given when the practice of addressing the person by name at Confirmation was already discontinued. Moreover, evidence exists that such changes were from time to time made in a formal manner and with the highest legal sanction. Nevertheless, the canon law only contemplated the change of a name given in Baptism if it was improper or objectionable.Mon. Rit. 1. cclx.-cclxiv, CHAPTER IV THE MINISTER OF CONFIRMATION CONCERNING the Minister of Confirmation our position is likewise secure. In Holy Scripture its administration is evidently reserved to the apostles (Acts viii.). Its restriction to bishops has been the general rule in the West, in spite of permissions given to priests in special cases to confirm. The letters of Gregory the Great (A.D. 593) on which this claim for the Pope to grant such authority is founded 1 are in some respects obscure. But while in a particular case he seems to allow the Eastern usage of presbyters confirming with Chrism consecrated by the bishop, elsewhere he speaks of the bishops going on Confirmation tours 'to seal the newly baptized.'2 A letter attributed, perhaps wrongly, to Pope Innocent I. (A.D. 402-417) is evidence both of the practice and of the teaching 1 As in the Catholic Dictionary. of the Western Church in the writer's day, and is important as witnessing to the custom of priests, anointing the baptized with Chrism consecrated by the bishop, which was a distinct rite from the bishop's anointing on the forehead, probably with the laying on of his hand, for Confirmation and the gift of the Holy Ghost. 'Concerning the sealing of the newly baptized, it is manifest that it is not lawful to be done by any other than the bishop. For presbyters, although they are priests of the second order, yet have not the mitre of the high-priesthood. That this highpriestly office belongs only to the bishops, either to seal or to transmit the Comforter Spirit, is proved not only by Church usage, but also by that passage of the Acts of the Apostles, which asserts that both Peter and John were sent to transmit the Holy Ghost to persons already baptized. For presbyters, whether without the bishop, or in the presence of the bishop, are allowed, when they baptize, to anoint the baptized with the Chrism, but with Chrism which has been consecrated by the bishop; they are not allowed, however, to seal the forehead with that oil; this belongs only to the bishops, when they transmit the Comforter Spirit.'1 1 Ep. xxv. See Mason, p. 181. The general Eastern teaching1 about Confirmation is that its outward part consists of Unction with Chrism consecrated by a bishop. The disuse of Imposition of hands is perhaps connected with the administration of Confirmation by presbyters, the Imposition being regarded as belonging to the apostolic office. As the accompanying ceremony of the anointing, which was performed by the priest, came to be regarded as the more important feature, perhaps in part because its symbolism was more apparent to all, the need of an episcopal ministrant of the rite was lost sight of; but the priests in most cases have not adopted the Imposition of hands. Thus in time both the immediate intervention of the bishop and the scriptural sign were generally dropt in Eastern Confirmations. While it is not laid down that Confirmation is as exclusively the prerogative of the Episcopate as the transmission of the ministry in Ordination, the English Church, following primitive and apostolic rule, allows of no Confirmation save by bishops.2 1 A useful classification of the different Eastern communions was given in The Guardian for 2nd November 1898. 2 This rule obliges us to exclude the Confirmations of German Lutherans, among whom the rite is administered by the ordinary pastor; while at the same time the gift of the Holy Ghost therein is ignored. 'Its principal features are the catechetical exercises, the confession, and the vow, and its purpose a new-kindled devo Apart from the question of essential prerogative, there are obvious advantages in this arrangement, by which each of the faithful is brought into contact, if only on this one occasion, with the chief pastor of the diocese, and his initiation into the Christian society sanctioned and ratified by its representative officer in that district. Everything is valuable which helps to free us from the narrowness of congregational or parochial life, and to emphasise our fellowship in a larger body.1 6 The question of the minister of Confirmation is fully discussed in Bishop Jeremy Taylor's Discourse of Confirmation.2 The bishops,' he says, 'were always and the only ministers of Confirmation. This was the constant practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church, and derived from the practice and tradition of the apostles, and recorded in the Acts written by S. Luke. For this is our great rule in this case, what they did in rituals and consigned to posterity is our example and warranty; we see it done thus, and by these men, and by no others, and no otherwise, and we have no other tion.'-See The Lutheran Manual, by Junius B. Remensnyder, D.D. (3rd edition, 1893), p. 95 and p. 63. 1 In very large dioceses the employment of suffragan bishops may be unavoidable. They will be understood, however, in every ministration to represent their respective diocesans. • Xplois TEXEIWTIKý [' the perfecting unction'], section iv. |