our infancy sanctified, as to be thereby made sufficiently capable of Baptism, and to be interested in the rites of our new-birth for their piety's sake that offer us thereunto." Whence also. Hooker pronounces[1], (and the decision, so grounded, might remove some perplexities which occur now also,) "a wrong conceit, that none may receive the Sacrament of Baptism but they whose parents, at the least one of them, are, by the soundness of their religion and by their virtuous demeanour, known to be men of God, hath caused some to repel children, whosoever bring them, if their parents be mispersuaded in religion, or for other misdeserts excommunicated; some, likewise, for that cause, to withhold Baptism, unless the father (albeit, no such exception can justly be taken against him) do, notwithstanding, make profession of his faith, and avouch the child to be his own. Thus, whereas, God has appointed them ministers of holy things, they make themselves inquisitors of men's persons a great deal farther than need is. They should consider, that God hath ordained Baptism in favour of mankind. To restrain favours is an odious thing; to enlarge them, acceptable both to God and man."
"It is not written," says St. Augustine[2], "Except one be born again of the will of his parents or of the faith of those
- ↑ Ib. p. 400.
- ↑ Ad Bonifac. Ep. 98. ed. Bened. To the same purpose is quoted in the new edition of Hooker (ed. Keble), an illustrative passage from Archbishop Whitgift's Answer to the Admonition, p. 157. "I knowe not what you meane, when you saye, 'that in the absence of the parentes, some one of the congregation, knowing the good behaviour and sound fayth of the parentes, may both make a rehersall of their fayth, and, also, if their fayth be sounde and agreeable to Holy Scriptures, desire in the same to be baptized.' What, if the parents be of evil behaviour?—What, if it be the child of a drunkard, or of an harlot?—What, if the parents be papistes?—What, if they be heretikes?—What if they erre in some poynte or other in matters of fayth? Shall not their children be baptized? Herein you have a further meaning than I can understand; and I feare, few do perceive the poyson that lyeth hidde under these words. May not a wicked father have a good childe?—May not a Papist or Heretike have a believing sonne? Will you seclude, for the parents' sake, (being himselfe baptized) his seede from baptisme?" And Bishop Stillingfleet well ex-
