from her, or else the others for making a separation without just cause. It is certain also, that if any church should so far comply with reasons of state or human laws, as to teach that schism (however by them tolerated) is not sin before God, this very doctrine would indeed be a good reason for any pious Christian to separate from her, and that by the second of the exceptions I gave just now. So gross is that notion, to think that separation is therefore no sin, because mens' laws may, at sometimes, forbear to inflict any temporal punishment on it; but yet as gross as it is, it is made to serve as an excuse to the consciences of many ignorant people: partly this reason, and partly the commonness of the sin, have made, that many mens' consciences do no longer accuse them for it.

There may need a few words also concerning the difficulties that do lie in the way of the union that I have here proposed; they are none of them such, but what may, I hope, be accommodated, if the parties be willing; some of them do lie on the part of the church. in receiving these men, and some on the part of the men themselves, in respect of their acceptance of the communion offered them. I know of but two on each part,

On the church's part, one concerns the bishop of the diocese chiefly; the other, both the bishop and the curate of the parish; in speaking of which, the nature of the thing shews, that I ought to submit what I shall say, to the judgment of the parties concerned, which I declare that I do unfeignedly. I will only propose the question, leaving the determination to them.

1. Suppose a man do understand the nature and necessity of the church-union I have been speaking of, and accordingly does desire to continue, or to be a member of the Established Church, but he is not satisfied of the validity or sufficiency of baptism given in infancy, or of baptism given by sprinkling or pouring of water on the face only; and therefore he (though perhaps baptized in infancy, yet) has procured himself to be baptized anew, and, besides, he cannot consent to bring

his children, if he has any, to be baptized in infancy, but reserves them to adult baptism; but in other things he is willing to be conformable to the rules of the church, and very desirous of the communion thereof. This man is, I suppose, by the rules of the Church of England, liable to be presented for his fault, both in receiving a second baptism (for so it is in the esteem of the church) and in not bringing his children to baptism.

Here is one evasion or salvo, which I scorn to make use of, as being not satisfactory to myself, viz. That the church's hands are tied up from any proceedings in any cases of that nature by the Act of Toleration; because I think there is nothing more certain than what Bishop Stillingfleet says, *"However the church, in some respects, be incorporated with the commonwealth in a Christian state, yet its fundamental rights remain distinct from it; of which this is one of the chief; to receive into and exclude out of the church such persons which, according to the laws of a Christian society, are fit to be taken in or shut out." It is temporal punishments only which those temporal laws design to set aside; yet, this I will say, that by the general forbearance that is now used, it is ten to one whether such a person would be presented; but we will put the hardest of the case, and suppose him to be presented.

He is then warned to appear before the bishop at the church court. He pleads, we will suppose, conscience for his doing or refusing the things mentioned ; the bishop exhorts him, shews him reasons, endeavours to satisfy his doubts, &c. or perhaps deputes some persons to discourse at leisure more largely with him concerning them. If by these means the man be satisfied, all is well. But we must put the case that he is not here the question is, Whether the bishop, in such a case, will proceed to excommunication, or use a forbearance? I suppose he will make a difference of the tempers of men. If such a man do shew a

1

* Answer to N. O. sect. 15, page 267.

temper hasty, fierce, obstinate, self- opinionated, and self-willed, and a contempt of the court, and of all that is said to him, he is hardly a fit member of any church; but if there appear the signs of a meek, humble, and Christian disposition, willing to hear and consider the reasons and advices given, such a case deserves the greater forbearance; and though the law requires three several admonitions, yet it does not, I suppose, limit the bishop to three, nor to any number; and if this forbearance continue long, the man's children will be grown up, so as to be baptized, as he would have them, upon their own profession. And if he desire, or be but willing, that it be done by dipping, the church does comply with his desire, and does advise it in the first place; and so the dispute will be over. If the bishop do excommunicate him before he be convinced, or this be done, then indeed I have no more to say on this head, there is a full stop put to the proposal. But there are these reasons to think that it would not be so:

First, I never heard of that done; but several times the contrary. All the Antipædobaptists, or indeed other Dissenters, that I have known excommunicated, have been excommunicated, not for their opinion, but their refusal of communion, or for contempt in refus ing to come at all to the bishop's court.

2. Mr. Tombs (and several others, but I will name only him, because his case is very generally known) continued in communion in the Church of Salisbury all the latter part of his life; and though he, during that time, owned his opinion, and wrote for it, yet because he desired to make no schism of it, he was not disturbed in his communicating with the church; nor · has that church ever been blamed for receiving him: on the contrary, the example has been spoken of with commendation in a very public way. This shews it to be practicable; and if it be so, then,

Thirdly, There is a great and manifest advantage in it; for it prevents a schism, which otherwise would be.

The man continuing in communion, all things will tend to an accommodation; whereas, in a separation, every thing is aggravated to the widening of the gap, as we see by constant and woful experience: a separate. party never thinks itself far enough off from any terms of reconciliation.

The second difficulty which concerns, as I said, both the bishop and the curate is this:- By the order of the Church of England, no person is to be admitted to partake of the holy communion till he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed; and a qualification required of every person before he be brought to the bishop to be confirmed is, That he have learned (or, as it is expressed in another place) can answer to the questions of the Catechism. Now, in that Catechism, there happens to be a mention of infants being baptized; for after that it has declared that baptism is to be given upon a covenant of faith and repentance, it follows,(Ques.) Why, then, are infants baptized, when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform them? (Answ.) "Because they promise them both by their sureties; which promise, when they come to age themselves, they are bound to perform." Now, this man being asked that question, would not make that answer; but would say, They ought not to be baptized till they can perform them.

But besides that, one may answer here (much as in the other case) That the practice is such, that not half the people that come to the communion are asked Whether they have been confirmed or not? and also, that those who come to be confirmed when they are of the age of a man, are seldom or never examined in the questions of the Catechism, provided it does, by other ways, sufficiently appear that they do understand the principles of religion, the questions as they stand in the Catechism being seldom put, but only to children. Besides this, I say, it appears to have been the meaning of the church in that question and answer, not to determine this point, Whether infants are to be baptized? (of which no Englishman at that time made dea to in 31 250 30 Jon to bivory as 1919

any doubt) but to determine this point, Whether infants that are baptized, are baptized upon any other coves nant than that upon which grown persons are baptized, viz. of repentance and faith? and it determines that they are not baptized on any other, but the very same, only with this difference, that an adult person is bap tized into the hopes of the kingdom of Heaven, inasmuch as he does believe; and an infant is baptized into the same, on condition that he do, when he comes to age, believe; and this indeed is a principle very necessary to be rightly understood; for a mistake herein might hinder those who are baptized in infancy, from understanding the obligation that lies on them to faith and obedience, as ever they hope to partake of the kingdom of Heaven; to prevent which mistake this clause of the Catechisin seems to have been inserted; so that, though the church do here suppose indeed, or take it for granted that infants are generally baptized, yet that is not the thing which she here defines, not that they are to be baptized, but why (or upon what terms) they are baptized; and this is a thing which an Antipædobaptist holds as firmly as any man, That all baptism is to be upon this covenant; and he will readily assent to this, that supposing, or taking it for granted that infants were to be baptized, they must be understood to be baptized on that covenant, viz. to enjoy the kingdom of Heaven, on condition they do, when they come of age, perform the duties of faith and repentance.

And since this is the substance of what the Catechism there teaches, and the Catechism was intended, not to determine controversies, but to teach fundamental principles, I believe that the bishops would not refuse to confirm such a person (otherwise sound in the faith and conformable and desirous of communion) though he should own his sense in his answer to that question of the Catechism. This I think; but I end this discourse wherein the authority of the church is concerned, as I began it, viz. in submitting my opinion to theirs, and leaving it to themselves to determine whether they would or not, or ought or not.