Remensis saith These are the Sacraments of the Church Sine quibus ad vitam quae vera vita est non intratur without which we cannot enter into true Life Albinus in his Book of Divine Offices Cap. de celebr Miss p. 88. Cap. 26. De instit Cler. l. 1. c. 31. and Amalarius in his Third Book of Ecclesiastical Offices do in like manner say That sine his Sacramentis nemo intrat in vitam aeternam without these Sacraments none enter into Life eternal Rabanus Maurus saith Men may have temporal Life without this Food and drink Aeternam omnino non possunt eternal Apud Baron Tom. 10. p. 1007. they can never have Christ testified with an Oath Saith Humbert That without this refection that Life which is Christ cannot be had saying Verily except you eat c. By which Testimonies we may see what Reason Austin had to say this was a Doctrine deeply settled in the Churches of Christ and thence to inferr that Infants ordinarily could not have Life without participation of the Eucharist they speaking thus without exception of any Persons or of any case but that of sudden Death in which case also some of them allow that Salvation may be had without actual Baptism 3. They apply this general Doctrine to the Case of Infants and say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be received by them for Remission of Sins or that they may obtain Life both which are necessary causes of the Administration of it In the Fourth Century Theodorus Antiochenus writ a Book against some Hereticks in the Western Church Apud Phot. Cod. 177. p. 396. who asserted That Man doth Sin by Nature and not by Choice And who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Confirmation of their Opinion urged That Infants were baptized and received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Communion of the immaculate Body for the Remission of Sins P. 400. In Answer to these Men saith Photius Theodorus broached a new and strange Opinion of Remission of Sins perhaps not willingly but that he might satisfie their inquiry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why do Infants partake of the immaculate Mysteries Why are they Baptized if they sin not by Nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for these Sacraments are given for Remission of Sins Whence it appears that the Custom of giving the Eucharist to Infants was then generally practised and allowed of both in the Western and the Eastern Churches In the Western because these Western Hereticks do from this approved Custom argue against the Doctrine of the Church in the East because Theodorus of Antioch thought himself obliged to own the Practice nor is any question made whether the thing ought to be done but it is plainly owned that it was done and that for the Remission of Sins and therefore for a necessary Reason Against the Pelagians who denied that Infants were guilty of Original Sin and that they were obnoxious to Death eternal the Fathers dispute from this very Custom and the Foundation of it on the words of the Evangelist saying That according to the Practice of the Church the Blood which was shed for the Remission of Sins was ministred to them and therefore they had Sin to be remitted and that our Lord had said Vnless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you shall have no Life in you and therefore Infants wanted these things in order to their having Life and were partakers of them that they might obtain it The places in St. Austin to this effect are innumerable For why saith he Contr. Julian Tom. 7. l. 2. c. 30. is that Blood ministred to the Infant to drink which was shed for the Remission of Sins that he may have Life if by reason of no Original Sin he be obnoxious to Death Christ saith he is the Saviour of Infants Ibid. l. 1. p. 949. and unlevs they redeemed by him they will utterly perish seeing without his Flesh and Blood they cannot have Life this St. John thought and believed learned and taught When Christ saith Vnless you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you have no Life in you can I say the Child shall have Life who ends his Life without that Sacrament Hypognost c. 5. Tom. 7. p. 1405. And again He having said Vnless you eat c. and He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life how is it that you Pelagians promise the Kingdom of Heaven to Children not born of Water and the Spirit not fed with the Flesh of Christ nor having drunk his Blood which was shed for the Remission of their Sins Behold he that is not Baptized and he that is deprived of the Vital Cup and Bread is divided from the Kingdom of Heaven And of what Sacrament he conceives our Saviour to have spoken in these words he more expresly tells us saying Tom. 7. de peccat merit remiss l. 1. c. 19. p. 666. Let us hear our Lord speaking not of the Sacrament of Baptism N. B. but of the Sacrament of his holy Table to which none cometh who is not rightly Baptized Except you eat and drink c. What do we farther seek for dares any body say this Sentence belongeth not to Children or that they can have life in them without the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ But he that saith this doth not attend That if that Sentence comprehends not all so that they cannot have Life without the Body and the Blood of Christ those of riper Years are not obliged to regard it From these and many other Passages of a like Nature his Conclusion is this Lib. 1. de peccat merit remiss c. 24. p. 670. Nec pro eis fusus est sanguis qui fusus esse in remissionem legitur peccatorum Apud Aug. Ep. 90. Apud August Ep. 92. If then so many Divine Testimonies accord in saying That neither Salvation nor Life eternal is by any to be hoped for without Baptism and the Body and Blood of our Lord they are in vain promised to Children without them The Council of Carthage in their Epistle to Pope Innocent the First complain that the Pelagians durst assert That little Children needed not Baptism Propter salutem that they might have Life and that the Blood shed for the Remission of Sins was not shed for them The Council of Mela in their Letter to him complain that they asserted Pueros quoque parvulos si nullis innoventur Christianae gratia Sacramentis habituros vitam aeternam That Infants might have Life eternal though they were not renewed by the Christian Sacraments Ibid. Ep. 93. p. 424. To these complaints Pope Innocent returns this Answer Whereas your Brotherhoods assert that the Pelagians say that Infants may be saved without Baptism this is a very fond Opinion Nisi enim manducaverint for unless they eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they have no Life in them
and they who would give them this Sine regeneratione without Baptismal Regeneration seem to void Baptism it self by saying they have that which is believed to be conferred upon them only by Baptism where the Note in the Margin is Etiam R. Ecclesia credidit Eucharistiam parvulis necessariam Even the Roman Church believed that the Eucharist was necessary for little Children Behold saith Austin Contr. duas Epist Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. Lib. 1. Contr. Jul. cap. 4. Ep. ad paulinum Pope Innocent saith that little ones cannot have Life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and the Blood of Christ And again Pope Innocent determined that Infants could not have Life unless they did eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. And a Third time If the Pelagians will yield to the Apostles See or rather to their Lord and Master saying Except we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood which the unhaptized Person cannot do we shall not have Life they will at last confess that unbaptized Persons cannot have it In the Sixth Century Hom. 7. B. P. Tom. 7. p. 279. Caesarius Arelatensis urges this very Text of Scripture Except you eat c. as a most solid Testimony against the Blasphemies of Pelagius That Baptism was not to be administred to Children Propter vitam for the obtaining Life For saith he these Words of our Saviour Non habebitis vitam in vobis you shall have no Life in you do give us clearly to understand that every Soul that is void of Baptism wants both Life and Glory Now since that Passage of our Lord was never by the Ancients thought to have Relation to Baptism but always to the Eucharist it is apparent that this Argument is of no Force at all or that it is the same with that which is so often urged by St. Austin That none can have Eternal Life who doth not participate of Christ's Body and Blood and none can do that who is not baptized Ep. Univers Episc per Nicaenum Concil To. 4. p. 1177 1178. Against the Pelagians saith Pope Gelasius our Lord pronounceth That he who eateth not the Flesh of the Son of Man and drinks his Blood hath no Life in him Where we see none exempt nor dares any say That an Infant can obtain eternal Life without this Sacrament Nevertheless that the Providence of God might cut off all the Wickedness of the Pelagians it is not only said Vnless a Man be born again of Water c. but also Vnless he eat and drink c. And that this is spoken of Eternal Life none can doubt because many who receive not this Sacrament have this present Life This Argument you see is generally urged by all that write against the Pelagians nor do we find that the Pelagians did in the least except against the Practice as either Novel or not Catholick but only did content themselves to say that Infants did receive these Sacraments not to obtain Life but the Kingdom of Heaven And here it is to be admired § 5 that Men of Sense and Ingenuity should say St. Austin and these Fathers spake all this of such a Participation of the Flesh and Blood of Christ as is had in Baptism and not of the Participation of it by receiving of the Holy Eucharist When First The Proof they bring of the manducation and drinking required of Children that they may have Life is from John vj. 53. which from St. Austin's Days to the Twelfth Century hath always been understood of the Eucharist but never of the Sacrament of Baptism So generally the forecited Fathers Secondly They bring distinct Proofs to evince that Infants are to participate of both Sacraments the Third of John to prove they ought to be baptized the Sixth of John to prove they ought to receive the Holy Eucharist◠So St. Austin so Isidore Pelusiota so Pope Gelasius in the Places cited Thirdly They speak of the Mysteries in the Plural Number as of things necessary to be received for the Remission of their Sins and the obtaining Life Eternal So Theodorus Amphilochius St. Chrysostom Isidore Pelusiota St. Austin Hincmarus Rhemensis Photius Albinus Amalarius Fourthly They speak first of the Sacrament of Baptism and after of the Supper of the Lord declaring of them distributively That Infants cannot have Life Sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi without Christ's Baptism and the Participation of his Body and Blood So Pope Innocent Sine Baptismo Corpore Sanguine Christi without Baptism and the Body and the Blood of Christ So St. Austin Fifthly They spake of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by way of Distinction from that of Baptism Non de Sacramento S. lavacri sed de Sacramento mensae suae l. 1. de peccat Merit c. 19 20. Ep. 107. p. 499. Quod nisi Baptizati non utique possunt Ep. 106. p. 487. saying Let us hear our Lord not speaking of the Sacrament of Baptism but of the Sacrament of his Holy Table So St. Austin Sixthly They speak of that eating and drinking of this Quod per corpus geritur which is done by the Body Per ora by the Mouths So St. Austin Which Children have a right to by being first Baptized and of that Sacrament of the Body and the Blood of Christ Quo nemo nisi rite baptizatus accedit to which none comes who is not rightly baptized Lastly Sometimes they speak of the Sacrament of the Lord's Table of that Sacrament emphatically and of that Blood which the Child must drink Now hence it follows First § 6 That the Trent Council hath manifestly erred when it declared of all the Fathers in General who held this Opinion Sess 21. c. 4. Sine controversia oredendum est eos nulla salutis necessitate id fecisse That without Controversy we must believe that they did not this from an Opinion of the Necessity of it to Salvation this being an Untruth so manifest In. John 6. that Maldonate in direct Opposition to this Couneil saith that St. Austin and Pope Innocent were by this Passage of the Sixth of John induced to believe Infantes etiam baptizatos nisi Eucharistiam perciperent salvos esse non posse that even baptized Infants could not be saved unless they received the Eucharist and that from that place they conceived the Eucharist was necessary for Infants to Salvation and that St. Austin mentioned this not as his private Opinion Sed ut fidei totius Ecclesiae dogma but as a Doctrine of Faith received by the whole Church adding Tom. 1. part 4. p. 624. as also Binius doth That this Doctrine flourished in the Church about Six hundred Years Secondly Hence it appears that the same Council by pronouncing an Anathema against all who shall dare to say Sess 21. Can. 4. That it is necessary for Children before they come to Years of Discretion to receive the Sacrament hath virtually
Anathematized St. Austin Pope Innocent Pelagius and the whole Church of Christ for Six whole Centuries Thirdly Hence it is evident that the Practice of the Church in any Century is no true Ground for the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture seeing this Practice of communicating Infants was built upon the Mistake of the Church of the Ages mentioned touching the true Sence of those Words Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Fourthly Hence it is evident That if the present Church of any Age must be the infallible Judge of what is Tradition if what is generally received in any Age must be derived from the Apostles the Custom of giving the Sacrament to Children for the Remission of Sins and the obtaining Life must be an Apostolical Tradition it being generally received for Six Centuries and yet if the Church of Rome of the Three last Ages was the Judge of what deserved to be esteemed Tradition the self same Doctrine being then generally rejected by them could be no Apostolical Tradition Fifthly Hence Mr. M. may learn that his Proof of Prayer for the Dead and Infants Baptism from Tradition is not very weighty and convincing or if it be the Custom of communicating Infants must be Tradition Apostolical For changing only the Subject it will be easy to argue for it after the manner and in the Words of Mr. M. Let us take Two Traditions P. 401. the one confessed by you to be a true one the other indeed condemned by you but asserted by me to be no less true than the former because it is testified by as good a Tradition as the former and therefore either the former is not proved sufficiently by this Testimony or the latter is The First Tradition for Example sake is That of Baptizing Infants The Second That of the Communicating of Infants Of these Two I discourse thus Both these Points were recommended by the Apostles to the Primitive Church for divine Verities and Practices and so from hand to hand came most unquestionably delivered to the Twelfth Century Hence conformably to this Tradition P. 402. every where Christians baptized their little Children every where they gave them the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but yet the communicating of them was the more frequent Practice because Children were baptized but once in their Lives but being once baptized they frequently received the Holy Sacrament Well now let us suppose that both these Traditions be called in Question whether they be faithfully delivered as Sacraments to be received by Children or rather whether that of Communicating Infants were some humane Invention Soss 21. Can. 4. or as the Trent Council hath determined A thing unnecessary to be received by Infants till they come to Years of Discretion Let us see whether this Tradition condemned by that Council with an Anathema cannot defend it self from Forgery as well as any Scripture questioned of being true Scripture P. 403. For Example the Apocalypse which was rejected by divers Ancient Catholicks whereas the Communion of Infants was never rejected by any Ancient Catholicks at all nor by any of them said to be unnecessary Amongst ancient Hereticks the Pelagians indeed said That it was not necessary to communicate them for the Remission of Sins but this is noted in them as a peculiar Heresy of their own by Pope Innocent by Pelagius by the Council of Carthage and by St. Austin who pronounceth against them That Infants ought to be communicated for the Remission of Sins And the same St. Austin saith The Church doth necessarily do this by the Tradition P. 404. as he fupposeth Apostolical received from her Ancestors He held therefore such Communion of Infants suitable to the Doctrine of the Church and Tradition And this Tradition is that which I now stand upon which indeed did shine in the Practice of the Primitive Church You shall scarcely find a Liturgy or Service Book used in the ancient Church which is not Witness of this Tradition though these Books were found in every Parish of Christendom in which Divine Service was almost daily said P. 405. St. Cyprian mentions it as the Practice of his Times In both these Points it is a strong Argument and as strong for Communicating as for Baptizing of Infants That no time can be named in which those Customs began No man can be thought of who could by humane Means and such Means as should not make a mighty Noise amongst those great Reverencers of Tradition draw all the World in so short a time after the Apostles P. 406. to follow Customs as Apostolical which in that Age in which they were first vented were evidently by every Man not only known but clearly seen to be new hatch'd Novelties and not Ancient and Apostolical Traditions This Man who broached this false Doctrine should have been put into the Catalogues of Hereticks by Epiphanius and St. Austin whereas they did not only not put down any such Hereticks but one of them puts down Pelagius for one because he taught the contrary Now if you speak of this Custom going downward until the Age in which it began to be denied by Roman Catholicks the Custom of Communicating Infants hath come down with such a full Stream that it drew all Countries in many Ages with it insomuch that every where but among a few late born Romanists the Pontificals the Books of Sacraments the Liturgies Eastern and Western all the Ritualists all the Books of Ecclesiastical Discipline P. 407. and even the Canon Law bears witness of it There was not a Country which abounded not with such Monuments and such Records the very strongest Proofs of assured Antiquity and unquestionable Tradition Thus I hope I have made good that Tradition shining in perpetual Practice from St. Cyprian to Pope Paschal the Second is a sure Relater of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church touching Communicating Infants whence you may clearly see that the Trent Council hath manifestly erred in this Matter and consequently was not Infallible for if they could be actually false in a Point so universally current they might bear Witness in many other Matters to false Doctrine and deny due Approbation to the true P. 196. L. 1. contr Crescon c. 33. Sixthly Hence we may learn how failly Mr. M. citeth St. Austin to prove That nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures to prove that Infants ought to be baptized for is it possible That he who held it so manifest from Scripture that they ought to receive that Sacrament to which De peccat Merit l. 2. c. 27. saith he no Man hath right to come who is not first baptized should think there was no certain Proof from Scripture of their right to Baptism Moreover how often doth he prove their right to Baptism from that Passage of St. John Except he be born again of Water De peccat Merit l 1.
Chalcedon Can 1. Can. 2. and afterwards by that in Trullo and therefore was allowed by the whole Church of God. St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructs his Catecumen That the Apostles and James the Bishop of Jerusalem had writ a Catholick Epistle to the Gentiles to teach them to abstain from things offered to Idols things strangled and from Blood and then he adds Catech. 4. p. 34. c. de cibis That they who licked up the Blood of Beast and spared not to eat things strangled were like to wild Beasts and Dogs these saith he are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Institutions touching Meats which it behoves you to observe In the Fifth Century St. Jerom declares In Ezek. 45. p. 245. That according to the Letter the Decree contained in the Fifteenth of the Acts obligeth every Christian not to eat the Flesh of any dead Sheep or Cattle quorum nequaquam sanguis effusus est whose Blood is not poured forth And Chrysostom on the place saith These Constitutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though they concern the Body yet are they necessary to be kept In the Sixth Century the Second Council of Orleans declares A. D. 536. can 20. That they who eat of that which is choaked by any Disease or Chance or killed by the bitings of Beasts shall be excluded from the Communion of the Church and if any person after this diligent Sanction Can. 22. doth not observe these things reos se divinitatis pariter fraternitatis judicio futuros esse cognoscant let them know they shall be guilty both in the Judgment of God and of the Brotherhood In the Seventh Century this was Decreed by the Sixth General Council held in Trullo in these words Can. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scripture hath commanded us to abstain from Blood things strangled and from Fornication he therefore who attempts to eat the Blood of any Creature any way if he be a Clerk let him be deposed Cap. 18 19. if he be a Lay-man let him be Excommunicated In the Penitential of Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury we have this Rule prescribed Hast thou eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts thou must do penance Forty Days if thou hast eaten Blood thou must do likewise Now of this Theodorus Rabanus doth inform us Ep. ad Humbert apud Regin de discip Eccl. l. 2. c. 200. That he was fully instructed in the Customs both of the Eastern and the Western Churches and that he could be ignorant of nothing which was then observed by the Greeks or Romans and therefore we may rationally conclude that what he thus prescribed was only that which was observed both in the East and Western Churches In the Eigth Century Gregory the Third who was made Pope A. Can. poenit c. 30. D. 731. puts this among his penitential Canons That he who hath eaten that which died of it self if he did this ignorantly shall do Penance Twenty Days if knowingly Forty Days And Bede informs us That he who comes to penance must be asked Can. de diversis causis c. 14. Whether he had eaten that which died of it self or was torn by Beasts and if so he must do Penance Forty Days and the like must be done by him who hath eaten Blood. Novel 58. Bals in Syn. Trull can 67. Leo the Emperor made a Law to punish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who did eat any kind of Blood. In the Ninth Century Regino doth not only produce out of the Penitentials the same Canons against eating things strangled and Blood De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 369 373. De discipl Eccles l. 2. c. 374. but adds moreover that admonendi sunt fideles ut nullus praesumat sanguinem manducare the Faithful are to be admonished that none of them do presume to eat Blood for this was forbidden in the beginning when first God gave Men liberty to eat Flesh and it is also forbidden in the New Testament where things strangled and Blood are compared with Fornication and Idolatry to teach us quantum piaculum sit sanguinem comedere what an heinous thing it is to eat Blood. In the Eleventh Century Humbertus plainly shews that this was then esteemed unlawful both in the Eastern and the Western Churches Apud Baron Tom. 11. p. 986. For we saith he of the West do not defend against you Greeks the eating of things strangled and Blood Antiquam enim consuetudinem seu traditionem Majorum retinentes nos quoque haec abominamur For retaining the ancient Custom or Tradition of our Ancestors we also do abominate these things imposing grievous Penance upon them who do this without great peril of Life and this we do especially quia antiquas consuetudines traditiones Majorum quae non sunt contra fidem leges Apostolicas arbitramur because we judge the Ancient Customs and Traditions of our Ancestors which are not opposite to the Faith to be Apostolical Laws And yet when Transubstantiation was once fully established in the West as it was in the Twelfth and the beginning of the Thirteenth Centuries then they perceived they could no longer with any truth assert as did the Ancient Fathers that they did ab humano sanguine cavere abstain from eating humane Blood but believing they did eat Blood with the Flesh in the Sacrament they gave all Men liberty to do it elsewhere Whence Balsamon in the Twelfth Century speaks thus In Can. 67. Concil Trull 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latins do indifferently eat things strangled and if in this instance that which in the Eleventh Century was by the Western Churches held in abomination and worthy of most grievous Penances as being opposite both to the Laws of the Apostles and the Traditions of the Ancients might in the next Century be generally allowed and practised as a thing indifferent why might not a like change happen in the same Church in a like space of time touching the Doctrine of the corporeal Presence or any other Article of Christian Faith. Thirdly § 7 The Ancient Church unanimously and constantly declared it was a thing plainly repugnant to Scripture and to true Religion and proper unto Hereticks to punish any man with death for his Religion or his Heresie and she refused Communion with them that did so And 1. They declared this practice opposite to our Lord's precept Not to gather up the Tares by themselves Matth. xiij 29 30. but let them both grow together till the Harvest He introduceth his Servants saying Wilt thou that we pluck up the Tares that he might tell them saith St. Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Locum that it was unlawful to cut them off He forbids Wars and Blood and Slaughters to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is not lawful to cut off the Heretick Christ here forbids not to stop their Mouths restrain and hinder their boldness of Discourse dissolve
by the Tradition of the Church present to all Believers in every Age in which those Believers lived That the whole World was governed by Tradition only for the first Two thousand Years And he is so exact as to enumerate the very Tenets which they held by Tradition viz. The fall of Adam and their Conception in Original Sin. The means to be used to free themselves and their Children from it The immortality of the Soul and that the Rewards and Punishments of the next Life lasted for ever What Repentance they were to use That they were to stand fast to their Traditions and account it a damnable Sin to forsake them The Observation of the Sabbath the Precept of not eating Blood obliging all the World the distinction betwixt clean and unclean Meats and Beasts the Precept of Circumcision observed Four hundred Years by Abraham 's Posterity by Tradition the Covenant God made with Abraham that he should be the Father of many Nations Disc p. 91. and that the Messiah should be born of his Seed R. H. informs us of other Positive Divine Laws viz. Those of Sacrifice Firstlings Holocausts Peace-Offerings Birds in Sacrifice not divided mention of the Holy Times Places Persons Prophets of Tythes paid to the Priest Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments Vows Prohibition of Polygamy contracting Marriages with Vnbelievers Excommunication And these Laws saith he we may presume were received from an external infallible Proponent and were preserved by the Ecclesiastical Superiors and Teachers of these Laws in such a manner as those delivered since and for the certainty of their Religion there seems an Infallibility in these as necessary if not more for solving the great doubts arising therein before as after the times of a written Law. Such Arguments as this and those that follow are not worthy of any consideration by reason of their great impertinency were it not upon this account that it is easie to evince they are so far from being Arguments for that they are certain Demonstrations against the certainty and the Infallibility of the Traditions disputed betwixt us and the Church of Rome and plainly overthrow the Cause they were designed to maintain To make this evident let it be noted First That the Controversy betwixt us and the Church of Rome is not this Whether any thing may be derived down to Posterity by Tradition for this we have confessed in many Cases and where Tradition from the beginning can undoubtedly be had we own it But the Question is Whether they who own or have Tradition for their Rule may not add many things to that which truly was received by Tradition pretending falsly that they also were derived by Tradition to them For if this may be so the Church of Rome may also own at present Tradition for her Rule and yet with the like falshood may pretend that many Doctrines and Practices descended by a Primitive Tradition to her and the Traditions here enumerated may also truly bear that name and yet the very same persons may have handed down at the same time many other Practices and Doctrines under the same pretence which tended to corrupt the Faith and Manners of those very Ages Secondly The great Enquiry is Whether in tract of time viz. the space of Sixteen hundred Years such Doctrines and practices may not be admitted and owned as Primitive Traditions by a prevailing party of Gentiles Jews or Christians which were nothing less than so For if this hath been actually so before and after the writing of the Law of Moses and also since the publication of the Gospel then may the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome in so long tract of time be thus admitted and yet be nothing less than Primitive Traditions And Thirdly Whether Pretences to Tradition may not justly be suspected when ancient Records which had equal reason to take notice of them and could not have condemned what the whole Church received as a Divine Verity not only do say nothing of but plainly contradict them Having premised these things I answer Fourthly § 2 That these great Pretenders to Tradition in this Assertion contradict both the Tradition of the Jews and of the Ancient Fathers The Tradition of the Jews Selden de jure Nat. l. 1. c. 8. p. 102. c. 10. p. 116. ad p. 126. who unanimously declare That the Law given to the World after the Fall of Adam was only that of the Precepts of Noah against Idolatry 2. Blasphemy 3. Murther 4. Vnlawful Copulation 5. Theft 6. The Law concerning Civil Government all which are Laws of Nature And 7. The Law forbidding to eat Blood. The Fathers also generally assert Vid. Seld. ib. l. 1. c. 8. p. 98 99. Apol. 2. p. 83. That before the written Law men lived according to the Law of Nature So Justin Martyr That God admonished them Per naturalia praecepta quae ab initio infixa dedit hominibus nihil plus ab iis exquisivit by the natural Precepts from the beginning implanted in their Hearts and required nothing more of them So Irenaeus That it was Reason L. 4. c. 28. or Philosophy which before the coming of our Saviour was necessary to make them Righteous and that it was their Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ Strom. 1. p 282. So Clemens of Alexandria That they were guided by the Law written In Naturalibus tabulis De Cor. Milit. c. 6 Adv. Jud. c. 2. in the Tables of their Heart which was the common Law of the World and that it was this Law of Nature which à Patribus custodiebatur was observed by the Fathers and by which Noah Abraham and Melchizedeck were Righteous Praepar Evang l. 7. c. 7. So Tertullian That before the written Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were adorned with the Virtue of Piety by right Reason so Eusebius That God led the Heathens to Piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Law of Nature Serm. 1. Contr. Graec. ad Sylberg p. 20. and of the Creation so Theodoret. Particularly they inform us That before Moses the Patriarchs observed not the Sabbath That without the Observation of it all the just Men forenamed viz. Adam Abel Enoch Lot Noah and Melchezedeck Dial. cum Tryph. p. 236.245 L. 4. cap. 30. Adv. Jud. c. 2. 4. Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 4. Praep. Evang l. 7. c. 6. Demonstr Ev. l. 1. c. 6. pleased God and after them Abraham and his Posterity till Moses so Justin Martyr That Abraham was justified Sine observatione Sabbathi without the Observation of the Sabbath so Irenaeus Non Sabbatizabant The Patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath saith Tertullian They took no care of Circumcision or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Observation of the Sabbaths saith Eusebius Secondly of Sacrifices they affirm that Abel Noah Qu. Resp ad Orthod qu. 83. Const Apost l 6. c 20 p. 284. and others offered them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Divine
as appears touching the Greek Church and their Dependants from the continuance of this Practice to this very Day Notandum quod ex hoc quod dicitur hic nisi manducaveritis c. dicunt Graeci quod hoc Sacramentum est tantae necessitatis quod pueris debet dari sicut baptismus Nichol de Lyra in Joh. 6. touching the Eastern Churches from their continuance of it by Tradition even since their Separation from other Churches in the Fifth and the Sixth Centuries for it is practised still by the Cophti or Aegyptian Christians Brierw p. 157. p. 165 173. 178. by the Habassines by the Armenians and by the Maronites saith Brierwood Moreover in the Third Century De laps p. 132. Cyprian speaks of it as a Thing then in use witness that Story he relates of the Child who through the Wickedness of the Nurse having tasted of the Idol Sacrifice when the Deacon came to give it the Cup turned away its Face and shut its Mouth and when the Deacon forced the Wine into its Mouth presently threw it out again and Witness the Apology he thus makes for such Children We did not on our own Accord make hast to the profane Contagions Derelicto cibo poculo domini Ibid. p. 125. leaving the Food and the Cup of the Lord 't was the Perfidiousness of others that destroyed us and he seems to assert the Necessity of it from the Sixth of John Cap. 25 26. in the Third Book of Testimonies to Quirinus In the First Form of Liturgy we meet with in the Church of Christ Constit Apost l. 8. c. 13. we find this Practice prescribed to be used in Christian Churches Let the Bishop communicate and after him the Priests the Deacons Subdeacons the Readers Singers and Ascheticks the Deaconesses Virgins Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then Children Hier. Eccles c. 7. p. 360 361. Dionysius also saith That Children in his time were made Partakers of the Holy Mysteries In the Sixth Age we find this was still the received Custom of the Western Church from the Gregorian Office which takes care that Baptized Infants Ad Sabb. Pasch p. 73. Non ablactarentur antequam communicent should not suck before they had communicated The Practice of the Western Parts in the Seventh Century is Evident from the Council of Toledo which decrees Concil Tom. 6. p. 552. That they shall not be punished Qui tempore Infantiae Eucharistiam receptam rejiciunt who in time of their Infancy vomit up the Eucharist In the Eighth Century we are informed by Charles the Great Car. Mag. de Imag. l. 2. c. 27. That this was then the General Custom of the Church of God. For against the Doctrine of the Second Nicene Council and of the Roman Church pronouncing Anathema to those who did not Worship Images he and his Council of Three hundred Bishops argue thus That then Infantes Baptismatis unda loti Corporis Dominici edulio Sanguinis haustu satiati pereunt Infants who have been Baptized and have received the Sacrament of our Lords Body and Blood must perish In the Ninth Century it was a known Constitution of the Western Church That the Priest should always have the Eucharist ready that if any little Child be infirm he might give him the Communion and the Child might not die without it which Constitution is extant in the Capitular of Charles the Great L. 1. c. 161. Cap. 7. L. 1. c. 69. in Walter Aurelianensis in Regino de Ecclesiasticis disciplinis in Ivo Decret part 2. cap. 20. in Burchardus l. 5. c. 10. and so undoubtedly obtained till the Twelfth Century Not. in Reg. p. 551 552. Not. ad librum Sacrament p. 298. In the Old Pontificials of the Eighth or Ninth Century saith Baluzius there is a Rubric requiring the Bishop or the Priest to give the Communion to the new baptized Infant And this continued saith Menardus till the time of Paschal the Second And Hugo de Sancto Victore saith That if it can be done without peril De Ceremon Eccl. l. 1. c. 20. Sive de Sacram l. 1. c 20. Juxta primam Ecclesiae institutionem Sacramentum Eucharistiae in specie Sanguinis tradendum est pueris according to the Primitive Institution of the Church the Sacrament of the Eucharist must be delivered to Children in the Species of Blood. Now by these Testimonies we learn how neatly the Trent Council minceth this Matter Sess 21. c. 4. when they say That Antiquitas eum morem in quibusdam locis aliquando servavit Antiquity did in some Places for some time observe this Custom More ingenuous is Cardinal Bona Rerum Litur l. 2. c. 19. p. 877 878 879 882. who confesseth it was an ancient Custom That Quicunque Baptizabantur sive adulti sive Infantes sacra statim Communione reficerentur whatsoever Infants were Baptized they should presently be refreshed with the Holy Communion and proves this Custom from the Third to the Twelfth Century And Baluzius admires Not. in Regin p. 552. That any one should say Universalem Ecclesiam nunquam recepisse hunc morem sine nota novitatis that the universal Church never received this Custom without a Note of the Novelty of it Secondly They declared in the General from these Words § 4 That this Sacrament was as necessary for all as Baptism and that where they could be had they were both necessary to Salvation St. Basil saith Tom. 1. p. 580. Tom. 2. p. 431. That the Baptized Person ought to be nourished with the Food of eternal Life and that the Communication of the Body and the Blood of Christ is necessary to eternal Life and proves both these Assertions from this Passage of St. John. Amphilochius in his Life saith In vita Basil c. 17. p. 221. It is impossible that any Man should enter into the Kingdom of God unless he be regenerate by Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and partake of the Life-giving Mysteries of the Body and the Blood of Christ St. Chrysostom declares That none can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven if he be not Baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost Hom. 3. de Sacerdotio Tom. 6. p. 16. l. 38. Tom. 2. p. 748. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if he do not eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. And upon that passage of St. John Christ shews saith he that this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. l. 2. 2. Ep. 52. very necessary and ought always to be done These saith Isidore Pelusiota are the divine Mysteries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without which none can obtain the heavenly Rewards as is apparent from the Divine Oracles John iij. 3. vi 53. In Cap. 6 Joh. l. 4. p. 361. They are void of Life saith St. Cyril of Alexandria who receive not the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the participation of the Eucharist Tom. 2. p. 92 96. Hincmarus