in a state of damnation, as much as those who " deny the Lord that bought them." But if Christ hath not expressly commanded this, we may go to Church, and yet not go to hell.

To the point then: The power I speak of is a power of decreeing rites and ceremonies, of appointing such circumstantials (suppose) of public worship as are in themselves purely indifferent, being no way determined in Scripture.

And the question is, "Hath Christ expressly commanded, that this power shall never be claimed, nor ever yielded, by any of his followers?" This I deny. How do you prove it?

Why, thus: "If the Church of England has this power, so has the Church of Rome." (p. 4.) Allowed. But this is not to the purpose. I want "the express command of Christ ?"

But

You say, "Secondly, The persons who have this power in England, are not the clergy but the parliament." (pp. 8, 9.) Perhaps so. this also strikes wide. Where is "the express command of Christ ?" You ask, " Thirdly, How came the civil magistrate by this power?" (p. 11.) "Christ commands us to call no man upon earth father and master; that is, to acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion." (p. 12.) At length we are come to the express command, which, according to your interpretation, is express enough; "that is, Acknowledge no authority of any in matters of religion;" own no power in any to appoint any circumstance of public worship, any thing pertaining to decency and order. But this interpretation is not allowed. It is the very point in question.

We allow, Christ does here expressly command, to acknowledge no such authority of any, as the Jews paid their Rabbies, whom they usually styled either Fathers or Masters; implicitly believing all they affirmed, and obeying all they enjoined. But we deny, that he expressly commands, to acknowledge no authority of governors, in things purely indifferent, whether they relate to the worship of God or other

matters.

You attempt to prove it by the following words: "One is your Master,' and Lawgiver, even Christ; and all ye are brethren,' Matt. xxiii, 8,9; all Christians; having no dominion over one another." True; no such dominion as their Rabbies claimed; but in all things indifferent, Christian magistrates have dominion. As to your inserting, "and Lawgiver," in the preceding clause, you have no authority from the text; for it is not plain, that our Lord is here speaking of himself in that capacity. Adarxaλos, the word here rendered " Master," you well know, conveys no such idea. It should rather have been translated "Teacher." And indeed the whole text primarily relates to doctrines.

But you cite another text: "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you," Matt. xx, 25. Very good; that is, Christian pastors shall not exercise such dominion over their flock, as Heathen princes do over their subjects. Most sure; but, without any violation of this, they may appoint how things shall be done decently and in order."

"But Christ is the sole Lawgiver, Judge, and Sovereign in his Church." (p. 12.) He is the sole sovereign Judge and Lawgiver. But it does not follow (what you continually infer) that there are no subor

finate judges therein; nor, that there are none who have power to make regulations therein in subordination to Him. King George is sovereign judge and lawgiver in these realms. But are there no subordinate judges? Nay, are there not many who have power to make rules or laws in their own little communities? And how does this "invade his authority and throne?" Not at all, unless they contradict the laws of his kingdom.

"However, he alone has authority to fix the terms of communion for his followers, or Church." (Ib.) "And the terms he has fixed, no men on earth have authority to set aside or alter." This I allow, (although it is another question,) none has authority to exclude from the Church of Christ those who comply with the terms which Christ has fixed. But not to admit into the society called the Church of England, or, not to administer the Lord's Supper to them, is not the same thing with "excluding men from the Church of Christ;" unless this society be the whole Church of Christ, which neither you nor I will affirm. This society therefore may scruple to receive those as members, who do not observe her rules in things indifferent, without pretending "to set aside or alter the terms which Christ has fixed" for admission into the Christian Church; and yet without "lording it over God's heritage, or usurping Christ's throne." Nor does all "the allegiance we owe him" at all hinder our "obeying them that have the rule over us," in things of a purely indifferent nature. Rather, our allegiance to him requires our obedience to them. In being "their servants," thus far we are "Christ's servants." We obey his general command, by obeying our governors in particular instances.

Hitherto you have produced no express command of Christ to the contrary. Nor do you attempt to show any such, but strike off from the question for the twelve or fourteen pages following. But after these you say, "The subjects of Christ are expressly commanded to receive nothing as parts of religion, which are only commandments of men,' Matt. xv, 9." (p. 26.) We grant it; but this is no command at all, not to "obey those who have the rule over us." And we must obey them in things indifferent, or not at all. For in things which God hath forbidden, should such be enjoined, we dare not obey. Nor need they enjoin what God hath commanded.

Upon the whole, we agree that Christ is the only "supreme Judge and Lawgiver in the Church;" I may add, and in the world; for "there is no power," no secular power, "but of God;" of God who " was manifested in the flesh, who is over all, blessed for ever." But we do not at all agree in the inference which you would draw therefrom, namely, that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the Church. You may just as well infer, that there is no subordinate judge or lawgiver in the world. Yea, there is, both in the one and the other. And in obeying these subordinate powers, we do not, as you aver, renounce the Supreme; no, but we obey them for his sake.

We believe, it is not only innocent, but our bounden duty, so to do; in all things of an indifferent nature to submit ourselves "to every ordinance of man ;" and that "for the Lord's sake;" because we think he has not forbidden but expressly commanded it. Therefore, "as a genuine fruit of our allegiance to Christ," we submit both to the king

and governors sent by him, so far as possibly we can, without breaking some plain command of God. And you have not yet brought any plain command to justify that assertion, that "we may not submit either to the king, or to governors sent by him, in any circumstance relating to the worship of God."

Here is a plain declaration, "There is no power but of God; the powers that exist are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power," (without an absolute necessity, which in things indifferent there is not,)" resisteth the ordinance of God." And here is a plain command grounded thereon: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." Now, by what scripture does it appear, that we are not to be subject in any thing pertaining to the worship of God? This is an exception which we cannot possibly allow, without clear warrant from holy writ. And we apprehend, those of the Church of Rome alone can decently plead for such an exception. It does not sound well in the mouth of a Protestant, to claim an exemption from the jurisdiction of the civil powers in all matters of religion, and in the minutest circumstance relating to the Church.

Another plain command is that mentioned but now : "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake." And this we shall think ourselves hereby fully authorized to do, in things of a religious, as well as a civil, nature, till you can produce plain, explicit proof from Scripture, that we must submit in the latter, but not in the former. We cannot find any such distinction in the Bible; and till we find it there, we cannot receive it, but must believe our allegiance to Christ requires submission to our governors in all things indifferent.

This I speak, even on supposition, that the things in question were enjoined merely by the king and parliament. If they were, what then? Then I would submit to them "for the Lord's sake." So that in all your parade, either with regard to King George or Queen Anne, there may be wit, but no wisdom; no force, no argument, till you can support this distinction from plain testimony of Scripture.

66

Till this is done, it can never be proved that "a dissent from the Church of England (whether it can be justified from other topics or no) is the genuine and just consequence of the allegiance which is due to Christ, as the only Lawgiver in the Church." As you proposed to bring the controversy to this short and plain issue, to let it turn on this single point," I have done so; I have spoken to this alone; although I could have said something on many other points which you have advanced as points of the utmost certainty, although they are far more easily affirmed than proved. But I waive them for the present; hoping this may suffice to show any fair and candid inquirer, that it is very possible to be united to Christ and to the Church of England at the same time; that we need not separate from the Church, in order to preserve our allegiance to Christ; but may be firm members thereof, and yet "have a conscience void of offence toward God and toward man."

I am, Sir, your very humble servant,
JOHN WESLey.

BRISTOL, January 10, 1758.

SERIOUS THOUGHTS

CONCERNING GODFATHERS AND GODMOTHERS.

1. In the ancient Church, when baptism was administered, there were usually two or more sponsors (so Tertullian calls them, a hundred years after the death of St. John) for every person to be baptized. As these were witnesses, before God and the Church, of the solemn engagements those persons then entered into, so they undertook (as the very word implies) to watch over those souls in a peculiar manner, to instruct, admonish, exhort, and build them up in the faith once delivered to the saints. These were considered as a kind of spiritual parents to the baptized, whether they were infants or at man's estate; and were expected to supply whatever spiritual helps were wanting either through the death or neglect of the natural parents.

2. These have been retained in the Christian Church from the earliest times, as the reason for them was the same in all ages. In our Church they are termed, by a proper and expressive name, godfathers and godmothers. And it is appointed, "that there shall be for every male child to be baptized, two godfathers and one godmother; and for every female, one godfather and two godmothers."

3. But it is objected against these, (1.) That there is no mention of godfathers and godmothers in Scripture. (2.) That many undertake this without ever considering what they undertake, or once seriously thinking how to perform it. And (3.) That no serious man would undertake it, because it is impossible to perform it.

4. I answer, First, it is undoubtedly true, godfathers and godmothers are not mentioned in Scripture; and therefore it cannot be said they are absolutely necessary, or that baptism cannot be administered without them. But yet it may be said they are highly expedient; for when they are prudently chosen, they may be of unspeakable use to the persons baptized, and a great relief and comfort to the parents of them.

5. I answer, Secondly, it is too true that many undertake this solemn office, without ever considering what they undertake; giddy, ignorant persons, if not openly vicious, who never once seriously think how to perform it. But whose fault is this? It is not the fault of the Church, which carefully guards against this very thing, by ordering, "that none but communicants be admitted to be godfathers or godmothers." Now, communicants we may presume to be serious persons who will both consider and perform what they undertake. It is altogether the fault of those foolish parents who will, on any account whatever, either desire or suffer those to be sponsors for their children, that do not take care of their own souls. It is these inconsiderate and cruel men, who have no compassion for their own flesh, that deprive their children of all the benefits of this wise institution, and bring a scandal on the institution itself, by their wicked abuse of it. I therefore earnestly exhort all who have any concern, either for their own or their children's souls, at all hazards to procure such persons to be sponsors, as truly fear God. Regard not whether they are rich or poor; and if they are poor, see

236

THOUGHTS CONCERNING GODFATHERS AND GODMOTHERS.

that it be no expense to them. You will then tear up by the roots one of the most plausible objections which can be made against this primitive

custom.

6. For, Thirdly, there is no reason why any truly serious man should scruple to undertake the office. If you suppose godfathers and godmothers undertake what is impossible to perform, you entirely mistake. And your mistake lies here: You think they undertake what they do not. Do not you think the sponsors themselves undertake or promise, that the child shall "renounce the devil and all his works, constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments?" Whereas in truth they neither undertake nor promise any such thing. When they answer, “I renounce them all, this I steadfastly believe, I will,” (obediently keep God's holy will and commandments,) they promise nothing at all; they engage for nothing; it is another person that promises all this. Whatever is then promised or undertaken, it is not by them, but by the child. It is his part, not theirs. So the Church tells you expressly: "This infant must for his part promise." It is he promises in these words, not they. So again: "This child hath pro

mised to renounce the devil, to believe in God, and to serve him." If it be said, "But why are those questions inserted, which seem to mean what they really do not?" I answer, I did not insert them, and should not be sorry had they not been inserted at all. I believe the compilers of our Liturgy inserted them because they were used in all the ancient Liturgies. And their deep reverence for the primitive Church made them excuse some impropriety of expression.

This

7. What then is your part, who are sponsors for the child? likewise is expressly told you: "It is your part to see that this infant be taught, so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession he hath here made by you. You shall call upon him to hear sermons, and shall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and all other things which a Christian ought to know and believe to his soul's health; and that this child may be virtuously brought up, to lead a godly and a Christian life."

8. Can any thing then be plainer than what you do not, and what you do, undertake? You do not undertake that he shall renounce the devil and serve God; this the baptized himself undertakes. You do under

take to see that he be taught what things a Christian ought to know and believe. And what is there in this which is impossible? which any serious person may not perform?

9. If then you that are parents will be so wise and kind to your children as to waive every other consideration, and to choose for their sponsors those persons alone who truly fear and serve God; if some of you who love God, and love one another, agree to perform this office of love for each other's children; and if all you who undertake it perform it faithfully, with all the wisdom and power God hath given you; what a foundation of holiness and happiness may be laid, even to your late posterity! Then it may justly be hoped, that not only you and your house, but also the children which shall be born, shall serve the Lord.

ATHLONE, August 6, 1752.