and the ten Commandments, without any Expofition or Paraphrafe thereon. And fhould any future QUEEN think proper to do the fame, I humbly apprehend, all her Bishops and Clergy are, by our CONSTITUTION in Church and State, oblig'd to obey.

By the fame Conftitution King Charles I. put forth Proclamation (if a WOMAN had worn the Crown, fbe alfo might have done it; as any future QUEEN may) commanding the Clergy not to preach or difpute about Arminianifm. The learn'd Bishop Davenant, prefuming to preach upon the Doctrine of Predeftinaiion, was forced to appear upon his Knees before the Council; and being feverely reprimanded, hardly fo escaped: Though he alledg'd he had preach'd nothing but the XVIIth Article of the Church of England. The KING, not only in his fuperior, but SUPREME ecclefiaftic, Wisdom told him, "The Doctrine of Predeftination was "too big for the Peoples Understandings; and that HE "was RESOLVED not to permit that Controversy to be "difcufs'd in the Pulpit*."

What Authority our Conftitution gives QUEENS to judge in Points of HERESIE (the most deep and myfterious Points) and to controul the Proceedings of the moft venerable and holy Synod which the Clergy of this Kingdom can poffibly compofe, has been obferv'd in the Cafe of Whiston; whom Queen ANNE, by her fole Authority, fkreen'd from the Cenfure of her learn'd Convocation. HER fingle Judgment, in the Balance of our apoftolic and excellently conftituted Church, being of far greater Weight than that of the united Bishops and Clergy of the whole Land. This you are pleased, weakly enough, to call Mifreprefentation; but might have

* Vide Fuller's Church Hift. B. IX. p. 138.

The fame bleffed Martyr, by his Royal Mandate only, without any Trial, fequefter'd and fufpended from the Execution of his Office good Archbishop Abbot, for refufing his Licence and Approbation to a most vile and scandalous Sermon of Sibthorp.

feen

feen the Truth of it attefted by two of your own learn'd and reverend Hiftorians, Burnet and Tindal, in their Accounts of the Year 1711.

Again, by our present Conftitution the King alone, or at least by Confent of Parliament, hath undoubted POWER to divide the twenty fix Bishopricks, into which this Kingdom is at present canton'd, into as many hundred; and thus to render them more like the Bishopricks of the firft Ages, when every Chrif tian Bishop took the Overfight of no more than he could perfonally know, and than could communicate at one Table; a POWER to new-frame the whole Order of public Worship; to abolish its prefent Articles, Ceremonies and Forms; and to fubftitute none at all, or quite new ones in their Stead. A POWER to difpofe of that Part of the Public Treafure by which the Clergy are maintain'd in a more equitable and jufter Manner; and to reduce the fhameful Exorbitance, by which fome Members of that great, and in itself venerable and useful Body, wanton in vaft Affluence, Indulgence and Sloth, (which may be what you call Snugnefs) whilst others more virtuous, laborious and learn'd, wear away their Lives in Obfcurity and Want. This, Sir, without Question, is our prefent CONSTITUTION in Church and State.

YOUR

OUR Defence of Sponfors in Baptifm comes next to be confider'd. Here you affirm,That I reprefent the Ufe of Sponfors as a very myfterious Point, as an unaccountable, inexplicable, "abfurd and unlawful thing*." An Affertion hurried from you by the Ardor of Zeal, but quite

without Truth. The Ufe of Sponfors in all Cafes of Parents Incapacity I entirely approve; and exprefly told you, That in fuch Cafes the Diffenters alfo ufe them. You could not without extreme Inattention but fee, that it was "the SETTING ASIDE the Pa"rents, the FORBIDDING them to stand forth and engage folemnly for the religious Education of the "Child; and the receiving the Child to Baptifm upon "account of its OWN FAITH and its owN PROMISE "express'd by its SURETIES," that I thus represent. And though I have the Pleafure now to find you tacitly giving up, though not honourably retracting, that precipitant Expreffion, "That Godfathers are

66

not an useful only, but even a NECESSARY In"ftitution," yet scarcely without Pain can one fee you grievously embarrass'd in accounting for the Anfwers made at the Font. Thefe, you ftill infift, are not the Sureties, but the CHILD's Anfwers. But your Attempts to explain, how a Child who cannot believe, does yet profefs Faith! How the Infant, who in no Senfe can promise or engage; does yet really and in good Senfe vow and engage! How the Babe who has no Thought, no Purposes nor Defires, may yet exprefs thefe by the Mouth of its Sureties; and thefe Expreffions of what it hath not, and cannot poffibly have, are accepted by the Church as a proper Token that it hath them, and as a folid Ground of Baptifm! This is ftill to me, and I believe to all the World, as inexplicable, myfterious, tranfcendent a thing as before you undertook to unvail and explain it.

Nay, the Mystery grows upon you, by attempting to unfold it: For you declare, "That the "Ground and Foundation of Infants being receiv'd "10 to Baptifm, in your Church, is the Promife of "GOD to Believers and their Seed*" Mind then, 'tis the Faith of the PARENT that intitles the Child

+ Let. II. p. 7.

* II. Def. p. 28.

E

to

to Baptifm; but if the Ground of its being receiv'd to this Chriftian Sacrament be the Faith of its PARENT only, why do you receive it as if upon Account of ITS OWN Faith? Why interrogate the poor BABE? Doft THOU believe? Wilt THOU be baptized? Again, if the PARENT's Faith be that which intitles the Child to Baptifm; why is not the PARENT the Perfon who ftands forth to profefs Faith as a Qualification for the Baptism of the Child? Why is the CHILD call'd upon vicariously to declare, that itfelf believes, that itself defires Baptifm, &c. when all the World fees 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 Copy-hold, and "covenants to do Homage for the fame; or, by "an Infant-King, who hath fome one of the Nobility who in his Name and for his Benefit is "pointed to take the Coronation Oath; and there"by oblige him to obferve the Laws and protect "his Subjects*." But these Instances avail you nothing. For,

66

ap

1. The Child when admitted by his Attorney in the Lord's Court to his Copy-hold, does not covenant to do Homage for the fame. That he does not covenant, I prove by a very plain and incontestable Argument, which is, that he cannot. There is no Senfe at all, no religious or moral Sense, in which the Infant can with any Truth or Propriety be faid to covenant. No, 'tis the Attorney, and he alone, that covenants to perform the Homage. And in the Cafe of a Minor King, when one of the Nobility takes the Coronation Oath in his Name or Stead (if any fuch Ceremony be ever perform'd he does not, cannot in any Senfe thereby oblige the Royal Infant to

obferve the Laws and protect the Subject: Not whilft an Infant; because, not being a moral Agent, he cannot poffibly be capable of moral Obligation: And not when he comes of Age; because the Promife or Oath of one rational moral Agent, can never properly oblige another, if that other was not at all confcious of, nor gave his Confent to it. The whole Nature and Extent of the Obligation in that Cafe is unqueftionably this: The Nobleman who takes the Oath, as perfonating the King, and who during the Minority is vefted with the regal Power, fwears that be HIMSELF will, in the Exercife of that Power, observe the Laws and protect the Subjects. The Obligation of his Oath, which is made by himself only, can extend only to himself; and it lasts only fo long as he continues vefted with the regal Power. But when the Royal Infant comes of Age, and af fumes the Power into his own Hands; he must perfonally take the Oath; or fome way or other fignify his folemn Affent to it, in order to his being laid under any real Obligation by it. And then,

2. These Cases alfo widely differ from that of the baptized Infant, because in both of them there are feveral important Services and Actions to be done, (which must be perform'd by fome one) whilft 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 whilft the Infancy remains. These, therefore, being indifpenfibly neceffary to be done, and the Infant being utterly incapable of doing them, hence arifes a Neceffity of fome Perfon's undertaking to discharge thefe Offices for him, and to act in the Infant's ftead. But, is there any thing like this in the Cafe of baptifed Infants? Is there any Service or Homage, any Faith or Vows which GOD expects from them whilft their Infancy lafts? You know there is not. If God then E 2 expects