tain'd and fix'd upon the Church, as if it were the plain declaration, and profeffed doctrine of it? Again, If it be agreeable to the Chriftian Religion, that a Chriftian may folemnly take upon him the good education of an Infant; what need is there of a natural right, or Pofitive Law? and how comes the want of thefe to be an objection againft a lawful, I may fay, a commendable action? Laft of all,If the groffeft abuse of an inftitution in it felf useful (as we take this to be) be not a fufficient argument against the inftitution; what do you propose to your felves by arguing from the care lefsness of God-fathers against the use of them at all? Were all the Minifters in the Land forgetful of their Ministerial Obligations; would it therefore follow that it was not a useful thing for them publickly to own these obligations when they were made Minifters? Did all who own their Baptifmal Covenant in your way prove the most careless and finful Men afterwards; would you acknowledge the thing it felfufelefs, or lay it afide? yet in this cafe it might be faid, they were brought to avouch a great untruth in the face of God and his Church. For you can no more prove that they are fincere, than we can E 4 that

that God-fathers are, at the time when they folemnly profefs themselves as if they were. But above all, it is very hard, that you should speak here, as if this encourag'd Parents in a carelessness about their Children; or as if the Church took off any part of their duty from them, by providing more effectually for their Children's advantage. Good Parents can never take advantage from this inftitution to be unnatural, and careless of their Children: Bad Parents may, but then they would have been as careless without it; and their Children in a much worfe condition. And though we bewail the little regard many Godfather's have to the ferious part of their Office (without thinking this an argument against the Church) yet we hope there are fome fo fenfible of their obligations, that they omit no opportunity of doing their duty.

3. The Third, Fourth, and Fifth Reafons why you cannot conform as Minifiers, are, because this Affent, Confent,and Subfcription, would oblige you to deny Baptifm to fuch as had not Sponfours, tho' they bad a real right to that Ordinance; and to the Children of fuch as would not permit

them

them to be fign'd with the tranfient fign of the Crofs; and to deny the Communion to fuch as would not receive it Kneeling. I put these three together, because they come under the common Head of Terms of Communion, and Impofitions, against which your zeal feems chiefly to lye; and becaufe the argument manag'd under thefe Heads is not fo much defign d against the things themselves, as against the making them Terms of Communion; the lawfulness of which I fhall now confider; and fo remove, if I can, thofe objections here brought against it. Only, because you have advanc'd fomething against the ufe of the Cross in Baptifm, as well as against the impofing it, I must take fome notice of that firit, and then I fhall come to the matter of Impofitions.

All your Argument against this is at laft refolved into thefe three; that this feemeth to be a new Sacrament; that it looks as if Baptifm were not a fufficient Bond without this; nay, at last we find it exprefs'd thus, that though the Church hath declared this fign to be in token the perfon shall not be afbamed &c. yet fince the generality are apt to understand it, that in virtue and power of this fign the perfon

perfon fhall not be afhamed, Tou dare not Concur in giving occafion knowingly of fuch a mif.understanding to the vulgar and injudicious. But give us leave to examine what is here objected more carefully. One reason then againft it, is, that you dare not concur in giving an occafion of Juch a mifunderstanding to the vulgar and injudicious. You dare not use the words in token, because they may be apt to think you do not mean in token of fomething fignified, but in virtue and power of the fign it felf. Now, what end of our differences can we ever hope for, if fuch methods be taken; if, when there is no reafon against a thing what is acknowledg'd to be unreafonable fhall be made an objection against it, by thofe very perfons who, in many other cafes, do themfelves knowingly give occafion of mif-understanding to perfons Yomewhat more judicious than those who can understand words in a fenfe, which it is impoffible they fhould be meant in? I could give many more inftances, but I will mention but one. Dare you not concur in Occafional Communion, because fome of the Vulgar and injudicious, You very well know, have fad mif-understandings about it? If you dare, why do you argue

here,

here, as if You dar'd not concur in this for that one Reafon? which we cannot believe, till we see you omit all other things which you your felves think fit or proper, for the fame reafon. But while you use our service thus, we imagine you have done it some credit, by granting as you here do, That they are injudicious perfons who can understand by the words here us'd, that any grace is fuppofed by the Church to be wrought by this fign, or the use of it; that the words must be mif-understood before any fuch thing can be made out of them; and, confequently, that they must be injudicious perfons that can think this a new Sacrament.

Another argument against the use of this Sign is, that it looks as if Baptifm, as Christ had appointed it, were not efteem'd a Bond fufficiently firm and ftrong. Not by us, who have declared in express and plain words, that Baptifm is compleat without it, and the Infant a Chriftian as much before as after it. Befides, We imagine that fuch an objection as this; as ftrong, and as concluding, may be made against you,or any who use any Prayers at Baptifm; or adminifter it with the addition of the least circumstance to the primitive insti