only in accordance with infant baptism, but which would not have been used if they had considered infants unfit for the ordinance. There are indeed some christians, worthy of our esteem and love, who do not perceive the force of this great argument, and who, therefore, deny to their children the blessed privilege which we thankfully enjoy. But it was not so formerly. The nearer we approach to apostolic times, the more the practice of the church accords with the principles I have advocated; and the most careful and learned ecclesiastical historians bear undeniable testimony to the fact, that for hundreds of years, immediately after the apostles, _the baptism of infants was universal in the church_. II. In proceeding, from the subject of infant baptism generally, to consider the baptism of the Prince of Wales, I cannot, with propriety, refrain from adverting to some appendages which will be made to his baptism, and which the Church of England sanctions, but which I conceive to be unscriptural and injurious. I allude principally to the sponsors; to the sign of the cross; and to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. The persons who are most interested in the baptism of a child are its own parents. They are its natural guardians; and they are its divinely appointed ministers, to dedicate it to God, and to plead on its behalf the promise of the everlasting covenant. But in the Church of England, the parents seem to be entirely excluded from participating in the service. The twenty-ninth canon declares, not only that “no parent shall be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child,” but that “no parent shall be even urged to be present” at its baptism. And when the parents are thus wrongfully set aside, another class of persons are introduced, called _sponsors_—godfathers and godmothers, who may indeed be relatives or friends of the child, but who sometimes are entire strangers, and who may be foreigners residing in a distant country. The appointment of such persons, however ancient, is not scriptural; and however desirable they may appear to be, when the parents are dead, they are worse than useless when the parents are living. The responsibility which these sponsors take upon themselves is indescribably awful. Standing in the presence of God, they solemnly promise and vow that the child shall renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh; that he shall believe all the articles of the christian faith; and that he shall keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of his life. Such are the things which every sponsor engages shall be done; and I ask, ought any human being to enter into such an engagement? If he does enter into it, will the Lord hold him guiltless if he does not fulfil it? And yet how often is this solemn vow addressed to God, by the thoughtless and profane? And how many sponsors, when they have made it,