contends, that even sanctificandum will here signify receiving the Eucharist.

He allows, that the word does commonly and usually' signify Baptism, as Mr. Wall argues; but then he urges, that the ancients speak of the Lord's Supper in the same manner: and to prove it, he cites some passages from Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Macarius Archbishop of Antioch, and Cyprian himself, wherein the elements of the Eucharist are said άyázev k.

But I take the liberty to answer, that this remark which Mr. Peirce has made by no means comes up to the point, nor is any manner of proof, that sanctificandum, in the passage disputed, relates to the Eucharist.

The passage is in an epistle of Cyprian, in answer to Fidus, and runs thus: "Quantum vero ad causam infan"tium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium "diem, quo nati sunt, constitutos, baptizari non oportere, "et considerandum esse legem circumcisionis antiquæ, ut "intra octavum diem eum qui natus est baptizandum et "sanctificandum non putares; longe aliud in concilio no"stro omnibus visum est."

The question moved by Fidus, an African Bishop, to which this passage is an answer, was concerning the day on which infants ought to be baptized; whether, if need required, as soon as they were born, or not till the eighth day, according to the rule given in the case of circumcision m. What has any mention of the Lord's Supper to do here? Nothing: nor is there any. The whole passage appears plainly to relate to Baptism only. The question was concerning Baptism only; and Baptism only is directly mentioned in the answer: not a word of the Eucharist; unless sanctificandum, the word in dispute, relates to it; which I can see no reason to believe, nor have the least doubt but that it relates to Baptism, the word immediately preceding, and to which it is joined. And it seems to be a far-fetched construction, to render baptizandum et sanctificandum, by baptized and sanctified in the Lord's Supper; when it so plainly means only, baptized, and sanctified in such Baptism. Mr. Peirce, in re

Essay in Favour of the ancient Practice of giving the Eucharist to Children, part i. sect. 7. p. 46.

1 Cypriani Epistola 59. alias 64.

Vide Bingham's Origin. Eccles. book xi. chap. 4. sect. 12. vol. i. p.

lating this matter, says, that "one Fidus a Bishop had, "in a letter to Cyprian, moved a doubt, whether infants "should be baptized within two or three days after they "were born, or whether they ought not rather to be kept "back from Baptism and the Lord's Supper till the eighth "day, as I understand him," says Mr. Peircen. But I cannot see any reason he could have to understand him of the Lord's Supper, when the passage so evidently speaks of Baptism only; except it were to favour an hypothesis, that Cyprian is herein an evidence for the necessity of Infant Communion.

But Mr. Peirce urges, that, waving all arguments from this passage of Cyprian, there is another place in the same epistle, which shows plainly, that Fidus's doubt, and the Synod's determination, related as well to the Eucharist as to Baptism; and that is, where Cyprian mentions the kiss of peace as given to infants; which being a ceremony of the Eucharist, Mr. Peirce would from thence infer, that Cyprian must be speaking of Infant Communion. But he was aware, that Bellarmine, from this epistle of Cyprian, and Cotelerius from Chrysostom, and Mr. Wall, reckon this kiss of peace or charity among the ceremonies of Baptism P: and if it was so, then Cyprian, notwithstanding his mentioning the kiss of peace, may still be speaking of Baptism only. Mr. Peirce therefore, in order to avoid the force of this, tells us, that the mentioning the kiss of peace among the ceremonies of Baptism," is easy to be accounted for by this one ob"servation; that anciently all baptized persons, whether "infants or adults, used immediately to be admitted to "the Lord's Supper 9." But this answer is a kind of arguing in a circle. Cyprian, says he, must here speak of Infant Communion; because he mentions the kiss of peace given to infants: and it must be meant that the kiss of peace was given to infants at their communion; because Infant Communion was the ancient practice. That Infant Communion was the ancient practice, was the question in debate; and Mr. Peirce was to prove it from Cyprian's mentioning the kiss of peace given to infants. But this,

n

Essay in Favour of the ancient Practice of giving the Eucharist to Children, part i. sect. 7. p. 45.

. Ibid. p. 48.

P Ibid. p. 49. Conf. Bingham's Orig. Eccles. book xii. chap. 4. sect. 5. vol. i. p. 542.

4 Essay, &c. part i. sect. 7. p. 49.

it seems, he cannot prove to be given to infants at their communion, without the observation that Infant Communion was the ancient practice; that is, without supposing the very point to be proved.

66

But there is a sentence, in the passage which Mr. Peirce quotes from Cyprian, concerning the kiss of peace, which plainly shows that it could not relate to the Eucharist. In answer to Fidus, who had pleaded for deferring Baptism till the eighth day, because children, at their birth, were unclean, and every one abhorred to kiss them; Cyprian, among other things, replies, "Etsi adhuc infans a partu novus est, non ita est tamen, ut quisquam illum in gratia danda atque in pace facienda exosculari horrere "debeat." Now, as Mr. Peirce is pleased to say, that the kiss of peace is here mentioned as given to infants at their receiving the Eucharist, because they were admitted to communion immediately after Baptism, which is nothing more than petitio principii; I shall take leave to say, that since, on the contrary, not one instance can be produced in the early ages, where an infant adhuc a partu novus, just born, was ever admitted to the Communion; we have more right to conclude, that therefore the kiss of peace, here mentioned as given to an infant adhuc a partu novus, just born, related not to Infant Communion, but to Infant Baptism only. To return now to Mr. Daillé.

He says, that " almost all the Doctors of the first ages "believed that the Eucharist was necessary for infants;' and that Maldonate has so observed, who tells us, that this opinion remained in the Church for about six hundred years s.

By the manner in which he here cites Maldonate, one would think he intended, by his evidence, to carry this doctrine, not only as high as St. Cyprian's time, but even to the very beginning of the Christian Church. Yet the learned have observed, that Maldonate's words require no such meaning. The passage of Maldonate runs thus: "Missam facio Augustini et Innocentii Primi sententiam quæ sexcentos circiter annos viguit in Ecclesia, Eucha"ristiam etiam infantibus necessariam." Maldonat. in

66

Cypr. Epist. 59. alias 64. ad Fidum.

Non est prætermittendum præter Cyprianum, Augustinum, Innocentium Papam I. Quorum testimonia supra retulimus, pene omnes doctores priorum seculorum credidisse Eucharistiam necessariam esse infantibus, idque observasse Maldonatum scribentem hanc sententiam sexcentos circiter annos viguisse in Ecclesia. Dallai de Usu Patrum, &c. lib. ii. cap. iv. p. 293.

Joan. vi. 53. Which words import no more than that this opinion remained in the Church, not for six hundred years from the beginning of the Church, but for six hundred years from the time of Austin and Innocent I.t Mr. Daillé, in this place, quotes only the latter part of Maldonate's words. "Sexcentos circiter annos viguit in "Ecclesia, &c." which looks as if he understood them of the first six hundred years of the Church; though he himself, in another place ", had cited the whole passage as I have given it; which, by the mention of Austin's and Innocent's opinion, sets the matter clear, and shows the meaning of Maldonate to have been as here explained.

And from this observation it will appear, that there is not so wide a difference as Mr. Bingham makes between Maldonate's account and that of Bona. He observes, that Maldonate says, the custom continued even in the Roman Church for six centuries: but that Bona makes it double the number, who says, that it was not abrogated in France till the twelfth century *. Mr. Bingham seems to have thought, that Maldonate meant, that the custom continued in the Church for the first six hundred years from the beginning: and then, since, according to Bona, it was not abrogated till the twelfth century, Bona will indeed make it double the number. But if Maldonate only meant, (as I have before shown it most probable he did,) that the custom continued in the Church for six hundred years from the time only of Austin and Innocent, about the beginning of the fifth century; then from thence to the twelfth century, the time to which Bona's account brings it down, is about seven or eight centuries; and so there will be, between him and Maldonate, the difference only of a century or two.

5. The decree of the Council of Trent on the point of Infant Communion having been mentioned upon this occasion, I beg leave to throw in a word or two upon that matter. They decree, that "children, before the use of

reason, are under no necessity of communicating in the "Eucharist. For, as they are, by the laver of Baptism, "regenerated and incorporated in Christ, they cannot, at "that age, lose the grace they have obtained of being the "children of God. Yet antiquity is not for that reason to

t Wall's Hist. of Infant Baptism, part ii. chap. 9. sect. 15. vol. ii. p. 436, 437.

u Dallai de Usu Patrum &c. lib. i. c. 8. p. 176.

X

Bingham's Orig. Eccles, book xv. chap. 4. sect. 7. vol. i.

p. 776.

"be condemned, if for some time, and in some places, "they observed that custom. For as those most holy "Fathers had a probable reason for their practice, in regard to the state of the times they lived in; so it is "without dispute to be believed, that they did not do it as being necessary to salvation y." To which was joined an anathematism" against him who shall say, that the "communion of the Eucharist is necessary for children, "before the use of reason."

In this decree, the Fathers of the Trent Council declare, that the ancients gave not the Eucharist to infants out of any opinion of its necessity to their salvation: and in this account they are supposed to have been guilty of a great mistake a. And when the decrees of that session were published, it was much spoken of, that there should be an obligation imposed to believe, that the ancients did. not hold the communion of children to be necessary; when St. Austin so often affirms the necessity of the Eucharist for children, and makes it even of equal necessity with Baptism, alleging the epistle of Pope Innocent, who plainly so declares it. Mr. Wall supposes the truth to have been, that "the Trent Fathers knew that some an"cient Doctors had commended infants' receiving: but not "that one of their own infallible Bishops had so abso"lutely determined it to be necessary for their salvation." He means the before-mentioned Pope Innocent, in his Synodical Letter to the Council of Milevis.

But now, after all, the learned reader, who considers what is said in the tract here published, may perhaps be of opinion, that the mistake was not in the Trent Council,

▾ Eadem sancta Synodus docet, parvulos usu rationis carentes nulla obligari necessitate ad sacramentalem Eucharistiæ communionem. Siquidem per Baptismi lavacrum regenerati et Christo incorporati adeptam jam Filiorum Dei gratiam, in illa ætate amittere non possunt. Neque ideo tamen damnanda est antiquitas, si eum morem in quibusdam locis aliquando servavit. Ut enim sanctissimi illi Patres sui facti probabilem causam pro illius temporis ratione habuerunt, ita certe eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse, sine controversia credendum est. Synod. Trident. sess. xxi. cap. 4. Conf. Paul's Hist. of the Council of Trent, book vi. p. 502. Engl. edit.

* Si quis dixerit parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis pervenerint necessariam esse Eucharistiæ communionem; anathema sit. Synod. Trident. Can. 4. Conf. Paul's Hist. &c. ibid.

Dallæi de Usu Patrum &c. lib. i. c. 8. p. 175, 176. Bingham's Orig. Eccl. book xv. c. 4. sect. 7. Peirce's Essay, &c. p. 16.

b Paul's Hist. of the Council of Trent, book vi. p. 504.

< Wall's Hist. of Infant Baptism, part ii. chap. 9. sect. 16. vol. ii. p. 445, 446.