^■fcV?' 
 
 ^.■••s- 
 
 '^■< 
 
 ','r 
 
1 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 1 
 
 ^? 
 
 
 
 
 «K» 
 
 
 ra 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 
 IE 
 
 3 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 0) 
 
 -o 
 
 05 
 
 
 4,^ 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 ?*' 
 
 •-S 
 
 Q_ 
 
 : 
 
 *^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 |Z1 
 
 ao 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 r\ 
 
 aS 
 
 &H 
 
 <: 
 
 :| 
 
 l^ 
 
 o 
 
 ~q3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 IZi 
 
 £ 
 
 ,^ 
 
 ■c* 
 
 M 
 
 Oj 
 
 •K* 
 
 j^ 
 
 M 
 
 (/) 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ■ye* 
 
 Ph 
 
 w! 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ct 
 
 
 >> 
 
 ^ 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 -a 
 
 ^ 
 
 %. 
 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 V* 
 
 
 <u 
 
 ^ 
 
 e- 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 V> 
 
 CL 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 1 
 
 — 1 
 
 
A N 
 
 ESS 
 
 Mn Favour of the 
 
 Ancient Pra6lice 
 
 iGf giving the 
 
 to 
 
 By the late Rp^verend and Learned 
 Mr. JAMES^PEIRCE, of Exon. 
 
 Train up a child in the way he Jljould go^ mid when he is old he 
 will not de-part from it^ Prov. xxii. 6. 
 
 Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not .° 
 For offuch is the kingdom of heaven. And he took them iip in 
 his arms, put his hands upon them, and hlejfed them, Mark 
 X. 14, 16. 
 
 "cEt natiu'a tenacimmi fumus eorum quae rudibus annis percipi- 
 mus : Uc fapor quo nova imbiias, dura: : Nee lanarum colo- 
 resquibus fimplex ille candor mucacus eftj elui poiTunt. ^in- 
 til.InJiit.Orat.Lih.l. c. i. 
 
 Non defiant hodie viri in ecclefia catholica erudici, qui hanc 
 vetuftam, infantes ftatim a baptifmo communicandi, multa- 
 ■rum ecclefiarura, in quibus fuit & Romana ecclelia, confue- 
 tudinem, ufque adeo reprehendendam non pucant, ut multis 
 earn rationibus probent : Dignamque rem efle cenfeanr, quae 
 ad ecclefiae judicium deferatur, Cajfander de baptifmo infant 
 iium. Colon. 1563. p. 89. 
 
 ^L O S D O K: 
 
 Printed for ~J.NootJ, at the "White Hart in Cheapfide, 7?i?^*° 
 Mercers Chapel; and J. Gray, at the Crofs Keys z'w the 
 
 Poultry. iyij:)cc.xxviii. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/essayinfavourofaOOpeir 
 
THE 
 
 PREFA 
 
 A M [enfible hbw firong the prejudices 
 
 are, which an ejfa-j of this nature has 
 
 to encounter. 'The univerfal praSfice 
 
 of thefe weft em parts of the world for 
 
 feveral ages paft, and the prevailing 
 
 notions which men have imbibed in con- 
 
 formit-j to that pra^ice, will procure contempt both to the 
 
 fubjecf and the writer. I have by fuch apprehenftons been 
 
 difcouragedfro?n venturing to fay any thing upon this ar- 
 
 gument, which yet has been for many years very much 
 
 upon my thougjots. Ifljcn I firft read St. Cypr-ian, / 
 
 was exceedingly furprized zvith the ftory he tells in his 
 
 ireatife De Lapfis, which the reader will find related in 
 
 the effay itfelf But it very. much added to my fur prize ^ 
 
 when I found St. Auftin talk'd of this ufage's being an 
 
 apoftolical tradition ; and perceived that it fill prevailed 
 
 A 2 *«/- 
 
iv ne PREFACE. 
 
 univerfally in the Greek churches to this very day. None 
 of my readers can more condemn this cujio?n as irrational 
 and abfurdy than 1 then did, according to the notions 
 wherein I had been educated. I could ?iot help often in- 
 quiring, what fhould occafion the ancients to bring in a 
 cuftom, which I was verily perfuaded had no tnanner of 
 . foundation. WJoen 1 had turn'd it a pretty while in jny 
 thoughts, I began to perceive there was more reafen for 
 it, than I at fir (I imagined. But fiill I could not get rid 
 of my firji prejudices ; and doubted whether I could be 
 able to fay enough to convince any reafonable and inquifi- 
 tive perfon, or to give a good account of7nyfelf, iflfhould 
 trouble the world with a clifcourje upon this Jubjeof. 
 
 About fix or feven years ago {as I guefs) I began to 
 write fonie-what upon it, and went no farther^ than an 
 introdu5iion, only I c aft together a very few hints of ar- 
 guments which might be alle^d for it. I had done fo lit- 
 tle upon the fubjeof, that I had intircly forgot that 1 had 
 ever writ any thing concerning it, till the paper a good 
 ■ while after canie accidentally in ?fiy way. Upon the pe- 
 rufal of it I was fenfible, I could fay a great deal inore 
 for the cuftom. But I w.as ft ill backward to take the 
 pains to write what was like to be received in the world. 
 with fo much diftike. I made it frequently the fubje^ 
 cfdijcourfe, %vhen I was converfmg with ingenious per- 
 pns, who I apprehended might help me to fo7ne light 
 about 'it. But excepting one or iwo^ -who had the hint 
 fro?:'. 7ne^ and fell in with ii^ ihe fuggeftion met with 
 'contempt, horror and dcteftaiicn : An "argument for it 
 could hardly have the favour to he heard, but was blown 
 
 away 
 I 
 
rZ^^ P R E F A C E. y 
 
 awa-j ivith triumph by the obje^ions I have mention* dy 
 and I think anfiver*d in the third part. What heart 
 then could a man have to write a fet difeourfe, which 
 for the very title was like to be hooted out of the world 
 as foon as it appeared in it ? Very lately I fet my felf 
 thoroughly to examine the mattery that fo I might be deli- 
 vered from a perplexing fcruple that had long ha??iper*d 
 me '^ or elfe^ if the arguments appear'' d clear y and 
 ■proved too fir ong for me to anfwery I might propofe them 
 to other Sy and hear what reply they coidd make to thetn. 
 I thought afufficient treaiife upon thisfubje5i would have 
 lain in a very narrow compafs : I'hat part indeed which 
 relates to antiquity I knew might be made large and pom- 
 pous y but I refolved to contrive to leave out all that zvas 
 not neceffary to clear the hiflory of this ufage : But I ne- 
 ver imagined the other parts would have fo increas\l on 
 my hands y as I found they did while I zv as writing. 
 And yet I a?n far fro?n thinking the fubjeol is exhauffed, 
 as 'tis not likely it fhould in the firfl effay upon it, and 
 efpe daily when in fuch an hand. Nay, I doubt not, 1 
 7nightby a further fear ch into the fcripturesy kavetnade 
 other difcoveries ?ny felf for the clearing this mattery or 
 had I been fo carefuly as I ought, to have taken minutes 
 of all that I have obferv'd relating to it, fince I firfl 
 thougjjt of ity I fhould have been better prepay d. But 
 as 'tisy it fee?ns plain to mey that the whole current of 
 the fcripture is on this fidey and that the only arg^anents 
 for the contrary that carry any degree of plaufiblenefs in 
 them are three of the objetlioris, whichy I hopey I have 
 anfwer^d Efficiently, viz. ikai infants are }lot capable 
 
Vi The PREV AC:E. 
 
 bf rememhringChrijl^ examining themfelves^ or difcer fl- 
 ing the Lord's body. I have taken notice of fome other 
 ohjeofions, becaufe J would not leave any I knew of 
 unanfwered : But they are dll of very little moment if 
 compared with thofe three. Whether they do 7iot admit 
 of a much eafier Jolution than thofe I have attend on the 
 other fide, 7mifl he left to the reader'* sjudgjnent. 
 
 After alii I defre the reader to look upon this only 
 as an effay, according to the title^ propounded to the 
 world by way of inquiry rather, than as a peremptot'y 
 determination. I declare my felf to be flill 7noft open to 
 conviolion, and ready to receive light from any one who 
 can help me to it. 'Truth 1 love, that only I feek, and 
 thankful will I be to either friend or foe for any ajfi- 
 flancs in the difcovery of it, 
 
 I have indeavour'd to write with all the plainnefs I 
 could, and hope the greateft part of the effay will be eafy 
 to common readers *, but if any find themfelves puzzled 
 much with the firft part, I would advife thein then 
 to pafs it over, or at leaf to read it after the other 
 ■parts. 
 
 In the f.rfi part I have had occafion often to men- 
 tion a very learned and ingenious perfon-. Dr. Wil- 
 liam Wall i hut I hope I have faid nothing that 
 will feem to have proceeded from an inclination to 
 oppofe him, or from a want of refpeSl to one I jo 
 much value, 7Wtzvithfanding the wide difference be- 
 tween his opinion and mine in feveral other matters. 
 I knew of no perfon who had treated this fuhje^ 
 fo tnuch as he has, and yet with all the candor that 
 
 can 
 I 
 
The PREFACE. vii 
 
 can he defired. I thought therefore I might much 
 Jhorten jny work^ by confidering all the difficulties he 
 fiarts ivith relation to the antiquity of this ufage, 
 and taking for the mofl part that for granted^ which 
 fo learned an adverfary does allow. And fo far am 
 J from being confcious of the leaft defign of difre- 
 fp^£i to hi?n, that I declare I am not without hope 
 of his approving my arguments ; and there are few^ 
 the concurrence of whofe .judgment in this point I 
 Jhoidd more value. 
 
 I hope the reader will find the whole written in 
 a fpirit of meeknefs, and with that modejly which I 
 am fenfible is but decent ^ in a fingle perfon who op~ 
 pofes a notion received by all near him , whether 
 learned or unlearned. 
 
 I profefs folemnly, the conviifion I have at pre- 
 fent of the truth of what 1 plead for ^ and the fenfe 
 I have of the ijnportance of that truth , r^ake me 
 judge it my duty to publiffo this to the zvorld. I have 
 no defign to raife dijlurbances, or create any 7iem 
 controverfies in the church : I heartily bewail thafe 
 which already trouble it, and, excepting truth and a 
 good confidence, I fihould count nothing too dear to jny 
 fielfi to part with fior the ending them. Nor fhall 
 my opinion lead me to do any tlmig to the breach 
 of the peace of the church. If I am in the right, 
 I doubt not others will perceive it, and fio?ne learn- 
 ed hand will fiupply what is wanting in my ma- 
 nagement ofi the argiunent. Ifi the prevailing opini- 
 on fihould make this cfijay be fiighted, without remo- 
 ving 
 
tiii 72^-? PREFACE. 
 
 vwg fny diJfLcidties ; I flmll reft fatisfied in having 
 iifchar£d a good confcience , and patiently wait till 
 God Jhall further reveal the truth in this 7natter 
 to us. 
 
 I fuppofe I may expe^f an occafion of reviewing 
 kvhat I have written ; which I Jhall not haftily 
 take, thnt I may fifft fee all that will be faid againft 
 ine. But as foon as I think I have all, I defign, if 
 God give life and health, to defend or retraoi what 
 I have faid. And herein I hope to be wholly gui- 
 ded by a fincere regard to truth , being indifferent 
 on which fide of the queftion I JloaJ.l find it. 
 
 I have only one thing more to add in this pre- 
 face : That t deft re fiich as think I am miftaken con- 
 cerning very little children , zvould yet take occafi- 
 tn from this effay to confider , whether their own 
 arguments will hold againfl thofe of fix or feven 
 years old. I am the rather incouraged to 7nove 
 this , ^ecaufe I have found feveral who difagreed 
 with me concerning the former, inclinable enough to 
 fall in with me in the latter. 
 
 A N 
 
g(02.."^ 
 
 A N 
 
 E S S A 
 
 In Favour of the 
 
 Ancient Practice 
 
 Of giving the 
 
 Eucharift to Children. ^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 IS natural to us to reverence anti- 
 I quity. Many learned men high- 
 ly value themfelves upon -the in^ 
 fight they have into the religion 
 of the ancient heathen nations, 
 though they acknowledge at the 
 fame time the falfity and vanity of it. That a ve^ 
 neration for the primitive times of chriftianity is 
 much more juft and reafonable, will, I fuppofe, 
 be denied by none, who are not utterly unac- 
 quainted with them, 
 
 h Men 
 
Jn EfTay in Fa^onr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 Men are apt to run into extremes in this matter 
 as well as others. Some cry up antiquity as a rule, 
 to the great difparagement of the holy fcriptures : 
 Others, though few, think it not worth their ftudy. 
 The middle way between both feems to be the 
 moft juft and prudent. This way I have indea- 
 vour'd to take, and if I at any time have been out 
 of it, it has been through miftake and inadverten- 
 cy. I acknowledge no antiquity is a fufficient 
 warrant for the eflablifhing or reviving any ufage, 
 which has no foundation in the holy fcriptures, 
 which are the only rule of my faith and praftice 
 in matters of religion. But the deference I pay to 
 antiquity is this •, that when I meet with any thing 
 that was very anciently and generally praftis'd by 
 chriftians, I am much inclin'd to examine and 
 fearch whether I can difcover any foundation for it 
 in the holy fcriptures. If I can difcover any thing 
 of this nature, I can't but wifh we therein follow'd 
 both the fcripture rule, and the example which 
 the primitive chriftians have fet us : But if I can 
 find nothing of it in fcripture, I am not, I confefs, 
 much inclined to an implicit faith in the moft ear- 
 ly antiquity, or to conform my practice to theirs. 
 For if there fhould happen to be a foundation for 
 their notion in the fcriptures, which I am not able 
 to difcover, my falling in with it will not be an 
 acceptable obedience to God, fince I pay a regard 
 therein to fallible, though good, men, and not 
 to the fure revelation he has given us of his mind 
 and will. 
 
 The obfervation I made of the antiquity of this 
 ufage of giving the Lord's fupper to children led 
 me firft to confider this fubjed, and to inquire 
 whether there was any foundation for it in the 
 fcripture. And that I may the more orderly fee 
 before my reader the refult of my inquiry, and 
 
 plead 
 
df gimng the Eucharifi to Children, 
 
 plead for the reviving this ancient practice, I fhall 
 divide this ejfaj into thefe four general parts. 
 
 The firft part gives an hijiorical account when ths 
 Lord's fupper was certainly or probably ufed in the 
 chriflian church to be given to children ; and upon 
 what occafion that cufiom came any where to be laid 
 afide. 
 
 The fecond produces fuch arguments ai I think ths 
 fcriptures afford us, to warrant the practice. 
 
 The third indeavours to anjwer all the objeSIions I 
 have met with againjl it. 
 
 The fourth reprefents the advantages, which I 
 apprehend the reviving it would be attended with, 
 fuppoftng we have afujficient warrant in the fcripture 
 for it. 
 
 > 
 
 PART 
 
4 'Jn EfTay /;/ Fa'voiir of the ancient Tra^ice 
 
 ^5SdtiSS(ii5SSd53^)C>5^Citi^Sii'XS^* ^SS^l^^Ci vSj^SxS^gj^3» 
 
 PART I. 
 
 An htfiorkal account when the Lord^s 
 Jumper was certainly or probably ufed 
 m the chrifitan church to be given to 
 children ; and upon what occafion that 
 cuflom came any where to be laid afide. 
 
 N this part, which relates to the 
 hiftory of this ufage, I fhall all 
 along have a regard to a very in- 
 genious and learned author, who 
 is well verfed in the primitive 
 writers, and has faid the moft of 
 any man I have met with, to lelTen the antiquity 
 and univerfality of the praftice. What he is 
 forced to grant, the reader may depend upon for 
 true, and will therefore be difpatched with the 
 more brevity. But where he has raifed objedlions 
 and difficulties, I hope he will excufe me, if I 
 take the liberty of candidly propofing what I ap- 
 prehend ferves to folve them. He has upon this 
 very argument been more free with Mr. Daille, 
 than I Ihall be with him : And if I can anfwer his 
 objedions, I fliall have a fatisfaftion in vindicating 
 Wall'i that incomparable author from the cenfure he is 
 niji. of In- pleafed to pafs upon him. I would not be thought 
 {S ^'^^' ^^^^^y ^° intimate that Mr. Daille approved this 
 COT vjfage : He was earnell againil it ; but he repre- 
 ^il ' t fenti 
 
ofgwing the Eticharift to Children, 5 
 
 fents the antiquity of it to the bell advantage, to 
 convince the papifts of the unreafonablenefs of 
 their pleading as they do from antiquity, when in 
 this inftance it was plainly againil them. 
 
 I think the heft way of treating of this matter 
 will be to begin at our own time, and fo go 
 backward and trace this ufage up as high as we 
 can, and to produce evidence, where 'tis need- 
 ful as we go along, of the feveral churches ufing 
 it. Among other reafons for this retrograde 
 procedure, there is one which I hope will not 
 difpleafe my reader -, that by this means this firft 
 part will gradually afcend to the fecond ; and the 
 fecond will begin where the firft ends •, I mean 
 an inquiry into fcripture antiquity, which every 
 chriftian without doubt muft efteem the beft. 
 
 I fhall digeft this part into thefe following re- 
 marks. 
 
 I. 'Tis well known, that the praflice of giving 
 the eucharift to children is at this da^^ and has 
 been. for many ages paft, ufed in the Greek church-^ 
 es, which are not of the Roman communion. 
 
 To prove this I might cite many authors who 
 lived in thofe refpedive churches of which they 
 give this account: But 'tis needlefs, fmce the 
 thing Is acknowledg'd by all. I Ihall therefore con- 
 tent my felf with Dr. WalVs teftimony, who fays, 
 " Very near half the chriftians in the world do H?fi.^^<,ij, 
 ^' ftill continue that pra6lice. The Greek church, 
 *' the Armenians, the Maronites, the Cophtiy the 
 " AhajJmSy the Mufcovites ; as is related by Jere- 
 " jniaSy Brerewood, Alvarez, Ricaut, Heylyn, &c, 
 *' and fo, for ought I know, do all the reft of the 
 *' eajiern chriftians." Nor do I remember I ever 
 met with any thing that gave me the leaft reafon 
 XQ fufped the truth of his aflertion concerning any 
 
 B 3 of 
 
6 ^Jn EfTay /;; Famtir of the ancient Tra^ice 
 
 of them. As to the firft rife and long continuance 
 of this ufage among the Greeks^ the fame author 
 makes it to be fome time between the year four 
 Jiifi. ibid, hundred and one thoufand, and fays : " That 
 " fometime daring this fpace of fix hundred years, 
 «' the Greek church, which was then low in the 
 *' world, took this cuflom from the Latin church, 
 " which was more flourifhing." So that, accord- 
 ing to Dr. JVairs confeflion, it has been the pra- 
 6tice of the Greek church for feven or eight hun- 
 dred, or, if we divide the fix hundred years equal- 
 ly, for a thoufand years. .1 fhall afterwards prove 
 it to have been older in thofe churches than he al- 
 lows, but his own concefllon is enough to juftify 
 this firft remark -, concerning which I fhall fay 
 no more, becaufe it admits of no difpute. 
 
 II. This cuftoni continued in the wefl amongft 
 the Bohejuian churches, which kept thcmfelves 
 pure from the Roman fuperftition and idolatry till 
 very near the reformation. 
 
 Mneas Sylvius, who was afterwards pope Pius II. 
 in a letter writ concerning them in the year 1451. 
 $prJf,c-KXK. tells us. They give the eucharift in both kinds to 
 PptJ"' F^' children. And fo fettled were they m their per- 
 ^^^* fuafion of childrens right to receive the eucharifl, 
 that it was not eafy for the Calixiins, who fell off 
 from their brethren to the church of Ro/ne, to part 
 with this cuftom. This appears by the petition 
 they prefented to the council of Baftl in the year 
 1438. In the fixth article they thus exprefs thcm- 
 felves : * " Likewife we intreat, that in confide- 
 
 *' ration 
 
 ■* Item fiipplicamus, quatenus paternicatcs veflrx, confiderata 
 jr.agna affcwtioae populi iioltri, veliut dare nobis defidcrataiTi 
 liberlAtem communicandi paivulos facra euchariftia. Nam ii 
 
 ifte 
 
ofgimng the Eticharift to Children, 
 
 *' ration of tlie great affeftion of our people, you 
 *^ would grant us the liberty we defire, of giving 
 ^' children the holy eucharill -, for if that cuftorri 
 " fhould be laid afide, which this kingdom upon 
 " pious conliderations, and being moved thereto 
 " by the writings and examples of great and holy 
 " dodors, has received as catholic, and has ac- 
 " cordingly ufed thefe many years -, a great and 
 "^ intolerable fcandal will be given the people, 
 " nay, their minds would be fo difturb'd hereby, 
 *« that they would become implacable." And \o 
 averfe were the council to this praftice, that they 
 would by no means allow it, when they ailow'd 
 them the receiving under both kinds. I fuppofe 
 the degenerate CaUxti?is might lofe this at the 
 time of that council, but 'tis not only certain from 
 pope Pius II. that the faithful Bobe??iians continued 
 it afterwards, till within a little more than half a 
 century of the reformation, but 'tis probable they 
 'retained it among them till the reformation it felf. 
 The Calixtins fay in their petition, this ufage had 
 been received among them for many years. And 
 it feems probable they received it at their converT 
 lion to chriftianity about the year nine hundred. 
 This was then the pra6lice both of the Greek and 
 Latin churches, and if they received it not at firfl, 
 or foon after, they could not well have had it at 
 all from the Latins^ with whom in an age or two 
 it began to wear out. They held a correfpon- 
 dence v/ith the fFaldenfes, and might be thought 
 3 4 to 
 
 ifte uflis communicandi, qiiera regnum nQftrum, pie moturo, 
 magnorum fandorum doftorum fcripturis & exemplis indudum, 
 ut catholicum fufcepit, & a multis annis effedualicer exercuiCj 
 aboletur, cerre magnum &c intolerabile fcandalum in populo oric- 
 tur, immo animus eorum plurimum ex eo implacabilicer persui:- 
 baretur. Fafcic. rerum expei. QPfng. Vol. L p. 319. 
 
S ^n EfTay in Fa^joiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 to have receiv'd it from them, if there were any 
 certain evidence of its having been ufed by them. 
 But I confefs 1 can meet with no ancient accounts 
 of that people, that will inform us what courfe 
 they took. I fhould be very glad, if I could join 
 thole early famous witneffes againft the corrupti- 
 ons of popery, with their brethren the Bohemians. 
 But fmce I cannot bring a good proof of their 
 agreement with them in this particular, I muft 
 content my felf with the others only ; And fo this 
 pra6tice comes recommended to us by the exam- 
 ple of a brave fet of chriftians, who probably ufed 
 it for about fix hundred years, while they kept 
 themfelves undefiled with the fuperftitions and ido- 
 latries of their neighbours all around them, and 
 gave a noble teflimony againft their corruptions 
 by the grievous fufferings they indured at their 
 hands. 
 
 III. The Lord's fupper was for feveral ages to- 
 gether given to infants in the weftern churches ", 
 and was not laid afide in them till the eleventh or 
 twelfth century, when the groifeft corruptions and 
 abufes in this facrament came in amongft them. 
 Dr. Wall is very frank in acknowledging what I 
 P-5i7»havenowafrerted. He exprefly fays : "That in 
 " St. Auflin and Innocent^ s time, it was in the weft 
 " parts given to mere infants. And that this 
 " continued from that time for about fix hundred 
 
 " years. "— That the Roman church about 
 
 " the year one thoufand, entertaining the do- 
 " 6lrine of tranfubftantiation, let fall the cuftom 
 *' of giving the holy elements to infants. And the 
 *' other weflern churches moftly following their 
 *' example, did the like upon the fame account. 
 *' But that the Greeks^ not having the faid do- 
 ^^ ftrine, concinuedj and do ftill continue, the 
 
 " cuflom 
 
of ghing the Etichariji to Children, p 
 
 Jf cuftom of communicating infants. ——And 
 " 'tis probable the wejlern [chriftians] had donenz/?. p; 
 *' the fame, had it not been for the do6lrine of 5i8. 
 *' tranfubftantiation coming up in the church of 
 *' Rome, 
 
 This being certain, and fo freely granted, I 
 think it needlefs to multiply the teftimonies of the 
 Latin writers in this period who mention it. 'Tis 
 evident 'twas then pradifed in all chriflian coun- 
 tries here in the weft. 
 
 • I lliall therefore only obferve to the reader, 
 that when the doftrine of tranfubftantiation was 
 crept into the church, and occafioned feveral al- 
 terations with reference to this facrament, yet 
 this pra6lice had been fo long received, and fettled 
 in the chriftian church, that 'twas a hard matter 
 prefently to root it out ; and the elements were 
 given to infants to the beginning of the tvv^elfth 
 century. So that this ancient cuftom, as well as 
 that of giving the cup to the laity, were gradual- 
 ly laid afide much about the fame time, and for 
 the like weighty reafons. 
 
 A fuperftitious conceit concerning the elements 
 had been for a confiderable time increafmg more 
 and more in the church, which brought in vari- 
 ous new rules and alterations. The ancients had 
 in their difcourfes fo magnified the elements ufed 
 in the Lord's fupper, that people became afraid 
 of receiving them. This gave occafion to Chr'^- 
 foflcfn^ who carried the matter as high as moft, to 
 inveigh ag-ainft fuch as ufed to come and receive 
 only at the great feftivals. And in the firft coun- 
 cil of 'Toledo^ A. D. 438. they were forced to 
 make this canon : * " If any one does not fwallow 
 
 "the 
 
 * Si quis autem acceptam a facerdote cuchariftiam non fump= 
 fsiitj velut facrilegus propellaturo" Cowih Tokt. I. can. 14. 
 
I o Jn EfTay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " the eucharift, when he has received it of the 
 *^ prieft, let him be excommunicated as a facri- 
 " legious perfon." Afterwards in another coun- 
 cil at the fame place, A. D. By^. they were forced 
 to add an explication or limitation to that canon. 
 * " If any one, through an unavoidable infirmity 
 *' is forced to caft the eucharill after he has re- 
 *' ceived it, he is by no means liable to any eccle- 
 " fiaftical cenfure. In like manner no cenfure 
 *' fhall be paflfed upon chofe who do fo in their 
 *' infancy, or when by any means they are not 
 '* themfelves, and fo don't know what they do.'* 
 To prevent this profanation of the elements there 
 was an order made for the receiving them failing, 
 and not eating in fome hours after. And parti- 
 cularly in the cafe of inflmts there was this rule 
 prefcribed : -f " Care is to be taken concerning 
 *' infants, that they ihould not without the uc- 
 " moll neceflity receive any food, or fuck, after 
 *' they are baptized, before they communicate 
 " in the facrament of our Lord's body.*'. This 
 rule is delivered in a book which Dr. Cave fuppofes 
 to be a work of the eighth century, but which 
 others think was not written before the eleventh. 
 
 No doubt tranfubftantiation carried the fuper- 
 ftitious veneration of the elements to the utmoft 
 
 height 'i 
 
 * Qiu'cunqiie fidclis inevicabili qualibet infirmitate coaftui 
 cuchariftiam percepcam rejecerit, in nullo eccleliaftica: damna- 
 tioni fubjaccar. Similicer nee illos cujufquam punitionis ccnfii- 
 ra rcdarguer, qui tali a auc tempore infantice faciunt, aut in 
 qualibet mentis alienatione pofici, qui quod feceiinc ignorare 
 videntur. Coficil. Tolet. XI. c. ii. 
 
 \ Illud autem do parvulis providcndum eft, ne poftquam bap- 
 tizati fucrint, ullum cibum accipiant, neqiie laflcntur, fine 
 fumma ncceilitate antcquam communicenc facramcnto corpoiis 
 Domini. Ordo Komanus^ Tit. de Bapt. 
 
of gimng the TLiichariP; to Children. 1 1 
 
 height ; but yet it could not all at once alter the 
 ancient praflice. They entertained a itrange fan- 
 cy, that the euchariflical wine, if received ac- 
 cording to the ancient cuftorn, might llick to 
 mens beards, and freeze, or grow four upon 
 them ; and therefore they brought in the cuftom 
 of fucking the wine out of the euchariflical cup 
 through a quill or pipe. This cuflom is taken 
 notice of by Beatiis Rhtnanus^ who obferves that 
 the pope to this day fucks the wine through a 
 golden pipe in that manner *. And the Ordo Ro- 
 mamis which I mentioned a little before fpeaks of 
 this cuflom, where the deacon is defcribed as 
 holding the cup and the quil while the Bifhop com^- 
 municates. 
 
 They likewife ufed another fafhion at this time, 
 
 which 
 
 * Poiro noil poiTum celare fludiofbs antiquitatis chrifllans, 
 ]aicos olim canna lohcos haurire dominicum fangiiinem ecalice : 
 quod pridem niihi indicavic Pawns VolziuSj abbas Hiigoniani 
 coenobiij vir pius & literacus, eruciim ex libro fignorum, qui 
 frequens extat apud Benediiftinos. Idem niiper rcperic in pri- 
 mis CarcLifiorum conlticutionibus Conradus PeUkanus^ homo 
 rnircE fanctitatis ac erudicionis, ubi prohibetur ne quicqua.in pre- 
 ciofoium vaforum pollideant prcecer calicem argenteum, & fiflu- 
 1am, qua laici dominicum eMforbeant fanguinem. Prceterea H- 
 bellus de veteribus chefauris ecclefiiE Moguntiacenfis, ab hinc 
 annos quadringencos &: eo amplius confcriptus, qui nunc non 
 eft ad manum, inter aureos calices ingencis ponderis anfatos, 
 cruces aureas, grues argenteas odorem impofitorum in cavo 
 ventre thymiamatum per roftra ac coUum mira arte exhalantes 
 juxta aram maxiiram, vefies facras intexco auro rigentes, gem- 
 mas incomparabiles, & reliqua kh/z./iX/* ac donaria archi- 
 epifcopalis templi, fiAulas quoque lecenfet argenteas, ni fallor 
 fex. in hunc hauricndi facrofandi fanguinis ufum deputatas, 
 quibus arbicror archiepifcopum olim uti folitum. Siquidem 
 etiamnum pontifex Romanus, qucties publice facrificat, aureo 
 calamo Tugic fanguinem dominicum e calice cum diacono & 
 fubdiacono. Beat. Khenan, Arinot, in TertuUiani librum de co- 
 fova, p. m. 860. 
 
I £ An Eflay in Faiwiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 which had anciently been praftifed in fome extra- 
 ordinary cafes ; and that feem'd to bid fair for the 
 removing their difficulties •, they ufed in fome pla- 
 ces to give the bread dipp'd in the wine. But this 
 being difliked as difagreeing with the original in- 
 llitution was forbidden : And 'twas allowed in the 
 beginning of the twelfth century to give the wine 
 only to infants and fick perfons. So pope Pafchalll. 
 who lived at that time, requires the elements to 
 be given diftindlly. Having mentioned a palTage 
 o{ Cyprian, he adds : * " Therefore the tradition 
 *' of our Lord is according to Cyprian obferv'd in 
 " taking our L-ord's body and blood ; and let not 
 *' any following an human and novel inftitution, 
 *' depart from what our mafter Chrift both com- 
 " manded and pra6lifed. For we know the bread 
 " was given of our Lord by it felf, and the wine 
 ** by it felf. And we require that cuftom to be 
 " always fo obfervcd in the holy church, except 
 " in the cafe of infants, and fuch as are very weak, 
 " and cannot fwallow the bread, for whom 'tis 
 " fufficient to communicate in the blood." The 
 cuflom then was, as we are inform'd by Hugo de 
 St. Viofore, or an author who lived at that time, 
 and goes under his name, "f that the prieft dipp'd 
 
 his 
 
 * Igicur ill fumendo corpore & fanguine domini juxta eundcrn 
 Cypriamim dominica traditio ftrvatur, nee ab eo quod Chriiius 
 maoifter & prscepit & gtllit, humana & novella infticatione 
 difcedatur. Novimus enim per fe panem, per fc vinum ab ipfo 
 domino traditum. Qiiem moreni lie Temper in fancla ecelefia 
 confervandum docemus atque prscipimus, prceter in parvulis, 
 ac oninino infirmis, qui panem abfoibere non polTunt: quibus^ 
 fatis communicare in fanguine. Pafch. Bpji. 31. apud Binnii 
 Ccricil. Tom. VII. p- ^ ?€. 
 
 t Pueris recens nacis idem facramcntum in fpecie fanguinis 
 eft miniftrandum digico facerdocis, quia tales nacuraliter fugeie 
 
 Tunc. HuFD lie St, viB. ds Caerem. Eccl, lib. 3. c. zo^ 
 
ofgmng the Enchariji to Children. 1 3 
 
 his finger in the wine, and put it into the child's 
 mouth to fuck, for which he gives this reafon, 
 becaufe fuch can naturally fuck. He blames* 
 thofe who gave them unconfecrated wine inflead 
 ofthefacrament, which fliews they began then to 
 lay afide the pra6tice •, and he thinks it were bet- 
 ter not to give them any wine, if they could not 
 without danger of a profanation give them that 
 which was confecrated. 
 
 From this time, I am apt to think, they began 
 to lay afide the cuftom of giving the cup to the 
 laity, and any part of the facrament to children. 
 And I cannot here but take notice of the remark 
 which the editor of the councils has made upon 
 that letter of pope Pnfchal, which I cited but now, 
 "f " That you may rightly underftand, fays he, 
 " what is here decreed by the pope againfl: giving 
 " one element dipp'd in the other, and for giving 
 
 <« the 
 
 * Unde ignorantia Presbyterorum adhuc formam retinenSg 
 fed non rtm, dat eis loco fanguinis vinum • quod peniais fuper- 
 vacuum arbicrarer, fi line fcandalo limplicium dimitti poiTet, 
 
 • Si autem in refervando fangumero Chriiti, vel minillran^ 
 
 do pueris immineat periculum, pocius fuperfedendum videtur. 
 Ibid. 
 
 ■f Ut accipias bene quce hie de non porrigenda communione 
 intintta, fed feorfum in fpecie panis, &, fpecie vini feorfum de- 
 cernuntur a pontifice, confulendus eft tibi Micvologus, cum 
 auftor clariiic fub Gregorio VII. Ifte enim de vitanda intindi- 
 one capitulo 26 fcripfit ifta : Ison ejl aathevticum quod quidam 
 corpus domini intrngunt^ & intinifuni pro complemento commiini- 
 mis populo diJiribuuM . T^iam Crdo Rommiiu contradicit^ &c^ 
 Cum autem nee lie reprehcnfiis pravus fubintroduclus ufus in com- 
 munione ceffaret ; Pafchalis apoftolica aufioritare hunc modum 
 diftribuendi prohibuic, & prillinum ufum hac epiftola decretali 
 revocavit. Sed cum nee fie ceffaretur ab ufu introdudo intin- 
 ftionisj communionem fab una tantum fpecie panis frequentare 
 ecclefia poftea coepit, & frequentare deineeps mejito prxcepit'. 
 l(oty w P>^fd\ Bp^^oJ. OncfJ, Tom, 7. p. ? p. 
 
1 4 Jn Eflay in Fa'voiir of the ancient TrnUice 
 
 " the communion in both kinds feparately, you 
 '' miift confulc MicrologuSy the writer of which 
 *' lived under pope Gregory VII." [ who died, 
 A. D. 1086.] " For he thus writes againft this 
 *' dipping, c. 26. 'T/J not allowed what feme pra- 
 " ^ife^ who dip the body of our Lord, and diflrihute 
 " this to the people as a complete communion. For 
 *' the Ordo Romanus is againji their doing fo, &c. 
 " But when this evil cuftom, which had been 
 " brought up, did not ceafe upon this reproof, 
 " Pafchal by his apoftolical authority forbad this 
 " way of giving the facrarnent, and reftor'd the 
 " ancient cuftom by this his decretal epiftle. But 
 " when after this, the cuftom of dipping ftill con- 
 " tinued, the church began to pracftife the com- 
 " municating under one kind, and juftly requir'd 
 " that to be afterward ufed.'* And when they 
 took away the cup from the laity, they effeftual- 
 ly put down infant communion, becaufe they had 
 ufed for fome time to give them the cup only. 
 
 And yet there feems not to have been any ex- 
 prefs decree to lay either of thefc afide before the 
 council of Conftdnce ; that council which was held 
 A. D. 1 41 5. formally decreed * the laity fhould 
 receive in one kind only, with an exprefs non oh- 
 Jtante to our Saviour's inftitutiona And the coun- 
 cil of Bafil, which was held foon after, did, as I 
 dbferv'd before, abfolutely refufe to allow the 
 Calixtins the liberty of giving the communion to 
 infants, when they indulg'd the grown perfons the 
 ufe of the cup. 'Tis very obfervable, that the 
 Lateran council which exprefly determined -f the 
 dodrine of tranfubftantiation, A.D. 121^. feems 
 
 * Sefllone 1 1* 
 t Cap. u 
 
vf gwing the Enchariji to Children. i ^ 
 
 to have allow'd infant communion. For when 
 they require perfons to confefs to a prieft once a 
 year at Jeaft in order to their coming to the facra- 
 ment, they put in this limitation, when the-j are 
 come to years of difcretion *, which certainly mult 
 be defign'd to diflinguilh adult from infant com- 
 municants, for if infants had been then excluded 
 there would have been no need of that expreffion 
 at all to clear the matter. So that I think we may 
 fay that infants were not in the Ro?nan church for- 
 bidden to receive the eucharift by any exprefs and 
 formal determination of any of their councils till 
 I the xvth century in the council of Bafil^ and that 
 this cuflom was not abolifhed by any formal de- 
 cree, till after they had abolilhed the cuftom. of 
 giving the facrament under both kinds. 'Twas 
 brought into difufe by tranfubftantiation, and the 
 firfl council that fpeaks againft it, does it only 
 upon occafion of the Calixtins defire of continuing 
 it. But the council oi Trent have treated it with 
 a peculiar air, upon which I think it will not be 
 amifs to make fome remarks. 
 
 ■f " Lajiljj Say they, the fame holy fynod 
 " teaches, that children which want the ufe of 
 
 " rea- 
 
 * Omnis utriufque fexus fidelis, poflquam ad annos difcreti- 
 onis perveneric, omnia fua Iblus peccata confiteatur fideliter, 
 faltem femel in anno, proprio facerdoti, & injunftani fibi poeni- 
 tentiam ftudeat pro vii-ibus adimplere, fufcipiens reverenter ad 
 minus in pafcha euchariftia: facramencum, QPc. Concil. Later. 
 fub Innocent III. ca^. 21. 
 
 I Denique eadem fanifta fynodus docet, parvulos ufu rationis 
 carentes nulla obligari necelfitate ad facramentalem euchariftis 
 communionem. Siquidem per baptifmum lavacrum regenerati 
 & chrifto incorporati adeptam jam filiorum dei graciam, in ilia 
 state amictere non pofTunt. Neque ideo tamen damnanda eft 
 jWitiquicas, fi eum morem in quibufdam locis aliquando lerva- 
 
 I vie. 
 
1 6 An EfTay in Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 ** reafon, are no ways bound to communicate in 
 " the eQcharift. For being by baptifm regene- 
 *' rated, and ingrafFed into Chrift, they cannot 
 " at that age lofe the grace they have already 
 *' obtain'd, of being the children of God. Ne- 
 " verthelefs the ancients are not therefore to be 
 " condemned, if for fome time and in fome pla- 
 •« ces they took that courfe. For as thofe mofl 
 " holy fathers had a probable reafon for their 
 *' pradice according to that time, fo 'tis with- 
 " out controverfy to be believed, that they did 
 " not praftife this as any way neceflary to falva- 
 " tion." And therefore after they have thunder- 
 ed out their anathema's againll thofe who were for 
 the laity's communicating in both kinds, they 
 proceed to denounce one againft thofe who were 
 for infant communion. For 'tis remarkable they 
 treat of thefe two things together, -f " If any 
 " one, fay they, fhall affirm, that 'tis neceflary 
 " for children to communicate in the eucharift, 
 " before they arrive to years of difcretion, let 
 ''' him be anathema. 
 
 I hope I fhall, before I finilh the firft part of 
 this effay, make it appear probable at leaft, that 
 this fynod, notwithftanding their pretended infal- 
 libility, are miftaken in reprefenting this cuftom 
 as ufed only for fome time, and in fome places by 
 the ancients. And I queftion whether the advo- 
 cates for the "^rent dodtors will be able to produce 
 
 as 
 
 Vit.- Uc enim fandifl'imi illi patres fui fadi probabilem caufam 
 pro illius temporis raiionc habuerunt, ita cerce eos nulla falutis 
 neceflltate id fecifle, fine controverfia credendum eft. Synod, 
 Trident. Sefs. XXI. cap. iv. 
 
 f Si qiiis dixerit, parvulis antequam ad annos difcretiones 
 peiveneiinc, necefTariam efle euchariftice communionem; ana- 
 thema fie, ^id, can. 4. 
 
of giving the Buchariji to Childre^n 
 
 as good arguments to prove it not to have been 
 pradlis'd in any one of the ancient churches, as I 
 think I /hall do to prove it to have been the uni- 
 verial cuftom from the beginning of the chrilliaa 
 church. But there is one of their alTertions as 
 manifeftly falfe, as any thing can well be ; and 
 that is, that the ancients did not prad:ife this as 
 though 'twere neceffary to falvation. 'Tis evi- 
 dent pope Innocent^ and thofe who alleg'd this cu- 
 ftom as an argument againft the Pelagians, always 
 fuppos'd the receiving the Lord's fupper was as 
 neceffary to falvation as baptifm, as I fhall have 
 occafion to fhew afterwards in this effay. And I 
 wondfer what thofe probable reafons were, which 
 the ancient fathers are here fuppofed to have had 
 for this pra6lice, which have not as much proba- 
 bility in them ftill as ever they had ; or whac 
 there was that made this ufage more proper and 
 agreeable in their time, than 'twould be in our 
 own. And certainly it was a piece of impudence 
 worthy of fuch a cabal, to curfe all thofe who held 
 an opinion which had been for fo many ages re- 
 ceiv'd in the ancient church. What refpe6t could 
 they be underftood to have for the fathers, who 
 thundered out an anathema againft thofe who 
 pleaded for a pradlice which v/as confeffedly ufed 
 by many of them ? 
 
 And is it not with confidering perfons a matter 
 of great moment, and worthy of much obfervati- 
 on, that this praftice which had been fo long 
 kept up in the church, came not to be laid aiide 
 by the Ro?namjls themfelves, till they had quite 
 changed the nature of the ordinance, and tranf- 
 form'd it into an idol ? Will not every prudenc 
 man think the better of this ufage, when he ob- 
 ferves, that the rnonfter of tranfubftantiation was 
 the only occafion of its being laid afide, and that 
 
 C iC 
 
i 8 ^Jn Eflky in Faconr of the ancient J^ra&ke 
 
 it was not difufed by the papifts, till their corrup- 
 tions were advanc'd to the utmoft •, and that chil- 
 dren were then deprived of the eucharift, when 
 the laity in general were depriv'd of the half of 
 it ? Certainly if any opinion or pra6lice deferves 
 to be more or lei's regarded, according to the 
 character of the incoiiragers or oppofers of it ; 
 there is room for a Itrong prejudice in favour of 
 infant communion, becaufe it was laid afide, and 
 put down by the worfl of men for the fake of their 
 infamous fuperftition and idolatry, and at the 
 fame time was ftiffly pleaded for and defended by 
 almoft the only chriftians who at that time retain- 
 ed the purity of our holy religion. 
 
 I cannot but apprehend it to have been a con- 
 fiderable overfight in the firft reformers in o-ene- 
 ral, that they feem hardly to have allow'd the 
 leafb confideration to a cuflom which was recom- 
 mended to them by fuch great authorities. And I 
 cannot but the rather wonder at their omifTion in 
 this refpedl, becaufe I obferve, that when it plea- 
 fed God to fuffer the idolatrous papifts to abrogate 
 it, yet he took care they fhould in fome places 
 leave fome footfteps or memorials of it, which 
 might be hints to thofe who undertook the work 
 of reformation, to inquire into the grounds and 
 reafons of it. 
 
 I have obferv'd before, that fome time after the 
 
 dodlrineof tranfubftantiation was advanced in the 
 
 world) they began to give children unconfecrated 
 
 inftead of facramental wine. And this, though 
 
 difliked by fome, yet continued in fome places till 
 
 the reformation. Thus Lmdanus bifhop of Rure- 
 
 mond, who was not born when the reformation 
 
 Panopl. firft began, tells us, that plain or unconfecrated 
 
 iib. IV. wine was given in the church of Dort to the new 
 
 ۥ *5- baptiz'd infants till his own time. And was not 
 
 this 
 
ofgwing the Euchariji to Children: ri§ 
 
 this an ite}?i what was the ancient cuftom, and 
 did it not defcrve to be more confidered than it 
 
 was ? 
 
 IV. Infant communion is as ancient in the Greek \ 
 
 church as St. Aiijlin and pope Innocenfs, days. 
 
 The only reafon why I make this a diftinfl re- 
 mark is, becaufe the ingenious gentleman I men- 
 -tioned before, makes a difficulty of it. " Howh//?. p^ 
 " foon, fays he, or how late the cuftom of infants 5 1<5. 
 " receiving came in, in the Greek charch, I know 
 " not. I do not remember any one ancient writer 
 " of that part of the world that fpeaks of it ; I 
 " mean of any genuine book : For I know that 
 " a mention of it is got into Clem. ConftitutionsJ'* 
 He therefore conceives it moft probable ; " That 
 * ' fometime during this fpace of fix hundred years'* 
 [after St. Auftin and pope Innocent] " the Greek 
 " church, which was then low in the world, took 
 " this cuftom from the L<2^f;z church, which was 
 " more flouriftiing. 
 
 The mention made of it in our prefent Conjlitu- 
 tions is very exprefs. For thus he defcribes the or- 
 der in which they ufed to communicate. * " Af- 
 ** ter that let the biftiop communicate, then the 
 ** preft^yters and deacons, and fubdeacons, and 
 " readers, and fmgers, and afcetics j and then. 
 " of the women the deaconefles, and virgins, and 
 " widows ', then the children •, and then all the 
 " people in order, with modefty and reverence, 
 C 2 " and 
 
 * Kai y.i\A Turo iJLiJcthcty.Cctvireo o am<TKOTo?y '^Treija, at 
 •5rf«<J"Cv'TS^/, it) 01 J^idKouoif /^ \£!^S'ietKovoty id) ot dvcyvuTcu^ 
 X) 01 4fieA-7W, }y ot d(TMTcu, }Ci ^ 'rr ywcti^h d.i J^ta.y.'ovtar(TA(y 
 )Ci cbi 'Tffo.^d-'ivoij £j ell yji^cti^ (HTct TO, TAjJ^ia, }y tots -^af o 
 Aitof KA]ei rd^iv fj-ilct cuS'^i )^ kv^ctCtHAi d.viv ^o^vQ^t Coa- 
 fiit. App. lib. VIII. c. 15, Confer eciara cap. la. 
 
20 Jn Efiay in Fa^joiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " and without any tumult.'* I make no doubt 
 thofe conflitutions have been much interpolated 
 fince they were firft written ; but I cannot think 
 the mention of childrens communicating is not as 
 old as the conftitutions themfelves. And I much 
 wonder that this paflage fhould fall under fufpici- 
 on among the learned, even fome who would pay 
 the greateft deference to their authority •, which 
 certainly muft be very fmall, if men affume a li- 
 berty of expunging what they pleafe, as an inter- 
 polation, without the warrant of any copy. 
 
 But as to the difficulty which is raifed by Dr. 
 Wall, I hope to give a full and llitisfac5lory aniwer 
 to it, in thefe following obfervations. 
 
 1. That the only occafion of St. Aujlhi and 
 pope Innocent's mentioning this pradice of the 
 chriftian church, was the Pelagian controverfy *, 
 and had it not been for that, in all likelihood we 
 ihould not have found fuch exprefs notice taken 
 of it, as we now meet with in their writings. Now 
 the Pelagian controverfy was chiefly managed 
 among the Latins, and made but little noife among 
 the Greeks ; and therefore fuppofing the Greek 
 writers faid nothing of it, their bare filence would 
 be a very {lender evidence of their not having this 
 cuftom among them. For their filence is very 
 confiftent with the fuppofition of their ufing it, 
 fince the only reafon of their filence may be 
 thought to be, their not having the fame occafion 
 the Latins had to mention it. 
 
 2. Sr, Aujlin was certainly better able, than 
 we are, to judge, whether this was the ordinary 
 cuflom of the churches of his time, or no : and he 
 has faid enough to fatisfy us, that it was. It 
 would be very ilrange, if we fhould think that we 
 at the diflance of near thirteen hundred years 
 ihould have more certainty what was the practice 
 
 * cf 
 
of giving the 'Eiicharijl to Children, '2 1 
 
 of the Greek churches in St. Auliin\ time, meerly 
 from the negative argument of the Greek writers 
 faying nothing for or againft the cuftom, than he 
 could have with all his advantages of reading the 
 writers, and correfponding with the churches of 
 his own time. If any pofitive proofs could be 
 produced, that this was not the cuftom of the 
 Greeks, I confefs they would deferve regard ; but 
 fmce nothing of this nature is pretended, certainly 
 St. Aujiin'^s authority alone is fufficient to out- 
 weigh this fort of negative evidence. And what 
 can be more full and exprefs, than St. Aujlin'^ te- 
 ftimony in one of his epiflles ? * " No one, fays 
 " he, who profefTes himfelfa chriftian of the ca- 
 " tholic faith, denies or doubts, that children 
 " without receiving the grace of regeneration in 
 *' Chrift, and without eating his flefh, and drink- 
 *' ing his blood [that is, without baptifm and the 
 *' Lord's fupper] have not life in them, and 
 ^'^ therefore are liable to everlafting punilhment." 
 Would Auft'in, do we think, ever talk after this 
 rate, unlefs he knew it to have been the pradlice 
 of the eaftern as v/ell as wefiern churches, to give 
 the eucharift to children ? He could not do it if he 
 had believed they pra6tis'd otherwife, unlefs he 
 had efteemed them not to be catholic chriftians, 
 which was far enough from his thoughts. And 
 very remarkable is another palTage in St, Aufiin 
 to our purpofe, which Dr, JVall has taken notice />. 514. 
 of, and thus tranflated : 
 
 C 3 «' The 
 
 * Nullus qui fe meminit catholicce fidei chriftianum, negat 
 9Ut dubitat parvulos, non accepta gratia regenerationis in Chri- 
 fto, fine cibo carnis ejus & fanguinis pocu, non habere in fe 
 vitam, ac pej hoc poenae fempiternae obnoxios, ^pfi- CVI^ 
 
3 i ^An EfTay in 'Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 * " The chriftians of Africa do well call bap- 
 " tifm it felf, ones falvation -, and the facrament 
 " of Chrift's body, ones life. From whence is 
 " this, but as I fuppofe, from that ancient and 
 *' apoftolical tradition, by which the churches of 
 *' Chrijl do naturally hold, that without baptifm 
 *' and partaking of the Lord's table, none can 
 *' come either to the kingdom of God, or to fal- 
 " vation and eternal life ? For the fcripture, as I 
 " fhewed before, fays the fame. For what other 
 *' thing do they hold, that call baptifm, falvation, 
 " than that which is faid ; He faved us by the 
 " wafhing of regeneration : And that which Peter 
 *' fays ', 'The like figure whereunto, even baptifm, 
 *' does now fave us ? And what other thing do 
 *' they hold, that call the facrament of the Lord's 
 *' table, life, than that which is faid, / am the 
 *« bread of life, &c. and, the bread which I will 
 *' give, is my flejh, which I will give for the life of 
 
 '^the 
 
 * Optime Punici chrifliani baptifmum ipfum nihil aliiid quam 
 falutem, & facramentum corporis Chrifli, nihil aliud quam 
 vitam vocant. Unde, nifi ex antiqua, ut exiftimo, & apolioli- 
 ca tradicione, qua ecclefias Chrifli inlitum tenent, prceter baptif- 
 irium & participationem Dominicce menfa;, non folum non ad 
 regnum Dei, fed nee ad falutem &: vitam ceternam pofle quen- 
 quam hominum pervenire ? Hoc enim & fcriptura teflatur, fe- 
 cundum ea qus fupra diximus. Nam quid aliud tenent, qui 
 baptifmum nomine falutis appellant, nifi quod diflum eft. Sal- 
 vos ms fecit per lavacrum regenevationis : Et quod Perrus air. Sic 
 & vos ftmili forma baptifma falvos facit\ Quid aliud etiam qui 
 facramentum Dominica; \rnenf<s'] vitam vocant, nifi quod di&im 
 eft : Egofum panis vivus, qui de ctelo defcendi, & pa?2is quern ego 
 dedero, caro me a ejiprofecuU vita : Et, Si non manducaveritis car- 
 Tiemfilii hominis, & fanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in 
 vobis ? Si ergo ut tot & tanta divina teftimonia concinunt, nee 
 falus, nee vita ceterna fine baptifmo &c corpore & fanguinc Do- 
 mini cuiquam fperanda eft, frufira fine his promittitur parvulis. 
 ^g. depeccat. merit. & remifs. lib. L. c. 24. 
 
cfgwing the Eticharift to Children. 25 
 
 <« the world: And, Except you eat the flejh of the 
 " fon of 7nan, and drink his bloody you have no life ift 
 " you ? If then, as fo many divine teftimonies do 
 *« agree, neither falvation, nor eternal life is to 
 " be hoped for by any without baptifm, and the 
 *' body and blood of our Lord ; 'tis in vain pro- 
 *' mifed to infants without them.** This is with- 
 out doubt a clear evidence that St. Auflin was 
 fatisfied that infant communion was univerfally 
 received in the catholic church in his time. He 
 would not otherwife have faid ; the churches natu- 
 rally hold it. He evidently appears tp have judg*d 
 it, as I do, a very ancient pradice, and to have 
 had its rife with chriftianity it felf, or elfe he 
 would not have call'd it an ancient and apoflolical 
 tradition. Dr. TVall, according to his apparent de- 
 fign of making the leaft, he thinks he may fairly, 
 of the teftimonies alleg'd for the antiquity of this 
 Vifage, makes this remark upon the paffage I have 
 now cited from St. Auflin : "In the cafe of bap-/*. 515. 
 " tifra, St. Auftin, and thofe others whom we 
 " have quoted, do fay. There is a tradition from 
 " the apoftles for baptizing infants. But all that 
 " St. Aujlin fays here in the cafe of the eucharilt 
 " is general •, That there is an apoftolical tradi- 
 " tion, that none that do not receive it can have 
 *' falvation. And that this rule fhould include 
 *' infants is not faid as from the apoftles, but is 
 " only his own confequence drawn from the ge- 
 *^ peral rule ; neither do his words import any 
 " m.ore : In which confequence there may ealily 
 " be a miftake." But St. Auflin^s words cannot 
 be thus evaded. His apoflolical tradition is this^ 
 that v/hat our Saviour fays, John iii. is to be un- 
 derftood of baptifm, and that his difcourfe of the 
 Iread of life ^ o^ eating the flefh and drinking the blood 
 of the fon of man^ John vi. is concerning the eucha- 
 
 C 4 rift. 
 
'^Jn Efffiy ill Fatmr cfthe aiwient TraUice 
 
 rift. And if he be allowed to be in the right con- 
 ccrninp this tradition, there can be no miftake in 
 the confeqiience, That therefore both baptifm 
 and the Lord's fupper are to be adminiflred to 
 infants. 
 
 3. St. Aujlin^s aflertion, that this was the gene- 
 ral pradice of the churches in hjs time, is very 
 much confirmed by the confent of the ancient 
 writers, Grsek as well as Latin^ in interpre- 
 ting our Lord*s difcourfe, John vi. concerning the 
 eucharift. This I Hiall have occafion to mention 
 again. 
 
 4. It feems next to a demonftration, that this 
 was the univerfil pradice in St. Juftm*s time, be- 
 caufe there was no difpute about it. The Aniipe- 
 lagians pleaded ftrongly againft their adverfaries, 
 that infants had original fin, from the received 
 cuftom of the chriftian church, which believing 
 thofe texts in the third and fixth chapters of John 
 to relate, the one to baptifm, the other to the 
 Lord's fupper, afferted the abfolute neceflity of 
 both ordinances to falvation, and accordingly ad- 
 miniftred both to infants. St. Aujlin in feveral pla- 
 ces triumphs in this argument: And every one mull 
 fee thofe texts being underftood to fpeak of the fa- 
 craments, and expounded by the pradice of the 
 churches, bore very hard upon the Pelagians. 
 They made a fhift indeed to help themfclves a 
 little with refcrenire to that, John iii. by a fubtle 
 diftinftion which they devifed, according to which, 
 they granted unbaptized infants could not obtain 
 the kingdom of God, though they might eternal 
 life : But the other text pinch'd them grievoufly ; 
 for our Saviour evidently fpeaks of eternal life, as 
 Aujlin argues, where he aiterts the abfolute necef- 
 fity of eating the fiefh and drinking the blood of 
 the Son, of manj in order to pei fons obtaining it« 
 
 And 
 
of gk'ing the En char iff; to Children, 2 j 
 
 And if infimts without the eucharift could not have 
 eternal life, they mufb according to his way of rea- 
 foning, fuffer punilhment, and confequently they 
 muft have original fin. Now, if any of the 
 churches of that time had excluded infants from 
 communion in the Lord's fupper, and had recei- 
 ved another interpretation of that text which bet- 
 ter fuited their own praftice -, who can think the 
 Pelagians would not have readily taken that handle, 
 and have raifed a controverfy about the right in- 
 fants had to partake of the elements ? At leafl 
 they would have indeavour'd to take off the force 
 of the objeftion againft their doftrifie, by alleging, 
 that 'twas uncertain whether their adverfaries hit 
 upon the true fenfe of our Saviour's words, and 
 that chriftians were not generally agreed about 
 it, but that the Greek writers went clear another 
 way in expounding it. But fmce we never meet 
 with the leafb hint of any fuch anfwer made by 
 themx to this grand objeftion againft their fcheme ; 
 there is good reafon to conclude the Greeks and La- 
 tins were in this cafe agreed, and that it was then 
 the univerfal praftice of the churches to give the 
 elements to infants. 
 
 5. I am much miftaken, if there is no mention 
 of this pradice to be met with in Greek writers, 
 who are as ancient as St. Auftin and pope Innocent:^ 
 I fiiall name fome who lived in their time. 
 
 The firft whom I will produce as a witnefs of 
 this practice , fhall be 'Theodorus Mopfueftenus , 
 who lived in St. Aujlin^s time, and as Dr. Cave has 
 ftated the matter, died two years before him. His 
 teftimony is very full ; and the more confider- 
 able becaufe he was a Pelagian, and in that treatife 
 which I refer to, and of which Photius has given us 
 an extrad:, he is ftiffly arguing againft thofe in the 
 vjefiy who alTerted mens fin was owing to their na-- 
 
26 ^Jn EfTay in Vcfvoiir of the ancient Trf.^ice 
 
 ture, and not to their will. And thus he expofes 
 them, and particularly, as 'tis thought, St. Auftin 
 himfelf : * " A fecond thing which they fay in 
 confequence of the former is, that infants, al- 
 though but juft born, are not free from fm, 
 becaufe nature is now conftituted in fin by rea- 
 fon of Adam's tranfgreffion, and a fmful nature 
 (as they love to fpeak) is now propagated to all 
 his poflerity. And for the confirmation of 
 their opinion they allege, I was conceived in fins, 
 and fuch like places of fcripture i and that 
 the holy baptifm, and the communion of the 
 undefiled body of our Lord, are for the remif- 
 fion of fms; and that they convey this when 
 they are adfninijlred to infants.** Nov/ to evade 
 this objeftion, he does not allege, that infants 
 in the Greek churches did not partake of the eucha- 
 riil (which he would certainly have done, if it had 
 been true) but he coins a flrange notion of remiffi- 
 on of fms, making it to import a perfon's being 
 freed from finning any more, as he fays we Ihall 
 be after the refurrediion. And for this Photius 
 jaughs at him, notwithftanding his approbation of 
 the caufe he defended. His remark upon him is 
 much to our purpofe. f " But perhaps he fell 
 
 " in- 
 
 *mS.v rl £^ ^yLe>v•<i yiioi -r ci[j.ct{\(yKYii (coi ti'Tronv civ ixt^vo/') 
 
 iyivvii'dr.yi jCf h r/ roi^rovy y^ ctvro To aiyiov ^*V7/cr//it, )^ 
 •r 7a <i'/i^!vlii (Tafj.ATOi Koivsovia.}^, h{ a.^z<Ttv dixct^riuv' jcj 
 
 •f o/y.eicti vo(M<Tia<;. Photii Biblioth. cod. CLXXVII p. 396. 
 
of gwing the Bucharifi to Children, 27 
 
 '* into this interpretation unwillingly, and only 
 " to folve the difficulty of thofe who fay, why do 
 " infants partake of the undefiled myfteries? 
 *' Why are they thought worthy of baptifm, un- 
 *' lefs they alfo are full of fins, fin being now 
 " Ipread through nature ? For thefe are given for 
 *' theremiffionof fins. But he fhould have given 
 " fome other folution of this difficulty, as there 
 *' are feveral other ways of folving it.'* Can any 
 one, when he reads this, doubt whether the Greeks 
 were for giving children the Lord's fupper ? 
 
 The fecond witnefs I fhall bring for this pradice 
 in the G7'eek church is Jftdorus Pelufiota, who lived 
 at the fame time. He thus pleads that men fhould 
 highly honour the prieilhood : * " Through their 
 '' means we are regenerated, and partake of the 
 " divine myfteries, without which 'tis not poffi- 
 *' ble to partake of the heavenly rewards, ac- 
 *' cording to thofe certain oracles of the truth 
 " which fays : Except a man he horn of water and 
 " the fpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: 
 " And, Except a7ij one eat m^j flep and drink m'^ 
 " Hood hejhall have no part with me. If then with- 
 
 " out 
 
 3<5 }y hi A'pzaiu tauta S'lS'oixu di^cifTi^V a,\?C iyjnv x^ ^ 
 "^ticlV ^nroKK'li 'k-^dAV Avaicov cl<po§[/.Aij ZTi^cei^iv c/rnhv 
 attS^au. Id. p. 400. 
 
 CY\iy 'Ectc (j-n Tii 'j{uvii^ii i^ vJ^cijoi x), 'srvi^'ixAJQ-y « y.n MiK- 
 -^H «V r ^A<7iKeicf.v ^^ 'i^.vcov' ^ YIotI q , 'Ecir y.n th tpdyif 
 
 « roivvv aviv ncrav a% oi'ov ts -f d-i'iAi d^ia&'i^vcu hn^zuiy 
 TauJA Q S'l liS'zvbi; irk^^i h 'f h§co(7vt'tii cott£Ab7«/, ttw? ^' 
 riyA Avfyi? iiAlA(p^vh']A ^n «'< to, -S-aet 'mA^m](S(U^ j^ <? 
 IceyTy '^vyjM •/<.&{ A<^^y max' Lib. II. Epift. 5a. 
 
'Jn EfTay in Fatwtir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 *' out thefe 'tis not polTible to obtain the divine 
 ** inheritance, and yet thefe are not performed 
 " but by the priefthood i how can any one de- 
 *' fpife the priefthood, without offering an injury 
 " to the things that are divine, and without de- 
 " fpifing his own foul ? " Can any one doubt, 
 "whether Ifidorus was for infants receiving the 
 Lord's fupper, when he obferves how politive he 
 is in afferting that to be abfolutely necelTary to 
 falvation ? Bat if this place left the matter doubt- 
 ful, his opinion would be certain from another 
 epiftle fent to a noble man, wherein he fpeaks 
 exprefly of the cafe of infants. He begins thus: 
 * " Becaufe your excellency has writ to me, de- 
 " firing to be informed, for what reafon infants, 
 " who are without fin, Ihould be baptized ; I 
 ^' thought it neceflfary to return an anfwer. Now 
 " feme, who fpeak below the dignity of the fub- 
 *' je6l, fay, they are wafhed from that defilem.ent, 
 " which is communicated to our nature by rea- 
 " fon of Adam's tranfgrefTion. I believe this is 
 *' done indeed ; though it be not all that is done 
 
 *' (for 
 
 h^cof /AVTuel.av x.cti4r», ;^ e.i r <7cl°y.a. dun tjAh, K] uxnrzf 
 ro fcoiJ.A Tfi Ai'pAKn \ijcoi civnti m'UTUi' Lib. III. Epiit* I9$« 
 
of gwing the Etichariji to Children. 29 
 
 (for this would be no fuch great matter) but 
 many other gifts are bellowed upon us, which 
 very much tranfcend our nature. For our na* 
 ture receives not only what it wants for the ta- 
 king away fm, but is adorned with divine gifts. 
 For 'tis not only freed from punifhment, and 
 divefted of all wickednefs ••> but 'tis regenerated 
 from above, and redeemed, and fan6tified, and 
 brought into a ftate of adoption, and juflified, 
 and made coheir with the only begotten, and by 
 a participiation of the divine 7?iyjieries is made one 
 body with him, and is reckon'd to be his flefh ; 
 and is lb united to him as the body is to the 
 head." And 'tis evident, he mufl mean that 
 this -participation of the divine m'^iteries followed im- 
 mediately upon their baptifm, or otherwife it was 
 nothing to his purpofe, nor any anfwer to the 
 queftion which was fent to him. And that he 
 would be thus underftood, we may fee further by 
 what he fays in the conclufion of his epiflle, 
 * " Think not therefore, my good friend, that 
 " baptifm is only to take away fm -, but that it 
 " procures for us adoption, a relation to God, 
 " and ten thoufmd other advantages, fuch as I 
 " have mentioned, and fuch as I have omitted. 
 " For he that is univerfal king has not only 
 " redeemed our nature that was taken captive, 
 " but has advanced it to the higheft pitch of 
 " honour. 
 
 To thefe let me add a third witnefs, and that is 
 
 "^heo- 
 
 Tty.riv clynyci'jl/j. Ibid, 
 
3 o Jn EfTay in Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 Theodorit, who lived about the fame time, being a 
 bifhop ten years before St. Aufl'm died ; and what 
 can be more exprefs than his words ? f " Not 
 " only, fays he, do the priefts partake of our 
 " Lord's body and blood, but all that have re- 
 " ceived the holy baptifm." And are not thefe 
 three witnefTes as fufficient in the cafe of the 
 Greeks^ as St. Aujlin and pope Innocent in the cafe 
 of the Latins ? And if other of the Greek writers 
 do not fo exprefly mention this, yet they are ne- 
 ver found to fay any thing but what is perfedly 
 agreeable to it. How commonly do they join 
 baptifm and the Lord's fupper together, and 
 Ipeak of them both as adminiftred to all that were 
 received into the church || ? Who are the fj.i^un/xivo/, 
 or initiated, fo often mentioned by ChnfoJlo?n ? 
 They are no other than thofe who did partake of 
 the Lord's fupper ; and what other initiation had 
 they than baptifm ? What Greek fathers differ 
 from the Latins in the account they give of thofe 
 they efteemed the Saints, or the faithful? Or which 
 of them ever excluded baptized infants from that 
 number .? When they cried before the adminiftra- 
 tion : Td lyiA roli dyion did they intend to exclude 
 infants, who being baptiz'd were certainly rec- 
 koned among the ayioi^ or the faints.? Whom did 
 they mean when they cried out, * Depart ye, that 
 can* t pray, but thofe who not being baptiz'd might 
 
 not 
 
 fi-diAttj'o; T« >y eti/J-ctj©-, ctAAst Wc7jf ol r{]v/J)Kor€i TO clyiti 
 ^olttI'kt iMcil©-' In I Regum. Quaefl. 51. 
 
 II rid. Nazian. Orat. XL. p. 660. Chryfoft. Homil. XXII. & 
 XXX. in I Cor. 
 
 * ATiA957s 01 y.h J'vvd/'ji^oi /juGnfcw. Chryfoft. Horn. Ill* 
 ifi Eph, 
 
of gi'vhg the Eticharift to Children. 3 1 
 
 not be prefent when they flild the Lord's prayer ? 
 Did they mean any others hereby, than the cate- 
 chumens ? And were baptiz'd perlbns reckonM 
 of that order ? I wifh, if any one doubts of the 
 practice of the Greek church at that time, he 
 would produce fome paffages from the ancient 
 authors to fliew the ground of his doubt. For 
 certainly we may reafon:ibly otherwife imagine, 
 that fince they and the Latins agreed in fo many 
 other things, they did in this alfo ; and that they 
 then pra6lis'd infant communion univerfally ; for 
 the authors I have alleg'd are fufficient to prove 
 this, unlefs fomething can be produced as pofitive 
 evidence to the contrary. I hope I have faid 
 enough to confirm this fourth remark, and to 
 make it appear that the Greek, as well as the 
 Latin, churches ufed to give the eucharifl to 
 children from the beginning of the fifth centu- 
 ry. I fhall advance a little higher in the next 
 remark. 
 
 V. Neither the praftice of giving the facra- 
 ment to children, nor the dodlrine of the necelTi- 
 ty of their receiving it, were owing to pope Inno- 
 cent. 
 
 This remark is only defign'd for the removing 
 another objection of the fame learned author. 
 " 'Tis true, fays he, what Mr. D^f/// urges jH//?.p.5i4. 
 '*• 'That St. Auftin fays the fame thin^' \yiz. with 
 pope Innocent'] " eight or ten times over in fever at 
 *' -places of his hooks. And fome of his books are 
 *' dated a little before this letter oi Innocent. But 
 " though he wrote a great part of his works be- 
 " fore this Innocent was made bifhop of Rome, and 
 " in them fpeaks often of infant baptifm ; yet 
 " 'tis obfervable, that he never fpeaks of infants 
 *' communicating till after Innocent had been bi- 
 
 *« ihop 
 
3 2 Jn EfTay in Faooiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " ijhop fome time : "Which makes me think it 
 " probable, that Innocent did firft bring up this 
 " doftrine of the neceflity of this facrament to in* 
 *' fants. For after Innocent had fo determin'd, St. 
 " Aiift'in oftner quotes him for it than he does any 
 *' place of fcripture. 
 
 Now to take off this prejudice againft the pra- 
 dice I am pleading for, I defire the reader to take 
 notice of a few things. 
 
 I. There is no reafon to think pope Innocent 
 ever wrote any thing concerning this matter, be- 
 fore that Letter which Dr. Wall mentions, which 
 was fent to the Milevitan Synod. And fince he 
 owns St, Aujl'm fpeaks of this cuftoni in the works 
 he wrote before Innocent fent that letter ; I think 
 I have more reafon to deny, than he can have to 
 affert, that St. Aiijlin received it from that pope. 
 For certainly if one of thefe muft be thought to 
 have received it from the other, the pope is moft 
 likely to have received it from the bifliop of 
 Hippo^ fmce for ought appears to us, the latter 
 did firft mention it in his writings. And though 
 'tis true, St. Auftin makes much ufe of his tefti- 
 mony -, yet that is no evidence he had it from 
 him. A great deference, as is well known, was 
 then paid to the bifliops of Rome^ not only as that 
 was the imperial city, but as it was thought to 
 have been the feat of two famous apoftles. Saint 
 Peter and St. Paul. And St. Auftin being very 
 defirous to run down his Pelagian adverfaries, 
 thought nothing was more like to do it, than the 
 authority of the bifhop of that fee. And he that 
 looks into St. Auftin will fee, that he defigns to 
 lay the greateft ftrefs upon this, when he appeals 
 to his teftimony. There are many paffages to 
 this purpofe in one of his letters, wherein he feems 
 with a kind of pomp to mention the apoftolical See. 
 
 »< Ac- 
 
ojgimng the Eticbarift to Children: J^] 
 
 * " Accounts were fent, fays he, of this matter, 
 *' from the two councils of Carthage and Milevisy 
 " to the apollolical fee. — - We wrote, befide 
 " thofe accounts fent from the councils, private 
 «' letters alfo to pope Innocent of bleffed memo- 
 " ry, wherein we treated of this matter more at 
 «« large. To all which he return'd us fuch an 
 «« anfwer as was fit, and as became the bilhop of 
 <' the apoftolical fee. -— — — • He muft difpute 
 <' againft the determination of our Lord, ^ 
 
 " and againft the authority of the apoftolical fee, 
 " which has urged this teftimony of the gofpel 
 " when this very bufmefs was debated. •— - — • If 
 " they will give way to the apoftolical fee, or 
 " rather to the mafter and lord of the apoftlesj 
 
 2. Pope Innocent does not mention this as a new 
 thing -, and the very way of his fpeaking of it 
 would make one think he was rather appealing to 
 a received dodtrine or pradlice, than attempting 
 to introduce a new one. When men defign to ad- 
 vance a new notion, they ufe to fpeak of it with 
 all the clearnefs they can, and fet it off with ma- 
 ny words to the beft advantage. But nothing of 
 this nature is to be met with in that epiftle. Inno- 
 cent brings in the mention of it very accidentally 
 
 D and 
 
 * Miffe funt itaque de hac re ex duobus conciliisj Carthagi- 
 
 neiifi & Milevitano, relationes ad apoftolicam fedem. Scrip- 
 
 limus eiiam ad beatcE memoricE papam Innocentium, prceter con- 
 cilioi'um relationes, liceras familiares, ubi de ipfa caufa aliquan- 
 to diutius egimus. Ad omnia nobis ille refcripfit eodem modo 
 quo fas erat atque oportebat apoftolicse fedis antiltitem. - — Con- 
 tra fententiam Domini difputabit & contra apoftolicce fe- 
 dis auftoritatem, ubi de hac ipfa re cum ageretur, hoc teftimo- 
 
 nium adhibicum eft evangelicum, Si autem cedunt fedi 
 
 apoftolic£, vel potius ip(i magiflro &: domino apoftolorum, &c, 
 AuguJi.Epifi.CYh 
 
3 4 ^^ ElTay /';/ Famtir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 and flightly, in order to confute thofe he wrote 
 againft, and juft in the fame manner as every one 
 will allow he would have done^ if the do6lrine 
 and pra6tice had certainly been in vogue long be- 
 fore. Pelagius, as I obferv'd before, contended 
 that unbaptiz'd infants might have eternal life, 
 though they could not obtain the kingdom of 
 God. He was brought indeed himfelf to anathe- 
 matize thofe who afierted this ; but 'tis probable 
 he did not do it honeftly: However, this was 
 the doftrine of his followers, who declared they 
 rid. Aug. would fooner quit Pelagius for anathematizing the 
 BpJi.QVl. afferters of it, than they would depart from it. 
 However, by the help of this nice diftinftion 
 he hoped to get over the objedion brought 
 againft his notion from our Saviour's words, 
 John iii. Now this was the occafion of pope 
 Innocents fpeaking concerning infant commu- 
 nion, which he does in this manner : * " As 
 " to what you affirm they declare, that chil- 
 " dren may have the reward of eternal life be- 
 " ftowed upon them without the grace of bap- 
 " tifm •, 'tis very abfurd. For except they eat the 
 *' fiejh of the Son of man^ and drink his bloody they 
 *' have no life inthem.^'* So flightly is this menti- 
 oned, that it might feem almoft to bear a difpute, 
 whether he fpake of the Lord's fupper, or no ; 
 were it not for the certain knowledge we have of 
 the fenfe of that age, and for the comment St. Au^ 
 Jiin has given us upon his words. This does not 
 look as though Innocent was fpeaking of a novel 
 
 pra- 
 
 * Illud vero quod eos veftra fraternitas aflerit prasdicare, par- 
 vulos xterni vitce prxmiis etiam fine baptilrnatis gratia pofle 
 donari, perfatuum eft. N//2 enim ?nan(lucaverifit carnem jilti 
 fjommsy & biberint fanguinem ejus^ non habehunt litain in fe^ 
 met ipjis. Innocent, Epift. inter eas Auguft, XCIII, 
 
of giving the Eticharifl to Children; 35 
 
 |5ra(5lice or doftrine of his own introducing. 
 
 3. If pope Innoce77t had firfl brought in this 
 notion and pradicCj Pelagius and his followers 
 would without all doubt have made heavy com- 
 plaints againft him, and would have earneftly op- 
 pofed him therein, fmce this was made ufe of as 
 the moft plaulible objedtion againft their darling 
 opinion. But fo far are the Pelagians from this, 
 that they made not the leaft difpute of infants 
 right to receive the Lord's fupper. 
 
 4. St. Jt<Jim*s never mentioning this before the 
 popedom of Innocent, can be no evidence that he 
 received it from him. For fince the Pelagian con- 
 troverfy was the only occafion of Auftin's, ever 
 mentioning it at all ; it can be no wonder he faid 
 nothing of it before the popedom of Innocent, fince 
 Pelagius did not begin to broach his doctrine, till 
 fometime after he was advanced to the papal 
 chair. 
 
 5. If pope Innocent had firft fet this do(5lrine or 
 pra6tice on foot, he would probably have done ic 
 only in the weflern churches ; whereas I have 
 fhewn the fame was received at that time in thofe 
 of the^'^y?. 
 
 6. 'Twill certainly appear this dodlrine and 
 praftice were not owing to pope Innocent, from 
 what I fhall add under the next remark. 
 
 VI. The giving the eucharift to infants was the 
 cuftom in St. Cyprianh time. 
 
 All that Dr. PFall cares to grant here is, that 
 '* The people of Carthage did then oftentimes H//?.p. 5 it;* 
 *' bring their children younger than ordinary to 
 " the communion." I Ihall therefore endeavour 
 to prove, they then brought mere infants to the 
 communion, as well as they did, by his own con- 
 ceffion, in St. Aujiin^s time. There is a famous 
 D 2 paf- 
 
3 ^ Jn EfTay /;/ Fa'VGur of the ancient TraUice 
 
 paiTage in St. Cyprian, which as it exceedingly 
 furprized me, when I firft read it, fo it was the 
 firft occafion of my thinking ferioufly on this fub- 
 jed. I fhall fet down his words at length, and 
 indeavour to confirm my remark by fome obfer- 
 vations upon them ; and fhall leave it to the reader 
 to make fome others, which, though natural 
 enough, I care not to mention. * " Hear, fays 
 '* he, what happen'd, my felf being prefent and 
 *' a witnefs thereof The parents of a little girl 
 " fleeing out of the city, were through their fright 
 ** lefs careful of her, than they ought to have 
 *' been, and left her behind at nurfe. The nurfe 
 *' carried her to the magiftrates. They brought 
 
 " her 
 
 * Praefente ac telle me ipfb, accipite quid evenerit. Paren- 
 tes force fugientes dum crepidi minus fuis confulunt, fub nutricis 
 alimento parvulam filiam reliquerunt, reliftam nutrix detulic ad 
 magiftratus. lUi ei ad idolum quo popukis confluebar, quod 
 carnem necdum polTet edere per aetatem, panem mero mixcum, 
 quod tamen ipfum de immolatione pereuntium fupererat, tradi- 
 derunt. Recepit filiam poftmodum mater. Sed facinus puella 
 commifium tam loqui & indicare non potuit, quam nee intellige- 
 re prius potuit, nee arcere. Ignoratione igitur obreptum eft, 
 ut facrificantibus nobis earn fecum mater inferret. Sed enim 
 puella mixta cum fanftis, precis noftroe & orationis impatiens, 
 nunc ploratu concuti, nunc mentis aefiu coepit fluftuabunda ja- 
 ftari, & velut tortore cogente, quibus poterat indiciis confeien- 
 tiam fafti in fimplicibus adhuc annis rudis anima fatebatur. 
 Ubi vero fblennibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre praefen- 
 tibus coepit, & accipientibus ceteris locus ejus advenit ; faciem 
 fuam parvula inftindu divinae majeftatis avertere, os labiis ob- 
 turantibus premere, calicem recufare. Perftitit tamen diaconus, 
 & reluftanti licet, de facramento calicis infudit. Tunc fequitur 
 fingukus & vomitus. In corpore atque ore violato euchariftia 
 permanere non potuit. Samftificatus in domini fanguine potus 
 de poUutis vifceribus erupit ; tanta eft poteftas domini, tanta 
 majeftas. Secreta tenebrarum fub ejus luce detefta funt, facer- 
 dotem Dei nee occulta crimina fcfellemnc. Hoc circa infantem, 
 quae ad eloquendum alienum circa fe crimen necdum habui? 
 ?ietauin. Cy^rim, de L^pjis. p, 1 5 1. 
 
vfgimng the Encharifl to Children, 5^ 
 
 " her to an idol, where the people were gather*d 
 " together, and becaufe fhe was too young to 
 *' eat flefh, they gave her fome bread crumb'd 
 " into wine, which was left of the facrifices of 
 « thofe miferable idolaters. After this the mo- 
 " ther took her home. But the girl could no 
 " more declare or fhew the horrid fa6b, than fhe 
 <« could before underftand or hinder it. The 
 " thing being not known, it happen'd the mother 
 " brought her with her, when we were admini- 
 " firing the Lord's fupper. The girl being 
 " placed among the faints, was not able to bear 
 " our prayers, but began to cry out bitterly, 
 " and to be grievoufly toffed through the difor- 
 " der of her mind ; and as though an executioner 
 " were racking a confeflion from her, her igno- 
 " rant foul at that harmlefs age acknowledg'd, by 
 " all the figns Ihe could, a confcioufnefs of the 
 " fa6l. The confecration being ended, when the 
 " deacon began to offer the cup to thofe who 
 ** were there, and among the refb her turn came ; 
 " fhe through a divine inftind; turn'd away her 
 *' face, fhut her mouth clofe, and refus'd the 
 " cup. The deacon perfifted in his offer, and 
 " forced fome of the facramental wine into her 
 " mouth, whether fhe would or no. Hereupon 
 " fhe fell a fobbing and vomiting. The eucharifl 
 " could not continue in a body and a mouth de- 
 " filed with idolatry. The drink fandified in 
 " the blood of the Lord, forced its way out of 
 " her polluted bowels. So great is the power, fo. 
 *' great the., majefly of our Lord. The fecret 
 " works of darl^efs are difclofed by his light., 
 " nor could hidden crimes efcape undifeover'd to 
 '^ God's prieff. This happen'd in the cafe of an 
 '* infant, who was not yet old enough to utter ano- 
 D 3 " ther 
 
'3? ^Jn EfTay in Fa'votir of the ament TraUice 
 
 ** ther perfons crime with reference to her felf. 
 
 Thus far Cyprian^ whofe teftimony alone would 
 
 be fufficient, without any comment to confirm my 
 
 aflertion ; were it not that Dr. Wall has indea- 
 
 vour'd to weaken it by the remark he has made 
 
 \iy, upon it. " This child, fays he, was probably 
 
 ** four or five years old. For the heat of the per- 
 
 " fecution was two years before this adminiftring 
 
 ■" the facrament could be, if we reckon the foon- 
 
 *' ell. For St. Cyprian had been all that while 
 
 *' retir'd out of the city, as appears by bifhop 
 
 *' Pearfo7i*s annals of that time. And the child 
 
 *' may be guefled by the ftory to have been two 
 
 *' or three years old, when fhe was carried to the 
 
 *' idol feaft." 'Tis evident this is faid with a de- 
 
 fign to make the difference between the practice 
 
 in St. Cyprianh time, and our own, appear as 
 
 fmall as poflible. But I fhall take the liberty of 
 
 offering the reader the reafons why I think thefe 
 
 gueffes don't feem probable. 
 
 I. There's no foundation for conjecturing the 
 girl to be two or three years old when Ihe was car- 
 ried to the idol feaft. It fhould feem fhe was not 
 then w^eaned. Cyprian's expreflion rather looks 
 that way : Sub nutricis alimento parvulam filiafn reli- 
 ^uerunt ; that is, the parents left their little 
 daughter not barely in the keeping of a nurfe (as 
 Dr. JVall renders it) but at nurfe^ to fignify, I 
 think, the child's fucking her breaft. Now if we 
 were to guefs at the child's age from our own fa- 
 ihion, this circumftance would hardly allow the 
 girl to have been fo old. But it muff be own'd 
 their cuftom feems to have been different from 
 ours, and that anciently they gave children fuck 
 much longer than we now ordinarily do. St. Je- 
 rofn's account of the cuftom of the Hebrews is in- 
 deed 
 
ofgwing the Eticharifl to Children, '3^ 
 
 deed very flrange. * '* When Ifaac ^ fays he, 
 " was born, Ifinael was thirteen years old. And 
 " after ht was weaned, Ifinael and his mother 
 " were cafl out. T'he Hebrews differ here in their 
 «' opinions, fome afferting the fifth, and others; 
 " the twelfth year, was the time of weaning.'* 
 He preferred, as he had good reafon, the fhort- 
 eft of the two. Others of the ancients fpeak of 
 about three years as the time children ufed to 
 fuck. Thus the mother in the Maccabees is 
 brought in fpeaking to her feventh fon : O ?n'j zU.ix.vii. 
 [on ! have pity upon me that hare thee nine months in ^7' 
 7ny womb^ and gave thee fuck three years. Thus 
 Macrobius ■\ thinks children become about that 
 age averfe to fucking, and are with difficulty kept 
 longer to it. The fame feems to be thought by 
 Galen || to be a fit time for children to be kept at 
 the bread. Others again reprefent the ordinary 
 time of childrens fucking to be two years §. 
 
 So that 'tis hard to fay what their cuftom was. 
 
 However, in the cafe of this girl Dr. Wall has 
 
 made her as old as can well be allowed. But 
 
 D 4. there 
 
 * Quando Ifaac natus eft, tredecim annorum erat Ifmael. Et 
 pofl ablaftationem ejus, ifte cum macre expellitur domo. Inter 
 Hebrceos autem varia opinio eft, aflerentibus aliis quinto anno 
 ablaftationis tempus ftatutum, aliis duodecimum annum vendi- 
 cantibus. ^^fi- & tradit. in Genef. p. m. 139. 
 
 f Poft quinquies feptem \msnfes'] incipic lac nutricis horrefce- 
 re, nifi forte ad patientiam longioris ufus continuata confuetu- 
 dine protrahatur. In fomn. Scip, p. z%, 
 
 II TavJo, au ctTstclct -afei to 'aro/cTjoj' «? rgirov It©~ &c '? 
 •srfcoTMf yzvi(Tzcoi d^iiu -Tsr^yiActjiViid-a/i )^ ©jy tovtcov It/ '? 
 
 Tf«(ZHicriK » fffXlK^av 'TffOl^.^ <SJfJvOletVi i<PzClJLeiTCOV T5 'ra%i «5 
 
 'nrofj.a.Tcov wi azx^qv el» r y.pjmiv to ydkA' Galen, de. 
 
 Sanitat. tuenda. Lib. I. c. ix. p. 54. 
 
 § Avicenna, qui etiam Galenum non de tertio anno completOj,^ 
 fed aufpicame loqui exiftimavit> 
 
§6 ^Jn ElTay in Fa'vour of. the ancient TraUice 
 
 there is reafon rather to fuppofe the time the girl 
 fucked was fhorter, fince fhe was at nurfe abroad : 
 And however long children might ufe to fuck at 
 home, 'tis not unlikely that parenta,l afFedtions 
 might occafion the fhortening the time, that fhe 
 might the fooner come home. And there feems 
 to be one circumftance which very much con- 
 firms my opinion, and that is, that the child was 
 too young to eat flefh, and therefore they gave 
 her fome bread crumbed in the wine. And cer- 
 tainly children are capable of tailing a little flefh 
 long before they are two or three, nay, and be- 
 fore they are one year old. 
 
 2. Cyprian'' s, abfence from Carthage was but a 
 year and an half, according to bifhop P ear/on' s 
 account. For he retired in the beginning of the 
 year two hundred and fifty, and returned in May 
 two hundred and fifty one. 
 
 3. There's no neceflity to fuppofe the girl was 
 carried to the idol feall before Cyprian's retire- 
 ment ; it might be only a little before his return. 
 If the heat of the perfecution was two years before 
 his return, yet it had continued hot enough after- 
 ward to put chriftians in general into fuch a fright 
 as Cyprian mentions, or elfe he would not himfelf 
 have been fo long abfent from his flock. Befides, 
 this fright of a particular family might not be fo 
 much occafion'd by the heat of the perfecution in 
 general, as by the intelligence they might have 
 received of fome defigns laid againfl themfelves 
 in particular. 
 
 4. This guefs feems hardly to agree with Cy- 
 prian's account of the child. For had llie been 
 four or five years old when brought to the facra- 
 ment, he would hardly have reprefentcd her as 
 utterly unable to exprefs any of her trouble ; nay, 
 'ris probable he would have mentioned fome 
 
 queftions 
 
of gimng the "Eticharifi to Children, 41 
 
 queftions that were put to her, as they eafily 
 might be at that age. 
 
 5. Let any one judge, whether 'twas likely a 
 chriflian mother would let her child continue long 
 with fuch a nurfe after her apoftacy. Dr. J'Fall 
 puts the diftance of two years between the child's 
 being carried to the idol feaft and to the facra- 
 ment. And yet it fhould feem by Cyprian, that 
 fhe was carried to the facrament prefently after 
 ihe was taken from nurfe. And would the chrifti- 
 ans of that time, who were fo careful of the edu- 
 cation of their children, fuffer them to be to fuch 
 an age under the care and tuition of an apofbate, 
 whom they fo greatly abhor'd, or of a profefled 
 and zealous heathen ? The nurfe muft have been 
 of this latter fort, if fhe were not of the former, 
 as 'tis mofl probable fhe was. 
 
 6. There is another circumftance in the ftory, 
 which makes it feem very improbable, the child 
 fhould be fo old as is pretended. I think Cyprian'^ 
 account fhews plainly, that they gave her only 
 of the cup and not of the bread. And what now 
 could the reafon of this be .'' The primitive bi- 
 fhops did not grudge any of the laity any part of 
 the facrament. This therefore could be owing to 
 nothing elfe but to the child's age, by reafon of 
 which they could not fo eafily make her eat the 
 bread, as they could make her take in a little of 
 the wine. But a child of four or five years old, 
 is as capable of eating a piece of bread, as any 
 adult perfon whatever. 
 
 7. 1 defire it may be obferv'd, here is not the 
 leaft hint given that this was the firfl time of the 
 child's communicating, but only the firfl time of 
 her doing it after her having been at the idol feaft. 
 There is no intimation of any allowance or order 
 that was given, for the mother's bringing her 
 
 child 
 
4 2 'An Eflay /;; Facmr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 child to the facrament, that had never been there 
 before. Nor can I conceive why £he might not 
 have as well been there before, as come then firft 
 when fhe was fo utterly void of all underftanding, 
 according to C'jprian^s account of her. And in- 
 deed I cannot fee what earnings can be made of all 
 thefe gueffes, fuppofing they were all allowed to 
 be certain truths. For I dare fay, thofe who are 
 againft childrens receiving the facrament, do only 
 infill upon their want of underftanding, and their 
 incapacity to remember Chrift, ^c. Now this 
 was the cafe of that girl, let her be of what age 
 you pleafe. And therefore I am apt to think fhe 
 could not be more than between one and two 
 years old, if Ihe were fo much. And the mo- 
 ther carried her to the facrament as foon as Ihe 
 took her home, and might as well have done it 
 before, if flie had taken her home fooner. 
 
 8. Should all Dr. IVaWs, gueffes concerning this 
 girl's age be allowed as juft and reafonable, yet 
 there is another palfage in the fame treatife, 
 which Ihews that in Cyprian's time, mere infants 
 were thought to have a right, and were accord- 
 ingly admitted to communicate at the Lord's ta- 
 uijt. p. 46. ble. Dr. IVall has tranflated the paffage, whofe 
 tranflation I fhall give without any material altcx 
 ration. * " There were alfo, fays he, a great 
 " many that thought it not enough to procure 
 " their own damnation : The multitude incou- 
 
 " raged 
 
 * Ac mukis proprius interitus fatis non fuic ; hortamcntis 
 mutuis in exicium fuum populus impulfus eft : Mors invicem le- 
 thali poculo propinata ei\, Ac ne quid deeffet ad criminis 
 cumulum, infantes qiioque parcntiim manibus vel impofici vel 
 atcradi, amiferunt parvuli, quod in primo ftatim nativitatis 
 exordio fuerant c:nfecuti, Nonne illi, cum judicii dies vene- 
 
 t ^K 
 
ofgmng the Enchariji to Children. 43 
 
 " raged one another to their defbrudion : They 
 ^' drank death to one another, and pledg'd each 
 " other in the poifonous cup. And that nothing 
 *' might be wanting to the meaiure of their wic- 
 *' kednefs, infants were carried or led by their 
 ^' parents ; and while they were little, loft that 
 " which they had obtained prefently after they were 
 " born. Will not they at the day of judgment 
 *' fay : We did nothing of this ; neither did we, 
 *' forfaking the meat and cup of our Lord, run of our 
 *' own accord to the partaking of thefe profane de- 
 ** filements. 'Twas the apoftacy of others ruined 
 *■*■ us : We had our parents for our murderers. 
 *' 'Twas they that renounced for us the church 
 *' from being our mother, and God from being 
 **^ our father ; fo that while being young and in- 
 " confiderate, and not fenfible of the greatnefs of 
 " the crime we were made partakers of the wic- 
 " kednefs, we became intrapped by the treache- 
 " ry of others? 
 
 Dr. Wall is not treating of infant communion, 
 when he cites this paffage ; but only urges it 
 againll the antipedobaptifts. The obfervation 
 therefore which he makes upon it, and which 
 alone was pertinent to his purpofe, is this : 
 " When he fays, the infants loft [or forfeited] thatihid. 
 *' [gift or grace] which they had obtained prefently 
 ^' after they were born ; 'tis plain that he means 
 *' their baptifm, and the benefits thereof" But 
 then 'tis as plain, he means the Lord's fupper as 
 
 well 
 
 rlt, dicent : Nos nihil fecimns, nee derelido cibo & poculo do- 
 mini ad profana contagia fponte properavimus : Perdidic noi 
 aliena perfidia, parentes fenfimiis parricidas. Illi nobis ecclefi- 
 am matrem, iili patrem Deiim negaveriint; ut dum parvi & im- 
 providi, & tanti facinoris ignari, per alios ad confbrtium crimi- 
 :&um jungimurj aliena fraude caperemiir ? D§ lapf. p. ii|. 
 
44 -^'^ EfTay in 'Fatoiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 well as baptifm : And therefore he immediately 
 brings them in mentioning a particular inflance 
 of what they had obtained as loon as they were 
 born, and had afterwards loft through the trea- 
 chery of others ; that is the fneat and cup of our 
 Lord. And when he reprefents them as pleading 
 in their own behalf that they did not forfake thefe, 
 *tis clearly enough imply'd that they ufed to par- 
 take of thefe, before they were perfidioufly car- 
 ried by their parents to the idolatrous facrifices. 
 
 VII. There is no reafon to believe the pra6Vice 
 of giving the Lord's fupper to infants was pecu- 
 liar to Carlhage in St. Cyprian^s time i nor is there 
 any evidence, that it was not then univcrfally re- 
 ceived in the chriftian church. 
 
 I make this remark, that I may clear the pra- 
 ctice I plead for, from the contrary fuggeftion of 
 sif.p. <ii7. the fame ingenious writer, who fays : " That in 
 " Cyprian's time the people of the church of C^r- 
 " tbage did oftentimes bring their children youn- 
 " ger than ordinary, to the communion : '" im- 
 plying, as I underftand him, that ihe people of the 
 church of Carthage were ftngular herein. Now to 
 evidence, that this praftice was not then peculiar 
 to Carthage.^ I would offer thefe following obfer- 
 vations. 
 
 I. The fame obfervation I made before con- 
 cerning pope Innocent., may very well be applied 
 to St. Cyprian : That the manner in which he 
 fpeaks of this pra6lice, fliows plainly he did not 
 efteem it any peculiarity in himfelf or his church. 
 In both the pafla^es I have tranfcribed from him 
 under the former remark, he fpeaks of it with the 
 greateft fimplicity, and ufes not the leaft argu- 
 ment to juftify or recommend it, as 'tis natural 
 for a man to do, when he mentions a nojirum^ 
 
 abouc 
 
of gic'ing the Enchariji to Children, 4^ 
 
 about which he apprehends his neighbours will 
 difagree with him. But the mention he makes 
 of it is perfe<ftly occafional, and by the iDy, with- 
 out theleaft hint of his expeditig any one fhould 
 diflike, or find fault with what he faid. So that 
 I can never imagine, that Cyprian thought he was 
 ipeaking of any other than a generally received 
 cuftom. And with the like fimplicity and plain- 
 nefs does he elfewhere * fpeak of the abfolute ne- 
 ceflity of receiving the Lord's fupper. 
 
 2. There is an epiftle of Cyprian which fhews 
 this was the judgment and pradlice of all the bi- 
 Ihops at leaft, that were in the fame province 
 with him. One Fidus a bifhop had in a letter to 
 him moved a doubt ; whether infants fhould be 
 baptiz'd within two or three days after they were 
 born, and whether they ought not rather to be 
 kept back from baptifm and the Lord's fupper 
 ( as I underftand him ) till the eighth day. He 
 feems not to have quefliion'd their right to both 
 lactam ents, when they came to that age, but 
 he thought they had no right before. Cyprian 
 in anfwer to him writes thus: "f " As to the cafe 
 " of infants, concerning whom you fay, that 
 " they ought not to be baptized in two or three 
 " days after they are born, and that a regard 
 
 " Hiould 
 
 * rid. Teflimon. lib. I. c. zz. p. zg, & lib. 111. c. 25, 26. 
 ■p. 7i. & De Orat. Dom. />. 246, 247. 
 
 ■f Quantum vero ad caufam infantium pertiner, quos dixifli 
 intra fecundum vel tercium diem, quo nati funt, confticutosj 
 baptizari non oportere, & conliderandam effe legem circumcifi- 
 oni3 anticjuse, ut intra odtavum diem eum qui natus eft bapti- 
 zandum & fanBifcandum non putares j longe aliud in concilio 
 noftro omnibus vifum eft. In hoc enim quod tu putabas elTe fa- 
 ciendum nemo confenfit ; fed univerii potius judicavimus, 
 nuUi hominum nato miferecordiam Dei be gratiam denegandam* 
 £/;?/?. $4. ]). 158, 
 
4^ yi/v Effay in Vamur of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " fliould be paid to the law of the ancient circum- 
 " fion ; fo that you think no one fhould be bap- 
 " tiz'd 2ind fanoiified before he is eight days old *, 
 " our whole fynod was quite of another mind. 
 " Not a man agreed to your propofal •■, but we 
 " were all of opinion that the mercy and grace 
 " of God was to be refufed to no man born into 
 " the world. 
 L2h.\l.c./\. Mr. BailU in his excellent treatife o^ the right ufe 
 of the fathers^ alleges this pafTage, to fhew that 
 infant communion was a general corruption in 
 Cyprian's time, and that we are not to look upon 
 their pradice as a fufficient warrant for our own. 
 But in citing it he fets down one word differently 
 from what 'tis ordinarily printed, and ^uts facrifi- 
 candum inftead of fan5iificandum : And fo by fa- 
 p. 44. crificandufii he underftands communicating. Dr. JVall 
 objedls againft this reading of Mr. Daille, t\\3.tfa- 
 crificandmn is not in that fenfe latin. Nor wili I 
 undertake for the purity of the exprefTion ; but 
 yet fomewhat might be pleaded for fuch a fenfe 
 from Cyprian's flile. For he frequently ufes ano- 
 ther participle of the fame verb for thofe who had 
 communion with the heathen in their facrifices, 
 rid. E??/^. and calls them facrificati. And fmce he often 
 o^'^°'^'fpeaks of the eucharift as a facrifice, facrificandus 
 alibi pa^' might as properly fignify one who communicated 
 dm. therein, ^.sjacrificatus could one that communicated 
 
 in the idolatrous facrifices •, unlefs Cyprian be un- 
 derftood to ufe the verb facrif cor as a deponent. I 
 fhall have occafion to mention a place or two out 
 of Farro, wherein 'tis fo ufed -, but that ufe is 
 perhaps hardly to be met with in any later authors, 
 and it may be queflion'd whether Cyprian imitates 
 it, and does not rather mean hy facrijicatus one for 
 whom facrifice is offer 'd. But fince I don't re- 
 member any place, wherein he ufes this term fa- 
 
 arificandui 
 
ofgwing the Buchariji to Children, 47 
 
 mficandus for communicating in the Lord's fupper, 
 
 I cannot but agree with Dr. IVall^ that Mr, BailU's 
 edition was herein wrong ; and the rather, be- 
 caufe that of Oxford, as he obferves, takes no no- 
 tice of any various reading in that place. But then 
 whereas Dr. Wall m^ikts fan lifted in this place to 
 be the fame as baptized, I queftion whether there 
 is any neceflity of allowing that interpretation. I 
 grant indeed that ufe of the word is, as he urges, 
 very common and ufual ; but withal it may be 
 obferved, that the ancients, whether Greeks or 
 Latins, fpeak of the Lord's fupper in the fame 
 manner. Thus Clement of Alexandria : * " They 
 " who receive the eucharift believing, are fan» 
 " (5lified both in body and foul." In like man- 
 ner Origen calls the euchariftical bread -f " loaves, 
 *' which are by prayer made a body that is holy, 
 " and fan6lifies thofe who ufe it with a good de- 
 " fign." In like manner C-^ril of Jenifalem: 
 
 II " Under the new law, the heavenly bread, and 
 " the cup of falvation fanftify the foul and body." 
 Thus likewife Macarius, the archbi0iop of An- 
 tioch, in the confeflion of his faith that was read in 
 the fixth general fynod, or the third at Confian-- 
 tinople : § " Thus we approach to the elements^ 
 
 " and 
 
 Tzu Kj (Tcofj-a ^ '\.vyj)v. Clem. Alex. Pajdag. Lib. II. c. z. 
 
 f AfTa? iSrio/j^^ <jcoyLA yzvofj^'di; J'la, r \vxpJJ aytov Jtj 
 Ayi^Zpv tkV iJ-'Cl'l vyfii ^m^^kazccq clvm y^coijj^z^. Contra 
 Celf. Lih.yWl.j. 399. 
 
 4'VX^^ ^ Cia)'//(Z, aryi^J^oVTox. Cyril. Caclief. Myftag. IV. 
 
 ii^S o-«1n£jjf. Sext. Synod, Conflantinop. A^. S''^. CctKtl. 
 'i'om, 5. p. 99. 
 
j4n Effayiu Fa'voiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " and are fanftified, being partakers of the holy 
 " flefh, and the precious blood of him who is the 
 " Saviour of us all." And for this reafon per- 
 haps, that part of the temple where the Lord's 
 fupper was adminiftred is fometimes call'd iyiAo-i^a, 
 That Cyprian exprefles himfelf to the fame pur- 
 pofe, we may fee by this pafTage : * " And there- 
 " fore we pray, that our bread, that is, Chrift 
 " [in the eucharift] may be daily given us, that 
 " fo we who abide and live in Chrift, may not 
 " depart from his fanftification and his body. 
 
 But waving all arguments from that pafTage in 
 Cyprian, whether we read facrificandu?n or fan5fifi- 
 candufn ; there is another place in the lame epiftle, 
 which fhews plainly that Fidus's doubt, and the 
 fynod's determination related as well to the eucha- 
 rift as to baptifm. Fidus had objedled, that an 
 infant was not fweet before he was eight days 
 old, infomuch that every one had an averfion to 
 the kilTmg fuch till that time. The reafon of his 
 mentioning this I take to have been, becaufe as 
 baptized infants were immediately received to the 
 Lord's fupper, fo there was a necefTity of their 
 receiving the kifs of peace or charity at it. And 
 fo it appears by the anfwer Cyprian gives to Fi- 
 dus. -f " For whereas you fay an infant is not 
 " clean in fome days after his birth, in fo much 
 " that we all of us loath to kifs him, we do not 
 
 " think 
 
 * Et ideo panem noftrum, i. e. Chriftum dari nobis quotidie 
 petimus, ut qui in Chriito manemus & vivimus, a fanftificati- 
 one ejus & corpora non recedamus. De Orat. Dom, p. 147. 
 
 t Nam & quod veftigium infantis in primis partus fui diebus 
 conftituti, mundum non efTe dixifti, quod unufquifque noftrum 
 adhuc horreat exofculari, nee hoc putamus ad cxleftem grati- 
 am dandam iropedimento eHe oporcere; fcriptum eft enim : 
 
 Omnia 
 
ofgimng the Eucharifl to Children. ^ij 
 
 " think this ought to be any hindrance to our im- 
 '' parting the heavenly gift ; " for 'tis written : 
 " To the dean all things are clean. Nor fhould any 
 " of us ioath what God has voiichfafed to make, 
 " For thDugh an infint is but juil born, yet he is 
 " in no fuch cafe, as that any of us fhould loath 
 <« to kifs him with the kifs of charity." I amDe Sa- 
 fenfible Bellarmin reckons this giving the kifs as c.''^™- Bap, 
 one of the ceremonies that followed baptifm : And ' ^*^'^' 
 Tiv.Wall tells us: "That it was the cuftom ofniji.p.^i, 
 *' thofe times and places, to give the new bapti- 
 " zed perfon, whether infant or adult, the kifs 
 " of peace.'* The fame is pretended likewife by 
 Cotelerius. Bellarmin alleges only this epiftle of Nor. in A- 
 Cyprian for the proof of his aflertion ; and Cotele- P^^- Con- 
 rius adds another of Chryfojloin : But both thefe ' ^^^' ^^' 
 are eafy to be accounted for by this one obferva-*^" ' 
 tion j that anciently all baptized perfons, whe- 
 ther infants or adult, ufed immediately to be ad-^ 
 mitted to the Lord's fupper. And I queflion ve- 
 ry much, whether any tellimony can be produced 
 from the ancients, to prove they ufed to kifs reli- 
 gioufly the baptized perfon before the communion. 
 The ancient authors, who mention the ceremonies 
 of baptifm, fuch as 'I'ertullian, Jerom, the pre- 
 tended Dionyjius, and feveral others, never take 
 any notice hereof And if this was the ancient 
 pradtice, 'tis ftrange to me it lliould have been 
 loft at the time when the apoftolical conjlitutions were 
 written, in which we find not any mention made 
 of it. Befides, fmce Dr. IVall will not allow of 
 
 E our 
 
 Omnia munda funt mundis. Nee aliquis noftmm id debet hor- 
 rere, quod Deus dignatus eft facere. Nam ec(i infans adhuc S 
 partu novus eft, noa ka eft tamen, ut quifquam ilium in gratia 
 danda atque in pace facienda horrere debeac ofculari. lbid= 
 h z6o. " t 
 
■Jci ^« ElTay in Fa'vottr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 our explaining the cuftom of the church in Cypri- 
 an's time in the matter of infant communion, by 
 what we meet with in the days o^AuJlin \ there is no 
 great reafon to allow him to explain the ceremo- 
 nies and ufages of baptifm from as diftant ages, 
 fuppofing any clear teftimonies of giving the kifs 
 of peace on that occafion could, as they really 
 cannot, be produced from them. 
 
 I might here further allege another place in 
 St. Cyprian to prove, he thought all baptized 
 perfons ought immediately to receive the Lord's 
 fupper. His words may be thus render'd : 
 * " 'Tis necelTary that he that is baptized fhould 
 *' be alfo anointed, that having received the 
 " chrifm, that is, the unftion, he may be the 
 " anointed of God, and have the grace of Chrift 
 " in him. Moreover, the eucharift is the oil 
 " that is fandtified on the altar, wherewith the 
 " baptized are anointed." Thus the bifhop of 
 Ox/^ir J underftands the place, and when 'tis fo ta- 
 ken 'tis home to my purpofe ; and efpecially con- 
 fidering that the epiftle out of which 'tis taken 
 is a fynodical epiftle. The like neceflity of bap- 
 tized perfons receiving the eucharift might be 
 thought to be requir'd afterwards by one of the 
 ancient councils, if we might be allowed to ex- 
 plain their words in the fame manner the learned 
 biftiop does the words of Cyprian, -f " The bap- 
 " tized, fay they, ought after baptifm to be 
 
 " anointed 
 
 *Ungiquoque necefTe eft eum, qui baptizatus fit, ut accepto 
 dirifmate, ?. e. unftinne, efle unftus Dei, &: habere in fe grati- 
 am Chrifti pofHt. Porro aiitem eucharilHa eft unde baptizati 
 unguntur, oleum in alt-ri fanaificatum. Bpifi. 70. p. 190. 
 
 ^r/ji i^'^^fjfMa, }^ A^sfSvKf '^ ^ S«t5-/A««f T» X&<r». Concil. 
 Uq^ig, Can, XLVIH. "" ~ 
 
of ghing the Eucharift to Children. Jt] 
 
 " anointed with the heavenly chrifm, and to be 
 " made partakers of the kingdom of Chrift." 
 But I con/efs the place in Cyprian is too obfcure 
 and doubtful for me to lay any very great ftrefs 
 upon it ; though I don't fee but that the bifhop's 
 interpretation is as juft as any that is pretended. 
 
 3. I cannot believe this cuftom was then pecu- 
 liar to Carthage^ becaufe we find not that it was 
 the occafion of any debate or conteft between Cy 
 prian and any of his cotemporaries. Though the 
 primitive chriftians are famous for their piety ; yet 
 it muft be owned, they were men of like paflions 
 with thofe who came after them. They many 
 times appear'd very ftiff and pofitive in maintain- 
 ing their peculiar opinions, and were very jealous 
 of thofe who adled contrary to their fchemes. Cy- 
 prian indeed manifefted an extraordinary chriftian 
 temper, in the difpute about baptizing thofe whd 
 had been before baptized among the heretics : 
 And yet we fee to what a height that controverfy 
 came, notwichllanding his moderation. And in- 
 deed I am not now fo much concern'd to make 
 any remarks upon the temper of Cyprian, as upon 
 that of his cotemporaries •, I mean particularly 
 pope Stephen and his collegues, who join'd with 
 him in excommunicating St. Cyprian, and the 
 other biihops who pleaded earneftly for re-bapti- 
 zing thofe who had been baptiz'd by heretics. 
 The difference between them upon that head 
 does not feem greater, or of more importance, 
 than this (if there had been any) would have been, 
 about giving the eucharift to children. How 
 then can it be thought, that if pope Stephen and 
 his collegues, had not pradis'd infant communion 
 as well as Cyprian , they would not have made 
 this an objeftion againft him, in the controverfy 
 they had with him y and alleg*d this as one article 
 E 2 for 
 
5 f '2n E iTay in Ta'voiir of tie ancient TraUice 
 
 for which they excommunicated him ? If they 
 had ditfer'd in their opinion and pradice in this 
 as well as the other affair, why fhould not infant 
 communion have been as offenfive to the one 
 party as rebaptization ? 
 
 I cannot therefore but reckon this a full evi- 
 dence, that infant communion was at that time 
 praftis'd in the church of Rome. And from their 
 making no ftir with any of their neighbours about 
 it, we may probably enough infer, 'twas general- 
 ly received in the churches of that age. The 
 church oi Rome was then become very pragmati- 
 cal, as we may fee by this fecond inftance of their 
 excommunicating whole churches, for differing 
 from them. And as their not being offended 
 with Cyprian for this pradlice, is an argument they 
 nfed it themfelves •, fo their not troubling or ex- 
 communicating the eaftern, or any other churches 
 for not ufmg it, is to me a probable evidence they 
 all of them ufed it, at leaft for ought pope Stephen 
 knew to the contrary. 
 
 4. That the pradlice of that age was very diffe- 
 rent from ours, and might probably enough be 
 the fame with Cyprian's, may be gather'd from- 
 an epiftle of Dionyfuis of Alexandria, a cotempora- 
 ry of Cyprian. The account we have of it, is pre- 
 ferv'd by Eufehius, and in it we have this llory : 
 H. E. hb. Qj^g Serapion, an old man of Alexandria, had fa- 
 • ^' 44* crificed in the time of perfecution, for which he 
 was excommunicated. The intreaties he made to 
 be reftored to the communion of the church, did 
 not prevail in the time of his health ; but being 
 at the point of death, he lay fpeechlefs and fenfe- 
 lefs three days, and on the fourth he recover'd a 
 little flrength, and fent a little boy, who was his 
 grandfon, to call one of the prefbyters of the 
 church to releafe him. It being night, the pref- 
 
 byter^ 
 
ofgknng the Eticharift to Children, '53 
 
 byter, who happen'd to be Tick, could not come 
 to him himielfi but fent fome of the eucharift to 
 him by the boy, ordering him to moiften it with 
 water (as the tranflator renders it ; I rather thinks 
 with /bmc of the facramental wine) and fo to give 
 it him : The boy did fo, and inftantly the old 
 man departed. All that I bring this for, is to 
 ihew that perfons ufed then to 'communicate very 
 young. For I take this to be an evidence the bov 
 was in communion, and ufed to receive the Lord s 
 fupper. Otherwife the prefbyter would never 
 have trufled him to carry the elements; as I fup- 
 pofe every one will allow, who knows any thing 
 of the care and induftry with which the ancients 
 ufed to conceal thefe chriftian myfteries from 
 all that did not receive them. This is evident 
 from feveral places in Tertidlian, who lived before 
 that time. I can't indeed fay how old the boy 
 was, but it feems evident, he was very youngs 
 becaufe Dionyfms terms him not only '^cui but 
 ^ouJ'a.eiov. I am fenfible we are not to examine his 
 expreffion by the nice diftinftion which Hippocra- 
 tes makes of the feven ages of mankind, according 
 to whom a child is 'mauS'iov to feven years old, af- 
 ter that to fourteen ^aI';, But I think we can 
 hardly fuppofe the boy to have been much above 
 eight or ten years old. And this Ihews, that at 
 Alexandria they gave the eucharift to children, if 
 they did not to mere infants, and confequently 
 that their method v/as at leaft vaflly different from 
 that of our time. 
 
 VIII. 'Tis highly probable this had been the 
 practice of the chrifiian church even from the apo- 
 Jiles days. 
 
 The reader will be the more inclined to believe 
 
 this affertion, if upon examination he fhall per- 
 
 5 3 ceive 
 
'^4 ^^^ Effay /;; Tcwoiir cfthe ancient TraUice 
 
 ceive any fqlidity in thofe grounds I fhall produce 
 prefently from the holy fcriptures for this praftice. 
 But I now only confider the matter according to 
 what appears from ecclefiaftical writers. Now 
 here I own we have not, as far as I know, any 
 exprefs mention of this praftice in the writings of 
 the primitive chriftians before St. Cyprian. And 
 yet I think it probable that it had obtain'd from 
 the beginning of the chriftian church. The read- 
 er may judge of my opinion, whep he has perufed 
 the followinsr obfervations, which I would make 
 concerning this period. 
 
 I. 'Tis eafy to account for our not meeting 
 yj'iih any exprefs mention of this practice in the 
 %yriters who lived before Cyprian, even fuppofing 
 5t to have been then received. The writers be- 
 tween the apoftles and Cyprian''?, time are few \ 
 ."Their writings are very much in their own de- 
 fenfe, either againft the Gentiles, the Jews, or 
 Heretics ; none of which occafions would lead them 
 to ipeak of this fubjedl, unlefs the heretics had 
 Taifed any difpute about it, or about fomewhat 
 that might have been affefted by it, neither of 
 •which appears to be true. As to the other treati- 
 ses or letters of thofe authors which relate to chri- 
 ilian piety, they had no great occafion of men- 
 tioning this cuftom in them. For if we fuppofe 
 this to have been the general pradice at that 
 time, there would be little need to exhort parents 
 to bring their children fometimes to church, that 
 they might receive the Lord's fupper. Setded^ 
 well received practices don't need to be much fpo- 
 ken of or urged. Thus we have fewer exhorta- 
 tions to frequent communion ip the moll ancient 
 times, when it was univerfally pradis'd, than we 
 have in the fourth and fifth centuries, when chri- 
 Hians became r^mifs in that duty, and many ufec^ 
 
cfgwing the 'Eiicharijl to Children, "55 
 
 to communicate only on the great holy days, and 
 fome would Itay at the adminiftration without 
 communicating, which cuftoms St, Chryfojlom does vid. Hom* 
 fometimes feverely inveigh againfl. Again, the '^l- ^'^ 
 ancient writers had no occafion to mention this in^^^^^* 
 their exhortations. For there was no room for 
 their directing any exhortations to the young com- 
 municants and members of their churches, till 
 they came to the ufe of their reafon and underfland- 
 ing ; and when they were fo, the fame exhortations 
 and arguments that fuited others, would them alfo. 
 I defire the reader would a little refle6t upon 
 what I have cited from St. Cyprian, and take no- 
 tice how very accidental his firft mentioning this 
 cuflom was. He to reprefent to the people the 
 great danger of communicating in idolatrous facri- 
 fices, relates a flory concerning a little girl that 
 had been carried to an idol feaft, and was after- 
 wards brought to the Lord's table, where fhe was 
 not able to communicate by reafon of her having 
 been before defiled with idolatry. Had it not 
 been for this flory, which happen'd a little before, 
 and without doubt greatly affeded Cyprian, and 
 was much to his purpofe \ and for the whimfical, 
 fuperftitious conceit of one Fidus, who would 
 needs defer baptifm till children were eight days 
 old, becaufe that was the age fixed of old for cir- 
 cumcifing children, and becaufe he thought others 
 would be as fqueamifh as himfelf , and would loath 
 to kifs children if they were brought to the Lord's 
 fupper before that age, as they would be if they 
 were baptized before it •, had it not been, I fay, for 
 thefe occafions, we fhouid probably have had no 
 clear and exprefs mention of this pradlice before 
 the beginning of the fifth century : And it may be 
 we are intirely beholden to the Pelagian controver-^ 
 ly, for what we meet with then concerning it. 
 ' E 4 It 
 
56 "Jn Effay in Faimir of the ancient TraUics 
 
 It deferves alfo to be obferved, that there is 
 much the lame Ipace of time between St.John^ the 
 laft of the apoftles, and Cyprian, that there is be- 
 tween Cyprian and pope Innocent •, each being about 
 an hundred and fifty years. And fince this pra- 
 ctice was certainly continued during the latter pe- 
 riod, though we find not any exprefs mention of it 
 made therein ; why iliould it be thought unrea- 
 fonable to fuppofe the fame concerning the former 
 period, which is much of the fame length ? 
 
 2. I muft here remind the reader of the manner 
 in which St. Cyprian fpeaks of this cuftom ; which 
 I think plainly argues it not to have been any no- 
 vel thing, brought in by himfelf, or in his own 
 time, but to have been a received and fettled 
 lifage of the church. 
 
 3.1 may here urge, that we have no account of 
 the rife of this cuftom. No one who pretends, it 
 was not derived from the apoftles, and conftantly 
 pra6lis'd in the fucceeding times, is able to give 
 us any probable account of the time when, or the 
 occafion upon which, it began. 
 
 4. We never hear of any conteft or difpute 
 that was occafion'd by this pradice. And yet 
 had it not been received from the apoftles, one 
 would think, fuch a vaft innovation, as this would 
 have been, muft of neceffity have raifed fome 
 grievous quarrel. 
 
 I grant thefe two confiderations are not alone fa- 
 tisfad:ory in any cafe ; but when they are join'd with 
 others, they muft be allow'd to have fome weight. 
 
 5. As there is no exprefs mention made of this 
 ufige before Cyprian's time, fo nor is there, as far 
 as I can find, any thing mentioned before his time, 
 from which it can be inferr'd, that it was not then 
 ufed. It fometirnes fo happens, that the doftrines and 
 pradices of one age are proved novel by their be- 
 ing 
 
of gimng the Etichm/i to Children. ^j 
 
 ing confronted by thofe of a former. But nothing 
 of this nature can be alleg'd in the prelent cafe. 
 I was never yet fo happy as to meet with any 
 thing in the primitive writers before Cyprian^ 
 from which it could with any fairnefs or probabi- 
 lity be argued not to have been the pradice of 
 their time. 
 
 6. The very filence of antiquity is a ftrong ar- 
 gument, they admitted infants to the Lord's fup- 
 per, as well as to baptifm. I do not expect this 
 argument fhould be of any force but only with 
 thofe who believe that infants ought to be bap- 
 tiz'd, and were fo in the mofl primitive ages 
 of the chriflian church. As to the Antipedohaptijls^ 
 \ own this argument is of no ftrength at all ; but 
 they will be able eafily enough to anfwer it ac- 
 cording to their principles. But I defire all that 
 are of the fame perfuafion with my felf, concern- 
 ing the ancient practice of baptizing infants, to 
 confider ferioufly, how they can account for it, 
 that there fhould be nothing found in the writings 
 of the ancients like to the ftile and language of 
 the moderns, if the cuflom of both as to infant 
 communion were the fame. How common is the 
 diftinftion among us of adult and infant communi- 
 on ! Why is no ilich diftinftion, or any thing tan- 
 tamount, to be met with in the ancients, except it 
 be, that there was with them no difference be- 
 tween thefe two, but the communion of the adult 
 and infants was the fame ? How common is it 
 with us to urge fuch as w-ere baptized in their in-r 
 fancy, to renew their baptifmal covenant, when 
 they are grown up, and to think of coming and 
 doing it at the Lord's table ! Why are there 
 no footfteps of any fuch exhortations in the ancient 
 writers, unlefs it be, that in their time there was 
 no manner of need of them, becaufe the vows of 
 
 fuch 
 
5 8 ^Jn EfTay in Taioiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 fuch were renewed immediately after baptifm, 
 and continually from time to time at the Lord's 
 table? The primitive chriftians had a very ex- 
 aft order, and fettled rules which they obferved in 
 all manner of ordinary cafes at lead : They had 
 rules for the managing catechumens, and all forts 
 of offenders, as idolaters, heretics, and fchifmatics ; 
 for the dealing with penitents, and receiving them 
 again to the communion of the church •, they ap- 
 pointed a fet time for perfons to continue in the rank 
 of penitents, which was longer or Ihorter according 
 to the nature of their offences. How comes it then to 
 pafs, that not the leaft fy liable is to be met with 
 in any of them, of the rule or order they obfer- 
 veci, when perfons pafied from a flate of infant 
 communion to that of the adult ? Or why have 
 we no where any hint at what age, or what de- 
 gree of underftanding they arrived, when they 
 ■were to be admitted to the communion of the 
 adult ? We find they ufed to pray for the catechu- 
 mens, the penitents, and the faithful, which laft 
 fignify thofe who ufed to communicate at the 
 Lord's table. And why do we never hear of their 
 praying diftin6lly for their baptized infants •, ex- 
 cept it be becaufe they always were reckon'd a 
 part of the faithful, and included in the prayers 
 made for them, and confequently ufed to receive 
 the facrament ? How common is it with us, for 
 Jiich as were baptized in their infancy to be cate- 
 chumens, who by that kind of inftru6lion are 
 training up and preparing for the Lord's fupper \ 
 Indeed we have hardly nov/ any other catechu- 
 mens at all. But who ever heard of a baptized 
 catechumen in the primitive church .^ Certainly 
 whoever believes the ancients ufed to baptize in- 
 fants, if he will impartially and candidly inquire 
 after the rCvifon of this filencc of antiquity, with 
 
 rela- 
 
of giiing the "Encharift to Children, 'jp 
 
 relation to fuch things as cannot but be frequent- 
 ly mentioned by thofe who have laid afide infant 
 communion, muft acknowledge, that it makes it 
 very probable that infant communion was pra- 
 dis'd by them. 
 
 7. Some received notions and pradlices of the 
 ancients relating to the Lord's fupper, may well 
 incline us to think they ufed in their time to give 
 it to infants. Bilhop Burnet fays : " 'Tis not to Expojtt.^ 
 " be denied, but that very early both Juftin^p^ri Art. 
 " Martyr and Irentxus thought, that there was-^^^^^* 
 *' fuch a fanftification of the elements, that there^* '^'^' 
 " was a divine virtue in them." I lliall here pre- 
 fent the reader with a palTage or two, that will 
 Ihew that Irenceus particularly reckon'd there was 
 fuch a virtue in the elements themfelves as to ren- 
 der our bodies incorruptible ; whence he argues 
 that the bodies which are nourifhed by them muft 
 rife again. And fmce he afferts it in two feveral 
 places, we have the more reafon to look upon it 
 as his fettled judgment -, and the rather, becaufc 
 he makes ufe of this as an argument to confute 
 thofe who denied the refurreftion of the body. 
 ^ " How, fays he, do they fay, that the flefh 
 " turns to corruption and does not partake of 
 
 ^' life. 
 
 •f ^co')l?, T ^ tS <7ioua.T©- TO KVt'i.^ K^ TH cuy.cn Q- etUTa TfS- 
 <^0}iLiV\]V ', 1) af T yi'Coy.bjJ elh/\cl^<lrci(TAV, 11 7^ '!S^^<j<pi^eiV TO, 
 
 y^dLti^'icL, )d, r\ djy^cte.i.'^i'JL ^zCauol r yvdy.hjj. Yl^oaei^i^Sp 3 
 tivTtl TO, iJ'ict, £/yC//5A«f Kon'c-n'tetv 30, tvccdiv a.Tra.yy'iK^Qvri'; 
 
 IJLivQ- T o7n>tAn(r/c Tei 02?, ^airi koivU a.^r@- sr/V, aAA.' 
 |;)/oFrcfo Trenxus, Lib. IV, e. 34. p, ^zt. 
 
6o '^Jn Effay in Fatmir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " life, fince 'tis nouriilied by the body and blood 
 " of our Lord? Let them therefore either alter 
 " their opinion, or forbear to offer thefe things, 
 *' But our opinion is agreeable to the eucharift, 
 "* and the eucharifl confirms our opinion. But 
 " we offer to him the things that are his own, 
 ^* harmoniouily declaring the communication and 
 ** union between our flelli and the fpirit. For as 
 *' bread which comes out of the earth, after the 
 *' confecration prayer, is no longer com.mon 
 *' bread, but the eucharift, confiiling of two 
 " things, the one earthly, the other heavenly ; 
 *' fo our bodies having received the eucharift are 
 ^' no longer corruptible, having the hope of a 
 *' refurredion to eternal life.'* The other paf- 
 lage is this : * " As the wood of the vine, beins; 
 «' tiirn'd down into the earth, brings forth fruit 
 *' in his time, and a grain of corn falling into 
 " the earth, and being diffolved is raifed ma- 
 *' nifold by the fpirit of^ God, who contains all 
 ^' things •, and thefe things, through the wifdom 
 *' of God, come to be of ufe to man, and recei- 
 " ving the word of God, are made the eucharift, 
 '' that is the body and blood of Chrift : So our 
 "'^ bodies being nourifh'd thereby, and being laid 
 " in the earthj and diffolv'd there, Ihall arife in 
 
 " their 
 
 Os?, TO (yvvkyjjVT©- TO. ^Cii'Tci' '^TTtnTO. J J^ld -f (Too'iai TO 
 
 J^'o^cty Oes ^1 'T^cLTpi. Id. Lib, V-, *• i* p- 399- 
 
of gimng the Bnchariji to Children, 6i 
 
 " their proper time, the word of God bellowing 
 " a reiurreAion upon them to the glory of God, 
 " even the Father." 
 
 Let me here add, that this notion is delivered 
 by one who is reckon'd much ancicnter than Ire- 
 neust even by Ignatius, I might here allege what 
 we meet with in the lliorter epiille to the church 
 oi Smyrna i wherein fpeaking of the heretics, he 
 fays : * " They abftain from the eucharift and 
 " prayer, becaufe they don't own the euchariil 
 *' to be the flefh of our faviour Jefus Chrift, that 
 " fuffered for our fins, and which the father iil 
 " his goodnefs raifed from the dead. They there- 
 *' fore v/ho fpeak againft the gift of God, die in 
 " their contentions : But it were better for them 
 " to love it, that they might rife again." But 
 becaufe this paffage is left out in the larger epi- 
 ftles, and I refolve to forbear meddling here with 
 the controverfy, which fet is the more ancient, I 
 will mention another wherein they both agree to 
 my purpofe, and there is very little variation of 
 the exprelTion. -f " Breaking one bread, which 
 *' is the medicine of immortality, an antidote 
 " that we may not die, but live in Jefus Chrift 
 " for ever. 
 
 The ufe I make of thefe paflages is this : That 
 fince they had a notion at that time, that the 
 
 eucha- 
 
 t "El/dt a.{]ov KXcovjii oi £r/ (pdf[J.HKW et^dvao-iet^f d/jiJ'olQ- 
 
6 i Jn Effay in Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 euchariftical elements had fuch a kind of virtue 
 in them, as to render the body incorruptible, that 
 is to be fuch a vivifying principle as not to fuffer 
 the body always to remain in a ftate of death and 
 corruption ; 'tis very probable the affedion and 
 love they bore to their children would incline them 
 to give them the elements, that they might by 
 this means fecure to them fuch a refurreftion in 
 cafe they fhould die in their infancy. I am not at all 
 concern'd to examine how jull or true this notion 
 of Ireneus a.nd Ignatius wa.s 'f 'tis fufficient for my 
 purpofe, that it manifeftly fuits with the praftice 
 I plead for, and could have been hardly enter- 
 tain'd by them, unlefs that pradice had prevail'd 
 in their time. 
 
 But there is another opinion, which was gene- 
 rally received among them, and which every one 
 will expeft I fhould take notice of, it being fo 
 much to my purpofe ; and that is, that our Lord's 
 difcourfe, JoIm vi. is to be underflood of the 
 eucharift. I can't find that any of them explain 
 the ealiug the bread of life ^ the eating Chriji, or the 
 eating his flefh and bloody otherwife than St. Cyprian, 
 and thofe who came after him did, concerning the 
 Lord's fupper. This is, I think, generally grant- 
 ed by the learned to have been their notion. Let 
 me here fet down what is faid by a late celebrated 
 Kettle- author on this occafion. " Without very great 
 ■well s Help i<. and apparent danger, we cannot come unwor- 
 lort to " thily to the holy facrament. For he that eatetb 
 ciorthy " and drinketh unworthily y eateth and drinketh dam- 
 Comnninic. " nation to himfelf i Cor. xi. 29. And without 
 P- 89. <c ^\^Q jii^e danger, we cannot negled: or keep 
 " back from it. Except ye eat the flefh of the Son of 
 " man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, 
 *' John vi, p,!,. This the ancient church gene- 
 ** rally und^rilgod of eatijig his flefh in the holy 
 
 * *' facra- 
 
tf gking the Bucharifl to Children, 6^ 
 
 " facrament ; which is the great reafon they 
 " give for that praftice fo common among them ; 
 " namely, why infants are to partake of it. And 
 *' of this there is great reafon to underfland this 
 " place," He goes on therefore to maintain that 
 interpretation, and to anfwer the objeftions made 
 againft it. 
 
 I know of but two of the ancients who are 
 pretended to have underflood our Lord's difcourfe 
 otherwife \ and they are Origen^ and Clement of 
 Alexandria. They are both of them fo dark and 
 myftical in their interpretations, that 'tis not eafy 
 to know what they meant. However, I will fay 
 fomewhat as to Origen. The pafTage that is moft 
 oppofite to this explication of our Lord's mean- 
 ing, is only a tranflation of Ruffimis^ and fo the 
 lels ftrefs is to be laid upon it, * " Our Lord and 
 " Saviour fays : Except ye eat mj jiejh and drink 
 " my bloody you Jhall have 7io life in you. For iw^ 
 *' jiejh is meat indeed., and my blood is drink indeed. 
 " Becaufe therefore Jefus is intirely clean, all his 
 " flefli is meat, and all his blood is drink , be- 
 " caufe all his work is holy, and all his difcourfe 
 " is true. For this reafon therefore hisflejij is meat 
 
 " indeed^ 
 
 * Domlnus & Salvator nofier dicit : Nifi manducaveritis car-' 
 nem meam, & biberitis fanguinem meiim, non habebitis vitam 
 in vobis ipfis. Caro enim mea vere eft cibus, 6c fanguis mens 
 vere eft potus. Jefus ergo quia totus ex toto mundus eft, tora 
 ejus earo cibus eft, & totus fanguis ejus potus eft ; quia omne 
 opus ejus fanftum eft, & omnis fermo ejus verus eft. Propcerea 
 ergo & caro ejus verus eft cibus, &: fanguis ejus verus eft potus, 
 Carnibus enim & fanguine verbi fui, tanquam mundo cibo, ac 
 potu, potat & reficit hominum genus. Secundo in loco poft 
 illius camera, mundus cibus eft Petrus & Pauliis, & omnes apo- 
 ftoli. Tertio loco difcipuli eorum ; & fie unus quifque pro quan- 
 titate meritorum vel fenfuum puritate, proximcj fuo muadus efE- 
 citur cibus, ^tmil, VII, in Levit- p, 7i, 
 
'Jn EfTay in Famiir of the aiicient TraUke 
 
 " indeed^ and his Hood is drink indeed. For with 
 *' the flefh and blood of his word, as with clean 
 *' meat and drink he feeds and refrefhes mankind. 
 *' In the fecond place, after his flelh, Peter and 
 " Paul, and all the apoltles are clean meat. 
 '* And in the third place, all their difciples, and 
 " fo every one, according to the degree of their 
 " merits, and the purity of their fenfes, are made 
 " clean meat to their neighbours." Now if we 
 we were to guefs at his meaning by this fingle 
 pafTage, we muft take him to have been no 
 friend to the interpretation father'd upon the an- 
 cients. But 'tis obfervable he talks after the 
 fame rate elfewhere concerning our Lord's words 
 at the inllitution of the euchariil, Matth. xxvi. 26, 
 27, 28. -f " That bread which God the Word 
 " owns to be his body, is the word that nourifhes 
 "" our fouls. 'Tis the word that proceeds from 
 ^' God the Word, the bread that is from the 
 " heavenly bread, that is fet upon that table, 
 *' concerning which 'tis written, Tioou h aft prep a- 
 
 -f Panis ifte quem Deus Verbum corpus fuiim elle fatetur, ver- 
 bum eft nutritorium animarum. Verbum de verbo procedens, 
 & panis de pane coelelU, qui poficiis eft fuper menlam dc qua 
 fcripcum eft : Praeparafti in confpedu meo menfam adverfus eos 
 qui tribulant me. Et pocus ifte quem Deus verbum fanguiiiem 
 fuum fatetur, verbum eft potans & inebrians pracclare corda bi- 
 bentium, quod eft in poculo de quo fcriptum eft : Et poculum 
 tuum inebriens, quod praeclarum eft. Et eft potus ifte generatio 
 vitis v'crae quae dicit : Ego fiun vitis vera. Et eft fanguis uvae 
 illius, quae raifTa in torcular pafllonis protulit potum hunc. Sic 
 & panis eft verbum Chrifti, fadum de tritico illo quod cadcns ia 
 terram bonam multum reddidit frudum. Cur autem non dixie. 
 Hie eft panis novi tcflamenti, ficut dixit. Hie eft fanguis novi 
 teftamenti? Quoniam panis eft verbum juftitiae, qua manducan- 
 tes animae nutriuntur. Potus autem eft verbum agnitionis 
 Chrifti, fecundum myfterium ejus nativitatis & f aflionis. Id, in 
 Matih, Hom^ XXXV.' p. 76. 
 
ofgi'ving the 'Each art ft to Children, 6% 
 
 *' red a table before me in the 'presence of mine enemies. 
 " And that drink which God the Word owns as 
 •^^ his blood, is that word which gives us drink, 
 " and overflows the hearts of them that drink, 
 « and is in that cup, of which 'tis written : ^hj 
 " cu;p runneth over, which is excellent. And that 
 " drink is the fruit of the true vine, who fays : 
 ^^ I am the true vim. And 'tis the blood of that 
 *' grape, which being caft into the wine-prefs of 
 " his paflion produced this drink. And fo the 
 " bread is the word of Chrill, made of that 
 " wheat , which being caft into good ground 
 " brought forth much fruit. But why did he not 
 '•^ fay. This is the bread of the new teftament, as well 
 " as, This is the cup of the new tefta7nent? Becaufe 
 " the bread is the word of righteoufnefs, with 
 " which the fouls that eat of it are nourifhed : 
 " But the drink is the word of confelTmg Chrift, 
 " according to the myftery of his nativity and 
 " pafTion.'* When men indulge their fancies af= 
 ter this rate, and will ftrain every thing to make 
 a deep myftery of it, *tis not eafy to underftand 
 them. And fince he talks no otherwife of our 
 Lord's words, Johnv'i. ^^. than he does of thofe 
 at the inftitution of the eucharift, 'tis very pof- 
 fible he might not differ from the ancients about 
 the fenfe of the one, more than about the fenfe of 
 the other. I cannot but further obferve, when he 
 compares the two Ifraelitifh facraments mentioned 
 by the Apoftle, i Cor. x. i, 2^ g, 4. with the 
 chriftian facraments, baptifm and the Lord's fup- 
 per, he brings in a text from John vi. concerning 
 the latter, * " Before, fays he, baptifm was in a 
 
 F " dark 
 
 * Antea in jenigmate fuit Kaptifmus in nube, & in mari j 
 nunc autem in Ijjecie jregeneraUo eft in agua, & in Spiritu San- 
 
Num. 
 xxiii. Z4< 
 
 66 An ElTay in FcwoiiY of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " dark figure, in the cloud and in the fea, but 
 " now in its true form 'tis regeneration by wa- 
 " ter and the Holy Ghoft. Then manna was in 
 " a dark figure meat, now in its true form the 
 " flefh of God the Word is the true meat •, as he 
 " himfelffays: For ?ny Jle/h is ?neat ifideed^ and f}iy 
 " blood is drink indeed." And it will not feem 
 flrange that fuch interpreters of the fcripture 
 fhould think the fame text might admit of more 
 fenfes than one. And indeed he elfewhere men- 
 tions both together. I think the paflage deferves 
 tranfcribing. He is defcanting upon thofe words: 
 Behold the people Jhall rife up as a great lion, and lift 
 up himfelf as a young lion : He Jhall not lie down, until 
 he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the fain. 
 * " But, fays he, how fhall this noble people, 
 *' fo very highly commended in the fcripture, 
 *' ever come to drink the blood of the wounded 
 " or flain ; fince the eating blood is fo exprefly 
 " forbidden by God, that even we who are cal- 
 *' led from among the Gentiles are commanded rie- 
 *' cefTarily to abftain from it^ as well as from 
 
 " things 
 
 fto. Tunc in xnigmate erat manna cibiis , nunc autem in fpe- 
 cie caro Verbi Dei eft veius cibus ; ficut ipfe dicit : Quia caro 
 mea vere eft cibuSj & fanguis meus vere eft potus. i^, Horn. 
 VII. in Kutneros. 
 
 * Quomodo enim ifte populus tarn laudabilis, tam magnificus, 
 de quo tanra piaeconia fermo Dei enumerac, in hoc venier^ ut 
 fanguinem vulneratorum bibat ; cum tam validis praeceptis cibus 
 languinis incerdicatur a Deo, uc eciam nos qui ex gentibus voca- 
 ti fumus, neceirario jubeamur abftinere, ficut ab iis quae idolis 
 immolantur, ita & a fanguine ? Dicant ergo nobis, quis eft ifte 
 populus, qui in ufu habet fanguinem bibere. Haec eran: quae Sc 
 in evangelic audientes ii, qui ex Judaeis Dominum fequebantur, 
 fcandalizati funt & dixerunt : Quis poteft manducare carnem, 
 & fanguinem bibere? Sed populus chriftianus, populus fidelis 
 audit haec, & ampledicurj & fcquitur eum qui dicic ; Ni(i man- 
 
 ducaverids 
 
of gwing the Eticbariji to Children, 6^ 
 
 " things offered to idols ? Let them tell u? then, 
 '' who that people is that ufe to drink blood. 
 " This is what the Je'UJS who followed our Lord 
 *' were offended at when they heard it, and faid : 
 " Who can eat flejh^ and drink blcod ? But the chri^ 
 " lliah people, the faithful people hear thefc 
 " things and embrace them, and follow him 
 *' who faid : Except ^oti eat myji?jh, and drink my 
 " bloody 'joi{ /hall have no life in you i for my flefl> 
 " is meat indeed^ and myhlood is drink indeed. And 
 " truly he that faid thefe things was wounded for 
 " all. For he was wounded for (Air tranfqrcjfions^ as 
 '.' the prophet Ifaiah fays : But we are faid to 
 " drink his blood not only by a facramental rite, 
 " but alfo when we receive his words in which 
 " life does confiit, according as he himfelf fays : 
 " 'The. words that I have fpoken^ they are fpirit 
 " and they, are life. He therefore was wounded 
 " whofe blood we drink, i, e. the words of whole 
 " do6i:rine we receive. 
 
 So that upon the whole, I think there is no 
 great reafon to allege Origen as difienting from the 
 other fathers in the fenfe they gave of our Lord's 
 difcourfe, John vi. And 'tis very pofTible his 
 mailer Clement mio;ht not be ao;ainll the fame in- 
 terpretation, though according ,to his humour of 
 multiplying allegories, he has devifed a very odd 
 
 F 2 one 
 
 ducaveritis carnem mcam, & bibcritis fanguinem meum, non 
 habebitis viram in vobis ipfis , quia caro mea vere cibus eft, ^ 
 fanguii mens vere potus elt. £t ucique qui haec dicebat vulne- 
 ratus eft pro omnibus. Ipfe cnim vuliieratus eft pro peccatis 
 nofiris, ficuc Efaias dicic. Bibere autem dicimur fanguinem 
 Chriili, non fblum facramentorum ritu, fed cum fermones ejus 
 recipimus, in quibus vitaconlillit, ficuc & ipfe did:: Verba quae 
 locucus fum fpiricus &: vica eft. Eft ergo ipfe vulneratus, cujuff 
 nos fanguinem bibimus, i. e. doftrinae ejuj verba fufcipimus. 
 Id. hi -N"«w. Homil. XVI. jf. lij* 
 
158 Jn ElTay in Fa'voiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 one for the place •, and it he took that to be the 
 true and only fenfe of our Saviour's words, which I 
 can hardly believe, he muft be efteem'd the only 
 ancient father who thought our Lord did not in 
 that chapter fpeak concerning the eucharift. The 
 pafTage is Pcedag. lib. I. c. 6. p. lOO. which the 
 reader may confult if he thinks fit. 
 
 As to the reft of the ancient writers, who take 
 notice of any part of that difcourfe of our Lord, 
 they feem to have underftood it of the eucharift, 
 though I confefs they are not many, 
 
 I find modern writers generally agree in aflert- 
 ing that their interpreting our Saviour's words. 
 Except ye eat the flejh of the Son of man, and drink 
 his blood, you have no life in you, concerning the fa- 
 crament, was the occafion of their introducing 
 the pradtice of giving the eucharift to children. 
 And therefore it may be objedted here ; fmce that 
 interpretation was a miftake, we can be no way 
 concerned to imitate them in a practice which is 
 built upon fo fandy a foundation. 
 
 To this I anfwer : I make indeed no doubt, 
 the interpretation is a miftake ; I do not believe 
 our Lord there fpake of that fupper which he had 
 not then inftituted ; nor can I think Chrift would 
 ro a multitude of captious Jews difcourfe in fuch 
 a; manner, concerning a defign'd inftitution, of 
 which 'twas impolTible for them to have as yet the 
 ieaft notion, fmce he himfelf had never fpoke of 
 it. Mr. KettleweVs reafons to the contrary do not 
 here at all move me. And if I believed that in- 
 terpretation firft brought in the pradice, and that 
 there were no other reafons for it, than what the 
 fathers bring from that difcourfe of Chrift , I 
 Would be the laft man who Ihould fay any thing 
 ifl the behalf of it. But 'tis obvious, they many 
 times allege weak arguments, and miftaken inter- 
 ^ pretations 
 
ofgwing the Eucharift to Children, 6^ 
 
 pretations of fcripture, to fupport fuch notions 
 and pracilices among them as were built upon a 
 much better foundation. 
 
 Thus for inftance, St. Cyprian pleads earneftlyEi'i/^'<5 3, 
 for mixing wine and water in the euchariftical 
 cup : And one great argument he ufes is, that 
 this fignifies the union between Chrift and his 
 people. For as the wine reprefents the blood of 
 Chrift, fo the water fignifies the people, accord- 
 ing to that text ; The waters which thoufaweji, areRtv.xv'iu 
 peoples, multitudes. Sec. and fo the mixing thefe^^* 
 two reprefents the union between Chrift and his 
 people. Now no man will think that accommo- 
 dation of the words of St. John, by which Cyprian 
 indeavours to eftablifti the received pra<^ice, was 
 the firft occafion of it. I doubt not the reafon 
 of the practice was, becaufe it was fuch a cup which 
 our Lord blefled at the firft inftitution, fmce he 
 then took fuch a cup as was ufed among the Jews 
 at the paflbver. And though fome make a doubts 
 whether the pafchal cup was always fuch a mix- 
 ture, and reprefent the Jews as apprehending it an 
 indifferent matter, whether water were mix'd with 
 their wine-, yet 1 think Dr. Lightfoot has clear*dVol. L 
 the matter. " In thefe four cups of wine they^' ^^^' 
 *' were to drink, they were curious about the 
 " meafure and the mixture. The proportion of 
 *' wine in every cup might not be lefs than the 
 *' fourth part of a quarter of an hin, befidewhat 
 " water was mingled with it •, for if they did not 
 *' drink it fo mingled, they held they miffed of 
 " the right performance of that fervice. Thefe four Mzym. ia 
 *' cups, faith the author cited in the margin, mujl^^^"^^^^ 
 " needs be mingled. — 'Tis received among them as"'"^ q^^.* 
 " a current maxim : That whofoever drank thefe four \\y^^^ 
 ". cups of pure wine, he had indeed done his duty about 
 " drinking wine, but he had'^ot done his duty about 
 F 3 ^yfet^ 
 
7© Jn Effay /;; Fi^icGttr cfthe aiKient TraUice 
 
 ^'■' fetting forth their freedom'^ And 'tis queftion- 
 
 able whether they ufed on other occafions in thole 
 
 countries to drink their wine unmixed with water, 
 
 fince, as the fame perfon obferves from Ma^jmowj^ 
 
 this made the drinking of it the more delightfome. 
 
 And a much better reafon was given for this by 
 
 F/rf. Chry-foixie of the ancient Fathers and Councils, who 
 
 " " '" fpeak of it as defign'd for the more lively repre- 
 
 ir.il. 84. fentation of Chrift crucified, when the water and 
 
 CDiicil. in the blood iffued from his pierced fide. And that 
 
 TrLill. ' this praftice was not owing to the fanciful reafon 
 
 Can. 52. gjyen hj Cyprian^ or another not much better of 
 
 Apol.i. mAthanafnis^ is evident from its being mention'd by 
 
 jnne. Jujliii Martyr, long before thefe reafons were ever 
 
 thought of. 
 
 • The like is the cafe now before us. I don't think 
 the forementioned explication o^Johnvi.p,'^. was 
 the occafion of the praftice of giving children the 
 elements -, but rather that their ordinary praftice 
 in doing fo, led, or however incouraged, them to 
 fix upon that fenfe of our Saviour's words. 
 
 The ufe therefore I make of their interpreting 
 that text as they did is this ; to fhew 'tis probable 
 the praftice of infant communion was received 
 from the beginning of the chriitian church j fince 
 otherwife they could not eafily have fallen upon 
 fuch a fenfe of the place, as aflerted the abfolute 
 necelTity of the euclvarifl: in order to filvation. 
 Their (^wn practice in giving it only to the adult, 
 would nave wrefted that interpretation from them, 
 or at leaft have forced them to mention fome re- 
 ftridions and limitations with relation to it, where- 
 as not a fyllable of any fuch thing appears in the 
 ancient writers. 
 
 The cafe is much the fame in infant communi- 
 on, as in infant baptjfm. As the ancients could 
 l^ever have fixed upon the interpretation of John 
 '■' '■' I iii. 
 
of ghing the "Eticharifl to Children. 7 1 
 
 iii. ^,5. which is {q general among them, and 
 makes baptifm abfolutely neceflary to falvacion, 
 unlffs they had admitted infimts to baptifm •, fo 
 they could never have received fach an explica- 
 tion of John vi. 53. as made the eucharift abfo- 
 lutely neceffary to falvation, unlefs they had ufed 
 to give the eucharift to infants. And to fpeak my 
 mind freely -, I am perfuaded they equally miffed 
 the true fenfe of both texts. 
 
 Let me here further add, that if this argument 
 fhould be thought lefs forcible with relation to 
 the times before C'jpria?i •, yet it muft be a de- 
 monftration that the praftice was received after- 
 ward ; about which neverthelefs Dr. Wall, as I 
 obferved before, makes feme doubt : For he fays : 
 *' He thinks it probable, that Innocent did firftH//?.j:'.^i4, 
 " bring up this dodlrine of the neceffity of this 
 " facrament to infants." For however it might 
 perhaps be pretended with fome colour, that the 
 text, before Cyprian's time, was inconfiderately 
 applied to the facrament, without a thought that 
 infants fhould be admitted to it ; yet when once 
 the practice was let a foot, as it was confeffedly in 
 Cyprian^'s time, and after it was pleaded for, as it 
 was by Cyprian, from that text, upon the fuppo- 
 Ction of its afferting the abfolute necefllty of re- 
 ceiving the facrament in order to falvation ; I fay 
 then it muft be next to impofl]ble for men to in- 
 terpret that text concerning the eucharift, with- 
 out adding fome reftridions, unlefs they were for 
 infant communion. So that all thofe who between 
 St. Cyprian and pope Innocent's days, explain that 
 text as relating to the Lord's fupper, muft be 
 look'd upon as fo many witneffes that infapt cpm^ 
 munion was p;-a6tis'd among them. 
 
 But I proceed to the other part of my remark, 
 
 tQ Ihew, that fome other pradices of the primitive 
 
 F 4 chri- 
 
7 % "Jn Effay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 chriftians make it appear not improbable, that 
 this alfo was received among them. And doubt- 
 lefs if we compare the ufages of the ancients with 
 thofe of our own time, we muft be fenfible they 
 went upon principles very different from ours, and 
 iuch as would much better favour infant communi- 
 on, than ours can be fuppofed to do. According 
 ^o the notions and fchemes we ordinarily go upon, 
 it would be eilecm'd a very irregular and diforder- 
 ly thing, for a perfon to eat and drink the ele- 
 ments without being prefent and joining in the 
 prayers ufed at the adminiflration : But 'tis cer- 
 tain the primitive chriftians had a quite different 
 apprehenfion of this matter. I will mention three 
 inftances of this nature. 
 
 1. It was ufualwith them to fend the eucharift 
 from one church to another, in token of their 
 holding communion with one another. This is 
 cxprefly mentioned by Ireneus. * " But the pref- 
 *' byters before you^ who did not keep Eafter, 
 ** fent the eucharift to the bifhops of other pa- 
 *' rifhes who did keep it." And this feems to 
 
 Can* 140 be forbidden by the council of Laodicea, and fo to, 
 ' ' • have been in ufe till that time. 
 
 2. It was not unufual in thofe ancient times for 
 chriftians to referve fome part of the eucharift, 
 and carry it home with them, that they might 
 take it there by themfelves in fecret, which they 
 ufed to do daily. 'Tcrtullian has feveral paffages 
 to this purpofe. Thus fpeaking againft marrying 
 with an infidel, he fays : -f " Will not your huf- 
 
 " band 
 
 nra^iicicSv TMfSV/c g^rjWToi/ ,dj^ctei?-iAu. Fragm. Epift. Irenaei 
 ad Viftorem, apud Euieb. H. E. lib. V. c 14. 
 
 f Non fciet maritus quid fecrcto ante omnem cibum guftes ? 
 Et R fciverit panem, non ilium credit. efle qui dicitur ? TertiiJh 
 aduxorem. Lib. II. c. 5, p. 190. 
 
of giving the Bticharift to Children, -j^ 
 
 1' band know what you tafle in fecret before any 
 " other food? And if he knows 'tis bread, will 
 *' he not think 'tis fuch as 'tis faid to be ? " And 
 in another place to clear the difficulty of thofe who 
 were againft communicating on a fall day, becaufe 
 thereby they broke their faft, he propounds this 
 expedient, * to take the bread and referve it till 
 their fall was ended. 
 
 3. They had another cullom, that after the 
 adminiftration of the facrament, they fent the ele- 
 ments to fuch as were abfent, by the deacons. 
 This is moll exprefly alTerted by Jujlin Martyr, 
 ■f in that apology which he wrote within forty years 
 after the death of St. John. My argument does 
 not at all oblige me to examine the grounds of this 
 pra<5lice, and the doing it would too much inlarge 
 this part of the eflay, which has already run out 
 to a greater length than I at firll intended. All 
 that 1 obferve with relation to thefe pradlices is, 
 that the primitive chrillians apprehended, the con- 
 fecrated elements might, by virtue of the inllitu- 
 tion of our Lord, be profitable to fuch as heard 
 nothing of the confecration or prayers ufed in the 
 adminiftration. And it could be no difficult thing 
 for thofe who entertain'd fuch a notion, or at leaft 
 it could not be fo Ihocking to them as 'tis to us, to 
 imagine the eucharift might be profitably given to 
 infants, who could not be fuppofed to hear or join 
 in the prayers ufed at the adminiftration. And in- 
 deed infants as well as their mothers might often be 
 fome of the abfent to whom the deacons carried the 
 
 ele- 
 
 * Accepto corpore Domini, & refervato, utrumque falvum 
 eft, Sc participatio facrificii, 8c executio officii. Jd. de Orat» 
 c. 14. 
 
 t Ksi/ TOU? is -JSrstf S5"/ cT/* 1^ <^tA>lOV6>V '3re//T«7tti' JuA. M. 
 
 Apol, z, p. 1 6a. 
 
74 ^^i EiTay in Fat'onr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 elements. So that all things being candidly and 
 impartially confider'd, I am perluaded this pra- 
 (Ttice may be reafonably enough fuppofed to have 
 been in ufe from the days of St. John. And I que- 
 ftion very much, whether any one will be able to 
 produce as much evidence for the contrary opinion, 
 as I have for this. And I ihall be heartily glad to 
 fee what fuch as are skilled in ecclefiaftical antiqui- 
 ty can produce on this fubjeft, either to overthrow 
 the account I have given, or to fupply the many 
 defe6t5 there are in it. 
 
 And if we now a little refleft' upon what has 
 been advanced, methinks it cannot but beget a fa- 
 vourable prejudice for this praftice, and difpofe 
 men to hearken to what may be further faid for it. 
 What better recommendation of antiquity can al- 
 moft any thing come with ? It appears very pro- 
 bably to have been the praftice of the moil early 
 times after the apoftles, and to have continued in 
 the church univeriallyobferved by the Grifd"/^ church 
 ever fmce •, and by the Latin churches for about a 
 thoufand years -, and never laid afide by them till 
 they became moil grievoufly corrupted, and till 
 the mxOnfter of tranfubftantiation appear'd in the 
 world, and that the iame iuperilition occafion'd 
 the abolifhing this cuftom, and the taking away 
 the cup from the laity together, and thele were 
 both piofeiTedly done by the fame councils •, and 
 when the Latins laid it afide, it ftill continued 
 among the purer chriilians of Bohemia^ who bore 
 llich a noble teilimony againil the fuperilition, ido- 
 latry and tyranny of the Roman church, and was 
 kept in ul'e among them till within about halt a 
 century of the reformation : Let thefe things, I 
 fay, be all laid together, and I hope the reader 
 will not think hardly of the pradlice, nor of me for 
 pleading for it. 
 
 But 
 
of gickg the Enchariji to Children, 
 
 But after all that I have fa id, or that can be 
 faid for it from antiquity, I am free to own, that 
 if the thing were much more clear and plain than 
 it is, it would but little move me, if I could dif- 
 cover no foundation for it in the holy fcriptures. 
 I proceed therefore in the next place to inquire. 
 Whether there appears any good reafon for it 
 therein ? 
 
 75 
 
 PART 
 
7 S Jn Eflay />; Facoiir of the ancient TraUicG 
 
 PART 11. 
 
 Containing Jiich arguments as may be alle^d 
 from Jcripture for infant communion, 
 
 ^^?S!^ A V I N G carried the account of this 
 *)^" -^^^ praftice fo far back in antiquity, there 
 ^^, •" vs5^ is but one thing more remaining to 
 ^^Ti^^^/Si^^ fhew 'tis as ancient as can be, and 
 ^^'^^^ ^^3 ^]^^^ -3 j-Q produce the fcripture reafons 
 which warrant it. And that I fhall now indeavour 
 to do with all the clearnefs and plainnefs I can. 
 And I hope the mofl of my arguments will be ob- 
 vious to the moll common and ordinary reader. 
 And perhaps many of my readers will be furprized 
 to find fuch a variety of reafons from the holy 
 fcriptures for a praftice, which they have hitherto 
 apprehended had nothing there to fupport it, and 
 for the receiving which they by this time wonder 
 at the primitive church. The arguments I fhall 
 here ufe are thefe that follow. 
 
 Argum. T. I. The baptifm and communion of infants Hand 
 upon the fame foot, and therefore they who admit 
 the one ought to admit the other alfo. 
 
 For the confirming this argument I will fhew, 
 Fii'ft^ That the fame reafons which are brought 
 for intant baptifm, are in like manner applicable 
 to iniant communion. 
 
 i" Secondly^ 
 
of ghing the Bnchariji to Children, 77 
 
 Secondly^ That the objections againft infant com- 
 munion will admit of the fame anfwers, as thofe 
 againft infmt baptifm. 
 
 Firji^ That the fame reafons which are brought 
 for infant baptifm, may with equal evidence and 
 force be produc'd for infant communion. Let the 
 reader confider with me fome of the arguments 
 produced in the one cafe, and try whether they 
 are not as valid in the other. 
 
 I. One ftrong argument for infant baptifm Is 
 taken from the words of the apoftle : For the iinhe- i Cor. vii, 
 lieving hujhand is fan^ified by the wife, and the unhe- M* 
 lieving wife is fantiified by the husband : Elfe were 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy. I need 
 not fay how much ftrefs has been laid upon this in 
 the controverfy about infant baptifm ; nor do I ' 
 think 'tis more than the text will bear. But I de- 
 fire only a reafon, why this will not as well prove 
 infants right to the eucharift, as to baptifm. Let 
 it but be obferv'd, what fort of holinefs the apo- 
 ftle fpeaks of, and what allufion he manifeftly ufes^ 
 The holinefs he attributes to children ftands in op- 
 pofition to uncleannefs •, and fo is to be explain'd 
 from the ceremonial law. Now according to that 
 perfons were unclean, when they were debarr'd the 
 publick worfhip, and the communion of the people 
 of God. And accordingly in oppofition thereto' 
 then perfons were reckon'd holy, when they were 
 fit and qualified for the fervice of God, and a comi- 
 munion with his people either in or out of adts of 
 worfhip. An Ifraelite might, by reafon of fome- 
 what that had befallen him., be for a time unclean, 
 that is not holy, or fit for communion in the pub- 
 lick worfhip, or even for private converfation, as 
 rendering thofe that touched him, or any thing 
 belonged to him, unclean : But the Gentiles were 
 always unclean. Whence Peter, upon the vifiont 
 
 where- 
 
7 8 Jn E itay m Favottr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 whereby God had taught him that he had abo- 
 
 lifh'd this kind of uhcleannefs, fpeaks in that man- 
 
 Aftsx. iS.ner to Cornelius : Te know how that "'tis an tmlawfiil 
 
 thing for a man that is a Jew, to keep cofnpany^ or to 
 
 come unto one of another nation : But God hath fhezved 
 
 mey that IJhould not call any man common or unclean. 
 
 So that in this fenfe the apoftle muft be underilood 
 
 to lay the children of chriilians \Vere not unclean but 
 
 holy^ that they were not as unclean perfons under 
 
 See Num. the law, debarr'd the pubhc fervice, or communi- 
 
 xix.i 3,;o. on with the church of God •, but were reckon'd by 
 
 God fit for it. And in the fame manner as this 
 
 warrants their baptifm, it will their conimunioh 
 
 alfo. 
 
 2. I fee no reafon why infants right to the eu- 
 charifl may not as well, as their right to baptifm, 
 be pleaded from their being members of the vifible 
 church. I grant the argument is good: Infants 
 are members of the vifible church •, therefore they 
 are to be folemnly initiated and enter'd iiito it by 
 the ordinance of baptifm, which God has appoint- 
 ed for that purpofe. But then why fhould not the 
 iame hold for their communion in the Lord's fup- 
 per ? If they are members of the church, and are 
 baptized into it, why fhould they not as fuch be 
 brought up in it •, and be ftatedly nouriflied and 
 fed with that food, which God has provided tor his 
 church ? Upon what reafon are fomc of the mem- 
 bers of the vifible church, without any fault oii 
 their part, excluded from any of the privileges 
 and advantages which God lias granted to hi^ 
 church in common ? For if infants are in the 
 church of Chrift, they mull be reckon'd his Hicep 
 John XX. or his lambs, but let them be one or the other they 
 15^ i6. ^j.g j-Q i^g f^^ jjy j^J2 minifters, and this is one way 
 of doing it. 
 
 3. Ano- 
 
ofgmng the J^tichariji to Children. j^ 
 
 3. Another plea for infant baptifm, is their ha- 
 ving an intereft in the new covenant. 'Tis urged, 
 that baptifm is a feal of the covenant •, and no- 
 thing can be more proper, than to apply the feal 
 of the covenant to thofe to whoin the covenant it 
 felf does belong. But then I defire to know, whe- 
 ther the Lord's fupper is not a feal of that fame 
 covenant ? And if their part in the covenant will 
 infer their right to one feal of it, why not to the 
 other ? There is great need here of fome very nice 
 diftindlion ; or I can't fee how we Ihall be able to 
 urge the fame argument, when 'tis brought to 
 prove their right to receive one facrament, and an- 
 fwer it when 'tis urged to prove their right to par- 
 take of the other. 
 
 4. The harfh and injurious treatment of infants 
 which is the confequence of denying them baptifm, 
 is urged fometimes in the behalf of their being 
 baptized. They who refufe to admit them into 
 the church by baptifm, are reprefented as treating 
 their children like dogs, according to thofe texts : 
 
 For without are dogs : 'Tis not meet to take the childrens Rev. xxil. 
 hread and cajl it unto dogs. And whether they who i5- 
 refufe to eive them childrens bread, the facta- ",' 
 ment, as though it were too holy for them, treat" 
 them any better, may be eafily judg'd of by thofe 
 words of our Saviour : Give not that which is holy un Match. 
 to dogSy neither cafi ye your pearls he/ore fwine. ^"' ^* 
 
 5. Another argument is, infants are capable of 
 falvation, and therefore may receive baptifm 
 which is the means of falvation. And why does 
 not the confequence as well hold to their receiving 
 the Lord's fupper, which is as much a means of 
 falvation, as baptifm ? 
 
 6. Another plea made ufe of for infant baptifm 
 is, that fuch may be devoted to God. And cer- 
 tainly this is as good a reafon for their partaking of 
 
 the 
 
:8o Jn ElTay /;/ Favour of the ancient TraUke 
 
 the Lord's fupper, as of baptifm •, fince the one is 
 as properly a devoting perfons to God as the other. 
 And is it not ftrange, there fhould be fufficient rea- 
 fon for devoting children to God in their infancy^ 
 and none at all to repeat and renew that dedication, 
 before they are grown up to maturity ? 
 
 7. Great ftrefs is often, in the matter of bapti- 
 Lukexviii.zing infants, laid upon that text : And they brought 
 i$5i6. unto him alfo infants, that he fhould touch them: But 
 
 when his difciples jaw it, they rebuked them. But J ejus 
 called them unto him, and faid. Suffer little children to 
 come unto me, and forbid them not : For of fuch is the 
 kingdom of God. Hence it has been argued, that 
 Chrift is willing little children fhould come to him, 
 that he is pleafed when infants who are not able to 
 come themfelves are brought by others to him, 
 that he may blefs them. And who has been able 
 to afTure thofewho make ufe of this argument, that 
 Chrift is only willing to have them brought to him 
 in baptifm, and not in the Lord's fupper ? Is not 
 the giving them the eucharift, as folemn a way of 
 bringing them to Chrift, as the baptizing them ? 
 AVhy fhould we think Chrift has no proper oppor- 
 tunity of bleffing them, when he gives to his 
 church the folemn tokens and pledges of his love 
 and favour ? Or, why are we to fufpeft or quefti- 
 bn his gracious readinefs and inclination to blefs 
 them at fuch a feafon ? And what reafon can there 
 be, that the faith of parents fhould not be as avail- 
 able in bringing them to the Lord's fupper as to 
 baptifm ? 
 
 8. 'Tis frequently alleg'd that infants are difci- 
 ples •, A£fsxY. 10. and therefore they ought by 
 baptifm to be inroll'd as fuch, and to be fo- 
 lemnly initiated to his difcipline. And certainly 
 their receiving the Lord's fupper is as proper 
 a teftimony of their continuing, as their bap- 
 tifm 
 
ofgimng the Eucharift to Children. Si] 
 
 tifm was of their being initiated to be his difciples. 
 And fince Chrift would have his difciples tau^t /^Matth; 
 obferve all things whatfoever he has commanded ; cer-'^^^"'* *-5S 
 tainly this is one of the things he has commanded, 
 and this is one of the ways he has appointed of 
 teaching his difciples. And what can be a more 
 proper method of teaching baptized children to 
 obferve this ordinance in particular, than to bring y 
 them up from their very infancy to receive it? 
 Is not this the way which all the world takes to 
 teach children ? Do people ufe to negled: to fet 
 children upon their feet, or begin to teach them 
 to go, till they have acquired ftrength enough to 
 be able to go alone ? Do they ufe to forbear fpeak- 
 ing to them in order to teach them to fpeak, till 
 they are able to make themfelves fome diftindlion 
 of founds, or to underftand all that is faid to them? 
 Is not every one fenfible thefe things are to be 
 taught them by little and little, and that they are 
 to be begun with early, even before they come to 
 take any great notice, or make much obfervation 
 of things. And who can affure us, that Chrift, 
 though he would have young difciples, would noc 
 have any fuch method as this taken with them ? 
 
 9. Whereas *tis pleaded in the behalf of infant 
 baptifm, that it has been pra6lis'd from the be- 
 ginning of the chriftian church, I have likewife in- 
 deavour'd to evidence the fame to be true concern- 
 ing infant communion. 
 
 The parallel between the arguments in the one 
 and the other cafe might be eafily run a great deal 
 further ; but I hope this fpecimen is fufficient to fa- 
 tisfy the reader of thejuftice and reafonablenefs of 
 the firft part of my alTertion. 
 
 Secondly, The objedlions againft infant commu- 
 nion will admit of the fame anfwers as thofe againft 
 infant baptifm. 
 
 G The 
 
%£' ^An Eflay /;; Facmir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 The only objedlions which carry any appearance 
 of weight in them, are taken from their incapaci- 
 ty to perform fome a<5ts which are required in the 
 adult communicants, fuch as remembring Chrift, 
 difcerning the Lord's body, and previoufly examin- 
 ing themfelves. And juft fuch arguments may be, 
 and are, alleg'd againft infant baptifm. Infants 
 are not capable of that repentance and faith, which 
 are requir'd in the adult when they are baptized. 
 And the fame kind of anfwer will ferve in both ca- 
 fes : They may not be capable of all the ends of the 
 one or other inftitution, but they are of fome, and 
 thofe fuch as are a fufficient reafon for their being 
 admitted to either of thefe facraments. If they are 
 not capable of thofe mental afts with which the 
 adult fhould come to thefe ordinances, yet they are 
 capable of receiving Chrift's bleffing, and of ha- 
 ting the blelTmo-s of the new covenant made over 
 to them. They may be paflive in having bleflings 
 conferred upon them, when they cannot themfelves 
 be aftive in receiving them. And which is more, 
 this argument from children's incapacity, cannot 
 reafonably be of any force to debar them from 
 thefe federal rites of the one or other fort under the 
 gofpel, becaufe though their incapacity was the 
 fame under the law, yet did it not exclude them 
 from the like federal rites and inftitutions. But 
 thefe things will again fall in my way, and efpeci- 
 ally when 1 come to confider, and anfwer the ob- 
 jedtions which are urged againft this pra6lice. 
 
 >faw. II. II. There are feveral things in the Inftitution it 
 felf which well fuit with infants receiving it, and 
 which may well enough argue that infants Iliouid 
 partake of the elements. 
 
 If in our thoughts we go over the feveral parts 
 of the inftirutioHi the taking breads the UeJiMg, break- 
 
of ghing the Eticharift to Children, 83 
 
 ing and giving it ; and the taking the cup^ giving thanks^ 
 and givingit, thefewere theadlsofChrift, and are the 
 a6ls of his minifters, and may as well be performM 
 by them, when children receive, as when they do 
 nor. And therefore fo far there is nothing in the 
 inllitution thatoppofes their receiving theelements^ 
 As to the taking, eating and drinking, and their doing 
 this in remembrance ofCbriJt, I fhall have occalion to 
 confider thefe a6bs of the communicants, when I 
 come to anfwer the objedlions which are made 
 againft- this praftice. What I chiefly aim at here 
 is, that what is in the inftitution faid of the body 
 and blood of Chrid:, does as much fuit infants, as 
 any of the adult •, and therefore there is no incon- 
 gruity in their receiving the bread and wine in this 
 ordinance. Thus when Chrift fays : This is m'j body 
 which was broken for 'jou : Let any one tell me, whe- 
 ther this may not be as truly and properly faid to 
 infants, as to any adult chriftians. Was not the fa- 
 crifice of Chrift as well offer'd for them, as for 
 grown perfons ? Was riot his body as truly broken 
 for them, as for any that are grown up ? And muft 
 not they be faved by his facrifice, as well as any 
 of the adult ? And if Chrift's body was, as it cer- 
 tainly was, broken for them, and they have done 
 nothing to forfeit the benefits of it ; why fhould 
 not the figns and pledges of it belong to them .''In 
 my mind, the popular prejudice againft childrens 
 receiving the Lord's flipper may be refuted by the 
 fame argument our Lord made ufe of to expofe the 
 whimfical opinion the Jews m his day had concern- 
 ing fome kind of oaths. Wo unto you, ye blind guides, Matth. 
 which fay, whofoeverjhallfwear by the temple, "tis no-'^^^^'-- ^^9 
 thing ; but whofoever /hall fwear by the gold of the tern- ^^^ ^^j ^9' 
 pie he is a debtor. Te fools and blind : For whether is 
 greater, the gold ^ or the temple that fan^ifeth the gold ? 
 And whofoever /hall fwear by the altar, *tis nothing ■» 
 G 2 but. 
 
84 1^;/Effay in Tavotir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 hut whofoever fweareth by the gift that is upon it^ he' it 
 guilty i Te fools and blind: For whether is greater, the 
 gift, or the altar that fan^ijieth the gift? In like man- 
 ner fay I, Which is greater, the facramental bread, 
 or the facrifice of Chrift which fandbifieth it ? If 
 children have a part and Ihare in the greater, why 
 may they not as well have in the lefs ? Why 
 Ihould the chriftian church a6t as though they 
 thought, the bread in the Lord's fupper was more 
 holy than the broken body of Chrift which it re- 
 prefents ? 
 
 And the fame may be argued concerning the eu- 
 Matth, chariftical cup. Chrift fays : This is my blood of the 
 xxvi, 28. new tejlament [or covenant] which isjhedfor many for 
 the remijfwn of fins ; or which is fhed for you. And 
 Luke xxii. may we not fay to infants, The blood of Chrift was 
 *®* Jhedfor you ? Are nor they included in the many for 
 
 whom 'twas ftied ? And does not that covenant or 
 teftament, which was confirmed in his precious 
 blood, extend to them ? Why then fhould it be 
 thought unlawful for them to partake of this fign 
 of it ? What account can be given for our placing 
 a greater holinefs, and our being more afraid of 3 
 profanation in the figns, than in the things intend- 
 ed and fignified by them ? 
 
 Jrg. III. ni. The right of infants to communicate in the 
 Lord's fupper, may be argued from the account 
 which the apoftle gives us of the ordinance, i Cor, 
 X. 1 6. The cup of blejfing which we blefs, is it not the 
 communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we 
 break, is it 7iot the communion of the body of Chrift F So 
 that according to him, this bread and this cup are 
 pledges and tokens of our communion in the body 
 and blood of Chrift. Have then baptiz'd infants 
 an intereft and part in the body and blood of Chrift, 
 or have they oot ? If they have not ; I can't think 
 
 what 
 
ofgwing the Eucbarifl to Children. 8 5 
 
 what their being baptized into Chrijl, whereby alfoGal.iii.zr* 
 they put on Chrijl, can fignify : If they have ; why do 
 not chefe figns of that communion in the body and 
 blood of Chrift belong to them ? Do we imagine, 
 'twill be an heinous indignity and offence to our 
 blefled Saviour, to give thefe figns of his body and 
 blood to thofe, to whom he imparts an intereft in 
 ali^the benefits and advantages thereof? 
 
 IV. I argue the ncceflity of admitting infants tcxArg, IV. 
 communion, becaufe otherwife the Lord's fupper 
 will not fignify the unity of Chrift's myftical body, 
 and fo will not anfwer one great end and defign of 
 the inllitution. 
 
 This argument is built upon thofe words of the 
 apoftle ; For we being jnany are one breads and one bo- ^ C®"^*. 
 dy ; for we are all partakers of that one bread. I fup-^* '^* 
 pofe the one bread the apoftle here fpeaks of, is not 
 to be underftood of one fmgle loaf, of which all the 
 members of a congregation ufed at that time to 
 partake. 'Tis probable enough, this was then 
 their cuftom ; and yet neverthelefs he feems to 
 fpeak of the euchariftical bread in general as one 
 bread •, and the one body he mentions, is no other 
 than the whole vifible church of Chrift on earth. 
 There is nothing that I can find in his difcourfe, 
 that gives us the leaft hint, that what he here fays 
 muft be reftrain'd to the church of Corinth^ which 
 is the only particular church it can be imagin*d he 
 ftiould defign, if he fpake not of the catholic 
 church. Had the apoftle had any fuch intention 
 he would have faid, For ye (and not as he does, we) 
 being many are one bread and one body : And fo again 
 ill. the laft claufe of the verfe, he would have ex- 
 prefs'd himfelf in like manner. For ye (whereas it 
 's, for we) are ail partakers of that one bread. 
 
8 6 'Jn EfTay //; Faz'Oiir cfthe aiwient TraUice 
 
 Befides, let it be obferved how that verfe comes 
 ^n, and is joined with what goes before. I'he cup of 
 hlejfing which we blefs, is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Chrifi ? The bread which we break, is it not. 
 the communion of the body of Chrifi ? For we being man'j 
 are oyie bread and one body : For we are ail partakers 
 of that one bread. Now whom can the apoftle mean 
 in the former verfe by the we^ who, he fays, blef- 
 fedand brake the bread •, but the apoftles and mi- 
 nifters of Chrifi all the world over ? Or if he has 
 no regard to the ad:s of minifters, but confiders 
 the whole ordinance as perform'd in and by the 
 church •, yet is it not neceflary to underftand him 
 then as fpeaking of what was done by the chriflian 
 church in general ? And is it not reafonable to un- 
 derftand the verfe under confideration in the fame 
 manner, fince therein he gives a reafon and con- 
 firmation of what he had aflerted in the former 
 verfe ? So that I cannot fee but his 'argument is 
 concerning the catholic vifible church. And this 
 bread he calls one bread, whatever parts of the 
 world it was ufed in, upon the account of that one 
 fingle facrifice of Chrift which it reprefented. The 
 expreflion, as fome other parts of his difcourfe in 
 that chapter feem to imply, muft be underftood 
 to be allufive to the bread, which among both 
 Jews and Gentiles was taken from the altar, when 
 they held a feaft upon a facrifice. The apoftle 
 therefore confidering the eucharifcical bread , 
 wherever ufed, as all taken from one altar, or one 
 facrifice, even Chrift, he fpeaks of it all as one 
 bread, by partaking of which all chriftians through 
 the world lignified, not only their partaking of the 
 l'acrifiC,ei but likewife that they were all together 
 one body, or one communion. 
 
 It were eafy to Ihew, that the ancients thought 
 the unity of the whole chriftian church was figni- 
 ' fied 
 
of gwing the EtichaHfl to Children, tj 
 
 fied by this one bread of which they all partook. 
 They looked upon this as fignified by the bread, 
 becaufe the bread is made of many dillinfl grain§ 
 of wheat, which being ground, and join'd togethe~r 
 make bread •, and in like manner many chriftians 
 are united and joined into one body in Chrift. I 
 Ihall not fet down the places themfelves, but only 
 refer the reader to St. Cyprian, Aujiin, and Chryfd- 
 ftom *, as I might alfo to many others. 
 
 The queftion now is -, Who are they that make up 
 this one body ? Are infants no part of Chr ill's body ? 
 This is contrary to the notions and fchemes of all 
 the Pedobaptifts in the world. If then they are of 
 the body, they ought according to the apoftle's 
 argument to partake of that one bread. 
 
 And fince this text feems to me a ftrong evidence 
 of the thing I plead for, I Ihall indeavour to make 
 the argument as clear as polTible, by putting it into 
 form thus : 
 
 fFhaUver aught to he received by all the members ofthevi- 
 ftble church, ought to he received by baptized infants. 
 
 'The eucharifiical bread ought to be received by all the 
 members of the vifihle church. 
 
 'Therefore the eucharifiical bread ought to be received by 
 baptized infants. 
 
 The major in this fylJogifm is certain, fuppofing 
 infants have a right to baptifm. For by their bap- 
 tifm they are enterM into the church, and made 
 members of that body. For by one fpirit are we alli Cor. 
 baptized into one body. xii. 13, 
 
 G 4 The 
 
 * Cypr. Epfi. LXIII. p. 154. & LXIX. p. i8a. Auguft. 
 Serm. LXXXIII. de divers, er, Ante akare ad infantes de fa- 
 cramento. Extac apud Fulgcntium, p,6ii, in trad, de baptif- 
 imo jErhiopis .'noiibvindi. C^^/yiy?. ?ff /piT, 
 
8 ^ j^n Effay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 The minor propofition therefore alone needs to 
 be proved. And I prove it thus : 
 
 ^hat bread f the partaking of which fignijies and eviden- 
 ces all the members of the vifible church to be but ons 
 body, ought to be received by all the members of the 
 viftble church. 
 
 *The eucharijlical bread is that breads the partaking of 
 which figniftes and evidences all the members of the 
 vifible church to be but one body. 
 
 therefore the eucharijlical bread ought to be received by 
 all the members of the vifible church. 
 
 Neither propofition in this argument can, I think, 
 . be denied. The major is plain from the nature of 
 the thing. If the unity of the many that make up 
 the church, is fignified or evidenced by a partaking 
 of that bread, then all muft partake of it : Or elfe 
 how can fuch an unity be any ways fignified or 
 prov'd by it? Let us fuppofe any perfons members 
 of this church, who do not partake of that bread ; 
 how can their unity with the church, or their being 
 of the body be fignified or proved by its being re- 
 ceived by others, when 'tis not by themfelves ? 
 
 The rninor I am not to anfwer for, but the apo- 
 llle, it being the foundation of his argument in 
 which there muft, for ought I can fee, be a falla- 
 cy, unlefs we go upon fuch a fuppofition. He 
 gives this [as a proof that the many, of which the 
 church confifted, did together make but one body. 
 For ^ fays he, we are all partakers of that one bread. But 
 this is no proof at all, if all thofe many did not 
 partake of that one bread. Nay, his affertion can- 
 not be true according to the contrary notion. For 
 then they were not all partakers of that one bread. 
 
 Vg* ^e V. The apoftle elfewhere ufes the fame kind of 
 argument;, to prove all chriftians are one by their 
 
 all 
 
ofgwing the Eticharift to CM Mr en. 89 
 
 ^11 partaking of one cup : And there he exprefles 
 who were thus one, and confequently who partook 
 of that cup, even all that were baptized. His 
 words which I now refer to, are thefe : For as the i Cor. xii. 
 tody is one, and hath 7nany members, and all the mem- »2., i j* 
 hers of that one body being mafty are one body : So alfo is 
 Chriji. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be 
 hond or free -, and have been ALL made to drink into 
 one Spirit. Oectwienius, and fome MSS, here read 
 the words thus : And have been all made to drink ONE 
 PRINK into thefa?ne Spirit. But I will not infift 
 upon that, fince I judge the common reading to be 
 the beft. Nor is that addition necefTary in order 
 to our perceiving, that he here refers to the Lord's 
 fupper. And accordingly the text has been under- 
 llood by Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Gatahr, Locky 
 and many other learned and judicious expofitors 
 both modern and ancient. The reader may apply 
 to this argument whatever was faid concerning the 
 former, it being exa6tly of the fame nature, only 
 taken from the other element ufed in the Lord's 
 fupper. I defire however it may be obferved how 
 the apoftle here fpeaks juft as the ancient ecclefi- 
 aftical writers ufe to do, and fuppofes plainly that 
 all baptized perfons drank of the cup in the facra- 
 ment. And his fo expreily mentioning all in the 
 beginning and end of the verfe, deierves to be ta- 
 ken notice of j for 'tis evident the all that drank into 
 onefpirit ii^ the end of the verfe, are the very fame 
 with the ^11 who wef e baptized into one body in the 
 beginning of it, 
 
 VL It feems to me highly probable, that in the Arg, VL 
 church of Corinth children were admitted to the 
 Lord's fupper. 
 
 Mr, 
 
9d y^n EfTay in Tamiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 In I Cor. Mr. Lock has very well obferv'd, '< That in their 
 xi. 2.1, " way St. P<TZ// blames three things efpecially •, i. 
 " That they eat their common food in the affem- 
 *' bly, which was to be eaten at home in their hou- 
 *' fes, ver. 22, 34. 2. That though they eat in the 
 " common meeting-place, yet they eat feparate- 
 *' ly, every one his own fupper apart, fo that the 
 " plenty and excefs of fome lliamed the want and 
 " penury of others, ver. 21. Hereby alfo the di- 
 " vifions amongft them were kept up, ver. 18. 
 " they being as fo many feparated and divided fo- 
 *' cieties, not one united body of chriftians com- 
 *' memorating their common head, as they fhould 
 *' have been in celebrating the Lord's fupper, 
 *' Chap. X. 16, 17. 3. That they mixed the Lord's 
 " flipper with their own, eating it as a part of 
 *' their ordinary meal, where they made not that 
 *' difcrimination between it and their common 
 *' food, as they fhould have done, ver, 29." And 
 certainly the apoflles words do fully juflify his ob- 
 j Cor. xi. fervations. When ye come together therefore into one 
 so^zijiz.^/^^^^ /Z?w is not to eat the Lord's fupper. For in eat- 
 ing ever'j one taketh before other, his own fupper: 
 And one is hungry, and another is drunken. WJjat, 
 have ye not houfes to eat and to drink in ? Ordefpife ye the 
 church of God, andfhame them that have not ? 
 
 Now if the Corinthians ufed to. eat their own ordi- 
 nary meal in the affembly, not as a common one, 
 but in diflindl and feparate companies, it feems ve- 
 ry probable they had their flimilieSj and among 
 the reft their children with them at thofe meals. 
 And if they mixed thefe meals with the Lord's fup- 
 per, 'tis not unreafonable to fuppofe the fame per- 
 fons. ufed to eat both. And if this fhould be al- 
 low'd, we have here a fcripture example of the pra- 
 ftice for which I am pleading. I know it may be 
 objected, that the Corinthians were guilty of fo 
 -f- many 
 
of gking the Encharift to Children. g i 
 
 many abufes in this ordinance, that their example 
 ihould not much move us. And that I grant ; but 
 then I further urge, that upon this fuppofition we 
 have not only their example, but the apoflles tacit 
 approbation of it. For among all the things he 
 blames in them, he fays not a word againft their 
 bringing their children to the Lord's fupper. 
 
 I would not have the reader imagine, I lay a 
 greater ftrefs upon this than what I really intend. 
 I thought it too confiderable to be wholly omitted, 
 and yet I own it rifes no higher than a probability, 
 which adds fome weight, when joined with the other 
 arguments I urge for this pra6lice, though it would 
 not by it felf be fufficient to eftablifh it. 
 
 VII. I argue the right of infants to partake of the ^r^. VIIo 
 Lord's fupper, from the nature of the ordinance, 
 and one great end of it, as 'tis a badge whereby 
 the people and fervants of the true God and the Re- 
 deemer are diftinguifhed from heathen idolaters, 
 and the worfhippers and fervants of devils, or 
 demons. 
 
 Thefe falfe gods of the Gentiles had their houfes 
 or temples, their tables or altars, their meat and 
 drink, of which their worfliippers ufed to partake 
 in the feafts they held upon the facrifices. And 
 this they did in token of their communion and fel- 
 lowfhip with thofe fiftitious deities. Thefe feafts, 
 excepting their being kept in honour of a falfe God, 
 do exa6tly enough anfwer to many feafts obferv'd 
 among the Jews, and to the Lord's fupper among 
 chriftians, which is, as I obferved before, a feaft 
 upon the true and great facrifice of Chrift. The 
 apoftle therefore has made a comparifon between 
 the two. JVhatfa'j I then ? that the idol is any things i Cor. x. 
 or that which is offered in facrifice to idols is any thing ? i9> io,si. 
 But I fayy that th^ things which the G&nti\cs facrifice,. 
 
 they 
 
^ 2 Jn Elfay in Tu'vour oj the ancient TraUice 
 
 they facrifice to devils for demons] and not to God : And 
 I would not that ye (fjould have fellowpytp with devils. 
 Te cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of de- 
 vils : 7^e cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the 
 table of devils. 
 
 Now from this comparifon and argument of the 
 apoitle I reafon thus : As the table of the Lord is 
 oppofed to the table of devils ; and the one diftin- 
 guillies thofe who have fellowfhip with the Lord, 
 as the other does thofe who have fellowship with 
 devils, fo 'tis reafonable to think the diftinguifhing 
 badge Ihould extend as widely in the cafe of the 
 Lord's table, as it does in that of the table of de- 
 vils. And the rather may we argue thus, becaufe 
 this diftinguifhing badgewas inftituted by our Lord 
 long after the other had been ufed and pradlifed 
 among the heathen idolaters. Now if this be al- 
 lowed, and it appear that children were partakers 
 of the table of devils, that is of the feafts upon the 
 idolatrous facrifices, they ought likewife to par- 
 take of the euchariftical feaft upon the facrifice o( 
 Chrift. 
 
 Let us then inquire what the praflice was among 
 the heathen idolaters. Now though the fame kind 
 of reafons which I have already obferved, might 
 occafion our meeting with little mention of infant 
 communion in the ancient ecclefiaftical writers, 
 may likewife occaiion our having the lefs in ancient 
 heathen writers concerning childrens partaking of 
 their facrifices •, yet I think we have enough to 
 make the matter plain and evident. 
 
 And if we look into the fcripture, and confider 
 what hints of this nature that gives us, we fhall find 
 it probable, that children very young ufed to be 
 defiled with their idolatry. I might mention their 
 making their children pal's through the fire to.Af^'- 
 Isrb^ which feme think, was not only to kilj diem in 
 
 that 
 
tf gwhJg the Eiichariji to Childreiu ^3 
 
 that way as facrifices, but was done fometimes as a 
 kind of luftration. And fince this was often done 
 when they were very young \ 'tis not unlikely they 
 would as well make them partake in their other 
 idolatrous cufloms, and particularly their feafts at 
 the fame age. The prophet Jerem'j feems to hint 
 to us, that young children ufed to partake of thofe 
 feafts which the Jews^ when they fell into idolatry, 
 kept in honour of the queen of heaven. 'The children Jcr.vii. 1 8, 
 gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the wo- 
 men knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen ofhea- 
 ven, and to four out drink offerings to other gods, that 
 they may provoke me to anger. In which words he 
 feem.s to exprefs the zeal with which all forts among 
 them joined in the fervice -, the men in making the 
 iires, the women in making cakes, and they who 
 were fo little as to be able to do nothing elfe, yet 
 picked up fticks to make the fire. And certainly 
 this zeal of the children for the fervice is an argu- 
 ment, they ufed to have their part and fhare in the 
 cakes and the drink offerings. The pleafure thofe 
 idolatrous feafts had afforded them made them fo 
 ready, according to their capacity, to promote them. 
 And when God by the fame prophet would fet 
 out the grievous wickednefs of the Jews, he takes 
 particular notice of the childrens affedlion to idola- 
 try. The fin 0/ Judah is written with a pen of iron, andjer. x\-ii 
 with the point of a dia?nond ; it is graven upon the table ^> ^• 
 of their heart, and upon the horns of your altars. JVhil(l 
 their children remember their altars and their groves by 
 the green trees upon the high hills. And was nor, do 
 we think, their tafting the iv/ttz of thofe altars, the 
 reafon of their pleafant remembrance of them ? 
 
 Further, that children among the Gentiles ufed to 
 partake of the facrifices, may be probably enough 
 gatherM from St. Paul. There are two different 
 cafes he plainly fpeaks of in his firft CDiftle to the 
 
 "" ' Corin- 
 
94 ^'^ E fTay in Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 Corinthians. The one relates to fuch feafts as were 
 held in the idol temples in honour of the idols, and 
 thefe he abfolutely forbids chriftians to attend, or 
 I Cor. X. ha-ve any thing to do with. What fay I then ? That 
 19, io,i I J the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in facrifice 
 ^^' to idols is any thing ? But I fay, that the things which 
 
 the Gtntilt^ facrifice, they facrifice to devils, and not to 
 God ', and I would not that ye Jhould have fellowfiip 
 with devils. Te cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and 
 the cup of devils : Te cannot he -partakers of the hordes 
 table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the 
 Lord tojealoufy ? Are we fironger than he F The other 
 cafe he confiders is that of the feafls which the Gen- 
 tiles kept in their own houfes, which were likewife 
 many times upon the idolatrous facrifices. And 
 thefe he allows chriflians to go to, and to eat of 
 fuch things^ except when it might be a fcandal to 
 Ver. 27, others. If any of them that believe not, bid you to a 
 ^^' feafi, and ye be difpofed to go, whatfoever is fet before 
 you, eat, asking no queftion for confidence fake. But if 
 any man fay unto you, This is offered in facrifice to idols, 
 eat not, for his fake that (hewed it, and for confidence 
 fake. Now in this latter cafe what doubt can be 
 made of their childrens partaking of the idolatrous 
 facrifices ? And though a chriftian who was a gueft 
 with them did not eat thefe thingrs in a relig-ious 
 inanner, in honour of the idol, yet the Gi?«/i/6'jr did, 
 and as fuch they doubtlefs gave them to their chil- 
 dren. 
 
 And if we look into heathen authors, we find 
 that boys, while very young, bore a part in their 
 facrifices, as might be eafily proved by many te- 
 ftimonies out olHomer, and other of their writers, 
 *Tis true there were fome of their myfleries, as 
 particularly the Elcufiinia, which they could have 
 nothing to do with till they were pail their infancy, 
 and Were initiated to them, as th«y ufed to be 
 
 while 
 
cfgimng the Eucharift to Children, 9 5 
 
 while young. But there were feveral of their fa- 
 crifices, which after they were ofFer'd upon their 
 altars, were diftributed among the people, who 
 ufed to eat them at home, and fo might as well 
 give them to the youngeft of their children, as eat 
 of them themfelves. Such were the kcijo/x^ct/tf, and 
 feveral others. And befides, there were feveral re- 
 ligious feafts which related peculiarly to infants; 
 They had feveral reputed Deities, whom they 
 judg'd to have the care of children, and to whom 
 they ufed accordingly to facrifice. Thus fome of 
 the child's firft hair ufed to be dedicated to Apolloi 
 Varro tells us * that at Amhracia this was the cu- 
 ftom. And when they facrificed and feafted upoii 
 the account of their children, they would doubtlefs' 
 make them partake of the facrifice when they were 
 able. So when children ■\ firft began to change their 
 food, and to eat and drink, the fame author tells 
 us, the nurfes facrificed of the eatables to the God- 
 defs Edufa^ and of the drinkables to the Goddefs 
 Potina. In which 'place he ufes the word facrifica'^ 
 hantuTy as I obfervM before in an adtive fenfe, ac- 
 cording to the manner of more ancient times. And 
 when the nurfes facrificed upon this occafion, who 
 can doubt whether the children ufed to eat and 
 drink of the facrifice ? And that T>onatus, the old 
 fcholiaft upon Terence^ thought fo, is plain by 
 the remark he makes upon Terence^ words, where- 
 in he cites this pafTage of Varro, and by his ap- 
 plication of a paffage of Virgil to the fame mat- 
 ter. 
 
 * Itacjue Ambracu'E primum capillum puerilem demtum, irem 
 cirros, ad Apollinem ponere folcnt. Varro in Cat. fen de Uberis 
 edticandis , p. m . 2 9 1 • 
 
 f Cum primores cibo & potione initiarent pueros, facrifica- 
 'ba«tur ab edulibus Edufcv, & » pOtion.? rocinsj nutrices. Jhid, 
 p. z^o. 
 
P 6 An EfTay in Ta^oiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 ter * I am fenfible, Madam Dacier's explication 
 of 'Terence's words would fomewhat abate this evi- 
 dence. She fays, the initiation he means, is that 
 to the great myfteries of Ceres, to which fhe how- 
 ever owns they initiated children while they were 
 young. The only reafon fhe gives for this is, be- 
 caufe the fcene of that play is in Greece, and there- 
 fore Terence muft be underftood to fpeak according 
 to the cuftoms of that country. Now this reafon 
 does not convince me at all. For I think 'tis evi- 
 dent the Roman comedians took the liberty in the 
 plays they borrowed from x.\\tGreeks to fpeak fome- 
 times according to their own cuftoms, however 
 they continued the fcene in the fame place they 
 found it in the Greek authors from whom they bor- 
 rowed. And thus that ingenious lady her felf ex- 
 plains a pafTage i" in another of Terence's plays ex- 
 a<5lly of the fame nature. And certainly that place 
 which Donatus has mention'd from Virgil is very 
 much to my purpofe, fince Virgil there fpeaks to 
 Salonius a child newly born ||. There was likewife 
 another facrifice which feems to have been contri- 
 ved on purpofe, that children might partake of it 
 as foon as they came into the world. They ufed 
 
 then 
 
 * Verba Tereyitii funt ilia . 
 
 Ubi erit puero natalis dies, 
 
 Ubi iniciabunc. Phorm. AB. I. Sc. I« 
 
 In quern locum Donatus comtnentatur inhunc modum: Legitur apiid 
 Varronem iniciari pueros Edufa:, & Potinas & Cuba;, divis eden- 
 di, & potandi & ciibandi, ubi primum a lafte & cunis transferuntur. 
 
 Quod Virgilius, 
 Nee Deus hunc menfa, Dea ncc dignata tubili eft. 
 
 f Qiilcquid peperifTet, decreverunt tollerc. AnAr, AB. I. Sc. IV, 
 
 II Incipe, paive puer, cui non rifere parentes, 
 Ncc Deus hiiuc menfa, Dea ncc dignata cubili eft. Bel. IV. 
 
of giving the Btichariji to Children. ^7 
 
 then to facrifice with milk §, which is the proper 
 and firft food of children. And they who were fo 
 folicicous for the favour of their gods to their chil- 
 dren, would not be indifferent, whether they were 
 honoured with thefe tokens of their friendfhip, and 
 were feafted by them. And that they were fatisfi- 
 ed of their friendfhip to their children appears from 
 their afcribing their prote6lion, and the comfort of 
 their food and their cradles, ^c. to them. 
 
 And there is a paffage I have already had occali- 
 on to cite out of Cyprian under the fixth remark of 
 the former part of this effay, which is a full proof 
 that infants ufed to partake of the Gentile facrifices. 
 For there he gives us an account of a fucking child, 
 that was carried by her nurfe to one of thofe facrifi- 
 ces, to whom they gave of the bread crumb'd into 
 the wine that was left of the facrifice, becaufe Ihe 
 was too young to eat flelh. And indeed to Ihut up 
 this evidence they were fo fuperftitious, as that 
 they hardly eat any thing but what was facrificed, 
 and there was a taint of their idolatry in their moft 
 ordinary and common food. And Cafaubon obferves, 
 that anciently * " They never kilFd any creature 
 " for their private ufe, but they confecrated fome 
 " part of it as an offering to God. They who did 
 '^ otherwife are ftigmatiz'd by that proverbial 
 ■•' fpeech j He eats fle/h of which no facrifice has been 
 " offered 5 which ufed ta be faid of a wicked and 
 H " ungod- 
 
 § His femonibus [I^^, confentientlbus criticis, legenditya^ pro hifce 
 manibus] lafte fit non vino: Cuninae propter cunas, Ruminae 
 propter rumam, i. e, prifco vocabulo, mammam, Vano ibid. p. 190. 
 
 Atque alibi : Ibi enim lapud div<eRuTn<z facellum] folent lacrifi-' 
 cari lafte pro vinOj& pro ladantibus. J^. <ffi re rnjiica. lib. z, ^.401. 
 
 * Nunquam autem ullum animal in proprios ufus madabant, 
 quin ejus aliqiiam partem Deo confecrarent adolendam. Qui fecus 
 facerent proverbio notati, aBvJo. hpj. xaIz^'ih^ Quod dehomine 
 impio improboque folicum dicii Ca/anb. in Athenaeum. Lib. I. c z. 
 
>?8 ^« Eflay /;/ Faimtr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 *' ungodly man." So that by this evidence it will 
 appear that their children ufed to partake of the fa- 
 crificcs as foon as they began to eat flefh. 
 
 I hope I have laid enough to fhew, that infants 
 ufed to partake of the idolatrous feafts upon facrifi- 
 ces. I come now to apply this to the argument in 
 hand. 
 
 The Lord's fupper is, in fome refpefts, as I ob- 
 ferv'd before, of the fame nature with thofe kind of 
 feafts, viz. 'tis a feaft upon a facrifice •, and 'tis de- 
 fign'd to diftinguifh thofe who belong to Chrift, as 
 the other were to diftinguifh thofe who belong'd to 
 the falfe gods of the heathens. And can it be thought, 
 that when Chrift appointed adiftinguifhing badge of 
 his friends, he did not defign the ufe of it fhould be 
 as wide and extenfive as that of the oppofite intereft 
 Was, and had been for a long time ? Had the devil 
 his meat and his cup to betoken thofe who had fel- 
 lowlhip with him, and has Chrift his meat and his 
 cup to betoken thofe who are in fellowlhip with 
 him ? And is it not reafonable to fuppofe that he 
 intended thefe fhould be as generally receiv'd by his 
 family, as the other were by the devils ; and con- 
 fequently that he defign'd that children fhould re- 
 ceive the one, as they ufed to do the other ? What 
 reafon can there be to think, Chrift was more re- 
 gardlefs of infants than the adult ? That he was not 
 as willing that chriftian infants fhould be diftin- 
 guifli'd from idolatrous infants, as he was that adult 
 chriftians fhould be thereby diftinguifh'd from 
 adult idolaters ? And if a participation of idolatrous 
 feafts would pollute and defile the heathen infants, 
 why may not a participation of the chriftian feaft 
 be a means of limclifying them ^ And fince the 
 apoftle- compares thefe two, as the diftinguifhing 
 badges of thofe oppofite fellowfhips ; the reafons 
 ought to be very clear and ftrong that exclude in- 
 fants, who are confelTedly called into the fellowfliip 
 
 of 
 
of ghing the Jiiicharift to Children^ P9 
 
 of Chrift ; fince they were certainly among the 
 Gentiles partakers of fuch kind of tokens of fellow- 
 ihip with devils. 
 
 VIII. I argue the right of infants to partake of the ^j-^. viil- 
 facraments of the new teftament, and confequently 
 of the Lord's fupper, from the right they had to 
 partake of the facraments of the old teftament. 
 
 I might here take notice, that there is hardly any 
 kind of fervice mention'd under the lav/, in which 
 children are not ipoken of as having their part. 
 Thus for inftance, when the law of God was read to 
 the people, particular care is taken to let us know, 
 it was before the little ones. 1'here was not a %vord ofjo'h.. v'uu 
 all that Mofes commanded^ which jofliua redd not he- IS- 
 fore all the congregation (T/'Ifrael, with the women, and 
 the little ones, and the grangers that were converfant 
 among them. Did they folemnly pray to God,'' We 
 find particular notice is taken of the prefence of 
 fuch at the prayer. Thus when king Jehojhaphat 
 prayed to God in his great diftrefs, 'tis faid : And^ Chrouo 
 all judah/ocJ before the Lord with their little ones, '^^^ ^3* 
 their wives and their children. Where the little ones 
 are fpoken of as diflinguifli*d from the children, as 
 though it were defign'd to oblige us to take fpeciai 
 notice of their prefence, and to prevent our fuppo- 
 fing that very young children were not meant. 
 Again, when God himfelf calls his people to the 
 moft extraordinary fafting, he takes care to fpeci- 
 fy children and even infants. Blow the trumpet in Joel il 
 Sion, fan5iify afajl, call afolemn affeinU^j j gather the ^5> ^^' 
 people : San^ify the congregation : AjfemUe the elders • 
 Gather the children, and thofe that fuck the hreafts. 
 Had they any extraordinary occafions of offering 
 facrifices of joy and thankfgiving, the children are 
 fpoken of as having a part therein. So at the dedi- 
 cation of the wall of Jerufalem : 'Alfo that day they ^^^' ^i'* 
 vffer'd great fa crifces, and rejoiced j for God had made^'^^'^"^^^ 
 H 2 them 
 
i oo ''Ju Eflay /;; Ta'voiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 them rejoice with great joy -, the wives alfo and the chil- 
 dren rejoiced. In fine, was a covenant to be enter'd 
 into with the Lord, the little ones were reckoned 
 Deut.xxix. in ^-j^g number of thofe who were to do it. Tejland 
 .io,r 1, 12, j,j^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^j ^^^ jjgjQyg tjj^ Lord your God •, your cap- 
 tains of your tribes J your elders^ and your officers, with 
 nil the men (?/"Ifrael, your little ones, your wives^ and 
 thy fir anger that is within thy camp, from the hewer of 
 thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water : ^hat thou 
 fhouldeji enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and 
 into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee 
 this day. ■ Neither with you only do I make this co- 
 
 venant, and this oath •, hut with him that Jlandeth here 
 with us this day, before the Lord your God, and alfo 
 with hi?n that is not here with us this day. i\ nd thofe 
 Mic. zi, 9. words of the prophet, Froin their children have ye ta- 
 ken away my ^ory for ever, are thus commented up- 
 on by Grotius, " Ye have accullom'd the little ones 
 " to idolatry, left they fhould ever think of wor- 
 " Ihiping me." I have only taken occafion here 
 to hint thefe things in a digrelTion, which the read- 
 er will eafily fee might be pertinently enough ur- 
 ged to inforce the practice I plead for. But the great 
 thing I fhall here infift upon, and that at large, is 
 what is advanced in the argument it felf, that chil- 
 dren, and even infants, partook of the facraments 
 of the old teftament. And here I fhall, 
 
 1. Account for this way of reafoning, from the 
 facraments of the old teftament to thofe of the new. 
 
 2. Prove my affertion, that infants ufed to par- 
 take of the ficraments under that old difpenfation. 
 
 I . Then as to this way of reafoning, from the 
 facraments under the old difpenfation to thofe under 
 the new, the apoftle is my warrant for it. He has 
 as plainly, as can be, taught us to argue in this 
 manner, by the comparifon he has made of the fa- 
 craments under the two difpenfations, and drawing 
 inferences himfelf from the one to the other. Lee 
 
 any 
 
cfgimng the Eticharifl to Children, i o r 
 
 any man read carefully the tenth chapter of the 
 firll epiflle to the Corinthians, and I am perfuaded, 
 he will fee his argument will not hold, nor his rea- 
 foning be ftrong and convincing (which yet it al- 
 ways is in the higheft degree, when rightly under- 
 ftood) unlefs this fuppofition be laid as the founda- 
 tion of all : That the facraments of the old tefla- 
 ment ferve to direct us in the ufe of thofe of the 
 new, and that we may fafely argue from the for- 
 mer to the latter. 
 
 This is a matter of too great confequence to be 
 flightly pafled over. Let me therefore take fome 
 particular notice of his difcourfe in that chapter. 
 The occafion may be eafily gathered from the 
 fcope of it. He is there, as 'tis obvious to obferve, 
 difTuading the Corinthians from idolatry. It feems 
 plain, they had fallen into that fin, by going into 
 idol temples, and by partaking of thofe feafls which 
 were held in them in honour of idols, upon the fa- 
 crifices ofFer'd to them. To juftify themfelves in 
 what they praftis'd they ufed feveral arguments, 
 which 'tis probable they had fuggefled to St. Paul, 
 in a letter or meflage they had fent him. What 
 their pleas were may be eafily learn'd from the an- 
 fwers he gives to them. 
 
 They feem to have urged : That the not ufing 
 fuch complaifance to their idolatrous neighbours 
 would be very dangerous, and expofe them to their 
 utmoft rage and fury : That this lingularity, which 
 would bring upon them abundance of vexation and 
 trouble, was wholly needlefs, fmce there was no 
 hurt or danger in what they did , they had no opi- 
 nion of the idols in honour of whom thofe feafls 
 were kept, for they look'd upon them to have no 
 deity or virtue belonging to them, and that they 
 could not therefore alter the nature of meats that 
 were good in themfelves ; they continued true to 
 Chriftj nptwithftanding their occafional attendance 
 H 3 on 
 
1 02 ^Jn ElTay in Fa'votir of the aiwient TraUice 
 
 on thofe feafts, remaining in fellowfhip with him, 
 owning him, and being own*d by him: The truth of 
 all which might appear by the baptifm which they 
 had received, and never defign'd to renounce, and 
 by their continued attendance on the Lord's hipper. 
 We may fee St. Paul in his difconrfe has an eye 
 to the feveral parts of this plea ; and particularly 
 he fhews how vain their hope was from their recei- 
 ving the chriltian facraments, baptifm and the 
 Lord's fupper, by fetting before them the difplea- 
 lure and vengeance of God againft the Ijraelitesy 
 who were in the like cafe, and all of them, men^ 
 women and children, received facraments in their 
 time. One cannot read what he fays, v^ithout ob- 
 ferving v/hat a very great ftrefs he lays upon this 
 conlideration. That the Ifraelites did ALL receive 
 them •, for he repeats it no lefs than five times in 
 2 Cor. x: the comipafs of four verfes. Moreover^ brethren^ I 
 Ji ^3 5i4'ioould not that -^e JJjouldhe ignorant, how that all our 
 fathers were under the cloud, and all faffed through the 
 fea ; and were all haptizedinto Mofes in the cloud, and 
 in the [ea -, and did all eat the fa?ne fpiritual meat ; and 
 did all drink the fame fpiritual drink. And in the next 
 verfe he may feem to have had children particular- 
 yer. <, ly ^^ his thoughts : But with many of them God was 
 7iot well pie afed -, for they were overthrown in the wil- 
 dernefs. Now who were the perfons that partook 
 of thefe facraments,, who by reafon of God's dif- 
 pleafure were overthrown in the wildernefs ? Were 
 they not all the adult Ifraelites, except two perfons, 
 Caleh and Jofhua F Mull not St. Paul therefore in 
 writing this, and the Corinthians in reading it, ne- 
 ceffarily have had the children as well as Caleb and 
 Joj'hua in their thoughts, as the perfons he defign'd 
 to except from that overthrow, when he changed 
 his ftile, and fpake of many inftead of all? And does 
 not this confine the warnins he gives the Co?'inthi~ 
 iVts^ to the adult communicants, in contradiftincti- 
 
of giving the Eticharifl to Children, i o- 
 
 on to thofe who were but children, as 'tis in the ex- 
 ample of the overthrow of the Jfraelites ? Hereup- 
 on he ad(^s : ISIow thefe things were our examples^ to \ Cor, 
 the intent zvejhould not lujl after evil things, as they alfo ^- *^' 
 lujied. I fee no neceflity of confining the exajnples 
 he mentions in the plural number, to their bare 
 overthrow. It feems natural to underiland them 
 as relating to all that he had fpoke of before, the 
 facraments themfelves, their fignification, the per- 
 fons that received them, the fin they committedj 
 and the punilhment God inflifted. As though he 
 had faid : " Their cafe was very like ours ; they 
 ** had facraments much refembling ours, they in 
 " like manner partook of them •, but when they 
 " placed a fecurity in them, and grew licentious 
 " and wicked, God dealt feverely with them, as 
 " he will with us alfo, if we make no better ufe of 
 " fuch privileges." Again he repeats this : NowVcr. i. 
 all thefe things happened to the?nfor exa?nples : And they 
 are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of 
 the world are come. And afterwards he appeals to 
 the Jewijh feafts concerning the Lord's fupper : 
 Behold l{ra.d after the fiejh : Are not they which eat ofvcv. v 
 the facrificeSj partakers of the altar ? In this paflage 
 he fpeaks of thofe who feafled upon the peace-of- 
 ferings, and fuch like facrifices, in token of their 
 partaking of the altar, that is of the facrifices which 
 were firft off^er'd to God upon the altar, and fo be- 
 came his •, upon which account they were eaten as 
 God's holy things, God allowing them thus to eat 
 of his meat, and vouchfafing them in this manner 
 a communion and fellowfhip with himfelf Now 
 this he mentions for no other end than to put them 
 in mind, that in like manner chriftians by parta- 
 king of the elements in the Lord's fupper, partake 
 of the facrifice of our Lord Jefus Chrift. And 
 when the apoftle runs fuch a parallel as this, can it 
 reafonably be doubted, whether the fame' fort of 
 H 4 ' per- 
 
1 04 'Jn EfTay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraWce 
 
 perfons who partook of fuch euchariftical feafts of 
 old, ought to partake of the chriftian feaft that was 
 of the like nature ? May we not fairly gather from 
 his difcourfe, that the bread and wine of our great 
 facrifice is to be now as common to the chriftian 
 church, which God has chofen out of the Gentiles 
 inftead of the Ifrael of old, as the partaking of the 
 altar was anciently to them ? I think therefore the 
 apoftle muft anfwcr for the way of arguing which 
 I here take, and that 'tis evident he ufes the fame, 
 drawing inferences concerning the chriftian facra- 
 ments, from thofe which were anciently given to 
 Jfrael after the flefh. 
 
 2. The only thing which is neceflary to be here 
 further cleared, is, that children, and even infants^^ 
 were partakers of the facraments among the Ifra- 
 elites under the law. And this I hope to make out 
 very fully. 
 
 There were indeed a multitude of facraments 
 which the Ifraelites partook of, but I queftion whe- 
 ther there was any one from which children were 
 excluded. I fhall now, in imitation of the apoftle, 
 defcend to particulars, and fpeak of feveral of the 
 inftances he has alleg'd. 
 
 I. I ftiall begin with what he exprefly mentions, 
 the Ifraelites being initiated into the Mofaic religi- 
 I Cor. X, on. Moreover^ brethren^ I would not that ye Jhould 
 .*3 *• he ignorant^ how that all our fathers were under the 
 cloudy and all faffed throng the fea : And were all 
 baptized into Moles in the cloud, and in the fea. As 
 though he had faid : " You that pretend to lay fo 
 '-' great a ftrefs upon your being initiated into the 
 <' chriftian religion by a baptifm of divine appoint- 
 " ment, do little confider the fame was the cafe of 
 " the ancient Ijraeiites, who in like manner were 
 *' initiated into the religion of A^fes, and were 
 " baptized into Mofes in the cloud and in the fea.^* 
 ^Tis in vain for men here to pretend, this was no 
 
 facra» 
 
of gimng the Bucharifi to Children. 105 
 
 facrament of initiation : St. Paul underftood that 
 matter, and God's defign in what was then done, 
 better than they with all their skill can do. And 
 /tis obfervable, he ufes the fame phrafe here* 
 which is ufual concerning chriftian baptifm, o( bap- 
 tizing into a perfon. Thus he fays : As many of us 
 as were baptized into Chrijl Jefus : As many of you as 
 were baptized into Chrijl. 
 
 Now this baptifm which the apoftle confiders as 
 a facrament of initiation for Ifrael, equally belong- 
 ed, and was applied to all. The youngefl infant 
 among them tihat was then born into the world, 
 was thus baptized into Mofes, as well as thofe 
 grown up to years of difcretion. And as St. Paul 
 parallels this with chriftian baptifm, it feems to me 
 a ftrong argument for infants right to baptifm un- 
 der the gofpel. 
 
 2. The next inftance fhall be what he immedi- 
 ately fubjoins, their eating of the manna, and 
 drinking the water out of the rock. And did alliCor.x. 
 eat of the fame fpiritual meat^ and did all drink of the 3> 4« 
 fame fpiritual drink ; for they drank of that fpiritual rock 
 that followed them, and that rock was Chrijl. And 
 thefe he makes to anfwer to that fpiritual meat and 
 drink which chriftians receive in the Lord's fupper. 
 And I might here allege the remark which is made 
 by many of the ancient fathers, that St. Paul ob- 
 ferves a very exaft analogy, making their baptifm 
 in the cloud and in the fea, to preceed and prepare 
 them for their fpiritual meat and drink in the wil- 
 dernefs, and hinting that they received thelatterpre- 
 fently after the former. This I might likewife have 
 produced, if I had needed it, as an evidence, that 
 they thought all that were baptized ought prefently 
 to receive the Lord's fupper. Now 
 
 * Kdt/ ^elv]i( it? 70V Miicrnv iCcfTrl'KrAvlo. I Cor.x. 2. "^Offos 
 kC-ci7f]iSr;]fJ^j eif Xetrof 'Imh, Rora. vi. 3. *0^9/ jB iU Xe<r«y 
 kCATfl'i^ri]':' Gal, iii, 17, 
 
io6 Jn EfTay in Vamiir of the ancient TraEiice 
 
 Now this inftance comes very dore to the matter 
 I am upon. The manna was fpirkual, that is my- 
 ilical, or facramental meat ; the water of the rock 
 was fpiritual, that is myftical, or facramental 
 drink : And the refemblance between thefe and 
 the bread and wine in the Lord's fupper, was the 
 greater, becaufe they both were figures of one and 
 the fame thing. The manna with the Ifraelites, 
 and the bread with us, both fignify Chrift the bread 
 which cam.e down from heaven, that bread which 
 Chrift gave, even his flefh which he gave for the 
 life of the world. The drink that flream'd from 
 the rock, and the drink in the eucharift, both fig- 
 nify that fpiritual drink we have by Chrift, whofe 
 blood is drink indeed. 
 
 And a particular emphafis is, I think, to be laid 
 upon thofe words in the apoftle's difcourfe, the 
 fame. He does not feem to mean barely that the 
 Ifraelites had the fame meat and drink in common, 
 and that they did all eat and drink one the fame as 
 the other ; but his meaning is, that their fpiritu- 
 al meat and drink was the fame with ours in the 
 facrament, that is, as to the fpiritual fignifi cati- 
 on of it. Thus many commentators expound that 
 exprefllon. And there is the more reafbn for it, 
 becaufe if the apoftle had only intended the Ifra- 
 elites all eating and drinking, the one the fame 
 meat and drink as the other ; he would then in all 
 probability have ufed the like exprefllon in the 
 foregoing verfe, and have faid ; They were all 
 baptized into Mofes in the fame cloud, and in the 
 fame fea. And befides, the apoftle confirms the 
 interpretation I infift upon, by the reafon he alle- 
 ges to prove they all drank of the fame fpiritual 
 drink. For^ fays he, the-j all drank of that fpiritual 
 rock that followed thefn : And that rock was Chrift, 
 This is a reafon to fiiew not fo much they all had 
 one drink in common, as that their drink was of 
 
 the 
 
of giving the Etichariji to Children, 107 
 
 the fame nature with ours, as both fignified Chrifl. 
 
 Now to apply this to the purpofe for which I al- 
 lege it i as all Ifrael^ even children and infants as 
 well as the adult, partook of this fpiritual meat 
 and drink, the figures and pledges of Chrifl i fo in 
 like manner all the chriftian Ifrael of God, that is, 
 all baptized perfons, ought to partake of the eu- 
 charift. And if the pledges of Chrift's body and 
 blood might under the law be given to baptized 
 initiated infants, I would fain know a reafon, why 
 they may not now under the gofpel. Chrift's fa- 
 crifice then was as truly the means of fpiritual life 
 as 'tis now : And good men were then by faith to 
 look beyond thofe figures to him who was figni- 
 fied by them, as chriftians ought to do now. And 
 yet notwithftanding all thefe things, infants par- 
 took of tliefe figns then ; and therefore by a pari- 
 ty of reafon, as it feems to me, they ought to do 
 fo now. 
 
 I am aware fome objedions m.ay be made againft 
 this inftance, which I fhall accordingly mention, 
 and indeavour to anfwer. 
 
 Ohj. I. It may be alleg'd ; that what St. Paul 
 here mentions muft be very improperly called a 
 facrament, fince it was their daily food. 
 
 Anfw, He has neverthelefs reprefented it, as ha- 
 ving the very fame nature with thofe things which 
 we commonly term facraments (for I care not to 
 contend about an unfcriptural term) and he was 
 beft able to explain to us the meaning of it. Nor 
 does its being given to them as their ordinary food 
 at all hinder its having a facramental nature, fince 
 the fame will appear to be true in another inftance 
 I fliall have occafion to mention, wherein every 
 one muft grant the thing was facramental, and V€>- 
 ry analogous to the eucharift. 
 
 Further, every one muft obferve there was a 
 comparative obfcurity and darknefs in thatdiipenfa- 
 ' ~ tion 
 
I oS ^Jn Effay in Faconr of the ancient Tra^ice 
 
 tion they were under : The things which are now 
 fet before us in the gofpel, were kept hid from the 
 former ages and generations. But God was pleafed 
 to compenfate, as I may fay, for this by the fre- 
 quency of revelations, the long continuance of the 
 fpirit of prophecy among them, and the appear- 
 ances of angels who often brought them meflages 
 from God. And in like manner I can fee no reafon 
 why we may not fuppofe, that upon the like gra- 
 cious account he treated them in this manner in the 
 infancy of their church {late and conftitution, that 
 he fed them, as it were, with facraments. This 
 was not unufual among the Gentiles, who, as I ob- 
 ferved before, hardly eat any flefh but what was 
 offer'd in facrifice, infomuch that the word that 
 fignified originally a facrifice, Ova^ia^ came to be 
 i» Mene- ufed for a f eaft, as Mer. Cafanhon notes upon Dio- 
 rj"^°'a^' g^^^^ Laertius. And I think his obfervation is not 
 '^ " unjuft, that the fame is true of the Hebrew word 
 j>. 155. n!3T, which though it primarily was ufed in a ftrift 
 fenfe for afacrifce, yet is put to fignify a feaft, or as 
 the m^argin of our bibles renders it good cheer, Prov. 
 xvii. I. And indeed fome have underftood that 
 place, Lev. xvii. 3,4. as though it were a prohibit 
 tion to the Ijraelites in the wildernefs to eat any 
 flefh, of which they had not firft facrificed to the 
 Lord. But that may be queftion*d, and the Jews 
 themfelves differ about it. However, I do not 
 think the objedion can be of any force with him 
 who obferves how St. Paul fpeaks of this matter. 
 
 And by the way, I am inclined to imagine this 
 confideration might at leafl incourage the primi- 
 tive chriftians, in the interpretation which many 
 of them give of the dail'j bread wt are taught to afk 
 in the Lord's prayer. They explain this of the eu- 
 chariltical bread, and upon this they ground the 
 cultam they had among them of eating daily of it, 
 for which end they ufed to carry it from the Lord's 
 *r table^ 
 
of ghing the ^ticharift to Children, 109 
 
 table, and referve it always by them. I will not 
 run into a digreflion upon this ; but leave it to the 
 judgment of thofe who are fkilled in their cuftoms. 
 
 Ohj. 2. Another obje6lion which may be here 
 made is: That the cafe is very different between the 
 Jfraelites and Chrijlians ', the fpiritual m.eaning of the 
 manna and the water were then hardly underftood 
 perhaps by any of the people •, whereas the mean- 
 ing of the bread and wine in the Lord's fupper is 
 plain to every adult chriftian : So that now there 
 may be more reafon for infifting upon a perfons un- 
 derftanding the nature of the ordinance, and coni'e- 
 quently for excluding children, till they are able 
 to do fo. 
 
 Anfw. This objeflion, if throughly confider'd, 
 is fo far from weakening my argument, that it ve- 
 ry much confirms and ftrengthens it. For if thofe 
 facramental reprefentations of Chrift might then 
 be received by the whole body of the people, in- 
 fants and all, though the meaning of them was not 
 underftood, or like to be underftood in any good 
 degree, by them as long as they lived in the world ; 
 much more mav our facramental reprefentations of 
 Chrift be now received by infants, v/ho though 
 they know nothing at prefent of the defign of them, 
 yet will, as they grow up, come to be more and 
 more acquainted therewith. 
 
 Ohj. 3. It may be objefted : Thefe things could 
 not be properly facramental to JfraeU becaufe one 
 of them at leaft, viz. the water out of the rock was 
 applied to ordinary and common ufes -, and parti- 
 cularly 'tis probable they ufed it for wafhing their 
 clothes, as 'tis certain they did for watering their Numb, 
 beafts, ^c. xx. b\ 
 
 Anfw. I might again reply, that this objection 
 is not fo much againft me as againft the apoftle. 
 But I add further : As facramental elements ordi- 
 liarily confift of common things, fo they are capa- 
 ble 
 
no 'Jn Eday in Fcfvour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 ble of being applied to a common ufe ; and when 
 they are thus iifed without any regard to the holy 
 life to which they were primarily intended, they 
 lofe their lacramental nature, that is, ceafe to be 
 holy and become common ; and God allows of 
 their being thus ufed in cafes of necefTity. Let me 
 here give an inftance or two to this purpofe, which 
 I, hope will fully confirm my anfwer. 
 
 And firfl, I inflance in the cafe of David's eating 
 the fhew-bread. This bread was mofl holy, and 
 like the refl of their fervice, was of a facramental 
 nature ; and v/hen it was taken from the table, 
 other bread being put in its room, it did not ceafe 
 to be holy, but was to be eaten in the holy place 
 by the high-priefl, and the priefts only. Thus 'tis 
 Lev. xxiv. exprefly faid : And it fhall he Aaron and his fins ; and 
 9. iheyjhall eat it in the holy place : For it is moft holy un- 
 
 to him of the offerings of the 'Lord made hy fire^ by a per- 
 petual Jiatute. And yet in a cafe of neceflity, and 
 to preferve life, 'tis eaten as common bread, nei- 
 ther by perfons allowed to eat it, nor in the holy 
 place where God commanded the priefts to eat it. 
 And 'tis obfervable how David fpeaks upon this oc- 
 iiSam.xxi.cafion : Tlje bread is in a manner common : That is^ 
 '5> ^- the primary and moil facred ufe of it, to be prefent- 
 ed as a memorial before the Lord, is over ; yea, 
 though it were fanl^ified this day in the veffel: That 
 is, he thought in fuch a cafe of abfolute neceflity 
 he might have taken it off from the table, before 
 the holy ufe of it was over, or the time came for 
 new bread to be put in its room. And this aftion 
 of David was approved by our Saviour, and ap- 
 pealed to as a precedent for his own juflification, 
 Mafth, But he faid unto them \ Have ye not read 'what David 
 ^"' 3>4- did when he was an hungred, and they that were with 
 him ', how he entered into the hoife of God, and did eat 
 the fhew-hread, which was not lawful for him to eat, 
 neither for them which were with him^ hut only for the 
 prieffs ? Since 
 
cfgwh^g the Bticharijl; to Children, 1 1 1 
 
 Since therefore in the cafe of a great and urgent 
 neceflity, God difpenfes with his own exprefs ap- 
 pointment, and that which is certainly facramental 
 ceafes to be fo, and is allowed to be applied to a 
 common ufe •, *tis very confiflent with the apoftle's 
 reprefenting the water of the rock as a facrament, 
 to fuppofe it might be ufed upon other common oc- \ 
 
 cafions, when there was fuch an abfolute neceflity 
 for it, for the prefervation of all the flocks and 
 herds, ^c. 
 
 And as the reformed abroad think the elements 
 in the Lord's fupper are no longer holy, than they 
 are applied to that holy ufe -, but ceafe to have any 
 relation to the body and blood of Chrift, as foon as 
 the folemn fervice is ended •, fo the church of Eng- 
 land feems to have had the fame opinion till the 
 time of the reftoration. Then it was order'd, that 
 *' If any of the bread and wine remain unconfecra- 
 " ted, the curate Ihall have it to his own ufe : But 
 " if any remain of that which was confecrated, it 
 " fhall not be carried out of the church, but the 
 " prieft, and fuch other of the communicants as 
 *' he fhall then call unto him, fhall immediately 
 " after the blefllng, reverently eat and drink the 
 " fame." Whereas before that, if any of the 
 bread and wine remained, whether confecrated or 
 unconfecrated, the curate was to have it for his own 
 ufe, and might fpend it in his family. So that it 
 cannot feem at all ftrange to the generality of the 
 reformed, or to thofe who hold the opinion of the 
 church of England before the reftoration, to fup- 
 pofe the water might be facramental, and yet be 
 allowed to be applied to a common ufe. 
 
 Secondly, I inftance in the cafe of many of the 
 things which were ofFer*d to God, and which the 
 priefts were allowed to fpend in their families. 
 Thefe by being offer'd to God became holy, and 
 accordingly had a facramental nature, and the 
 ■f priefts 
 
1 1 2 Jn EfTay in Fa-votir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 priefts rhemfelves might not eat of them in their 
 uncleannefs ; and they being many of them things 
 taken from God*s houfe and altar, were eaten as a 
 feaft upon a lacrifice ; and yet there were cafes 
 wherein they might be otherwife ufed, and the fa- 
 cramental nature of them muft as much ceafe, as 
 did that of the water of the rock when the beafts 
 drank of it. To this purpofe are the words of the 
 Lev.xxii. law : ^here Jhall no Jiranger eat of the holy thing : A 
 10, II. Sojourner of the p'ieft^ or an hired ferv ant Jhall not eat 
 of the holy thing. But if the priejl buy any foul with his 
 money, he floall eat of it, and he that is born in his 
 houfe : 'They Jhall eat of his meat. So that here a hea- 
 then flave when bought v/ith the priefts money 
 might eat of the holy things, and the reafon is hin- 
 Comp. ted in the laft claufe, they Jhall eat of his meat. Thefe 
 ^er- 7. holy things were the meat or food of the priefts fa- 
 mily, by which he was to maintain it, and there- 
 fore all thofe who in the ftrifteft fenfe belong'd to 
 his family were to be fed therewith. Now in this 
 cafe thefe holy things could not be eaten facramen- 
 tally. And very remarkable is the account which 
 that judicious commentator Mr. Ainfworth here 
 ofives us from Maimonides. " The Hebrew canons 
 " fay : The heave-offering, and the heave-offer- 
 *^' ing of the tithes are to be eaten by the priefts, 
 *' whether old or young, male or female, by them, 
 *' and their Canaanitijk fervants and CJTTEL.'' 
 And if the cattel, as well as Haves, might eat of 
 fuch things notwithftanding their being holy and 
 facramental, there muft be an end of the objedlion 
 againft the facramental nature of the water from 
 the rock, from the cattels drinking of it. 
 
 Let me here further add -, ThatChrift has taught 
 us. in interpreting fuch kind ofpofitive laws, to 
 have a regard to the necefTities not only of men, 
 but of beafts. This he has done in the cafe of the 
 fabbath. For I think there can be no doubt as 
 
 little 
 
ofgwing the Eiicharifl to Children, i if 
 
 little work and bufinefs as that of leading an ox or 
 an afs to water was forbidden on the fabbath day, 
 but the necefTity of God's creatures gave them a 
 difpenfation for the doing this : And this neceflity 
 was fo plain to be allowed that the Jews were al- 
 ways convinced of it, and however fcrupulous 
 about the labbath day, never made any difficulty 
 about the lawfulnefs of this work. And if the ho- 
 linefs of the day was difpenfed with for the fake o£ 
 the necelTities of beafts, why might not the holi- 
 nefs of the water be in like manner difpenfed with 
 for the fame reafon ? I have been the more large 
 in anfwering this objedion, becaufe 1 have found 
 fuch as were for laying great ftrefs upon it. I pro- 
 ceed : 
 
 3. The next iacrament I might mention of the 
 old difpenfation, which infants miight have admi- 
 iiiftred to them, is circumcilion. But however im- 
 propet" it would be wholly to omit the taking notice 
 of this, now I am upon fuch an argument, yet 'tis 
 heedlefs to infift upon it with many words t, becaufe 
 the thing is moil exprefs and plain in the law of 
 God, that it was to be adminiftred to infants, when 
 they were but eight days old ; fo that it has never 
 admitted yet of any debate or contefl. I fliall 
 therefore proceed to mention fome other facra- 
 ments of the old difpenfation which infants were ad^ 
 mitted to. And becaufe the other particular in- 
 itances I fhall name will be feveral feafls which 
 they kept, I think it will not be improper to let 
 the next inftance be this general one. 
 
 4. As religious feafts among the Ifraelites were 
 of a facramental nature, fo children were reckoned 
 proper to be God's guefts at them, and to be a pare 
 of the number of thofe who kept afeaji to the Lord. 
 
 I think all are agreed, that 'tis the nature of the 
 eucharift to be a 'feaft to the Lord. If then it ap- 
 pear, that children of old were reckon'(^ capable of 
 
 I keep- 
 
114 ^^^ Eflay in Fa-roiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 keeping fuch a feaft, there will be good reafon to 
 think they are lb ftill. Now that children were to 
 keep a feaft to the Lord, I will prove by what we 
 find faid concerning them at the going cf the If- 
 Exod.v. i.raelites out ofEgypL When Mofes and Aaron fpeak 
 to Pharaoh, they lay : 'Thus faith the Lord God of 
 Ifrael, Let my people go, that they may hold a feaft to 
 me ill the 'wildernefs. The reafon alleg'd for their 
 going fhews, that all that Pharaoh was required to 
 lend away, were to hold the feaft to the Lord. And 
 is it not evident that children, even the youngeft 
 infants were to go as well as the adult ? Do but ob- 
 ferve, to clear this, the difcourfe between Pharaoh 
 Chap. X. and Mofes afterward. And Mofes and Aaron were 
 ^3 9' Irought again unto Pharaoh : And he faid unto them. 
 Go ferve the Lord your God : But who are they that 
 Jhallgo ? And Moles faid. We will go with our young, 
 and with our old, with otirfons, and with our daugh- 
 ters ; with our flocks, and with our herds will zve go : 
 For we muft hold a feaft unto the Lord. You fee here 
 from the defign of their going, viz. their holding 
 a feaft to the Lord, he argues the neceftity of their 
 childrens going with them. But how could this be 
 a reafon for their childrens going, if they were to 
 have nothing to do with the feaft ? Pharaoh^ an- 
 fwer indeed fhews, he was much of the opinion 
 which is at prefent prevailing, and that he thought 
 children w-ere not fit to ferve the Lord, and there- 
 fore ftiould not be allowed to go and hold a feaft to 
 Ver. 10, him with the grown people. And he [aid unto them, 
 .J J* Let the Lor d he fo with you, as I will let you go, and 
 
 your little ones : Look to it, for evil is before you. Not 
 fo, go now ye that are men, and ferve the Lord, for 
 that you did defire. This anfwer of his is owing to the 
 interpretation he put upon their words, when they 
 Chap. vii. told him, God had faid. Let my -people go, that they 
 *^' may ferve me in the wildernefs : And again. Let tisgo, 
 
 Cihap.v. 3. we pray thee, three days journey into the defart, and fa- 
 
 crifics 
 
of gmng the JEmharifi to Children, n J 
 
 facrijice unto the Lord our God. This, according to 
 his prejudice, was a defire of no more than that the 
 grown men jfhould go, and feem'd a plain excepti- 
 on of little children, that could not ferve God, or 
 facrifice to him •, but you fee God had quite another 
 fenfe of that matter, who makes this a reafon for 
 their going. And I may here obferve, that the 
 feaft they were to hold in the wildernefs appears 
 from the laft text, as well as fome others in the hi- 
 llory, to be a feaft upon facrifices, which makes 
 the allegation the more pertinent to my purpofe. . 
 
 It may perhaps be objeifled by fome againil this 
 argument, that it muft fuppofe the flocks and the 
 herds were to hold a feaft to the Lord, fince that 
 reafon is as much given for their going, as for 
 their little ones. 
 
 But I anfwer : The difcourfe afterward betweeri 
 Mofes and Pharaoh Ihews, why the keeping a feaft 
 to the Lord was a reafon for their taking the flocks 
 and herds with them. And Pharaoh called unto Exod. s. 
 Mofes, and /aid. Go ye, ferve the Lord -, only let your ^4i^U^^ 
 flocks and your herds he flayed : Let your little ones- alfo 
 go with you. And Mofes faid, 'Thou muft give us alfo 
 facrifices^ and hurnt-offerings , that zve ma^ facrifice un- 
 to the Lord our God. Our cattel alfo fhall go vjith us., 
 there fhall not an hoof he left behind : For thereof muft 
 we take to ferve the Lord our God., and we know not 
 with what we muft jerve the Lord until we coins thither., 
 Their holding therefore a feaft unto the Lord made 
 it necefl^ary to take their flocks and herds with 
 them, becaufe upon them ofi'er'd in facrifice the 
 feaft was to be kept. 
 
 Before I difmifs this matter, I will prefent the 
 reader with Mr. Ainfwiorth\ note upon the word 
 that we have rendered holding a feaft. " The firftz-^Exodo 
 " fignification of the Hebrew word j;n is to dance, "^' '' 
 " I Sam. XXX. i6, or to twn round, Pfal. cvii. 27. 
 ^J And fecondly, 'tis applied to hewing a feaft reli- 
 ' I 2 "gioufly, 
 
a 1 6 An EfTay hi Ta^cttr of the ancient J^raUice 
 
 " gioufly, which was with eating,dnnking,dancing, 
 *' andinirth. Judg.xxi.i^^^i.Deut.xv'i.i^.''* And 
 yet tho' their little ones were not capable of thefe 
 things, they were to hold the teaft, and bear a part 
 in it as far as they could. And from this general 
 argument 'tis evident God reckons children fit 
 guefts for a religious, or facramental feaft, or a 
 feaft upon a facrifice, and he requires them to be 
 joined therein. And fmce this is the very nature 
 of the Lord's flipper, and v/e may argue from the 
 JezviPj facraments to our own upon the warrant the 
 apoflle has given us, I think this is a clear proof of 
 the matter I plead for. And thus having cleared 
 their right in general to partake of religious feafls, 
 I fhall go on to mention fome particular fealis. 
 
 5. Another facrament among the Ifraelites of 
 which children might partake, was the pafTover. 
 That the pafTover was a facrament under that dif- 
 penfation, and had in it very much of the nature of 
 the Lord's fupper, will, I fuppofe, be hardly que- 
 ftion'd. It was a memorial of their redemption, 
 and an euchariftical feafl, wherein they bleffed 
 God for it. The pafchal lamb was a facrifice, and 
 fo the feaft kept by the Ifraelites was, as the Lord's 
 fupper, a feaft upon a facrifice. I need not here 
 meddle with the difpute, whether any befide the 
 firft pafTover was properly a facrifice or no. For 
 fince the firft pafTover that was held in Eg'jpt was 
 confefTedly a facrifice, it will make no difference 
 as to my argument, whether we judge the fubfe- 
 quent pafTovers were of the fame nature or not. For 
 if they were, as feems to be implied in the exprefli- 
 Numb. ix. Ons of offerings and bringing an offering to the Lord in his 
 .7a I J. appointed feafon, 'tis evident the feaft held upon the 
 lamb was a feaft upon a facrifice : And if they werp 
 not proper facrifices, yet they were memorials of 
 thofe firft facrifices ofier'd by the people in Egjpt^ 
 and fo muft be confid'-r'd as a kind of feafts thereon. 
 
 'Tis 
 
cfgimng the Encharift to Children, ii^ 
 
 *Tis certain from the apoftle's calling the palTover a 
 facrifice, that one or the other of thefe notions mufl: 
 be allowed. And this lacrifice of the pafTover, as 
 all other facrifices, had a relation to Chrift, and 
 typified his great facrifice whereby we were re- 
 deemed to God ; and more efpecially it did fo in its 
 being roafled whole, without having a bone of it 
 broken. St. Paul therefore compares Chrift with 
 the pafchal lamb, and the Lord's fupper with 
 the pafTover fupper ; and directs the Cdrinthians to 
 keep thechriftian feaft in terms borrowed from that 
 Jewijh feaft. Purge out therefore the old leaven^ that i Cor. v. 
 ye 7nay be a new lump^ as ye are unleavened. For even '^^ ^* 
 Chrijl our pajfover is facrificed for us. 'Therefore let us 
 keep thefeajl^ not with old leaven, ?ieither with the lea- 
 ven of malice and wickednefs y but with the unleavened 
 bread of fincerity and truth. Since then there is fo great 
 a refemblance and analogy between thefe two feafts, 
 it appears reafonable to allow, that if children ufed 
 to receive the one, they ought to receive the other 
 alfo. And indeed as the two firft facraments I men- 
 tioned are pair'd by the apoftle to refemble baptifm 
 and the Lord's fupper, and the firft of them the bap- 
 tizing into Mo/^j in the cloud and the fea, as initiating 
 and preparing for the latter, the eating the ipiritual 
 meat, and drinking the fpiritual drink •, fo we may 
 likewife confider the two facraments of circumcifi- 
 on and the pafTover, as another pair which very 
 much anfv/er to the two facraments of the new te- 
 ftament. And as the qualifications for keeping the 
 pafTover among the Jfraelites, were circumcifion, 
 and the being clean ; fo I think the only qualifica- 
 tions that can be requir'd for a perfons partaking of 
 the Lord's fupper are baptifm, which tke apoftle 
 fuppofes exadly to anfwer to circumcifion, and 
 therefore calls it the. circumcijion of Chrift, and, the Col. ii, i ij 
 being holy. And this latter qualiiication I have 
 already fhewn children have from the exprefs tefti- 
 i 3 _;r :^" mony 
 
J I '8 ^Jn EfTay /;/ Tamur of the ancient TraUice 
 
 mony of the apoftle. So that for ought I fee, all 
 baptiz'd infants have a right to the Lord's fupperj 
 till by rendring themfelves unclean and unholy they 
 deferve to be caft out of the church as heathens and 
 publicans. But I proceed to Ihew the paffover be- 
 Jong'd to children. And here I would ufe this di' 
 ftindlion concerning the feaft of the paffover, that 
 there was fomewhat negative and fomewhat pofi- 
 tive in the inftitution ; or there was a prohibition 
 and a precept. 
 
 I. There was fomewhat negative or prohibited 
 in the inftitution, and that was the eating of leaven^ 
 And this prohibition extended as much to infants, 
 as to any of the adult Ifraelites. Infants were not at 
 the time of this feaft allowed any kind of viftuals 
 that had the leail meafure of leaven in it. For in- 
 deed the Ifraelites were not fuffer'd to have any lea- 
 ven, or any thing leavened, fo much as in their 
 houfes at the time of the paffover. The prohibiti- 
 %%oi. xii. on is moft exprefs : Seven days /ball ye eat unleavened 
 i5j 19. & breads even thefirfi day ye jh all -put away leaven out of 
 xiii. 7. ygj^y, jjQiij'g^^ ■■ . Seven days jljall there be no leaven 
 found in your houfes. Unleavened bread fhall be eaten 
 feven days: And there fJo all no leavened bread be feen 
 with thee, neither fJoall there be leaven feen with thee in 
 all thy quarters. And they were accordingly very 
 Sn Exod. i^ice and careful in putting it away. Mr. Ainfworth 
 aciioi5, from il^(^f;;zo;//'J,?j' tells us, " The i^^^r/?wj expound 
 " it thus, That a man fliould aboliih it in his heart 
 " and count it as duft ; and determine in his heart, 
 «* that he will have no leaven at all within his pow- 
 " er, but whatfoever leaven is in his power, it be 
 ^' as dufty and as a thing whereof he will have no 
 '^« ufe at all. And by the expoiition of the fcribes, 
 '* he is to fearch after leaven in fecret places and in. 
 *^ corners, and to find it out and bring it forth out 
 *^ of all the bounds of his habitation. And fo they 
 '^^ fearch out and aboliih, leaven that night, at the 
 
 " begia- 
 
ofgwing the Eticharifl to Children, Yi^ 
 
 " beginning of the night of the fourteenth day, by 
 " the light of a candle, out of all holes and cor- 
 " ners, ^c And the putting away thereof was 
 " thus ; either they burnt it, or broke it fmall, 
 " and threw it into the wind, or threw it into the 
 " fea." And to that care and diligence they ufed 
 in this fearch, the apoftle alludes in the expreilion 
 I cited but now from him : Purge out therefore the 
 old leaven. 
 
 2. There was foraewhat pofitivein the inftituti- 
 on, or fomewhat requir'd to be done by them, and 
 that was the eating of the lamb with bitter herbs, 
 unleavened bread, ^c. And that children had 
 their part in this, may be argued both from the in- 
 flitution it felf, and from the practice of the Jews 
 as a comment upon it. 
 
 I. I argue children had their part in the pafchal 
 fupper from the inftitutiojt of it. And this, I think, 
 will appear by thefe following confiderations. 
 
 I. The lamb is prefcribed for an houfe or family, 
 without any diftin6lion or exception that can be 
 thought to exclude children from partaking of it. 
 Thus the firfl: inftitution of the pafTover in Egypt is 
 deliver'd in thefe words : Speak y unto all the congre- Exod. xii, 
 gation o/Ifraei, faying, in the tenth day of this month, 3} 4- 
 they fh all take to them every man a latnh, according to the 
 houfe of their fathers, a lamb for an houfe. And if the 
 houfhold he too little for the lamh, let hijn and his neigh- 
 hour next unto his houfe, take it according to the nufnher 
 of the fouls ; every man according to his eating, floall 
 make your count for the lamh, &c. Here is not the 
 leaft hint given, that the little children, who were 
 part of the houfe, fhould not eat of it. And if 
 there be any ftrength in that argument, which fome 
 urge for baptizing infants, that we read in the A^s, 
 of the baptizing perfons and their whole houfes, 
 in fome of which they think it probable there were 
 children j much more will the fame argument hold 
 
 l4 
 
%tS \An EfTay hi Tatmir of the ancient Tra^ice 
 
 food that children partook of the pafchal fupper. 
 'or that being a yearly feaft for the whole congre- 
 gation of IJrael^ it will be not only probable but 
 certain, children muft at all times have been parts 
 of fome of their houlholds. 
 
 2. The exclufive claufes in the law of the paflbr 
 ver, which declare who fhall not partake of it, do 
 no more relate to children, than to any of the adult. 
 The only perfons excepted by the law from keep- 
 ing it at all, are the uncircumcifed i but infants 
 when they were but eight days old were freed from 
 any hindrance of keeping the feall by virtue of that 
 exception. And the hindrance of keeping it at the 
 proper feafon in the firft month, by reafon of any 
 uncleannefs, or a perfons being in a journey, no 
 more concern'd infants than it did any grown If- 
 raelite. 
 
 3. Particular and exprefs notice istakenof chil- 
 Exod. xu.dren in the inftitution. And it Jhall come to pafi, 
 z(>3 ^7' when 'jOur children /hall fay unto you, what mean you by 
 
 this fervice ? 'J'hat ye Jhall fay it is the facrifice of the 
 Lord's pajjover, who pajfed over the houfes of the chil- 
 dren o/Ifrael in Egypt, when he fmote the Egyptians, 
 Chap. xiii. and deliver'^d our houfes. This fervice then was ^ftgft 
 h and memorial, as 'tis elfewhere call'd, of that deli- 
 
 verance which God granted to all the congregation 
 of Ifrael, even to their whole houfes, in the benefit 
 of which the lateft pofterity would have a fhare. 
 And it was but reafonable this fhould be fignified by 
 their partaking of this anniverfary memorial of it. 
 
 Befides, it appears from the words I have quoted, 
 that God defign'd the paflpver for an inflrudive fign 
 to children. And I think all muft grant, that ac- 
 cordingly children ought to have partook in it, as 
 foon as they were capable of asldng the queftion, 
 IF'hat mean you by this fervice ? Or as foon as they 
 were capable of underftanding the anfwer that was 
 to be made to that queftion. And coniidering how 
 
 apt 
 
of gwing the Encharift to Children, 121 
 
 apt children are to afk queftions, and to be inquifi-* 
 tive to know the meaning of any thing they fee 
 more than ordinary, and confidering howfuch figns, 
 and efpecially thole of divine appointment, which 
 are accompanied with a particular blefTing, give a 
 mighty advantage to an inftrinflion, and make it 
 the more eafy to be taken in ; I fay, confidering 
 thefe things, 'tis certain children might upon this 
 account be admitted to the palTover while they were 
 very young. But then it muft be remember'd, that 
 the capacities of children fo exceedingly differ, and 
 fome are able to fpeak and underftand what is faid 
 to them fo much fooner than others, that the age 
 at which they would have been admitted to the 
 paffover, if they had gone by this rule, would have 
 been very uncertain. But though this will not al- 
 low them to be kept from the paffover beyond the 
 age of two or three years at moft ordinarily, 1 can- 
 not fee that there was any obligation upon the Is- 
 raelites to wait for fuch a capacity in their children. 
 And indeed the contrary feems more reafonable to 
 me. For the words plainly fhew, that the chil- 
 dren might come to the paffover without any pre- 
 vious and preparatory knowledge of the meaning 
 of it, and they might come to receive at the feaft 
 it felf their firft inftruftions about it. And if there 
 was no neceffity of fuch preparatory knowledge, 
 they might well enough receive in their very infan- 
 cy, before they could fpeak, or underftand what 
 was faid to them. I can find nothing in the fcrip- 
 ture, that inclines me to think God counted children 
 unclean, unholy, or unfit for his folemn fervice, or 
 that he reckon'd his worihip and ordinances would 
 be profan'd by their communion therein ; but I 
 meet with very much to the contrary. And fup- 
 pofmg the youngeft infants partook of the paffover, 
 the fervice being anniverfary, they could not be at 
 above two., or at moft three paffovers, without 
 
 learn* 
 
122 An EiTay in Facottr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 learning fomewhat by it, and fo anfwering one great 
 end of the inftitution. 
 
 2. That children had their part in the paflbver, 
 may be proved from the praBice of the Jews, 
 Their practice, as is well known, is in many cafes 
 an excellent comment upon the law. How many 
 things have thofe who are moil converfant in their 
 writings brought from them to explain feveral 
 pafTages in the fcripture, which would be other- 
 wife little underftood ? And particularly how much 
 are we indebted to their writings for the under- 
 ftanding we have of the pafibver, nay, and of the 
 Lord's fupper likev/ife, the elements of which we 
 are all fatisfied Chrift borrowed from thence ? 
 
 Let me here further add i that fuppofmg the 
 Jezvs had miftaken the original inftitution, and 
 that God never defign'd, and accordingly the moft 
 ancient Ifraelites would not bear, that children 
 fhould partake of the pafTover ; yet my argument 
 from the practice of the Jews will not loofe its 
 force in the prefent cafe. For if we fuppofe, that it 
 only amounts to an evidence, that in our Saviour's 
 time the Jews ufed to admit children to the pafib- 
 ver •, that alone will be a confiderable confirmation 
 of my opinion, that children fhould be admitted to 
 the Lord's fupper. The reafon of this is, becaufe 
 if the Jews admitted children to the pafibver in 
 Chrift's time, 'tis not likely he would at that feafl: 
 appoint another fo very much refembling it, and 
 the matter of which he took from it ; he would not, 
 I fay, do this, defigning it fiiould be received only 
 by the adult and not by children, unlefs he had 
 made fome exprefs declaration of fuch a defign. But 
 no declaration of this nature is to be met with in the 
 inftitution •, and therefore if Ifiiew that children ufed 
 to eat of the pafibver fupper in Chrift's time, I leave 
 the reader to judge what the confequence muft be. 
 And if the teftimonies which I Iliall allege cpncern- 
 i t ing 
 
of gking the Euchariji to Children. i i 3 
 
 ing the praftice of the Jezvs^ prove any thing at all, 
 it miift be, that this was their praftice about our 
 Saviour's time. 'Tis certain it could not be much 
 after •, forwithin lefs than forty years after his death, 
 Jerufalem was deftroyed by the Romans^ and an end 
 was put to the keeping the pafTover there, and fo to 
 all the ufages they talk of in obferving it. 
 
 Now in order to our flating rightly what their 
 cuftom was in this refpect, 'tis neceffary to confider 
 how they dealt with two forts of infants, viz. thofe 
 who lived at a diflance from Jerufalem^ and thofe 
 who lived in it. After the children oi Ifrael^tx:^. 
 gone out o^ Egypt ^ 'twas not lawful for them to kill 
 and eat the paiTover in every place where they hap- 
 pen'd to dwell. God reftrain'd them to that one 
 place which he chofe, and thither they were bound 
 to go up yearly to keep this feaft. The place which 
 God at laft fixed upon was Jemfalefn, the metropo- 
 lis of the kingdom, where the temple was built for 
 his worfhip, and the ark was fettled. Thither God 
 requir'd all the males to repair three times in the 
 year, that is to their three great feafts, of which 
 the palTover was one. Now as to thofe children 
 which dwelt out of Jerufakfn^ though they might 
 carry any of them they could conveniently to the 
 feaft, yet they did not think themfelves obliged by 
 the law to do it, while they were very young. Lit- 
 tle tender infants were unfit to take a journey, and 
 efpecially a great one, as it would be to thofe who 
 lived m.oft remote from the city. And the law of 
 neceffity and mercy v/as defervedly thought to dif- 
 penfe with their attendance in fuch cafes, as well as 
 that of ficknefs : For God defires mercj and not fa- UoCv'u 6. 
 crifice. However, they look'd upon themfelves 
 bound very early to take up their children with 
 them to the feaft, as Mr. Ainfworth informs us from in Exod. 
 Maimonides. ^ " The J<?wj, fays he, hold from the''"- ^^? 
 ^J. law in £^i?^. xxiii. 14, 17. Deut.xvi, 14, 16, that 
 
 5« every 
 
i 24 Jn EfTay in Fa-imir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 «' every child that could hold his father by the 
 " hand, and go up from Jerufakm [^gates'] to the 
 " mountain of the temple, his father was bound to 
 *' caufe him to go up, and to appear (before God) 
 ^^ with him, to the €nd he might catechize him'* 
 [that is, as he explains it upon Exod. xxiii. 1 7. that 
 he might train hm up'] '« in the commandments. 
 " And whofo was bound to appear, was bound to 
 " keep the feaft." So that their notion was, that 
 they were ordinarily obliged to carry up all their 
 male children to appear before God, and to eat the 
 paffover at Jerufalem^ v/hen they were three or at 
 moft four years old. For there are few children, 
 who are not able at that age to take fo long a walk 
 as that is. 
 
 But then as to the other fort of children, thofe 
 who lived at Jerufakfn^ and were in the very place 
 where the paiTover was to be eaten •, with them 
 they began much fooner. They made them par- 
 take of the feaft as foon and according as they were 
 capable. So Mr. Ainjworth tells us from the fame 
 Ibid. Maimonldes. " Alfo they fay, A child that is able 
 " to eat a morfel of bread, they catechize him in 
 " the commandments, and give him to eat as much 
 " as an olive of the unleavened bread." They had 
 no law or cuflom that hinder'd thofe who were ca- 
 pable of eating of the lamb ; nor do I fee any rea- 
 fon to fufpe6l they did not make children eat of it, 
 as foon as they began to eat flefli. And the eating 
 the quantity of an olive of thatwasreckon'd enough. 
 Temple Thus Dr. Lightfoot tells us : " R. Simeon (in the Je--. 
 Service, <■<■ rufakm Getnara) in the name of R. Jqfhua^ the 
 toth *^" " ^^^ of Levi ^ faith, that olive quantity thatfuffi- 
 P' 95*9. " ^^^^ ^^ difcharge a man that he hath eaten the 
 " paffover, he mull eat it fitting down." But if 
 children were fo young as not to be come to eat 
 iielli, yet if tliey were capable of eating a morfel of 
 bread, they gave them a bit, as big as. an Qliye, of 
 
 that 
 
of gh'ing the Encharijl to Children, 1 25 
 
 that part of the feaft. And every body knows 
 children are very foon capable of this. For though 
 the ancients were longer before they weaned them 
 than we are, yet they followed natures diredion in 
 accuftoming them by degrees to other food as foon 
 as they bred their teeth. Thus Galen * dired's 
 *' to feed a child with milk only, till he breeds his 
 " fore-teeth, but then to accuftom him to more fo- 
 " lid food, as women are by experience taught to 
 " do, firft to bread, afterward to pulfe and fiefh, 
 *' and the like." So that 'tis probable no children 
 that were born and continued at Jeru[alevi could, 
 upon the account of meer infancy, mifs of parta- 
 king, at leaft in fome meafure, of the paiTover 
 above once, and if they happen'd to be born pre- 
 fently after the time of the paffover, they might 
 not mifs even once of eating as much of it as was 
 thought abfolutely neceffary for grown perfons. I 
 think therefore there is a great miftake in theobfer- 
 vation of the learned Qrotius^ who tells us, i" " That 
 " children were carried by their parents to the 
 '' temple at twelve years old, Luke ii. 42. And 
 " from that age they began to eat of the paffover, 
 *' and other holy things." This is contrary to the 
 Jewifh accounts of their pradice. Nor is there any 
 fufficient ground for his affertion in that text he re- 
 fers to concerning our Saviour. It can hardly be 
 imagined, that his parents who were fo devout and 
 religious, and ''Joent to Jerufalem every year at theUxkdl^t: 
 feaft of the paffover, would, in fpite both of the law 
 
 of 
 
 * T§i(peiv re 'UcuS'icv yct\ci}tji y.'oi'a' 'EyriJ^dv 3 (^-vtryi rod 
 
 yj.'^cu r^9;pTTi. "Q.<TTi§ « )C) r^ro dv^o 7« -sreifii S'tS'a.y^b-.aau 
 'z^-oi^aiv diyvvcuKii' ^ A{j'd jJAuroi 'T^^arov' ksiBiii }Cj 6(j'7r§ieoi> 
 Ti }c, K^zcov. Ka. Galen, de fanicate cuenda. Lib. I. c. 10. p. 55. 
 f Anno XII. filii a parentibus ad templum ducebantuTj Lttc. 
 II. c. 42,. Ab eo tempore incipieban: de pafchace &: aliii facris 
 yefci. Grot, in Bxod. xii. 26. 
 
126 'Jn JEfTay //; Fa'votir of the ancient TraWce 
 
 of God, and the ciiflom of the Jeivs, defer taking 
 him with them to the feaft, till he was twelve years 
 old. And indeed had that been the firft time of 
 Chrift's going to the feaft, 'tis not unlikely his pa- 
 rents would have confider'd his being unacquainted 
 "\vith the way he was to go, and the ufual method 
 of returning home in companies, and fo would have 
 Luke ii.44. taken a little more care of him than they did when 
 they travell'd a days journey, without knowing cer- 
 tainly, whether he was in the company belonging 
 to them, or not. The evangelift gives not any hint 
 of that reafon Grotius alleges ; but he relates what 
 happen'd at that paffover, becaufe it was the firft 
 eminent and public difcovery our Saviour made of 
 his extraordinary wifdom and undcrftanding. 
 
 Grotius alleges alfo a teftimony out o^Jofephus to 
 confirm his opinion , but that feems to be lefs to 
 his purpofe than his former plea. Hfrcanus was fent 
 by his father to make a ^xdi^-i\x.2X Alexandria to king 
 Ptolojny When he came thither, and artfully pre- 
 vented his receiving the money he was to lay out 
 for the prefent, the king fent to him to know the 
 reafon why he being fent to him by his father, had 
 tiever yet come into his prefence. And to this mef- 
 fage he return'd anfwer : * " That he was under a 
 *' law, v/hich forbids any one to tafte Cti a facrifice 
 *' before he came to the temple and had facrificed 
 ^« to God : And that in like manner he had not 
 " waited on him, becaufe he v/aited to receive 
 '' thofe prefents from his father which he might of- 
 " fer to him who had been his benefador." And 
 is it not very odd to ftrain fuch a jeft as this to make 
 it fignify atwhat age perfons ufed to begin to attend 
 
 the 
 
 * "Oti vol/.©- eri <!s-a,f dvja kokvcov tov "^la . v^iu] a y5V(rct^ 
 ^vcrictgy ^eiv eii to h^iv g/\9;', y^ d-vcri rS Q-jd. Kctjct /« tS" 
 ■70V Tov ^oyi(j-{J.QVy iS"' d'j]lv W^tiv <u-^i eiv]oVy 'nnejty-ivovjd. 
 ^SiP^ }toiAa-cu tS '^ci\^i iui^ykri;! '^^ooy.yco, Jofeph. Ant. Lib» 
 XII, c. 4. p. 405. 
 
cf giving the Etichariji to Children. \ if 
 
 the JrcviJ/j feafts ? Was not the common cuftom, 
 both among Jezvs and Gentiles^ who never ufed to 
 partake of the facrifice before it was ofiPer'd, fuffici- 
 ent to be the ground of fuch a jeft as this ? Befides, 
 if the thing be taken ftriftly, 'tis not true, that per- 
 fons might not eat of any facrifice before they of- 
 fer'd it themfelves. Many might eat of the facri- 
 fice, who were not allow'd to offer or wave it, andrzW. kmt 
 it was fuiHcient if this was done by another for them,^" Lev, hi 
 as it mio;hr be for infants who could not do it them- ^* 
 felves. And befide that, perfons might appear at 
 the temple and eat the pafTover before they were 
 twelve years old, as I have already proved. And 
 thus I have made it plain, that the pafTover ufed to 
 be eaten by children, even infants ; for children, 
 when they begin to eat a morfel of bread, or a piece 
 of flefh as big as an olive, are as much infants with 
 reference to a capacity of underftanding fuch a fer- 
 vice, as a child newly born. And if infants were 
 only kept from the Lord's fupper upon the account 
 of a natural incapacity of receiving the elements, as 
 that was the only reafon why any infants can ever 
 be fuppofed kept off from the pafTover, I fhouid 
 not have meddled with this argument •, but I reckon 
 the cafe vaftly different, when they are debarr'd the 
 communion of God's church upon the pretence of a 
 moral incapacity for it, which feems to me to imply 
 fuch a flight and difregard toward them both in God 
 and man, as I can fee no reafon from the fcripture 
 to attribute to him, or to v/arrant our ufing toward 
 them. 
 
 And methinks it deferves to be remarked, that 
 when our Lord borrowed the elements he appointed 
 to be ufed in his own fuipper from the pafchal fup- 
 per, and was at his liberty to have pitch'd upon 
 any other, he fhouid fix upon that which was rec- 
 koned the firfl; thing infants v»'ere capable of eating, 
 and which was accordingly the firfl thing they ufed 
 
 CO 
 
128 'Jn EfTay in Fa-vour of the ancient TrcMice 
 
 to give them of the paffover. For, as I obferved 
 before, as foon as a child could eat a morfel of 
 bread, they gave him a bit of the unleaven'd bread 
 they ufed at the paffover, as big as an olive. 
 But I will not lay any great ftrefs upon this, nor the 
 way the apoftle mentions, of keeping our chriitian 
 feaft allufive hereto ; het us keep the fe aft with the 
 unleavened bread offincerity and truth. 
 
 Let me, before I leave this matter, fuggefl to 
 the reader, that the confideration of what has been 
 faid concerning childrens eating the paffover, may 
 reafonably go a great way toward removing a ftrong 
 prejudice that lies in mens minds againft infant com- 
 munion in the Lord's fupper. For the paffover was 
 as truly appointed in remembrance of their delive- 
 rance out oi^ Egypt ^ as the Lord's fupper is in re- 
 membrance of our redemption by the death of 
 Chrift. And fmce the ordinances are both fo far of 
 the fame nature, and infants were then as incapable 
 of remembring and underftanding the one, as they 
 are now of remembring or underftanding the other ; 
 why iliould the fame incapacity be a greater hin-^ 
 drance to them now than it was then ? And thus I 
 have finifh'd what I defign'd concerning this fealO: of 
 the paffover. 
 
 6. Another fcaft of the old difpenfation upon 
 which children might attend, was the feaft of weeks 
 or pentecoft. 
 
 7. Another fuch was the feaft of tabernacles. 
 'Twas the fame law which commanded all the 
 males to appear before the Lord at thefe and the 
 paffover •, and 'tis but reafonable to fuppofe it was 
 interpreted alike in all the three cafes. No doubt 
 the Ifraelites thought, the fame perfons who might 
 hold the feaft of the paffover, might likewife hold 
 both the others, the feaft of weeks, and that of ta- 
 bernacles : And confequently they could not think 
 infants were excluded from any of thefe three feafts, 
 
 which 
 
ofgmng the Eucharift to Children. Y'29 
 
 which are fo often join*d together. Three times in See Exod. 
 the year all thy males /ball appear before the Lord God. xxii'..j4. 
 And the pradice of the Jews we find was agreeable xxJ-j^.'^j, 
 to this interpretation. And fo the reader will eafily ^^ ceuj 
 fee, if he will confult Mr. Ainfworth.- But fince \\n, 16. 
 have faid fo much concerning the paffover, I will on Exod. 
 not repeat the fame things, but leave the reader to ^^'"'' ^7* 
 apply in his own thoughts thofe confiderations to^.fr^^* , 
 thefe two reaits. 
 
 8. Children were allowed to partake of the facri- 
 fices which were ofFer*d upon God's altar, and to 
 eat at thofe euchariltical feafls which were held up- 
 on thofe holy things. The apoftle in treating con- 
 cerning the Lord's fupper takes notice of this. Be- i Cor. x. 
 hold Ifrael after the flejh : Are not they which eat of the '^^> 
 facrificeSy partakers of the altar ? Whatever was of- 
 fer'd in facrifice, did by its being offer'd become in 
 a peculiar manner the Lord's : And confequently 
 whoever partook thereof did eat at God's table or 
 altar, which was properly facramental^ and beto- 
 ken'd their friendfhip, alliance, and communion 
 with him. And I fee no reafon why we fhould 
 make the leaft doubt that infants ufed to partake 
 thus of God's altar. 
 
 The portions of the facrifices which were taken 
 from the altar, and were to be eaten, were of two 
 forts, and children might partake of both. 
 
 I. One fuch part of the facrifice belonged to him 
 that brought it. And he was at his liberty to in- 
 vite whom he pleafed to partake of this, provided 
 only they were clean. And as for the flejh [viz. of Lev. vJI, 
 the peace-offerings] all that le clean JIj all eat thereof. ^^" 
 Upon which place Mr. Ainfworth fays : " Here 6V-in joc, 
 " lomon Jarchi noteth, that whereas 'tis faid in 
 *' Deut. xii. 27. And thou /halt eat the flejh ; left any 
 " fhould fay, perhaps none may eat of the peace- 
 *' offering lout the owners that bring it, therefore 'tis 
 «* faidj every ons that is clean Jhall eat (or, may eat) 
 
 K « the 
 
130 j4n ElTay in 'Fcwoiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 *' the flefh.^* And we find particularly they were 
 allowed to let their houlholds, of which their chil- 
 Deut,xii.7.dren werea part, to par.take of it. And there \^\n 
 the place the Lord fhall chufe] 'jejhall eat before the 
 Lord your God, and ye /hall rejoice in all that ye put 
 your hand unto, ye and your houJJoolds, wherein the 
 Lord thy God hath blejfed thee. " Houfes, fays Mt. 
 " Ainjworth, that is, houjholds, children and fuch 
 *' like, as the Chaldee expoundeth it, men of your 
 *« houfes: And fo Mofes explaineth it in ver. 12." 
 And fo he does very fully in thefe words : And ye 
 Jhall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your fons, 
 and your daughters, and your men- ferv ants, and your 
 maid-fervants, &c, 
 
 2. Another part of the facrifice belonged to the 
 priefts. And this again was of two forts. 
 
 1. The prieft's portion in feveral things might 
 be carried out of the temple, and be eaten in his 
 private family, and by any that belong'd to his 
 family, young or old, the former exception only 
 being obferved, that they were clean, Lev, xxii. 7, 
 And indeed this was the food of his family, and ic 
 might as freely be given to children, or be put in- 
 to any of their vid:uals, as it could be eaten by any 
 grown perfon. And yet thefe were all holy things, 
 as appears by God's calling them fo, and by the 
 laws he gave concerning them. 
 
 2. There were other of the holy things belonging 
 to the priefts which might not be carried out of the 
 temple, but were to be eaten in it. Thefe were 
 moil holy •, and yet the children of the priefts and 
 levites might, I think, partake of thefe while very 
 young, even from three years old. There is a no- 
 table place to this purpofe, in the account given us 
 of the order Hezekiah appointed for the priefts and 
 
 2 Chron. levites. And Kore the Jon of Imnah, the levite, the 
 xxxi. 14, -porter toward the eaft, was over the free-will-offerings 
 M,i6, ^7,oj^Qq^^ iQ dijlribute the oblations of the Lord, and the 
 
 tnoji 
 
ofgimng the Eticharift to Children, 1 3 1 
 
 mfi holy things. And next him were Eden, and Mi- 
 hiamin, ^WJefhua, ^;^J Shemaiah, Amariah, and 
 Shecaniah, in the cities of the priejis^ in their fet office^ 
 to give to their hrethren by courfes^ as well to the great as 
 to the fmall. Befide their genealogy of males from 
 three years old and upward, even unto every one that 
 entereth into the houfe of the Lord, his daily portion 
 for their fervice in their charges according to their 
 courfes. Both to the genealogy of the priejls by the 
 houfe of their fathers, and the levites from twenty years 
 old and upward, in their charges by their courfes. And 
 to the genealogy of all their little ones, their wives^ 
 and their fons, and their daughters, through all the con- 
 gregation : for in their fet office they fanElified themfelves 
 in holinefs. Whatever the obfcurity may be of this 
 paflage in other refpedls, yet it plainly enough 
 Ipeaks of males tha.t fro?n three years old and upward^ 
 enter'd into the houfe of the Lord, had their fervice, 
 charge, courfe, and daily portion there. Befide the 
 covenant with Ifrael, there was one peculiarly with 
 Levi. And as the levites were the Lord's inftead 
 of the firft-born of Ifrael, fo they were numbered 
 from a month old and upward, that is from the ve- 
 ry time when the firft-born were to be redeemed. 
 So that they were reckon'd in a peculiar manner 
 the Lord*s, and initiated as it were to his fervice 
 from a month old •, and we find them from that age 
 reckon'd among thofe that had a charge belonging 
 to them. In the number of all the males [of the Koha- Numb, iii, 
 thites'] from a month old and upiOard, were eight thou- ^-B. 
 fand and fix hundred, keeping the charge of the fan^ua- 
 ry. And the only reafon why they might not be 
 much about the temple before they were three 
 years old, was to avoid, I fuppofe, the great trou- 
 ble they would before that age make there. But 
 that they might about that age be in the holy place, 
 and in fome fort minifter there, is plain from the in- 
 Itance oiSatnuel^ whofe mother carried him up, as 
 K 2 foon 
 
1 3 i Jn EfTay in Fa^votir of the ancient TraUicc 
 
 I Sam. i. foon as fhe had weaned him, to appear before the Lor dy 
 **• and to abide therefor ever. And 'tis faid, fhe brought 
 
 yer. 14. ^^-^ f.g ^lyg jjQj^j'g Qj' ijjg Lord, and the child was youngs 
 
 And immediately after the account of his father's 
 Chap. ii. returning home, 'tis added : And the child did mini- 
 "• fier unto the Lord before Eli the priefi. And there can 
 be no queftion made of his eating the holy things, 
 and living upon the oblations of God's houfe, while 
 he minillred there. Commentators labour hard to 
 ftrain the account given of Samuel, that fo he may 
 be thought to have been grown up, before he mi- 
 nifter'd to the Lord : But 'tis evident to any impar- 
 tial reader, that this was as foon as he was weaned ; 
 and we cannot well fuppofe him to have been above 
 three years old. And indeed, had they taken due 
 notice of that place I have quoted from the Chronicles 
 concerning that age, they might have faved them- 
 felves the needlefs trouble of fo many vain guefles. 
 
 And if we look to the law concerning the eating 
 
 of thefe moft holy things, we find that whereas the 
 
 other holy things were given to the priefts, for 
 
 themfelves, their fons, and their daughters, thefe 
 
 were to be eaten by themfelves, and their fons alone, 
 
 nor are any of their male children difallow'd to eat of 
 
 Numb. ^ them. In the moft holy place (halt thou eat It ; every male 
 
 ^comi ^^' -^^^^ ^^^ ^^' -^^^ y^^ ^^ follows : Itjhall be holy unto thee, 
 
 Deuc* XV. ^ovj fmce the Lord's fupper does fo exadly an- 
 
 20. and fwer to thefe feafts upon facrifices ; why fhould not 
 
 Mr. Ainf. infants now as well partake of that, as they certain- 
 
 tme tfpon ]y (jjj of the other.? Since they are not now unclean, 
 
 but holy J what reafon can there be to exclude 
 
 them ? We ought certainly to be very cautious, 
 
 that we take not upon us to call any common or 
 
 unclean which God has cleanfed and fanftified. 
 
 Nay, we ought to be very careful that we do not by 
 
 our opinions or practices reprefent Chrift as a mini- 
 
 fter of uncleannefs, making thofe unfit for his fer- 
 
 vice and communion with him in his ordinances, 
 
 who 
 
ofgimng the 'Eucharifl to Children. i 3 ^ 
 
 who were always counted clean and holy, and fit to 
 bear a part in his fervice before his coming. And 
 thus I have done with this argument for infant's 
 right to the Lord's fupper, from the right they had 
 to facraments under the old dilpenfation. 
 
 IX. Baptized infants may be admitted to com- Arg, IX. 
 munion with the church in prayers ; and therefore 
 they may in the Lord's fupper. 
 
 That baptized infants may be prefent and have 
 communion with the church in prayers, I take for 
 granted, from the pradice of all the pedobaptifts 
 in the world, who, of whatever party or perfuafion 
 they are, without any difficulty or fcruple permit 
 fuch children to be prefent in their congregations at 
 the time of prayer. And this I fuppofe they do up-, 
 on a convidtion of the warrant they have for it from 
 fcripture : Nor do I make the leafl doubt of their 
 being in the right as to this pradlice. The only 
 thing that I queflion here is, whether this be done 
 by all of them upon a good principle and foundati- 
 on ? Many feem to think baptized children are fuf- 
 fer'd to be at the prayers of the church, becaufe 
 the church has no reafon to exclude any perfon who 
 will come to them j and they think that heathens 
 have a right to be prefent at them if they pleafe. I 
 am very much miftaken, if their fentiments are juft 
 in this matter, or if perfons have any other right 
 to a communion in the prayers of the church, than 
 what they have as members of the church, admitted 
 into it by baptifm. And I Ihould be glad to know 
 oixhok pedobaptijls^ who go upon the contrary fup- 
 pofition, what communion with the church they 
 admit infants to, when they baptize them. What 
 one privilege in the church do they admit them to ? 
 Right to communion in the other facrament 'tis 
 fuppofed they have none : Right to communion in 
 players they are reckon'id to have in common with 
 K 3 hea^ 
 
134 >^^^ Effay in Fa'voitr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 heathens, antecedently to their baptifm. So that 
 for ought I fee, the only privilege beftow'd upon 
 them (i fpeak only with reference to the communi- 
 on of the chrillian church, of which they are made 
 members by baptifm) is this, that if ever they Ihall 
 think fit to come to the Lord's table, they fhall not 
 be baptized over again. 
 
 That I may ipeak my mind freely, which I may 
 the rather do, fince I have the ancient chriflians, 
 and fome of the modern on m.y fjde, our cuftoms 
 and praflices feein to have perverted our notions of 
 right : Which will make me the lefs wonder if this 
 argument appears to many perfons to carry no 
 llrength in it. I think in the mofl primitive church 
 none were allowed to be prefent at any of their 
 prayers, but fuch as had a right to partake of the 
 Lord's fupper. And indeed the only ordinary fla- 
 ted prayers they feem then to have made in the 
 church, were at the adminiflration of this ordinance. 
 Heathens, catechumens of all forts, and excommu- 
 nicated perfons were fuffer'd to be prefent at the 
 reading of the fcriptures, and at the exhortations, 
 fermons, or homilies ; but none might remain in 
 the affembly but the faithful at their prayers. 
 Hence the cuftom was when they went to admini- 
 fler the Lord's fupper, to bid thofe * depart who 
 could not pray. Whence Chr'jfoftom thus fmartly 
 checks thofe who did not communicate +, alleging 
 they were unworthy to receive : || " Then you are 
 unworthy, fays he, of the prayers j" and again: 
 Then you are unworthy of a communion in the 
 prayerso 
 
 The 
 
 «,(. 
 
 * 'A'tjaOsts 0/ /y.M S'vvcly^oi S'm^yijcu. Chryf. Horn. III. 
 in Ephef. 
 
 tv^Tii. Ibib. 
 
 9«!ri. B;c2'y }y 'f Kt>:yeovia,i •j' oy r gi/;3^a<V. Ibid. 
 
ofghing the Eucharifl to Children, 1 3 5 
 
 1'he ancient cuftom was, when the reading of 
 the Icriptures and the exhortation from them was 
 over, the deacon required the catechumens, and 
 fuch as did not communicate, to depart. I grant 
 there were fome prayers, at which fome of the ca- 
 techumens at leaft might be prefent, which I fup- 
 pofe were fuited and adjufted to their particular 
 cafe ; but this I believe was a defleftion from the 
 more ancient pradice. However this is certain, 
 they would not fuffer any catechumen, or any un- 
 baptized perfon to be prefent when they ufed the 
 prayers that belonged to the faithful, and particu- 
 larly when they faid the Lord's prayer. Hence 
 Chryfofiom fpeaks in his fermons of that prayer as a 
 myftery to all but communicants, juft in the fame 
 terms as he ufes to fpeak of the Lord's fupper, 
 * " If (fays he, fpeaking of our being reconciled to 
 *' our brethren) we do this aright, we may with a 
 *' pure confcience come to that holy and terrible 
 *' table, and with boldnefs fay thofe words which 
 *' are inferred in the prayer. The initiated know 
 ^' what I mean." He means they might then with 
 boldnefs ufe that petition in the Lord's prayer ; For- 
 pve us our debts, as we forgive our dehters. And 'tis 
 evident from this paifage, that as they ufed the 
 Lord's prayer at the facrament, fo they never ufed 
 it on any other occafion, when any befide the ini- 
 tiated, that is the baptized, the faithful, or com- 
 municants were prefent. And thus Gregorius Tbau- 
 maturgus. j| " Let him that is a hearer of the fcrip- 
 " tures and the inftru6lions \he means one fort of the 
 K 4 cate- 
 
 ^A^. "'lacKXiv o\ yai^vniAvot to Aiy'^fxivov. Chryfoft. Hoin, 
 XXVII. inGenef. p. 55 b'. 
 
 hi<Qr6)j }o fcj? ttf <ac3-« 't^ffivxni* Epift. canonicaj Ca.a. XI. . 
 
J 36 '^An EfTay in Tamm of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " catechumens'] be rurn'd out, and not be thought 
 *' worthy to be at the prayers.** Nay, fee to 
 what a length Chryfojlofii carries this matter, where 
 he is exhorting perfons to prepare for baptifm. 
 * " A catechumen, fays he, is no ways related to 
 *' a chriftian. For he neither has the fame head, 
 " nor the fame father, nor the fame city, nor food, 
 '^ nor garment, nor table, nor houfe ; but has all 
 " thefe quite different. For he has all thefe upon 
 *' the earth, the chriftian has them all in heaven : 
 " To the one Chrift is king, to the other fm and 
 " the devil : The one has Chrift for food, the other 
 " has only that which putrifies and is corrupted : 
 *' And again, as for cioathing, the one has the 
 " work of moths, the other the Lord of angels ; 
 " the city of the one is heaven, of the other the 
 " earth. Since then we have nothing in common, 
 *' what affinity, I pray, can there be between us? '* 
 In fpeaking of Chrift as our cioathing, he refers to 
 Rom. xiii. the words of the apoftle ; Put ye on the Lord Jefus 
 H* Chrift, or fome fuch like place ; but how our gar^- 
 
 ments are the work of moths I don't underftiand, un- 
 lefs he ftiould mean by <^^^v,filk worms, or perhaps 
 inftead of that ftiould be read (^^m. However that 
 be, we cannot wonder, that when they did not rec- 
 kon the catechumens to have the fame father with 
 the faithful, they would not let them join with them 
 in the prayers wherein they addrefs'd themfelves to 
 God as a father. And indeed the ancient chriftians. 
 
 were 
 
 Xriv T aivTw' in t/^ti ■vctrk^y^ rov tlvjlv' «x. I%« 'w'oKiv r dv- 
 %V » r^com' iK ivS'vixa.' » T^.m^ctv' in. jtKictv' AKKa.'iTa.vTet 
 
 J^^clCohQ-' T§v^{} T-ira jxiv Xe<r©-' iKeivu 3 >j (xn'Trouivn 
 
 ^•ri ^wi Chj-yfoU. Horn, XXIY. in Joan. 
 
,C. II. 
 
 pfgmng the Eucharifi to Children, 137 
 
 were very exad: in the care they ufed about the 
 perfons with whom they join*d in prayer. If any Can. App. 
 one was po/TefTed he might not pray with the faith- 79. ihid. 
 fill. If any clergyman pray'd with heretics, he^* 4^ -^^^^ 
 was to be fufpended. Nay, if any of the faithful 
 prayed with an excommunicated perfon, though it 
 were in a private houfe, he was to be fufpended. 
 And the like ftridnefs did they ufe toward the cate- 
 chumens, forbiding the faithful to pray with them 
 as well as with heretics. We have an exprefs tefti- 
 mony to this purpofe in the Apojlolkal Confiitntions. 
 * " Let not one of the faithful pray with a catecha- 
 *' men in a private houfe, for 'tis not fit that a 
 ** baptized perfon fhould be defiled with one thac 
 *' is unbaptized. Let not a pious perfon pray with 
 ^' a heretic, no, not in a private houfe : For what 
 *' fellowjhip is there between light md darknefs P 
 
 And I can't but think this v/as the cuftom of the 
 church in Jujiin Martyr^s time, and that then they 
 never fufFer'd any of the catechumens to. be prefenc 
 at any of their prayers in their public alTemblies, 
 before the very day when they were baptized. 
 ■f " Thofe, fays he, who are perfuaded and believe 
 the things we teach to be true, andpromife to live 
 accordingb^ , are taught to pray and feek of God 
 with fifLing, the forgivenefs of their former fms, 
 we alfo praying and faf!:ing with them. Then 
 we lead them to the place where inhere is water. 
 
 This 
 
 ^iKcuQv rov [/.iiy.vA(jtivov uija, to di-^vYiTu (XvfJifiLoKvviSj^- Eva- 
 
 qicol) asfihi (Tk'qt©-; Conftit. Ap. Lib. VIII, c. 54. 
 
 •j- "Oaoi a.v 'sreiSrcoffi )y ■7si'rivu(7tv «6A.n9« ravja ta i<p' ii[xav 
 
 ^av eivjoii. "E-^-ti/et otyoVTV^ S<p' Vi^h^O. uS'u^ 'iiij kK, Jwt^ 
 M. Apol. a . p. 1 5 9. 
 
7 
 
 1 3 8 'An EiTay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 This falling and praying appears to be on the 
 day they were baptized, i. By the church's fall- 
 ing and praying with them, 2. By the profeflion 
 and promife he fpeaks of as made by them, which 
 all knov/ ufed to be made at baptifm. 3. By what 
 he immediately adds, that then they were led to the 
 water. 4. By his never mentioning any other pray-f 
 ers of the church, but thcfe and thofe at the Lord's 
 fupper. 
 
 And if we confider the reafon they alleg'd for 
 their obferving this order, does it not appear to be 
 very fubflantial ? How is it that God is worfhiped 
 and prayed to in the chriilian church, but as to a 
 Father in Chrill ? And are not the addreffes there 
 made to him as fuch in the name of the whole af- 
 fembly ? There is good reafon for this, and we aft 
 confillently with our felves, when none but chrifli- 
 ans are prefent at our prayers : For the whole vifi-^ 
 ble church now, as v/ell as anciently under the old 
 difpenfation. Hand in this relation to God, and are 
 reckon'd his children. But how can this be apply'd 
 to thofe that are out of the vifible church .? I own 
 therefore the notions of the ancients feem much 
 more agreeable to me, than thofe which are enter- 
 tain'd by fome in our time. 
 
 Nor can I meet with any thing in the fcripture, 
 that would perfuade one that the pra6lice in the 
 apofbles days greatly diiler'd in this refpe6l from 
 that of the following times. However promifcuous 
 the alTemblies were at the apoflles preaching, yet 
 I don't remember any inflance of their praying be- 
 fore unbaptized heathens. The only inflance which 
 I think can be pretended, is that of the apoflle Paul 
 
 Ads _ before the heathen mariners. And when be had ihus. 
 
 sxvu. 35. Jpoken^ he took bread, and gave thanks to God in pre- 
 fence of them all, and when he had broken, he began 
 to eat. But I think this can hardly be thought a 
 fufHcient objedion. As nothing is here fet down of 
 
 what 
 
ofgmng the Emharifl to Children. 1 2 51 
 
 what he faid in his giving thanks, fo nor is it faid 
 Jthat he did this with an audible voice : And it feems 
 ;to me much more natural and ealy to luppole that 
 jhis giving thanks was in much the lame way as is 
 common among chriftians in our day, when any one 
 [Comes to a table after grace is faid, he fays it for 
 himfelf, but does it in prefence of all at the table, 
 who by his behaviour perceive what he isdoing,tho' 
 ;they hear not one word of what he fays. This I 
 !i judge to have been the cafe here : The apollle took 
 *\tread, but did not do it carelefly and prophanely,but 
 ,as he gave thanks before he eat, fo his behaviour 
 jlhow'd he was doing it, though he fpake not aloud. 
 r But if any infift upon it, that his gi-ving thanks to 
 ^God'm xho. prefence of them all, muil be in their hear-r 
 jing as well their prefence j though this is not iri 
 [the text, yet even then it will not come home to 
 jthe cafe in hand. For even upon that fuppofition, 
 jthere was nothing of that worfhip which was pecu- 
 liar to a chriftian aflembly, but a bare blefling God 
 iipon an ordinary and common occafion, wherein 
 ill were equally concerned. And certainly 'tis ve- 
 ry probable that if the apollle gave thanks before 
 heathen mariners, he would do it in fuch a way as 
 jhe knew they would readily join with him ; that is 
 ;dire6ling his thankfgiving to the true God, without 
 making mention of Chrift ; certainly he did-not ad- 
 drefs himfelf to God as being through Chrift the 
 father of him and his whole company. If therefore 
 he audibly gave thanks, he did it in fome fuch way 
 as the Jews ufed to do at their meals, blelTmg God 
 'as a creator, for making and bellowing fuch food. 
 I Perhaps fome Englifh readers may think my 
 iopinion is overthrown by that text, A^sxw'i, 16. 
 \Andit came to pafs as we went to prayer, a certain 
 damfel pffefs'd with afpirit of divination met us. The 
 expreffion went to prater in Englifh fignifies often the 
 very a^ of praying : But there is nothing of this here 
 
 in- 
 
140 Jn Effay in Vatmir of the ancient ^raUice 
 
 intended. The word 'sro^d-^i^kvuv will not bear that 
 fenfe : But certainly denotes their walking or going 
 to the place were they were to pray. And though 
 kneeling or (landing were poftures ufed in focial and 
 folemn prayer, yet no one will fuppofe that walking 
 was ever thought a proper pofture for it. But be- 
 jfides, it Ihould not be rendered, Js we went topra'j- 
 rr, but as we went to the profeucha^ or oratory^ or 
 place of prayer. And fo the the Syriac renders it, 
 as we went to the houfe of prayer. And fo the fame; 
 word is ufed in this fenfe, ver. 13. where 'tis in like 
 manner render*d by the Syriac. So that here is not 
 the leaft hint that the poffefs'd damfel was prefent? 
 at the apoftles, or even the Jews prayers. 
 
 And whereas fome have argued againft the cuftom 
 of the ancients from the apoftle'sdifcourfe, i Cor.xw. 
 as though unbelievers might come in and be prefent 
 at theirprayers,Ithinkthatmuftbe owing to acare- 
 lefs reading of the chapter. For there is no manner 
 of reafon to underftand what he fays, ver. 1 6. as 
 Ipoken concerning unbeHevers. Elfe when thoujhalt 
 Mefs with thefpirit^ bow Jh all he that occupieth the room 
 ef the unlearned^ [ay cmsn at thy giving of thanks,, fee- 
 ing he underflandeth not zvhat thou fayefi ? He had not 
 as yet faid any thing of unbcHevers coming in among 
 them ; and doubtlefs in fuch a church there muft 
 have been many chriftians who occupied the room 
 of the unlearned. Befides v/hat he is there aiming 
 at, is to llicw Iiow they Ihould do what he had men- 
 tioned ver. 12. that is, fo manage their fpiritual- 
 gifts, as that they might excel to the edifying of the 
 iburch. And as to v/hat he lays afterward, ver.i'^. 
 If therefore the whole church he come together into one 
 piace^ and all f peak with tongiies., and there come in. 
 zhofethat are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not fay 
 that ye are mad ? It is occafion enough for him to 
 ipeak after that manner, if unbelievers might come 
 in among them in any partof the time of their being 
 
 -, afleni- 
 
of ghing the Bnchariji to Children, 141 
 
 affembled, wherein they fpake with tongues ; and 
 that they certainly did fometimes when they were 
 not praying. And that he refers not to praying, 
 but to inftru<5ling in an unknown tongue, may ap- 
 pear very probable from what in the next words he 
 oppofes to It : Ver. 24. But if all prophefj^ and therg 
 come in one that helieveth not, or one unlearned, he is 
 convinced of all, and he is judged of all. So that his 
 whole difcourfe feems to me perfeftly confiftent 
 ! with the fuppofition of their not allowing any hea- 
 , thens to be prefent at the prayers of the church. 
 j To apply this now to the purpofe for which I 
 ! bring it ; if perfons baptifm be luppofed the ground 
 and foundation of their right to communicate in the 
 i prayers of the chriftian church, I can't but think 
 the confequence of my argument will be good ; that 
 jif infants may have communion with the church in 
 Iprayers, they may alfo in the eucharift. The rea- 
 ifon of the confequence is, becaufe chriftians do the 
 ifame things in prayer they do in the Lord's fuppen 
 j in the Lord's fupper we confider fomicwhat done 
 to the communicants, and fomev/hat done by them. 
 As to the former, which is in general the giving 
 forth bleffino;s to the communicants, no difference 
 ;can be made between infants and grov/n perfons, 
 iince God is able to give his bleffings to the one as 
 iwell as the other -, unlefs it can be fhewn that he is 
 unwilling to difpenfe bleffings to infants. But as to 
 the fpiritual a6ts of the communicants, they are no ■ 
 pther than what mull be fuppofed to accompany 
 every well order'd prayer. Let a man go over all 
 thefe in his own mind ; fuch as repentance, faith, 
 jtrufting in Chrilt, love to God, refignation to his 
 jlwill, ^c. and he will eafily perceive the fame for 
 fubftance muft attend our prayers. If then baptized 
 infants may have communion with us in thole pray- 
 ers, which are fuppofed to be offer'd up in fuch a 
 manner , what is there more to be done at the 
 
 Lord's 
 
142 An Elfay in Favour of the ancient Traciice 
 
 Lord's table, that fhould be a reafon why they 
 Ihould be excluded from it ? 
 
 Jrg. X. X. Children are capable of what may be well 
 thought fufficient to qualify them to receive the 
 Lord's fupper, 
 
 I hope I may take it for granted from what has 
 been faid already under fome of the former argu- 
 ments, that 'tis not unufual with the bleffed God to 
 admit children to a communion in the holy ordinan- 
 ces of his fervice, when they are capable of fome, 
 though not all the ends thereof I readily grant, 
 children, efpecially infants, are not capable of eve- 
 ry thing relating to the Lord's fupper, which grown 
 jperfons are ; and yet I doubt not to make it appear^ 
 that if we make God's dealing with them in other 
 cafes a rule for our judging of their capacity in this,' 
 it will be found fufficient to qualify them for recei-' 
 ving the eucharifb. It has unavoidably fallen in my 
 way to fpeak fo much of this already, efpecially 
 under the firft argument, that I fhall be the briefer 
 here, contenting my felf with barely touching upon' 
 fuch things as have been mention'd before. 
 
 I. Then they- are capable of the external facra- 
 mental actions, at leail fome of them. Thefe a6li- 
 ons are three, takings eatings and drinking. As to 
 the firft of thefe they may properly enough be faid 
 to do it, by receiving the elements when put into 
 their mouths. I make no doubt, when our Saviour 
 faid to hisdifciples, take^eat, he meant the fame kind 
 of taking which is attributed to him, when 'tis faid 
 he took bread, that is, a taking it with the hand. 
 And this, however the papifts have alter'd it, was 
 the praftice of the ancient church, as is well known 
 from many teflimonies i and this is moll agreeable 
 to the original example and firft inftitution. But yet 
 it would be a great weaknefs for any one to imagine 
 this to be a thing of fuch abfolute necefTity, as that ' 
 t no 
 
ofghing the Encharifi to Children. 143 
 
 no perfon may lawfully receive the Lord's fupper, 
 unlels he can thus take it into his hand. What mi- 
 nifter will think hinifelf warranted to refufe a man 
 the Lord's fupper, becaufe he has loft the ufe of 
 both his hands, and fo cannot poflibly take it any 
 other way, but by having it put into his mouth ? 
 And certainly if fuch an incapacity v/ould be no hin- 
 derance in grown perfons, neither ought it to be fo 
 in infants. I have here the practice in Cyprian*s time 
 on my fide, as appears by his expreifion concerning 
 the deacon's giving the wine to a little girl, in tlte 
 ftory I have before related from him. " The Dea- 
 " con, fays he, perfifted in his offer, and forced 
 *' fome of the facramental wine into her mouth, 
 " whether fhe would or no." And St. Luke was fo Chap.xxii. 
 little fenfible of any abfolute neceffity of this taking ^^5 -O' 
 the elements, that he does not mention it in the ac^ 
 count he gives us of the inftitution. 
 
 Again, children are very foon capable of eating a 
 little piece of bread, and drinking a fmall fip of 
 wine, as much as is abfolutely neceffary in recei- 
 ving the Lord's fupper. I think Cypria?fs rule is 
 I very good in fuch cafes : * " In the facraments of 
 *' falvation, when neceffity conftrains, and God 
 *' grants his indulgence, divine abridgments con- 
 «? vey the whole to the faithful." Or, perhaps 
 that may feem more pertinent in the prefent cafe, 
 which is obferv'd concerning the manna, which the 
 apoftle compares with the Lord's fupper : He that 'E-^od. xwU. 
 gathered 7nucb, had nothing over ; and he that gathered ^^' 
 little.) had no lack. This, if we may believe fuch com- 
 mentators as Mr. Ainfworth and Mr. Clark, figured 
 the equal portion which all forts of believers have in 
 Chrift, our heavenly manna. And this I might have 
 
 taken 
 
 * In facramentis falucaribus, neceflitate cogente, & Deo in- 
 dulgenciam fuam largiente, totuvn credentibus conferunt divin? 
 compendia, Cyp', Bpfi. ^9, ^, iZ6, 
 
1 44 ^^ Effay in Fa^ozir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 taken notice of, as an evidence of the manna's car- 
 rying in it fuch a facramental nature, as the apoftle 
 attributes to it. 
 
 Now infants are very foon able both to eat and 
 drink as much as is abfolutelyneceffary in receiving 
 the facramentj and when they are fo young, that it 
 may not be fafe to give them the facramental bread, 
 they may without any danger tafte the facramental 
 wine. Nor do i fee any reafon why they may not re- 
 ceive only in one kind, when thro' their age they are 
 not able to receive in both. Thus the J^wj gave chil- 
 dren of the unleavened bread at the pafTover, when 
 they thought them too young to eat of the flefhof 
 the lamb, and the bitter herbs. And thus in Cy- 
 prian's time they gave children the wine, when they 
 did not the bread. 
 
 I would not be thought to fay any thing in favour 
 of the practice of the papifls •, nor can the cuftom 
 in Cyprian'* s time be reafonably alleg'd in vindicati- 
 on of their taking one half of the facrament from 
 the laity. The only reafon why anciently they gave 
 only one half of the facrament to children, was be- 
 caufe they were not capable of receiving the other, 
 which they were very ready to give them as foon as 
 they could eat it. Now this is vaftly different from 
 the method of the Romanifis^ who without pretend- 
 ing any fuch natural incapacity, have taken away 
 the cup from all, but the perfon who adminifters. 
 Nor can I fee any reafon why we may not lawfully 
 give a part of the facrament, when there is an inca- 
 pacity to receive the whole. Thus I have heard of 
 fome who have had fo great an averfion and antipa- 
 thy to wine, that they could not talle or even fmell 
 it, without much diforder and difturbance ; but 
 would any minifter think he might refufe fuch an 
 one the bread barely becaufe he could not receive 
 the wine alfo ? When a part only of the facrament 
 is given upon fuch realons, there can be no fault in 
 
 the 
 
of giving the Ettchariji to Children, 145 
 
 the giver, nor can the receiver have any caufe of 
 complaint, fince the defed is wholly in himlelf, and 
 being a natural and involuntary one 'tis innocent 
 and harmlefs : Whereas the people have great 
 caufe of complaint in the church oiRome, fmce they, 
 are rObbed of that which they are as capable of re- 
 ceiving as he that admin iilers, and which they have 
 a right to by virtue of our Lord's firft inftitution 
 and appointment. Arid if any fhould blame Cyprian 
 for his praftice, I think they would do well to con- 
 fider, whether their own, in not giving either ele- 
 ment, is not worfe than his, in not giving both. 
 
 2. Children are capable of receiving the facra- 
 mental elements as diftinguifhing tokens and badges 
 of their chriflianity, their being Chrift's difciples 
 and members of the vifible church. I think all grant 
 this to be one ufe of facraments. If then children 
 are chriftians, difciples of Chrift, and members of 
 the vifible churchy they are. capable of receiving 
 the marks which belong to fuch. 
 
 3. Children are capable of receiving thefe ele- 
 ments as pledges and tokens of God's love and cove- 
 nant-favour to them; J don't mean they are capa- 
 ble of doing this by an a6l of their underilanding, 
 but that being in favour with God they may receive 
 thefe figns, as having what is fignified thereby. 
 
 4. Children are capable of receiving the elements 
 as members of a fociety, by whom the name of 
 Chrift, and the memory of his faving paffion, is to 
 be kept up in the world. No doubt adult chriftians 
 fhould remember, and actually think on the death 
 of Chrift in receiving the Lord's fupper : But yeC 
 they are not to look upon that as the only end of the 
 iiiftitution; By this a'dion there is a declaring his 
 death to the worlds while chriftians meet together, 
 and are formed into focieties, to celebrate t\\t me- 
 morial of it. And to this that text feems to refer: As ^ ^°'"-^'« 
 &ften as ^^e eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ftiew ^ ^^^ ^ 
 
1 45 ^Jn ElTay /;; Fa'voiir of the avcient TraUice 
 
 the Lorcfs death till he come. Now children are capa- 
 ble, as parts of thefe focieties, to join in this adlion, 
 which is fuch a declaration to the world. 
 
 5. Children are capable of a communion in the eu- 
 chariftical prayers. This is evident, becaufe they are 
 fuppofed capable of a communion in other prayers. 
 And if they are capable of a communion in the eu- 
 chariftical prayers, why not alfo in the euchariftical 
 elements, fince the whole nature of the eucharift is 
 fuppofed to be exprefs'd in them ? 
 
 6. Children are capable of being brought to Chrift 
 in order to his blelTing them. And this, as I have hin- 
 ted already, is one proper way of bringing them. 
 Nor can I fee, why Chrift fhould not be thought as 
 ready now to give them the benefits of his body and 
 blood, and fo the tokens thereof, as he was, while 
 here on earth, to take them up in his arms, put his 
 hands on them and blefs them ; altho' 'tis likely they 
 then underftood as little what he did to them, as chil- 
 dren can be fuppoled now to do of the Lord's fupper, 
 
 7. Children are capable of being dedicated to God 
 and put under renewed bonds and ingagements to 
 faithfulnefs and obedience. That they are capable of 
 being devoted and dedicated to God, is evident from 
 the nature of the thing, from the inftitution of cir- 
 cumcifion, and from their acknowledg'd capacity 
 forbaptifm. And if they are capable of the baptifmal 
 bonds, they muft be fo of the euchariftical : For they 
 are only the fame over again. And whereas the pe^ 
 dobaptijls ufed to vindicate infants capacity for baptif- 
 mal covenant ingagements, by their capacity for the 
 like in circumcifion ; I befeech them to confider, 
 how they can refufe to accept of the fame plea •, that 
 infants are fit to hold an euchariftical covenanting 
 feaft upon the facrifice of Chrift, becaufe they were 
 fit to hold fuch of old upon the legal facrifices. And 
 thus 1 hope I have faid enough on this fecond part, 
 to Ihew the grounds there are in fcripture for this 
 pradiice. PART 
 
vf giving the "Eiichariji to ChiUreih 14^ 
 
 PART III. 
 
 The objeBions againjl childrens receivmg 
 the Lord^s [upper anjwer^d. 
 
 Come now to propofe, and anfwer all thd 
 I '^ objedlions, which I have been able to 
 meet with againfl the pradlice I have beerl 
 pleading for. 
 I. 'Tisobjeded; That children, and efpecially o^j- 1: 
 infants, cannot do this in rememhrance of Chnfi ; and 
 therefore the nature and defign of the Lord's fupper 
 Ihews they are not qualified to join in it, fmce our 
 Saviour when he inftituted it, exprefly required his 
 difciples to do this in rememhrance of him. 
 
 In anfwer to this objection I offer thefe following -^^V^* 
 things to the readers confiderationi 
 
 1. That fuch kind of objeftions will as foon over- 
 throw infants right to baptifm as to the euchariit. 
 
 He thai helieveth., and is baptized^ Jhall he faved. If thou Mark tvi. 
 helieveji with all thine hearty thou ma'jefi be baptized. ^^' .„ 
 Repent and he baptized every one of -you in the name of ^^ 
 Jefus Chrifi-^for 'the remiffion of fins. Thefe and many chap, iio,' 
 other fuch texts may as well be urged to fhewthejS. 
 hecellity of repentance and faith before baptifm •, of 
 which yet infants are as incapable as they are of re- 
 membring Chrift. 
 
 2. The fame argument might as well have been 
 urged againft their eating of the paiTover. The de*- 
 fign of this feafb among the Ifraelites was to keep up 
 the rem.embrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, 
 juft as the eucharifh is to keep up the remembrance 
 of our redemption by Chrift, Thus ^htn-Mofes is 
 
 L 2 gi'^l^g 
 
1 4S Jn ElTay in Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 giving commandment concerning the keeping of the 
 
 beut.xvi. palTover, he fays: 'Thoujhalt eat ?io leavened bread with 
 
 3* it : Seven da^jsjhalt thou eat unleavened hredd therewith, 
 
 even the bread of affiiSiion (for thou camefl out of the land 
 
 of Egypt in haft) that thou ma'jefi remember the da'j 
 
 when thou cameft forth out of the land of Egypt, all the 
 
 Exod. ^m.da'js of thy life. And fo elfewhere : Remember this 
 
 5' day inwhich ye caine out o/'Egypt out of the houfe ofbon- 
 
 ^ dage •, for by jlrength of hand the Lord brought you out 
 
 from this place : There /bail no leavened bread be eaten. 
 
 Ver. 9, lo jiyjd itjhall be a fign unto thee upon thine hand, and 
 
 for a memorial between thine eyes., that the Lord^s law 
 may be in thy mouth : For with a flrong hand hath the 
 Lord brought thee out of Egypt. Thou foalt therefore 
 keep this ordinance in his feafon from year to year. The 
 Deut.xvi. like was the prefcription for the feaft of weeks: Thou 
 ^^' jhalt remember that thou ivaft a bond-7nan in Egypt -, 
 
 and thoufJjalt obferve and do all thefejiatutes. And fmce 
 children were not hinder'd from keeping thefe feafls 
 upon the account of their not being able to remem- 
 ber their deliverance out of Egypt., there is no more 
 reafon to hinder them from receiving the Lord's 
 fupper, upon the account of their inabihty to re- 
 member Chrift. 
 Ver. II, So again, the feaft of weeks and of tabernacles 
 14" are order'd to be held with rejoicing ; and in gene- 
 
 Chap, xii. ral all their feafts upon their fiicrifices were to be 
 y. obferved in this manner. Children were no more 
 
 capable hereof, than they are of remembring Chrift : 
 And fmce this did not exclude them from thofc 
 feafts, why ftiould it from the Lord's fupper, which, 
 as 1 have before obferved, is in its nature fo very 
 like to them ? Thefe two anfwers may well take off 
 the force of this objeftion with all pedobaptifts^; 
 but for the flirther clearing it, 
 
 3. Let me inquire, what is the fpecial import and 
 meaning of that remembrance our Lord fpeaks of 
 in the inftitution. Now this remembrance may be 
 confider'd in a threefold refped. i. With 
 
of giving the Encbarift to Children. 149 
 
 1 . With refped to our lelves ', and fo it would 
 import, t]iat we fliouid in eating that bread, and 
 drinking of that cup, aftually remember in the moft 
 affeftionate manner, the death and fufferings of our 
 dear Lord for us. And that our Lord requires this 
 of all thofe who are capable of it is readily granted ; 
 for indeed the nature of the inftitution fufficiently 
 fhews fo much. But then I deny, not only that he 
 requires this of thofe who are not capable, but alfo 
 that fuch kind of expreflions in the inftitution carj 
 reafonably be interpreted to carry in them a defign 
 of excluding fuch. This is evident by comparing 
 other inftitutions of the like nature, which I have 
 already mentioned. 
 
 2. This remembrance may be confider'd with 
 reference tp the world : And fo the command of 
 Chrift, Do this in re?nemhrance of me, will import, 
 that his difciples, as a body, or fociety, fhould keep 
 up the remembrance of his paflion in the world, by 
 holding this appointed feaft, the memorial thereof. 
 Now as this keeping up the memory of Chrift's fuf- 
 ferings in the world is to be the aft of that fociety or 
 body that belongs to him, and has benefit thereby i 
 fo infants who are parts of that fociety are capable 
 of joining wi.th it in this feaft which is held for fuch 
 a purpofe. 
 
 3. This remembrance may beunderftood to re- 
 fpecl the ever bleffed God himfelf ; and the mean- 
 ing then will be, that we are to do this to put him in 
 remembrance of Chrift, Many in treating of the 
 Lord's fupper, leave out this, which I am perfua- 
 ded is at leaft the principal thing intended in the in- 
 jundtion, and thereby they feem to me to lofe in a 
 great meafure the right notion of the Lord's fup- 
 per. That fuch kind of exprelTions are ufed concern- 
 ing God, will bequeftion'd by none who are tolera- 
 bly vers'd in their Bibles, and fome of them I fhall 
 have occafion to mention. And 'tis plain, this inter- 
 
 L 3 pretation 
 
J 5 o Jn EfTay in Facotir of the ancient TraWce 
 
 pretation is very agreeable to the nature of that fo- 
 lemn a(flion. God is thereby put in remembrance* 
 of the precious facrifice of his own Son, which was 
 oflfer'd for our fins ; the virtue of it is pleaded be- 
 fore him, for pardon, acceptance, the communica= 
 tions of his grace and I'pirir, i^c. 
 
 Now that this is the meaning of the exprefTion 
 ufed by St, Luke and St. P-aul in relating the inflitu- 
 Xuke xxii. tion, Do this in rememhrcince of me [jk t i'pt AvoM.vmiv\ 
 5 9- _ may be argued from the uleof it in other places, 
 1 Cor. XI, Xhus the word l^nV which we tranflate to bring to 
 p^' " remembrance m the titles of two Pfalms where *tis 
 xxxviii.Sc ^^^^^5 is very properly rendered by the LXX inter- 
 Ixx. preters £/f *i a/-'"^'". And that moft learned and ju- 
 dicious critic, Mr. Gataker, pleads earneftly it muft 
 relate to God himfelf For after he has taken no- 
 tice of Junius* s fenfe of the place, * " ^c bring to re- 
 *' ?nembrance^ that is to preferve the memory of his 
 *' trouble, and the deliverance he had received fron^ 
 "' God i he adds prefently : But I had rather under- 
 «' fland it •, To bring to remembrance^ that is to put God 
 " in remembrance of thofi ftraits they were in. And the 
 *' contents of both the Pj'alms confirm my interpre- 
 " tation. Nor fhould I underftand the word other- 
 ^' wife, I Cbron. xvi. 4. where recording (the fame 
 *' word in the Hebrew) is exprefly diflinguiihed from 
 ** thanking and praifing."^ The words of the text he 
 refers to in the Chronicles^ are thefe : And he appointed. 
 certain of the kvites to i7iinifier before the ark of the Lord, 
 and to record, and to thank, and to praife the Lord God 
 ip/Ifrael. And in my mind nothing is plainer to mc, 
 when I read thofe two Pfalms he fpeaks of, than that 
 
 the 
 
 * "^^J^^ad Tecordwdur/!^ i.e„ memoYiam fiatuendam mail fui 
 6'' Uhtrafionis a Deo accept^:, Jun. at eyo malim, ad reducendutn 
 in memoviaiv ^ Beunique de ^ngufhs, in quibus vcrferitir, ccmmone- 
 faciendum Confirmat tota hyaiai utniifc|'ie compagesj r.ec feciis 
 ccpcrim Anna). L. I. c. xvi. v. 4. ubi TDH ab T\T\T^ & T/il 
 .fJiferte diftinguicur. Cata/i^ 0m, LiL L <i, 10. |». «?. 2.360 
 
of gmng the Eticharift to Children, 1 5 f 
 
 the tides muft be founderftood. They are altogether 
 made up either of complaints concerning his trouble, 
 or of earnefl petitions for fpeedy help -, nor can any 
 thing be more unreafonable than that ^iYX.of Junius' % 
 interpretation, that thtPfahn was to preferve the me- 
 mory of that deliverance he had received from God, 
 fmcebothP/^/»zi fhewhe had not as yet received the 
 deliverance ; but his trouble being heavy upon him, 
 he was praying earneftly for it. 
 
 Further, the expreflion may feem to be borrow- 
 ed from the Jewijh fervice, and then it will be rea- 
 fonable to underftand it in the fame fenfe in which ic 
 was ufed among them. We have a notable place to 
 this purpofe : And thou fidt ptit pure frankincenfe uponLev.zir^^ 
 each row [of the loaves of lliew-bread] that it may 7. 
 he on [or rather /o] the bread for a ??iemor'ml [theLXX 
 render it s/j dvcLyLvmiv'] even an offering made by fire un^ 
 to the Lord. " That is," as Mr. Ainfuuorth fays upon 
 the place, '* the incenfe Ihall be burned on the aU 
 " tar (and not the bread) which fhall be for a me-^ 
 " morial for the bread -, as the handful of the meat- 
 *' offering with the oil and incenfe thereof is called 
 " the memorial thereof Lev. ii. 2. bringing to God^s 
 *' rejnejnhrance his covenant with his people.*' And 
 by the way, tho* the Hebrew word render'd memO" 
 rial be the fame in both thofe places, Lev. xxiv. 7. 
 and ii. 2. yet 'tis not fo in the Greeks but in the lat- 
 ter 'tis i!/i'i!//6(rucoi', a word commonly ufed by them 
 on the like occafion. And what the meaning of that 
 is we may fee by the way in which St. Luke ufes it, 
 when he tells us the angel faid to Cornelius i T^^'AQsx. % 
 prayers and thine ahns are come up for a memorial 
 [e/f fj.vnix'os-vvof'j before God, And accordingly I take 
 the two exprellions ?/? cIvsIij^vmiv^ and e/f ixwi^oa-wov to 
 be exaftiy of the fame import and figniUcati-on; -, 
 and therefore underftand Chrift*s words in this 
 fenfe, Do this for a memorial of me before God. 
 
 \ make no. doubtj, this confideration that the re- 
 !L 4 membrancc 
 
i^z Jn Ellay /';; Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 membrance made of Chriil in the eucharift reipect- 
 ed chiefly God himfeif, was one great reafon Why 
 the ancient chriilians ^q often fpake of the Lord's 
 fupper as a facrifice, altho' nothing is more com- 
 mon with them than to deny they otfer'd any pro- 
 per facrifices, as may be feen in all their apologies, 
 when they anfwer the objedions the heathens made 
 againll them upon that account. Let me here menti- 
 on a remarkable p2,ff3.geofChryf9jiom tomypurpofe. 
 He had been difcourfing of the frequent repetition 
 of the fame facrifices under the law -, and upon that 
 occafion ftarts this objeftion : * " And what? Do 
 " not we alfo daily offer?" He anfwers : *' We ofl'er 
 " indeed i hut we make a remembrance of his 
 *' death." And a little after he fpeaks thus : 
 -f- " He is our High-priefb who offer'd the iacrifice 
 *' that cleanfes us. That facrifice we now offer, 
 " which was then offer'd, and cannot be confumed. 
 f This is done for a remembrance of what was then 
 f done. For do this, fays he, in remembrance of me. 
 " We do not, as the high-prieft offer another lacri- 
 *' fice, but always the fame facrifice, or rather the 
 " remembrance of a facrifice. 
 
 I might eafily colleft a great many teflimonies of 
 this kind from other ancient writers , but I ihall con- 
 jtent my felf with alleging one of the firlt of them, 
 ^nd chat is Jufiih Many l|. His tellimony has long 
 
 ago 
 
 ffiv'i'^^Utio'AV, T di'dhCffloV. T^Tolli afdy-VniXIV yil'ijcu iil TOTS 
 
 yn'oy.ii'ii. Ta/o yd 'T^oieln^ tjntr/, «}? k[inv a,V':i.y.vi)'7iv. 'Oux. 
 ftAAay ^vUidV X.ct6.x,T!rtg o cto^/«f?Jf, dhKet r elvlm' dei 'V'oi^- 
 i//'.v' y'^KKov Q di'dy.v;]aiv k?yA(^o,uiSa. -3-i;criif, Chryfbft. Horn. 
 ;XVII. inHcbr. ^ 
 
 il Oji (A. iv K., ivyj'A ;{"I ivyae'sleu 'vizv 'r^'f a^'iuv yivofMvau, 
 
of ghing the Bnchayifl to Children, 153 
 
 ago been taken notice of by Mr. Jofeph Mede, in 
 whom the reader may meet with teftimonies from 
 many other of the fiithers. Thus he tranflates Ju- 
 Jlin's word's: "That prayers and thankfgivings 
 made by thofe that are worthy, are the only fa- 
 crifices that are perfeft and acceptable to God, I 
 do alfo affirm •, for thefe are the only facrifices 
 which chriftians have been taught they fhould 
 perform, even in that thankful remembrance of 
 their food both dry and liquid, wherein alfo is 
 com.memorated the paffionwhich the Son of God 
 fuffer'd by himfelf." Mede's Cbrijlian Sacrifice, 
 Ch. 5. p. 362. But to return from this digreflioni 
 Another place there is wherein the LXX ufe the 
 word dvduvtiaii, which is very pertinent to my pre- 
 fentpurpofe. y^lfo in the day of your ^-adnefs, andinNum. x. 
 your fGle??m days, and in the beginnings of your months^ ye ^o* 
 Jhall blow with the trmnpets over your burnt-offerings, 
 'and over the facrifices of your peace-offerings ; that they 
 may be to you for a memorial before your God : 1 ajn 
 the Lord "jOur God. And we may explain the fenfe 
 in which this memorial before God is fpoken of, from 
 the foregoing verfe. And if ye go to war in your land 
 dgainfi the enemy that oppreffeth you, then ye Jhall blow 
 an alarin with the trumpets \ and ye fhall be remem- 
 bred before the Lord your God, and yefldoll befaved 
 from your enemies. Now if the Lord's fupper is in 
 this fenfe a memorial or remembrance to God of the 
 death of Chrift, I deiire any one to confider for 
 whofe fake God muft be underflood to be put in 
 mind of it. Mufl it not be for the fake of the whole 
 chriftian congregation ? Thus that memorial, I juft 
 now mention'd, was not to be ufed on private, but 
 
 only 
 
1 5 <f j^n EfTay in Favour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 only on public occafions. " So the Je'-iVs^" fays Mr. 
 Ainfa;orth, " underftood this law, not for mens 
 " private facrifices, but for the public churches : 
 " They did not blow fave only at the congregati- 
 *' ons oiler ing which was appointed them." And 
 jf this memorial of Chrft's death is made in the 
 name and behalf of the whole church, infants as 
 well as grown perfons, there is the more reaforj 
 why it fhould be fignified to be made for them by 
 their all partaking of it. 
 
 There is but one place more where this word is 
 Bek X. 5. ufed, and that is in the new teftament. But in ihofe 
 Sacrifices there is a remembrance [^^uui-no-/?] made of 
 fins every 'jear. There is no neceffity that I Ihould 
 fuppofe the word Avaixpna-n never fignifies any other 
 remembrance than that which I think it principally 
 does in the inftitution of the eucharift. Nor do I 
 pretend any fuch thing. I know the word is uied 
 otherwife in profane authors, and therefore may 
 confiltently enough with my argument allow it 
 may be ufed fo in this place. The like is eafy to 
 be obfei*ved in other inftances. To go no farther 
 than the word which the apoftle joins with this 
 eilvdu.vv\aii <lua.{]i^2v a remembrance of fws -, every one 
 knows that iua.{lia. is often put by the LXX to 
 fignify a fm-offering , anfvvering to the words 
 HHi^n and D^^ and that fo 'tis to be underilood 
 s Cor. where Chrift is laid to he made fin for us : And yet 
 ^' ' '• that does not hinder its being fometimes ufed in its 
 5 John V. more proper fenfe for unrighteoufnefi. And though 
 i7. duafiU will bear fuch a fenfe, yet that phrafe -v^^ 
 
 Heb.i-. 8. a,;/.A{ii:t^ is according to the ufe of the LXX appro- 
 priated to lacrifice •, and fo tho' diduvm/i may figni- 
 ty any remembrance, yet if the ufe of the exprelTi- 
 on e/f ct:'ciixvr,criv in the LXX is conflantly that which. 
 I havemention'd, 'twill be but reafonable totakeit fa 
 in the inftitution of the Lord's fupper,natwithftand- 
 jng ivcLim)7:< is taken otherwife elfewherca But with- 
 
 al 
 
i ofgwing the Emharift to Children. 155 
 
 I al it muftbe obferv'd that th&rememhrance fpokenoi 
 i in that place by the apoftle is a remembrance made 
 ; to God ; tor it was made by facrifice, on the great 
 i day of atonement to which he evidently refers. Up- 
 I on the whole, if this remembrance be explain'd ac^ 
 ■ cording as I chink it fhould, 'tis a good argument 
 i for children's receiving : And if it be explain'd 
 : Qtherwife, it cannot juftly be pleaded in pppofition 
 ' to their right. 
 
 i 11. Children are not capable of performing thcoij. II. 
 I duty of felf-examination, which is prefcribed as pre- 
 ' vioufly neceffary to a perfons receiving the Lord's 
 I fupper : Bui lei a man examine himfelf^ and lb let bim iCor, 
 : eat of thai bread, and drink of that cup. And if a man ^>- -^-^ 
 I mull/^, and no otherwife eat of thai bread, 'tis evi- 
 i dent children muft be excluded, becaufe they cannot 
 i poiTibly examine themfelves. I anfwer, 
 I I. If I fhould allow the words of the apoftle \:oAvf'^. 
 I be taken in their true fenfe in the objedion -, yet 
 I the pedobaptip, muft own that the texts I men- 
 I tion'd before may be as ftrongly urged againft in- 
 ; fant-baptifm, as this can againft infint-communi-. 
 j on. Nay, I don't fee but by the fame rulewe may 
 I exclude children from all the parts of worfhip.Thus 
 : for inftance, children are not according to this way 
 i of arguing to be fuffer'd to pray, till they can pray 
 in faith. For another apoftle prefcribes this as a 
 rule for any man that prays : Bui lei him ajk in faith, jam. i, 6^^ 
 nothing wavering. And he adds : For he thai waver- 
 eih is like a wave ofihefea, driven with the wind, and 
 iojfed. For lei not that man think that he JloaU receive 
 an'j thing of the Lord. But does any man think, he 
 is not to put his children upon praying by them- 
 felves, or upon joining in prayer with others, till 
 they can pray in faith? The like faith is neceffary in 
 hearinp- the word. For the word preached does not pro- Htb. \v, a, 
 //, not being mixed with faith in them that bear it-. Nay, 
 we are required to % afide all. malice^ and dlginle, i Pet, xu 
 
156 j4n EfTay / ;; Facour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 and h'^pocrifies ^ and envies^ and evilfpeaUngSy and thus 
 to deftre the fincere tnilk of the word that we may grow 
 thereb-j. And the danger of hearing the word un- 
 profitably is very awfully reprefented as well as that 
 of eating and drinking unworthily. For minifters 
 1 Cor. are to them that perifli the favour of death unto deaths 
 "• ^^' as they are to them that are faved the favour of life 
 unto life. 
 
 I think Dr. Wall, tho' by what I have cited from 
 him he appears to be no friend to the pradlice, has 
 yet with great ftrength as well as fairnefs anfwer'd 
 ^ifi.p.S^"- this objeftion. " They think," (fays he, f}3eaking 
 of the Greek churches) " that command of St. Paul, 
 " Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat, &c. 
 *' fo to be underllood, as not to exclude fuch as are 
 5^ by their age uncapable of examining themfelves, 
 " from partaking : But only to oblige all that are 
 ^' capable. As that like command of his. If an^i 
 ^ ' one will not work, let him have nothing given him to 
 " eat, muft be fo limited to fuch as are able to 
 *' work, as that infants, and luch as are not capa- 
 " ble to work, muft have vidiuals given to them, 
 '' tho- they do not work. 
 
 2. I deny that this objection goes upon the true 
 fenfe of the text. I would not be mifunderftood 
 here, as tho' I intended to difcourage perfons exa- 
 mining themfelves, which I think to be of fingular 
 advantage to chriftians, and very proper to make 
 their lives regular and comfortable. Archbifhop 
 Vol. TIT. billot font's, words don't much difpleafe me. " Becaufe 
 Scrm. VII. <' the examination of our felves is a thing fo very 
 /». :92. <c ufeful, and the time which men are wont to fet 
 " apart for their preparation for the facrament is 
 " fo advantageous an opportunity for the practice 
 " of it •, therefore I cannot but very much com- 
 " mend thofe who take this occafion to fearch and 
 " try their ways, and to call themfelves to a more 
 " folemn account of their adions : Becaufe this 
 I "ought 
 
of gmng the Bttchariji to Children, 1 57 
 
 *' ouo-ht to be done fome time, and I know no fit- 
 " tet" time for it than this." The oftner men fearch 
 their hearts and try their ways the better •, but I 
 cannot think that a ftridt and fet examination of 
 our felves can be proved from the apoftle's words 
 to be more neceffary for our receiving the Lord's 
 fupper , than for the performing other duties. 
 The placing rehgion in fuch a previous prepara- 
 tion for the Lord's fupper only, feems to me a 
 miftake. But I fhall chufe to borrow the fame ex- 
 cellent perfon's words to exprefs my fenfe of this 
 matter. " Some pious perfons do perhaps err ov^ihid.^.\%^, 
 " the flrifler hand, and are a little too fuperftiti- 
 " ous on that fide ; infomuch that unlefs they can 
 " gain fo much time to fet apart for a folemn pre- 
 " paration, they will refrain from the facrament at 
 " that time •, tho' otherwifc they be habitually pre- 
 
 " pared. For when all is done, the beft prepa- 
 
 " ration for the facrament, is the general care and 
 " endeavour of a good life. And he that is thus 
 " prepared, may receive at any time when oppor- 
 *' tunity is offered, tho' he had no particular fore- 
 
 " fight of that opportunity. And indeed we 
 
 *' cannot imagine, that the primitive chriilians, 
 " who received the facrament fo frequently, that 
 " for ought appears to the contrary they judged it 
 " as elTential and neceffary a part of their public 
 " worfhip as any other part of it whatfoever, even 
 " as their hymns and prayers, and reading and in- 
 " terpreting the word of God: I fay, we cannot 
 " well conceive how they who celebrated it fo con- 
 " ftantly, could allot any more time for a folemn 
 " preparation for it, than they did for any other 
 *' part of divine worfhip : And confequently, that 
 *' the apoftle, when he bids the Corinthians examine 
 " themfelves, could mean no more than that confi- 
 " dering the nature and ends of this inflitution they 
 Ihould come to it with great reverence ; and re- 
 
 " fleecing 
 
 o 
 
i J 8 An EiTay in Ta<vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " fleding upon their former niifcarriages in this 
 " matter, fhould be careful upon his admonition to 
 " avoid them for the future, and to amend what had 
 *« been amifs : Which to do, requires rather refdlu- 
 **^ tion and care than any long time of preparation. 
 The ambiguity of the EngliJIj word fo in our tran- 
 flation, has led many perfons into a miftake of the 
 , meaning of that verfe. The Greek word bT»f, to 
 
 which it anfwers, figniiies in this manner^ that is 
 Ggreeahly to this infiitution which I have now related to 
 'Kou : But it does not fignify then, or after that •, nor 
 is it generally ufed in that fcnfe. Had the apoftle in- 
 tended that fenfe, he would not have ufed the word 
 ^ ^ »V<-'?, butT07£, orfomefuchlike.Togive an inilance: 
 sal. VI, 4, j^^^ every man S'ou.i^a.lkTcd prove his own work, x^ r'oTi^ 
 and thenfjall he have rejoicing in himjelf alone and not in 
 another. 
 
 It v/ill not be eafy for thofe who underfland the 
 apoftie*s words as they are commonly explained, to 
 give a good account of the connexion of his dif- 
 courfe. Chrfoflom indeed appears to have thought 
 the y.Tcoi fignified the fame as tot-, and therefore in 
 fiiscomm.ent has fo exprefs'd it. * " Let every one 
 " examine himfelf. and then let him come." Bat 
 then 'tis obfervable, he was fenfible this v/as foreigni 
 to the apoftle's argument, and therefore thus begins 
 his comment upon it-, -f " What do thefe words 
 *' mean, lince he h upon a different argument .'* 
 
 I am fenfible, ibme may be ready to fufpeft this 
 interpretation ariks from a prejudice in me in fa- 
 vour of my own hypothefis. But I hope very fully 
 to clear my felfof all fuch fufpicion, by letting the 
 reader know that this fenfe has been fixed upon by 
 the ingenious Mr. Lock, who look'd further into the 
 
 con- 
 
 * Ao^/|aa(iT« 3 ictvjoy iK,ctr©"j ^ Ton <z^(riTci>. ChryH 
 Horn. XXVIII. in i Con 
 
 neiiJiins »cr«j j Ibid, 
 
cfghivg the ^iicharifl to Children, \ ^9 
 
 connexion of thofe epiftles upon which he has given 
 us comments, than perhaps any man ever did before ; 
 and yet he did it without a defign of favouring this 
 or any other hypothefis, for ought I can fee. I am 
 fure I never could obferve any thing in his writings, 
 that made me fufpeft he was for infant communion. 
 And he has fo fully explain'd the apoftle's meaning, 
 that I fhall content my felf with giving the reader 
 his own words. 
 
 Thus then he paraphrafes the verfe : " By this in- 
 " ftitution therefore of Chrift, let a man examine 
 " himfelf, and according to that let him eat of this 
 '* bread, and drink of this cup." And in his mar- 
 ginal notes he gives his reafons for the fenfe he puts 
 upon the apoftle's words. " St. Faul^ fays he, as 
 *' we have obferv'd, tells the Corinthians^ ver. 20. 
 " That to eat it after the manner they did, was not 
 *' to eat the Lord's fupper. He tells them alfo^ 
 " ver. 29. That to eat it without a due and dire6l: 
 " imitating" [thefe two laft words fhould make this 
 ont, difcrifjtinating] " regard had to the Lord's body 
 " (for fo he calls the facramental bread and v/ine^ 
 " as our Saviour did in the inilitution) by feparating 
 '* the bread and wine from the common ufe of eat- 
 " ing and drinking for hunger and thirfb, was to ea£ 
 " unworthily. To remedy their diforders herein, he 
 " fets before them Chrift's own inftitution of this 
 " facrament ; that in it they might fee the manner 
 '' and end of its inftitution, and by that everyone 
 " might examine his ov/n comportment herein, whe- 
 " ther it were conformable to that inftitution, and 
 *' fuited to that end. In the account he gives of 
 " Chrift's inftitution, we may obferve that he par- 
 " ticularly remarks to them, that this eating and 
 " drinking was no part of common eating and drink- 
 *' ino; for hunsier and thirft, but was inftituted in a 
 *' very folemn manner, after they had fupped, aild 
 ^* for another end, viz> to reprefent Chrift's body 
 
 *' and 
 
1 60 Jn Eflky in Fcwour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 " and blood, and to be eaten and drunk in remem- 
 " brance of him, or as St, Faul expounds it, to lliew 
 " forth his death. Another thing which they might 
 " obferye in the inftitution was, that this was done 
 *' by all who were prefent united together in one 
 " company at the fame timeo All which put toge- 
 «' ther, fhews us what the examination here propo- 
 «' fed is. For the defign of the apoftle here being 
 *' to reform what he found fault with in their cele- 
 " brating the Lord's fupper, 'tis by that alone we 
 *' mufb underfland the direftions he gives them 
 *' about it, if we will fuppofe he talked pertinently 
 " to this captious and touchy people, whom he 
 *« was very defirous to reduce from thofe irregula- 
 " rities they were run into in this matter as well as 
 *' feveral others. And if the account of Chrift's in- 
 *' ftitution be not for the examining their carriage 
 " by it, and adjufting it to it, to what purpofe is 
 *' it here ? The examination therefore propofed 
 " was no other but an examination of their manner 
 " of eating the Lord's fupper by Chrift's inftituti- 
 " on, to fee how their behaviour therein comport- 
 *' ed with the inftitution, and the end for which it 
 ** was inftituted. 
 
 And again upon thofe words, >c) «T.-jf he gives us 
 this note : '' Thefe words as to the letter are right- 
 *• ly tranflated, and[o. But that tranflation, I ima- 
 *' gine, leaves generally a wrong fenfe of the place 
 " upon the mind of an EnqJ'ifu reader. For in ordi- 
 " nary fpeaking, thefe words, Let a man examine 
 " h'mjelf and [0 let him eat, are under ft ood to import 
 *' the lame fenfe with thefe, Let a man examine him- 
 *' felf and then let him eat ; as if they fignified no. 
 *' more, but that examination fliould preceed, and 
 *' eating follow ; which I take to be quite different 
 " from the meaningof the apoftle here, whofe fenJe 
 " the whole defign of the context ftiews to be this: 
 •' 1 here let before you the inftitution of Chri/l, by that 
 
 « lei' 
 
of giving the Eticbariji to Children. i6i 
 
 ^^ let a man examine his carriage, ^ «Vii;f , and accord- 
 " ing to that let him eat \ lei him conform the 7nanner 
 '' of his eating to that. 
 
 Now if this be the meaning of the place, it will 
 not concern infants in the leail. For they are not 
 capable of any of thole irregularities, about which 
 the apoflle would have men examine themfelves. If 
 any irregularity is committed in the adminiftrationj 
 it muft be wholly owing to others, and not properly 
 be any a61: of their own. And all the world mull fee, we 
 muft haverecourfe to otherplaces of the f:ripture in 
 order to our being able to determine whether they 
 have any right to partake of that ordinance, or no 5 
 fiilce nothing can be gather'd from this text oneway 
 or the other. And fo I hope I have fully anfwer'd 
 this objeflion againft the pradice I plead for. 
 
 III. Some will urge that children ought not to re-ohj. ut 
 ceive the Lord's fupper, becaufe they are not able to 
 difcern the Lord's body, as all communicants ought 
 todo, according to the determination of the apoftle : 
 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily , eat et hand drink'- 1 Con xi. 
 eth judgment to himfelf not difcerni^ig the Lord's body, ^9> 
 
 I might here anfwer as before, that this concerns Anfiv, 
 the adult,and requires that fuch as are capable of do- 
 ing it fhould difcern the Lord's body, when they 
 partake of his fupper. And the reader may here ap- 
 ply the inftances which have been already alleg'd to 
 fhew the reafonablenefs of allowing fuch kind of in- 
 terpretations. But not to infift upon that ; I obferve 
 St. Paul is in this place fpeakihg againft the corrup- 
 tions which were crept in among the Corinthians in 
 this ordinance. The things he blames them for, are 
 their uncharitablenefs and intemperance j that they 
 ufed to eat and drink in feparate companies without 
 tarrying foront another; that they received the ele- 
 ments as they would cbmmon bread and wine for the 
 latisfying their hunger and thirft, and mixed the 
 Lord's fupper with their own, and while one was 
 
 M hun- 
 
1 6 2 Jn E ilay in Faimr of the ancient TraUice 
 
 hungry, another had eat and drank too much. Thefe 
 diforders among them were fo fcandaloufly bad, that 
 I Cor.xi. he tells them, T'bis zvas not to eat the Lord's fupper^ 
 *°' that hereby they quite aiter*d the nature of the a6li- 
 
 on, and lb muft rather be thought to take an ordi- 
 nary and common meal, than to celebrate that fa- 
 cred religious feaft which Chrifl had inftituted. This 
 now is the fault and unworthinefs in receiving which 
 he refers to in theverfealleg'd in the objection ; they 
 did not difcern, or as it fhould rather be render'd, 
 they did not difcmninate the figns and tokens of the 
 Lord's body, or pit a difference between them and 
 their ordinary and common food. 
 
 Now fuppofing children ufed to communicate in 
 the church of Corinth, thefe diforders could not be 
 at all owing to them -, and the apoftle muft be here 
 underftood only to blame thofe who were the caufes 
 of them. And when the Lord's fupper is received 
 as a facred and not a common meal, in due order by 
 the whole church or in one common fociety, this 
 diibrder he complains of is rediified. Nor would 
 childrens partaking of a feaft at all hinder its being 
 a facred and religious one in the fenfe of all the world, 
 both Jews a.ndGentiles, at that time. And when their 
 diforders were redrefs'd, the bread in the Lord's 
 fupper would be given to children, not as common 
 bread, but as the body of the Lord ; and when chil- 
 dren are made to eat and drink upon a religious ac- 
 count, and not to fatisfy their hunger and thirft j the 
 Lord's body is duly difcriminated or difcerned from 
 common food, and as much as the thing will bear. 
 And certainly as chriftians are to put a difference 
 between the facramental, and common bread and 
 wine, fo they are between the baptifmal and com- 
 mon wafliing, and if an incapacity to make fuch a 
 difference will exclude infants from the Lord's fup- 
 per, it may alfo from baptifm. I think Chrjfojiojn 
 has with good reafon parallel'd thefe, where he is 
 
 Ihew- 
 
ofgimng the Euchariji to Children. 16^ 
 
 fhewing how differently an infidel and a chriftian 
 are afFedicd with the chriftian myfteries. * " When 
 " the infidel, fays he, hears of baptifm, he thinks 
 " of plain water ; but I confider not barely what 
 *' is vifible, but alfo the cleanfing of the foul by the 
 "«' fpirit : He thinks my body only is wafh'd *, but I 
 •' believe my foul is made clean and holy -, and con- 
 *' fider the burial, the refurre6lion, the righteouf- 
 *' nefs, the redemption, the adoption, the inheri- 
 ** tance, the kingdom of heaven, and the gift of the 
 " fpirit. For I don't judge of the things that ap- 
 " pear by my fight, but by the eyes of my mind. 
 " I hear of the body of Chrift, I underftand it one 
 *' way and an infidel quite another. 
 
 Let me here further obferve to the reader, that 
 Dr. Whitby has explained the difcerning the Lord's 
 body juft in the fame manner I have done, and in 
 his note upon Rom.xW. 23. he has proved by various 
 examples this is the meaning of the word. And from 
 Dr. Pocock he fays : " In the Talmud there is a di- 
 " ftindion betwixt a man who eats the paflbver 
 " mSQ DtyV iri obedience to the command (which 
 «' was that they fliould do it as a memorial of God*s 
 *' paflingover them when hedeftroy*dthe£g)i^z?/f/2W, 
 « by reafon of the blood of the pafchal lamb, Exod. 
 *« xii. 13, 14.) and he that did thus eat it, was the 
 *' juft man that walketh in the ways of the Lord, men- 
 *' tioned Hof, xiv. 9. and betwixt another who did 
 *' eat it only as common food, i. e, without refpe6t 
 
 M 2 " to . ' 
 
 ofa[J.zvov d'TTKcoi ji\i'Tra, cjAAst rov '^ 'P-^X^^ x,ctQa.§{J.dv Tov J^laC 
 
 \yu 3 'zrS'^irJt'Jtct oTi x^ « A-^yJi y'iyovi kciQu^a ts joi ay'iet. 
 K<*/ Koy'i^o^cu rhv rd'poVi r esraVctcr/j', 70;' aytctaui.'y r S'i- 
 
 fflKzietV 1^ a^.ffcj', TO 'TSyVSVfXcij©- r >^o?n 5,1 .:£!■■. 'Ou }<) Tjf 
 v-^ei keivto to, <^cijyo{/.iVdi, eiKKci, roli Qii^tiKiioii 'f ^lavo'iai;, 
 'A>ca'&) cr«/aet Xe/r«, Ir'i^ac \yc^ you to l/jn^ifoy, irkfui 9 
 ^^/r©-, Cbryfoli, Horn. VIL in i Cor. 
 
1 ^4 ^'^ EfTay /;/ Fcii'our of the ancient TraBice 
 
 " to the commandment, or the ends of its inftituti- 
 ** on •, and he is compared to the tranfgrejfor there 
 " mentioned ibat Jbdll fall therein." So that as the 
 inftitution of the pafchal fupper made a vaft diffe- 
 rence between it and a common fupper, fo 'tis evi- 
 dent the Jews acknowledg'd that difference, and 
 Jook'd upon all grown perfons who did not by their 
 defign in eating put fuch a difference between that 
 and an ordinary meal to be tranfgreffors ; and yet 
 they thought this very confident with their admit- 
 ting children to partake of it •, and why the apoftle 
 may not be fuppofed to be of the fame mind with 
 reference to the Lord's fupper, I cannot imagine. 
 
 chj. IV. IV. It may be further objeded, that children can* 
 not do what the apoftle fuppofes chriftians fhould at 
 the Lord's fupper, and that is, fhew forth Chrift's 
 
 I Cor. xi. death. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this 
 
 ^^' cup^ ye dojhew the hordes death till he come. 
 
 Anfiv. I anfwer •, Thefe words come in immediately af- 
 
 ter the words of inftitution (and by the way are not, 
 as I have found fome ready to imagine, a part of 
 the inftitution it felf ) and fo here St. Faul comes to 
 reafon upon the inftitution, and to apply it to the 
 argument he is upon, the reforming their diforders 5 
 q. d. " And fmce this inftitution in both the parts 
 " of it has fuch an intire reference to Chrift, fince 
 *' it is fuch a commemoration of his facrifice, it 
 " muft be efteem'd by all that know what you do^ 
 *' not to be an ordinary and common meal, to fa- 
 " tisfy hunger and thirft \ but by this aftion you 
 *' proclaim the Lord's death to the world." Now 
 as it was the action it felf perform'd profeffedly by 
 a body and fociety of men in commemoration of 
 Chrift's death, and not the particular fentiments of 
 each fingle perfon, that made this a Viewing forth 
 Chrift's death ; fo infants as parts of that body or 
 fociety, joining in that aftion, may be laid with the 
 reft to ftiev/ forth Chrift'3 death. I leave it to the: 
 
 read- 
 
ofgimng the Hiicharifl to Children, \6% 
 
 reader here to parallel the circumftances of the paf- 
 ibver, which was in like manner a fhewing forth 
 the redemption of the Ifraelites. All that I fliall fur- 
 ther obferve here, is that the ancients did not think 
 this /hewing forth the Lord's death was peculiar to the 
 Lord's fupper ; they thought, and as far as I can 
 fee with good reafon, that baptifm was likewile a 
 fhewing forth Chrift's death. * " Therefore," fays 
 Chryfojlom arguing againft the Marcionites, " we 
 " fhew forth his death upon all occafions, in the 
 " myfteries, in baptifm and all the reft." And if 
 ChryfoJloT?i''s notion is true, this argument from in- 
 fants incapacity to fhew forth the Lord's death, 
 muft as well deprive them of baptifm, as the Lord's 
 fupper. 
 
 1 think thefe are the moft material objeftlons 
 that can be alleg'd againft this practice, which I 
 muft own feem to me not to be compar'd with the 
 arguments I have produced on the other fide the 
 queftion. I have met with fome other objecflions, 
 which tho' they feem not to me of any great mo- 
 ment, I Ihall take notice of, fince fome perfons may 
 perhaps think otherwife of them. 
 
 V. The ordinance of the Lord's fupper is very ohj. V> 
 folemn ; but if children ftiould be admitted to com- 
 municate therein, it might take off the refpedl due 
 to it, and bring it into contempt. 
 
 Now here I grant the ordinance is folemn, and^a/V, 
 that it fhould be attended with an anfwerable folem- 
 nity and ferioufnefs of mind by all the adult ; but as 
 to the main of what is done there, 'tis no other than 
 we do in our ordinary prayers, tho' it be done with 
 the addition of awful circumftances. But to give a 
 foil anfwer to the objedion, I fay •, the only c^uefti- 
 M 3 oa 
 
 Chrvfofi. Hora. XLIV. in Match. 
 
1 55 ^Jn Effay in Td'ooiir of the ancient Tra^ice 
 
 on here is, whether or no we have fufficienC warn, 
 rant in tiie holy fcriptures for admitting children to 
 communicate i^ For if we have, we need never feafj 
 that we fhall bring divine inftitutions into contempt 
 by our keeping dole to chem. And why may it 
 not be as well aileg'd, that the adminiftring bap- 
 tifm to infants is the ready way to bring that facra- 
 ment, which is likewife a folemn ordinance, into 
 contempt ? 
 
 I fear thisdefign of procuring a great veneration 
 of the Lord's fupper, has been prejudicial in fome 
 refpeds to the chriftian church. I cannot but think 
 it has been an error, not only fince tranfubftantiati- 
 on was ftarted, but even long before, that men de- 
 preciated other ordinances too much, while they 
 were extravagantly zealous to add more folemnity 
 to this. This not only made way for the excluding 
 infants from it, but has occafion'd its being fo fel- 
 dom adminiftred, and fo little attended. Is it not, 
 if we will fpeak impartially, a fhame and a fcandal, 
 that it fhould in fome places be adminiftred only 
 once a month, in others once in fix weeks or two 
 months, in others only three times, and in others 
 only once in a year .? How very different is this 
 from the pradlice of the primitive church ? They 
 ordain'd, * " That all the faithful who came to 
 " God's holy church, and heard the holy fcriptures, 
 ^' but did not ftayat the prayers and receive the 
 " facrament, fhould, as making a diforder in the 
 *' church, be fufpended." And what is the confe- 
 quence of the methods we take ? A veneration is 
 indeed procured for the facrament, but 'tis a vene- 
 ration that begets a dread and a negled of it. And 
 
 cer- 
 
 #i£t, tf'osjj^id&T, 'x^^-rt. Can Apoft. X. 
 
cfgwiitg the Ettcharift to Children, i Sj 
 
 certainly fuch a veneration does not well fuit the 
 gracious defign of our Lord in inftituting it. 
 
 VI. Will not this praftice make the Lord's fup-04/. VI. 
 per look like a charm, and incourage the popifhdo- 
 cftrine of facraments being effedtual ex opere operato^ 
 without any regard had to the difpofition of the 
 receiver ? 
 
 This can no otherwife be the confequence o^M'^' 
 children's receiving the Lord's fupper, than 'tis of 
 their receiving baptifm. Sacraments are figns and 
 tokens of God's covenant with his people -, and fince 
 children are number'd by God among his people, 
 what incovenience can there be in fuppofing, that as 
 thefe federal inftitutionswere extended of old to chil- 
 dren, they ought to be fo flill ? Why may not chil- 
 dren be allowed to have a right to them, till they 
 come to forfeit it by a wicked life and converfati- 
 on ? Nay, what reafon is there, why their being 
 brought up in the ufe of this ordinance, may not be 
 a good means to prevent their becoming profligate 
 and ungodly .^ If it were indeed pretended, that the 
 hare receiving the facrament would jullify perfons 
 who went on in wicked courfes, there would be 
 good reafon for difliking fuch a pretence •, but this 
 is very far from my thoughts. Nor can any thing 
 of this nature be inferr'd from childrens receiving 
 the Lord's fupper ; fmce no wickednefs can be 
 charged upon them, and they do nothing to hinder 
 their having benefit by the ordinance. 
 • VII. The Lord's fupper is an eftablilhing ordi-OijVVII, 
 nance, defigned to confirm the grace that is already 
 in a perfon, and not to work the firfl grace in him"; • 
 and therefore not proper to be given to any before, 
 that work is begun in them, and confequently not 
 to children. 
 
 Now in anfwer to this objedioa I would obferve ^"/w, 
 thcfe follo\ying things. 
 
 M 4. I. This 
 
I ^8 Jn Effay in Fa'voiir cfthe ancient TraUice 
 
 1. This diftin6lion which they allege is not bor- 
 rowed froin the fcripture, but is owing to Tome mi- 
 ftakes men have run into of the apoftle's meaning 
 in thofe exprefTions, of perfons examining them/elves 
 and difcerning the Lord's body. 
 
 2. They who are very fond of this afTertion have 
 not been able to deny, there have been to their 
 knowledge inftances to the contrary, and have own- 
 ed perfons have received faving imprefiions at 
 the Lord's fupper, who had never received them 
 before. 
 
 3. Let it be allowed, that the Lord's fupper fup- 
 pofes fome antecedent grace •, this need not hinder 
 childrens receiving it. For why may we not fuppofe 
 this to be their cafe ? Is there no grace given in bap- 
 tifm ? Let this ordinance be an ellablifhing ordi- 
 nance. Is there any thing contradiftory to that 
 notion in letting children partake of it? I plead not 
 for its being adminiftred to any but fuch as are bap- 
 tized. And if they need baptifm, certainly they 
 need eftabliHinient after baptifm ; and the Lord's 
 fupper according to this notion is appointed for 
 that end. 
 
 4. It may be very much doubted, whether this 
 objection, as underltood by thofe who ufe it, is not 
 built upon a great millake. I confefs it feems un- 
 reafonable to me to fuppofe that the Lord's fupper 
 has not a proper tendency to begin a good work in 
 the heart. For if the fetting forth Chrilt crucified 
 in the preaching of the word is acknowledg'd by all 
 to be a proper means of afFefting mens minds, and 
 of bringing them to repent, believe and obey the. 
 gofpcl ; I cannot tell why the more lively repre- 
 ienting the fame Jefus Ciirift as criicified, by the 
 vifible ligns and tokens which he himfelf has ap- 
 pointed, iliould be look'd upon to be no means at 
 all for the accomplijfhing chat end. In the Lord'^ 
 toper Chrill; crucified is preached to the ear^ ex- 
 
 ''.rf '' hilDited 
 
of gwing the Euchariji to Children, i 6^ 
 
 hibited to the eye, nay, is fo repirefented to us as to 
 affeft every one. of our fenfes ; whereas preaching 
 afFe<5ls the ear only. And is it reafonable to ima- 
 gine that the mind is more like to be wrought upon 
 by one fmgle fenfe, than by the concurrence of ail 
 the fenfes ? 
 
 But I eafily forefee another objedlion will natu- 
 rally arife from what I have now advanced. 
 
 VIII. If you allow fuch virtue and • ufefulnefs toO^j.VHL 
 the Lord's fupper, why fhould not heathens and ex- 
 communicated perfons be admitted to partake of it? 
 Why may it not be hoped, that the letting Chrift 
 crucified before them with fuch advantage, may 
 have that effedl upon them which the preaching of 
 him has not ? 
 
 The anfwer to this objection may be eafily ga--^??^. 
 ther'd from what has been faid already. The wor- 
 shiping God as a father in Chrift, is the peculiar 
 privilege of the chriftian church, and fo belongs not 
 to thole who keep out of that fociety, and were ne- 
 ver yet enter'd inco it by baptifm. They are there^ 
 fore unqualified, not for the having Chrift crucifi- 
 ed fet before them, but for joining with the church 
 in that addrefs which is always fuppofed to be made 
 to God in their prayers, and particularly thofe 
 made by all chrlftians at the Lord's fupper. And 
 the fame is the cafe of perfons who are juflly ex-^ 
 communicated for their wickednefs : They are cafl: 
 out of the fociety, lofe their former right to the 
 privileges thereof, and become to it as heathen 
 men and publicans. 
 
 Thefe are all the objeftions againft infant com- 
 munion, which my little acquaintance with men 
 or books, or my own invention, has been able ta 
 help m.e to. I own I cannot perceive half the evi-. 
 dence in them that I do in the contrary arguments. 
 I am, fure \ have not purpofely conceal'd any thing 
 
 where- 
 
I fo ^Jn Eflay /;/ Favour of tlpe ancient TraUice 
 
 wherein I apprehended their ftrength lay. Bat 'tis 
 very pofTible others may fet them forth more to 
 advantage. And though in managing an argu- 
 ment, and efpecially when it feems clear to a per- 
 fon, 'tis hard to avoid expreflions which feem to 
 be pofitive ; yet I would ftill make a referve for 
 the hearing what may be fiid againft my plea, and 
 forbear coming to any fettled determination, till I 
 fee all th.: can be faid againft this ancient pradtice. 
 And now I will proceed to the laft part of the taflc 
 I have undertaken. 
 
 PART 
 
ofgwing the Each mi ft to Children, i^r" 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 The Advantages of Infant -Communion, 
 
 r2?^SS5?S?2^ AVING given the reafons which feein 
 
 ^i to me to warrant our reviving this pra- 
 
 5^ ftice , and anfwer'd the objedtions 
 
 ^^^^^^ which are made againlt if, the only 
 
 thing which remains, is to reprefent 
 
 the advantages which may be thought would attend 
 
 the reviving of it. And, 
 
 1. It may be reckoned no fmall advantage in this 
 cafe, that we fhall become more confiftent with our 
 felves in maintaining infants church-memberfhip 
 and right to baptifm. The antipedohaptijis hardly 
 fay any thing more plaufibly upon this head, than 
 when they argue from our own proceedings, and 
 alk us why we don't adminifter the Lord's fupper 
 to infants, as well as baptifm ? By our retaining the 
 cuftom of the church of Rome in taking away the 
 eucharift from children, notwithilanding we have 
 laid afide the dodrine of tranfubftantiation which 
 was the occafion of it, we have laid a ftumbling 
 block, I fear, in the way of fome. And 'tis very 
 pofTible when that is removed out of their way, and 
 the reafons for giving infants the other facrament 
 are more thoroughly confider'd, they may be the 
 more ready to fall in with us in our notion of infants 
 right to baptifm. 
 
 2. The reviving this ancient praftice of giving 
 the eucharift to children will probably be attended 
 with this advantage, that it will eafe abundance of 
 honeft pjoiis fouls of many perplexing fears and 
 
 V -j- fcruples. 
 
57 2 ^n EfTay m Vd'voiir of the ancient TraBke 
 
 fcruples about this facrament. Certainly if we fair" 
 ly and impartially confider things, we mull be fen- 
 fible, that many great and good men have run 
 this matter too high, and unhappily led people in- 
 to an exceflive and fuperftitious veneration of the 
 facrament, as though it were a privilege above 
 chriftians of ordinary attainments. I mull for my 
 own part confefs, I cannot digeft many expreflions 
 which have been ufed on this fubje6b by thofe whom 
 I highly value. Such a high pitch of holinefs and 
 fatisfaftion concerning a man's ftate, has been 
 made neceflary for an habitual preparation for re- 
 ceiving the Lord's fupper, and fo greatly has the 
 work of felf examination and an adtual preparation 
 been magnified, that it cannot be itrange many 
 perfons have conceived the utmoft dread of the or- 
 dinance it felf. And though I very much efteem 
 many pieces publiflied upon this fubjedt, and am 
 i'enfible they contain very excellent matter in them; 
 yet I hope I may without offence fay, I wifli a 
 great deal of it were publifhed in another manner. 
 For when books are endlefly multiplied, and fpun 
 out to a great length, only to diredt men in prepa- 
 ring for the facrament i this alone incourages the 
 prejudice, which men have too much received, 
 that 'tis a very hard and difficult matter for perfons 
 to be qualified to fuch a degree as that it fhould be 
 lawful for them, and their duty to come to the 
 Lord's table : And which is worfe, it too much 
 abates their concern about their preparation for, 
 and behaviour in OLher duties. They are eafy about 
 other duties, v/hile they don't meddle with this, 
 "which they think is above them, and is the only 
 one that neceffarily requires fo much care and cau- 
 tion to be ufed by chriftians in performing it. 
 
 Certainly if m.en were to fet themfelves to make 
 the fame improvement of fome expreflions concern- 
 ing other duties, that has been made of a man^s ex-. 
 
 amining 
 
of giving the Eitchariji to Children. 17^ 
 
 amining himfelf, &c. they might very much difcou- 
 rage them alfo. 1 haVe already had occafion to 
 mention fome texts to this purpofe, and fhlll not 
 repeat them. I will only add to them thefe con- 
 cerning prayer : If I regard iniquity in tjiy hearty God Pfajni 
 will not hear my prayer : I will therefore that men pray ^^''; ^ .. 
 every where ^ ^f^^''^g ^P ^^h hands without wrath and^ ^^.m* 
 doubting : Draw nigh to God, and he will draw 7iigh to -r^^ - g . 
 you : Cleanfe wur hands, ye finners, and purify your 
 hearts, ye double minded: 'The facrifice of the wicked is'^'^°^'^'''^«i 
 an abomination to the Lord : But the prayer of the up- 
 right is his delight, 
 
 I mention thefe texts^ which may as plaufibly 
 be urged to difcourage prayer, as fome others are 
 to difcourage communicating in the Lord's fupper, 
 to fhew how neceffary it is for men to abate of their 
 rigid notion concerning preparation for this ordi- 
 nance, and the danger of receiving without fuch 
 preparation. 
 
 Now the frightfulnefs of the ordinance would be 
 confiderably leffen'd, fhould it become the cuftom 
 to give the elements to children, and if perfona 
 were from their infancy to be brought up in an at- 
 tendance upon it. And how much more eafy and 
 pleafant would many fmcere and honefl fouls then 
 be in coming to the table of our Lord ! 
 
 3. The confequence of this would be, that our 
 communions would then be much fuller than they 
 are. For befide the addition of the young commu- 
 nicants, if the adult were freed from their difcou- 
 ragements, they would be more free to come, and 
 we fhould not fo often mifs their company. And 
 this, I hope, would be no difadvantage, provided 
 it appear that the perfons who come are fuch as 
 Chrift has warranted his church to receive. For I 
 doubt not he is willing, according to the parable, 
 that his houfe Jhould be filed with fuch . Luke nxi 
 
 4, This 
 
1 74 "^Jn ElTay /;/ Fa'vour of the ancient TraUice 
 
 4. This would go a great way toward the re- 
 moving an inveterate evil cuftom of having the 
 Lord's fupper fo rarely adminiftred, and the refto- 
 ring the ancient praftice of chriftians attending it 
 conftantly every Lord's day. St. Luke mentions 
 this as the principal end of chriftians meeting toge- 
 jA^s XX. 7. ther on that day. And upon the firjl day of the week^ 
 when the difciples came together to break bread, Paul 
 preached unto them. And the fame was the pradlice 
 of the primitive chriftians after the apoftles times. 
 Nothing can be more exprefs to this purpofe, than 
 the teftimony of Jujiin Martyr, who gives us this 
 account of their worftiip : * " On the day called 
 *■'■ Sunday, all that live in cities, or in the country, 
 *' come together into one place, and the writings 
 *' of the apoftles or prophets are read, according 
 *' as time will fuffer. Then when the reader has 
 '^' done, the prefident in a difcourfe inftruds and 
 " exhorts us to an imitation of thofe good things, 
 " Then we all rife up together, and offer up pray- 
 "' ers, and as we faid before, when we have done 
 *' prayer, bread and wine and water are brought i" 
 and then he proceeds concerning the Lord's fupper. 
 And no doubt this was the/?/ day of which -f Pliny 
 fpeaks, whereon he tdh Trajan, " Chriftians ufed 
 '* to meet together to bind themfelves with an oath 
 
 " [or, 
 
 * Kelt TM TH ijAiou KzyoiAvn riui^d. Toili\oiv yT^ -sroAef? n a>f bV 
 fjAvovlcov cm To Avjo <;vvi.\iv(jii y'lvirtij, ■•dt to, ^{xvn[xoviv[xetja. 
 ir^ ^75r6A.«r, w TA (Tvyy^/ijiy.cLJa. r^/ 'zr^QpVT^ avctyivdaKzlaui 
 fA'/ti.^ iyX'^?^' ' ^■'1'^ 'urctvca.y.ii'ii tS dvetyivaaKov]©-^ 
 
 [xtUiWiai •zFoi&iTyLi. ^'E'7rei]a. dvi^dy-i^A .to/cI) 'zs-eivlzi, iy «^%«{f 
 
 a.{}@- <Z3e^o-(pefS7at x^ oiv<^, >^ vS'ko. Juftin. Mart. Apol. 2, 
 in fine. 
 
 f Quod effenc fbliti fiato die ante lucem convenlre, carmenque 
 Chrifto quad Deo dicere fecum inviceni ; fcque facramento non 
 in fcelus aliquod obllringere, fed ne fiirta, ne latrocinia, ne adul- 
 teria committerent. ?lin, Ep^, XGVII. 
 
of gimng the Bttchariji to Children, 175 
 
 *' [or,thefacra?neni'\ not to the commiflion of any wic- 
 " kednefs, butthat they would not be guilty of theft, 
 " robbery, or adultery, &c." This pradice continu- 
 ed in the church, and we never find any where that 
 the eucharift was not adminiitred every Lord's day, 
 though in many places it was much oftner. Thus 
 St. Juftin tells us : f '"- In fome places the eucha- 
 " rift was adminiftred every day, in others only 
 " on Saturday and the Lord's day, in others only 
 " on the Lord's day." But mentions nothing of 
 its being any where omitted on that day. A mul- 
 titude of teftimonies might be produced to prove 
 this ; but 'tis not needful, becaufe all that know- 
 any thing of the primitive church are fully convin- 
 ced of it. In the fourth and following centuries a 
 fuperftitious magnifying the facrament, brought in 
 a negled of it. And then though the pradtice of 
 adminiftring it conftantly every Lord's day conti- 
 nued, yet the people became very remifs in attend- 
 ing upon it. Hence in the fermons of St. Chryfo- 
 Jio?n, who perhaps faid as much as any at that time 
 to magnify the facrament, and make people afraid 
 of receiving it, we meet with feveral fharp reproofs 
 of thofe who frequently v/ithdrew at the adminiftra- 
 tion of the eucharift, and ufed to receive only at the^''^- Chry* 
 folemn feafts, when there was a ereat number cf^°^^- ^°"^^ 
 communicants. This negle6l feems to have beenj^^ ^^^^' 
 more efpecially in the churches of the eaft, fince& Hom,' 
 we find an uncertain author, v/ho lived after that III. m 
 time, reproaches them efpecially with it. *"IfjEphe£ 
 " fays he, this be daily bread, why doft thou re- 
 
 " ceive 
 
 I Alibi nuUus dies intermittitur, quo non offcratur, alibi fab- 
 bato tantum & Dominico, alibi tancum Dominico, /iHgi'-fi- Epji' 
 CXVIII. ad ^annar. p. z\z. 
 
 * Si qiiotidianus elt panis, cur pofl amuim ilium fi.iniis, quem- 
 admodum Graeci in orienre facere confuevcrunt \ Auif'. trad, lis 
 facram, AmhioCio adfcripti, Lib.V, c. 4, p, li^i. 
 
X 7^ ^^ Effay /;; Favozir of the antient TraWa 
 *' ceive it once a year, as the Greeks in the eafl 
 '' are wont to do? " The notion of the facrament 
 being a facrifice both for the living and the dead, 
 made men hope for benefit by it without receivinfy 
 it. And the doftrine of tranfubllantiation raifed 
 mens thoughts of it, and fuperftitious veneration 
 for it, to the utmoft height. Some perhaps might 
 likewife take advantage to be indifferent to the re- 
 ceiving one half of the facrament, when they ob- 
 ferved the church of Ro?ne had wholly taken frorrl 
 them the other. But efpecially we may think per- 
 fons became more backward to the receiving this 
 facrament, when auricular confefiion and a priefl- 
 ly abfolution thereupon were made neceffary qua- 
 lifications of communicants. From fuch caufes it 
 came to pafs that in the church oi Rome, for a good 
 while before the reformation, the priefts confecra- 
 ted the elements continually, but the people did not 
 communicate, except upon high days. 
 
 Our reformers feem to have been guilty of a con- 
 fiderable overlight, that they laid afide the folita- 
 ry or private malTes without appointing publick 
 communions every Lord*s day in the room of them. 
 The fault in the church of Rome was not in the fre- 
 iquency of the confecration of the elements, but in 
 the priefts eating and drinking all himfelf after the 
 confecration. I humbly conceive therefore it would 
 have been much more prudent in them to have re- 
 tain'd the former, and only to have laid afide the 
 latter. At this day the greateft hindrance to the 
 reltoring of the primitive practice feems to be part- 
 ly the want of the primitive zeal and piety, and 
 partly the frightful notion people have cntertain'd 
 ot this ordinance. The giving the Lord's fupper 
 to children will certainly abate the latter of thcfe, 
 and fo difpofe men to the more frequent communi- 
 cating at the Lord's table : And it may be reafon- 
 ably hoped, that when we become more like the 
 
 pri- 
 
ofgi'Ving the JEticharifl to Children, I'j'j 
 
 primitive chriftians in our frequent and conllant 
 ufe of the Tame means they ufed, we fhall likewife 
 grow more like them in their zeal and piety. 
 
 5. If the arguments I have ufed are a proof of 
 our being warranted by God to admit children to 
 the Lord's table, the reviving that good, but anti- 
 quated pradlice, will unqueftionably be a means of 
 making good impreflionsupon children in their ear- 
 ly days, and may give us hopes that the rifing ge- 
 neration will be confiderably mended. I grant this 
 wholly depends upon the defign of the inftitution : 
 For if the pradlice has no foundation therein, a 
 wrong application of God's ordinance is not like to 
 anfwer any good end. But then on the other hand, 
 it deferves ferious confideration, whether this pra- 
 tlice has not a foundation therein : For if it has, 
 'twill no doubt be of great fervice to children. 
 Indeed the nature of the thing feems to promife ufe- 
 fulnefs. Children will be more likely to have a 
 fenfe of their baptifmal bonds and ingagements, 
 when frorn their infancy they are brought up in the 
 renewal of them ; and are taught to be the obedi- 
 ent fervants and difciples of the blcfled Jefus, as 
 they are taught other things, by fuch a frequent 
 praftifmg one of his inftitutions. Nor can I per- 
 ceive any reafon why this may not have a great in- 
 fluence upon them as well as public or private in- 
 ftru6lions and prayers. I havq with much concern 
 and trouble taken notice of the great degeneracy of 
 children, which feems more and more to increafe 
 upon us, and for ought I fee, is like to do fo, unlefs 
 fome new courfe be fpeedily taken to prevent it. 
 There is without doubt a great defe6l in particular 
 perfons, parents and mafters, in the education of 
 youth : But the corruption is fo epidemical, that I 
 am. perfuaded that is not the only defe6t. There 
 feems to be fome more general caufe •, and if I did 
 
 N . ' pot 
 
178 Jn Effay in Fa-zwur of the ancient TraUice 
 
 nor believe this ejfa^ had hit upon fuch an one, the 
 world fhoLild not be troubled with it. I hope the 
 obfervation of the great corruption of youth, which 
 all true lovers of piety mult make in our day with 
 much grief, will make them cautious how they 
 haftily rejeft what is fuggefted with a fincere aim 
 at the cure thereof. I cannot think grofs infidelity 
 and loofenefs of morals would have made thofe ad- 
 vances they have done among us, had not this an- 
 cient pra(5tice been laid afide : And I fhould hope 
 the reviving it would give a feafonable check to 
 thefe growing evils. For, 
 
 6. This praftice would bring young perfons 
 more under difcipline, and give the rulers of the 
 church a greater advantage for dealing with them„ 
 'Tis I fear a truth, and if it be, I am fure *tis to 
 us a moft fcandalous one, that we ordinarily Jet chil- 
 dren into the church by baptifm, and then leave 
 them to fhift for themfelves. We a6t as though 
 we thought we had very little concern with them 
 any further, till they come and voluntarily offer 
 themfelves to receive the Lord's fupper ; except 
 it be that we preach to them, pray with them, 
 and catechize them, if their parents or mafters 
 bring them, or they pleafe to come of their own 
 accord for that purpofe •, which is no more than 
 many would do by any unbaptized heathen in the 
 like cafe. I have long thought there is fbmewhat 
 unaccountable in the condufl of all the pedohaptifts 
 in the nation toward children. The church of 
 England indeed admits them to a communion in 
 her prayers upon a right foot, that is, as mem- 
 bers of the church by baptifm. But I can't findy 
 ihe requires their coming to the Lord's table, be- 
 fore they are fixteen years old ; nor have they 
 any difcipline, that I know of, to exercife upon 
 them till they come to that age. The indepen- 
 dents 
 
of giving the Emharijl to Children, 1 79 
 
 dents pretend not to have any authority over them, 
 or any right to call them to an account, or inlii6l 
 any cenfure upon them for their mifcarriages, till 
 they are grown up and admitted into their church- 
 es, and are in full communion with them. The 
 Engliflj prejb'^tcrians feem to have fallen very 
 much into the fame notion and praftice. Now 
 this feems to me utterly unaccountable. If chil- 
 dren are by baptifm enter'd into the chriftian 
 church, as the members thereof-, they muft cer- 
 tainly, as fuch, be fubjefl to that rule and go- 
 vernment which Chrift has appointed in his church •, 
 and the rulers of the church mull have a right to 
 exercife a difciplinc in their cafe, and to proceed 
 againft them, when they give offence, as well 
 as any other members whatever. 'Tis abfurd to 
 fay, they are members of the fociety, and yet not 
 fubjeft to the laws of it. 
 
 I would not here be mifunderftood, as though I 
 meant any other than a fpiritual difcipline. I am 
 fatisfied that is the only one, with which Chrift 
 has intrufted the governors of his church. 1 doji't 
 think children are to have any corporal punifh- 
 ments inflicled on them by the church : The do- 
 ing that belongs to parents, mafters, or magi- 
 ftrates. But certainly fome way or other there 
 muft be for the church to deal with them, and pu- 
 nifh them, when admonition and reproof will not 
 prevail : And what way can that be '^, Our exclu- 
 ding them from the Lord's fupper has in a manner 
 extirpated the very notion of any difcipline that re- 
 lates to them. For indeed what handle have wc 
 now to proceed againft children as they grow up, 
 and become looie and profligate .f* If we inflict an 
 ecclefiaftical punifhment upon them ; what can 
 that be, but the depriving them of fome ecclefi- 
 aftical privilege ? But whatprivilege xan many of 
 N 2 us 
 
1 8 o Jn Efiay //; Faccur of the ancient Tra^tce 
 
 us now deprive them of, when we don't allow 
 them a communion with us at the Lord's table, 
 and allow all others a communion with us in every 
 thing elfe ? 
 
 7. The reviving this praftice will give the go- 
 vernors of the church a greater advantage for deal- 
 ing with parents about the education of their chil- 
 dren. They will find a necelTity of concerning 
 themfelves in this very important affair , when 
 children are brought up from their infancy in the 
 full communion of the churcli. 
 
 8. This will make parents and mafters more 
 careful about the education of children, to keep 
 them in good order, and to bring them up agree- 
 ably to that profefTion which children are taught 
 from their infancy to make ; and efpecially will 
 they be careful to do this, when they find both 
 they and their children will orherwife incur an ec- 
 clefiaftical cenfure. 
 
 9. The reviving this ancient praflice may be 
 a means of reviving a more orderly difcipline 
 in the church. The decay of difcipline is univer- 
 fally own'd and lamented : But we feem to be at 
 a lofs how to revive it, and where we fhould be- 
 gin. Were there but once a good beginning made, 
 'tis probable enough we lliould with good fuccefs 
 carry on the work. Now if there be fufficient rea- 
 fon for the ancient cuftom I have recommended, 
 I can't think what more advantagious opportuni- 
 ty we can have to make a beginning, than by re- 
 viving that among us. This may the more eafily 
 be done, becauib it not being the fubjeft of any 
 party quarrel, there will be no need of one fide 
 condefcending and yielding to another. And if 
 once this practice is let up, it muft unavoidably 
 lead us further. Such a latitude in admitting per- 
 fons to the Lord's table, muft neceffiwte a great 
 
 ftria- 
 
of ghing the Emhariji to Children^ \%\ 
 
 ilridlnefs in difcipline, and a very watchful eye 
 ov^er the communicants. A long difule may occa- 
 fion our being at a lofs how to order our felves in 
 reviving this ulage ; but that it is prafticable the 
 ancient church for many ages together is witnefs j 
 and if it appear to be reafonable, the difficulties of 
 reducing it to praftice will be only at firft, and 
 will wear off every day more and more. 
 
 10. I am apt to think the attempting to reftore 
 
 this pradice might be a good means of healing 
 
 our divifions and leffening parties among us. I 
 
 could fay much on this head, but purpofely avoid 
 
 it ; becauie I would, as I have all along through 
 
 this effa'j^ keep clear of meddling with parties, 
 
 any further than as they all in common appear to 
 
 be againft that particular I am pleading for. 
 
 Every man's own thoughts will eafily fuggeft 
 
 [ enough to him on this head. I fhall therefore 
 
 i forbear adding any more about it, qr concerning 
 
 ' other advantages which I conceive would attend 
 
 I the reviving this praftice, but which it may 
 
 not be lb proper upon fome accounts to men- 
 
 I tion. 
 
 I I am fenfible how hard a matter 'tis to alter 
 
 I fettled cuftoms, and efpecially in fuch a thing as 
 
 ; this. And yet I would not willingly lofe all my 
 
 labour, and therefore will fuggeft here to young 
 
 people one ufe I would have them make of what I 
 
 have faid. 
 
 You fee what pains I have taken to plead your 
 caufe, and affert your right, and what an earneft 
 defire I have of your being allowed full communi- 
 on with the church of Chrift, and that you fhould 
 be brought up therein from your very infancy. 
 ;And now 'tis my earneft requeft to you, that you 
 Iwould not be indifferent to your own privilege, 
 jbut be forward in claiming it, and as foon as may 
 
 be, 
 
1 8 3 Jn Effay /;; Fwvoiir of the ancient TraUice 
 
 be, while the prefent method is taken, come to 
 the Lord's table, make confcience of doing it ear- 
 ly, and of embracing all opportunities of attend- 
 ing on it. I am confident your kind and gracious 
 redeemer, who took fuch a pleafure in having lit- 
 tle ones brought to him, and in blefling them, 
 would be well pleafed to fee more young ones 
 about his table •, and that his minifters fhould fhew 
 more care of his lambs, as well as of his Iheep. 
 You may eafily fee there is nothing frightful in 
 this ordinance to difcourage your attendance on it. 
 And you know you cannot approve your felves 
 the fmcere difciples and followers of the bleffed 
 Jefus, while you wilfully ncglecft fuch a plain infti- 
 tution of his. Let me therefore intreat you not to 
 be dilatory in this affair, choofe to be as early as 
 you can be allowed, accc-ding to the prefent pre- 
 vailing notions, in putting your felves voluntari- 
 ly under thofe bonds which your baptifm has 
 truly laid upon you, and which I think you 
 ought to have been accuftom'd to renew from] 
 time to time ever fmce. 
 
 I have now finifh'd what I intended in this ^ 
 for which I may, perhaps, meet with a large fhare of 
 obloquy and reproach, as being the firft perfon 
 v/ho have ventur'd to plead for the reviving this 
 practice among us. But as I am fure I herein dif- 
 charge a good confcience, io 1 hope I am armed 
 with patience for every thing of that kind. I ihall 
 clofe all with repeating my proteftation, that I 
 have no defio-n in this of incrcafins; our fewds and 
 divifions. As I am heartily forry for thofe already 
 among us, fo 'tis my fixed refolution, that if I find 
 not that more can be laid againfl this pradlice than 
 what I yet apprehend, I will then fatisfy my felt 
 vv'ith tlie honcil declaration I have made of my 
 
 mind, 
 
of gimig the Enchariji to Children, 183 
 
 mind, and, without making any difturbance about 
 my opinion, wait till the providence of God fhall 
 difpofe his church to a fenfe of their duty. For I 
 hope I can truly fay, I had rather have a milftone"^^^^ ^'vii' 
 hanged about m'j neck and be cafi into thefea, than that^' 
 I/hould offend one ofthefe little ones, or be the author 
 of any needlefs contentions and animofities in the 
 church of Chrifl. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
BOOKS printed for^ and fold by J. ; 
 Noon, at the White Hart in \ 
 Cheapfide ; and S. Chandler,! 
 at the Crofs Keys in the Poultry. 
 
 AParaphrafe and Notes on the Epiftles of Saint 
 Paul to the Colofums, Philippiafis, and Hebrews. 
 After the Manner of Mr. Lock. To which are an- 
 nexed feveral critical DifTertations on particular \ 
 Texts of Scripture. By the late Reverend and j 
 Learned Mr. James Peine, of Exon. f ' 
 
 A Defenfe of Human Liberty, in Anfwer to the ' 
 Arguments which have been alieg'd againft it ; par- ! 
 ticularly to Capo's Letters on that Subjed. By Johft ^ 
 Jack/on, K&Siov of Roftngion, in the County of Jor/I', | 
 and Prebendary offFbenvi'll in the County of South- ■ 
 ampton. Price 7,s. 6d. \ 
 
 The Peace and Happinefs of this World the im- 
 mediate Defign of Chriftianity. A Difcourfe on j 
 Luke ix. ^6. With an Addreis, in the Clofc, to \ 
 the Deifts, or thofe who deny the Chriftian Reve- '■ 
 lation. By T^honias Boll, Re6tor of IVhinhurgh in | 
 Norfolk. In Two Parts. Price 3 j. j 
 
 The Chriftian Oratory : Or, The Devotion of J 
 the Clofet difplay'd. By Benjamin Bennell, 8vo. | 
 The Second Edition, with an Index. }, 
 
 Mifcellanea Sacra : Or, A new Method of con- I 
 fidering fo much of the Hiftory of the Apoftles as g 
 is contained in Scripture: In an Abftra6l of their Hi- ^ 
 ftory •, an Abftract of that Abftrad, and four criri- :^, 
 cal Effays. With a Preface as an Introdudion to * 
 the whole. 2 Vols. 8vo. I, 
 
 A Vindication of the Chriftian Religion. In Two | 
 Parts, I. A Difcourfe of the Nature and Ufe oft 
 Miracles. 2. An Anfwer to a late Book, intituledj J 
 A Diicourfe of the Grounds and Reafons of the \ 
 Chriftian Religion. By S. Chandler. Second Edition, r