and talking, and covenanting with a Child, can you wonder, Sir, if he smiles, and merrily treats the whole Tranfaction as a Jeft?

"The Anfwers, you fay, are confidered by the Church as ONLY the Answers of THE CHILD, and contain ITS Part of the baptifmal Covenant ; "which because, by Reafon of its tender Age, it cannot it felf utter, is to be utter'd by its Sureties :" That is to fay, the Child thinks, but cannot speak: It really covenants, contracts, promises, but not being able by Reafon of its tender Age to utter its good Intentions, thefe Sureties are its Mouth to ut ter them for it. But why, good Sir, its Mouth to fpeak for it; and not its Understanding also to think for it; its Will to promife for it; and indeed its Soul, and its very felf, to covenant and contract for it? Is not the Child, by Reason of its tender Age, as abfolutely incapable of Covenanting, as 'tis of Uttering; of Contracting, as 'tis of Speaking? If the Surety therefore does one of these good Offices for it, he undoubtedly does the other allo. But,

SECONDLY. If there be, as you fay, No Promifes NOR Engagements which ANY befides THE CHILD are fuppofed to enter into, or to be bound by, the Confequence is extremely plain, that then there are no Promiles nor Engagements entered into at all, for its religious Education. For the Child furely, does not engage for its own religious Education. If the Sureties therefore do not enter into any Promife of this Kind, it evidently follows, that there are no exprefs Engagements entered into by any for the Child's Education. And thus, behold, your boasted double Security, turns out at laft no Security at all! But, a Surety not bound! a Sponfor promifing nothing! a Security unengaged! This is Language, Sir, in the mercantile, whatever it may be in the fcholaftis Way of Life, abfolutely unintelligible. And to retort your own Inftance; my Lawyer I

should

!

fhould think a very wrong-headed Man, who fhould pretend to lend my Money upon a double Security, and make a Merit of fo doing, when at the fame Time he confeffed, there were No Promifes, NOR Engagements, by which either of the Sc curities were explicitly bound.

To be plain, Sir; as for this Bufiness of a Child's believing, promifing, covenanting by Reprefentative or Proxy, I cannot but think a Gentleman of your Penetration, will eafily perceive it to be a Thing abfolutely inexplicable, impoffible, and abfurd; a Thing utterly repugnant to Reafon and common Sense, and without the leaft Shadow of Foundation in the Chriflian Religion. For if by the Conftitution of the Gofpel Covenant, a Child may believe by Proxy, repent by Proxy, vow, promife, and contract by Proxy, he may alfo, no doubt, be faved by Proxy, or be damned by Proxy. But, into what a Jeft will this turn the Religion of Chrift?

As for the Antiquity of this Practice, Sponsors in Baptifm, you have the good Senfe and Ingenuity not to pretend it was ever known, or fo inuch as thought of, in the primitive apoftolic Church. Ter tullian, who lived about Anno Dom. 200, is the firft, I apprehend, of all Chriftian Writers, that makes any mention of them. Nor does it at all follow from what be fays, that thefe Sponfors were any other than the Parents of the Child. Juflin Martyr who wrote fifty Years before him, when he particularly defcribes the Method and Form of Chriftian Baptifm in his Days, fays not a fingle Word of any fuch Perfons.

But we learn from St. Austin, about the Year 390 (one of the earliest of Chriftian Writers, in which any mention of them is found) when, and upon what Occafion, thefe Sponfors were admitted.

Vid. Lord King's Enquiry, Part II. p. 67, 68.

"A

A great many, fays he, are offered to Baptifm, not by their Parents, but by others; as Infant

Slaves are fometimes offered by their Masters: "And fometimes when the Parents are dead, the "Infants are baptized, being offered by any, who

can afford to fhew this Compaffion to them. "And fometimes Infants whom their Parents have "cruelly expofed, to be brought up by thofe who "light on them, are now and then taken up by "the holy Virgins, and offered to Baptifm by

them who have no Children of their own, nor "defign to have any."These are f Auftin's Words. Obferve now Dr. Wall's g ingenuous Confeffion on them (and the good Doctor you know, Sir, was never partial in Favour of Diffenters, but a fevere Remarker on them :) Here we fee the "ORDINARY Ufe then was for PARENTS to answer for the Children: But yet that this was not counted "SO NECESSARY, as that a Child could not be bap

·"tized without it."

Hence then it is plain, that Parents never were fet afide, when they were capable and willing_to toffer their Children; and that only in Cafes of Parents Incapacity, were Sponsors admitted: And in all fuch Cafes, Diffenters alfo use them. Why now, I befeech you Sir, in Defiance of this acknowledged Ufage and Practice of the ancient Church, as well Das of common Senfe, does your Church feverely decree, "That NO PARENT fhall be urged to be PRE"SENT at bis Child's Baptifm, nor be ADMITTED *" to answer as Godfather for it?" What! would the Parents ftanding forth together with the Sponfors, and promifing jointly with them, at all detract from this Solemnity, or render it less effectual, to fecure the Child's religious Education It is "most evident it would not, and that your Practice in this Point is undoubtedly an Innovation; an unreasonable,

f. Epift. ad Bonifas. 8 Hift. Inf. Bap. Vol. I, p. 196.

reasonable, abfurd, and arbitrary Deviation from the Ufage and Inftitution of the primitive apoftolic Church; an Abfurdity very generally acknowledged, and complained of, by the Members of your Church, though not attempted to be reformed.

"But by this Inftitution of Godfathers and God"mothers, you fay, your Church affords its Mem"bers fome great and Special Advantages towards "growing in Grace and Goodness, above what are "found amongst us:" and you tell me,

you

lay a great ftrefs upon it, as a wife, an useful, "and neceffary Inftitution."--But did you not confider, Sir, that you were here highly reflecting upon the Wisdom and Goodness, not of the holy Apoftles only, but of your great Lawgiver JESUS CHRIST? Thefe SPECIAL ADVANTAGES for Growth in Goodness and Holiness, how came it to pass that the great Founders of the Chriftian Church never happened to think of them? You do not pretend it to be an Inftitution of Jesus CHRIST, and yet are not afraid to call it a wife, an useful, and even a NECESSARY Inftitution. Strange! that CHRIST, in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom, and who loved the Church fo as to lay down his Life for it, fhould not know this Inftitution to be fo efpecially advantageous to the growing Goodness of his Church or that knowing it to be fo, he should unkindly omit it; and that we are obliged to the Superior Wisdom and Goodness of after Ages for fupplying this Defect. It has ufually been thought, that the Apofiles declared the WHOLE Counsel of GOD; and kept back NOTHING from the Church which was profitable to it, and that the Scriptures are a perfect Rule; but this, it feems, is not true; you have discover'd it, Sir, to be not true: For here you fhew us a wife, an useful, and a NECESSARY Inflitution, which they really kept back and

which

which had it not been for the Sagacity of their Suc ceffors, the Church had been fo unhappy as never to have known. Into what Mazes Men plunge themfelyes, when they deviate from the Truth!

Of the fame Temerity you are guilty, Sir, when treating of another Inftitution of your Church, CoNFIRMATION, and glorying over us in its Want. "Another Adminiftration of our Church is Confirવધુ mation; this you know you have wholly difcard"ed: and furely you will be obliged to acknowledge you have loft thereby a very great Advantage.

greatly conducive to future Holinefs of Life" Yes, Sir, this we will freely own, when you also will acknowledge, that you are wifer than the Apoftless and can better judge what is conducive to Holiness, and for the Advantage of the Church, than its great Lawgiver JESUS CHRIST. Had this Ceremony of Confirmation been really of great Advantage, and conducive to Holiness, it is very ftrange that neither CHRIST, nor his Apostles, fhould have ordained it. That it is an apoftolic Inftitution, you have not fo much as attempted to prove.: unlefs Calvin's Conjec ture must be admitted as Proof.

The Text ufually urg'd for it, (As viii. 14) I prefume you are fully fenfible has no Weight. Peter's and John's going down to Samaria to pray, and lay their Hands on those whom Philip had, baptifed, is, furely, no Precedent, no Direction, no Inftituation. nor Command for our Bishops to do likewife. For the End for which the Apoftles did it, 'tis expreffly faid (ver. 15, 17.) was, that they might receive the HOLY GHOST, i.e. its miraculous Gifts; and they pray'd for them, and laid their Hands on them, and they received the HOLY GHOST. That it was his miraculous Gifts (fuch as prophefying, speaking with Tongues, &c.) to form them into a Church, cannot be difputed; because, they were fomething visible, and

i Lett. 1. p. 61.

药