When Should Children Be Confirmed (Baverstock) PDF

WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? BY A. H. BAVERSTOCK, M.A. RECTOR OF HINTON MARTEL, DORSET AUTHOR OF “crm rairsT as Conrzsson,” “THE suPREME ADVENTURE,” ETC. THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 484 MILWAUKEE STREET MILWAUKEE, - . WIS, MCMXV AU rights reservedOCT 41916 inbeer UG 4 a AOS “B3s ao 8 ‘AUTHOR'S PREFACE THERE was never a time in the history of our country when children were of greater importance. In the present era of unparalleled destructiveness we must look to the children whom we are now training to accomplish a reconstruction which will be the work of many generations. If it is true, as it certainly is, that this reconstruction must be not merely material, but moral and spiritual, the fact gives great weight to any question which bears on the religious training and treatment of young children. The conviction is gaining ground among us that our methods leave much to be desired. Asa plea for a method which approved itself to our spiritual ancestors in times hardly less critical than our own, a method of early instruction and early admission to Christian privileges, it is hoped this book may claim an attentive and sympathetic consideration. The fact that Prayer-Book revision is in the air supplies an additional motive for considering the age for confirmation. If it can be proved that we are not carrying out the Prayer-Book system in so important a matter, it is surely time we mended either our practice or our Prayer-Book. I may perhaps be allowed to add that a considerable experience in dealing with small children of vvi AUTHOR'S PREFACE very varied types formed in me a strong conviction of the value of early confirmation. This conviction led me to a careful study of the teaching of the English Church on the subject, the results of which I here put before my readers. To sum them up in a sentence, I found that this early confirmation was not only permitted, but actually required, by our formularies. A. H. BAVERSTOCK. HINTON MARTEL.ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY OPINION PAGES OPINION in these centuries germane to the subjet, since it ex- plains the language of the Prayer - Book, too little understood—The materials sufficient—The three methods of confirmation contemplated—The method of infant confirmation, rejected by the Reformers—The method of confirmation at or near the end of childhood, also rejected by them—The method of confirmation in early childhood, deliberately adopted and imposed by them—Witness of Jewel, Hooker, George Herbert, Jeremy Taylor, Thorndyke, Sparrow, Wheatly - - : - - - I—20 CHAPTER II THE PRAYER-BOOK AND THE AGE FOR CONFIRMATION An examination of the successive Prayer-Books justifies the conclusion that the Church of England throughout intends confirmation in early childhood—The Table of Contents prefixed (as in the sealed copies)—The post-baptismal exhortation and injunction—Force of the word ‘' brought ”—What are the requirements ?—Evidence of the service for The ministration Of baptism to such as are of riper years, etc.—Its use for quite young children—Two indications of this in the service—Its requirement of immediate confirmation—The rubrics accom. panying the Confirmation Service in the older books—They show the “evident design of our Church” that confirmation should be ministered in early childhood—The rubrics in our present book compared with them—Reartangement, but no alteration of principle - : : . + ame3q viiANALYSIS OF CONTENTS CHAPTER III THE PRAYER-BOOK AND THE AGE FOR CONFIRMATION (continued) PAGES The group of rubrics after the Catechism in the old Prayer- Books—Their equivalents in our Book—The prevalent dis- regard of them—The evidence of the service itself—It implies confirmation in innocency— The rubric at the end of the Marriage Service, requiring communion—Marriage legally valid after infancy is over—Moral responsibility in early childhood—Summary of results - - 7 : 35—48 CHAPTER IV EARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE The new order—Altered condition of discipline—Factors making for neglect to obey the regulations—All it can be hoped to prove, that they were sometimes obeyed—Bishop Bentham’s charge in 1565—Whitgift’s complaint in 1591 of the neglect of early instruction and confirmation—Visitation Articles of various Bishops—Confirmation of Nicholas Ferrar at the age of five—Possible reference to early confirmation of Richard Hooker—Evidence of disobedience in ecclesiastical legislation —Triumph of Puritanism—Difficulties of Restoration period— Margaret Blagge confirmed at eleven—John Wesley’s first communion at eight—His confirmation of young children— Disappearance of early confirmation by nineteenth century— Bishop Denison of Salisbury confirms children at eleven —Other Bishops have left the age to the discretion of the clergy—Action of Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury—Revival of Church life and increased interest in the training of children producing a demand for early confirmation - 49—60 CHAPTER V THE RIGHT AGE ‘The question practical, and to be decided on practical considerations—The purely theological argument for early confirmation —The “‘ theological virtues” of baptism should be reinforced by the “seven gifts” of confirmation as soon as the former can be consciously exercised—Stages of development in child-life—ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS PAGES Importance of early education and training—Development in early childhood of religious and moral sense—Arguments in favour of this period for confirmation—Need of help at this age —Keen desire often felt for confirmation and communion— This desire often lost later, if not satisfied—Experience of results—The age of puberty—Its difficulties—Disinclination to be confirmed natural—Testimony of Mr. Kempson—Objec- tions to this age summarized—Adult confirmation—Its advantages—And its two disadvantages, as decreasing number confirmed, and as coming too late for the easy formation of habits—Early confirmation and early instruction go together— Experience of the Roman Communion - . + 61—80 CHAPTER VI THE INDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT: AN APPEAL TO THE BISHOPS The irony of an appeal for liberty to obey the Prayer-Book— Necessity of the appeal—Age-limits fixed by most Bishops— Varying age-limits in different dioceses unfair and unreasonable —A uniform age-limit would still be objectionable—Age-limit bound to rule out some who ought to be confirmed, while admitting others who ought not—Takes the decision out of the hands of those best qualified to make it—The Bishop has no legal right to refuse confirmation without examination—The age-limit contradicts the maxim that it is better to risk the unworthy reception of the sacraments by some than to refuse them to any who might profit by them—The age-limit does not secure careful preparation of candidates—Some system needed which will—Advantages of occasional examination of candidates—The rebellion of clergy against the age-limit— Reasonableness of Bishops appealed to : - 81-89 APPENDIX: A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE - . : :voxesw Google~é WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? CHAPTER I SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY OPINION To ask what opinions were held as to the age for confirmation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is to enter on no merely academic inquiry. For we are professedly bound to-day by formularies which date from these centuries and use the language then current. It is obviously important that we should understand this language, in order that we may know what is commanded, and obey injunctions which are binding upon us all, clergy and laity alike. It is well that. we should appreciate the reasons which guided those who drew up our present directions, in order that we may base our obedience to them on a conviction of their wisdom, or, if we agree to consider them unwise, revise them with a view to securing a better system. There is the more need for such an inquiry in view of the prevailing ignorance of what is involved in the quite explicit directions of the Book of T2 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? Common Prayer. That these directions should be, as they are, universally and flagrantly disobeyed, and that not only by the laity but by those whose business it is to see that they are observed, is in itself an evil. But the evil is aggravated by the unconsciousness of clergy and laity alike that they are ignoring a system deliberately adopted and authoritatively imposed. The Prayer-Book is indeed quoted often enough. But it is quoted, in the utterances of Bishops and in manuals written by responsible authorities, in support of a system which it was deliberately framed to reject.* : Fortunately, investigation on this subject is a simple matter. The materials for it are, if not plenti- ful,quite adequate. Representative theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries expressed themselves on this question with admirable definiteness and in language remarkable for its precision. We may be thankful that, even where they differed in their theories, they were agreed on the whole in their use of terms. Phrases such as “‘ years of discretion,” “a perfect age,” “children,” which in a later age have come to be used loosely or ambigu- ously, were to them common coinage with a fairly precise value, easily ascertained to-day at the cost of a very little research. Three theories as to the age for confirmation divided the field between them from the beginning of the Reformation period down * Vide reference to Archbishop Maclagan, p. 17. Bishop Grafton, again, in his Catholic Atéas (p. 114), lays it down that the Western Church has reserved the admission to confirmation until years of adolescence—an over-statement as regards the Latin communion and a positive misstatement as regards the regulations of our own communion.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 3 to the Restoration, which gave us our present Prayer-Book. They favoured respectively infant confirmation, confirmation. at the end of ‘childhood, and confirmation in early childhood, as soon as possible after infancy ended. It will be necessary to say something about each method. 1. The Confirmation of Infants immediately or as soon as possible after Baptism.—This had been the practice of the Church in primitive times, and has never been abandoned in the East, where confirmation has been ordinarily administered by a priest with oil consecrated by a Bishop. In the West the requirement of a Bishop for confirmation led to its being deferred, often for some years. The law remained the same, enforced in medieval England by a series of enactments, that children should be confirmed on the first opportunity after baptism. But opportunities only occurred at intervals of some years, and might easily be missed, and thus the practice grew up of deferring confirmation for some years. After many attempts had been made to check it—attempts which went so far as to inflict excommunication upon parents who neglected to get their children confirmed within a specified time—this practice appears to have secured not only toleration but recognition on the Continent during the thirteenth century. Finally, the Council of Trent (1564) not only condemned infant confirmation as inexpedient, but actually suggested deferring it to near the end of childhood. “If not to be postponed to the age of twelve, it is most proper to defer this sacrament at least to that of4 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? seven” (Catechism of the Council of Trent). It may be noted that while this rule of confirmation between seven and twelve has governed Roman Catholic practice in general since Trent, the custom of administering confirmation immediately after baptism continued in France, in royal and noble families, right down to the Revolution, and is still tolerated by the Roman Church in the Eastern Uniat Churches in communion with her and in Spain. Also that the pontificate of the late Pius X. saw a general return, under his influence, to the years of early childhood rather than those at the end of childhood in countries, notably France, where the later age had obtained. In England infant confirmation remained the rule right up to 1549, Elizabeth being confirmed by : Archbishop Cranmer in 1533 immediately after her ‘baptism, when three days old. The rule was insisted on with varying degrees of stringency in different dioceses. Thus, while the Synod of Wor- cester (240) refused admission into the Church to parents who neglected to have a child confirmed within a year after baptism, and the Synod of Exeter (1287) allowed an interval of thrée~ years, but condemned parents after this interval to fast on bread and water until the neglected duty had been performed, the Council of Durham, early in the same century, had allowed the interval to extend to the seventh year. In all cases confirmation was required to precede first communion. This has been the unvarying rule of the English Church, in pre- Reformation and post-Reformation times alike,POST-REFORMATION OPINION 5 until its relaxation in our present Prayer-Book (1662), which allows communion to be given to those who are ready and desirous for confirmation, even if not actually confirmed. English people have always been conservative in their attitude to established customs, and the original practice of infant confirmation was not readily abandoned. In 1536 Convocation condemned as erroneous the opinion, “ That children ought not to be confirmed by the Bishop till they come to years of discretion.” In the following year The Institution of @ Christian Man, put out by the Bishops and known as The Bishops’ Book, defended the confirmation of infants as still prac- tised, but asserted that it was not necessary. The coming change was still further prepared for by The King’s Book in 1543, which emphasized the importance of confirmation, but denied the necessity of confirming in infancy. The people evidently clung to the old custom, and it was found necessary to justify its abandonment in 1549 by an assurance that no detriment to the child was involved in deferring confirmation beyond infancy, since “it is certayn by Goddes worde, that children beeyng baptized (if they depart out of thys lyfe in theyr infancie) are undoubtedly saved.” Doubtless the primitive practice weighed with many English divines in favour of a custom which the English Church followed the Continent in abandoning, and it is noteworthy that a section of the Nonjurors at the end of the seventeenth century, those known as the “ Usagers,” reverted to the old method.6 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? 2. Confirmation at or near the End of Childhood.— “Childhood ” was a time somewhat precisely understood during the period with which we deal, as in the preceding centuries. It was the stage midway between infancy and adolescence. It began with the attainment of “years of discretion”—i.c., the faculty of distinguishing “between right and wrong—which rendered its possessor no longer an infant and irresponsible, but morally accountable for his actions. This stage, although it cannot be exactly fixed in years, since children develop un- equally, was roughly fixed at about seven.* It ended with the age of puberty, held to be reached by girls at about twelve, by boys at about fourteen. This stage reached, childhood was over and youth began. This was the “age of consent,” which made, and still in English law makes, a binding marriage contract possible. Those who had reached it were reckoned as adults rather than chil- * So the Lateran Council (1218) required children, on attain- ing years of discretion, to fulfil the precept of annual confession at Easter ; and Gury (Compendium Theologia Moralis, vol. i §§ 477, 478) follows the universal teaching of moral theologians in’ defining “years of discretion” to be “ Quando sunt capaces peccati mortalis; quod non ex atate solum sed pracipue ex gradu ingenii vel boni malique discretione judi- ‘candum est” Hence he lays down that the clergy are bound to begin to prepare children for confession at seven. And as late as 1710 Bishop Fleetwood of St. Asaph, in a visitation charge, defines the phrase in the same sense. These are his words: “This coming of age is coming to years of discretion and understanding—as soon as they come to discern between right and wrong, good and evil, and know what is commanded and what forbidden.” Indeed, the phrase is a common one in the writings of jurists, both ecclesiastical and civil, and always with the same precise meaning. It should be noted, moreover, that in the Preface to the Confirmation Service the phrase is used with the definite article, “tke years of discretion,” thus indicating plainly the technical use of the term.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 7 dren. So Lyndwood, the famous English canonist, wrote (Provinciale, Lib. i., tit. 6): “Infantia ter- minatur in septimo anno, Proprie dicitur puer qui major est septennio, minor tamen quatuordecim annis. Adultus—i.e., major quatuordectm annis.”* At or towards the end of childhood “full age” or “ perfect age” was held to be reached. And it was at this age that many considered confirmation most desirable. It was generally set at about twelve. Perfecium vocat forte duodecim annos, writes Jeremy Taylor, quoting from an old gloss on the term. Cosin, on the other hand, puts the perfect or full age at ‘‘between fourteen and sixteen years of age,” and it may be noted that the phrase, where it occurred in our earlier Prayer-Books, is rendered in Elizabeth’s Latin Prayer-Book by the words adulta @tate. At this age, near the end of childhood, or after childhood was over, it was contended, the child or young person could give an evidence of an intelligent faith and a seriousness of purpose which would justify _their admission to full Christian privileges. We have seen that the Council of T: recommend twelve rather thanseven. there was certainly an influential body of opinion which desired confirmation to be administered late in childhood or after childhood was over. The extreme reformers, denying confirmation to be a sacrament, and attributing to it a subjective rather than an objective value, as indeed they were inclined to do even to the sacraments they admitted as * These definitions are adopted from Lyndwood by Bishop Gibson (early eighteenth century) in his Codex Juris Ecclesi- astici Anglicani, tit. xix. cap. 3.8 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? such,* naturally took this view, and constantly complained that confirmation was administered too early. But they were not alone in this view. Cosin himself expressed a dislike of the practice of confirmation in early childhood and the preference for a later age.t And many Bishops, both in his own time and later, shared his opinion. The general practice in the English Church to-day may be said to be governed rather by the personal opinion expressed by Cosin and widely shared by others than by the authoritative directions of the Church of England, which has never endorsed this view, but has, on the contrary, expressly rejected it. 3. Confirmation in Early Childhood.—This third method was that adopted by the English Reformers in 1549, and retained in all subsequent Prayer- Books. Infants were no longer to be confirmed: they could not sin, and if they died in infancy their baptism secured their salvation. But neither were they to wait till late in childhood for confirmation. They were to be taught, as soon as it was possible to teach them anything, the rudiments of Christian faith and practice, and to be confirmed, on reaching years of discretion, as soon as they knew the Creed, * The “growth of Anabaptism”’ during the Puritan ascen- dancy, complained of in the Preface to the Prayer-Book, was the logical development of the views of the extreme Reformers. + “Many can say their Catechism and are confirmed at seven years old. Shall it, then, be in the power of the curate to admit them also to the Communion? Non credo; but this shows that they should not be confirmed so young as they use to be, but when they are of perfect age, which is between fourteen and sixteen years of age” (Cosin’s manuscript notes, 1619). Cosin thus advocates the confirmation, not of children, but of adults.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 9 Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments, and could be taught the Church Catechism. In this, as in so many practical matters, the Church of England decided “to keep the mean between the two extremes.” She rejected the infant confirmation, which appealed to the regard for primitive usage characteristic of her best divines and to the conservative instincts of large numbers of her children ; she rejected with equal firmness the delaying of the rite till adolescence, in the teeth of criticism from men like Bucer, who complained that confirmation was administered too early. At the same time she could claim to secure the advantages of both systems. Childhood was not deprived of the help of the Holy Spirit against temptation; a conscious acceptance of the Christian creed and a profession of Christian purpose were rendered possible. That the last of these methods is the one to which we are authoritatively committed is a fact that can be proved to the hilt. Whatever ambiguity may be found in our formularies on other subjects, on this question at any rate the Ecclesia Anglicana has expressed herself with an explicitness which leaves nothing to be desired. This we shall see when we come to examine her authoritative utterances. Meanwhile, it is worth while to quote the testimony of some of her most representative divines in the centuries under consideration. Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury from 1560 to 1571, was the most prominent apologist of his day for the English Church, as attacked by Rome on the one hand, and Geneva on the other. His Treatise of the10 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? Sacraments leaves no doubt possible as to the system he was pledged to defend. Infant confirmation he boldly condemns as an abuse. “They received to confirmation such children, and so young, as were not able to make profession of their faith; so that the infant promised he knew not what.”* But he also rejects the idea that children should wait for confirmation till they come to a perfect age. Urging the faithful to bring up their children in the knowledge and practice of the Christian religion, in language which recalls that of the injunction at the end of the baptismal office, he concludes as follows: “You have brought them to the fountain of baptism, to receive the mark of Christ; bring them up ({- in knowledge, and watch over them that they be not lost. So shall they be confirmed, and will keep the promise they have made, and will grow unto a perfect age in Christ.” t In strict accord with this system of confirmation, as soon as years of discretion were reached and the rudiments of the faith learned, was the action of Bishop Bentham, of Coventry and Lichfield, when, at his visitation in 1565, he directed his commissary to charge the clergy “to make presentments of all children within their cures being full seven years of age and not yet confirmed.” } That eminent divine, Richard Hooker, in his youth the protégé of Jewel, won a more lasting reputation as a theologian. He was born in 1553, * Works of Bishop Jewel, vol. ii., p. 1126 (Parker Society edition). + Ibid., p. 1128. t Alcuin Club, Visttation Articles, vol. iii., p. 163.POST-REFORMATION OPINION Ir and died a year before Queen Elizabeth. James I. never mentioned him without the epithet of“ learned,’ or “judicious,” or ‘“ reverend,” or “ venerable.” Charles I. showed his name the same reverence, and enjoined the study of his works upon his son, Charles II. His Ecclesiastical Polity has been a textbook for successive generations of ordination candidates. In the Fifth Book, issued in 1597, and dedicated to Archbishop Whitgift, the following passage occurs : “ The cause of severing confirmation from baptism was in the parties that received baptism being infants, at which age they might be very well admitted to live in the family; but because to fight in the army of God, to discharge the duties of a Christian man, to bring forth the fruits and do the works of the Holy Ghost, their time of ability was not yet come (so that baptism were not deferred), there could by stay of their confirmation no harm ensue, but rather good. For by this mean it came to pass that children in expectation thereof were seasoned with the principles of true religion before malice and corrupt examples depraved their minds, a good foundation was laid betimes for direction of the course of their whole lives, the seed of the Church of God was preserved sincere and sound, the pre- lates and fathers of God’s family to whom the cure of their souls belonged saw by trial and examination of them a part of their own heavy burden discharged, reaped comfort by beholding the first beginnings of true godliness in tender years, and glorified Him whose praise they found in the mouth12 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? of infants, and neglected not so fit opportunity of giving everyone fatherly encouragement and exhortation. Whereunto imposition of hands and prayer being added, our warrant for the great good effect thereof is the same which Patriarchs, Pro- phets, Priests, Apostles, Fathers, and men of God have had for such their particular invocations and benedictions, as no man, I suppose, professing truth of religion will easily think to have been without fruit.” We must not, of course, press the use of the word “infants” in connection with the examination before confirmation. It is an obvious reference to the eighth Psalm, as quoted by our Lord in St. Matthew xi. 25. But it is clear from the whole passage that Hooker takes it for granted that the confirmation candidates will be normally little more than infants. The Bishop, when he comes to question them before confirmation, is to find “the beginnings of true godliness in tender years.” This phrase clearly indicates the beginning, not the end, of childhood as the time for confirmation. In the same connection Hooker refers to our Lord’s action in laying hands on “little children” (St. Matt. xix. 13): “He which with imposition of hands and prayer did so great works of mercy for restoration of bodily health, was worthily judged as able to effect the infusion of heavenly grace into them whose age was not yet depraved with that malice which might be supposed a bar to the goodness of God towards them. They brought Him therefore young childrenPOST-REFORMATION OPINION 13 to put His hands upon them and fray.” (Italics in original.) Another English divine may be quoted, thoroughly representative of the English Church in his own sphere of pastoral work. George Herbert, the saintly parish priest of Bemerton, achieved a reputation for faithful devotion to the system of the English Church, a devotion practically expressed in his domestic and parochial circle as well as in his poems and prose writings. He does not directly deal in the latter with the age for confirmation. But his teaching and practice in this matter can be inferred from what he writes as to the age for first communion, which, as we have noticed, has always in England been preceded by confirmation. ‘The time of everyone's first receiving,” he writes, “is not so much by years, as by understanding; particularly, the rule may be this: When anyone can distinguish the Sacramentall from common bread, knowing the Institution and the difference, he ought to receive, of what age soever. Children and youths are usually deferred too long, under pretence of devotion to the Sacrament, but it is for want of Instruction; their understandings being ripe enough for ill things, and why not then for better ?”* Herbert was born in 1593 and died in 1632. He was the contemporary and friend of one hardly less noted for saintliness of life—Nicholas Ferrar, the founder of the community at Little Gidding. Here, as at Bemerton, the highest Christian ideals were * The Country Parson, chap. xxii. (“The Parson in Sacra- ments”), published in 1632.14 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? faithfully put in practice in a spirit of devotion to the system of the Church of England. As we shall notice later, Nicholas Ferrar was himself confirmed even before the age of seven. But by far the most explicit testimony to Church of England teaching and practice in this matter is that of Jeremy Taylor, a noted divine of the Restoration period and the most eloquent preacher of his day. His Discourse of Confirmation is the fullest treatment of the subject in the English language prior to our own days, and he devotes several pages to the question of the age for confirmation. Moreover, since it first appeared in 1663, the year after our present Prayer-Book, it forms valuable testimony of the identity of the English Church system under successive Prayer-Books. Opening with the question, “‘ Why do we confirm little children ?” Jeremy Taylor proceeds to discuss the three methods already enumerated. He defends the lawfulness of infant confirmation, but maintains that it is not equally reasonable with infant baptism, and that the Church was at liberty to abandon it if it were thought better to do so. In favour of it he quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventura, and others, to the effect that the recipients ‘are then without craft, and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them.” He continues: ‘It is most agreeable with the primitive practice, that if they were baptized in infancy they should then also be confirmed.” It is evident that these considerations weighed heavily with him in favour of the more ancient custom.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 15 Next, he considers the plan of confirmation at “ full age,” * or the end of childhood. ‘Others say that to confirm them of riper years is with more edification. The confession of faith is more volun- tary, the election is wiser, the submission to Christ’s discipline is more acceptable, and they have more need, and can make better use of the strengths then derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them.” These advantages he admits. ‘ They are matter of edification, I say, when they are done.” But he condemns this method with a definiteness which finds no parallel in his language on infant confirmation. ‘But then the delaying of them so long before they be done, and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that ministry, are very prejudicial, and are not matter of edification.” Finally, he considers the method of confirmation in early childhood. ‘There is a third way,” he writes, “which the Church of England and Ireland follows, and that is, that after infancy, but yet before they understand too much of sin, and when they can competently understand the fundamentals of religion,t 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.” Children are to be confirmed, in fact, as soon as possible after infancy, ‘‘as soon as ever by catechism and competent instruction they were * Jeremy Taylor interprets “full age” as being “about twelve.” t &. the phrase in the Prayer-Book, So soon as children are come to a competent age and can say, etc.16 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? prepared.” If confirmation at this early age has been omitted, “as of late years it hath been too much,” it may be received at any age; “ 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 catechized and well instructed in the fundamentals of their religion.” It is evident that the ground on which Jeremy Taylor bases his rejection of the system of deferring confirmation to the end of childhood, and which possibly reinforced his manifest sympathy with infant confirmation, is the conviction of the power of the Holy Spirit, received in confirmation, for the sanctification of childhood. He urges upon the clergy the importance of teaching people to bring up their children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” with a view to their early confirmation. Thus “ we shall weaken the devil’s power, by which he too often and too much prevails upon uninstructed and unconfirmed youth... He enters as soon as he can, and, taking advantage of their ignorance and their passion, seats himself so strongly in their hearts and heads. ‘Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur hostis’* (It is harder to cast the devil out than to keep him out). Hence it is that the youth are so corrupted in their manners, so devilish in their natures, so cursed in their conversation, so disobedient to parents, so wholly given to vanity and idleness ; they learn to swear before * Ovid, 7rist, V., vi. 13.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 17 they can pray, and to lie as soon as they can speak. It is not my sense alone, but was long since observed by Gerson and Gulielmus Parisiensis, Propter cessa- tionem confirmationis tepiditas grandior est in fidelibus, et fidei defensione (There is a coldness and deadness in religion, and it proceeds from the neglect of confirmation rightly ministered, and after due preparation and dispositions). A little thing will fill a child’s head; teach them to say their prayers, tell them the stories of the life and death of Christ, cause them to love the holy Jesus with their first love, make them afraid of asin... . If the guides of souls would have their people holy, let them teach holiness to their children, and then they will, at least, have a new generation unto God, better than this wherein we now live.”* Jeremy Taylor’s defence of early confirmation is bound up with his plea for the early religious training of children. It might have been thought that these quite explicit statements could leave no room for doubt as to the practice which the writer found imposed by authority and personally endorsed. Yet Bishop Hall, of Vermont, in his volume on Confirmation in the Oxford Library of Practical Theology, after quoting Archbishop Maclagan in favour of confirmation at about the age of twelve for girls and slightly later for boys, actually goes on to claim that what Jeremy Taylor writes is in agreement with this! In agreement with the method of confirma- * The foregoing extracts are quoted from A Discourse of Confirmation in the Works of Jeremy Taylor (London, 1849), vol. v., pp. 661 ef seg. 218 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? tion at the end of childhood, which he expressly condemned as “‘very prejudicial”! It is hard to believe that Bishop Hall could have read the Discourse of Confirmation from which he quotes. As I have already stated, no other writer of these centuries deals so fully with the question. But there are indications in the writings of several other theologians which confirm what Jeremy Taylor states regarding the authoritative system. Cosin, early in the seventeenth century, is quite explicit as to the common practice of confirming children at seven, although expressing a personal preference for adult confirmation.* Thorndyke, another great divine of the Restoration, refers to the English practice of administering confirmation when children “come to discretion.” And in another passage he puts discretion curiously early. For he quotes from St. Gregory Nazianzen a passage with regard to the baptism of children some “ three years, more or less,” after birth, and actually describes this age as one of discretion.t And, like George Herbert, he desired to see quite young children admitted to Holy Communion. While admitting that it is for the best “to defer the communion of the Eucharist till little ones may know what they do,” he adds that “in my opinion, it is deferred far longer than it ought to be.”{ Bishop Sparrow, in his Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer, which first appeared during the Commonwealth in 1657, and was * See footnote on p. 8. t Of the Laws of the Church, Book III., chap. vii. sec- tions 7, 16. t Jbid,, chap. viii., section 27.POST-REFORMATION OPINION 19 finally republished in 1684, four years before his death, unaltered, does little but repeat the language of the First and Second Prayer-Books, which we shall presently examine. His position is quite clear. The baptized are to be confirmed “when they come to years and the use of reason.” One more writer, whose testimony is certainly weighty, may be quoted in conclusion, although his date is just outside our period. Wheatly, the author of the celebrated work on the Prayer-Book, wrote at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the first edition of his book appearing in 1710, His study of the writers of the previous century had been, as the full title of his book claims,* exhaustive, and he may justly be considered a high authority on the intentions of the Revisers of 1661. He leaves no doubt possible as to their intention to continue the method of confirmation in early childhood, as the following extract will show: “Bucer, indeed (who generally runs into extremes), finds fault with our Church for administering it [sc. confirmation] too soon; and would have none admitted to this holy rite till such time as they have had an opportunity of giving sufficient testimonies of their faith and desire of living to God by their life and conversation. But we have already showed that the enabling persons to give such testimonies of their faith and practice is the end of confirmation; and therefore surely confirmation is * A Rational Illustration of the Book of the Common Prayer Of the Church of England, being the Substance of Everything Liturgical in Bishop Sparrow, Mr. L’Estrange, Dr. Comber, Dr. Nichols, and all Former Ritualists, Commentators, or Others, upon the same Subject.20 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? to be administered, to assist them in manifesting their faith and practice, and not to be deferred till they are already manifested. For this reason it is very evidently the design of our Church that children be confirmed before they have opportunities of being acquainted with sin; that so the Holy Spirit may take early possession of their youthful hearts, and prevent those sins to which, without His assistance, the very tenderness of their age would be apt to expose them. It is indeed highly expedient that those who are confirmed should be old enough to understand the nature and advantages of the rite they are admitted to, and the obligations it lays upon them; and if they are duly apprised of this, they are deemed by our Church qualified enough. For they that are capable of this knowledge are yet at years to discern between good and evil; and therefore that must be the proper time to secure them, by the invocation of the Spirit, in the paths of virtue.”* The reader will probably have noticed that Wheatly is perfectly clear as to the meaning of “years of discretion.” ‘‘ Years to discern between good and evil” is an obvious paraphrase. It is abundantly clear that this writer, like Jeremy Taylor, advocates confirmation as early as possible in childhood, “the sooner the better,” provided the elementary requirements of the Prayer-Book in the matter of religious instruction have been carried out... That this method is “very evidently the design of our Church,” we hope to prove by a careful examination of her formularies. Chap. ix., section 1.CHAPTER II THE PRAYER-BOOK AND THE AGE FOR CONFIRMATION To examine the utterances of the English Prayer- Books on the subject of the age for confirmation forms our next task. Such an examination will abundantly justify the conclusion, to which the writings of Jeremy Taylor and others have led us, that the Church of England intends confirmation to be administered neither in infancy nor at the end of childhood, but as soon as possible after infancy has passed. And it is rendered the simpler by the fact that while the First and Second Prayer-Books of Edward VI. are practically identical in all that bears on this question, the Book of 1662 exhibits differences from them which are slight, being mainly a rearrangement of the same matter, and affording no grounds for any distinction of method. The most important difference is the requirement of rather fuller instruction, owing to the addition to the Catechism of the section on the Sacraments, made in 1604. We may begin with the Table of Contents prefixed to the Prayer-Book, which contains the first mention of confirmation. In the First and Second Books we find: Of Confirmacion, where also is a Catechisme for Children. 2122 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? The collocation would of itself suggest that the confirmation of children, rather than of those who had passed childhood, was contemplated as normal. A change made in 1662 puts the matter beyond doubt. For in the Table of Contents then drawn up we find: The Catechism, with the Order for Confirmation of Children. So the item stands in the MS. Prayer-Book annexed to the Act of Uniformity, which gave it force. In our Prayer-Books, as commonly printed, the printers, without any authority, have not only split the one item into two, but have even altered the wording and suppressed some words. So that it appears: 18. The Catechism. 19. The Order of Confirmation. It should be added that the Act of Uniformity required the Dean and Chapter of every Cathedral Church to obtain a copy of the book annexed to the Act, certified under the Great Seal to be a correct copy. For legal purposes these Sealed Books are accepted as of equal authority with the original MS. Prayer-Book. They are, in fact, exemplars for the printers. Our present Prayer-Book, then, dis- tinctly contemplates “The Confirmation of Chil- dren.” This, and none other, is the title of the service in the Table of Contents. The next reference to the subject is to be found in the injunctions addressed by the priest to the sponsors at the end of the Public Baptism of Infants. All three Prayer-Books contain, in practically iden-THE PRAYER-BOOK 23 tical language, the exhortation which reminds the godparents of their duty to see that the infant is taught, ‘so soon as he shall be able to learn,” the solemn professions made in his name; to this end he is to hear sermons and to learn, in his mother- tongue, the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Com- mandments. And he is to be “ virtuously and godly brought up.” This, of course, bears on the subject of confirmation, by insisting that the preparation required is to begin at the earliest possible moment. The exhortation is part and parcel of a system which aims at confirmation as early in childhood as the requisite knowledge can be obtained; ‘‘as soon as ever by catechism and competent instruction they were prepared,” to quote Jeremy Taylor. This exhortation is followed, in the First and Second Books, by a rubric, directing the minister to command that the children be brought to the Bishop, to be confirmed of him, so soon as they can say in their vulgar tongue the Articles of the Faith, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and be further instructed in the Catechisme, set forth for that purpose, accordingly as it is there expressed. In our present Prayer-Book the exact form is provided in which this “command” is to be given: “Ye are to take care that this child be brought to the Bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, etc., and be further instructed in the Church-Catechism set forth for that purpose.” This imperative command clearly witnesses to the evident “design of our Church” that children are to be confirmed as young as possible. The work of24 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? instruction is to begin as soon as the child can learn: the requirements are quite elementary, such as can be attained soon after the age of seven, if not before, by children well taught in infancy: and the children are to be “brought” at an age when they do not yet act on their own initiative. This last point is commonly overlooked.* But it should be noticed that the expression was familiar in connection with the confirmation of infants—as, ¢.g., in a constitution of Archbishop Reynolds (1322), where the following note occurs: “ Ducunt”: loguitur de non adultis, qui petendi confirmationem discretionem non habent. It is interesting to inquire what are the exact requirements for those who are brought. The injunction seems to say that the child must be able to say the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Command- ments, and to be further instructed in the Catechism, the order indicated being (1) Knowledge of the Creed, etc.; (2) Confirmation ; (3) further instruction in the Catechism. This, the natural rendering grammatically, considerably reduces the actual knowledge required for confirmation. A rubric at the end of the Confirmation Service in both the First and Second Prayer-Books also seems to imply that the Bishop might confirm on a knowledge of the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments * Eg. Mr. Drawbridge, in Religious Education, p. 112, writes : “The aim of all her [sc. the Church's] religious teaching of the child is so to develop his spiritual life that he will come forward voluntarily for confirmation when the right time arrives.” (Italics mine.) Quite plainly this is not the aim of the Church at all. Her express command is that the sponsors shall éring the child when the right time, of which they are clearly advised, arrives.THE PRAYER-BOOK 25 alone on the part of the candidate. The rubric ran as follows: And whensoever the Bishop shall give knowledge for children to be brought afore him to any convenient place, Sor their confirmation: Then shall the cuvate of every parish either bring, or send in writing, the names of all those children of his parish which can say the Articles of the Faith, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Command- ments; and also how many of them can answer to the other questions contained in this Catechism. On the other hand, the provision in both the earlier Prayer-Books for the Bishop to “‘appose” the children in the Church Catechism shows that he was entitled to require a knowledge of the whole Catechism, which up to 1604 consisted of nothing but the explanation of the baptismal vow, and the Creed, Our Father, and Commandments, with their explanations. The most probable conclusion would seem to be that deliberate provision was made under the earlier books, while the abandonment of infant confirmation was still fresh, for the confirmation of children, if the Bishop thought fit, with this minimum of instruction. Bishop Bentham’s charge, already quoted, seems rather to suggest this. But . the Preface added to the Confirmation Service in 1662 clearly insists on a knowledge of the entire Catechism, and there is no evidence of the smaller requirement _ being accepted since that date. We may take it, then, that the whole Catechism is to be learned, and not only known by heart but intelligently grasped. This does not involve a very26 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? exacting standard. It is quite a common thing to find that the infants in a Church school know the Catechism perfectly to the end of the “ desire,” while the children in the lower standards can repeat the whole of it and show an intelligent grasp of its meaning, despite its somewhat archaic phrasing. Such children, moreover, when they have been not only well taught but also “ virtuously and godly brought up,” often show a very real piety and a keen desire for confirmation and communion. This knowledge and these dispositions are all that the Church asks for, and nobody has a right to require more as a condition of confirmation. : A further reference to the age for confirmation, and the next in order, occurs in the rubrics which accompany the service for The Ministration of Baptism to such as ave of Riper Years, and able to Answer for Themselves. This service was added in 1662, mainly, as the Preface states, owing to the need created by the anarchy under the Commonwealth. During this period many children had been left unbaptized, and Anabaptist ideas had become prevalent. The new service was also to serve for the baptism of adults in the mission field. It was to be used for all those who were come to years of discretion to answer for themselves. And it was to be preceded by instruction and examination in the principles of the Christian teligion, and followed by confirmation and communion so soon .. . as conveniently may be. The Bishop was to be notified, by the parents, or some other discreet persons, at least a week before. The title popularly given to this service, “TheTHE PRAYER-BOOK 27 Baptism of Adults,” is misleading and regrettable. It is true that the form is to be used for adults. But its provisions apply to all who are no longer infants. We need not again insist on the meaning of the term “years of discretion.” But it is worth while to point out that a normal child of, say, eight years old would have to be baptized by this service, since he would be capable of receiving the instruction directed and of answering for himself. Since the Common- wealth lasted from 1645 to 1660, during which time Puritan intruders occupied the benefices of many extruded clergy, and, as registers show, it was during the last ten years of this period that Anabaptism prevailed and still further increased the neglect of baptism, there must have been many quite young children, no longer infants, to be baptized at the Restoration.* Two indications in the service point to the baptism of quite young children. One is the direction to parents to give the required notice to the Bishop. The other is the direction to the priest to dip in the water the person to be baptized, an opera- tion only possible with small children, or, as an alternative, to pour water upon him. But it is expedient that every person, thus baptized, should be confirmed by the Bishop so soon after his baptism as conveniently may be; that so he may be * In the little parish of Hinton Martel, Dorset, the baptisms prior to the Commonwealth averaged about seven a year. From 1645 to 1660 there were only fifteen baptisms, and of these twelve were in the years 1645-50, only three being registered during the remaining ten years. In the sixteen years after the Restoration seventy-one were baptized. In the neighbouring parish of Horton there were forty-seven births in 1654-60 and only four baptisms.28 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? admitted to the Holy Communion. ‘‘ Every person.” There is no exception made against the youngest child who has attained to “years of discretion” and is able to answer for himself. For the system of the Church of England contemplates the confirmation of these children of tender years, so soon as they have received the necessary instruction, whether they were baptized in infancy or in childhood. ‘We come now to examine the rubrics which accompany the Confirmation Service in the successive Prayer-Books. In the First Prayer-Book the Catechism, under the heading Confirmacton, wherin is conteined a Cate- chisme for Children, is prefaced by the following rubrics, which also occur in the same place in the Second Prayer-Book, with a very slight alteration at the end, which we shall notice: To thende that confirmacion may be ministred to the more edifying of suche as shall receiue it (according to Saint Paules doctrine, who teacheth that all thynges should be doen in the churche to the edificacion of the same) it is thought good that none hereafter shall be confirmed, but suche as can say in theyr mother tong, tharticles of the faith, the lordes prayer, and the tenne commaundementes; And can also aunswere to suche questions of this shorte Catechisme, as the Busshop (or suche as he shall appoynte) shall by his discrecion appose them in. And this ordre is most conuenient to be obserued for divers con- sideracions. {First because that whan children come to the yeres of discrecion and haue learned what theyr Godfathers and God- mothers promised for them in Baptisme, they may then thé- selfes with their owne mouth, and with theyr owne consent, openly before the churche ratifie and confesse the same, and also promise that by the grace of God, they will euermore endeuour themselues faithfully to obserue and kepe such thinges, as they by theyr owne mouth and confession haue assented unto. Secondly, forasmuch as confirmacion is ministred to them that be Baptised, that by imposicion of handes, and praier theyTHE PRAYER-BOOK 29 may receiue strength and defence against all temptacions to sin, and the assautes of the worlde, and the deuill : it is most mete to be ministred, when children come to that age, that partly by the frayltie of theyr owne fleshe, partly by the assautes of the world and the deuil, they begin to be in daungier to fall into sinne. | Thirdly, for that it is agreeable with the usage of the churche in tymes past, wherby it was ordeined, that Confirma- cion should bee ministred to them that were of perfecte age, that they beyng instructed in Christes religion, should openly professe theyr owne fayth, and promise to be obedient unto the will of God. {And that no manne shall thynke that anye detrimente shall come to children by differryng of theyr confirmacion : he shall knowe for trueth, that it is Certayn by Goddes woorde, that children beeyng Ba aptized (if they pa out of thys lyfe in theyr infancie) are undoubtedly saued. The last few words are slightly different in the Second Prayer-Book, and run: he shal knowe for truth, that it is certayne by Goddes woord, that children beyng baptysed, haue al thynges necessary for their saluation, and be undoubtedly saued. A perusal of these rubrics can lead to only one conclusion. They establish beyond possibility of question the statement of Jeremy Taylor that the Church of England and Ireland follows the way of confirming children as soon as possible after infancy, the necessary minimum once learned; the conten- tion of Wheatly that “it is evidently the design of our Church, that children be confirmed before they have opportunities of being acquainted with sin.” During the age of innocency their parents need not fear loss for them from remaining unconfirmed ; if they die, they die in grace, and will be saved. But once discretion is attained, temptation begins and sin becomes a possibility: then they are to be confirmed, that, as Wheatly again says, “the Holy30 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? Ghost may take early possession of their youthful hearts and prevent those sins to which, without His assistance, the very tenderness of their age would be apt to expose them.” The third reason given in the above rubrics for the deferring of confirmation to childhood is at first sight puzzling: the curious statement that the plan adopted is agreeable with the usage of the churche in tymes past, wherby it was ordeined, that Confirmacion should bee ministred to them that were of perfect age. Why this claim to agreement with past usage, when, as we have seen, the primitive custom of infant confirmation was continued right up to the Council of Trent abroad and to the Reformation in England? And why this reference to perfect age, when it is so abundantly clear that the Church was rejecting the “perfect age” method in favour of confirmation in early childhood ? * The answer to the first question is easily sup- plied by those who are familiar with the writings of the Reformers. Several of them, condemning infant confirmation as superstitious, and desiring a delay till perfect age, taught that the method they advocated was primitive. We need not discuss at length the origin of this historical blunder. But * Dean Comber, evidently considering that the earlier Prayer-Books suggest confirmation at “ perfect age,” instead of merely claiming agreement with the principle of the ‘ perfect age” method, tries to make “ perfect age ” mean a point in early childhood. This phrase, he says, “the Gloss doth ill to inter- pret twelve years old, since the meaning is that they be of competent years to profit by confirmation. And in the same manner doth our Church nominate no year, but appointing it to be done to such only as are come to years of discretion and are well instructed in the Catechism” (Prayer-Book, Part IIL, P- 220).THE PRAYER-BOOK 3r a supposed primitive confirmation at the end of childhood meets us again and again in the writings of Reformers. Tyndal, Calfhill, Rogers, Jewel, and Cranmer himself, all speak of it. And it is alluded to here. The claim that the method adopted is “agreeable to” it must obviously not be pressed to mean that it is identical with it. It secured the same principle of a conscious profession of Christian faith and purpose. Similarly the other rubrics establish an agreement with the positive principle of infant confirmation, the securing to early childhood the needed strength against temptation. We have, in fact, evidence here, as elsewhere, of the desire to retain in the Church men of differing views: the aim at “the mean between two extremes.” Quite obviously the final paragraph, justifying the deferring of confirmation till infancy was over, would be no adequate defence of a system which deferred it to the end of childhood. One other rubric, in the First and Second Prayer- Books, follows the Catechism and precedes the Office for Confirmation. It is as follows: So soone as the children can say in their mother tongue tharticles of the faith, the lordes praier, the ten commaundementes, and also can aunswere to such questions of this short Catechisme as the Bushop (or suche as he shall appointe) shal by hys discrecion appose them in: then shall they bee brought to the Bushop by one that shalbee his godfather or godmother, that euerye childe maye haue a wittenesse of hys confirmacion. Then follows the rite of confirmation, beginning, down to 1662, with the versicle, “Our help is in the Name of the Lord.” We may note in the foregoing rubric the same insistence on confirmation so soon as the child has32 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? learned what is required which meets us in the post-baptismal injunction. But we must now turn to our own Prayer-Book. This shows a certain amount of rearrangement, but, as Wheatly insists, no alteration of principle as regards the age of confirmation. At the beginning of the Confirmation Office the revisers inserted the present Preface, followed by the formal renewal of vows, a new feature. And they expanded the title, emphasizing in it the point at which the rite was to be administered, viz., years of discretion. This altered opening of the service we print in full: THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, OR LAYING ON OF HANDS UPON THOSE THAT ARE BAPTIZED AND COME TO YEARS OF DISCRETION. ‘I Upon the day appointed, all that ave to be then confirmed, being placed, and standing in order, before the Bishop ; he (or some other Minister appointed by him) shall read this Preface following : To the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Com- mandments ; and can also answer to such other Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained : which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end, that children, being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same ; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they, by their own confession, have assented unto. Then shall the Bishop say, Do ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism ; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe,THE PRAYER-BOOK 33 and to do, all those things, which your Godfathers and God- mothers then undertook for you ? ‘I And everyone shall audibly answer, Ido. This new preface contained the substance of the first two paragraphs in the rubrics quoted above from the earlier books, with the exception of the provision in them that the Bishop should “‘ appose” the children in the Catechism. This omission, however, was remedied by adding to the old rubrics the stipulation: If the Bishop approve of them, he shall confirm them in the manner following. This plainly continued the provision for the Bishop’s examination of candidates in the Catechism, if he saw fit. It is obvious that in no other way could a Bishop be justified in refusing candidates presented by the parish priest as having reached years of discretion and being duly instructed. The third paragraph of the old rubrics, stating that confirmation is most meet to be ministered when children begin to be in danger of falling into sin, was not repeated. Its substantial import was involved in the twice-repeated use of the phrase “years of discretion,” meaning precisely that point at which danger of falling into sin begins. The fourth paragraph also, with its claim to agreement with a primitive custom of confirmation at perfect age, disappeared. It may well be that the revisers realized that it was unhistorical and misleading. If there had been any doubt as to the system under the earlier books—as there certainly was not—the removal of the reference to perfect age and the insistence on years of discretion might be considered 334 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? to have a conclusive significance. As a matter of fact, the system of confirmation in early childhood had been so long settled in the Church regulations that it was hardly necessary to emphasize its points of agreement with other systems originally rivalling it in men’s minds. The assurance that children suffered nothing by the deferring of confirmation, since if they died in innocency after baptism their salvation was assured, also disappeared from its ’ place. Here, again, it was probably felt that a generation which was quite accustomed to the discon- tinuance of infant confirmation no longer needed it. But it was thought worth while to preserve the declaration that baptized infants were undoubtedly saved, and this was placed at the end of the Bap- tismal Office, where it followed the injunction that children should be confirmed as soon as possible, and might still be interpreted as having some reference to the question of confirmation. The rubric, So soone as the children can say, etc., appears in an altered form in 1662 in the group of rubrics following the Catechism, and will be considered in its place in the next chapter. Already we have sufficient evidence for the most absolute statement that the Church of England, from the Reformation to the present day, has not only permitted confirmation in early childhood, but has expressly enjoined it again and again. She has excluded from her official utterances the idea of a later confirmation at puberty or after, almost as definitely as she has abandoned the confirmation of infants. In the next chapter we shall find still further evidence of this fact.CHAPTER III THE PRAYER-BOOK AND THE AGE FOR CONFIRMATION—Continued ANOTHER group of rubrics in the Prayer-Books, connected with the Order for Confirmation, calls for notice before we pass on to consider the service itself in its general aspect. In the earliest Book the rubrics at the end of the service ran as follows: The curate of euery parish once in sixe wekes at the least upon warnyng by him geuen, shal upon some Soonday or holy day, half an houre before euensong opély in the churche instructe and examine so many childré of his parish sent unto him, as the time wil serue, and as he shal thynke conueniente, in some parte of this Cathechisme. And all fathers, mothers, maisters, and dames, shall cause theyr children, seruauntes, and prentises (whiche are not yet confirmed), to come to the churche at the daie appoynted, and obediently heare and be ordered by the curate, until suche time as they haue learned all that is here appointed for them to learne. ‘I And whansoeuer the Bushop shal geue knowlage for childré to be brought afore him to any conueniét place, for their confirmacion: Then shal the curate of euery parish either bring or send in writing, y° names of al those children of his parish which can say tharticles of theyr faith, the lordes praier, and the ten cOmaundementes. And also howe many of them can answere to thother questions conteined in this Cathechisme. ‘I And there shal none be admitted to the holye communion : until suche time as he be confirmed. The Second Prayer-Book strengthened the requirement of the first rubric upon the clergy by requiring more frequent catechizing: instead of “ once in six weeks at the least,” it was to be “diligently on Sundaies and holy daies.” And the final rubric, 3536 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? about admission to communion, was altered to require knowledge of the Catechism, as well as confirmation, as a condition of such admission. Otherwise the rubrics stood unaltered. The final form, as revised in 1662, was as follows : ‘J The Curate ofevery Parish shall diligently upon Sundays and Holy-days, after the second Lesson at Evening Prayer, openly in the Church instruct and examine so many Children of his Parish sent unto him, as he shall think convenient, in some part of this Catechism. ‘T And all Fathers, Mothers, Masters, and Dames, shall cause their Children, Servants, and Prentices, (which have not learned their Catechism,) to come to the Church at the time appointed, and obediently to hear, and be ordered by the ‘urate, until such time as they have learned all that is here appointed for them to learn. So soon as Children are come to a competent age, and can say, in their Mother Tongue, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and also can answer to the other Questions of this short Catechism ; they shall be brought to the Bishop. And every one shall have a Godfather, or a God- mother, as a Witness of their Confirmation. ‘T And whensoever the Bishop shall give knowledge for Chil- dren to be brought unto him for their Confirmation, the Curate of every Parish shall either bring, or send in writing, with his hand subscribed thereunto, the names of all such persons within his Parish, as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed. And, if the Bishop approve of them, he shall confirm them in manner following. These rubrics, in our book, follow the Catechism and precede the Order of Confirmation. The service is followed by the final rubric: And there shall none be admitted to the holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. A brief comparison of these rubrics with those in the earlier books may be made here. The first tubric retains the stricter requirement of the BookTHE PRAYER-BOOK 37 of 1552, requiring catechizing on Sundays and holy days. It is altered to put this catechizing after the Second Lesson at Evensong, instead of half an hour before the service, obviously a more convenient arrangement, and securing the benefit of the instruction for the whole congregation. The requirement laid upon parents, masters, and dames has remained unaltered in the three successive books. The third rubric makes the same provisions as the rubric preceding the Confirmation in the older books, quoted in the last chapter (p. 31), with two alterations. One, which we have already noticed, is the omission of the suggestion that the Bishop may examine the candidates in the Catechism, replaced by the requirement elsewhere that he shall “approve” them. The other is the introduction of the phrase “a competent age.” This phrase is used for the first time in 1662. Dr. Barry, in the Teacher's Prayer-Book, makes it identical in meaning with “years of discretion.” “The age,” he writes, “is to be a ‘competent age,’ or what is called in the Confirmation Service ‘years of discretion '—that is, of thoughtful distinction between good and evil.” It would perhaps be more accurate to say that “years ofdiscretion” refers to the moral development of a sense of right and wrong; “competent age” to the intellectual development, rendering an intelligent grasp of the requisite knowledge possible, and possibly therefore a little later. But it is not very easy to distinguish the two, and the definition, “a thoughtful distinction between good and evil,” practically combines them. Certainly the two expressions must be read together, and the38 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? requirement of “a competent age”* cannot with any justice be interpreted so as to exclude children who have come to years of discretion and know what is required. The next rubric, enjoining the clergy to send or bring in writing the names of children to be confirmed, identical in the first two books, is here altered. Hitherto the curate was required to present all children who knew the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments, specifying which of them could also answer the questions in the Church Cate- chism. Now he is required to present all such as he shall think fit to be presented. The alteration was a wise one. Without in any way modifying the system * Since writing this book, I have come across a pamphlet by the Rev. E. J. Watson Williams on The Age for Confirmation (J. and J. Bennett), in which he covers much of the ground dealt with in my second and third chapters. He interprets “‘a competent age” to mean “the age at which anyone is able to understand the nature of an oath, competent to make a solemn romise.” And he adds that “the expression seems to have een deliberately substituted for the term ‘a perfect age’ in the earlier books.” I have no doubt he is right here, since this completes the transposition of everything contained in the old rubrics into their rearranged form in the present book. But I do not think he is right in maintaining that “perfect age” originally meant the same as “a competent age.” It is true that Dean Comber and others put “a perfect age” lower than twelve, but it is certain, as we have seen, that it was ordinarily understood to mean the end of childhood. At the earliest it meant twelve or a little before; at the latest fourteen to sixteen, where Cosin puts it, with the compilers of Elizabeth’s Latin Prayer-Book, who rendered it adu/ta etate. Both Dean Comber and Mr. Watson Williams are led to the attempt to refer it to a lower age by the idea they have formed that the earlier Prayer-Books suggested confirmation at the perfect age. They certainly did not. As we have seen, they rejected the “perfect age” theory, only claiming that the method they adopted of confirmation at the beginning of childhood agreed in principle with it—it secured, that is, a conscious profession of bith and purpose.THE PRAYER-BOOK 39 of confirmation in early childhood, it made it quite clear that the priest had a right to require, not only a knowledge of the elementary principles of religion, but proper moral dispositions. While the stipulation that the Bishop should confirm them, if he approve of them, not only made it clear, as we have seen, that he was still free to examine them in the Catechism, but also gave to him, as to the priest, the right to satisfy himself of their moral fitness. The final rubric is modified to allow of the admission to Communion of those who are ready and desirous to be confirmed. This involved the requirement of knowledge of the Catechism, but provided against the hardship of candidates being kept from communion if through no fault of their own confirmation was delayed. Obviously the curate is to be the judge of the readiness for confirmation required. This group of rubrics certainly claims attention. Obedience to them is far from general on the part of either parents, curates, or Bishops. As long as parents neglect to see that their children are taught, “so soon as they shall be able to learn,” the principles of their religion, the intention of the Church that they shall be early instructed and early confirmed will inevitably be defeated, and, as actually happens, many will be neither properly instructed nor confirmed at all. The clergy cannot, with few exceptions, be accused of neglecting to catechize, and the catechizing in the afternoon, instead of after the Second Lesson at Evensong, is a small matter. Since Evensong has been universally transferred, in parish churches at least, from the afternoon to the40 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED evening, such an arrangement, although violating the letter of the rubric, retains the catechizing at the time intended. But where the clergy fail in obedience to the rubrics is in consenting to defer all question of the fitness of children to be confirmed until they have reached the age-limit, usually at or after the end of childhood, unlawfully imposed by many Bishops. It may be noticed that no regulation of the Church requires the clergy to supply to the Bishop the ages, as well as the names, of confirmation candidates; and they would certainly be within their rights in declining to do so. The rubric, and also, we may add, the sixty-first of the canons of 1603,* requires them to present all the children whom they think fit, without distinction of age. And no word of our formularies authorizes the Bishop to refuse confirmation to any candidate presented, except after an examination in which the candidate fails to satisfy him of his fitness. We turn now to a brief review of the service itself, * The canon runs as follows : “61. Ministers to prepare Children for Confirmation. “Every Minister, that hath cure and charge of souls, for the better accomplishing of the orders prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer concerning Confirmation, shall take especial care that none shall be presented to the Bishop for him to lay his hands upon, but such as can render an account of their faith, according to the Catechism in the said Book contained. And when the Bishop shall assign any time for the performance of that part of his duty, every such minister shall use his best endeavour to prepare and make able, and likewise to procure as many as he can to be then brought, and by the Bishop to be confirmed.” It is plain that the age-limit imposed by Bishops, limiting the number of those who are to be brought to those over a certain age, instead of requiring as many as possible to be duly prepared and brought, requires the contravention of this canon.THE PRAYER-BOOK 4r as bearing by its implications on the question of the age for confirmation. It began in 1549 with the versicles and responses as now used, but for one slight omission, and these were followed by the prayer for the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, with slight verbal differences. The service is so short that we may well print it here in full, side by side with the present edition : 1549. Our help is in the name of the ‘Answer, Which hath made both heaven and earth. ‘Minister, Blessed is the name of the Lord. Answer, Henceforth world without end. Minister. The Lord be with you. ‘Answer. And with thy spirit. Let us pray. Almighty and everliving God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants of water and the Holy Ghost: And hast given unto. them forgiveness of all their sms: Send down from heaven, we beseech thee, © Lord, upon them thy Holy Ghost the Comforter, with the manifold gifts of grace, the spirit of wisdom and understanding; the spirit of unsel and ghostly strength ; the spirit of knowledge and true godliness, and fulfil them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear. Answer, Amen. Minister. Sign them, O Lord, and mark them to be thine for ever, by the virtue of thy holy cross and passion, Confirm and strengthen them with the inward unction of thy Holy Ghost, mercifully unto everlasting life. “Amen, Then the Bishop shall cross them in the forchead, and lay his hand upon their head, saying: N. [sign thee with the cross, and lay my hand upon thee: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. 1662. The Bishop: Our help is in the Name of the Lord; ‘Answer, Who hath made heaven and earth. Bishop. Blessed be the Name of the Lord ; Answer, Henceforth, world without end. Bishop. Lord, hear our prayers. Answer. And let our cry come unto thee, The Bishop: Let us pray. Almighty and_everliving God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by Water and the holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins ; Strengthen them, we beseech thee, © Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace ; the spirit of wisdom and understanding ; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength ; the spirit of knowledge and true’ godliness ; and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen. ‘I Then all of them in order kneeling before the Bishop, he shall lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying: Defend, O Lord, this thy Child fer this thy Servant) with thy eavenly grace, that Ae may continue thine for ever; and ¢ increase in thy holy Spirit moré and more until Ae come unto thy everlasting kingdom, Amen.42, WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? And thus shall he do to child one after another. And when he hath laid ‘his hand upon every child, then shall he say: The peace of the Lord abide with ou. yovinswer, And with thy spirit. Then shall the Bishop say : ‘1 Let us pray. Almighty everliving God, which makest us both to will and to do those things that be good and acceptable unto thy majesty: we make our humble supplications unto thee for these children, upon whom (after the example of thy holy apostles) we have laid our hands, to certify them (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness toward them : let thy fatherly hand (we beseech thee) ever be over them, let thy Holy Spirit ever be with them, and so lead them in the knowledge and obedience of thy word, that in the end they may attain the life everlasting, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and eth one God world without end. Amen, Then shall the Bishop bless the children, thus saying: The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be ‘upon you, and remain with you for ever. Amen. ‘I Then shall the Bishop say: ‘The Lord be with you. Answer, And with thy spirit. ‘And (all kneeling down) the Bis Sede Let us pray, Our Father, which art in heaven, haliowed be iby Name, Thy kingdom come ‘Thy will be done, fa earth as it is in heaven, Giveus this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them And this Collect, Almighty and everliving God, who makest us both to will and to do those things that be good and acceptable unto thy divine Majesty; We make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom (after the example of thy holy Apostles) we have now laid our hands, to certify them (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them. Let thy fatherly hand, we beseech thee, ever be over them; let thy Holy Spirit ever be with them ; and so lead them in the knowledge and obedience of thy ‘Word, that in the end they may obtain everlasting life ; through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee and the Holy Ghost liveth and reigneth, ever one God, world with- outend. Amen, O Almighty Lord, and everlasting God, vouchsafe, we beseech thee, to direct, sanctify, and govern, both our hearts and bodies, in the ways of thy laws, and in the works of thy commandments ; that, through thy most mighty protection both here and ever, we may be preserved in body and soul; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. Then the Bishop shall bless them, saying thus : The Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be'upon you, and remain with you for ever. Amen.THE PRAYER-BOOK 43 The alteration in the prayer for the seven gifts, and the omission of the signing with the cross and the preceding prayer, were made in 1552. It will be noticed that the alteration of the former prayer imports into it the petition for strengthening from the following prayer of 1549, now omitted. At the same time the formula, “ Defend, O Lord,” etc., was substituted for the older formula, but without the words in brackets [or this thy servant], which were added in 1662, the introduction of the alternative being obviously dictated by the same considerations which led to the drawing up of a Form for Baptism of those of Riper Years. The system of confirming children remains the normal order, but since both baptism and confirmation had been neglected under the Commonwealth, the former partially, the latter entirely, it was obvious that provision must be made for the confirmation of those who had passed childhood. Similarly, in the prayer which follows the mutual salutation and Paternoster in all three books was altered in 1662 from ‘‘ We make our humble supplications . . . for these thy children” to “We make our humble supplications . . . for these thy servants.” It thus covered the needs of children and older persons alike. The final prayer before the blessing was added in 1662. A perusal of this service can only lead to one conclusion. It is a service for the strengthening and perfecting of those who have already been regene- rated and pardoned in Baptism: a rite conferring44 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? strength to protect them in temptation and enable them to continue in the service of God. The exhortations to repentance and reparation for past sin, which form so strong a feature in the service for Holy Communion, are wholly absent. The idea of a conversion from neglect and indifference is simply not to be found.* It is interesting to note that a Commission appointed by Convocation in 1682 to suggest amendments to the Prayer-Book favoured the substitution for the present prayer, “strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord,” etc., of a prayer containing the words “renew and strengthen them,” in evident consciousness that the Office as it stood contained no suggestion of renewal. It is well that the addition was not made. It would have contradicted the whole tenor of the service, as the practice which had become normal half a century ago, of confirming not children but young men and women, contradicts it. Once more we find in the service itself the evidence of the deliberate rejection of two systems and the choice of a mean between them. The prayer derived from the old Confirmation of Infants wit- * “Tt would be difficult for any unprejudiced person to read the Confirmation Office and not see that it supposes the candidate to be receiving the rite before baptismal purity has been Jost. From beginning to end there is not a word to support the popular theory of its inaugurating an entire change and a fresh start, There is no cry for pardon of past sin, and no prayer for newness of life. On the contrary, it 1s, in its essence and idea, preventive, not remedial—confirmatory, not recuperative; it holds fast and strengthens and augments what is in possession, and does not seek to regain something that has been lost.”— The Proper Age for Confirmation, by R. R. D. (Church Print- ing Company, 1889).THE PRAYER-BOOK 45 nesses that the principle of confirmation during innocency is retained: the requirement of a knowledge of the Catechism, and later, in 1662, of a tenewal of the baptismal vow, only more solemn than the resolution of the answer to the fourth question in the Catechism, witnesses that the principle involved in the supposed primitive confirmation is also adopted. The objection to infant confirmation, that the child could not make any religious profession, is avoided. Equally, the objection urged against confirmation at the end of childhood was avoided, the objection that it was prejudicial to the child to go through a period when he could be tempted and was in danger of falling into sin, unless aided by the help confirmation gave. A reference to one other rubric may conclude this teview of the evidence of the Prayer-Book as to the age at which confirmation should be administered. The rubric is that at the end of the Form for the Solemnization of Matrimony: I¢ ts convenient that the new-married persons should receive Holy Communion at the time of their marriage or at the first opportunity after their marriage. Up to 1661 this rubric was more imperative and stringent, standing thus: The newe maried persons (the same daye of their mariage) must receiue the holy communion. Communion might not be received up to 1662 till after confirmation: it may not be received under the present Prayer- book until the person is at least ready and desirous for confirmation. Clearly, therefore, confirmation is contemplated46 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? before the earliest age at which marriage is possible. When is this? Legal authorities tell us that a marriage at the age of consent—i.e., fourteen for a boy and twelve for a girl, provided that both are of sound mind, is valid.* The civil law of England in this matter is based on the Canon Law of the Church, and both have their origin in the old Roman law, which made puberty the condition of a binding marriage contract. If this were all that were to be said, we should have established that confirmation is contemplated for a boy before fourteen, for a girl before twelve. But there is more to be said. The English law allows of marriage, with the consent of parents, at a much earlier age. A marriage contracted in infancy by the arrangement of the parents is no marriage, because there is no consent on the part of those concerned. But once the age of discretion is reached—i.¢., as soon as infancy is over and childhood has begun, a perfectly valid marriage can be contracted. It is true that, since it cannot be consummated, either party may void it on reaching the age of puberty. But if, on reaching this age, both parties agree to live together, “their marriage,” to quote Mr. Cripps,t+ * Stephens’ Laws relating to the Clergy, vol. i. p. 7013 Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. xv., p. 566, article on Marriage (by Edmund Robinson, LL.D., M.P., Professor of Roman Law in the London University); Cripps’ A Practical Treatise on Law relating to the Church and Clergy, Book VI., chap. Dale, Clergyman’s Legal Handbook, p. 182. + A Practical Treatise on the Law relating to the Church and Clergy, p. 720.THE PRAYER-BOOK ry, “stands good for all intents and purposes what- soever, and they need not be married again.” Both before and after the Reformation cases have occurred of the marriage of quite young children. William, son of the Prince of Orange, and Mary, daughter of Charles I., were married by the Bishop of Ely at the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, when he was eleven and she was nine; and other instances of a like nature can be quoted.* : If it be urged that exceptional marriages of this kind were not likely to be contemplated in a rubric attached to the marriage service, and that the existence of such a rubric is not sufficient on which to base an argument of the kind, the argument need not be pressed: we have, as has been seen, enough evidence without it of the intention to confirm in early childhood. But, however this may be, we may at least urge that those whom Church and State recognize as old enough to make before God and man the marriage vow, may well be regarded as old enough to renew the baptismal vow and be confirmed. When a child has left infancy behind, and attained discretion, it becomes morally accountable. No longer an infant, it may give evidence on oath in a court of law, it may contract marriage, it may even be convicted of felony and be executed, by the law of the land.t * Vide Evelyn's Diary, pp. 364, 369 (quoted in The Confirma- tion and Communion of Infants, by H. Holloway, p. 151). + Blackstone, in his Commentaries (Book IV., chap. ii.), states that a child of eight may be guilty of felony, and records the case of a boy of this age being tried for arson and hanged, while another boy of ten has been hanged for murder.48 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? We may claim to have shown in this chapter and the last that the statement of Jeremy Taylor, sup- ported by other writers, that the Church of England rejected alike infant confirmation and confirmation at the end of childhood, deliberately and advisedly adopting the method of confirmation in early childhood, is abundantly confirmed in the successive Prayer-Books. The restriction of confirmation to those who have passed childhood is an abuse utterly uncontemplated by even extreme reformers; Tyn- dal, who went as far as most, suggested “eleven or twelve”: the restriction even to the end of childhood is the substitution of a method the Church of England condemned and rejected for the method she approved and adopted. We shall not be true to the teaching of the Church until our clergy are ready to present, and our Bishops to confirm, children at any age after infancy when they know the elements of religion and manifest the proper dispositions. In the next chapter we shall show that the method approved in theory and embodied in regulation was actually carried out in practice in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries.CHAPTER IV EARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE Wuit-Sunpay, 1549, saw the definite establishment in England of the new order. Henceforth infant confirmation becomes, as it had already become in many continental dioceses,* a thing of the past. Confirmation is now ordered in early childhood, as soon as possible after discretion is reached and the necessary instruction, which there is to be no delay or neglect in giving, has been acquired. The tran- sition prepared for, as we have seen, in 1543,T is sharply marked in the practice of the English Church. And the new order is characterized not only by an altered method, but by an altered condition of discipline. Infant confirmation had been sharply enforced by ecclesiastical penalties. Such penalties disappear henceforward. Had the discipline which was possible in the thirteenth century been possible in the sixteenth, we might expect to find canons inflicting a fast or a degree of excommunication upon parents who neglected to get their children confirmed before they were nine years old. But the difference between the thirteenth and the sixteenth * The Synod of Cologne (1280) directed priests to admonish parents to bring to confirmation children as yet unconfirmed at seven and upwards. In 1536 another Synod of Cologne emphasized the desirability of instruction before confirmation, and expressed the opinion that the sacrament cannot be intelligently received till a child is a little above seven. 5. 9 450 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? century is the difference between a time when the existence of regulations is a sufficient proof of general practice, disobedience to them being sharply punished and therefore exceptional, and a time when such regulations become rather an ideal attained by the few than a law of universal observance. It is probable that the new system of confirmation in early childhood was at first fairly generally carried out. The people, accustomed to confirmation in infancy, needed to be assured that their children lost nothing if it were deferred to the end of this period; and the fact that they needed such an assurance makes it probable that numbers of them would not wait longer than they were obliged. On the other hand, many both of the clergy and laity, from the Bishops down, had imbibed the new teaching and would favour the deferring of confirmation till towards the end of childhood, despite the rejection of this method in the Prayer-Book. Where a Bishop was in favour of “full age,” he was not likely to compel the clergy to present children of seven years old, although he could not, in the face of the Church’s order, refuse to confirm such children if presented. It will be seen that all the factors of the situation made for a wide disparity between the regulations ot the Church and her practice. A Bishop who was in thorough sympathy with the via media of the new order, or who regretted the abandonment of the still earlier confirmation, might do something to secure a high ideal of conformity in his own diocese. But the Bishop of the next diocese might be known toEARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE St tolerate the ignoring of the directions of the Prayer- Book, thus lowering the idea of obedience in his own sphere and making it harder to enforce conformity elsewhere. The most we can expect to find, therefore, or hope to prove, is that the Prayer-Book was sometimes obeyed, children being confirmed in early childhood, so soon as they had learned the rudiments of religion. If our task were to show that the Prayer-Book had been disobeyed we should have abundant materials. For in every age since the Reformation the standard of the Church of England has rebuked her practice. It must be remembered, moreover, that registers of confirmations have not been kept. It is doubtful whether such registers would have helped us much: they would probably have consisted solely of names: no requirement to specify the ages of candidates having ever been authorized. As they do not exist we are dependent solely on information which has survived here and there showing the kind of thing which happened without indicating the extent to which it happened. For instance, we know that Bishop Bentham in 1565 did his best to enforce the Prayer-Book order in the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield by requiring the presentation of all children turned seven. Children at this age might be expected to be able to repeat the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Com- mandments, and, as we have seen, a Bishop need not require more than this. How many other Bishops may have made a like attempt, or how far such attempts secured compliance, we do not know.52 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? That many of the Bishops neglected to secure obedience to the new order is evident from a complaint of Archbishop Whitgift to the Bishops of his province in 1691. He speaks of the general pre- valence of dissoluteness in manners and ignorance among the masses, he ascribes it to neglect of proper instruction and expresses his opinion that it might very well be redressed by attention to the duty of catechizing. Then follows this passage : “One great inducement unto the learning of the rudiments of religion hath heretofore been observed to be that charge which by the book of common prayer every minister should give after baptizing the infants to have them, so soon as they may learn, instructed in the catechism; and, having learned it, to be brought to the bishop to be confirmed.* Which giving charge, I do hear, is for the most part omitted. This ancient and laudable ceremony of confirming children, in respect of a carefulness in fathers to have their children instructed, that afterward they might be confirmed, hath heretofore wrought much good where it was used. I am very sorry to hear that my brethren the bishops of my province of Canter- bury do so generally begin to neglect to confirm children, at least to call for and exact the use both of it, and of catechizing children in the church by the minister, and of parents to send their children, and to come thither themselves. These wants are now grown so common and offensive by the ill effects which they are found to * Videjp. 23.EARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE 53 yield, that I am in conscience urged very earnestly, and in the fear of God, to require your lordship, and other my brethren, the bishops, according to your pastoral care, and for the duty which you owe to God and his church, both in your visitations from time to time, and by your archdeacons and other ecclesiastical officers, to give strait charge unto parents to come themselves, or at least to send their children to the church at such times; and especially unto ministers to expound unto them, and to examine the children in that little catechism, which is allowed by authority, and also at the baptizing of infants to give that charge for bringing them unto the bishop to be confirmed, which by the book of common prayer is prescribed.” * Whitgift was a staunch supporter of the Prayer- Book order for confirmation, which he defends elsewhere against attack as “most profitable,” t and doubtless approved the practice of Bishop Bentham a few years earlier, and followed him in confirming quite young children. The general neglect of which he complains had not been universal ; Archbishop Grindal of York, in 1571, and Bishop Aylmer of London, in 1586, had in their Visitation Articles insisted on all children above seven attend- ing catechizing. And that it did not fail of some effect is witnessed by a series of similar requirements, of which that of Bishop King of Nottingham, in 1599, is the earliest.t We have already referred to the confirmation in * Whitgift 3 (Parker Society), pp. 610, 611. ¢ Zid, p. 358. } Report of Ritual Commission, vol. ii., pp. 413, 433» 435, etc.54 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? early childhood of Nicholas Ferrar, the founder of the community of Little Gidding. Born in 1593, he was confirmed in 1598. The Story-Books of Little Gidding, which record his early piety, leave us in little doubt as to his fitness for confirmation at this early age. The fact that he managed to slip unnoticed from his place a second time to receive the laying-on of hands shows that the presentation of small children was not then unusual, as it certainly is now. We may be certain that a more detailed knowledge of the period would reveal many similar cases. But the materials are scanty. In an age when baptism and confirmation are genetal, such events are taken for granted and find no place in records. Izaak Walton’s Life of Richard Hooker, for instance, records his birth in 1553, and his going to Oxford in 1567, with many details of his childhood, but contains no express mention of either his baptism or confirmation, although there is a possible reference to his confirmation at the end of infancy. For after dwelling on his early religious training and piety, his biographer adds: “ These seeds of piety were so seasonably planted, and so continually watered with the daily dew of God’s blessed Spirit, that his infant-virtues grew into such holy habits, as did make him grow daily into more and more favour both with God and man.” This language so re- markably recalls that of the confirmation formula, that it is hard to believe the resemblance unconscious, especially when the effects of the Holy Spirit’s working are recorded to be precisely those for theEARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE 55 sake of which early confirmation was advocated. Yet the reference is not definite enough for us to claim Hooker with certainty as an instance of confirmation in early childhood. Certain it is that the injunctions of the Prayer- Book, with regard both to catechizing and to confirmation, were widely neglected.* The ecclesiastical legislation which was found necessary is sufficient evidence of this. The fifty-ninth Canon of 1603 required all parochial clergy to catechize for at least half an hour before evening prayer on every Sunday and Holy Day. The curate who neglected this duty was to be reported to the Ordinary and sharply reproved on the first conviction, suspended on the second, and excommunicated on the third. The laity were also threatened with excommunication if, after due warning, they continued to neglect the duty of sending their children or servants to attend catechizing. Another Canon, the sixtieth, required the Bishops to observe the custom of triennial visitation and confirmation. At the same time, the requirements from candidates were slightly increased by the addition to the catechism of * Jeremy Taylor has an interesting allusion to a local neglect : “Time was in England, even since the first beginnings of the Reformation, when confirmation had been less carefully administered for about six years, when the people had their first opportunity of it restored, they ran to it in so great numbers that churches and churchyards would not hold them; insomuch that I have read that the Bishop of Chester was forced to impose hands on the people in the fields, and was so oppressed with multitudes that he had almost been trod to death by the people, if he had not been rescued by the civil power."—A Discourse of Confirmation, edition 1849, Works, vol. v., p. 617.36 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? Bishop Overal’s questions on the Sacraments. And visitation articles again show Bishops inquiring into the performance of the duty of catechizing. In each case children are required to attend from the age of seven; in one case, that of Chadderton, of Lincoln (1604), from the age of six. All this suggests a condition of Church life in which early confirmation might well be the exception in practice, however clear the rule of the Church on the subject. Still, Cosin’s statement in 1619, that “many can say the Catechism and are confirmed at seven years old,” forbids us to doubt that the exceptions were numerous. Doubtless a still greater number would be presented at various ages between seven and twelve. The requirement to catechize youths up to twenty, which meets us in the various visitation articles, proves nothing against this, because instruction was required, as we have seen, to be continued after confirmation, as a condition of admission to communion. It is possible that these attempts to secure a higher level in the Church in the matter of instruction of children might in time have resulted in a fairly general adoption of early confirmation. As has been asserted over and over again, early instruction and early confirmation go together as part and parcel of the Church’s system, the former tending naturally to the latter. But the triumph of Puritanism in 1640 checked all progress of Church discipline, made confirmation impossible, and largely abrogated even infant baptism. At the Restoration in 1660 the Bishops and clergy had to face the taskEARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE 57 of reconstruction with incredible arrears of neglect to be recovered from. They must have been glad enough to get confirmation restored and ready to present candidates at any age. It is perhaps signi- ficant that in 1662 Bishop Hacket, of Lichfield, inquired in his visitation articles: ‘Does he [sc. the curate] prepare the young men and maidens of the parish to be confirmed by the Bishop ?” Yet, as we have seen, the authorities did not hesitate to continue the insistence in the new Prayer-Book on confirmation in early childhood. And the system was not wholly neglected in practice. Margaret Blagge, better known from Evelyn’s life of her as Mrs. Godolphin, was confirmed when barely eleven years old, in 1663. Her spiritual guide was Dr. Peter Gunning, one of the Commis- sioners for the revision of the Prayer-Book. Here, again, we have the chance survival of one instance out of many which doubtless occurred but found no record. A similar chance has preserved the record, some fifty years later, of the first communion of John Wesley in 1711, at the age of eight.* His father, Samuel Wesley, Vicar of Epworth, was a strict Churchman, and cannot be supposed to have admitted so young a child to communion unconfirmed. * In Wesley's Journal we find constant evidence of his practice of admitting quite young children to holy communion, presumably after confirmation. In one case, where the names and ages are mentioned, the two youngest are eight, there are others of nine and ten, while a girl of fourteen is said to be “as a mother among them ” (Journal, xvi. 69, 74).58 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? It is only here and there that such records as we can find give evidence that a tradition of obedience to the injunctions of the Prayer-Book still lingered in some pious households. Probably such obedience was far less common after the Restoration than it had been before the Revolution. A recent County History of Oxford, which I have not seen, states, I am told, that the usual age in the Oxford Diocese in the middle of the eighteenth century was about fourteen.* Certainly not till much later, and indeed comparatively recent times, can any record be found of a Bishop refusing to confirm children on account of their tender age. And such episcopal action would be far more likely to have survived than instances of early confirmation. By the nineteenth century the practice of early confirmation would seem to have disappeared, although there may have been instances, here again, of which no record exists.t But there can be no doubt that the system of confirmation at the end of childhood which the Church of England rejected from her formularies continued side by side with the system which she authorized, and in time * My informant on this point is Mr. Leighton Pullan. In the same letter he quotes br. Bellamy, the late President of St. John’s College, Oxford, who lived to be over ninety, and remembered clearly events connected with his boyhood, as saying that the practice of postponing confirmation until the age of fifteen was introduced into some dioceses within his memory because the children of the peasantry were so profoundly ignorant. + Bishop Heber, writing early in the nineteenth century, peaks of “the usual practice of the Church of England” as being seldom to admit candidates to confirmation “till they are fourteen or fifteen years of age” (Heber’s Life of Jeremy Taylor, Works of Jeremy Taylor, vol. i., p. ccxvii., edition 1854).EARLY CONFIRMATION IN PRACTICE 59 almost entirely supplanted it in practice. What is distinctively modern is the refusal on the part of some Bishops to tolerate the Church’s system. Probably at no time has such a refusal been universal. In 1855 Bishop Denison of Salisbury confirmed children of eleven, and this in an agri- cultural diocese, where the level of attainments on the part of the children might be expected to be low. My authority for this statement is a letter addressed in 1875 to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Rev. A. Lendrum. The same letter contains the following passage : “The Bishop of Rochester—probably the most acquainted of all with parochial work—has very judiciously abstained from naming any age, rightly considering that the resident clergy are the best judges in the case, inasmuch as they have what, for the most part, he cannot have—a personal knowledge of each individual. Nor should I omit to mention that the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol likewise leaves it to the working clergy to present any, however young, in whose case they think it would be inexpedient to delay confirmation. The earnest and energetic Bishop of Peterborough, too, in his recent circular letter on the subject to his clergy, left it to them to fix the age in each case. To fix any specific age for confirmation is manifestly based upon no principle that will stand the test of examination.” In 1904 the late Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Words- worth, confirmed two children of nine from this parish. From this time on children have frequently60 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? been presented at various ages under eleven. It should be added that Dr. Wordsworth was personally opposed to confirmation at such early years. But, as the result of a correspondence on the subject, he abandoned the claim to reject children, at whatever age, without examination. The plan he adopted, of examining by proxy the children under eleven, was not without its advantages. In no case did examination justify the rejection of a candidate. There are several dioceses at the present time in which the Bishop leaves the clergy free to do as they are bidden, and present all the candidates, irrespective of age, whom they think fit. But they are all too few. Meanwhile the revival of Church life, and in particular the increased interest in the important matter of the early teaching and training of children, are leading, as it was inevitable that they should, to an increasing demand for early confirmation. The conviction is growing that not only is this the method imposed upon us by authority, but that it is also dictated by sound psychology and a sancti- fied common sense. After centuries of neglect, in this as in other directions, we may prophesy a general return in the near future to “the old paths.” Churchmen will realize the value for their children of early instruction and early confirmation. And the sooner they do, the better for the Church.CHAPTER V THE RIGHT AGE THE question with which this book deals is an intensely practical one. All who have the welfare of children at heart will agree that it is really important that they should be confirmed when they can best profit by it. And to deal with the matter simply and solely as one of historical data can never be entirely satisfactory. It can be proved, as we have shown, in this way that the Church has, as a matter of fact, decided in favour of an early age. But before people will change an existing custom they will need to be assured that the change is for the benefit of those concerned. If it could be clearly established that confirmation at the end of childhood or in early manhood or womanhood produces the best possible results, it would be sacrificing practical considerations to an academic correctness to insist. on obedience to rubrics, already ignored, which had better be changed when occasion serves, and meanwhile allowed to remain a dead letter. In this chapter, then, we propose to leave behind the historical question, At what age does the Church of England require a child to be confirmed? and to address ourselves to the practical question, What is, as a matter of experience and fact, the right age? What system promises to offer the best results? 6162 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? The first place must be given to certain considerations based on the theology of confirmation in relation to baptism. Unhappily many practical people are somewhat impatient of a theological argument. Yet it is undoubtedly true that Chris- tian practice needs to be based on a sound theology : and the general truth must be particularly applied to the matter under discussion. In baptism it is the constant teaching of the Church that the soul has imparted to it three gifts or faculties, the “‘ theological virtues” of faith, hope, and charity. These gifts enable it to respond to God in the three departments of its activities— cognitions, volitions, and affections. In other words, faith empowers the mind to know God, hope ex- ables the will to serve Him, charity implants in the heart the faculty of loving Him. Given in germ in baptism, these faculties are meant to be exercised and developed in a life which is conceived of as a progress towards God. The soul is to go through life, in the words of the Baptismal Office, “ Steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity.” It is to believe, to hope, to love. On these energies its ultimate salvation depends. Confirmation is the complement of baptism. In it the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost are imparted to the soul, in answer to the prayer of the Church,* for its further strengthening. These gifts are theologically defined as “supernatural habits by which the Holy Ghost elicits acts of the particular * St. Luke xi. 13; Acts viii. 15, 17.THE RIGHT AGE 63 virtues.”* That is, they exercise and strengthen “faith, hope, and charity. Four of them—wisdom, understanding, counsel, and knowledge—are intellectual: they develop in the mind the power of faith by which God is known. The central gift of ghostly strength reinforces the energies of hope, thus remedying the natural weakness of the will. Piety, or true godliness, and holy fear inform and direct the energies of charity. Thus confirmation is emphatically a sacrament of spiritual development. It is a self-evident axiom that God’s gifts are to be desired for the soul as soon as it can make profitable use of them. To be capable of profiting by them and not to have them involves loss. We must ask, then, How soon can a soul profit by these seven gifts which enable it to develop faith, hope, and charity ? The answer must surely be this: As soon as a child is capable of consciously exercising faith, of repeating the Creed, not as a mere formula, but as an expression of its own belief, it is capable alike of developing that faith and of having it weakened by doubt. As soon as a child is capable of enter- taining the conscious desire for heaven, it can either act in the energies of that hope, and so strengthen it, or it can act at the dictates of lower motives, and weaken it. At the first moment that the soul can consciously love God, this love, again, is capable of growing or of weakening. The natural environment of the soul in a fallen world is in each case against it; faith, hope, and charity, supernaturally im- * St. Dionysius the Carthusian.64 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? planted, need to be supernaturally developed ; confirmation is the appointed means in the economy of grace for aiding this development. On purely theological lines, then, we are led to the conclusion that confirmation should be administered as soon as the child can profess the Christian Creed intelligently, resolve on obedience to God’s ‘commandments, by which alone it can hope for jheaven, and address Him in the language of filial ‘love, consciously used. We arrive, that is, at the very point enjoined in the post-baptismal injunction, the point reached, with proper instruction, very soon after the close of infancy, quite early in childhood. To delay confirmation beyond this point is to entail certain loss upon the child, “the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that ministry,” to quote Jeremy Taylor. His conclusion seems inevitable. Such delay, with the consequence of this loss, is “ very prejudicial.” From the theological argument we may turn to ground on which the ordinary person will be perhaps better able to follow us, and consider the stages of development in the life of a child, and their bearing on the question of the age for confirmation. Child-life is much studied in these days, ‘and most people have some knowledge of the subject. Modern educationalists insist very strongly on the importance of correct methods of education in dealing with children from infancy on, and particularly during the early stages while a child is still in the infants’ class, or little removed from it.THE RIGHT AGE 65 Children are required to attend a public elementary school from the age of five and to be taught by scientific methods, which aim not only at imparting knowledge, but at developing the faculties by insisting on their use. In the religious sphere these scientific methods require not only the imparting to a child of the elements of religion, but the training of the child in the practice of religion. In other words, religious educationalists will not only insist that a child be taught “so soon as he shall be able to learn” the elements of religion; they will also require that he shall be “virtuously and godly brought up” in religious habits. Where this is done it will be noticed that children, about the age of seven, sometimes earlier, sometimes later, develop a real piety. The soul awakens to the facts of religion, the sense of God, and of an invisible world interpenetrating the world of sense. Angels who guard, and evil spirits who tempt, become present factors. Such children show a lively interest in prayer and religious worship, although the attention easily wanders. We have here, in fact, the development of the religious and moral sense. The two do not necessarily develop on parallel lines, and very often the religious sense is ahead of the moral; but every wise parent or teacher uses the awakening religious sense to reinforce the moral sense. The child has arrived at knowing the difference between right and wrong; but it is way- ward, and apt often to choose the wrong for its own gratification. Where religion is neglected, it is at this early age that the foundations of bad habits are 566 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? laid; but where the child has been taught to know God, religious truth has a very powerful influence, and operates wonderfully, under proper training, in the repression of evil tendencies and the formation of good habits. The child has entered upon a formative period in which the presence or absence of religious influence will affect the formation of character for life. This is the age at which, as a matter of fact, the Church of England directs confirmation, and it is worth while to call attention again to the teaching of divines who were convinced that this age was the right one. They were familiar with early confirmation in practice, as most of us are not, and had some experience to go upon. Jeremy Taylor was convinced of the value of confirmation to children at this important epoch in their development. He considered that it fortified good tendencies at an age when they need careful fostering, and checked evil tendencies before they had the chance of forming evil habits and a resultant evil character. He ascribed much prevalent wickedness among young people to a childhood spent without the fortifying effects of confirmation. He saw all that could be urged in favour of a riper age: a more matured faculty of judgment, a fuller knowledge of religious truth, an increased experience of the power of temptation, and the need for help to combat it; but he deliberately rejected these advantages, as out- weighed by the loss to a child of the help it needs to conserve what is good and keep out what is evil at the earlier stage. The child of thirteen mayTHE RIGHT AGE 67 know very much better what it is undertaking in its promise to live a Christian life; but it may have suffered irretrievable loss through the lack of a reinforcement of its spiritual energies at eight or nine years old. At this earlier age the child is able to understand well enough, provided it has been properly taught. How far is Jeremy Taylor right? The appeal to experience which could be made in his days to an age familiar with early confirmation is less easily made now, for confirmation of young children is exceedingly rare. And on this account the present writer may claim some right to speak on this subject, as one who has had a somewhat varied experience in dealing with very different types for children for a good many years past, and as having presented children for confirmation at all ages from ten upwards, with opportunities of observing their development in later years. It is inevitable that in this chapter he should draw conclusions from his own experience, which has led him to favour very strongly, on practical grounds, early confirmation. First, he would insist on the fact that quite small children can, and do, cqntract evil habits, very dangerous indeed to the formation of a Christian character. Children of nine are to be found in peni- tentiaries. Boys of like tender years learn in bad surroundings to use vile and blasphemous language, with a very intelligent idea of its meaning. As Jeremy Taylor said, “They learn to swear before they can pray.” And certainly they learn “to lie as soon as they can speak.” The experience gained68 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? in a home where children are rescued quite young from evil surroundings leaves no doubt about this. It has even been known for a boy of under nine to contract a vicious habit, the temptation to which is generally associated with puberty.* It is obvious that such children need every help that can be given, and that they can profit by. It is surely a grave responsibility to withhold from them a means of grace which may make just the needed difference to them at a time when they see what is right and desire to follow it, but have to face a real struggle with the frailty and inconstancy of their own nature and with evil tendencies, hereditary or acquired. Surely the case of such children immensely reinforces the argument for confirming children when, in the words of our earlier Prayer-Books, “they come to that age, that partly by the frailty of their own flesh, partly by the assaults of the world and the devil, they begin to be in danger to fall into sin.” At an age when the evil spirit undoubtedly seeks to corrupt their innocence, is there not something to be said for a ministry of the Holy Spirit to reinforce their spiritual powers and enable them with strength to resist the evil which they can recognize, to follow the good to which they are drawn? In the matter of diseases which threaten the soul, as with those that threaten the body, prevention is better than cure. * Only this year (1915) a case came before a police-court in South Shields, in which, to quote from a newspaper report, “a little boy, aged nine, was tried and convicted of an indecent assault upon a little girl, aged eight, belonging to another family.”THE RIGHT AGE 69 Secondly, it should be noted that any experience with children of this age who have been taught to know and love their religion leads to the conclusion that such children welcome the chance of confirmation. It may be said, indeed, that in most cases they keenly desire it. Some years ago a little girl of eight, coming out of church after a baptism, said to her grandmother: “Grandma, what does ‘in the vulgar tongue’ mean?” On learning what it meant, the child at once said with joy, “Then I can be confirmed. I know the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Ten Commandments, and have learned all my catechism.” So keen was her desire for confirmation, that her grandmother at last, after repeated requests, took her to the vicar, and asked him to present her. He allowed her to attend the confirmation classes on the chance that the Bishop, whose rule was “not under twelve,” would accept her. He himself was abundantly satisfied of her fitness. The Bishop, as was to be expected, refused confirmation, to the keen disappointment of the child and her clergyman. But when the next opportunity came, a year later, the small candidate again insisted on being prepared and presented. This time the Bishop, on hearing all the circumstances, consented to examine the child himself, and felt he could not do other than confirm her.* * A mother writes to me that her little girl, just confirmed at the age of eleven, has been longing for confirmation for three years, from a keen desire to receive the Blessed Sacrament. In another case within my knowledge a child of seven has earnestly desired confirmation, and has had the necessary knowledge, for a year past.70 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? Such a case is naturally exceptional. Children are brought up on the idea that they cannot expect to be confirmed till the end of childhood, and accept what they are told with a child’s docility. But where they are familiarized with the idea that they may be confirmed as soon as they have the requisite knowledge and show themselves in earnest, it is my experience that they desire to fit themselves for the privilege, and prepare with real intentness. I have in mind the case of two children confirmed this year at the ages of nine and ten, who from the beginning of their preparation insisted on getting up a quarter of an hour earlier in the morning, to have more time for their prayers. How many candidates at the ages of thirteen and fourteen will show a greater zeal than this? It will be generally agreed that it is better to present confirmation candidates who have a real desire for confirmation than those who have little or no longing for it. And experience shows that some children at least who desire keenly to be confirmed at nine or even younger have lost that desire, ungratified while it existed, by the time they are twelve or thirteen, when their parents wish them to be confirmed. Quite recently a man told me he had two boys, one of fourteen, who had just been confirmed, the other of ten, unconfirmed. He could not understand, he said, why it was that the boy of ten seemed much the more fit of the two for confirmation. The elder boy was a good lad, but somehow not so keen about his religion as the younger. Had he known it, this was, as we shallTHE RIGHT AGE 7m see presently, precisely what was to be expected. But one more question must first be asked and answered about early confirmation. Can such small ; children profit by their confirmation? Confirmation, which can only come once in a lifetime, should mark an epoch. Is there not a danger lest the small child should fail to be duly impressed, and those who have presented him feel that they had better have waited? I can only answer this question from my own experience. Like every other priest, I have had many disappointments over confirmation candidates. I have known adults to be confirmed and a few years after to have relapsed into utter indifference to religion. I have known cases of youths confirmed at the end of childhood or soon after who seemed to justify the verdict that they were no better for it. But out of many cases’ of quite young children whom I have presented for confirmation I cannot recall one case in which I have felt other than thankful for their confirmation. In several cases the effect in developing a right character has been most remarkable. And other clergy who have had the somewhat uncommon experience of presenting candidates early in childhood bear a like testimony. So far we have considered confirmation at the period of spiritual development which may be re- marked in normal children, properly taught and Christianly brought up, soon after infancy is ended and years of discretion reached. Let us pass on to consider the age at which confirmation is very commonly administered: the period of development72, WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? next reached. About twelve, in the case of girls, or fourteen in the case of boys, comes a period of marked physical development, the age of puberty. The ordinary child comes then face to face with fresh temptations. No longer a child, he or she begins to acquire a new outlook on life. Very soon for most children the life of a wage-earner has to begin, if it has not already begun. The shelter of a more or less Christian home has been left, partially, if not entirely, for a life in a world alike of greater opportunities of confessing Christ and of fuller acquaintance with the incredible amount of wickedness and ungodliness which prevails in town and country alike. Zealous clergy are, many of them, fired with the idea of “getting hold of” boys and girls at this exceedingly critical stage ; and parents, getting anxious about their children at a time when parental control tends to weaken, will often co- operate with them. The results are sometimes admirable. It would be strange if they were not. Many children are especially open to the influence of their clergy at this time, and the clergy take a good deal of trouble to influence them for good. On the other hand, the disappointments in candidates prepared at this age are so notoriously many that clergy have not hesitated to pronounce it the worst possible time for confirmation. It is quite certain that the vast majority of those confirmed at this stage fail to become regular communicants, or even regular attendants at church. They begin a habit, but after a few years, or even a few months, gradually drift into conformity with the standardsTHE RIGHT AGE 73 they find surrounding them. Nor is this all. As has been said, some do, at any rate, begin well, by responding to the influence of clergy and making a good start. But it is quite certain that a proportion do not arrive even at this. They are not really anxious to be confirmed at all. Religion rather wearies them. They are told it is time they were confirmed, and they acquiesce, sometimes because it means a fuss at home if they say they do not wish to be confirmed, sometimes from a sense of duty, which has to serve where there is no real inclination. And I have known, as every priest with any experience has known, children of this age who stoutly refused to be prepared for confirmation. Now a little consideration of this stage in child- life will show that the reluctance to be confirmed is quite something to be expected in a normal child. The little child has his period of spiritual awakening, when he wakes to the recognition of spiritual truths and moral sanctions. And he is easily interested in them. But this period passes. At puberty the energies are diverted from spiritual and mental to physical processes. Many children who at school learn rapidly and easily up to twelve or thirteen will then have a fallow period when they learn little, or with difficulty. It is often the idle period even with children who are not naturally idle. Country folk, who are shrewd observers, have a common criticism to pass upon the requirement which keeps boys at school after twelve. “It do learn them to be idle.’ In the public schools, similarly, it is noticed that a74 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? bright child of ten or eleven will lose his interest in his lessons a little later, regaining it at sixteen or seventeen or even later. The truth is that the physical development which is taking place absorbs the energies. Quite notoriously, boys at this age commonly get bored with religion. Anyone who can recollect the conversation of prospective confirmation candidates at a public school, even making due allowance for the young Englishman's dislike of betraying his feelings on intimate matters, will recognize the presence of this boredom. Mr. Kempson, a medical scientist also experienced as a parish priest, is worth quoting on this subject. “We already teach many children,” he writes, “‘ yet few persevere. There may be many reasons for this, but one, I am sure, is that they are confirmed at the wrong age. From fourteen to sixteen is a time of great physical stress for both sexes, and they are then markedly unimpressionable: responsible childhood is the age of interest in the Universe and even of metaphysical speculation, and it is then that a child is intent on taking his bearings and finding his place, and he is then in need of Holy Communion. By fourteen the stress begins, and after sixteen comes work. By that time the Sacraments should be a known and tried support.” * Let me summarize, then, the objections to the end of childhood, as compared with early childhood, asa / time for confirmation. 1. There is less likelihood of the child being con- * The Church in Modern England (Pitman, 1908), pp. 200, 201.THE RIGHT AGE 75 firmed at all. That is, of course, an objection to any deferring of confirmation. It was the objection which many doubtless felt to the abandonment of infant confirmation. And it was met by the assurance that children who had been baptized, if they died in infancy, were undoubtedly saved. The objection is not so easily met in the case of little children whose confirmation is deferred. If they die, they may die in sin. If they live, the appeal of religion may lose its power after a few years: or the world and the devil may claim them for indifference and self-indulgence. 2. The child is less docile. Self-assertion is a law of the development from childhood into manhood or womanhood. A critical spirit will often hinder the humble reception of religious truth which is so important in preparation for confirmation. It is not likely that the clergy will find children easiest to deal with at the very period when their parents are beginning to find them difficult to manage. It is worth noticing that the strongest opposition to confirmation at this age comes from parents. And this is not always due to prejudice, but to their knowledge that the child is at an awkward age. With other parents the same knowledge has an opposite effect. They trust to the clergyman’s influence to reduce to some order a child whom they find a difficult problem. 3. The child is not so likely to persevere. Habits which may be strongly formed in childhood, while the child is docile and living a more or less sheltered life, are not formed strongly enough at thirteen or76 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? fourteen to resist the pressure of an indifferent or ungodly society. With regard to communion, too, it must be remembered that the habit of doing without it through childhood makes it all the easier to abandon it and do without it again. There remains a third alternative. And this is adult confirmation. This is, of course, quite uncontemplated as a normal procedure in the teaching of the Church, common as it has become owing to the neglect of confirmation in childhood. A number both of clergy and laity, who are alive to the draw- backs of confirmation at the end of childhood, and have never considered the possibility of confirmation in early childhood, declare unhesitatingly in its favour. When the awkward age of physical development has passed, the energies are free to develop in less material directions, and a period of intellectual development follows. This intellectual development may easily be given a religious turn. It may be noticed that very many are converted from one form of religion to another between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one. Certainly it often happens that a boy who refused to be confirmed, and who would have been a far from satisfactory candidate at fourteen, will come forward a few years later and show real enthusiasm and a wonderful intelligence about religion. A kind of reaction which sets in after a period when animal instincts have been strong induces a fervent desire for purity of life: and the need of the help of religion is keenly felt. Every priest who has had candidates at this age knows how very satisfactory they prove in a very great numberTHE RIGHT AGE 7 of cases. And if the only alternative to confirmation at the end of childhood were confirmation in early manhood or womanhood, I should not hesitate about the choice. It would be in favour of the latter—even if we had to alter, as we certainly ought to if the confirmation of adults were to be the normal course, every rubric on the subject and the whole tenor of the Confirmation Service. For there can be, I think, little doubt that the end of childhood, thirteen to fifteen, is the very worst period for confirmation. But two things must be borne in mind about this late confirmation. First, it enormously reduces the proportion of those who will.be confirmed. If we let our boys and girls leave school unconfirmed, how many of them shall we have coming to us, or going to anyone else, to be prepared for confirmation? The “wastage” due to this very fact that children leave school and are lost to the Church is enormous throughout the country, and notorious in every parish. And, secondly, it will be found that those who come well after childhood has been left behind to prepare for confirmation are nearly always conscious of being under a disadvantage. They wish they had come earlier. It is, in truth, difficult to form habits, in religion as in other matters, when the character is more or less formed. And it is often superlatively difficult to overcome, even with the help of confirmation and communion, evil habits of which the seeds were sown in early childhood, and which grew upon the character as it developed to manhood.78 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? These two difficulties, of forming good habits and eradicating evil habits, account, I am convinced, for the failure of many young people to persevere. It cannot be too often or too strongly insisted that childhood is the time for the formation of habits. The self-consciousness which marks childhood as distinct from infancy invests actions with significance. Actions begin to form habits: and habits form character. It is the claim of our religion that it supplies the motives which regulate actions. Hence the vast importance of early religious teaching, while actions are more easily governed, habits only in process of forming and character as yet unformed. If the opportunities of this period are neglected, it is hard at any later age to remedy the neglect. The Jesuits are credited with saying: “Give us a child till he is seven, and we will mould him for life.” The claim may be exaggerated. But it is quite certain that there is no time of such importance for the formation of character for life as infancy and early childhood. It may be said that this is a ground for careful teaching and training at this period, but not necessarily for confirmation so young. To this I answer that, as a matter of fact, the earlier confirmation is put, the earlier is the teaching and training required as a preparation for confirmation likely to begin. It is an undoubted fact that at present the clergy, generally speaking, take the most interest in the children in their schools who are nearest the age at which they will begin preparation for confirmation. Let anyone compare the amount of teaching givenTHE RIGHT AGE 79 to the infants and lower standards by the clergy in a good Church school with that given to the older children. It is true that the teaching of infants requires special gifts which the clergy do not always possess. But the clergy do not as a body shirk difficult duties. If they neglect the infants, it is because they do not realize that there is very much to be done with them. If the idea could take possession of them that these infants ought to be now preparing for confirmation, learning, “so soon as they are able to learn,” the truths so vital to their future development, with the idea of being confirmed “so soonas”’ they know them, their attention would be focussed on this most important and formative epoch of child life. As Archbishop Whitgift sought to impress on the Elizabethan Bishops, as Jeremy Taylor proclaimed to a later generation, the two things, early religious training and early confirmation, go together. One fact of some significance must be noticed. The Roman Church, however strongly some English Churchmen dislike her methods, is credited with a great deal of practical wisdom. She manages, better than any religious body in Christendom, to retain those whom she has taught. And she has specialized in the religious training of children. At a time when the Church of England had consented to abandon infant confirmation, only for confirmation in early childhood, the Council of Trent went beyond the English Reformers in counselling confirmation near the end of childhood. Within her borders confirmation has been for some centuries80 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? administered at all ages from infancy to adult years. Her experience of its effects is worth considering. And it is remarkable that she has of recent years reversed entirely her judgment at Trent, and pressed for confirmation early in childhood and for frequent communion during childhood. And she claims that this course is indicated by experience and justified by results.* Have we nothing to learn from her in this intensely practical question? Is our own system affording such results that we can afford to neglect the consideration of a method, ordered by our own formularies, suggested by a scientific view of child psychology, and endorsed by the experience of the greatest Christian community? The answer is clear. Our present method is notoriously at- tended by failures which we all deplore. To enforce a uniform system is impossible. But it is worth while to open the door to a system almost untried among us, by allowing parents and clergy to do what is actually commanded, and present children as soon after infancy as they have been adequately instructed and fittingly prepared. * The Bishop of Newport, in a Pastoral Letter on Zhe Communion of Children, speaks of the “marked and salutary results” of the policy favoured by Pius X. of admitting children to communion about the age of seven or soon after.CHAPTER VI THE INDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT—AN APPEAL TO THE BISHOPS Tue plea for liberty is one which finds in these days a sympathetic hearing from the authorities of the English Church. And those parents and clergy who are convinced of the wisdom of early confirmation might justly put forward a claim to be allowed to present their children young on the ground that the Church does not forbid it. When, however, it can be shown, as it has been shown, that the Church of England actually contemplates this early confirmation and that her rubrics deliberately press it, there seems a certain irony about an appeal for liberty to obey the rubrics and injunctions which others are allowed to disobey! Such an appeal, nevertheless, is necessary. For at the present moment, in probably nine dioceses out of ten, episcopal regulations fix an age-limit below which children may not ordinarily be presented for confirmation. It is only fair to add that most of the Bishops are willing, on the recommenda- tion of the clergy, to accept candidates a little below the limit they fix, and this has the practical effect of reducing the limit by about a year. There are, however, some dioceses where the line is inflexibly drawn at a certain age, all candidates below that age being ruled out. 8 682 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? We plead here for the abolition of all such age- limits. And we proceed to justify the plea by showing that the fixing of an age-limit is unreasonable in itself, cannot possibly serve any useful purpose, and cannot be justified. First of all it must be noted that the existence of various age-limits in different dioceses, while in a few exceptional dioceses no such limit exists, is manifestly unfair and unreasonable. If anything were to be said in favour of an age-limit, the Bishops ought at least to agree in fixing the same age-limit everywhere. At the present moment in one diocese children can be confirmed at eight, in another they are refused under ten, in others the age is twelve or thirteen, with exceptions allowed under special circumstances; in others, again, it is thirteen or fourteen, with no exceptions made. What is refused in one instance to a child of twelve is granted in another to a child of eight. To state the existence of such a state of things is to condemn it. But suppose the Bishops to agree in fixing a uniform age-limit, and so to abolish the anomaly of different treatment in different dioceses, such an age-limit would still remain objectionable and indefensible. For quite obviously we need a uniform system based not on age, but, like our secular educa- tional system, on attainments. This, which is certainly the only authorized plan, is also the only reasonable plan. Children differ enormously both in their spiritual and intellectual capacities, and to fix an age below which no child may be confirmed is as profoundly unreasonable as it would be to keepINDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT 83 all children in an infant school till they were eight, or out of the sixth standard till they were twelve. ‘What matters is not age, but capacity, and one child may have a greater capacity at seven than another at twelve. The Prayer-Book standard, however it may seem to some to err in encouraging early confirmation, does at least make attainments, not years, the test of fitness. Years of discretion are not seven, or ten, or twelve, but whenever discretion is attained ; competent age is not this or that interval from birth reckoned in time, but the age when the required competence is reached, whenever in the case of each individual that may be. The age-limit labours under the damning disadvantage that it is certain to rule out some who ought to be confirmed, while it cannot succeed in excluding all who ought to be excluded. Suppose the Bishop fixes the age at twelve. It is because he aims at a spiritual and intellectual standard which he conceives to be ordinarily reached after twelve. But it is quite certain that some children, exceptionally advanced, will reach this standard before they are eleven. And the age-limit, even if relaxed to the extent of a year, will rule them out, in spite of their having reached the point when the Bishop holds that confirmation should be administered They are fit for confirmation, but they are “not old enough.” Other children, again, exceptionally back- ward, will not have reached at fourteen the stage normally reached at twelve. They are not yet fit, by the episcopal standard, for confirmation. But84 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? they have passed the sacred age. They may be confirmed. Again, the system of an episcopal age-limit trans- fers, to some extent at least, the important decision as to when a child should be confirmed from the parents and clergy who know the child to the Bishop who doesn’t. The Prayer-Book rubric and the sixty- first Canon expressly leave the decision as to the fitness of candidates to be presented with the clergy. The curate is to send or bring to the Bishop the names of “all such persons within his parish whom he shall think fit to be presented.” This, after all, is only common sense. The clergy not only know the candidate, but are able to avail themselves of the still more intimate knowledge of the parents. The Bishop has, of course, a perfect right to satisfy himself as to the fitness of any candidate presented. He is only required to confirm those brought if he “ approve of them.” But this cannot be supposed to give him a right to reject arbitrarily all below a certain age, despite the conviction of those who are the best judges of their fitness, without any examination enabling him to approve or disapprove. Mr. Lacey, a competent ecclesiastical jurist, writes in his Hand-Book of Church Law that “nothing justifies fixing any age below which a child shall not be confirmed.” And he adds that the Bishop “does not appear to have any right to reject them, except upon examination.” * * Blunt and Phillimore, in their Book of Church Law, p. 76, write: ‘Cases have been known in which a Bishop has refused to confirm candidates so presented to him (se. asINDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT 85 Finally, the age-limit system contradicts a maxim which can be shown to govern the procedure of the Church in the matter of admitting to the Sacra- ments throughout the whole of her history. She has always been chary of refusing the Sacraments. Her action in this respect is evidently based on the conviction that it is better to risk the unworthy reception of them by a few than that any who need and desire them, and ought to be allowed them, should be denied. The parish priest may have grave doubts as to the fitness of a parishioner to receive Holy Communion. But he may not refuse it to any who are qualified by confirmation without being satisfied that the person refused is a notorious evil liver. And even then he is bound to report his refusal to the Bishop. We are notoriously easy in admitting to communion. And the same may be said of baptism, children being frequently baptized where there is little likelihood of their receiving any sort of Christian training. Why should we make any difficulties about the confirmation of any of those whose parish clergy certify them as fit ? We complain that men and women scorn and neglect the fountains of grace. Is not our responsibility the greater if we refuse them to those who thought fit by the clergy), a considerable number having been on one occasion sent back from the altar unconfirmed by Bishop Baring, of Durham, because they had not reached the standard of age required by him. But in a somewhat similar case elsewhere such prompt and definite action was taken by the boy’s parent as to convince the Bishop concerned that if the candidate was otherwise ‘fit,’ according to the standard laid down in rubrics and canons, it was illegal to refuse him confirmation on account of age.”86 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? do at least desire them, and have fulfilled all the requirements of our formularies ? It must not be thought that those of us who rebel against the age-limit do so with any idea of obtaining a relaxed standard of fitness. It is -ndeed well known, as one at least of the Bishops has recognized, that those who are most in favour of presenting candidates early are among those whose preparation of all they present is most thorough and painstaking. If it could be shown that an age limit contributed in the smallest degree to careful Preparation, there would be something to be said for it. It is quite certain that it does not. That some system is needed which will secure this many of us will agree. However careful a large number of the clergy may be in discharging their duty of a thorough instruction, there are evidences up and down the country of the admission of young people to confirmation after very inadequate preparation, with a far from satisfactory grasp of fundamental Christian truths, and a lack of acquaintance with elementary Christian practices. It is possible to-day to see at country confirmations young men and women appearing as candidates who, at the very service of confirmation, do not once go down on their knees. The remedy for this lies in substituting for our present system, as unsatisfactory as it is unauthor- ized, the system of episcopal examination for which our formularies provide. I have some experience of this system of examination. For some twelve years ago the late Bishop of Salisbury, after a considerable correspondence on the subject, abandonedINDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT 87 a claim he had at first made to reject quite young candidates without examination, and consented to examine by proxy all under a certain age. I presented under this arrangement a fair number of young children between the ages of eight and eleven. The children themselves appreciated the interest shown by the Bishop in their religious knowledge. In no case did the examination afford any grounds for rejecting a candidate, although the examiners appointed by the Bishop were by no means prejudiced in favour of early confirmation. But I am confident that, had the same questions been asked of older candidates from some other parishes, a considerable number would have failed to satisfy the examiner. He might have doubted the piety of some. He would certainly have convicted some of ignorance of those things “ which a Christian ought to know and believe.” The knowledge that before any confirmation the Bishop might avail himself of his undoubted right to examine the candidates would, I am convinced, produce good results which are incalculable. It may safely be assumed that the clergy who take proper pains to prepare their candidates would welcome such action. Needless to say, there need not be the ordeal of a public examination coram ecclesia. Nor need the Bishop necessarily examine in person; he could appoint those best fitted for the task. The clergy, on the other hand—and it is to be feared there are some—who are content with a perfunctory and inadequate discharge of one of their most important duties, would be forced to88 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? mend their ways or risk a merited rebuke from the overseer of their work. I have spoken of myself and others as rebelling against the age limit. I use the word advisedly. There are some of us who feel that we have too long acquiesced in a system which is indefensible, and fraught with consequences damaging to the spiritual efficiency of the Church, rather than incur the imputation of being contentious and impatient of episcopal control. We are rapidly being driven to the conclusion that we must insist on being allowed to obey the Prayer-Book, and present to the Bishop all those whom we consider fit, at whatever age, leaving it to him to exercise his right of examination and to reject any whom he does not approve. If this liberty, which we have every right to demand, is denied us, we have, it seems to me, a clear course open to us. Since we will not allow our children to be robbed, on the preposterous ground that they have not reached a certain age, of a grace which they need and ought to have, we can decline to furnish particulars of their age. No Bishop, I believe, could enforce the requirement to furnish anything beyond the names of candidates. If, in spite of this, the age was ascertained and confirmation refused, we should exercise our liberty of admitting the children to Holy Communion as “ready and desirous to be confirmed,” throwing on the Bishop the responsibility for a departure from the normal English practice of making confirmation precede admission to Holy Communion. But indeed it may be hoped that no such extremeINDEFENSIBLE AGE-LIMIT 89 course will be necessary. It is with the conviction that our Bishops are on the whole reasonable men, inheriting an unreasonable system which some have considerably modified and others frankly abandoned, that this book has been written, largely as an appeal to them. The writer believes that they have only to give the matter a full consideration and that the liberty which he desires will be ungrudgingly con- ceded, with the happiest results.1533- 1536. 1537- 1543- 1549. 1552 1564. APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE The Princess Elizabeth, born Sunday, Sep- tember 7, baptized and confirmed by Archbishop Cranmer Wednesday, September 10. Lower House of Convocation for Southern Province condemns as erroneous the opinion, “That children ought not to be confirmed by the Bishop till they come to years of discretion.” The Bishops’ Book commends the confirmation of infants, but asserts that it is not necessary. The King’s Book emphasizes the importance of confirmation, but denies the necessity of confirmation in infancy. First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. Children henceforth to be confirmed on reaching “the years of discretion,” when they “begin to be in danger to fall into sin.” Their instruction to begin at the earliest possible moment, and their confirmation to take place as soon as ever they know the elements of religion, at an age when they will be “ brought.” Second Prayer-Book of Edward VI. No material alteration. The Council of Trent defers confirmation from infancy to the age of seven, or at latest twelve. 901565. 1583. 1591. 1597- 1598. 1603. 1604. 1619. A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE or Bishop Bentham, of Coventry and Lichfield, charges the clergy “to make presentments of all children being full seven years old and not confirmed.” A Treatise of the Sacraments, by Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, maintains the importance of early training and confirmation before “a perfect age.” Archbishop Whitgift’s remonstrance to the Bishops of the Southern Province: “I am very sorry to hear that my brethren, the Bishops of my province of Canterbury, do so generally begin to neglect to confirm children.” Publication of the fifth book of Hooker’s Eccle- siastical Polity, The advantage of deferring confirmation beyond infancy is that it enables Bishops to behold “the first beginnings of true godliness in tender years.” Nicholas Ferrar confirmed at the age of five. Addition to the Catechism of the section on the Sacraments, written by Bishop Overal. Canon 60 of this year requires Bishops to confirm every three years. Canon 61 requires the parochial clergy to see that only those are presented for confirmation who can render an account of their faith according to the Cate- chism, But “every such minister shall use his best endeavour to prepare and make able, and likewise to procure as many as he can to be then brought, and by the Bishop to be confirmed.” Bishop Cosin, of Durham, writes: “Many can say their Catechism, and are confirmed at seven years old,” but expresses his personal preference for confirmation between fourteen and sixteen.”92 WHEN SHOULD CHILDREN BE CONFIRMED? 1632. 1641. 1657. 1659. 1662. The Country Parson, by George Herbert. He pleads for the admission of young children to Holy Communion as soon as they can distinguish the Sacrament from common bread, and complains that they are usually “ deferred too long ”: insists upon importance of early instruction. William, son of the Prince of Orange, aged eleven, married by the Bishop of Ely at the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, to Mary, daughter of Charles I., aged nine. If the peremptory rubric of the current Prayer-Book was obeyed, they would receive communion on the same day, and confirmation was absolutely required by the same book to precede first communion. A Rationale of the Book of Common Prayer, by Bishop Sparrow, first published. Emphasizes the deferring of the confirmation of children “till they come to the use of reason,” and its value at this point, ‘ because they then begin to be in danger of temptation, against which they receive strength in confirmation.” Thorndyke’s Of the Laws of the Church. Expresses his view that it is well “to defer the communion of the Eucharist till little ones may know what they do,” and adds, “ in my opinion it is deferred far longer than it ought to be.” Our present Prayer-Book. A rearrangement of rubrics, but no alteration in principle. The addition of the service for the baptism of those of riper years provides for the baptism of all children no longer in infancy, and a rubric requires their confirmation as soon as possible after.A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 93 1662. A Discourse of Confirmation, by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, declares that confirmation in early childhood, before children “understand toomuch of sin,” is the “way which the Church of England and Ireland follows.” He condemns the postponing of confirmation to the age of twelve as “very prejudicial.” 1663. Margaret Blagge, later Mrs. Godolphin, confirmed at the age of barely eleven; prepared by Dr. Peter Gunning, one of the revisers of the Prayer-Book. 1684. Sparrow’s Rationale republished, unaltered, four years before his death. 1689. A Commission for Prayer-Book revision proposes to add to the Confirmation Service a petition for “renewal.” 1710. Bishop Fleetwood, of St. Asaph, in his visitation charge, defines “ years of discretion ” to be “as soon as they come to discern between right and wrong, good and evil, and know what is commanded and what forbidden.” First edition of Wheatly on The Book of Common Prayer. “It is very evidently the design of our Church, that children be confirmed before they have opportunities of being acquainted with sin.” 1711. John Wesley makes his first communion at the age of eight. 1748-1784. Wesley admits children of eight to holy communion, 1855. Bishop Denison, of Salisbury, confirms children of eleven.Printed for Evusor Stock, Publisher 7, Pavernoster Row, Lonpon, E.C. By Billing and Sons, Ltd., Guildford, England

When Should Children Be Confirmed (Baverstock) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

When Should Children Be Confirmed (Baverstock) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like