Mr. Peirce of Exon, in the year 1728, published an Essay in Favour of the ancient Practice of giving the Eucharist to Children. These were the motives which excited Dr. Waterland to examine whether the fact itself be true, from the supposal of which these several conclusions are drawn: i. e. whether the ancient Fathers really practised Infant Communion under an opinion of its strict necessity to salvation. For if they did not, then neither does Mr. Daillé's argument, with respect to this particular point, hold good for censuring it as ancient practice built on erroneous principles; nor that of the Antipædobaptists, in derogation from the authority of the Fathers for Infant Baptism; nor, on the other hand, those of Bishop Bedell and Mr. Peirce, for reviving the practice, so far as they plead for it on supposing such to have been the ancient doctrine and practice. As Dr. Waterland hath fallen immediately to the business of his inquiry into the antiquity of this doctrine and practice, without staying to give any previous particular account of the several sentiments of learned moderns on that head; it may not be improper to note how that matter stands, for the use of common readers; and to be more particular in relation to this tract, it being on a subject not so commonly known. 1. Mr. Wall, author of the History of Infant Baptism, hath given it as his opinion, that in Cyprian's time, about the middle of the third century, the people of the Church of Carthage did oftentimes bring their children younger than ordinary to the Communione; probably at four or five years of agef. This he concludes from a story which Cyprian tells, in his book De Lapsis, concerning a girl who, in the Decian persecution, was carried by her nurse to the idol feast, and partook of the sacrifices, and was afterwards brought by her mother to the Communion while St. Cyprian was administering. Now as this must have been after Cyprian's return to Carthage, upon the ceasing of the persecution, which was A. D. 2518; so high, from this instance, must Mr. Wall sup -As for diverse ages they did, [i. e. children did receive the Eucharist,] and by the analogy of the Passover they may, perhaps ought, &c. p. 445. Ibid. • Wall's History of Infant Baptism, part ii. cap. 9. vol. ii. p. 446. ed. 3. f Ibid. p. 440. Persecutione sopita anno 251, latebris egressus, et ecclesiæ suæ reditus, &c. Cuvei Hist. Liter. p. 126. ed. 1740. pose this custom to have prevailed in the Church of Carthage. In Austin's and Pope Innocent the First's time, the beginning of the fifth century, he thinks it was given, in the western parts, to mere infants; and that this continued, from that time, for about six hundred years h; that these Fathers taught such practice, upon an opinion of its necessity to the salvation of baptized infants; that Innocent did first bring up such doctrine, and that St. Austin followed him in itk. As to the Greek Church, he thinks that some time during the space of the aforementioned six hundred years, when it was low in the world, that Church took this custom from the Latin Church, which was more flourishing!. And that the Roman Church, about the year 1000, entertaining the doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy elements to infants; and that the other western churches, mostly following their example, did the like upon the same account: but that the Greeks, not having the said doctrine, continued, and do still continue, the custom of communicating infants m. This is the sum of Mr. Wall's account, which may be seen at large in the place referred to in the margin". He carries the practice as high as Cyprian's time, A. D. 251. And the same practice as founded on the doctrine of its necessity to the salvation of baptized infants, to the time of Austin and Innocent I. about the beginning of the fifth century. 2. Mr. Bingham, in his Origines Ecclesiasticæ, mentions the giving the Eucharist to infants as a known practice and custom of the ancient Church, and that immediately from the time of their Baptism; citing for it, Cyprian, Austin, Innocentius, and Gennadius, writers from the third to the fifth century. In another place he says, that it is beyond dispute, that the Church immediately admitted infants to a participation of the Eucharist, as soon as they were baptized; quoting Cyprian again for the practice, and Austin, with h Wall's History of Infant Baptism, ibid. p. 446. "Ibid. part ii. cap. ix. sect. 15, 16. vol. ii. p. 435-446. i Ibid. p. 445. m Ibid. p. 446. Bingham's Orig. Eccles. b. xii. cap. 1. sect. 3. vol. i. of his Works, p. 529. fol. ed. Pope Innocent his cotemporary, as seeming to say it was necessary for infants, in order to obtain eternal life; referring to some passages of St. Austin, and Innocent's Epistle to Austin and the Council of Milevis P. And it appears to have been Mr. Bingham's own opinion, that the primitive Church, Greek and Latin, from St. Cyprian's time, really gave the Communion to infants, from an opinion of its necessity, founded upon a Divine command, John vi. 53 9. He acquaints us, that Maldonate says, the custom continued, even in the Roman Church, for six centuries: but that Boua makes it double the number; for that, according to him, it was not abrogated in France till the twelfth century; that it continued a little longer in Germany, if Suicerus doth not mistake in the author he quotes for it: that Zuinglius speaks of the custom continuing long among the Helvetians: and that Hospinian mentions, from his own knowledge, the custom in Lorrain and the parts adjacent, of the Priest's dipping his fingers in the cup, and dropping it into the child's mouth immediately after Baptism, with these words, "The blood of our "Lord Jesus Christ be of advantage unto thee to eternal "life." That the Greek Church was a little more tenacious of the custom; that Nicephorus of the fourteenth century mentions it, and that Dr. Smith speaks for the present Greek Church, that they give the Eucharist, in both kinds, to children of one or two years old, and sometimes to newborn infants after Baptism, in case of imminent danger of death; grounding their belief of an absolute necessity of this sacrament upon the words of our Saviour, John vi. 53. and pleading the practice of the primitive Church in their own justification". To this account which Mr. Bingham gives from Dr. Smith of the modern Greek Church, I shall add, that Dr. Covel, in his account of the present Greek Church, A. D. 1722. says, that they give the Eucharist to sucking children, after they are baptized and anointed, or confirmeds: and that Mr. Rycaut, in his Account of the Armenian Church, mentions the following odd custom there; viz. that " as soon as the Priest hath sopped the bread into "the wine," (which is the manner of distributing the P Bingham's Orig. Eccles. b. xv. cap. 4. sect. 7. vol. i. p. 774, 775. 4 Ibid. p. 776. Ibid. p. 776,777. Ibid. b. ii. c. 1. p. 186. 66 communion in that church,)" some boy, or young lad, is presently at hand to lick his fingers; which he willingly "grants him, esteeming it a kind of initiation, or pledge "to them of receiving the sacrament hereafter, when they come to years of understanding; as the rubbing the lips "of the infant with the consecrated elements, is to chil"dren at the time of their admittance to Baptism t.' 66 From this account it appears, that the Armenian Church does not profess to give the Communion to children, till they come to years of understanding; and yet the custom here mentioned is certainly more than a kind of initiation, or pledge to them of receiving the sacrament hereafter, since it is actually receiving it. But I return. Mr. Bingham's opinion seems to differ from Mr. Wall's in this that, whereas Mr. Wall supposes the doctrine of the necessity of the Eucharist to the salvation of baptized infants, to be taught no higher than Innocent I. whom he takes to have been the first who brought up this doctrine"; Mr. Bingham seems to think that this doctrine of its necessity was held by the Church all along from St. Cyprian's time; though he does not found his opinion upon any positive testimony, but only looks upon it as absurd to think, that the Church should give the Communion to infants, without imagining any manner of necessity from any Divine command to do it *. 3. Pfaffius reckons it among the rites of the third century, that the Eucharist was given to infants; but has no authority for its having been the custom of any but the African Church, to which he refers, quoting for it St. Cyprian de Lapsis y. He mentions it again, as the custom, in some places, in the fourth century; and the same custom, founded upon the opinion of its absolute necessity, as one of the errors of the fifth century a. 4. Mr. Daillé, in his treatise De Usu Patrum, &c. observes, that the Council of Trent decreed, that the ancients admitted infants to the communion of the Eucharist, not as looking upon it to be necessary to their salvation, but only as having a probable reason for so doing. But, says Mr. Daillé, it seems plain from the Fathers themselves, Rycaut's Account of the Armenian Church, chap. viii. " Wall's Hist. of Infant Baptism, part ii. c. 9. vol. ii. p. 442. • Ibid. secul. v. cap. 3. sect. 4. Conf. other eccles. writers. that they thought the communion necessary to baptized infants: for which he cites several passages from St. Austin, Innocent I. his cotemporary 4, and Cyprian long before theme. Hereby it appears, that Mr. Daillé thought that the Council of Trent have given a wrong account of the opinion of the ancients on this head. He looked upon the necessity of Infant Communion to have been a doctrine as high as St. Cyprian: for he not only cites that Father for the custom, but also for the doctrine of its necessity f. But this is occasioned by a mistake in the passage quoted from Cyprian, Epist. lix. Baptizandum et sacrificandum. So Mr. Daillé cites its. But Mr. Wall has observed, that the edition he cites it from is wrong in that place; that Dr. Hammond, Marshal, the Magdeburgenses, Mr. Walker, and all whom he had seen, do quote it sanctificandum, as it is also in the last edition, Oxon. 1682. in which are the various lections of several manuscripts, which had been collated, but no variety in reading this word; and that St. Austin has put the matter beyond question, who, quoting that part of the epistle, (lib. iv. contra duas Epist. Pelag. c. 8.) writes it sanctificandum, not sacrificandum h. Mr. Wall adds, that sacrificandum, in that sense, is not Latin. And Mr. Peirce, though he thinks somewhat might be pleaded for such a sense from Cyprian's style, yet, upon the whole, he agrees with Mr. Wall, that Mr. Daille's edition was faulty herein. But then he b Patres Tridentini, nulla necessitate salutis, sed probabilem tantum ob causam veteres, parvulos usu rationis carentes ad Eucharistiæ communionem suscepisse decernunt. Atqui non modo magna subest de hac re dubitandi occasio; sed ex ipsis Patrum monumentis certo constare videtur ipsos, quod Tridentinæ Synodi pace dictum sit, parvulorum tinctorum communionem plane censuisse necessariam. Dallæi de Usu Patrum &c. lib. i. cap. viii. p. 175. Ibid. p. 175. conf. lib. ii. c. 4. p. 280. d Ibid. p. 175, 176. Ibid. p. 176. conf. lib. ii. c. 4. p. 263. f Extat Innocentii Epistola; ac ut deesset non sinit nos Augustinus ea de re dubitare, Innocentius (inquit) parvulos definivit, nisi manducaverint carnem Filii hominis vitam prorsus habere non posse. Longo ante tempore Cyprianus in eundem sensum ea de re locutus fuerat. Ibid. p. 176. Idem beatus martyr (Cyprianus) in sui seculi errore versabatur, putans omnibus baptizatis, ne pueris quidem exceptis, Eucharistiam esse ad salutem necessarium, ut apparet ex Epistola lix. &c. Ibid. lib. ii. c. 4. p. 263. De Usu Patrum, lib. ii. c. 4. p. 263. h Wall's Hist. of Infant Baptism, part i. chap. 6. sect. 10. vol. i. p. 85. i Ibid. |