beginning anew a life, which as regards its spiritual aspects, has for some time past been wasted.

The lateness of confirmation is also a reason why of those who have been baptized so few come to confirmation, and also why so few of them who have been confirmed become regular communicants afterwards. The statistics of any diocese, even those presided over by the most active Bishops, will show a remarkable disproportion between the number of baptisms and the number of confirmations, and again between the number of persons confirmed and the number of communicants in each parish. This proves how rarely the concluding exhortation to the sponsors in the Baptismal Office is obeyed, and to how great extent the people have lost the idea of baptism leading up to confirmation, and confirmation to communion, as necessary parts of Christian life. In the higher classes the evil may be less apparent, since confirmation is the custom of society, and the rich do not ordinarily begin life as early as the poor, but even here its results are sometimes seen, especially in the case of naval officers, who, from entering their profession at an early age, have seldom had an opportunity of being confirmed.

Again, the great difficulty that is found in keeping together the candidates on the day of confirmation, and the dangers arising from the assembly of a number of young men and women in the town or village where the confirmation is held, would be obviated if the rite was administered at an earlier age.

On the other hand, it may be asked whether the results of confirmation would be more satisfactory if administered to children. Since the present custom of deferring confirmation has failed, we think an alteration would be worth the trial. Those who regard confirmation as a means of grace rather than a method of exciting religious feeling will not be afraid of the experiment, especially as the practice of deferring confirmation is altogether a modern innovation. There are so many inconsistencies involved in it, that we should at least do well to consider whether they cannot be removed. In the Eastern Church confirmation is not reckoned as a sacrament distinct from baptism, but then it is administered at the same time, whilst in the Roman Church it is counted as a separate sacrament and is deferred for seven years. Now the Church of England adopts the theory of the Eastern Church with the practice of the Roman, but not content with the time intervening between baptism and confirmation the period has now become in practice doubled. We can scarcely suppose that our Reformers intended that the interval should be lengthened out to so great an extent, since the admonition to the sponsors, and the rubric at the end of the Catechism suppose that children will be presented to the Bishop as soon as they can say the Creed, LORD's Prayer, and Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and have been further instructed in

the Church Catechism, which it would scarcely take fifteen years to do.

A brief survey of the history of confirmation will show how far the Bishop of Durham's rule deviates from the practice of the ancient Church. The earliest confirmation of which we have a distinct account, passing over the first confirmation on the day of Pentecost, was that of the Christians at Samaria, who had been baptized by S. Philip the Deacon. The Apostles, SS. Peter and John, went down to Samaria, that what was wanting in S. Philip's baptism might be supplied by the imposition of their hands. We do not read that children were excluded from the benefits of the Xeipotería. S. Augustine refers to confirmation the sealing of the Spirit spoken of by S. Paul in Eph. iv. 30, and the laying on of hands in Heb. vi. 2, has always been understood to signify the same rite. And as in each case confirmation is spoken of as something of which all had been partakers without distinction of age, the Apostolic practice may be inferred to be in unison with what we find to have been the case in succeeding centuries. When the Bishop was present at baptism, confirmation was administered at the same time, but if he were absent, as usually happened in churches at a distance from the mother church, and in cases of clinic baptism, confirmation was deferred until the Bishop had a convenient opportunity of visiting them. S. Jerome speaks of this as the custom of the Church in his day. To prevent needless delay the canons in some places obliged Bishops to visit their dioceses once every year, and this seems to have been the first intention of Episcopal visitations, which resembled the visit of SS. Peter and John to Samaria. That these visitations might be carried out more regularly, as the number of Christians increased, the large dioceses were subdivided as at the Council of Lugo, held by King Laodamir in A.D. 569. By the time of Tertullian it appears that chrism had been added to the imposition of hands. That infants received confirmation as well as adults is proved both by the direct testimony of ancient writers, and also by the custom of giving the Eucharist to infants, which presupposed their confirmation. Gennadius, Pope Innocent, in one of his decrees, and the collection of canons by Martin Bracarensis, all make mention of the confirmation of infants. All the writers of the eighth and ninth century mention it as the custom of their age. As late as A.D. 1261, we find a Council of Arles enjoining that confirmation shall be administered and received fasting, except in the case of infants at the breast, which shows that the confirmation of little children was still at this time practised in the Church.

The exact time at which the delay of confirmation first commenced is not known, but in the Church of Rome as well as in England it probably had its origin a little before the time of the Reformation. It is singular that in this respect our Reformers

should have agreed with the Tridentine Fathers and departed from their rule of restoring all things after the model of the primitive Church, by adopting a custom which was so recent an innovation. It is, however, one of those cases in which particular Churches have power to decree rites and ceremonies, and to make any alteration which the circumstances of the time may require, and therefore we allow the authority both of the Council of Trent and of the English Convocation in the matter; but it proves that our Reformers did not reject all that was Roman because it was modern, for whilst they restored the cup to the laity they adopted the Roman usage of postponing confirmation, and consequently of denying the Eucharist to infants.

In the Church of Rome, we can trace the connection of the postponement of confirmation with the denial of the cup to the laity, which undoubtedly arose from the fear of profanation. In early times children were communicated directly from the chalice, afterwards from the priest's finger dipped in it, since infants would have been unable to swallow the consecrated wafer; but when the cup was denied to the laity, infants from physical necessity must have ceased to communicate.

Hugo de S. Victor and Gilbert, Bishop of Poictiers, allude to a corruption which was gaining ground in their time, of giving simple wine to children instead of our LORD's Blood, although the ancient custom still lingered. The giving pure wine was afterwards extensively adopted, and even in some places with the sacramental words, "The Blood of our LORD JESUS CHRIST," &c. This shocking abuse is strongly reprobated in the Ritual of Rheims, 1586, and in a way which shows the old rite to have been almost extinct. In the Ritual of Perigord, 1536, the priest is directed to say when administering simple wine, "GOD give thee abundance of the dew of Heaven, and of the richness of the earth, that thou mayest live for evermore." This was a quasi-communion of infants, although the reality had ceased. Instances of a real communion have occurred since, but as a rule it could not have long survived the denial of the cup to the laity. Martene saw in the diocese of Basle an infant communicated with the ablution of the chalice; and at the present day in some country villages in Picardy and Normandy newly baptized children are carried to the altar, which is no doubt a relic of the ancient custom.1

As the practice of communicating infants died out, the custom grew of delaying confirmation, until they were able to receive the consecrated wafer. Confirmation, which anciently stood between baptism and communion, was thus divorced from the former, and was treated as a separate sacrament. In the catechism of the Council of Trent in answer to the question, "Qua ætate Christiani 1 See Neale's Introduction to the History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. II., p. 1000.

ad hoc sacramentum sint admittendi ?" we read, "In quo illud observandum est, omnibus quidem post baptismum confirmationis sacramentum posse administrari, sed minus tamen expedire hoc fieri, antequam pueri rationis usum habuerint. Quare si duodecimus annus non expectandus videatur, usque ad septimum certe hoc sacramentum differre maxime convenit. Neque enim confirmatio ad salutis necessitatem instituta est, sed ut ejus virtute optime instructi et parati inveniremur, quum nobis pro Christi fide pugnandum esset; ad quod sane pugnæ genus pueros, qui adhuc usu rationis carent, nemo aptos esse judicarit.'

It is remarkable how fully this agrees with what was at first a rubric at the end of the Catechism, and is now the preface in the order of Confirmation. This preface now explains why the modern Roman usage was adopted in preference to the old Apostolic custom. No age, however, was fixed by the Church of England for confirmation as was done by the Church of Rome. It appears,

then, that three uses in this respect may be reckoned :—

I. The ancient and still the Oriental use-Infant Confirmation. II. The Roman use- Confirmation at a ripe age, not before seven, or later than twelve.

III. The English use-something between the two; i.e. as soon as children shall have learnt the first principles of the Christian Faith.

That this is no individual theory of our own, and as such we do not state it, will appear from the following words of one of the most eminent of Anglican divines, Jeremy Taylor, whom even the Bishop of Durham will scarcely repudiate as an authority. The whole argument is so clearly and concisely stated, that we will give it in his own words. After speaking of the ancient custom of Infant Confirmation, he continues:

"But afterwards, in the middle and descending ages, it grew to be a question, not whether it were lawful or not, but which were better, to confirm infants, or to stay to their childhood or to their riper years. Aquinas, Bonaventura, and some others, say, it is best that they be confirmed in their infancy, 'quia dolus non est, nec obicem ponunt,' 'they are then without craft, and cannot hinder' the descent of the HOLY GHOST upon them. And indeed it is most agreeable with the primitive practice, that if they be baptized in infancy, they should then also be confirmed; according to that of the famous epistle of Melchiades to the bishops of Spain, 'Ita conjuncta sunt hæc duo sacramenta, ut ab invicem, nisi morte præveniente, non possint separari, et unum sine altero rite perfici non potest.' Where, although he expressly affirms the rites to be two, yet, unless it be in cases of necessity, they are not to be severed, and one without the other is not perfect; which in the sense formerly mentioned is true, and so to be understood, -that to him who is baptized and is not confirmed, something very considerable is wanting, and therefore they ought to be joined, though not immediately, yet expóvws, according to reasonable occasions and

accidental causes. But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church, not only for the former reasons, but also because the Apostles themselves were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper.

"Others therefore say, that to confirm them of riper years is with more edification. The confession of faith is more voluntary, the election is wiser, the submission to CHRIST's discipline is more acceptable, and they have more need, and can make better use of their strength then derived by the HOLY SPIRIT of GOD upon them: and to this purpose it is commanded in the canon law, that they who are confirmed should be perfectæ ætatis,' upon which the gloss says, 'Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum.'

"Twelve years old was a full age, because, at those years, they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church. But the reason intimated and implied by the canon law is, because of the preparation to it; they must come fasting, and they must make public confession of their faith.' And, indeed, that they should do so is matter of great edification, I say, when they are done; but then the delaying of them so long before they be done, and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed to them in that ministry, are very prejudicial, and are not matter of edification.

"But therefore there is a third way which the Church of England and Ireland follows, and that is, after infancy, but yet before they understand too much of sin, and when they can competently understand the fundamentals of religion, then it is good to bring them to be confirmed, that the SPIRIT of GOD may prevent their youthful sins, and CHRIST by His Word and by His Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time. And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the laws of King Edgar, cap. 15, 'ut nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimium detrectârit, that none should too long put off his being confirmed by the Bishop; that is, as best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since, as soon as ever, by Catechism and competent instruction, they were prepared, it should not be deferred. If it have been omitted, (as of late years it hath been too much,) as we do in baptism, so in this also, it may be taken at any age, even after they have received the LORD's Supper; as I observed before in the practice and example of the Apostles themselves, which in this is an abundant warrant; but still the sooner the better; I mean, after that reason begins to dawn. But ever it must be taken care of, that the parents and godfathers, the ministers and masters, see that the children be catechised and well instructed in the fundamentals of their religion."l

We are weary ad nauseam with charges of Romanism brought against faithful men who endeavour to act up to the spirit and directions of the English Church. Still more do we dislike "tu quoque" arguments, which prove nothing at all; and therefore we will neither make the charge of Popery against the Bishop of Durham, nor, if he should tell us (though we would not for a moment 1 Taylor's Works, edited by Heber, vol. xi. p. 291. VOL. XXIX.

D