Page images
PDF
EPUB

very probably, from ancient tradition. For though the ancients constantly maintained the sufficiency of Baptism to the salvation of infants; yet they extended it not beyond the time of their infancy, or nonage; conceiving it to hold certainly while such children should be incapable of actual sin, or grievous sin, and no longert: so that as soon as a child should arrive to the age at which sins are imputable, they might think the use of the other sacrament necessary, or at least expedient and safe. The doctrine of our Church is; that "it is certain by God's word, "that children which are baptized, dying before they "commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved ":" in which words the undoubted sufficiency of Baptism is extended no farther, than to the time of committing actual sin. The sufficiency of Baptism, while it excludes the necessity of Infant Communion, is no argument by itself against a more early communion than is now in practice amongst us so that the ancients were very consistent in not admitting Infant Communion properly so called, but withal admitting children of six, seven, or ten years of age to the Lord's table.

However, it is certain that they did not, could not proceed upon John vi. in such their practice: for had they founded it upon verse 53, rigorously interpreted, they must have given the communion even to mere infants, as the Greeks of late times have done w. The ancients seem

See St. Austin above, p. 430, 431. The same principle obtained down to the ninth century, as appears from Strabo, de Reb. Eccl. c. vi.

"Rubrick at the end of the Office of Public Baptism of Infants. N. B. This Rubrick in King Edward's First Book ran thus: " And that no man shall "think, that any detriment shall come to children by differring of their con"firmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's word, that "children being baptized (if they depart out of this life in their infancy,)

are undoubtedly saved." In King Edward's Second Book it ran thus: "It is certain by God's word, that children being baptized have all things "necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved." At the Restoration it was altered to what it now is, amounting to the same in sense with what it first was.

Nic. Cabasilas of the fourteenth century, Simeon Thessalonicensis of the ifteenth, and others of the sixteenth, are cited in Arcudius de Concord.

to have founded their practice upon prudential reasons, or general reasons of edification, pursuant to Christian principles. They knew that children were safe in their Baptism, while guilty of no actual sins: they knew not so certainly whether they were secure after committing sins, without repentance and the Eucharist besides: they chose what they thought was safest and best: upon that principle, probably, (for I have no clear and certain authorities for it,) they gave the Communion to children, at such an age as I have before mentioned.

V.

Now, if it should be asked, whether we at this day may not be obliged to do the same? I take leave to answer as follows.

1. Scripture hath not precisely determined, at what age a person should first be admitted to communion. 2. There is no example of admitting young children to it, till the time of Cyprian, the middle of the third century: and it might be much later, before the practice became general. 3. If the practice was founded (as probably it was) upon this principle; that as soon as Baptism became impaired, the use of the Eucharist ought to come in as subsidiary, or supplemental to it; it was a principle of weight, but not certain enough to create any strict obligation: for since Baptism hath its federal effect all along; who can presume to say, that the Baptism preceding, and the repentance subsequent, may not be sufficient for remission, till such time as children grow up to riper age, so as to be better qualified for self-examination, and for discerning the Lord's body in the holy Communion? 4. Since the question seems to turn chiefly upon the expediency of the thing, and since expediency is known to vary with times and circumstances; it seems to be mostly left to the wisdom and integrity of church governors, to determine, in

Eccl. p. 45, &c. 324, &c. Compare Gabriel Sionita in Leo Allatius, p. 1667. Smith's Account of the Greek Church, p. 161. Simon's Crit. Hist. p. 5, 6, 13. Covel, p. 186.

:

every church, what shall be judged, upon the whole, most for the honour of God, and the interests of true religion, and the good of souls. Much may be pleaded, on the foot of expediency, for the ancient practice: much also may be pleaded, on the same foot of expediency, for the modern usage y. A multitude of circumstances must be taken into account, in order to form a clear judgment upon the whole and therefore, as I before hinted, it seems to be a matter properly lodged with the church governors; whose directions therein are the safest rule for private Christians to be guided by, and to submit to without hesitation or scruple. The ancients expressed their reverence for the sacrament in a way suitable, perhaps, to their circumstances: the moderns may express no less reverence for the same sacrament in a way somewhat different, as circumstances are also different. It is sufficient to have shown, that the ancients did not practise Infant Communion, properly so called, at all; nor give the Communion to children under a notion of such strict necessity as hath been pretended. They had their prudential reasons for their practice in their times; and we also have the like prudential reasons for a different practice in ours.

VI.

Before I take leave of the subject, it may not be improper to take some notice of the conduct of the Romanists with relation to the charge made against the ancients; as likewise of the conduct of the Protestants in relation to the same charge: because, as I conceive, neither of them have been so careful to do the ancients justice in this article, as might have been expected or desired.

The Romanists, for the sake of two great Popes, Inno

× See Bishop Taylor's Worthy Communicant, chap. iii. sect. 2. p. 142. &c. Peirce's Essay, part iv. p. 171, &c.

y See Bishop Taylor, ibid. p. 147. Suicer. Thesaur. tom. ii. p. 1139. Bingham, xv. 4, 7. Arcudius, de Concord. Eccl. p. 44. Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 282.

[ocr errors]

cent and Gelasius, and for the honour of the Trent Council, are obliged, in a manner, to acquit the ancients of teaching the necessity of Infant Communion: and therefore several very learned writers amongst them have particularly laboured in this article, to take off the injurious imputation. Nevertheless, they appear but faint or lame advocates in this cause; not maintaining it to advantage, or not upon right principles; because they are perplexed with another cause, wherein they think it concerns them to extol the Eucharist very highly, derogating as much from the other sacrament. They cannot bear to be told, that Baptism carries in it all the spiritual graces and privileges which the Eucharist can be supposed to do; or that it is as properly a sacrifice as the Eucharist is; or that it makes a person partaker of the body and blood of Christ, for the time being, as much as the Eucharist does. These are all true and sound principles; and upon these principles the ancients maintained the sufficiency of Baptism, in opposition to any supposed necessity of Infant Communion: but as the present Romanists cannot go so far, without risking the credit of transubstantiation, which they are strangely fond of; they cannot make so clear, or open, or full defence of the Fathers in this article, as might be wished. Maldonate a, for his part, was content to give them up in this point, for the sake of establishing his own construction of John vi. And a late zealous defender of transubstantiation, finding that the high notions of the efficacy of Baptism stood in his way, has been pleased to insinuate, that what the ancients have so frequently inculcated in favour of one sacrament,

Arcudius, de Sacram. Euchar. lib. iii. c. 45. p. 344, &c. Bona de Reb. Liturg. lib. ii. c. 19. p. 711. Noris, Vindic. Augustin. c. iv. p. 71. item p. 167. Natalis Alexand. tom. iii. sect. 2. dissert. 16. p. 549. item tom. v. p. 129. The Benedictine Editors of St. Austin, tom. x. Theol. Lovaniens. Augustin. Opp. tom. vii. p. 189. in Annot. Vasquez, in 3 Thom. Disp. 214. c. 4. sect. 35, 36.

a Maldonat. in Johan. vi. 53. p. 1486, 1487, 1488.

was to be understood of both sacraments in conjunction b; and thus he hoped to get clear of the plain and full testimonies pleaded by the learned and judicious Albertinus c. This new turn may indeed serve the Romish cause, in one branch of controversy; but it is betraying it in another, wherein the credit of Pope Innocent, and of Pope Gelasius, and of the decrees of the Trent Council appear nearly concerned: for unless the Fathers really taught the sufficiency of Baptism alone, to such purposes as have been mentioned, there is no effectual way of clearing the Fathers from the charge of maintaining the necessity of Infant Communion; though the Trent Council hath affirmed that they stand clear of it.

As to Protestants, I cannot say that they have conducted always unexceptionably in this article: for though, in the controversy about the Eucharist, they have constantly pleaded the authority of the ancients, as to making Baptism equivalent to the Eucharist in all respects, or in some respects more considerable, which is so far right; yet, for the sake of overthrowing Papal infallibility, they have sometimes been too willing to give up Innocent and Gelasius, (and with them St. Austin also, and other ancients d,) with respect to the necessity of Infant Communion: which, in effect, seems to be pulling down with one hand what they build with the other. Either let the ancients be allowed to speak fully up to the sufficiency of Baptism; and then they add much weight to the Protestant cause in the controversy about the Eucharist: or, if they were weak enough to assert the necessity of Infant Communion, let them not be called in to prove that Baptism amounted to spiritual sacrifice, or that it was the same thing, in effect, with feeding upon

b Touttai Dissertat. Præv. in Cyrill. Hieros. p. 192, 206, 208.

< Albertin. de Eucharist.

a So Dr. Wall. Hist. of Infant Bapt. part ii. c. 9. and Bingham, xv. 4, 7. But Thorndike thought more justly of the Fathers in this article, Epilog. p. 176. De Jur. finiend. Controv. p. 285.

« PreviousContinue »