vnderstande, what is ment bothe by those questions, and answeres. But what will not malice quarrell with? and what is there so good and profitable, that may not be (by contentious persones) drawne into question? the question is as∣ked in the name of the chylde, the Godfathers answere in their owne persons, signifying thereby that they will labour and endeuour so much as in them lieth, to bryng that to passe in the childe, which they haue promised for it, and in the name of it.
And why is it not as lawfull for suche questions to be asked in the name of the childe, as it is for the childe to make a rehearsall of his fayth, and to desire to be bap∣tised in the same, by the mouth of the Parent, or some other in the Parentes name, as the Admonition affirmeth fol. 109. in these woordes? That the parties to be Bapti∣sed, if they be of the yeares of discretion, by themselues and in theyr owne persons, or if they be infantes by their parentes, (in whose roome if vpon necessary occasion they be absent, some one of the congregation knowing the good behauiour and sounde fayth of the Parentes) may both make rehearsall of theyr faith, and also if theyr fayth be sounde, and agreable to the holy Scriptures, desire to be in the same Baptised. Is it not as muche for the infant to professe his fayth (which you say he hath not) by his Parentes and by him also, to desire to be Bapti∣sed, as it is for the Godfather to answere interrogatories ministred vnto him, in the name of the Childe?