The next canon excepts persons suspended from the Lord's supper," They may not present children in the quality of sureties unto baptism so long as their suspension shall stand in force against them.”

The 9th canon also excepts strangers that want testimonials. A surety coming from another Church, shall not be admitted to present a child unto baptism, unless he bring with him a certificate from his own Church;" which is a good canon.

These are all the rules they give about sponsors and their qualifications; the rest is only matter of advice, can. 12. "That pastors shall diligently exhort all godfathers and godmothers to weigh and consider their promises made at the celebration of baptism, and parents also to choose such sureties for their children, as are well instructed in religion and of a godly life and conversation, and that are as much as may be of their acquaintance, and by whose means, if there should be a necessity for it in the course of God's providence, it is most likely that their children will have a religious education."

And may not the pastors of the Church of England do all this, and something more if they please? Or why must all neglects, either in pastors or sponsors presently be charged upon the Church, as if the institution itself were unlawful? There are too many faults committed in the exercise of it indeed, but that is not the fault of the thing itself, but the persons who are concerned in it: and I believe most Churches find reason enough for such complaints, which they know not how to help. Peter Martyr gives an honourable testimony to the institution itself, "calling it utile Institutum, a very useful order, that when children are received into the Church by baptism, they should be committed to the care of godfathers and godmothers to instruct them; but, says he, though the sponsors pawn their faith to do this, yet now-adays there is nothing which they less regard." Loc. Com. part. 4. cap. 8. n. 5.

I hope I have now made it appear that Mr. Baxter's exceptions are all either false or trifling, and such as would hold against the practice of the reformed Church of France, as

well as the Church of England: and his last great argument upon which he lays the most stress, would hold as well against baptism itself; for there is more perfidiousness committed by persons that break their baptismal vow, than by godfathers that break their covenants as sponsors; yet we may not lay baptism aside, or charge men's faults upon the institution.

After all, he owns our baptism with all its faults to be valid, and dares not say it is null and void; though the arguments are not very good which he uses to prove it. For he says, "If it were no minister, or one unauthorised, that baptized, it would not be a mere nullity, if by mistake it were supposed well done. Factum valet, was judged by some, when Athanasius by a boy was baptized in sport;' p. 65. He should have said, when Athanasius being a boy, baptized some other boys in sport; for it was not Athanasius that was baptized by a boy, but he was the boy that baptized others, as Sozomen and Ruffin tell the story. But that is but a small mistake. If Mr. Baxter had been a minister in France, he must have recanted, not only his history, but his doctrine also. For their discipline requires men to subscribe and teach the contrary, and repeals all such baptisms, as are only administered by women, laymen, or any unordained person. It is a canon of their Book of Discipline cap. 11. art. 1, "That baptism administered by an unordained person is wholly void and null. Therefore in the Synod of Poictiers, 1560. Cap. 6. Art. 11, the question being put, what was to be done in case a child had been baptized by a private person? The answer was given, that the baptism shall be declared null, and the child shall be brought publicly into the Church, there to receive true baptism.'

The same resolution was given in many other National Synods, as the first and second of Rochel, the Synod of Gap, and the Synod of Alanson, 1637. cap. 25, where, though the king had sent them a letter, requiring them to reverse their decree, and allow of the baptism of women and others, according as is done in the Romish Church, yet they utterly refused to allow of any such baptism, as a thing formally

contrary to their belief. So that this one thing would have made Mr. Baxter a nonconformist, had he lived in the Church of France.

He that would see their arguments upon this point, and their answers to Mr. Baxter's instance of Athanasius, may read Rivet's Cathol. Orthod. Tract. 3. Q. 7. and Chamier de Baptismo, lib. 1. cap. 14. Beza contra Heshusium. Calvin Ep. to Menso Poppius, &c. 326.

I have but two things more to observe upon this head. The first is, that the French Church allows of sponsors by proxy, which Mr. Baxter also dislikes, and reckons next to ridiculous. But the Synod of Montauban thought fit to grant this privilege, at least, to kings and great princes; which shews, that they did not think it simply unlawful. Synod of Montauban, 1594. Cap. 4. Art. 30. "No sureties shall present children unto baptism by their proxies, unless it be kings and great princes, who by reason of their weighty affairs cannot always be present at the time of baptizing." And the following Synod of Saumur, 1596. took off this very restriction, and left all sponsors at liberty to act by proxy, as need required, Cap. 4. Art. 8.

The other thing I would remark is, that they require sponsors for adult persons also, and no one can be baptized without them. For in the third Synod of Charenton, 1645, a form of baptizing pagans, jews, mahometans, and anabaptists, was composed and inserted into the acts of that Synod, cap. 9, where among other things we find it ordered, that the minister shall address himself to the sureties, who present the catechumen, in these words: " do you not promise before God and this holy assembly, to continue more and more to strengthen and confirm him in the faith, and to stir him up unto all good works?" And they must answer, "Yes." Where I observe, that this being part of the office prescribed and enjoined, baptism cannot regularly be administered without it; and the French ministers are under the same obligation not to baptize adult persons without sponsors, as the English ministers are not to baptize infants publicly without them. And this will serve as an answer to Mr. Baxter's other charge in his eleventh chapter

of English Nonconformity; where he says, the Church of England makes godfathers essential to baptism. Which is false, unless he can prove, first, that it is never administered without them, and then secondly, that it is required, not only as an useful order of the Church, but a necessary part of baptism of God's appointing; which neither he nor any one else have ever done. But admit the charge had something in it, what does it prove against the Church of England, more than the French Church, which made the same order about sponsors for adult persons? If it be schismatical imposing here, I would know by what name it is to be called in the Church of France.

The next public office, which is the form of catechism, I pass over, as finding no other objections made against it but what have been considered before, or will be considered in the next chapter about confirmation.

CHAP. XXI.

That the French Church approves of the English Way of Confirmation, and exacts something equivalent to it, before she admits any Person to Communion.

Mr. Baxter in his 19th chapter of English Nonconformity declares, that he is so far from scrupling the true use of confirmation, that he thinks the want of it is the greatest corruption of the Church of any outward thing he remembers. But then he likes not the English way of confirmation, he says, nor can consent to reject all from the communion, who desire not our episcopal confirmation.

His objection against our English way of confirmation is, that here it is made impossible to be done any otherwise ordinarily than as a ceremony, and game for boys, as he modestly words it. His reason is, because the dioceses are so vast, that the bishop cannot do this and other his offices for the hundredth part of his flock. Whence he says

it follows.

1. That there is not one of an hundred confirmed at all. 2. That all the thousands that are unconfirmed may come to the sacrament when they will. 3. That ministers do not concern themselves to keep any back from the sacrament for not being confirmed, or being desirous of it. 4. That it is usually performed as a running ceremony.

To all which I answer. 1. That there are many, both bishops and inferior pastors, whose constant practice prove this to be a mere calumny and slander in every instance. 2. Admit there be some defects or abuses committed in the non-administration or mal-administration of it: upon whom are these faults to be charged? Upon the persons, or the Church and her institution? That they are not to be charged upon the institution itself, I prove from Mr. Baxter's own mouth. He says, Dr. Hammond and Mr. Elderfield, and divers others of the highest episcopal divines, have written as earnestly for the true use of confirmation as himself. Now either they wrote agreeably to the principles and institutions of the Church of England, or against them that they wrote against them, Mr. Baxter will never persuade any of his rational readers to believe; but if they wrote according to them, then there may be a true use of confirmation according to the institution of the Church of England; and all Mr. Baxter's exceptions are frivolous, because they charge personal faults upon the institution, which the Church may lament, but cannot always help: for all forms of government are liable to abuses; and the putting confirmation into every ordinary pastor's hands would never mend the failings that are now complained of in the exercise of it, but rather increase them, unless some diligent inspectors were appointed to look into their behaviour, with sufficient power to correct them. And every private minister has now a sufficient power in his hands (if he will make use of it) by serious catechizing to qualify persons under his charge for confirmation, and either actually procure it for them, or at least teach them to be desirous of it, which is all that the Rubrick requires: and such a desire is a tacit confirmation