account for the present, looking upon him as one who had well considered the matter; and observed, that Mr. Peirce had carried the practice still higher, upon suggestions which bear a plausible appearance; yet he thought those suggestions worth examining further into. And though he had said, that St. Austin is supposed to have construed John vi. 53. of the necessity of the Eucharist to salvation, referring to Wall and Vossius; yet he was not so well satisfied of the truth of such supposition, but to add, that Thorndike disputes it with some show of reason; doubtful all the while how this matter might turn out upon further inquiry and accordingly he himself inquired deeper into it before the book was published, as appears by the following Advertisement prefixed to it.

"ADVERTISEMENT.

"In p. 136, I have followed the common opinion of "learned Protestants (Mr. Bingham, Dr. Wall, &c.) "in relation to Infant Communion, as prevailing in the "fifth century, under a notion of its strict necessity, built 66 upon John vi. 53. though I had some scruple about it; "as may appear by my manner of expressing myself, and "by the reference to Thorndike in notek.

66

Having since looked somewhat deeper into that "question, I think it now just to my readers to advertise "them, that I apprehend that common opinion to be a "mistake; and that though the practice of giving Com"munion to children at ten or at seven years of age (or "somewhat sooner) was ancient, and perhaps general, yet "the practice of communicating mere infants, under a "notion of its necessity, and as built upon John vi. came "not in before the eighth or ninth century, never was general; or however lasted not long in the West, where "it first began. My reasons for this persuasion are too "long to give here: but I thought this short hint might "be proper, to prevent misconceptions as to that Article."

The tract now submitted to the judgment of the learned, is the result of our author's further inquiry into this subject; wherein the reader will find at large the reasons for the opinion delivered in the above Advertise

ment.

The thing was mentioned incidentally only in his Re

VOL. IX.

b

view, where nothing was built upon it: and though that might be one occasion of his looking further into it, yet he had other motives for so doing, esteeming it a point worth clearing up.

Some have censured the ancients, as having erred in teaching the necessity of Infant Communion, and practising it upon such erroneous principles; in order to detract in general from the authority of the ancient Fathers. Among these is, particularly, Mr. Daillé, in his treatise concerning the Use of the Fathers for determining the Controverted Heads of Religion; who, in lib. ii. cap. 4. concerning the errors of the Fathers, having, among the rest, brought in St. Cyprian, as falling in with the error of that age, the doctrine of the necessity of the Eucharist to baptized infants; and St. Austin, as teaching the same m; closes the chapter with concluding from thence, that since the Fathers were guilty of so many errors, their opinions are not of weight enough to show the truth of any controverted point".

Though it be the immediate design of Mr. Daille's treatise to show (from the uncertainty of determining clearly what the opinions of the Fathers were, and from their not being infallible in their opinions, though clearly known) that the Fathers cannot be made judges, in the controversies between Protestants and Papists; yet it plainly appears, that he was willing hereby to decry their authority in general: which others have made a very bad use of, as it must be obvious they would do, though with little reason for though it be true, that the Fathers were not infallible, and may have erred in points of less consequence; yet it is running into unjustifiable ex

1 Idem beatus martyr [Cyprianus] in sui seculi errore versabatur, putans omnibus baptizatis, ne pueris quidem exceptis, Eucharistiam esse ad salutem necessariam. Dallai de Usu Patrum lib. ii. cap. 4. p. 263. Latin. edit. Geneva, 1686.

m Statuit etiam Augustinus Eucharistiam pueris necessariam. Ibid. p. 280.

n-Videor ex his jam merito posse concludere, cum Patres tot modis erraverint, sive seorsum singuli, sive conjunctim plures, nec privatam singulorum sententiam, nec plerorumque ex iis consensum argumentum esse satis firmum ad eorum capitum quæ hodie controvertuntur certo demonstrandum veritatem. Ibid. p. 294.

Quæ duobus superioribus capitibus disseruimus sufficere arbitror, ut quivis moderato ingenio præditus apud se constituat, non tantam esse in rebus ad religionem pertinentibus, quam vulgus existimat, Patrum auctoriIbid. p. 252.

tatem.

tremes to conclude from thence, as some have done, that therefore there is no credit to be given to the verdict of antiquity at all; that they have erred in fundamentals, or in delivering down the canonical books of Scripture, and the fundamental doctrines therein contained. Though Mr. Daillé himself might have no design of running to such extremes; yet he hath given an handle to others for so doing and though he professes to add the fourth chapter of his book, concerning the errors of the Fathers, unwillingly P; yet, as a judicious writer observes, he hath made it hard for us to believe it, when we find that he has made their errors more and greater than they really are 9. Nor does it appear consistent with the great regard he would seem to pay to their characters, to have been so diligent in collecting and publishing their errors, without evidence sufficient against such great and good men; who have received their vindication, against the accusations of this writer, from several learned handss; as they have also done against the like objections of Mr. Barbeyrac, by the pen of our learned author in another treatiset. Many errors imputed to them have, upon review, been found to be the errors only of those who so imputed them and the tract now published hath taken away one error more from Mr. Daillé's catalogue, by showing, that the doctrine of the necessity of Infant Communion was really never taught by those ancient Fathers, whose doctrine it hath commonly been thought to have been.

The Fathers were men, therefore fallible, and not to be acquitted of all mistakes, unless we could acquit them too of human frailties. But though we should not dissemble the real errors of the Fathers, yet it becomes us to be cautious in our censures, not to lay more errors to their charge

Poterunt ergo, quiqui sint æqui lectores, hoc et sequens caput prætermittere, quod utrumque pæne invitus subjicere cogor, ut iis, qui se studiis suis abripi patiuntur, excusationem omnem præcidam-ægre quidem, et, quod ait poeta, inove. Duu hanc disputationis partem aggredior. Ibid. p. 253.

p. 436.

Wall's History of Infant Baptism, part ii. cap. 9. sect. 15. vol. ii. Grave enim est, et a pudore nostro alienum, hominum, præsertim sanctorum et merito venerabilium nævos ac labes spectare ac ostentare. Daillé, ibid. p. 253.

Scrivener in Apologia pro Sanctis Ecclesiæ Patribus adv. Dallæum, par. ii. cap. 4. p. 185. Cavei Epistola Apologetica. Zornius Hamburgensis Vindicia Patrum, opposita Joanni Dallæo, &c. in Opuscul. ejus Sacr. tom. i. Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity, vol. v. cap. 7. p. 294–311.

than they were really guilty of; nor to be over zealous in searching out every occasion of carping at their writings; nor to aggravate, beyond reason, those errors which they may be found to have fallen into; lest we thereby give an handle to the enemies of religion to turn it to a bad use, by decrying the authority of antiquity in general, and in relation to the weightier matters of our faith. Buddæus, who seems to be a great admirer of Mr. Daille's book, speaking of Zornius who wrote against it, confesses this " : and though he was no very zealous advocate for the Fathers, speaks of them in very handsome terms, not running the lengths of those who talk only as their prejudices direct them, without knowing any thing of the matter. Buddæus was a man of learning, and knew what he said: and therefore, at the same time that he cannot acquit the Fathers of all errors and faults, (and who ever pretended to do it?) declares them to have been excellent men, judicious, pious, virtuous, and learned for the times they lived in. He takes the middle way, neither ascribing too much nor too little to their authorityy. He is so far from despising them, as they only do who are ignorant of them, that he recommends the diligent study of them, not only as useful, but as absolutely necessary in order to an exact knowledge in ecclesiastical antiquity: and declares, that notwithstanding the errors of this or that single Fa

"Lubens sane fateor, caute hac in re procedendum, ne vitia et nævos Patrum ultra, quam decet, exaggerando, et curiose nimis, quæ carpamus, in illorum scriptis, conquirendo, ipsam quoque religionem Christianam, doctrinamque sacram, profanorum hominum ludibrio exponamus. Nec tamen ideo omnia in patribus laudanda, aut nævi, vitia, et errores dissimulandi; cum tela, quæ inde forte homines impii, aut dissentientes, contra nos depromunt, alia repellere ratione queamus. Buddæi Isagog. ad Theolog. lib. ii. cap. 3. sect. 13. tom. i. p. 542.

* Fuerunt inter eos viri præstantes, pollentes ingenio, et pro istorum temporum ratione eruditi, virtutis quoque sanctitatisque laude florentes; nec tamen nævorum, errorum, vitiorum, humanæque imbecillitatis plane expertes. Ibid. p. 540.

y De auctoritate illi recte sentiunt, qui, media quadam via incedentes, nec plus, nec minus, quam decet, illis tribuunt. Ibid. p. 539.

Nec omnis erga veteres istos ecclesiæ doctores, quibus multa debemus, abjicienda veneratio; sed accurate simul, diligenterque dispiciendum, ne, dum modesti videri volumus, in veritatem simus injurii. Ibid. p. 543.

Antiquitatis et historiæ ecclesiastica notitiam adcuratiorem sine Patrum lectione neminem sibi comparare posse, adeo manifestum est, ut ignorantiam suam proditurus esset, qui secus sentiret.Atque hæc cum ita se habent, nos Patres neutiquam contemnere, manifestum est; sed eorum potius lectionem, si recte instituatur, ceu utilem maxime ac salutarem, omnibus commendare. Ibid. p. 544.

ther in some points; yet the true Catholic doctrine and faith of the Church may be found in them a. The reader will excuse this short digression concerning the Fathers, which the mention of Mr. Daillé's treatise hath led me into. I chose to be a little particular in representing the sense of Buddæus upon this head; because, being a learned and judicious man, and no great admirer of the Fathers, his moderate opinion, and recommendation of them, will carry a double force, and may be of use to procure a more favourable reception for them among those who will not regard what is said of them by others, whom they look upon as more prejudiced in their favour.-I now re

turn.

As Mr. Daillé hath imputed to the Fathers the doctrine of the necessity of Infant Communion, in order to destroy their credit in general; so there are others who have taken advantage, from this supposed doctrine and practice, to lessen their credit in respect particularly to Infant Baptism. The Antipædobaptists, who say that the custom of giving infants the Communion was, anciently, as general as the baptizing them, argue thus: the ancients taught the necessity of Infant Communion; and thereupon gave infants the Eucharist, as well as Baptism: but all allow that they were guilty of an error in giving the Eucharist to infants; and therefore there can be no reason to lay any great stress on their authority, or to regard their opinion or practice, in giving them Baptisme.

As these I have hitherto mentioned have pleaded the antiquity of the practice of Infant Communion, as founded on the doctrine of its strict necessity, in order to censure the Fathers as guilty of error therein; so there have been others, on the contrary, who have pleaded the same, in favour of such practice, and to recommend the revival of it. Bishop Bedell, of the last century, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, occasionally mentions it in a letter to Dr. Ward, Master of Sidney College in Cambridged. And

Hi ipsi autem nævi atque errores Patrum, dum hic in illo, alius in alio capite erravit, non obstant, quo minus, si ex omnibus adsumantur, quæ recte dicta sunt, veræ inde Catholicæque doctrinæ in Ecclesia perpetua conservatio propagatioque intelligi queat. Ibid. p. 505.

Vid. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, part ii. cap. 9. sect. 15. vol. ii,

p. 435, 436.

Conf. Wall, ibid. sect. 17. vol. ii. p. 447.

d- -And so did also children baptized in the primitive Church communicate in the Lord's Supper. Which I know not why it should not be so still. Vid. Archbishop Usher's Letters published with his Life by Dr. Parr, 1686. No. clxiii. p. 442.

b 3

-As