Pulcheriam, &c., c. 38, to the effect that He 'came to exist within our nature.' ' The momentousness of the admission, as coming from Cyril, is illustrated by the extreme reluctance with which Eutyches, under pressure from Flavian, in 448, consented to make it, showing thereby that he had not previously approved of the 'formulary of reunion.' On the other hand, Cyril would doubtless have wished that the formulary had expressly declared all the 'sayings about the Lord' to be predicable of His one Person, as he had said in his explanation of the fourth Article;' but he would justly consider that this was implied in the emphatic recognition of 'one Christ, one Son, one Lord,' and he knew that it had been admitted by the Orientals' (Apol. adv. Orient. 4.) It may be added that by 'the expressions to be taken as common' to Godhead and Manhood he understood such texts 'as Heb. xiii. 8 or Rom. ix. 5 (Epist. pp. 117, 148, Aubert). In subsequent letters to friends, he defended the formulary from all suspicion of Nestorianism.

The rest of the letter to John contains a reply in detail to the charge of Apollinarianism. Cyril protests that he never said any such thing as 'that Christ's body was brought down from heaven, instead of being derived from the holy Virgin.' His critics ought to know that almost the whole of his contention had grown out of his confident assertion that she was Theotocos;' whereas, if she did not 'give birth to the Emmanuel according to the flesh,' that is, 'if His body was not derived from her, how could she be conceived of as Theotocos?' When he had said that Christ was from above,' he had meant no more than was taught in 1 Cor. xv. 47 and John iii. 13, in which latter verse it would certainly seem, as Dr. Heurtley puts it, that Cyril's 'text did not contain o v ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. He ignores the words in his comment on the text, although the text is there exhibited as we read it; but he had read them as cited by Andrew on the part of the Orientals (Apol. adv. Orient. 4), and had heard Paul of Emesa quote them in a sermon on Jan. I in that year (Mansi, Concil. v. 300). He proceeds to explain that the Word had come down from heaven and been called Son of Man, 'remaining what he was, that is, God, (for He is unchangeable and unalterable, karà púow), being even now conceived of as one

1 That the Monophysites were not followers of Cyril is proved by the complaint of Timothy the Weasel that Cyril 'was caught in the act of maintaining two púσes' (Mansi, v. 841). Leontius replied that he used púois in different senses; an instance of which occurs in Apol. adv. Theod. 2. Comp. Adv. Nest. ii. proem. and ii. 6.

1

with His own flesh; and He is named also Man from Heaven,' (Cyril omits o Kúpios), 'the same perfect in Godhead and perfect in Manhood, and conceived of as in one Person' (πроσάπ); 'for the Lord Jesus Christ is one, although we do not forget the difference of the natures (þúσɛwv) from which we affirm the ineffable union to have been formed.' Lastly, he disclaims with indignation the Apollinarian notion of a mixture, confusion, or blending, of God the Word with the flesh,' as incompatible with the essential immutability of Godhead; and once again affirms that the Word, as the Word, could not suffer, although . . . He is seen to attribute to himself (avт@ πрoσvéμwv,1 equivalent to οἰκειούμενος, a favourite phrase of his, or ἰδιοποιούμενος) the sufferings which befell His own flesh.' Cyril adds that he 'follows' the Fathers without varying in any degree from their sentiments, and that he considers the Nicene Creed inviolable; he ascribes the Nicene teaching to the Spirit, who proceeds (KπоpɛúɛTal) from the Father' (mark this), but is not alien (aλλóтpiov) from the Son in respect of essence; and in allusion to a previous proposal from the Antiochene party that he should declare his acquiescence in Athanasius's Epistle to Epictetus (Mansi, v. 29), he informs John that, as a safeguard against garbled copies of that letter, he sends' a transcript, taken from ancient and correct copies' preserved in the library of the Alexandrian Church.

It is specially opportune to recall the essential features of Cyril's anti-Nestorian polemic in connexion with the 'formulary of reunion,' at a time when the Archbishop of Canterbury has answered the appeal of the Assyrian, Chaldean, or so-called Nestorian Churches on the borders of Kurdistan and Persia for sympathetic aid and instruction, by sending out two priests as his representative agents, after due communication with the orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. These Churches have a 'Catholicos' or patriarch, and fourteen other bishops, most of whom live in Turkish territory. The petition made to our Church on their behalf has reference to temporal succour as well as to education, for they are very poor and have no protectors. They are also beset by Roman missionaries and by American Presbyterians. One would fain hope that these long-oppressed Christians, although they hold aloof from the Orthodox Church, and regard Nestorius as a saint and a doctor, do not intelligently hold that fatal error which is known as the Nestorian heresy, even as it has been ascertained that 1 So in Schol. 4, 36.

the Armenian Church does not, in effect, deny t which was affirmed at Chalcedon. It may be that 'mission' will be gradually the means of overc tional prejudice, and of providing a return of the to Eastern orthodoxy. But, in any case, our Chur clear: there must not, and we are assured that th be any compromise of that truth of which Th the symbol, the truth of Christ's single and divine with which are bound up not only the prestige of schools, or the authority of œcumenical synods, bu of our Lord's redemptive death, the efficacy of His work, and His sovereign claim on our absolute de

ART. III. THE AGE FOR CONFIRMA 1. The History of Confirmation. By WILLIAM M.A. (Oxford and London, 1877.) 2. The Rite of Confirmation: a Catechism. By C GRUEBER. (London, 1879.)

3. What is the Distinctive Grace of Confirmation?

read before the S. E. Division of the Upper Lland Deanery. By F. W. PULLER, B.A. (London, 4. The Official Year Book of the Church of Englan don, 1886.)

THE practice of the English Bishops with regard t at which candidates may be presented for Confirmat no means uniform. Some do not fix any standard of others specify limits of age varying according to their i opinions; while in some cases the age mentioned recommended, and in others it is made nearly con Probably Norwich is about the only diocese now in late an age as fifteen is almost insisted upon. Mos Bishops who are opposed to early Confirmation are w allow at least some measure of discretion in the m their clergy. Thus even the Bishop of Liverpool o in his instructions:

'As a general rule I do not wish candidates to be pres Confirmation under the age of fifteen. But, having regard

1 The only theologian of their Church, Rabban Johnan, in Archbishop Benson, uses language which, though verbally inc might suggest that 'person' was taken in the sense of 'nature.'

circumstances and the difference in degree of the mental development of young persons, I do not wish to draw a hard-and-fast line in the matter. I request, however, that no candidate may be presented who has not attained the age of thirteen.'

The late Bishop of London also made fifteen his usual limit, but gave a similar liberty to his clergy to present 'children, although of a somewhat earlier age, with whose maturity in the spiritual life the clergyman who presents them is so well satisfied as to be ready to admit them at once to the Holy Communion.' 2

The present Bishop of London allows younger Confirmation than his predecessor did, without difficulty. Early Confirmation, in different degrees, is also permitted by the Bishops of Lichfield and Lincoln and of some other dioceses. Archbishop Tait preferred a late age, but is said to have been always ready to accept younger candidates upon sufficient grounds. The present Archbishop of Canterbury fixes fourteen as his standard, and does not always admit exceptions. The same age is adopted by the Archbishop of York and by several other Bishops. On the whole, in spite of a strong tendency to lower the age, fourteen appears to be about the time of life which still commends itself to the greater part of the English episcopate as the suitable period for Confirmation.

There is, on the face of it, something unsatisfactory in the great variety of the rules laid down by different Bishops. There can be no reason why the children of a diocese like Norwich should be unfit for Confirmation before fifteen, if the children of the similar and neighbouring diocese of Lincoln are ready some years sooner; or why the children of the diocese of Liverpool should be more backward than those of Lichfield; or why the children of London should be qualified now at a younger age than they were only a year or two ago. One does not look, of course, for absolute uniformity, for in all healthy government individuality of opinion must be allowed some degree of free play. But the discrepancies of the regulations are too great to come within the legitimate sphere of personal discretion. Either some of the Bishops confirm too early, or else some not early enough. That fifteen is too extreme a limit may almost be taken for granted, since it has been so largely abandoned. But nearly all the arguments which can be urged against fifteen apply with almost equal force against fourteen.

1 Liverpool Diocesan Calendar, 1885.
2 London Diocesan Calendar, 1882.

The first point to be noticed is that a late standard of age puts serious obstacles in the way of obtaining candidates. This is not the case with children of the so-called upper classes. so much as it is with the poor, for they have not finished their education so early as fourteen or fifteen. But among the poorer classes, both in town and country, there is a natural desire that schooling should be terminated and work begun, as soon as possible. Even under the present Elementary Education Code the whole school course can ordinarily be completed before fourteen years of age. Unless some exceptional causes interfere, a child is usually qualified for exemption from school attendance about a year earlier. As a matter of fact, the majority of elementary school children leave between thirteen and fourteen, just before the time when they can be presented for Confirmation.

The change from school to work is a very great and unsettling one. Breaking ground in a new and older kind of life involves novel experiences and invites strong temptations. In the first taste of freedom from mental discipline and childish restraints, young lads and girls are often for a time less amenable to teaching than at either a younger or an older age. If previous training has not already grounded them well in the full value of sacramental grace, the period immediately following the commencement of work is frequently not the best for beginning to instruct them. There are clergy of competence and experience who are of opinion that, for such persons, the time between about fourteen and eighteen is practically the worst possible for preparing them.

But, again, where there is every readiness for Confirmation, there are constantly great difficulties in the way after a child has left school. Girls go out early to service, and boys also often have to leave their home, and thus children are frequently lost to the hands of the clergyman under whom they have grown up, and who may, therefore, generally be supposed to be the priest best qualified to prepare them. Employers, moreover, if they are not themselves Church people, often try to prevent, or at least to discourage, those who work for them from being confirmed. Even if they are well disposed, it may be quite impossible to spare the boy or girl during working hours. This necessitates preparation at inconvenient times, so inconvenient perhaps that the candidate does not care to put himself to the trouble, unless he already knows the full importance of Confirmation. And, even when all concerned are willing to do their best, the preparation sometimes has to be sadly fragmentary and incomplete.