can never be repeated, for the reason that it confers on the soul what is called character, meaning an ineffaceable mark. With the Holy Eucharist it is a Sacrament of necessity.

In the Holy Eucharist the matter is the bread and wine, and the form, in the Latin and English Churches at least, the words of institution. According to the doctrine of the Eastern Church, however, until a comparatively recent date, the change of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ is effected not by the recitation of the words of institution, but by the Invocation of the Holy Ghost only.* Such, however, is not

"We now come to the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, by which according to the doctrine of the Eastern Church and not by the words of institution, the bread and wine are 'changed,' 'transmuted,' 'transelemented,' 'transubstantiated' into our Lord's Body and Blood. This has always been a point of contention between the two churches-the time at which the change takes place. Originally, there is no doubt that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost formed a part of all liturgies. The Petrine has entirely lost it; the Ephesine (Gallican and Mozarabic) more or less retains it; as do also those mixtures of the Ephesine and Petrine, the Ambrosian and Patriarchine or Aquileian. To use the words of the authorized Russian Catechism: 'Why is this [the Invocation] so

the teaching of the West. The invocation probably never formed a part of the Petrine Liturgy and has disappeared from the canon in the present English use, although it has been restored in the Scottish and American rites.

All are agreed, however, that the consecration or change of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ, is effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit; all sacerdotal power being derived from Him, the difference of opinion being as to whether it is necessary that the prayer to the Holy Ghost to bring about the change should be expressed, or whether it is sufficiently implied in reciting the words of institution.

essential? Because at the moment of this act, the bread and the wine are changed or transubstantiated into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation? In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord; for that none can understand but God; but only this much is signified, that the bread, truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true 'Body of the Lord,' and the wine the very 'Blood of the Lord.'' Translations of the Primitive Liturgies. Neale and Littledale, p. 23, note.

1

Speaking of the Liturgy of the Church of England Canon Luckock says: "We may have a full conviction that the agency of the Holy Spirit is instrumental in producing the Sacramental change, and yet not deem the omission to express this conviction in the office fatal to its validity.'

In the East, "since what is known as 'the Moscow Controversy,' the principle has been accepted that consecration is effected by the combined use of both," so writes the same author.†

The inward and invisible gift is the Body and Blood of Christ.

The outward sign in Confirmation, in the Anglican Communion at least, is the imposition of hands and the words uttered by the Bishop as he lays his hands on the head of each candidate; and the inward grace is the gift of the Holy Ghost which is communicated to the recipients of the rite to confirm and

* The Divine Liturgy, p. 299, 2d ed. + Ibid., p. 298.

i

strengthen them in faith and holy living. Confirmation confers both grace and character. As in Holy Orders the Holy Ghost gives special grace for the work of the ministry, so in Confirmation, grace for the ordinary work of the Christian life is given, in fact it has been described as a sort of ordination of the laity. In the East it still retains the primitive name of the Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In the Greek and in the Roman Church Confirmation is given with Unction, and in the former can be and is administered by Priests using the sacred chrism, or oil and balsam, that has been consecrated by the Bishop. Originally, in the very beginning, it would appear that it was given with the imposition of hands alone, but at a very early date the use of chrism was added, some say in the times of the Apostles themselves.

In the East, Confirmation is still administered immediately after Baptism, and was

not separated from it in the West until the seventh century.

Although the Anglican and the Roman Churches to-day consider the administration of this Sacrament inexpedient until children shall have reached the use of reason, they do not deny that Confirmation would in a spiritual sense edify infants as it did in the days of the Apostles.

It seems strange that there is no mention of Confirmation in the Catechism, but neither does it contain any instruction about the Bible, the Church, the Ministry, and other important and fundamental matters. The explanation is that the Catechism as we have it to-day even is an incomplete composition. It was begun under Edward VI. and was gradually enlarged and improved; the Commandments were inserted in 1552; and the section on the two greater Sacraments was added in 1604 and revised in 1662. And it is for this reason doubtless, that the Church in her Baptismal office instructs the Sponsors