Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Confirmation
Chapter 10: On the Form of Confirmation; and On Its Effect
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Confirmationis, the second general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Chapter 10. On the Form of the Sacrament of Confirmation
The form of this sacrament is these words: “I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Nor can it be doubted that this is a fitting form, since it openly explains both the principal cause, which is the Holy Trinity, and the ministerial cause, which is he who utters the words, and lastly the effect of the sacrament, which is to make one a soldier of Christ by marking him with the cross, and to strengthen and arm him by confirming him with chrism. And this form is had in express words in the Council of Florence, in the Roman Pontifical, and in St. Thomas, part 3, question 72, article 4.
Among the older authors all these words are not had, and in this order; yet the same sense is had, and this suffices. For the force of the sacramental form is placed in the sense, not in the sound or the number of the letters; otherwise, if someone uttered these words in Greek or Hebrew or another tongue, he would effect nothing. The Roman Order, then, which is a most ancient book, since it is cited by Alcuin and Amalarius, who lived eight hundred years ago, describing the rite of Confirmation in the office of Holy Saturday, says that the bishop pronounces these words by way of prayer: “Sign them, Lord, with the sign of the cross”; and then, when he touches the forehead with his thumb, says: “I confirm thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Where we see plainly the same sense of the words. Nor does it matter that there it is said, “Sign him,” and we say, “I sign thee”; for we always signify that it is God who signs principally, and the man who signs ministerially; hence also the form of the Greeks which they use in Baptism, “The servant of Christ is baptized,” is held lawful by all, even if we say it in another way. And that “with the chrism of salvation” is not had in the Roman Order does not seem to matter much: for it is included in the word “I confirm,” and the action itself shows well enough that he is confirmed with chrism; as it would be the same if one said, “I baptize thee,” or, “I baptize thee with water.” Wherefore that phrase does not seem essential, although it ought not to be omitted, because the Church prescribes that it be said; as in the form of Baptism, “I baptize thee,” and so on, that “I” is not of the essence; and in the form of the Eucharist, “For this is my body,” that “for”; and in the form of the chalice, “the mystery of faith,” and certain other things are not of the essence.
From which we understand two things. First, that Alcuin, in the book On the Divine Offices, the chapter on Holy Saturday, where he says that the pontiff at Rome, when he confirms, used to anoint the forehead and say, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” did not relate the whole form but only a part; for he cites the Roman Order, in which more is expressly had, as I have already said. Second, we understand that those are mistaken who think that Ambrose set down the form of Confirmation when he says, “You came to the priest; what did he say to you? God the Father almighty, who has regenerated you by water and the Holy Spirit, and has forgiven you your sins, himself anoint you unto eternal life,” book 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 7. For these words which Ambrose sets down are said in the Roman Order by the presbyter when he anoints the crown of the head of the baptized; after which ceremony there follows afterwards the bishop's Confirmation. Hence too Amalarius, book 1 On the Church's Offices, chapter 27, says that these are the words of the presbyter, who uses only a form of prayer. For the bishop not only by way of prayer, but also from the power which he received from God, says, “I confirm thee.” Further, of the Fathers Ambrose mentions this form openly enough, when he says in the book On Those Who Are Initiated into the Mysteries, chapter 7: “Keep what you received: God the Father has sealed you, Christ the Lord has confirmed you.” Nor is it any wonder that he left some things out: for in that place he was not relating the form itself, but only calling back to the memory of the confirmed the rite by which they had been confirmed; and for that it was enough if he recalled the chief words.
Nor ought it to seem a wonder if the Fathers do not set down this form expressly; for neither do they describe the forms of the other sacraments, both because the things were known to all Christians through daily use, and also lest they should betray such mysteries without necessity to the Gentiles, who saw our books. And so there is almost none of the ancients who wrote in express words that the form of Baptism is, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; they only say that Baptism is given with the invocation of the Trinity. Nay, Dionysius, in the last chapter of the Church Hierarchy, says that it is not lawful to commit to writing the words which the Church uses in the administration of the sacraments. And Innocent I, in letter 1, chapter 3, speaking of Confirmation: “The words,” he says, “I cannot say, lest I seem rather to betray than to answer the question put to me.” Lastly the Master of the Sentences himself too, book 4, distinction 7, would not set down the words of the form of this sacrament; he says only that the form is manifest, namely the words which bishops everywhere use when they administer this sacrament.
But let us see the objections of the heretics. The first objection is Calvin's, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 19, section 5, where, after he had recited that form, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross,” and so on: “Finely,” he says, “and prettily; but where is the word of God?” I answer: the custom of the whole Catholic Church testifies enough to the word of God not written but handed down. For neither are the forms of the other sacraments expressly had in the Scriptures: for it is nowhere written that in Baptism one must say, “I baptize thee.” And besides, Calvin admits that the ordination of ministers is a sacrament, in the same chapter 19 of book 4 of the Institutes, section 31; and yet he will nowhere find a word in Scripture which with the element makes a sacrament, as he demands for Confirmation. I add besides that we have the word in general in Acts 8, where the apostles are said to have prayed when they laid on hands. For the forms of the sacraments are everywhere called by the Fathers mystical prayers, although they are sometimes uttered by a verb in the indicative: for the principal working in the sacraments is always expected and asked from God. Lastly, in 2 Corinthians 1, Paul, alluding to the form of this sacrament, expressed the chief words when he said, “He that confirmeth us is God, and who hath sealed us,” and so on.
The second objection, section 7: “Whence,” he says, “do they call it the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil?” And below: “This I pronounce boldly, not from myself but from the Lord: those who call oil the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny Christ, have no part in the kingdom of God. Oil for the belly and the belly for oil; the Lord will destroy both.” I answer: This whole argument rests on Calvin's authority. For he did not bring forward the word of God, although he lies that he speaks in God's name, where it is said that those abjure the salvation which is in Christ who call the oil of Confirmation the oil of salvation. And indeed, if we sought salvation in oil without Christ, Calvin would be saying something; but since we make oil only an instrument for applying the grace of Christ, it is a wonder from where Calvin could suspect that he denies Christ who calls oil the oil of salvation. Add that phrases of this kind are most frequent in the Scriptures, as 4 Kings 13, the arrow of salvation; 2 Corinthians 6, the day of salvation; Acts 13, the word of salvation; Luke 1, the knowledge of salvation. Add also that Calvin's argument avails no less against the water of Baptism and the bread of the Eucharist than against the oil of Confirmation: for that too is called the laver of regeneration and renovation, Titus 3, and the bread of the Eucharist is called the bread of life, John 6. Calvin answers in the same place that in the sacraments two things are to be regarded: the nature of the elements, and that it is corruptible and cannot bring salvation; and the spiritual power impressed by the word of God, and that by reason of it the water in Baptism, and the bread and wine in the Eucharist, bring salvation. But why, I ask, can we not say the same of oil?
The third objection is Chemnitz's, in part 2 of the Examination, page 288: the form of this sacrament, “I sign thee with the sign of the cross,” and so on, is not had in the ancient writers, nor in the canons themselves, and so on. I answer: I have already given the cause of this.
The fourth objection, in the same place. In the pontificals themselves the form is not the same. For Gabriel relates that some say, in place of “with the chrism of salvation,” “with the chrism of sanctification”; and Gerson has the form, “I strengthen thee with the sign of the cross and with the chrism of salvation.” I answer: all these come to the same as our form; for the sense is always the same, whether you say “of salvation” or “of sanctification,” whether “I confirm” or “I strengthen,” and so on. For although one ought to use the prescribed words and change nothing, and those who do otherwise sin, yet (as we have often said) so long as the same sense remains, the sacrament is always made; and it can easily be that in various churches there is some variety in the words, provided the meaning remains the same, as is plain too in the form of Baptism of the Latins and the Greeks.
Chapter 11. On the Effect of This Sacrament
The effect of this sacrament is twofold. One, that it confers sanctifying grace, and indeed greater than Baptism itself in the order of strengthening the soul against the assaults of the devil; but less in the order of the remission of sin, because it does not forgive all punishment, as the grace of Baptism does. Nor is there need to bring anything in here, since this has been proved abundantly enough above in the first controversy: for from this we proved that Confirmation is a sacrament properly so called, because the Scriptures and all the Fathers affirm that through this ceremony a most abundant grace is given, and indeed the Holy Spirit himself.
The other effect is the character, by which we are enrolled in the warfare of Christ, as through Baptism into the household of Christ. And this character of Confirmation is proved in the same way as the character of Baptism, from this, that Confirmation cannot be repeated. For we showed above that no sufficient reason can be given why certain sacraments are unrepeatable except the character; wherefore the character is evidently shown also from the effect, when we show that some sacrament is unrepeatable.
And that Confirmation is unrepeatable is proved, first, expressly from the Apostle, Hebrews 6: “Not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands,” and so on; where, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and others testify, the Apostle by the imposition of hands understands Confirmation, which used to be given straight after Baptism; and teaches that it is not lawful for one who falls after Baptism and Confirmation to return again to Baptism and Confirmation; for these are foundations which are not laid except once. Second, the same is plain from the Eighth Council of Toledo, canon 7, where it is openly said that chrism once conferred cannot be repeated, as neither can sacred Order. Likewise from the Council of Tarragona, and from the decree of Gregory II, in Gratian, distinction 5 on consecration, the canon Dictum est and the canon De homine; to which add the Council of Florence in the instruction of the Armenians, and that of Trent, session 7, canon 9. Third, the same is plain from the Fathers. For Cyprian, or whoever was the author, in the sermon on the washing of the feet: “The rules of the Church,” he says, “forbid Baptism to be repeated; no one renews sacred Orders once given; no one anoints again or consecrates one once smeared with the sacred oil; no one sets aside the laying on of hands or the ministry of the priests; because it would be an insult to the Holy Spirit if what he sanctifies could be made void, or if another's sanctification amended what he once established and confirms.” Augustine, book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 104 (as we noted above), openly teaches that the sacrament of chrism once given remains even in the worst, and is never abolished; from which it manifestly follows that it cannot be repeated. Rabanus teaches similar things, book 1 On the Institution of Clerics, chapter 30; Amalarius, book 1 On the Church's Offices, chapter 27; and other more recent writers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X.
De forma sacramcnti Confirmationis .
Forma hujus sacramenli sunlhaec verba: Signo
ic signo cruds, pJ confirmo le Clinsmale saMis
in nomine Ihilris. o.l Filii ol Spirihis sanrli. INc-
(pic diihilari polcsl, quiii Ii;iiM', sit convcnicns for-
ma, cuin ii|)crl(> cxplic.cl. ct c;iiiss;iiii princip;ilcm,
qnac cst s;incla 'rnnilas. cl cjiuss^im iiiinisUMia-
lcm. (piiic csl illc, ()ni Yinba i|)Sii prolcrl. cl (Umu-
(im^ (>ll'(M'lnm s^KMiniKMili. (|iii osl fiicorc Chrisli
iniliUMn insigniendo ilUim (Miic.c, cl rohorarc, al
(pn; ariiuirc conlirmimdo Chrisiiialc.lliiheUir iiulem
Ikicc form;i discrlis verbis in concilio llorcntino in
pimliliciili ronnno.cl ii])nd s.Tliom. '.\. p;ir.(piacsl.
12. art. i.
.\piui antiquiorcs auclores non habcnlnr hacc
oinniii vcrh;i, cl lioc ordinc, tamcn li;il)Clnr idcm
scnsiis, cl hoc snllicit. Nam vis formae sacramen-
Udis posila est in scnsn, non in sono, aul nuinero
literarum: aliiuini si quis graecc, aul hchraicc, aul
iilio idionuilc ista vcrhii ])rofcrrcl, nihil cfliccrct.
Igitnr ordo roimuuis. (1111 csl aiiliquissinius liber.
cum ab Alcuino el Amalario cilelur, qni fiicruiil
anlc annos 800. in olfuMo sahhaihi siincli dcscri-
bcns rilnin Coiilirnialionis,dicil cpiscopitm pcr nio-
duin oriinlis luicc vcrl);i pronnnciarc: Signa fio.s,
Domine, signo crucis; ac deinde cum tangil polli-
cc fronlcm. dici^rc: Kr/o le confirmo, in nomine
Palris, ei Filii el Spirilus sancli. Uhi vidcmus
plane eundem sensnin vcrborum. Neque rcfert,
qnod ihi diciitur; Signa cum\ el nos dicamns: Si-
ijno le: n;im scmpcr significamns Dcum esse, qni
signal i)rincii);ilitcr. ct liomincm qni signat mini-
sterialiler: unde cliam forma Graecorum. qua ii
Baplismo ntunlnr: liaplizelur servus Chrisli, ccn-
setur ah omnihns lcgilima, ctiain si nos alio modo
diciimns. Quod cliam in ordine romano non habe-
tur {Clirismala salutis) non videtnr mnltnm refcr-
re: nam includilnr in vcrbo {Confirm.o) clsalis o-
stcnditur ips;i aclione. Chrismate illum confirma-
ri; quomodo idcm esset si quis diccrcl, baptizo le,
vcl baplizo tc aqua. Quarc non vidclur illa parli-
cula esscnlialis, licel omitti non dcbeat, qnia Ec-
clesia praescribit. ul dicalnr: qucmadmodum in
forina Baplismi: Ego le baplizo etc. illud {eqo)
non est dc csscntia, el in Uirma Eucharisliac: IIoc
esl cnim corpus meum, illud {enim) el in forma
calicis {muslcrium fidei) et quaedam alia non sunt
de essenlia.
Ex quo duo quaedam intelligimus. Primo Alcui-
nura in lib. de divinis ofnciis, cap. de sabbatho
sancto, ubi dicit, Uomae pontificem, cum confir-
mat, solilum nngcre frontem, el dicere: In nomi-
ne Palris, el Fitii et Spiritus sancti, non int(3-
grnm formam relulisse, sed solum partem: nam ci-
lal ordinem roraanum, in qno expresse habenlur
plura, ut jara dixi. Sccnndo inlelligiraus, falli
(luosdam. qui exislimant Ambrosium posuisse for-
mara Confirmalionis, cnm ait: Venistiad sacerdo-
tem; quid libi dixit?Deus Pater omnipotens. qui
te rejieneravit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, con-
cessiique tibi peccata tua, ipse te ungat in vilam
aetcrnam, iib. 2. de sacrainenlis , cap. 7. Nam
hacc verba, qiiac Ambrosius ponit, in ordine ro-
niano dicunlur a presbylcro, cum linil verticem ba-
plizali: post quam caeremoniam sequitur postea
Confirmalio cpiscopalis. Undc eliam Amalarius lib.
1. de omciis ecclesiaslicis, cap. 27. dicil, ista ver-
LIBEli SKCL.\Dl'S
22\)
ba oss<j prcsbyteri, qui solum forina (kprccatoria
uiilur. Episcopus enim non solmn clt'.i)rcc;itoric ,
sed cliam ex polcslale sc.a, qiiam a Dco acccpil ,
(licil: Ego teconjlrmo. Porro cx Palribus Ainbro-
sius salis aperle hujus formac mcminil, cuni ait
in ]ib. de iis, qui initianl. myslcriis, cap. 7. Serva
qiiod accej)isti:signavit ie Deus Pater, confirma'
vit le Christus Dominus. IXeque est miruin , quod
quaedam omiserit: nam eo loco noii refercbal i-
psam formam, scd lantum revocabat in memoriam
Confirmatorum ipsum ritum.quo fuerant confirma-
li: ad id aulem salis erat si principalia verba coui-
memorarel.
Non debel autem mirum videri.si Palres non ex-
presse ponunt hanc formam: nam neque aliorura
sacramenlorum formas describunt, tuni qiiod res
ossenl omnibus Chrislianis notae ob quotidianum
usum, lum etiam ne genlibus, qni libros noslros
videbanl,prodcrent ejusmodi mysteria sine neces-
sitate. Itaque nullns fere est veterum, qui discrlis
verbis scripserit formam Baplismi esse: Ego te ba-
ptizo, innomine Patris.et Fiiii et Spiritus sancli,
lanlum dicunt Baplisma dari cutn invocalione Tri-
nitatis. Immo Dionysius, cap. olt. hierarchiac ec-
clesiasticae dicil fas non esse lileris mandare ver-
ba, quibus in adminislralione sacramentorum uti-
turEcclesia. Et Innoccnlius I, in episl. i. cap. 3.
de Confirmatione loquens: \erba. inquit . dicere
non 2)0ssum, ne magis prodere videar, quam ad
consultaiionemrespondere. Denique ipse etiam
Hlagister scnlcnt. lib. 4. dist. 7. noluil vcrba for-
mae hujus sacramenti ponere: tantum ait, formam
esse manifeslam, nimirum verba, quibus episcopi
ubique utuntur, cum hoc sacramentum admini-
strant.
Sed objecliones haereticorum videamus.
Prima objectio Calvini esl lib. 4. Inslilul» cap.
19. § 5. ubi poslquam recilaverat formam illam :
Signo le signo crucis etc. Pulchre, r.iquit , et ve-
nuste, sed ubi Dei verbum? Uespondeo: Dei vcr-
bum non scriplum. scd Iradilum, salis leslari mo-
reui universae Ecclesiac catliolicac. Nam ncquc a-
liorum sacramcnlorum forrnae expresse inScriplu-
ris babentur: nusquam enim scriptum est, in Ba-
ptismo diccndum essc: Ego te baptizo. Et praetc-
rea Calvinusfaletur Ordinalionem minislrorum cs-
se sacramcnlum in eodem cap. 10. lib. 4. Institul.
§ 31. et tamen nusquam invcniet verbum in Scri-
ptura, quod cum elcmenlo faciat sacramcntum ,
ul ipse requiritde Confirmatione. Addo practcrca,
nos in genere verbum liabcre Act. 8. ubi dicunlur
opostoli orasse cum manus imponcrent. Nam for-
niae sacramentorum passim a Palribus dicuntur
prcces mysticac, licct interdum profcrantur pcf
verbum indicuntis: nan» sempcr a Dco cxpcctalur,
cl pclitur [iruicipalis opcralio iii saoramcntis. I)c-
niquc 2. Cor. 1. alludcns Paulus ad formani hu-
jus sacramenli. expressit principalia verba, cum
iiil: Qui nos cunlirmat Deus. el signavil elc.
Sccunda objectio, § 7. Unde, inqnil , vocant o-
leum saluiisy qui eos in oieo satiUem qu'icrcrc
llLLLiUJII.M \(jl. III.
docuif? Et iiifra: IIoc vero non a me, sed a Domi-
no. audacter pronuncio,qiii oleumvocant oleum
salutis. salulem, quaein Chrisio est, abjurant .
ChristJim abnegant, parteni in regno Dei non
habent. Oleum ventri , ct venter oleo: utrumquc
Dominus deslruet. Rcspondeo: Totum hoc argu-
menlum nili Calvini auctoriiale. Nam verbum Dc-
non protuhl.quamvis sc cx Dci nomine loqui rncnf
tialur, ubi dicalur salnlcm . qiiac cst in Chrislo ,
abjurare. qui oleum Confirmationis vocant olcuin
saiutis. Et quidem si iu olco sine Chrislo salutcm
quaercrcmus aliquid Calvinus diccret, scd ciim o-
leum faciamus instrumcnlum dumlaxat appiicandac,
praliae Chrisli: mirum est undc suspicari polucril,
Calvinus, Chrislum negarcqui oleura vocatolcum
salutis. Adde,quod ejusmodi phrases sunl in Scri-
pturis frcquenlissimae, ul 4. Kcg. 13. sagitla saln-
tis, 2. Cor, G. dies sahjlis, Aclor. 13. verbum sa-
lutis, Luc. 1. scientia salulis. Adde etiam, quod
Calvi argumenlum non minus valct conlra aquam
Baplismi.ctpancin Eucharistiae,quamconlraoIeuiii
Confirmationis:nain etilla dicilur lavacruin regene-
rationis,ctrcnovalionis,Tit.3. etpanis Eucharistiac
dicilur panis vilac.Joan.O.Uespondcl ibidem Calvi-
nusin sacramenlisduo speclanda esse,naluram elc-
mentorum,et eam csse corruptibilem,et salulem ad-
ferre non posse; et vim spiritalem a verbo Dei iiu-
pressam, et ratione illius aquam in Baptismo, cl
panem ac vinum in Eucharislia salutem adferre.
At cur, quaeso, non idem nos de oleo dicere pos-
sumus ?
Terlia objectio est Remnitii in 2. part. Exami-
nls, pag. 288. forma hujus sacramenti: Signo te
signo crucis etc. non habctur in velustis scriplo-
ribus, nec in ipsis canonibus elc. Kespondeo: Jaiii
rcddidi caussam bujus rel.
Quarta objcctio ibidem. In ipsis ponlificalibus
non est eadcm forma. NamGabriel recilat quosdam
pro Chrismaic saluiis, (Wcevc: Chrisma sanciificn ■
tionis; cl Gerson babet formam: Firmo te signo
crucis, et Chrismatc salutis. Rcspondco: Isla o-
mnia in idem coincidcre cum nostra forma: seiii-
per enim est idem scnsus, sive dicas Saluiis,s\\c
sanciificationis, sive confirmo . sive iirmo etc.
quamvis enim oportcal pracscriptis verbis nti. cl
nihil mutare, et qui secus faciunt, pccccnl, lamen
(ut saepe diximus) dum idem sensus manct. scm-
pcr sacramenlum conficitur: ct potcsl lacilc (icri ,
ul in variisEcclcsiis sit aliqua varietas in vocihus,
modo rnaneat sentcntia eadem: ut etiam palct iii
forma Baptisnii Latinorum et Graccoruu).
C.VMlt XI.
De elfectu kujus sacramenii.
Duplex cslsacramenli hujus encclus. Unus,quod
graliam confcrt graluin facientcin, cl (}uidcm ma-
jorcm, quam ipsc Baplismus, in ordine ad robo-
Vandam animam contra diaboli impcius: scd mino-
rcm in ordinc ud rcmissioncm pcccati , quia nou
30
230
iti; s,vi:mMi:.NT() coNKiiiMArioMS
rouiillil loliiin potMi;iin. iil fiicil gniliii Uiiplisnii.
INeiine esl opus liic aliciuid inlilcre , ciim id siilis
ropinsc |>rol»;ihiin sil siiprii iii prim;i Coiiintvcrsiii:
imlc cniin prolKiMimis. Cuiiliiin;ilioncm csso sii-
(•riimciilum proprie ilicUiin, (lui.i Scriptur;ie. ol Pii-
Ires oinnes iinirin;iul dari per liauc caercmoni;iin
copiosissimam j:r;ili;im.al(pie iuleo ipsum SpinUim
saiicUiin.
Aller cflerlus esl cliaracler . i|uo adscribimur in
(llinsti inilili;im. siciit |)cr Hjptisimiin iii Christi
liiiniiiani. lMul);itur aiili in isti; cliiiractcr Coiilinii;i-
lionis. co inodo, quo cli;iracler l!;iptismi , e\ eo,
qnod iion polesl rcpeli Conlirmalio. >ain siipr;i o-
sleiidiimis. ralioncin . cur sacr.iinonl;i (]ti;ictl;im
sml iiiitcr;il)ili;i. iiiilhim possc, rcdiii siillicicnlcm .
praeter cliaraclerem : quocirc;i cliain ;il) elTcclu
demon>lr;iliir cvidcnlcr cli;iractcr , ciim oslendi-
nius iiliipiod siicriimcntimi essi^ iniler;il)ilc.
Esse aiilein iiiilcr;il)ilem Conlirmationcm. 1'rimo
expresse prob^ilur ex .\poslolo Wcbr. (i.^onilerum
jncionlc^ l'und(i)ncnlum pocnilcntiao ah opcrihus
inorluis.cl lidci ad Iknun.haplismatuni doclriiiac
imposilionis quoquc manuum e/c.uhi lcsle Cliry-
sostomo. Tlieodorulo, Tlieopliylacto cl aliis. Apo-
stolus pcr imposiliouem manuum inlelligil Coiilir-
mationem, (pi;ie diibiitnr stiilim posl Baplismum :
ae doccl non licere ei, qui lahiUirposl Baplismum
ot Conrirmalioiiem. ilcrmn n'dirc ad Baplismum
et ConliniKilioiiem: liiicc eiiiin sunl fundiimenla ,
quae non jaciunlur nisi semel. Secundo idcm pa-
lcl ex concilio loletiino VIII. can. 7. ubi aperle di-
cilur, Clirismii semcl colliitum rcpeli non posse ,
ut iicc sacruin Oidincm. Item ex conciiio tarra-
conensi.el ex decrelo Gregorii ll.apud Gratianum,
dislinct. ;i. de Consecralione. can. Diciiim cst , et
can. De hominc: quihus adtle concilium florenli-
num in inslrucl. Armcnor., et Iriderilinum scss.
i.can.y.Tertio idcin |)iitel cx Palrihus.Nam Cypria-
nus.scu quicuiiKpie liiil auclor.in sermoneel abso-
lulionc podum: liaptismum.mquil.rcpeli ccclesia-
slicac prohibcnl rcijulnc.-nemo sacros Ordines sc-
mcl datnsilcrum rcnovat: ncmo sacro oleo lita
ilcrum iinit.aul consevrat: ncmo imposilioni ma-
nuum, vcl minislerio derogal saccrdolum : quia
Conlumelia csi<el Spirilus sancli. si c\)acuari pos-
mU. quod illc sanctilical. velalicna sanclificatio
cmcndnrct, quod illc semcl slaluit, cl coafirmat.
Auguslinus lib. 2.contra literas ]»eliliani, ciip.I04.
(ul supra notavimiis) aperlc docct , siicnmienlum
Clirisuialis scmel datum, pcrmancre etiam in pes-
simis, ncc unqiiam aholcri: cx quo maniresle se-
quitur repcti non posse.Similia docct Rabaiius lib.
1. de Inslit. clericorum, cap. 30. Amalarius iib. l.
de olTiciis ecclesiaslicis, cap. 7. et alii recenliores.