-
dcnlcr patctex Tcrtiilliano.Theophilo Antiocheno,
Cypriano, Cornclio. ct aliis supra citatis, (pii fue-
runl aiile Sylvcstrum, cl cxprcssc Chrismatis mc-
minerunt.
Primiim argumoiilum objicit Komiiilius conlra
])ro|)ositioi)em priiuain c\ Scripluris. Naui Acl. 2.
ct 10. dalur Spiritus sandus sine ullo Chrisinnle.
Ilcin Aclor. 8. ct 10. iil iiKMitio imiiosilionis niit-
iiuuiii, iioii iiuliMn Chrisiiiiilis.
Rcspondco: Qiiod allincl ad cap. 2.et 10. Aclur.
•-'2(i DK SACUAMEMi) ( D.MIII.MATIOMS
iioii fuisso i(t liis locis minislorio SiiciMincnloiinn liMuiii cxprimant. Tcrliilliaiuis lihro ilo rcsurre-
tlalmn Spirilmn sancUim, S(nI siiijinlari privilojjio clionc rarnis siipra cilalo. Iraclans linnc riUiin,<li-
«lalmn a l>co clVeclum sacramcnli siiic sacia- cil, cirncm nnj,'i. si<:iiari. cl inimiis iinpnsilioin!
mcnlo. ohmnhrariilanKMi in lihro (h? |)raoscriplioiiihus so-
nmtd vcro piTlincl a»l alia ilno loca. dnac d.iri liiin c,\|)rimil si},Miari in rronlc: (!l lih. I. in .llar-
solenl responsioncs. l*rior esl aliiiuorum Scliola- cioncin, solnm e.xprimil unclionem; lihro dc Ka-
slicornm. (iiii dicnnl. .Vposlolos Viirio inodo mini- plisiiio (>\priinil iiiiclioiiiin. cl niiiiins iniposilio-
slrassc hoc sacr;iincnlum, ac primis (piidcin lcin- ncin.Ilii vidcmns iiiinin ;mclorcm modo niiiiin par-
purihus, quia visihililer desccndehal Spirilus san- lcin. modo duas', modo Ires e.jus(l(Mn riliis c.xpri-
cUis. non usos fuisse eos iilla uiiclionc, scd sim- im^re: (!l l;imen S(!m|)cr rein oiindem sij:iiificare.
idici manus imposilione: si(inid(Mn.on'eclnm inUM'- (lypriiimis lih. I, opisl. nll.solnm mcmiiiil unclio-
luiin salis lcsUihatur e.xternns ille i^nis. (pii divi- iiis: lih. 1. episl. 1, solum meminil m;mus impo-
iiilns apparchal. .\l poslea cum formac illae visihi- silionis, cum d(! iiiiii rc,el cadcm loqualur; iii cpi-
les cossiissenl, liim iidliihorc oos cocpisse niiclio- slolii V(M"0 ;id .Inhiiiiiiinm. ciiin in;iiins imposilione
neni. ut pcr e;im sijinilic^ircnl id, quod anU';i visi- ;id(lil siiiiKiculiim dumiiiicnm, dc quu nihil dixciat
hili specie divinilus apparenle si^Miilicahalur. Si in priorihus du;ihus epislolis. Sic eliam concilium
ohji(M;is non poUiissc aposlolos inslilucrc m;ilcri- 1. iirehilensc, can. 8. I;iiilnm nominnl manus im-
:im sacr;imenli: Hcspoiidenl. eos non inslituissc, jiosili oiieiii: el lamcn coiiciliuin ll.arclalcnse pau-
sctl ;i C.liristo id m;indalum ;iccopissc.ul iiiodo iitc- lo posl c(!lchr;iliiin, cl Ciindcm rcm Iraclans, ca-
nMilur manus imposilione, modo r.Iirisnialo. proul non. 17. nominal unctioncm Chrismalis.Damasus,
opporlunum cssc judicarcnl. Ilaec solutio iion cst cl Leo su|)r;i ciliili. di(Minl non liccrc chorepisco-
omnino improhahilis, ct ah o;i non ahliorr(!t san- pis ungcrc CronUMn hapliziiloiuin Clirismalo: cl la-
cUis ihomas, 3. par. qnacsl. 72. arl. 2. cl forl;is- nicn Joanncs III. Iioc ipsum decrclum cilans, et
sc possent huc Iralii leslimonia concilii florcnlini, iiomin;ilim iillogiins Diimiismn cl Leonem, nc se-
cllnnoccnlii cap. Cum vcnis^cf , e.xtra dc sacra incl (luidcin mcmiiiil Clirismalis, aul fronlis, sed
uiiclinne, qui dicunt dari in Ecclcsiii sacramcn- pcrpctuo hunc rilum voc;il manus imposilionem;
lum Confirmalionis loco manus imposilionis ;ipo- ac hujusmodi excmpla plurima pnsscnl adlerri.
slolicao. Quid igitur miriim si s. Lucas ex una parte loluin
Ksl lamcn alia solulio. qnac longc milii proha- riliim signiricaril.
hilior videlur. Thoinac Wai(l(!nsis lom.2. dc sacra- Socundo idcm proho ali;i ralione. Nam Palres,
mcnlis, cap. 113. cl llugonis de s. Victore lib. 2. quando dicunl solos episcopos.per unclioncmChri-
dc sacramcnlis. p;ir. 7. cap. 2. qui dicunl idem smatis dare SpiriUim sanctum, semper allcgant
cssc unctionem Chrismalis.clmanus imposilionein; verha Lucac Act. S. ul patcl ex Innocentio cpisl.
qni cnim inungil.manus imponiUel idcirco ntrum- 1. Damaso cpist. i. Leone episl. 88. Cypriano ad
■ pic siiinificari. oli;imsi aUernin lanlum cxprimi vi- Juhajanum, Auguslino lib. 15. Trinilal. cap, 20.01
do;ilur. II;iec solulio piohahilior esl. i\am conslat c\ idiis supra cit;ilis. Ergo antaposloli Aclor. 8.
;ipi)slolos in Conlirmiilionc usos esse Clirismale, iniinns imponendo uugebanl Chrismate, anl isti o-
ciim id asserani Dionysius el CIemens;et praolerea iniios Palres malc argumentanlur. Diccs, Bcne illi
nnclionis memincrint anliquissimi auclores, Tlieo- arguincnlanUir, quia licci apostoli, Actor. 8. non
philus Antioclicnus, Tcrtuilianus. Cyprianiis. Cor- ntiircnlur Clirismalc. liimcn Clirisma succcssit in
iiclius. Origencs. cl alii, anle quos non fuil uilum locuin manus imposilionis. qua illi ulcb;inlur. Sed
concilium oecunienicum. in quo id instilui potue- conlra; nam si ila csscl, sallcm aliquis Palrum ali-
ril. Constat cliam oplandum cssc. ul possit dcfcn- quiindo id significasset, ut inlclligcrcmus viin ar-
di, apostolos semper c:idom maleria usos, el non guincnli ipsorum.
niodo una, modo allera: id onim tutius, et expcdi- Tcrtio idem probo ex aliis similihus Scrii)turao
lius est. Al cur, qiiaeso, id non pot(!sl defcndi? locis, uhi brevissimc ali(juid cornprchcnditur, el
Quia, \\\qu'\ui\l. Lucasmeminil wiposUionis ina- hmien ncccssc csl plura inlclligerc. Excmplum
nuum.el nonmenmiit Chrismalis.^Sicd ncc usquam c>>Q potesl. quod Paulus in epislolis ad Timolhe-
Lucas. aiit alia Scriplura. aul eliqm ullus vele- uiii, et ad Titiim seinpcr ordinationem vocai ma-
riim dicit: Apostolos vario modo boc sacramen- nus imposilioncm. Exemplum adfcrt Augustinus
tum ministrasse.Et praetcrca in vcrbis Lucae pos- lih. dc fidc ct operibus, cap. 9. cx cap. 8. Aclor.
se inlelligi eliam Clirisma, mullis modis probare Ihi onim legimus, Eunucliura a Philippo bapiiza-
possumus: Aposlolos aufem mulasse malcriam.ne- Uiiii. cum dixisscl: Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum.
scio nn ullo modo probari possit, nisi rccenliorum Augustinus auloin recle nolat Lucam per compen-
auclorilale. diiim rcm attigisse, sed omnino cre(Jenduin osse
Primo igitur sic probo: Apostolos semper manus flo niullis aliis inlcrrogalum Eunucbum, el inullas
imponcndo sigmisse Chrismale, ac proinde Lucam alias cacrcmonias adliihitas in illo B;iptismo. Allc-
riiuni illuin compendio perstrinxisse,ct ex una par- ruin oxomplum esse polcsl id.quod Lucas ail.Apo-
tc rcm totam inlellexisse. ^am Palrcs, qui uno in sU)Ios haplizassc in nomine Chrisli. Actor. 8. 19.
loco dicunl pcr imposilionem manus dari Spirilum cl ;ilibi. Nam ul supra osleiidimus, apostoli La-
sanclum.iidem in alio loco dicunl dari pcr unctio- plizabanl in nomine Palris. ct Fiiii et Spiritus s;in-
ncm Chrismalis,et aliquando ulrumquc simul con- cli: sed Lucas id per compendium dicere maluit,
jungunl: ex quo apparet ulrumque ad ritum liunc scicns rem esse notissiinam. Aliud excmplum
pcrtincre, el illis pcrinde cssc, sive unum.sive al- csse potcsl in co, (piod 1'aulus ait ad Til. 3. nos
LI]ii:U SECUNDUS
227
salvari pcr lavacrum rcgcncralionis: ul)i niliil di-
xil dc vcrbo, cl lamcn inlcllcxil sinc ullo dubio
lavacrum cum verbo, ut ipsc idem alibi exprcssit
Ephes. 5. El mulla sunl hujusmodi, quae loiigum
essel rcccnscre.
Una esl luc difricullas, quod videlur liaec noslra
solulio repugnarc Innoccnlio lll. cap. Ciuii venis-
sct. cxlra dc sacra unclionc. ct concilio llorcnlino
in inslr. Armenorum. Nam Innocenlius dicil, pcr
fronlis Clirism;dioncm designari manus imposilio-
nem aposlolorunr. Concilium aulem dicil loco illi-
MS manus imposilionis dari nunc in Ecciesia Con-
iirm;Uioncm.
Respondeo: In primis, non omnia quae habcn-
tur in dccrclis, iiut conciliis ad fidem pcrtinere,
sed solum ea, quae dcliniuntur: hoc autcm.de quo
agimus non delinilur, sed tantum obiler dicilurad
rem explicandiim.
Dn;o lamcn Sccundo et melius, ac lutius, Inno-
cenlium, el concilium non vclle dicerc, Chrisma
essc loco impositionis manuum,quasi apostoli non
ulercnliir Clirismiitc, cl nos non utamiir imposilio-
ne miiiHis: sed vcdle dicere, id ipsum qiiod iipu-
stoli faciebant, cum dicebantur imponcrc manus,
fiiccre nunc cpiscopos, cum dicuntur Conlii'marc,
vel Chrismarc. Dislinguilur enim in his locis, non
ritus a ritu.scd modus ioquendi a modo loiiuendi;
el personae a personis: ct denique illa parliculii-
ris imposilio marmum ab istii, quac modo esl: si-
(piidem luiic communilcr dic(!balur hoc s;ici'iimcii-
lum imposilio manus, nunc dicilur communiler
Confirmiiiio: priiclcrea illam dabant aposloli.isliim
cpiscopi: dcniquc illa eral enicacior, quia cum cl"-
fectu interno, dabiit eliam cxlernum, et cum gra-
tia gratum facienle, dabal cliam dona gratis dala
linguiirum, et miiaculorum etc. Ilac ergo riitione
dici polcst id, quod nunc fit, esse loco cjus, quod
tunc fiebal, licct sil idem, quoad substantiam. Et
quod hic sit scnsus eorum locorum, probiilur du-
pliciler. Primo, quia concilium et Innoceniius.non
(licunt, Cbrisma esse loco impusilionis niiinuiim,
sed sacramentum Confirmationis esse loco imposi-
tionis manuum. At cerlc aposloli omnium conscn-
su diibiint sacramcntum Confirmationis, sivo iidlii-
huerint Clirisma, sivc non. Secundo, quia conci-
lium et Innocenlius ibidem dicunt episcopos csse
in Ecclcsia loco, seu vice aposlolorum. Al ccrlc
aposloli vcri cpiscopi eranl,liccl aliquid etiam iiin-
plius habcrent.
Secunda objectio Kcmnitii contra candcm pro-
positionem sumilur ex Patribus.Nam ut ipsc dicll.
Terlullianus in lib. de Baplismo dicit. hanc unclio-
ncm sumptam esse ex veteri disciplina, idesl, ex
Testamcnto vcteri: proinde non a Chrislo iiislilu-
tam. Cyprianus in scrmonc dc ablulionc podiim,
dicit has caercmonias non a Chrislo. scd iib Iiomi-
nibus institulas, cl in scrmone dc Chrismale dicit,
reliolam (^ssc lianc unctioiicm <\ Tcsl;im(>nto ve-
leri. I];isilius ;iil, niilhim cxhiic Xoyov ■';z^;[jy.'j.[ivj'j'i
de unctione Clirismalis. Alquc c\ liis auclorihus
dicil Kcmnitius satis apcrte rcfclli mcnd;iciiim Eii-
biani piipae (!t martyris, qui asscruit liaiic unctio-
nem a Chrislo ipso apostolis Iradihim.
Rcspondeo: Tcrtullianum id solum as.-^crcrc.
praecessisse in Tcslamenlo vclcri figuras hujus sa-
cramenti; ex quo non scquilur noncsse a Chrislo
instituinm: iiam ibidcm asscrit diluvium fuisse fi-
guram Baplismi, et himen fatcliir Kcmnilius non
negiisse Terlulliaiium IJaptismum a Cliristo iiistilu-
lum. Cyprianus in sermonc dc iiblutione pcdnm
non loquitur dc sacramenlo Confirmationis, cum
dicil cacremonias sacramcntorum ab hominibus
instilutas, scd intelligil alios rilus, quos adhibo-
mus: immo conlrarium colligilur cx hoc auclore,
n;un in islo scrmone de ablulione pedum, dicit
Chrislum esse auctorcm sui sacramcnti. et scrmo-
ne scqucnti. qui csl dc Chrismatc, dicit h;iiic i\n-
ctioncm esse divinilus instilutam; et esse sacni-
menlum: cx qiio certe colligilur aChrislo inslilu-
lam. I\'eque obstal, quod asscriil manassc ex To-
stamcnto velcri.quia id inlelligit ralione figurarum,
ut diximus de Tcrtulliiino. Porro Basilius nihil af-
firmat coiilra nos, aut s. Fabianuin: ne(|ue ciiiin
aut s. Fiibianus, iiut nos dicimus csse scripliuii iii
divinis litcris inslilulionem Chrismalis;sed diciiiuis
haberi ex tradilione non script;i, et t;imeii ccrlissi-
m;i: ct cui fides h;ihenda est, ul ipsi vcrbo scripto,
ut ibidcm scribit Basilius, libro vidclicct. dc Spi-
ritu sanclo, cap. 27. INcquc id rcpugnat iis, quae
dicta sunt iniiio capilis supcrioris. Nam iii episto-
lis Pauli ct Juannis habclur mcnlio, non taincn in-
stitulio Chrismalis.
Tertia objcclio Kcmnilii conlra scci)nd;im propo-
sitioncm, Nalivum balsamum una cuin iirboribiis
jiim periisse constat. Scribit cniin Plinius lib. \>.
cap. 2j. vcruin balsiimum solum in duobus horlis
Judacae nasci solitum: qui horli jamdudum vastali
sunt: PeriiligUiir .\nq[\\l Kcmnilius, maferia Con-
firmaUonis, si ea necessario balsamuni requiril:
neque potest suppleri arlificioso. et ficlilio balsa-
mo balsamuni nalurale: queniadiiiodum ncc a-
qua llapiismi ficlilia aqua, nec vinum Euchari-
stiae fictitio aliquo i;t/to. Ilis addunt quidam ca-
Iholici, non essc probatule Clirisluai inslilucre vo-
luisse sacramenlum aIi(pjod in re t;im iiiccrla.riira,
prcliosa,quac vix raagno labure,et sumptibus obti-
neri polcsl,
Hcspondco: Ouacslioncm esse inlcr Ihcidogos,
utruni balsiimum rcquinitur in Chrisniiile ncccssi-
late sacramenti, an soluin nccessitale praccepli.El
(luidem vclcres oinnes llieologi dist. 7. lib.i.senl.
et jurcconsulli in cap. Pasloralis. exlrii dc sacra-
mentis noii itcriindis; doccnt biilsamuiii rcqiiiri iie-
ccssilale s;icriimenli, ila ut sacramt.Milum irritum
sit. si iibsquc balsiimo dclur. Tiimen roceiitiorcs
quidiim, Caj(!liiiius in ?>. p;irt. quacst. 72. iirt. 2.
Dominicus a Solo lib. i. seiil. dist. 7. qiiiuvst. 1.
arl, 2. et Franciscus Vicloriii in suniina de sacra-
mcnlo Conlirm;itionis. |)iiliint halsamum non reqiii-
ri ad ess(mti;iin SiicriiiiKMiti, sed ncccss;iiio adlii-
bendum cx divino praocepto.Ulrique nilunlur quo-
d;im lcxlu .Iiiris canoiiici ciip. Pasloralis. v,\[\i\ liw
Siicramcnlis non itcriindis; (picm lcxlum iilra(|iie
ctpinio ad se Irahil. Nculra opinio cst dc Ildc. vcl
coiitra fidcm; et f;illilur Kcmnitius pag. 301). ubi
(locet , conciliiim norenlinum dofinivisse conlr;!
Scholiislicos, balsamum rcquiri in Chrismalo. Nam
concilium iion cxprcssil, quo modo rcquiraiur.scd
22S
Dlk SVCUAMKNTO COMMiniATlOXIS
<li\il m.iliM-i:iiu cssn ohujm nim li:\ls;imo. iil cliam
III Kucharisliii liixeriil maUMiam cssc viiiiim cum
aciiia : cl Uiuhmi oiniics lahMiliir iuniain iion ossc
ila ,|i«' fSSiMilia.nl sinc ca sil iiiiliiin sananuMilnin.
.\<l iiriinimMihiin iiuliMii KiMumlii nej»o halsaiiuim
Ycrnm. "cl nalivnm pcriissc. y.m clsi iiliiinaiulo
opinionc IMinii laiilnm in ilnohns linrlisJiulacac na-
^cobiilnr balsaiiuiiiKUiincn in liuliis iiascilnr.cl iii-
ilc jullinc a(lvcirilur..>C(|uc rcfcrl si id Plinins iiino-
ravil:nci- cnim ilU' oiiiniii scirc polnil.NiMpic halsa-
mnm, qnoil alV«Mlnr cv liuliis arlilifiusuin, iinl li-
cliliuin ilici vlchd.liccl lorb^ non sil idcm specic cum
eo.qnod nascilnr in Palacstina.Viiriac cnim |U)ssunl
cssc spcoics biilsami.nl snnl \ariac spccics vini:('l
(juaclihclitionca csla I saiM-aiiicnliimconlU'iciulnm.
.Vtblc. IMinium id, quod rclVrl cU^ lUiohus liortis,
rcfcrrc dc lcmporc antiqno:nain sno tiMiiporc falc-
Uir innllas fnissc arhorcs b;ilsami in Pal.icslina, cl
llicronymns. qni Ircccnlis annls fiiit posl Plinium,
in cap."27.K7,cchicris,immo cl Orci^orins qui dnccn-
tis iinnis posl llicronynuiin. ct qiiingcnlis posl IMi-
nium, in cap. l.canlicorr.m. allirinanl tcmporc sno
in vincis En-^ivddi balsamnm gigni solitum.Falsuin
i-,'itnr csl balsainum naliviun pcriissc. Ad confir-
malioncm rcspoiuiiil pr;i\is Kcclcsiac. Liccl cniin
r.irum ct prctiosiim sil halsamnm: tamcn adlinc
numqnam dclnil Ecclcsiac. ncquc c\ i)cnuria bal-
saini praclcrmissii cst aliiinanlo Conlinnalio. Qnod
si pcr annos millc. el Um-c sexcenlos Dcus pruvi-
dit, ccrlc nou dceril deinccps.
Quarta obieclio csl contra lcrtiam proposilio-
t\cin. qnia vidclur cssc qnacdam S|)Cci(!S ina^iiic
cl incantalionis, rilns consccrandi Chrisiniitis. Scd
(le hoc ar<runicnlo supra dixiinus in maleria dcsa-
craincntis iii gcni^rc, cl diccmus eliiim pnslea cum
acjcmns de ciicrcmoniis hnjus sacrainenli.
^Ouinlam objectioncm contra quartam propositio-
ncm sumil Kcmnilins cx Cyrillo cl Amhrosio. Cy-
rilliis cnim calcchcsi 3. mystagoi^icii dicil. Cliris-
malc inongi omncs fcrc corporis scnsus; Amhro-
sius aulem lih. de iis qui inilianlur mysleriis. cap.
G. dicit. capul iniuigi. cl inde unguciitum ad bar-
bam dcflucrc. .>'on itiitnr ccrluin cst, quod nos di-
ximus. Chrisma in fronte adhibendum essc, Res-
pondco: Cyrillum loco citato, praecipnc vellc fron-
lem inungi. ul ipse cxprcssc ait, dcinde alios scn-
su>: quo.rquUlem non cst conlra nos: siquidcm id
solum asserimus, nisi in fronle adhibealur Chris-
ma, sacramenlnm nuUum essc: non lamcn nega-
mus.qnin deinde possil.jnxla varios Ecclcsiae mo-
resinunai eliam alia aliqua corporis pars. Porro
Ambrosius loco cilalo a Kemnilio,non agil de con-
rirmationc. scd dc uncliime, qc.ae sit in Baplisino,
quam etiam nos falemur im verticc capilis facicn-
dam: de Confirmalionc autem agit Ambrosius, cap.
sequenli.