Dist. 7, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/7/q/bon-sent-IV-d7-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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, 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: 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: therefore it is not necessary, since Christ instituted what pertains to the ne-

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 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: « 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. *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, 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: *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 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.

*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: *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; 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.