served that the bishops and presbyters of the New Testament differ only in respect of their names, immediately adds; "But from this appointment men departed by little and little, when first a distinction was made between bishops and presbyters; though it is uncertain when this new institution began to be introduced into the church."-The learned Chamier speaks more fully to the same effect.† Infant communion may also be mentioned on this occasion; for thus a dignitary of the church of England speaks concerning it: "As for the original of this custom, it is not known when it began ; probably it came in by degrees, from the ancient and laudable custom of administering the Lord's supper to grown persons presently after their baptism." To all which, I may add, none of our learned opposers can inform us when the Jewish proselyte baptism was first practised.

It may, perhaps, be objected, Had Pædobaptism been an innovation, it would, probably, have met with great opposition when first introduced; and that opposition, it is likely, would have been recorded by some ecclesiastical author. We reply, Tertullian has recorded his disapprobation of it, as we have already seen. To this may be added the reasoning of Bp. Stillingfleet, in answer to the same kind of objection when made by a Roman Catholic. These are his words: "As to the impossibility of innovations coming in without notorious opposition, I see no ground at all for it, where the alteration is not made at once, but proceeds gradually. He may as well prove it impossible for a man to fall into a dropsy, or a hectic fever, unless he can tell the punctual time when it began. And he may as well argue thus: Such a man fell into a fever upon a great debauch, and

1

* Theol. Polem. c. xiv. § 28, 29.

+ Panstrat. tom. ii. 1. x. c. vi. § 20. Vid. Quensted, Antiq. Bib. pars i. c. ii. num. iii. § 2.

Cases to Recover Dissenters, vol. ii. p. 461,

the physicians were presently sent for to advise about him; therefore the other man hath no chronical distemper, because he had no physicians when he was first sick as because councils were called against some heresies, and great opposition made to them, therefore when there is not the like, there can be no innovation."*

Till, therefore, it be fairly proved that infant baptism is warranted, either by precept or by example, in the New Testament, we need not be much concerned about the precise time when it was introduced; but may safely shelter our cause under the wings of that divine oracle, FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. If, however, our opponents will pledge themselves to inform us with precision, when the Jewish proselyte baptism commenced, or when infant communion first came into the church, we will engage in our turn to inform them with equal punctuality, when infant baptism was first practised. The conduct of our opposers in arguing for Pædobaptism from tradition, reminds me of an old saying, with which I shall conclude this chapter: Cum leonina non sufficeret, pellem vulpinam esse assuendam.

* Preserv. against Popery, title ix. p. 310. See Vol. I. -394.

p. 391

CHAPTER V.

Infant Baptism and Infant Communion introduced about the same Time, and supported by similar Arguments.

BP. BURNET." We see a practice that was very ancient, and that continued very long, which arose out of the exposition of those words, John vi. 53; by which infants were made partakers of the eucharist." Four Discourses to the Clergy, p. 206, 207.

2. Hospinianus.-"The Lord's supper was given to the infants of believers, in the time of pope Innocent the First, of Cyprian, and of Austin; as well in Europe, as in Asia and Africa, and that as necessary to salvation ....Jerome, Austin, and other fathers testify, that they who were baptized, not only adults, but also infants, without any delay received the Lord's supper in both kinds....This anciently received custom prevailed afterwards to such a degree, especially in the time of Charles the Great, that the eucharist was not only given to infants in the public assemblies, after the administration of baptism, and at other times when the church usually met for the celebration of the holy supper; but also the bread of the supper was reserved to be given to little children that were sick, equally as to adults....Agreeable to that canon; Let a presbyter have the eucharist always ready, that when any person is afflicted, or a little child is weakly, he may immediately administer it, lest he die without the communion....There were some remains of this custom in Lorrain and the parts adjacent but a few years ago: for there, when an infant was baptized, the priest who baptized him,-used to dip his fingers in the cup, and drop the wine into the child's mouth, saying; The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ profit thee to eternal life

The ancients, and among them Austin especially, were principally induced to give the sacred supper to infants, by that saying of Christ; 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.' Whence they thought it necessary, that infants also should be admitted to the Lord's supper, by which they might be rendered partakers of Christ and of eternal life.... And certainly they are to be commended who give the eucharist to infants, if the arguments of the fathers, of the Papists, and of others be of any weight, by which they tie salvation to baptism; for they see, with equal reason, that the same blessings may follow a participation of the Lord's supper. On that account, those who pleaded the necessity of communicating at the Lord's table, urged an equal necessity of being baptized among whom Austin unwarrantably indulged his own opinion in respect of baptism, when writing against the Pelagians; too inconsiderately consigning over the infants of Christians to damnation, that died without being baptized. There is nothing that he more zealously urges, nor on which he more firmly depends, than those words of Christ; 'Except a man be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."" Hist. Sacram. 1. ii. c. ii. p. 51, 62.

3. Heideggerus. "The ancient church for a long time gave the sacred symbols of the holy supper to infants; being led to it by a false interpretation of our Lord's words, (John vi. 53;) compared with another declaration of the same divine Teacher, (John iii. 5.)” Corpus Theolog. loc. xxv. § 75.

4. Salmasius.-"Because the eucharist was given to adult catechumens when they were washed with holy baptism, without any space of time intervening, this also, was done to infants, after Pædobaptism was introduced." Apud Dalenem, Dissertat. de Pædobaptismo.

5. Suicerus." It is notorious from antiquity, that the eucharist was given to infants....This custom, an

ciently received, afterward prevailed to such a degree, especially in the time of Charles the Great, that the holy supper was given to infants, not only in the public assembly of the church after baptism, or at other times when the church used to assemble for the holy communion; but some of the bread of the sacred supper was reserved, to be given to such infants as were sick, as well as to adults. Ansegisus, abbot of Liege, who recites a canon of the same Charles, published on this account, gives us a strong testimony of it; for the words of the canon are these: Let a presbyter have the eucharist always ready, that when any person is sick, or an infant afflicted, he may immediately give it him, that he may not die without the communion."" Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce Zvvakis.

6. Mr. Chillingworth.-"St. Augustine, I am sure, held the communicating of infants as much apostolic tradition, as the baptizing of them....The eucharist's necessity for infants-[was] taught by the consent of the eminent fathers of some ages, without any opposition from any of their contemporaries; and was delivered by them, not as doctors, but as witnesses; not as their opinion, but as apostolic tradition." Religion of Protest. Answ. to Pref. §.10; and chap. iii. § 44.

7. Dr. Wall." That which I conceive most probable on the whole matter is, That in Cyprian's time, the people of the church of Carthage did oftentimes bring their children younger than ordinary to the communion. That in St. Austin's and Innocent's time, it was in the west parts given to mere infants; and that this continued from that time for about sIX HUNDRED YEARS. That some time during this space of six hundred years, the Greek church, which was then low in the world, took this custom from the Latin church, which was more flourishing. That the Roman church, about the year one thousand, entertaining the doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy