mendable in many other qualities; but for this matter they are the subject of the mockery of the Papists, and the grief and shame of the Protestants. How far the ministers there do their duty in shewing the people the sinfulness of schism, I known not. Some do think that a

country so disposed as that, let what stranger will come thither, and bring with him any odd and singular opinion whatsoever, he shall find there a church perfectly fitted to his humour, has thereby a great advantage for alluring a concourse of men and promoting trade. If this be allowed, I am afraid it is to little purpose to preach there against the sin of schism; and, perhaps, the ministers dare not do it."

In another chapter (chap. xi) speaking of the same thing, viz. of the temper of some Christians to set up a several church for every several opinion, I subjoined,

This one may call the Holland way of Christianity. Not that the States of this country do, I suppose, approve of this as best, or would have it so; but many people there fell into that way; and they have been imitated by another nation, and, as some do now say, outdone in it. However that be, it is the most contrary to the nature and design of Christianity of any thing that could be devised; for Christ, as he is but one head, never designed to have any more but one body," &c.

The late Archbishop of Canterbury told me, that a statesman of England had said to him, concerning these passages of mine, "How comes a minister to meddle with the affairs of our allies?" He did not tell me who it was; and though I could guess, yet I will not. Meddling in state matters, I know, is dangerous; but preaching against schism is preaching a Christian doctrine. Against such a manifest wickedness, and so condemned by God's word as divisions in religion are, I humbly hope a minister may preach or write; and that, whether it be our own country or a neighbour nation in which they rise, especially if the example of that neighbour nation does, as I said, infect and spread among our people, and the state of religion among us

VOL. III.

C

be the worse for our imitating them in matters of religion.

What Mr. Bernard remarks on these passages, is at his 592d page. To shew that they do denounce to the people the sinfulness of schism, he says, "That in the Liturgy of the Lord's Supper, which is in use in the Walloon Churches, and is the same with that of the French Church, they do excommunicate by name all that make sects, and break the unity of the church." I hope then, that the people will mind this; and that the ministers there will apply their warnings to those whom they think in the fault, that they do not live and die in a state of soul subject to excommunication.

If it will be any satisfaction to Mr. Bernard to have us be as free and ready to acknowledge our own blemishes, faults, and misfortunes, as we are to speak of those of other churches and nations, we must, I think, with sorrow and shame confess, that since this time of his and my writing, there have been published in England more rank principles of schism than ever were in Holland; and that not in any conventicle, but openly, avowedly, in the face of the world; and in such circumstances, as that our main hope left, under God, is, that the people themselves, even those that were otherwise inclined to separations, will see and consider the mischievous and destructive consequences of them (destructive not only of that general unity which should be in the universal church, or any national church; but even of the unity, society, order, government, or authority of any church or Christian society at all) and will start back from such an unskilful proposal as would dissipate the members, and dissolve the communion, not only of any established church, but of any congregation of ten or fewer Christians.

Upon the whole, I take Mr. Bernard's remarks on my book to be such as become a learned, and also a civil and friendly, writer. As for the difference of opinion concerning some points of less moment in religion, it will always happen; and as a part of my book was to shew that they ought not to break communion,

- so neither ought they to hinder friendship, especially when each does labour to defend and maintain, the tenets and customs of that part of the church, or of that nation, whereof he is by Providence a member. A moderate degree of zeal in such a case is commendable, and a little excess of it pardonable; much more pardonable than in the case of those who spend their zeal in opposing and quarrelling with the usages, tenets, and ceremonies of their own church and nation.

In the year 1709 came out a pamphlet, with a mocktitle: -Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism improved. The author, Mr. Emlin, thought that, from one paragraph in my Introduction (wherein I observed that the Jews, who gave baptism to proselytes and their infants, did not use it for themselves, nor for their own children) he might gain some advantage to that which is his, and some other Socinian's opinion, That Christians might do likewise, i. e. give baptism to such as are newly converted from Heathenism, and their infant children; but not use it themselves in a nation where Christianity has been for some time settled.

He observes in his first page, That many others before me have spoken of this use of baptism among the Jews; which observation renders the page before (viz. the title-page) very impertinent; for if the Jews custom was such, and many others before me have spoke of it, the pretended consequence (or Improvement, as he calls it) drawn from thence should be called an improvement of that custom, or of the books of those that spoke of it first, rather than of mine, which spoke of it last; so that he acts unkindly to say that my book gave him the just occasion he speaks of; and I had rather it should be taken from any body than from me, since I judge it such an improvement as all other errors are a false and heretical consequence, pretended to be drawn from premises which are true.

His main and only argument is, that since our Saviour gave his commission to his apostles (of carrying baptism, together with the preaching of the gospel, among all nations) in such short words, they must do

with baptism as had been always done in their nation, except such circumstances wherein he has given any particular order for alteration; and, therefore, that as the Jews baptized any new-converted proselyte, and such children as he brought with him, but none of the posterity of them; and as the nation itself of the Jews was at first all baptized in Moses's time, men, women, and children, but none of their posterity afterward, so the apostles and succeeding Christians should give the Christian baptism to all new converts, and to their infants; but in succeeding generations, a family or a nation wherein the Christian religion has been for some time owned and professed, need not baptize their children at all, neither in infancy nor afterward; but the Christian baptism may wholly cease in such a nation (as the Mosaical baptism did among the Jews till there was set up a new baptism in the name of Christ) except when any Heathen convert comes over to Christianity.

And he is positive that Christ in his gospel has not given any rule for alteration in this matter, or any command which can oblige the posterity of baptized parents to receive baptism, but says (p. 8) "They are accounted as already baptized, or cleansed, in their parents' baptism:" and in the next page he hugs that odd saying of Mr. Lock, "They are born members of the Christian Church;" which, whether it were meant to promote this tenet I know not.

He has brought nothing new to confirm this improvement unknown to Christians till vented by Socinus about 150 years ago, nor has said in effect any thing more than I in my Introduction, mentioned as pleaded by the Socinians; so I need only refer to what I briefly said there to obviate their plea,

I observed there, after having set forth the Jews' way of managing baptism, that "It was our Saviour who first ordered by himself and by his forerunner, that every particular person, Jew or Gentile, or of what parents soever born, must be born again of water," John iii. 3, 5. He says (p. 10) "These words of our Saviour can

only relate to such as were converted from infidelity; nor could Nicodemus be supposed to have understood them otherwise, since with the Jews only such were subjects of baptism."

Such a skill in expounding Scripture is to be pitied. Our Saviour's words are, All that do enter into the kingdom of Heaven must be so born again. Is this only those that are converted from infidelity?

But Nicodemus knew of no other that were to be baptized: then Mr. Emlin would have Nicodemus understand our Saviour's words thus: All that you know are to be baptized, must be baptized; whereas our Saviour informs Nicodemus of what he knew not before, That all must be baptized; and he adds (v. 7) Ye must be born again; which ye, being spoken to a Jew, includes those of that nation as well as the Heathens, who Nicodemus knew must be so born.

Our Saviour's next words (which I also cited a little after on the same occasion in the Introduction) make it yet plainer: That which is born of the flesh (which I there paraphrased, whether of a Jewish or Gentile, baptized or unbaptized parent) is flesh, and must be born again. Mr. Emlin takes no notice of this.

How he and the Socinians understand the point of original sin, or our natural generation in a corrupt state, I know not; but the Catholic Church has always understood this natural corruption to attend all that are born, not only of unbaptized or impious, but also of baptized and godly parents. I do (part 1, chap. 19) cite St. Austin urging the Pelagians with this absurdity, following from their doctrine: "You that do affirm that of parents cleansed from the stain of sin such children should be born as are without sin, how is it that you do not mind that at that rate you might say, that of Christian parents there should be born Christian children? And then why do you determine that they are to be baptized?" St. Austin thought this latter to be too absurd for a Pelagian or any other heretic to say but he did not think of our Socinians.

Mr. Emlin (p. 4) that he may enforce the necessity