D. 7 - Confirmation

After the Master has examined the sacrament of those entering, namely baptism, here he intends to examine those sacraments that pertain to those progressing on the path of God; and this is divided into two parts: in the first, he examines the sacraments in which those who are progressing are perfected in the good; in the second, the sacrament in which those who fall are helped up again, namely, penance, at Distinction 14: After these matters, we must treat of penance. (Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, 14.2 (74), 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first he examines the sacrament of confirmation in which someone is perfected in himself in the way that a form perfects a thing; in the second, the Eucharist, in which someone is perfected by being joined to the end, at Distinction 8: After the sacrament of baptism and the one of confirmation, follows the sacrament of the Eucharist. (Sent. IV, 8.1 (48), 1.)

The first is in two parts: in the first, he touches on those things that are within the essence of the sacrament, namely, matter and form; in the second, those things that are outside its essence, at: that “sacrament cannot be performed by anyone other than the highest priests.” (Sent. IV, 7.2 (44), 1 citing Pseudo-Eusebius, Epistola 3 (ad episcopos Tusciae et Campaniae).)

And concerning the latter he does three things: first, he determines the minister of this sacrament; second, its effect, at: but the power of this sacrament is the giving of the Holy Spirit; (Sent. IV, 7.3 (45), 1.) third, its rite, at: this sacrament ought to be conferred and received by people who are fasting. (Sent. IV, 7.4 (46), 2.)

About the first he does two things: first, he determines the truth; second, he removes a certain objection, at: And yet Gregory writes, etc. (Sent. IV, 7.2 (44), 2.) Here there are three questions: First, concerning the sacrament of confirmation itself. Second, its effect. Third, its celebration.

Question 1

The essence of confirmation

Concerning the first, three questions arise:

first, whether confirmation is a sacrament in itself;

• second, its matter;
• third, its form.
• Article 1

Whether confirmation is a sacrament in itself

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: It seems that confirmation is not a sacrament. (Parallels: above, d. 2, q. 1, a. 2; ST III, q. 65, a. 1; q. 72, a. 1; SCG IV, ch. 58.) For every sacrament has its efficacy from divine institution. But nowhere do we read that confirmation was instituted by the Lord. Therefore, it is not a sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is used in all or most sacraments does not seem to be a sacrament itself. But as Dionysius says, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, p. 3, n. 10 (PG 3:483).) the use of holy ointment, namely, chrism, is in several other sacraments, as evident in baptism, in which chrism is poured into the baptismal water and the baptized is anointed on the crown of the head with chrism, and similarly, pontiffs are consecrated by an anointing with chrism, and also the altar on which the Eucharist is consecrated is anointed with chrism, and the chalice in the same way. Therefore, confirmation, which is called chrismation, is not any specific sacrament, but rather a sacramental.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sacraments of the New Law were prefigured in the Old Law. But no figure of confirmation is read to have been the forerunner of confirmation in the Old Law. Therefore, confirmation is not a sacrament.

On the contrary (1), Melchiades says in the text: Know that each of these is a great sacrament, namely, confirmation and baptism. (Pseudo-Pope Melchiades, Epistola ad omnes Hispaniae episcopos, Bk. 2, cited in Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 5, canon 3 (Corpus iuris canonici, pars prior, ed. E. Friedberg, p. 1413).)

Furthermore (2), it is clear from the definition of a sacrament that it applies to confirmation, because it has the signification of grace in the anointing with oil, and has efficacy, as it says in the text, in the conferral of grace for fullness of sanctity. Therefore, it is a sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is a sacrament of necessity. For, as Rabanus says in the text, after baptism all the faithful must receive the Holy Spirit through the bishops, so that they may be found to be full Christians. (Pseudo-Pope Urban, Epistola ad omnes christianos, Bk. 7, cited in Gratian’s Decretals, Part 3, De consecratione, d. 5, canon 1 (Corpus iuris canonici, pars prior, ed. E. Friedberg, p. 1413).) But it is necessary to salvation that someone be a full Christian. Therefore, the sacrament of confirmation is a sacrament of necessity.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the sacrament of confirmation is directed against the disease of sin. But it is necessary to salvation that a person be freed from the disease of sin. Therefore, confirmation is a sacrament of necessity.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as justice requires withdrawing from evil, so it also requires advancing toward good. But baptism works toward the withdrawal from evil, which is shown by the word ‘cleansing’, while confirmation works for the advancement toward good, as is also clear from its name. Therefore, just as baptism is necessary to sanctification, so is confirmation.

On the contrary (1), without what is necessary to salvation, there is no salvation. But baptized children are saved if they die before confirmation. Therefore, it is not a sacrament of necessity.

Furthermore (2), grace and virtue suffice for salvation. But in baptism, grace, along with the fullness of virtues, is conferred. Therefore, baptism is enough for salvation; and so confirmation is not a sacrament of necessity.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that baptism is a more noble sacrament than confirmation: for the essentials of a thing are more worthy than the accidentals, just as a substance is more worthy than an accident. But baptism is related to salvation essentially, since it is a sacrament of necessity; but confirmation is somewhat incidentally related to salvation, since it is not a sacrament of necessity. Therefore, baptism is more noble than confirmation.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But baptism has greater efficacy in effecting, for it erases all fault and punishment, which confirmation does not do. Therefore, it is a more noble sacrament.

On the contrary, to a nobler action, a nobler office is ordered. But confirmation is given by a nobler minister than baptism. Therefore, confirmation is a nobler sacrament than baptism.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that actions that are ordered to certain proper and determinate effects gain distinction according to their proportion to those effects. Thus if they are ordered to two distinct effects, they will be two distinctly different actions. But if they are ordered to one effect, such that one disposes or removes impediments, and the other perfects, while another adorns what has been perfected, then the whole is counted as one complete action, as is seen in the works of craftsmen. Therefore since the sacraments, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, n. 1 (PG 3:499).) are certain hierarchical actions ordered to certain effects of salvation, when several sacramental actions are ordered to one effect, one as perfecting, another as disposing or removing impediments, or in some way adorning, then the notion of sacrament essentially subsists in the one that brings about the main effect. But the others are not called sacraments per se, but are a kind of sacramental, like something connected with the sacraments, as is evident from what was said about baptism in regard to exorcism and catechism, and it corresponds to other things like them. But when there are several actions ordered to completely different effects, then there are different sacraments. And therefore since confirmation has an essentially different effect from baptism’s effect, as will be made clear, it is not a sacramental of baptism, but rather it is a main sacrament in itself.

Reply Obj. 1: There are three opinions about the institution of this sacrament. For one says that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ or the apostles, but afterward, over the passing of time at a certain council; and they say that the Lord conferred the reality behind this sacrament without conferring the sacrament by the imposition of his hands, and the apostles did the same, by the fact that they had been confirmed directly by the Holy Spirit. But this seems extremely discordant: for according to this the Church could institute new sacraments any day, which is false, since they are not proposers of the law, but ministers, and the foundation of any law whatsoever consists in its sacraments. And furthermore it says in the text that in the time of the apostles . . . it had not been carried out by any others than the apostles.

Therefore, others say that this sacrament was not instituted by Christ but by the apostles. But this also does not apply: for although those apostles were also the foundations of the Church, nevertheless they were not the lawmakers; hence it did not pertain to them to institute sacraments.

And so the opinion of others seems to be more probable, who say that this sacrament, like all the others, was instituted by Christ; which is clear from the fact that the Lord himself placed his hands on the heads of children, as is evident from Matthew 19:15. Nor is it problematic that no mention of the matter and form of this sacrament is made in the Gospel or the Acts of the Apostles: for sacramental forms and other things that are required in the sacraments had to be concealed in the early Church because of the derision of the pagans, as Dionysius says. This is why also at the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy he excuses himself from detailing the forms of sacramentals. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, p. 3, n. 10 (PG 3:566).) However, it is different with baptism which was a sacrament of necessity, and was offered immediately to anyone in the beginning.

Reply Obj. 2: Although the matter of confirmation, namely, chrism, may be used by the ministers of the Church in different sacraments, nevertheless this sacrament does not consist only in its matter, but in the form of words, and in the action, just as the sacrament of baptism does; and these things are not used in any other sacrament; and so it is a sacrament in itself.

Reply Obj. 3: This sacrament is for the perfection of grace. And since the state of the Law was the state of imperfection, by the fact that the law brought nothing to perfection (Heb 7:19), for this reason this sacrament did not have anything that corresponded to it in the Old Law, although in another way it was prefigured in the anointing of priests, by which Christ’s anointing was symbolized, from which this anointing is derived.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that there are three kinds of necessity. One is absolute necessity, as it is necessary that God exist, or that a triangle have three angles. Another is the necessity of an efficient cause, which is called the necessity of compulsion. The third is the necessity that arises from the supposition of the end; and this happens in two ways. For in one way something is called necessary when someone cannot be preserved in being without it, like nourishment for an animal. In another way when what pertains to well-being cannot be had without it, as a horse is said to be necessary to someone who wants to travel, and medicine for a man to live healthily. Now no sacrament is said to be necessary with the first two kinds of necessity, but only with the third kind of necessity; and then some of them indeed are necessary in the first way, namely those that a human being cannot live without in the spiritual life, like baptism and penance. But without certain others he cannot accomplish any effect that is for the well-being of the spiritual life, and confirmation and all the others are necessary in this way. Still, it is dangerous to treat any sacrament lightly. But the objections proceed from the first kind of the third necessity.

Reply Obj. 1: There is a fullness of Christian grace sufficient for salvation, and this is given in baptism. And there is a fullness of abundant grace for bravely resisting the pressures of the world, and this is given in confirmation, and without this there can be salvation.

Reply Obj. 2: The disease of sin is expelled in two ways. There is the way that original sin is expelled in baptism, and actual sin in penance; and this expulsion suffices for salvation. But there is also the penalty inclining us to sin; and this is driven out by confirmation and the other sacraments; and this is not necessary to salvation.

Reply Obj. 3: In baptism, grace is given that cleanses us from sin and perfects us for acting sufficiently well for salvation; but in confirmation a fuller gift of grace is added, which is not necessary for salvation.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that there are five ways of saying that one sacrament is nobler than another. In one way, as to the reality of the sacrament, or its effect; and in this way, baptism, which takes away every fault and removes all punishment, is the greatest of the sacraments. In another way, as to what the sacrament contains; and in this way the Eucharist is the noblest, for Christ himself is contained in it. The third, as to the level of dignity in which it establishes someone; and in this way holy orders is the most worthy sacrament. The fourth, as to the minister; and in this way confirmation, and also orders, are the noblest, since they are only administered by a bishop. The fifth way, as to what is signified and not contained; and in this way marriage is the most noble, for it signifies the union of the two natures in the person of Christ.

But nevertheless if we compare these dignities with each other, we find the greatest dignity is the one that the sacrament has from its content, because that is the most essential; and this is why the sacrament of the Eucharist is the most noble, simply speaking, and the other sacraments are ordered to it in some fashion. However, the dignity that is in effecting is greater than that which is in signifying; and the dignity of effecting with respect to the good, simply speaking, is greater than that which removes evil; and so simply speaking, after the Eucharist the most noble sacrament is holy orders, by which a man is placed both in grace and in a level of dignity; and after this confirmation, by which the perfection of grace is conferred, and after this baptism, by which the full remission of guilt and punishment happens; and after this, marriage, which has the greatest signification. However, penance and extreme unction are placed between baptism and marriage, because penance and extreme unction are ordered directly to the removal of evil; although in this penance has less efficacy than baptism, for it is ordered against actual guilt alone, and does not blot out punishment entirely; and extreme unction has still less efficacy, for it is ordered against the remnants of sin.

Reply Obj. 1: Although confirmation is related almost accidentally to the spiritual life taken simply, nevertheless for the spiritual life according to its own perfect difference it is not related accidentally but essentially; and so it is not necessary that it have less dignity than baptism. In the same way rational is a nobler difference than sensible; although for an animal as animal it is accidental to be rational, insofar as it is ‘something of this kind’ it belongs to it per se to be sensible. Or it could be said, as some people say, that confirmation presupposes baptism; hence they can be compared in two ways. In one way, so that confirmation is taken with the presupposition of baptism, and in this way, confirmation is simply more noble, just as also substantial being perfected by accidental being is simply nobler than substantial being simply. In another way, prescinding from baptism, and then in a certain way baptism is the nobler sacrament in having a greater efficacy for removing evil.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism does not have a greater efficacy simply speaking, but only in the removal of evil, as was said.

Article 2

The matter of confirmation

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 2; q. 84, a. 1, ad 1; SCG IV, ch. 60.) It seems that this sacrament does not have matter. For sacraments have efficacy from divine institution. But nowhere do we read that the matter of this sacrament was instituted by the Lord. Therefore, it does not have determinate matter.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, confirmation is given for receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But the fullness of the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles on the day of Pentecost without any matter. Therefore, this sacrament does not need any matter.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the apostles handed down the form of ecclesiastical rites to us. But they confirmed by the imposition of hands, without any matter, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles 8:17. Therefore, this sacrament does not have matter.

On the contrary (1), according to Hugh of St. Victor, a sacrament is a material element. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) Therefore, every sacrament ought to have matter.

Furthermore (2), if something were omitted that did not belong to the substance of a sacrament, it does not prevent the reception of the sacrament. But if the bishop omitted the anointing with chrism, he would not confer the sacrament. Therefore, the matter is of the essence of this sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that chrism is not the appropriate matter. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 2; q. 84, a. 1, ad 1; SCG IV, ch. 60.) For uniformity should be observed in the sacraments. But in baptism the matter is a simple element, namely, water. Therefore, also in confirmation some element should be the matter.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the power of an agent is proportionate to that agent. But the acting power in the sacraments is simple. Therefore, the matter should also be simple; and so the matter of confirmation should not be mixed from two liquids, oil and balsam.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the matter of a sacrament should be common to all: for the sacraments are proposed to all for salvation. But not everyone has olive oil and balsam. Therefore, they are not fitting matter for any sacrament.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, oil can be made from other things besides olives, like nuts and poppies. Therefore, it seems that also those oils could be made into chrism.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the sacrament of confirmation is for fortifying a person in his spiritual fight. But according to the Philosopher, (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, Bk. 3, ch. 11, 1117a14–15.) wine makes men of good hope, which is necessary for courage in the fight; and likewise bread strengthens a man’s heart, as it says in Psalm 103:15. Therefore, bread and wine would be more fitting matter for this sacrament than oil and balsam.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, the matter of a sacrament should have signification both with respect to the effect and with respect to something that preceded in Christ from whom the sacrament flowed forth. But nothing pre-existing in Christ is symbolized by liquids like these. Therefore, these liquids are not fitting matter for this sacrament.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it does not require matter previously sanctified. (Parallels: above, d. 2, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2, ad 2; below, d. 23, q. 1, a. 3, qa. 2 & 3; ST III, q. 72, a. 3; De veritate, q. 27, a. 4, ad 10.) For confirmation, as it says in the text, is not more powerful than baptism. But in baptism no previously sanctified matter is required. Therefore, neither in confirmation.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Augustine, the word is combined with the element and the sacrament occurs. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.) If therefore it were necessary that the matter be sanctified by certain words beforehand, then the chrism itself would also be a certain sacrament, and not the matter of a sacrament.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sanctification is not to be repeated for the same thing. But the matter is sanctified by the form of a sacrament, as is clear in baptism, whose matter is the water sanctified by the word of life, and above, in Distinction 3, the Master called this word the form of baptism. Therefore, no sanctification of the matter should be applied to the matter of confirmation before the uttering of the sacramental form.

On the contrary is the common use of the Church, and also the determination of Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, p. 2 (PG 3:474).) who includes the rite of consecrating the chrism.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that a sacrament’s matter is called the visible reality under cover of which divine power works our salvation in a hidden way; and for this reason matter is necessary to the sacraments, so that for an effect that human power does not bring about at all, whether by working or by cooperating, divine power carries it out by working in a visible thing. And this is why in penance and marriage, whose effects depend in a certain way on human acting, namely, in sorrow for sins and consent to conjugal union, matter such as this is not required. But in baptism, whose effect is completely from outside, with no interior working on the part of the one baptizing nor the one baptized, except in removing impediments, a sensible matter is required. Since therefore the effect of confirmation, which is the fullness of the Holy Spirit, is entirely from outside, not by any human operation, there is no doubt that matter is needed in the sacrament of confirmation.

Reply Obj. 1: The fullness of the Holy Spirit was not to be given before Christ’s Resurrection and ascension, as it says: for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (John 7:39). And so according to one opinion, those things that pertain to this sacrament had not been instituted before Christ’s ascension. But in some way this sacrament was prefigured in the imposition of Christ’s hands on the children; although that imposition of hands could be referred more to the imposition of hands that is done upon catechumens, as was said. Nor does it make any difference whether the Lord himself instituted it or his apostles did by special command. But according to another opinion it should be said that the Lord instituted the matter of this sacrament by himself, just as he also promised the coming of the Holy Spirit; but he left its announcement to the apostles when the use of the sacrament was available, namely, after the full sending of the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the sacrament of baptism began at the baptism of Christ, so also the sacrament of confirmation began in the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. And because the principles of a thing should be the most known, for this reason the Holy Spirit appeared visibly on both occasions: at the baptism in the form of a dove, and at the confirmation of the apostles in tongues of fire; and because of this it was not necessary for there to be matter in which the Holy Spirit would work our salvation in a hidden way, as Augustine says. (Rather, Isidore, Etymologiarum (ed. Lindsay), Bk. 6, ch. 19, par. 40.)

Reply Obj. 3:The apostles did not confirm without matter, except perhaps when, outside of the usual course of things, the Holy Spirit descended by visible signs upon those on whom the apostles had imposed their hands; for then that visible appearance would supply the place of the visible element. But the fact that they ever used matter is clear from Dionysius in the beginning of Chapter 4 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, where it says that there is a certain perfective operation, which our leaders, as he calls the apostles, name the sacrifice of chrism, calling every sacrament’s rite commonly a sacrifice. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, n. 1 (PG 3:471).)

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that, as was said, this sacrament took its beginning from the coming of the Holy Spirit among the disciples, who, although they had had the Holy Spirit before in the gift of grace by which they were perfected for the things that pertain to individual persons, nevertheless on the day of Pentecost received the Holy Spirit, but in a gift of grace by which they were perfected for the promulgation of faith in Christ for the salvation of others. And thus the apparition of the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire happened so that they might be fluent in words to share the faith of Christ; and fervid in charity, seeking the salvation of others; (These two phrases are from the Lauds hymn Beata nobis gaudia of the Feast and Octave of Pentecost.) and because of this it says: they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak (Acts 2:4). Now, nothing could be taken more fittingly in place of fire than oil, both because it shines, and because it is the greatest fuel for fire. Now, nothing could be more fittingly taken for the figure of tongues than balsam, on account of the odor, since because of the confession of the tongue the odor of the good tidings of God is diffused in every place. And thus as the visible apparition of the Holy Spirit was figured in fire with the shape of a tongue, so the matter of confirmation is oil with balsam, so that the oil pertains to the conscience which must shine in those who are constituted confessors of the divine faith; and balsam to the good news which confessors of the faith must spread both in words and in deeds.

Reply Obj. 1: The uniformity of sameness should not be observed in all the sacraments, but uniformity of proportionality; so that just as the matter for one sacrament befits that sacrament, so the matter of another sacrament is suited to it. And since baptism is the door of the sacraments, like a principle and element of all the others, for this reason it befits it to have matter that is a simple element, but not so with the other sacraments in which something specific is added on; just as compound bodies have certain superadded properties resulting from their species.

Reply Obj. 2: It is the virtue of this sacrament that, although it is simple in essence, it nevertheless has a compound effect: for it makes man both fervent in conscience and renowned for his confession; and for this reason the matter of this sacrament is both one and compound: one in acting, but compound in power, just like other mixed things.

Reply Obj. 3: This argument works with sacraments of necessity, but this sacrament is not one of those. However, although oil and balsam do not grow in every land, nevertheless they can be easily transported anywhere.

Reply Obj. 4: The properties of oil are found more perfectly in olive oil, hence it is called oil antonomastically; and furthermore, the olive itself, because of the long-lasting freshness that it keeps, adds something to the representation of the mystery.

Reply Obj. 5: Wine and bread fortify a person by the mode of nourishment, strengthening the person in himself, and this is why they are better suited to the Eucharist. But oil makes a person slick and warmed up for what is external, and for this reason boxers are also rubbed with oil; and so oil is better suited to this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 6: By this anointing, as Hugh of St. Victor says, that anointing is represented in which Christ was anointed as king and priest with the oil of gladness above his brethren. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 2, ch. 2 (PL 176:416).) This is the reason Christ is also said from chrism, and from Christ, Christian is said; and because of this Dionysius says that Christ is also represented by the chrism. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 4, p. 3, n. 10 (PG 3:483).)

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that the sacrament’s matter is like an instrument of sanctification, but it is an instrument of both the principal agent and the minister who uses the sacrament’s matter for signifying. Now every sacrament has its principal agent determined for it regarding what is necessary for the sacrament, for it does not have any efficacy except from the authority of the Lord and the merit of Christ. But not every sacrament has its minister determined for it as something necessary for the sacrament, but sometimes only for the sake of its solemnity, as is seen in baptism. And therefore, so that the sacrament’s matter might correspond proportionally to the principal agent and to the minister, those sacraments that have their minister determined for them require sanctified matter so that the sacrament’s disposition might be shown to come from the ministers of the Church. But a sacrament that does not have its minister determined except for the sake of solemnity does not require sanctified matter as something necessary to it, but only for its solemnity, and it is in this matter that chrism is applied in the shape of the Cross. And since minister of the sacrament of confirmation is determined for it, as will be said, for this reason it requires matter sanctified by the one who is the minister of the sacrament, namely, the bishop.

Reply Obj. 1: The power of the sacrament has nothing to do with this, but the determination of the minister, as was said. Or it could be said that baptism is a sacrament of necessity, and for this reason it has the most common matter; and because of this it does not need sanctification.

Reply Obj. 2: Certain people say that the chrism itself is the sacrament. But this appears false in the fact that chrism is used in more things than the sacrament of confirmation; as is seen in a baptized person, who is anointed with chrism on the forehead, and with a pontiff, whose head is touched with chrism. And so it should be said that the sacrament of confirmation is not chrism itself, but the anointing with chrism under the prescribed form of words. But that blessing pronounced over the chrism is not the form of the sacrament, but rather a certain sacramental blessing, like the blessing of water or an altar.

Reply Obj. 3: Just as an instrument acquires instrumental power in two ways, namely, when it receives the form of the instrument, and when it is moved by a principal agent to its effect, so also the matter of a sacrament needs two sanctifications: one in which it is established as the proper matter of the sacrament, and this is the sanctification of the matter; the other is when it is applied to its effect, which happens through the sacrament’s form. And in this way no injury is done to sanctification, if two sanctifications are applied in this kind of thing.

Article 3

The form of confirmation

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 4; q. 84, a. 3; De forma absol., ch. 1.) It seems that the sacrament of confirmation does not have a form. For sacraments came down from Christ. But we do not read that Christ used any form when he imposed his hands on anyone. Therefore, since that imposition of hands designates confirmation, it seems that the sacrament of confirmation does not have any form.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, we also read that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands (Acts 8:17). But that imposition of hands, as holy men say, was the confirmation of those people on whom they placed their hands. Therefore, since we do not read that they imposed their hands under any form of words, as we do read that they baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2, 8, and 10), it seems that this sacrament does not have any form.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sacraments that have form are administered by anyone under the same words. But the sacrament of confirmation is not administered by everyone with the same words. For some people say: I sign you with the sign of the Cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But others say: with the chrism of sanctification. Therefore, this sacrament does not have a certain form.

On the contrary (1), the Master said in Distinction 1 that there are two things in which the sacraments consist: a word and a thing. But the words pertain to the form.

Furthermore (2), Augustine says: the word is combined with the element, and the sacrament happens. (Augustine, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus (CCSL 36), Tract. 80, par. 3.)

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this form of words is not appropriate. For in every sacrament an intention is required. But in the form of baptism the person baptizing expresses his intention in the pronoun I. Therefore, also in the form of confirmation, the pronoun I should be added.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, sealing seems to pertain to the impression of a character. But the minister does not imprint a character here more than in baptism. Since therefore in baptism no mention is made of a seal in the form, neither should mention be made of it here.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, by baptism most of all a person is configured to the Passion of Christ. But in the form of baptism no mention is made at all of Christ’s Passion. Therefore, neither should mention be made of the Cross in this form.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, just as confirmation has a determinate form, so also does baptism. But in baptism’s form no mention is made of the matter itself; for it is not said, I baptize you with water. Therefore, neither should mention be made here of chrism.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, form is essential to the sacrament, but the reality behind the sacrament is not essential to the sacrament: for many receive the sacrament who do not receive the reality behind the sacrament. Therefore, the reality behind the sacrament should not be included in the form, as it is included here: with the chrism of salvation.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this form does not have any efficacy in this sacrament. For according to Hugh of St. Victor, a sacrament contains invisible grace from its sanctification. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 1, pt. 9, ch. 2 (PL 176:317).) But the matter of this sacrament is sanctified before the form is even uttered. Therefore, the uttering of the form furnishes no efficacy to the sacrament.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as in the Eucharist there is the consecration of the host and its use, so also here. But in the former, the sacrament’s whole power is in the consecrated host, as is clear in the form of words that are uttered when someone consumes the host, since it is said: may the Body of Our Lord, etc. (Thomas is referring to the traditional formula with which the minister of holy communion says to the recipient as he places the host on his or her tongue: Corpus Domini nostris Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam, Amen.) Therefore also, in the same way here the power of the sacrament does not consist in the words uttered in the use of the sacrament.

On the contrary, form is more important in a thing than matter. If therefore the matter effects something, much more will the form.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that the ministers of the sacraments work in the sacraments by blessing and sanctifying; and thus according as a minister is required for any sacrament, a form is also required by which the minister may administer the sacrament.

Reply Obj. 1: As was said, the Lord’s imposition of hands upon the children was not properly a sacrament of confirmation, which it was not appropriate to display before his glorification; but it was either a sign of future confirmation or an imposition of hands of the kind that is done in catechism and exorcism. But even so, if the Lord had confirmed without form or matter, it would not have been unfitting; for he himself had the power of excellence in the sacraments, which could furnish the effect of a sacrament without sacramentals; and this is not the case with others.

Reply Obj. 2: Certain people say that the apostles confirmed without matter and form, by the imposition of hands alone, because of their own dignity and authority. But this does not seem to be well said: for notwithstanding their great authority, they still did not have the power of excellence in administering the sacraments. And so it should be said that the apostles used some form, although it was not written down. For the apostles preserved many things in the administering of the sacraments that they did not wish to publish in order to avoid the derision of the pagans, as is clear from the Apostle, who says, the rest I will dispose when I come (1 Cor 11:34); and he speaks of the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist; and this is also what Dionysius says in the end of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: However, as to the consummative invocations, that is, the words by which the sacraments are performed, it is not right for those interpreting the Scriptures nor their mystery, or the powers worked in them by God, to draw out their hidden sense in public; but as our sacred tradition has it, without pomp, that is, secretly, to teach them, etc. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 7, n. 10 (PG 3:566).) From these words we can gather three things. First, that the apostles were using a certain form of words in the sacraments, since he says elsewhere in the same book (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 1, n. 5 (PG 3:375).) that he hands on the rite of the sacraments just as the apostles taught it. Second, that they were handing on sacramentals like this in secret in the early Church. Third, that there is a certain power in those words, which some people deny.

Reply Obj. 3: A variation of form among those things that are not essential to the form can be tolerated according to the different customs of the churches, as long as the substance of the form is preserved among all. But whether some people say chrism of salvation or chrism of sanctification, it amounts to the same thing; and so this does not prevent this sacrament from having a determinate form.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that just as a definition should indicate the entire being of a thing, if it is complete, so also by a sacrament’s form everything the sacrament pertains to should be made known. However, a sacrament is also ordered to a certain end, and has its efficacy from a certain principal cause. And so these three things are included in the form of this sacrament; the first of them pertains to the end for which this sacrament was instituted, which is the confession of the Christian faith, whose complete summary consists in Christ’s Passion; hence the Apostle says: for I have not considered myself to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2); and, moreover, the confession of this article has greater difficulty, for, as he says in the same letter (1 Cor 1:23), but we preach Christ crucified, a scandal to Jews and a foolishness to gentiles; and this is why it is said, I seal you with the sign of the holy Cross, so that one may not be embarrassed by the name of the Cross, but confess it publicly. Second is included the sacramental act itself, with its own matter and effect, so that in this way may be touched upon both what the sacrament is alone, in saying, with chrism, and what the reality-and-sacrament (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.) is, in saying, I confirm you, that is, ‘I present you with a sacrament of strengthening’; as well as the reality that is not symbolized, by saying, of salvation. But the principal agent cause, from which the sacrament has its effect, is touched upon in saying: in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Reply Obj. 1: Baptism is a sacrament of necessity; and so the intention of the one baptizing needs to be more protected for the sake of the sacrament’s act. Or it could be said that anyone can baptize, but only someone in the highest level of the Church can confirm, and it is presumed of him that he may fail less in the administering of the sacrament; and thus not so much protection of the intention is required in the words applied in the form.

Reply Obj. 2: The seal that is included in the form does not pertain to the sealing of a character, but to the seal of the Cross, which is made on the forehead with an anointing of chrism because of the confession of faith in the Cross. And no stamp is done like this in baptism, because the one baptized is not consecrated to anything specific, but to the spiritual life generally. However, a seal conveys a certain conscription, or something specific, which is there in the sacrament of confirmation.

Reply Obj. 3: Someone who is baptized is configured to the Passion of Christ by his faith, which he should have in his heart; and therefore no external seal of the cross is required, but the interior seal that exists through the character, that is, the conformity to the Passion of Christ by being buried with him in water are enough. But confirmation is the sacrament of confessing the Passion of Christ, just as baptism is the sacrament of faith; and therefore the sign of the Cross is imprinted in the sight of all and expressed in the form.

Reply Obj. 4: In the very act of baptizing, the determinate matter of baptism is understood; but the matter of confirmation is not understood in the very act of confirming, and hence the matter must be added in the form.

Reply Obj. 5: The reality behind the sacrament is more expressly represented in the act of washing in baptism than in the anointing with chrism, and this is why the effect of salvation needs to be added for greater expression.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, I answer that the forms of the sacraments are for completing the sacraments, which is why Dionysius calls them consummative invocations, as was said. And therefore in the sacrament that entirely consists in a sanctified sensible thing, and not in the use of the thing, the sacrament’s form is said to be the words by which the matter is sanctified, but not those words that are uttered at the use of the matter, as is seen in the Eucharist. But in those sacraments that are completed in the matter’s use, like baptism is in the very immersion or washing, the sacrament’s form is what is said at the matter’s use, not what is said in the matter’s sanctification, because that is just a sacramental. And so since the sacrament of confirmation, as was said, is completed in the use of the matter, it is clear that those words that the bishop says when he confirms are the form of the sacrament, and they have efficacy just like the other forms of sacraments.

Reply Obj. 1: There are two kinds of sanctification in a sacrament, as has been said. Therefore, it does not have the capacity to confer actual grace from the first kind of sanctification, which happens in blessing the matter, but only from the second kind.

Reply Obj. 2: It is different in the sacrament of the Eucharist than in the other sacraments, for there the whole sacrament consists in the consecrated host itself, by the fact that Christ is contained there in reality, and not only in power as in all the other sacraments; and thus the form of that sacrament is the words uttered in the sanctification of the host.

Question 2

The effects of confirmation

Next, inquiry is made about the effect of confirmation; and concerning this, two questions arise:

first, about the effect that is reality-and-sacrament, namely, the character;

• second, about the effect that is reality alone, namely, grace.
• Article 1

About the effect that is reality-and-sacrament, namely, the character

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, d. 3, a. 3, qa. 3; ST III, q. 63, a. 6; q. 72, a. 5.) It seems that in confirmation a character is not imprinted. For a character is a distinctive sign, as was said above in Distinction 4, Question 1, Article 1. But spiritual battle is appointed for everyone. Therefore, since the sacrament of confirmation is given to fortify for the spiritual battle, it seems that no distinction of one person from another should be made in it by the impression of the character.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the Old Law, spiritual battle was necessary, just as in the New Law. But in the Old Law there was no sacrament imprinting a character, as was said above. Therefore, neither does confirmation imprint a character.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, it was said above that a character is a spiritual power. But a passive spiritual power, namely, for partaking of the other sacraments, is sufficiently granted in baptism; however, active power, namely, for dispensing sacraments, pertains to holy orders. Since therefore someone who has been confirmed is not constituted in any degree of holy orders or dignity, it seems that in confirmation a character is not imprinted.

On the contrary (1), a character is a sign conforming us to the Trinity. But just as we must be conformed in wisdom and power, so also in goodness. Since therefore in baptism a character of faith is imprinted conforming us to divine wisdom, and in holy orders a character of power, conforming us to divine power, it seems that in confirmation a character of the fullness of the Holy Spirit is imprinted, conforming us to divine goodness.

Furthermore (2), by the character it is as if we were enrolled in the family of Jesus Christ. But just as Christ is our father and priest, so also he is our king. Since therefore by the baptismal character we are ascribed to him like regenerated sons to a father in baptism, and by the character of holy orders like ministers to the high priest, it seems that by the same argument in confirmation a character should be imprinted by which we may be conformed to him like soldiers to a king.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that confirmation’s character is the same in essence as baptism’s. For things cannot be assimilated to the same form or species without being one. But in the Trinity, as Hilary says, there is an undiffering species. (Hilary, De Synodis, n. 13 (PL 10:490).) Therefore, since a character is a sign assimilating us to the Trinity, it seems that the character of confirmation cannot be different from the character of baptism.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, among physical things it is the case that two characters cannot exist in the same part. But the subject of a character is always the same part of the soul, as was said. Therefore, after the first character another character cannot be superadded.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, for those things that necessarily follow, someone is ascribed with the same character, just as the same character exists in a priest for confessing and absolving. But the confession of faith, whose sacrament is confirmation, necessarily follows from faith, whose sacrament is baptism; because one believes with the heart unto justice, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Rom 10:10). Therefore, it is the same character in baptism and confirmation.

On the contrary (1), a character is the proper and direct effect of a sacrament. But the proper effects of different causes are different. Since therefore baptism and confirmation are different sacraments, the characters they impress are also different.

Furthermore (2), baptism cannot be received again for this reason, that the character is indelible. If therefore the character were the same for baptism and confirmation, then confirmation would not be added after baptism.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the character of confirmation does not presuppose the baptismal character. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 6.) For the character of confirmation is given so that a person may bravely confess Christ. But some people bravely confessed Christ before baptism, attaining the palm of martyrdom. Therefore, before baptism someone can receive the character of confirmation.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the character is the sacrament-and-reality of confirmation. But even a non-baptized person can receive what is the sacrament-and-reality in the Eucharist, namely, the true Body of the Lord; although receiving it out of order, he would not obtain the reality behind the sacrament, unless perhaps he believed he had been baptized. Therefore, in the same way a non-baptized person can obtain the character of confirmation. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)

Obj. 3: Furthermore, just as baptism naturally precedes confirmation, so also one degree of holy orders naturally precedes another. But if someone receives the character attendant on holy orders who has not received the character of the previous degree of holy orders, he still is not re-ordained, but what was lacking is supplied. Therefore, a person can also receive the character of confirmation without the baptismal character.

On the contrary (1), Dionysius says (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 1 (PG 3:391).) that someone who is not regenerated by baptism can work nothing of those things divinely handed down. But the character of confirmation is this kind of thing; therefore no one can receive the character of confirmation who is not baptized.

Furthermore (2), baptism is said to be the principle of the spiritual life, according to Dionysius (Ibid.) and Damascene. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. 4, ch. 9 (PG 94:1122).) But when the principle is removed, whatever is after the principle is removed. Therefore, whoever is not baptized cannot receive the character of confirmation.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that a character is a distinctive sign by which someone is distinguished from others and deputed for something spiritual. But someone can be deputed for something spiritual in three ways. In one way, so that the person in himself takes part in spiritual things; and for this a person is deputed in baptism, for once baptized he can be partaker of every spiritual thing that can be received; hence the baptismal character, as was said above, is something like a passive spiritual power. In another way, so that the person brings spiritual things into notice by his brave confession of Christ; and this is what a person is commissioned for in confirmation. This is also why certain people were chosen in the time of persecution who had to remain in the place of persecution to confess Christ’s name publicly, while others were secret believers, as is seen in the legend of Saint Sebastian. (See the account of St. Sebastian in Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. William Granger Ryan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 97–101.) In the third way, so that a person may also hand on spiritual things to believers; and someone is deputed for this by the sacrament of holy orders. And thus just as a character is conferred in baptism and holy orders, so also in confirmation.

Reply Obj. 1: The spiritual battle in which someone fights against those hindering his own salvation is appointed for everyone; but the sacrament of confirmation is not given for this, but for persisting bravely in the battle in which someone attacks the name of Christ, and so that he may remain an unconquered confessor of Christ; and not everyone is exposed to this battle, but only the confirmed.

Reply Obj. 2: Under the Old Law it was not the time for spreading the worship of God by foolishness of preaching, but rather by physical generation; and therefore at that time such a battle concerning the confession of the faith was not much necessary. Nevertheless, there was still a distinguishing of this kind of character figured in the Old Law, along with the others. For in the distinguishing of the sons of Israel from the Egyptians, the baptismal character was signified; in the distinguishing of the timid from the brave in war, the character of confirmation; and in the distinguishing of the Levites from their brethren, the character of holy orders.

Reply Obj. 3: The power of this character is an active power, not for conferring spiritual things, which belongs to holy orders, but rather for confessing in public; and therefore, one who has been confirmed is not constituted in any degree of holy orders, because no one is subject to him in receiving divine things from him.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that any power, by its very nature, carries an ordering to something; and therefore all power must be proportionate to the act it produces, since its proper act will not happen except in the proper matter, according to the Philosopher in Book 2 of On the Soul. (Aristotle, On the Soul, Bk. 2, ch. 2, 414a11.) Therefore powers must be distinguished by the distinction of the acts they are ordered to, whether they are active powers or passive powers; and as was said above in Distinction 4, Question 1, Article 1, since a character is a spiritual power, and since the baptismal character is not ordered to the same thing as the character of confirmation, as is clear from what has been said, it is plain that the two characters are not the same.

Reply Obj. 1: There can only be one assimilation to one species or form that something perfectly represents; which is why there is only one perfect image of the Father, namely the Son. But if it is not a perfect representation, then there can be various assimilations to one single thing; and for this reason different creatures have divine likeness in different ways, each according to its own mode. And because of this it is not unfitting if there are different characters in the soul, conforming to the Trinity in various ways.

Reply Obj. 2: Bodily character is found according to figure, which consists in the boundaries of the figure. And since it is impossible for there to be different boundaries to one thing, it is therefore impossible for the same body to have different figures or characters in the same part. But a spiritual character is found according to a certain spiritual property. Nor is it unfitting if there are different properties that are not opposed to each other in the same part of the same thing; and for this reason several characters can exist in the same part of the soul.

Reply Obj. 3: Although it belongs to anyone baptized and believing to confess when confession of the faith is required, nevertheless, it is not for just anyone to expose himself freely, but only for those who have been confirmed. And this is also evident in the apostles, among whom this sacrament took its beginning: for before the coming of the Holy Spirit to confirm them, they were locked in the Cenacle out of fear of the Jews; but afterward, filled with the Holy Spirit, they began to speak the word of God publicly and with confidence, as is seen in the Acts of the Apostles. (Namely, in Chapters 1 and 2.)

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, I answer that nothing can take part in an action or property of a certain nature unless it first has subsistence in that nature; hence, since a person acquires subsistence in the spiritual life of the Christian religion through baptism, which is a spiritual regeneration, a non-baptized person cannot partake in anything that pertains to this spiritual life; and for this reason he cannot receive the character of confirmation, and Dionysius assigns this reason in Chapter 2 of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 2, p. 1 (PG 3:391).)

Reply Obj. 1: For those things that are necessary, a man is admitted even if it does not pertain to him by office, as is evident from the fact that someone without holy orders can licitly baptize in case of emergency, although this does not belong to him by office. Similarly since confessing the name of Christ, when confession is expected, is also necessary, for this reason it also belongs to the non-baptized, although they do not have this from the office bestowed by the character in the sacrament of confirmation.

Reply Obj. 2: In the sacrament of the Eucharist, what is reality-and-sacrament is outside the one receiving it; and thus that person’s indisposition does not impede it from being reality-and-sacrament, in this case, the true Body of Christ. But what is reality-and-sacrament in confirmation is a certain form taken in by the person receiving it; and for this reason an indisposition of the recipient does impede the imprint of a character. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)

Reply Obj. 3: The order of a passive power to an active one is an order of necessity: for whoever does not have the passive power to receive something will receive nothing, except miraculously. But the order of an inferior active power to a superior one is only the order of congruity, and for this reason anyone lacking a baptismal character, which is the passive power of receiving spiritual things, can receive nothing of anything spiritual; but someone lacking the character of lower holy orders, which is an active power, can receive the character of higher orders.

Article 2

About the effect that is reality alone, namely, grace

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 7.) It seems that sanctifying grace (Literally, “grace that makes pleasing.”) is not conferred in confirmation. For sanctifying grace is directed against guilt, and not against punishment. But confirmation is directed against punishment, and not against guilt, for someone who is confirmed is no longer wicked, since he was justified by baptism. Therefore, he does not receive sanctifying grace.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, baptism does not have less order to sanctifying grace than confirmation. But someone who had grace before does not receive sanctifying grace through baptism. Therefore, since the confirmed person already has the grace that he received in baptism, as we see among children, it seems that in confirmation sanctifying grace is not conferred.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, anything that can be done while in mortal sin does not require sanctifying grace. But someone sunk in mortal sin is able to bravely confess the name of Christ. Therefore, since confirmation is the sacrament of confessing Christ, it seems that sanctifying grace is not given in it.

On the contrary (1), a sacrament of the New Law brings about what it represents. But by the anointing with chrism the unction of grace is represented. Therefore, sanctifying grace is conferred in confirmation.

Furthermore (2), the text says that the Holy Spirit is given in confirmation. But in Book I, Distinction 16, Question 1, Article 2, it was said that the sending of the Holy Spirit is not without sanctifying grace. Therefore, in confirmation sanctifying grace is given.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it is the same as baptismal grace. For two accidents of the same species cannot be in the same simple and indivisible thing. But the subject of sanctifying grace is the essence of the soul, which is one and simple. Therefore, in those things there cannot be different graces; and so since baptismal grace is there, the grace given in confirmation will be fundamentally the same.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it is the same grace that is in the virtues and gifts. But in baptism grace is conferred with all virtues, as was said above, Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestion 5. But in confirmation grace is given with the sevenfold fullness of the Holy Spirit, as it says in the text that it pertains to the seven gifts. Therefore, the grace that is given in confirmation is the same as that given in baptism.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, there is greater distinction among the virtues than among graces. But it pertains to the same virtue to believe and to confess, namely, to faith. Therefore, much more does it pertain to the same grace; therefore the baptismal grace that perfects for believing and the grace of confirmation that perfects for confessing are the same grace.

On the contrary (1), diverse causes bring about diverse effects. But the external sacrament is different in baptism than in confirmation, and the interior character is different, as has been said, and these are the causes of grace. Therefore, the grace in each is also different.

Furthermore (2), against different ailments different medicines are given. But confirmation is directed against another ailment than baptism, as was said above in Distinction 2, Question 1, Article 1. Therefore, the grace that is given in each sacrament as medicine for its ailment is also different.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the grace of confirmation does not complete baptismal grace. For every perfection that is ascribed to confirmation pertains to the gifts or virtues, as bravely confessing and persevering belong to the virtue or gift of fortitude. But in baptism, where grace is conferred, both the virtues and the gifts are conferred, which are bound together with grace, as was said above. (Different editions give different references. The two most pertinent texts are Bk. 3, d. 36, a. 3, and Bk. 4, d. 1, q. 1, a. 4, qa. 5.) Therefore, the grace of confirmation does not perfect baptismal grace.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a habit is generated and is completed by the same thing, as is said in the Ethics 2. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 2, ch. 1, 1103b7.) But baptismal grace is acquired by baptism. Therefore, it is not completed by confirmation.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, when a thing is increased, what is increased and what increases it become the same. But baptismal grace differs from the grace of confirmation. Therefore, the grace of confirmation does not complete baptismal grace.

On the contrary (1), according to Dionysius, baptism is an illuminating, but chrism is a perfecting. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 3 (PG 3:503).) But perfection brings illumination to its fullness just as illumination does for purification. Therefore, confirmation with chrism brings baptismal grace to its fullness.

Furthermore (2), in all perfectings ordered to each other it is such that the second one perfects the first. But the grace of confirmation is superadded to baptismal grace. Therefore, the grace of confirmation perfects baptismal grace.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that in any sacrament there is a certain sanctification. But there is one sanctification in a sacrament that is common to all sacraments, namely cleansing from sin or the remnants of sin; and there is another sanctification that is specific to those sacraments that imprint a character, namely a delegating to something sacred. But either sanctification requires ‘the grace that makes one pleasing’, because what is directly opposed to sin is grace, while contrary things cure their opposites. Hence the same remedy cannot be applied against sin and its secondary infections, except by sanctifying grace. And thus in every sacrament of the New Law, sanctifying grace is conferred, as was said above, in Distinction 2, Question 1, Article 1, Subquestions 1 and 2. But in the same way, approaching sacred things is not permitted to the unclean, nor can anyone be freed from uncleanness, nor be made worthy of administering or receiving the sacred things, except by grace. Therefore, it is necessary that in the sacraments that imprint a character sanctifying grace be imprinted. Since, therefore, confirmation is a sacrament of the New Law that imprints a character, it is necessary that it confer sanctifying grace for both reasons.

Reply Obj. 1: Confirmation is ordered against the punishment that is caused by our sin and that inclines us to sin, and that is consequently opposed to grace; and for this reason sanctifying grace must be given against it. And this is why if it finds any sin that does not constitute a deception, it wipes it away, as we see in the case of venial sin, although it is not chiefly directed against sin.

Reply Obj. 2: Baptism is a sacrament of necessity, and the grace that is conferred in baptism is ordered to the common state of salvation and not to any special effect; and because of this by baptism no other new grace is added to someone who had sanctifying grace, but the grace that was in him before is increased. However, it is different with confirmation, which is not a sacrament of necessity; hence its grace is ordered to a specific effect, and because of this the grace of confirmation can be added to the grace that perfects one in the common state of life.

Reply Obj. 3: Although someone could resolutely confess faith in Christ even if he were in mortal sin, it would nevertheless not be a worthy confession, for praise is not seemly in the mouth of a sinner (Sirach 15:9), nor again is it meritorious for his salvation. But the sacrament is ordered not only to doing this in any manner whatsoever, but to doing it in a worthy manner, unless there is a defect on the part of the one receiving the sacrament.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that, just as was said above, sacramental graces are distinguished from each other according to what they are ordered toward, just like virtues, although their distinction is not as apparent as the distinction of virtues, for their effects are not so manifest as the effects of virtues. We see this in the moral virtues, for where there is a special difficulty, a special virtue is required; hence the virtue that directs a person in large expenses, that is, magnificence, is different from the one that perfects one in ordinary gifts and expenses, namely, liberality. And since baptismal grace is given for perfecting someone in those things that pertain to the common state of Christian life, but the grace of confirmation for perfecting in those things that are the most difficult in that state, namely, confessing the name of Christ against persecutors, a special grace is needed for this; and this is why the grace of confirmation is different from the grace of baptism, and is given against another defect. For the grace of baptism is given against the defect that impedes the common state of justice in Christian life, which is original and actual sin; but the grace of confirmation is given against the defect opposed to the firmness that is demanded in confessing the name of Christ, that is, against weakness.

Reply Obj. 1: The graces of confirmation and baptism are not of the same species, as was said, and that is why nothing prevents them from being in the same indivisible thing. Or it could be said that baptismal grace is drawn from the essence of the soul into the intellect, since it is for believing rightly and perfectly, but the grace of confirmation regards more the irascible appetite, to which belong fortitude and firm resolve.

Reply Obj. 2: Sacramental grace, which is the chief effect of the sacrament, although it may be bound together with the grace that is in the virtues and gifts, is nevertheless something different from it: for sacramental grace perfects first and chiefly by removing the defect resulting from sin; but the grace of the virtues and gifts perfects by inclining one toward the good of the virtue or gift, just as the grace of confirmation does by removing the ailment of weakness, but the gift or virtue of fortitude by inclining one to the good that is proper to the gift or virtue. And so although in baptism virtues and gifts are given, and likewise in confirmation, it is not necessary that the same sacramental grace be given in both.

Reply Obj. 3: To confess when there is an imminent danger of death from that confession is not only from faith but also requires the help of another virtue, which is fortitude; and likewise it also requires another sacramental grace, which takes away the effect of sin opposed to fortitude.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that, as was said above in Distinction 1, Question 1, Article 4, Subquestion 5, just as sanctifying grace, which perfects the essence of the soul, differs from the virtues and gifts that flow from it, so also it differs from the grace that is the proper effect of each of the sacraments. Nevertheless, it is connected with it, just as it is also connected with the virtues and gifts; hence in the sacraments sacramental grace, which is different in different sacraments, is given chiefly, and the grace of the virtues and gifts, which is common to all the sacraments, as a consequence. Accordingly, therefore, I say that baptismal grace can be said two ways. In one way, for the grace that is the chief and proper effect of baptism, working against an ailment; in another way the grace that is baptism’s effect as a consequence, and by a certain connection; and the same distinction can be made about the grace of confirmation. Therefore, if we take baptismal grace and the grace of confirmation in the first way, they are different graces; and so the latter does not perfect the former directly, as though reducible to the same essence as it, but it directly perfects the person baptized for something higher; and accordingly baptismal grace has a more perfect and nobler being in itself, just as the sensible soul is more perfect when joined to the rational, and a virtue is more perfect when combined with a gift, and liberality is more perfect when attached to magnificence. But if we take baptismal grace and the grace of confirmation in the second way, then the grace of confirmation directly increases it, and is reducible to the same essence with it, just as baptism directly increases any grace that it finds before it.

And by this the answer to each objection is clear.

Question 3

Conferral of confirmation

Next, inquiry is to be made about the celebration of this sacrament, and concerning this, three questions arise:

first, who can confer this sacrament;

• second, who should receive it;
• third, the rite and mode of receiving it.
• Article 1

Who can confer confirmation

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: above, d. 2, q. 2, a. 4, ad 1; below, d. 13, q. 1, a. 1, qa. 2, ad 2; d. 25, q. 1, a. 1; ST III, q. 65, a. 3, ad 3; q. 72, a. 11; SCG IV, ch. 60; De eccles. sacr.; Quodl. XI, q. 7.) It seems that any non-ordained person can confirm another. For the efficacy of the sacraments is from the power of the words. But even someone who is not ordained can utter the words that are the form of this sacrament. Therefore, someone who has not been ordained can confirm.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, everything is able to act according to the form that it has: for anything acts according as it is in act. But someone who has not been ordained can have the character of confirmation. Therefore, he can confirm.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the greater the necessity of a certain sacrament, the more discernment and attention are needed to administer it. But baptism is the sacrament of necessity. Therefore, since what requires greater discernment should be entrusted to greater persons, it seems that since a non-baptized person can baptize, he can also confirm.

On the contrary (1), Hugh of St. Victor says, that the administration of the Church consists in the orders of its ministers and in the sacraments. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 2, ch. 5 (PL 176:418).) Therefore, just as someone cannot be confirmed without the sacrament, so neither without holy orders in the one confirming.

Furthermore (2), the anointing of confirmation is nobler than that of extreme unction. But that anointing cannot be done except by an ordained minister, as is evident from James 5:14. Therefore, neither can confirmation.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a simple priest, even if he is not a bishop, can confirm. For baptism in a certain respect has greater efficacy than confirmation. But a priest can baptize by his office. Therefore, he can also confirm.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as the sacrament of confirmation pertains to perfection, so does the Eucharist, according to Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 2 (PG 3:503).) But the priest is the proper minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Therefore, he can confirm.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, holy orders and intention are required on the part of the someone conferring the sacraments. But a bishop does not have any order or character that a simple priest does not have. Therefore, since a bishop can confirm, a priest can also, if he has the intention of confirming.

On the contrary (1), only bishops are the successors of the apostles. But in the early Church only the apostles imposed their hands on the faithful, which was to confirm. Therefore, only the bishops can confirm nowadays.

Furthermore (2), in the order of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, according to Dionysius, only bishops are perfecters. (Ibid., n. 5 (PG 3:506).) But according to him, as someone is purified by exorcism and illuminated by baptism, so he is perfected by confirmation. Therefore, only bishops can confirm.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that a simple priest cannot confirm by the commission of the Pope. For what pertains to priests is related to priests in just the same way that what pertains to bishops is related to a bishop. But even by the Pope’s commission, someone who is not a priest cannot consecrate the Eucharist, because that belongs to priests. Therefore in the same way, no one who is not a bishop can confirm by the Pope’s commission, because that belongs to bishops.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, to confer priestly ordination belongs to a bishop, just like confirmation. But no one who is not a bishop could ordain anyone a priest by the Pope’s command. Therefore, neither by the Pope’s command could anyone who is not a bishop provide the sacrament of confirmation.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, if someone who can baptize by another’s command or commission, should baptize without commission someone who is not subject to him outside of the case of necessity, then the person would be baptized, although he would have sinned. But if a priest without anyone’s commission confirmed someone, that person would not be confirmed. Therefore, he cannot confirm by the commission of the Pope.

On the contrary (1), in the text it says that Pope Gregory allowed that in certain cases simple priests could confirm.

Furthermore (2), it is a greater thing to confer holy orders than confirmation. But by the Pope’s mandate, certain people who are not bishops confer certain orders; for example, cardinal presbyters, who confer minor orders. Therefore much more can some simple priest confirm by the Pope’s mandate.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that the proper ministers of the sacraments are the ministers of the Church consecrated by the sacrament of holy orders, as they are intermediaries between God and the people, handing over divine things to the people; and so it belongs to them alone to administer the sacraments by their office, nor can they be conferred by anyone else, except baptism in an emergency. Hence since confirmation is not a sacrament of necessity, it can only be conferred by ordained ministers.

Reply Obj. 1: The sacrament’s efficacy comes not only from the words pronounced, but also from the due matter and the appropriate person. And so if there is a lack in the person of the minister, words uttered by someone else cannot supply the sacrament with efficacy.

Reply Obj. 2: The personal perfection of any given person has nothing to do with the conferral of the sacraments, which is evident from the fact that the sacraments are conferred by good ministers and by bad ones. But it is required that he have a perfection insofar as he is a minister of the Church, just as in natural things an active quality is required for a form to transfer itself into another matter by its own likeness. And thus, since by the sacrament of confirmation no one is made a minister of the Church, although he attains a certain natural perfection, for this reason it is not necessary that someone confirmed should be able to confirm.

Reply Obj. 3: All the sacraments need equal intention. But the ones that are conferred on everyone do not need discernment, by which one person would be rejected and another admitted: for no one should be excluded from the sacraments of necessity; and for this reason it is committed to any priest whatsoever to confer these sacraments, but not those in which someone is advanced to a state of perfection.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, I answer that in all arts and ordered powers, or habits, it is the case that the last perfection is reserved to be instilled by the highest art in that genus; for example, those skills that work with the material of ships defer induction of the form to the higher art, which builds the ship; and that art defers the further end, which is the use of the ship, to an even higher skill, navigation. Therefore, since the bishops in the ecclesiastical hierarchy hold the highest place, whatever is last in hierarchical actions is reserved to them. And since perfecting someone in such a way that he is above the common state of others is supreme among hierarchical actions, for this reason the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders, in which this is done, are reserved to be dispensed by bishops alone.

Reply Obj. 1: Baptism, since it is a sacrament of necessity, applies commonly to all; and therefore no one is set above the common state by it, as happens by confirmation, as has already been said.

Reply Obj. 2: The Eucharist, like confirmation and holy orders, is a perfecting sacrament; but it differs from the others in this, that in holy orders and confirmation the reality-and-sacrament is something acquired in the recipient, and so these sacraments advance the recipient to a certain perfection beyond the common state of the faithful. But the Eucharist contains its reality-and-sacrament in itself, not in the recipient; and so by the consumption of the Eucharist a person does not acquire a perfection beyond the common state, since no character is imprinted. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.) But it does perfect each person in his own state, and therefore also according to Dionysius the reception of the Eucharist is joined with every sacrament, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 3, p. 1 (PG 3:424).) and so it is not the same with the Eucharist as with others.

Reply Obj. 3: Although the bishop does not have an order above a priest according to the distinction of acts related to the body of the Lord, nevertheless, he does have a certain order above a priest according to the distinction of acts concerning the Mystical Body. This is why Dionysius, in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, includes the order of bishops; (Pseudo-Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. 5, p. 1, n. 5 (PG 3:506).) this is also why the episcopal dignity is conferred with a certain consecration; and so in the advancement of members of the Mystical Body something can apply to a bishop that does not apply to a simple priest.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that concerning this there are many opinions. For certain people say that a simple priest cannot confirm by the command of the Pope, and concerning what is said about Gregory writing to Januarius, they explain that those priests were not conferring the sacrament of confirmation by the command of the Pope, but some sacramental resembling that sacrament, just as blessed bread is offered to someone in place of the Eucharist. But it does not seem appropriate that Gregory would have introduced such a pretense in the administering of the sacraments, or that he would have allowed it, for administering the sacraments pertains to the truth of doctrine, which is not to be omitted because of scandal.

And therefore others say that the Pope’s authority is such that by his command anyone can confer anything he himself has, so that someone confirmed could confirm, a priest could confer the priesthood, and a deacon the diaconate; however, no one could confer by his command something that he himself did not have, so a deacon could not confer priestly orders.

But this opinion seems too broad; and for this reason a middle way is to be held, according to some others. And therefore it should be known that since the episcopate does not add anything above the priesthood in relation to the true Body of the Lord, but only in relation to the mystical body, the Pope, by the fact that he is the highest of bishops, is not said to have fullness of power by relation to the true Body of the Lord, but in relation to the Mystical Body. And since sacramental grace comes down to the Mystical Body from the head, for this reason any sacramental operation in the Mystical Body by which grace is given depends on the sacramental operation upon the true Body of the Lord. And therefore only a priest can absolve in the penitential forum, and baptize by his office.

And so it should be said that to advance people to those perfections that do not regard the true Body of the Lord, but only the Mystical Body, can be granted by the Pope, who has the fullness of pontifical power, to a priest, who has the highest act upon the true Body of the Lord; however, it cannot be given to a deacon or to anyone below him, who does not have the ability to consecrate the true Body, nor to absolve in the penitential forum. But it cannot be granted to a simple priest to bring someone to the perfection that has anything to do with the true Body of the Lord, and therefore a simple priest cannot confer the order of priesthood by the Pope’s command: for the sacred orders have act upon the true Body of the Lord, or upon its matter. However, he can grant to a simple priest that he confer minor orders, since those have no act upon the true Body of the Lord, or its matter, nor even upon the Mystical Body do they have the act by which grace is conferred; but by their office they have certain secondary and preparatory acts. And in the same way he can grant to a certain priest that he may confirm: for confirmation perfects one in the act of the Mystical Body, but it does not have any relation to the true Body of the Lord.

And by this the answers to the objections can be easily seen.

Article 2

Who should receive confirmation

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the second we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III, q. 39, a. 1.) It seems that Christ should have received the sacrament of confirmation. For the sacrament of confirmation confers greater fullness of grace than baptism. But Christ desired to be baptized, so that by the touch of his most pure flesh he might supply efficacy to baptism. Therefore, in the same way he should have received confirmation.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, confirmation is given to allow a man to stand firmly in the confession of the truth even unto death. But Christ gave the example to all of dying for the truth. Therefore, he should especially have received this sacrament.

On the contrary, what is weak needs to be strengthened. But there was no spiritual weakness in Christ. Therefore, neither should he have been confirmed.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that this sacrament should not be conferred on children. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 8, corp. and ad 2.) For this sacrament advances one above the common state, just like the sacrament of holy orders. But that sacrament is not conferred on children. Therefore, neither should this one be.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is given for confessing the faith and for fighting for it. But this does not apply to children. Therefore, they should not receive this sacrament.

On the contrary, baptismal grace is an immediate disposition to the grace of confirmation. But baptism is conferred on children. Therefore, confirmation should be given to children.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that it should not be given to all adults. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 8.) For whatever is given to all does not exceed the common state. But confirmation places one above the common state, as was said. Therefore, it should not be given to all.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, this sacrament is for fortifying in the spiritual fight. But to fight is not for women because of the weakness of their sex. Therefore, this sacrament does not apply to them.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, confirmation is the sacrament of confessing. But those who are mute cannot confess. Therefore, this sacrament should not be given to them.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, those who are dying are taken away from the fight of this life. But confirmation is given to fortify one in the fight of this life. Therefore, it should not be given to the dying.

On the contrary (1), Hugh of St. Victor says, that it would be extremely dangerous if someone happened to depart this life without confirmation. (Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis fidei, Bk. 2, pt. 7, ch. 3 (PL 176:460).) Therefore, this sacrament is to be given to all.

Furthermore (2), the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit is given in this sacrament to fortify one. But this is necessary for everyone. Therefore, it is also appropriate to give the sacrament of confirmation to everyone.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that to receive baptism is commanded since it is the sacrament of necessity, and that is why the Lord wanted to be baptized, even though he received nothing in baptism, but rather he established that the form of obedience to all commands would be provided by him; and for this reason he said when he came to baptism: it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15). For righteousness consists in obedience to the law, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 5. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 5, ch. 2, 1129a33.) But the sacrament of confirmation is not of necessity, but it is received for the sake of a certain benefit that follows from it. And so since the Lord did not gain anything from the sacraments, he did not have to receive the sacrament of confirmation, just as neither the sacrament of holy orders: for the power of excellence in the sacraments and the fullness of the Holy Spirit were in him from his conception, and this is why it was not necessary except to make known what there was in him; which happened by the coming of the dove upon him.

And by this the answers to the objections are evident.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that the perfection that is conferred in holy orders differs from that of confirmation in this: the perfection of holy orders is for administering something, but the perfection of confirmation is for standing bravely in oneself. But for the ministry of a thing to be given to someone, a certain worthiness is required pre-existing in the one who gets to distribute it, because of the risk of danger if it is badly administered; and for this reason the perfection of holy orders is not conferred on children. But a perfection by which a person is perfected in himself does not require any other pre-existing perfection, but he is rendered worthy by this very perfection itself. Nor can there be any risk of danger from this, and so confirmation can be given to a child and it is fitting that it be given: for someone in infancy cannot pretend falsely, which would impede the effect of this sacrament. And so although at that time confessing and fighting do not apply to the child, nevertheless it is certain that he receives the effect of the sacrament fully, by which he will be made worthy of fighting and confessing once he is mature, unless by sin he loses the grace he received.

And by this the answers to the objections are evident.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that just as was said, in the conferral of confirmation, no prerequisite perfecting is required, but a person is perfected in himself by it, so that he is worthy of the spiritual fight. And since it is good and fitting for anyone to have fortitude in the spiritual battle, for this reason no one should be excluded from this sacrament who is baptized.

Reply Obj. 1: It does not place someone above the common state in the administering of any sacrament, but in the confessing of the sacraments; and this perfection or excellence befits all members of the Church through the conferral of this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 2: Even some women have won a glorious triumph from the enemy in the spiritual battle, as is seen in the case of blessed Agnes and blessed Cecilia and others. Therefore, women are not to be excluded from this sacrament.

Reply Obj. 3: Although those who are mute cannot confess with their mouths, they can confess with nods, and they can have the will and the aim of confessing; and so this sacrament should not be denied them.

Reply Obj. 4: Although the dying are being withdrawn from the fight, nevertheless they are going to the place of the reward, in which the measure of glory will be given according to the measure of grace; and therefore they need the fullness of grace, which perfects in a fight, for the sake of the end resulting from the fight.

Article 3

The rite and mode of receiving confirmation

Quaestiuncula 1

Obj. 1: To the third we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III, q. 72, a. 9; a. 11, ad 3; SCG IV, ch. 60; Quodl. VI, q. 7; Super Rom., ch. 1, lec. 5 and ch. 10, lec. 2.) It seems that it is not required that someone hold a person for confirmation. For anyone who has an immediate relation to the prince, like free men, it is not fitting that he appear in the sight of the prince by intermediaries, the way that servants act as emissaries to their lords and sons of the family act as emissaries to their fathers. But a confirmand already has an immediate relation to the Prince of the Church, since he is a member of the Church by baptism. Therefore, although a person to be baptized should be presented by another, nevertheless the confirmand should in no way be held by another for his confirmation, especially if he is an adult.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, fortitude applies less to women than to men: who will find a strong woman? (Prov 31:10) But confirmation is a sacrament of fortitude, for the Holy Spirit is given in it to fortify us. Therefore, at least a woman should not hold a man for confirmation.

On the contrary, it seems also that someone not confirmed could hold someone for confirmation. For it is a greater thing to confer a sacrament than to hold someone receiving a sacrament. But a someone unconfirmed can confer baptism. Therefore, much more can he hold someone in his confirmation.

Quaestiuncula 2

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the anointing with chrism should not only be done on the forehead. For the crown of the head is a nobler part of the body than the forehead, because the organ of thought is there, while at the forehead is the organ of imagination. But a priest, who is lower than a bishop, anoints the baptized with chrism on the crown. Therefore, the bishop should not anoint the confirmand with chrism on the forehead.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, confirmation is the sacrament of confessing the faith. But confession is made with the mouth. Therefore, the anointing of confirmation should rather be done on the mouth.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the forehead is a place that is bare and exposed. But this collects dirt easily. Therefore, since chrism should be preserved from all impurity, it seems that it is not fitting to make the anointing on the forehead.

On the contrary (1), the Holy Spirit is given to fortify in confirmation. But fortification is symbolized by the forehead: behold he has made . . . your forehead harder than their foreheads (Ezek 3:8). Therefore, the anointing of confirmation should be done on the forehead.

Furthermore (2), the angel says: until we have marked the servants of the living God with a sign on their foreheads (Rev 7:3). But the bishops are said to be angels, as is clear from Revelation 3. Therefore, it belongs to them to mark the sign on the forehead.

Quaestiuncula 3

Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that confirmation can be received again. (Parallel: ST III, q. 72, a. 5.) For just as confirmation is given to fortify one in the faith, so the Eucharist is given to fortify one in charity. But the Eucharist is received over and over. Therefore, so can confirmation be.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, if someone gets sick over and over, the medicine should be given over and over. But the sickness that this sacrament is against, spiritual weakness, can happen over and over. Therefore, this sacrament should also be given over and over.

On the contrary, just as a character is imprinted in baptism, so it is also imprinted in confirmation. But baptism is not received again. Therefore, neither should confirmation be.

Response to Quaestiuncula 1

To the first question, I answer that in the sacrament of confirmation the Holy Spirit is given to fortify. Therefore, someone approaches confirmation because of the fact that he presumes he does not have the strength of standing, and so it was established that he would be held by another, to symbolize that he cannot stand on his own.

Reply Obj. 1: The person who is the mediator in this sacrament does not have the office of representing him as though he were an outsider, as is the case in baptism, nor of receiving him as though to instruct him, but only of holding him as though he were weak.

Reply Obj. 2: Spiritual fortitude is through Christ, in whom there is no male or female (Gal 3:28); and so it makes no difference whether a man holds a woman or a woman holds a man; although certain people say the opposite, namely that a woman cannot hold a man.

Response to Quaestiuncula 2

To the second question, it should be said that a man can be prevented from a free and open confession of Christ’s name by two things: namely, the fear of death, and shame, which is the fear of disgrace. But the sign of either one is particularly manifest in the face, for people turn pale when they are afraid, and red when they are ashamed, as it says in the Ethics 4; (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. 4, ch. 15, 1128b13–14.) and particularly in the forehead, which is the most open part and closest to the imagination, from which the passions mentioned come forth; and therefore since confirmation is given for the free confession of Christ’s name, it is fitting that those confirmed are anointed on the forehead.

Reply Obj. 1: The anointing that is given on the crown of the head by the priest represents the dignity of king and priest in the newly baptized, for he begins to be of the number of those to whom it is said: you are a holy people, a royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9); and therefore it is done on the crown to represent the eminence of the dignity conferred. But the anointing of confirmation is given for bravely defending the dignity received, which is greater; and so it should be given on a more public place.

Reply Obj. 2: This sacrament is not given for confessing simply, but for freedom of confession, and so it should be given where those passions appear that can impede free confession.

Reply Obj. 3: There is no danger of collecting dirt; for the forehead of the confirmed person is tied until the place is dry; (According to a long-standing custom, a white cloth or ribbon was tied around the forehead immediately after the anointing, out of reverence for the sanctity of the chrism, which is a holy object consecrated by the bishop. Although instructions to this effect remained in liturgical books well into the twentieth century, it became common by the nineteenth century for an assistant to wipe the chrism off with a cloth immediately after the anointing and to dispose of the cloth as any holy object would be disposed of.) and afterward also, according to Hugh, there should be a certain instruction in protecting the chrism, so that one does not wash his head for seven days, on account of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as also the Church celebrates for seven days the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles.

Response to Quaestiuncula 3

To the third question, it should be said that a sacrament that has an effect that endures forever cannot be received again without injury to the sacrament; and because a character is imprinted in confirmation that is indelible, for that reason it should not be received again.

Reply Obj. 1: The Eucharist does not imprint a character; nor is its reality-and-sacrament any form received in the one receiving the sacrament, as it is in confirmation; and so the account is not the same. (For more about the sacrament alone, reality alone, and sacrament-and-reality, see the footnote at Dist.1, q.1, a.4, qa. 1, main response.)

Reply Obj. 2: Confirmation is given against the weakness that is specifically contracted by original sin; and that is why it does not return, although the weakness that comes from actual sin may return.

Exposition of the Text

The giving of the Holy Spirit for strengthening. (Sent. IV, 7.3 (45), 1.) Against this: Bread strengthens the heart of men (Ps 103:15). Therefore, this pertains more to the Eucharist than to confirmation. And it should be said that by the Eucharist charity is strengthened, but by this sacrament, faith is: for in these two virtues all the strength of the spiritual edifice consists. Or it could be said that charity perfects and strengthens for standing on one’s own in the manner of food, but confirmation by supplying boldness for the fight that someone must undergo against others in the confession of Christ’s name against adversaries.

This sacrament ought to be conferred and received by people who are fasting. (Sent. IV, 7.4 (46), 2.) Because of the eminence of the Holy Spirit, who, with his fullness, is given in this sacrament for strengthening.