why is not the parent suffered to stand forth, and to profess his faith as a qualification for the baptism of his child? Why is the child called upon vicariously to declare, that itself believes, that itself desires baptism, &c. when all the world sees that it neither knows, nor does, nor can, in any sense at all, do either of these things?

You endeavour to explain the matter "by an "infant in the lord of the manor's court, who, by "his attorney, is admitted to his copyhold, and "covenants to do homage for the same: or, by 66 an infant king, who hath some one of the no"bility, who, in his name, and for his benefit, is appointed to take the coronation oath, and "thereby oblige him to observe the laws and "tect his subjects."* But these instances avail you nothing. For,

pro

1. The child, when admitted by his attorney in the lord's court, to his copyhold, does not covenant to do homage for the same. That he does not covenant, I prove by a very plain and incontestible argument, which is, that he cannot. There is no sense at all, no religious or moral sense, in which the infant can with any truth or propriety be said to covenant. No: it is the attorney, and he alone, that covenants to perform the homage. And, in the case of a minor king, when one of the nobility takes the coronation oath in his name, or stead, (if any such ceremony be ever performed,) he does not, cannot, in any sense, thereby oblige the royal infant to observe the laws and protect the subject ;---not whilst an infant, because, not being a moral agent, he cannot possibly be capable of moral obligation: nor, when he comes of age, because the promise, or oath, of one rational moral agent can never properly oblige another, if that other

* Defence, page 129.

1

was not at all conscious of, nor gave his consent to it. The whole nature and extent of the obligation in that case, is unquestionably this: the nobleman, who takes the oath as personating the king, and who during the minority is vested with the regal power, swears that he himself will, in the exercise of that power, observe the laws and protect the subjects. The obligation of this oath, which is made by himself only, can extend only to himself, and it lasts only so long as he continues vested with the regal power. But, when the royal infant comes of age, and assumes the power into his own hands, he must personally take the oath, or some way or other signify his solemn assent to it, in order to his being laid under any real obligation by it. And then,

2. These cases also widely differ from that of the baptised infant, because, in both of them, there are several important services and actions to be done (which must be performed by some one) whilst the minority continues. In the first, there are suits and services in the lord's court, and quit-rents to be paid. In the other, there are acts of regal power to be continually exerted for the due government of the people, even whilst the infancy remains. These,therefore,being indispensibly necessary to be done, and the infant being utterly incapable of doing them ;---hence arises a necessity of some person's undertaking to discharge these offices for him, and to act in the in-fant's stead. But is there any thing like this in the case of baptised infants? Is there any scrvice, or homage, any faith or vows, which God expects from them whilst their infancy lasts ! You know there is not. If God then expects no such services from the infant, why are sponsors called forth to pretend to perform them for it! and this when the pretence is in every view ridiculous; because, in things of religion, it is utterly

absurd for one man to pretend to promise to repent, to believe, in the name of another.

One principal design of the baptism of a child, you own, is, "that some security be given, some "solemn stipulation be made before the church, "for its religious education." . Who, then, I pray, so proper to give this security as the person to whom its education is committed? Whom should the church bring under the engagement of a solemn vow, or covenant, for this purpose? Strangers who, perhaps, never saw the child; or who, when the ceremony is past, will never see it more! or the parents, in whose family it is to grow up, and under whose eye it is to be formed!

You do not pretend that there is in your bap-. tism of an infant, any explicit stipulation besides what the child itself makes; yet, notwithstanding this, you consider the sureties as accepting it

by standing there, and receiving a solemn "charge concerning the religious education of "the child."* But do you not know, Sir, that this is no stipulation, neither explicit nor implicit. A stipulation is a mutual promise. But, though the sponsors stand there, and hear the admonition, no answer, no word, no token, is required of them by which to signify their solemn purpose and engagement to obey it. Accordingly, when they return home, they too generally with great levity shake off the charge again and throw it over to the parent. And thus the solemnity of the institution dwindles into a mere trifling, if not a ludicrous ceremony, and your boasted double-security still remains no real security at all.

Dr. Nichol's account of this apparently absurd and mysterious affair, to which I referred you, is undoubtedly far more defensible, though quite contrary to yours, viz. "Baptizatorum fidem religiose in se recipiebant, eos sincere omnia

* II Defence, page 36.

+ Com, to the Temp. page 612.

66

*

" in evangelio revelata credere, et subsequentes "vitæ actiones juxta Christi normam directuros esse. That the sureties religiously engaged for the faith of the baptised, that they should sincerely believe all that was revealed in the gospel, and direct the subsequent actions of their lives by the law of Christ. This you call my translation; and tax me before the world "for having trans"lated it wrong to serve my purpose." It will give you surely, some confusion and pain to be told, that this is not mine, but it is the doctor's own translation; or that of his learned friend who published his defence, &c. And I appeal to the public, whether the doctor's or your's be the proper rendering of the words. Is recipere in se fidem baptizatorum--to make a solemn declaration and profession touching the faith of the baptised? Besides, the doctor was too wise a person to represent the sureties, as you would have him, as making a solemn declaration that the infant did sincerely believe all that is revealed in the gospel, because this, he well knew, was what no wise or honest man could possibly declare concerning any infant upon earth. He knew it absurd to affirm, that the infant did believe at all; much more to affirm, that it sincerely believed; but more even yet, that it sincerely believed all that is revealed in the gospel. In whatever light, therefore, you view it, it appears to be perfectly mysterious. And this business of the sureties. and their answers at the font, after all your pains. to clear it up, is still covered with dark and impenetrable clouds; which, till some new light shall arise, one may venture to prophesy, will never be dispelled. It turns the ceremony of your baptism into little else than a solemn farce, and furnishes unbelievers with too just an occasion of ridicule and contempt.

*Nich. Def. Part II. page 273,

II. Defence, page 26.

SECT. V.

Of CONFIRMATION.

As to the ceremony of confirmation, you are

still so cautious as not to assert any scriptural or apostolic authority for its practice; but yet you ask---" If both the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of the spirit were communicated by the

66

66

apostles by imposition of hands, why may we "not expect that the ordinary ones will be still "communicated by the same administration? "And why should we not continue that admini"stration in the church, in hope and expectation "of them?"* By these ordinary gifts, as you fully explain yourself, you mean, what are usually called, the graces of the Spirit, even the spirit of love and of a sound mind. For, you add, "If this 66 spirit of love and of a sound mind was given to "Timothy by imposition of hands in his ordina❝tion, why may it not be done by the same cere66 mony in confirmation?" I am sorry there is a protestant divine in this kingdom capable of asking such a question as this. For, this spirit of love and of a sound mind, which you encourage us to expect from the laying on of the bishop's hands, is one of the sublimest gifts conferred upon the human race by the gospel of Christ. A gift which far excels an ability to speak with tongues, a faith that can remove mountains, a power to cast out devils, to heal all manner of diseases, or even to raise the dead. The spirit of love and of a sound mind far excels them all; and yet this, it seems, we may now expect by the laying on of the bishop's hands! Blessed episcopacy, indeed, if it carries with it such gifts! But how foolish