genuity and Honefty in the Letter-writer, who could condefcend to fuch a mean Art as this, to give fome Appearance of Authority to his own weak Reasonings; and draw his Reader by a Cheat into a Perfuafion, into which he could not draw him by his Arguments.

And this may fuffice for an Answer to his Postscript.

As to his Letter itself, which he hath wrote to rebuke the Clergy of Northumberland for unchriftianing, as he calls it, the Quakers, he fhould be given to understand, that the Northumberland Clergy, whatever they may think of those of his Sect, yet do not use to call them by any unchristian Names, (unless Quaker itself be fuch) or otherwise reproach or injure them; but are willing they should enjoy the Toleration that the Laws have given them, and may reasonably expect from them, in fuch Circumstances, at least Peace and good Words. But fince nothing will fatisfy him, but a publick Acknowledgement of their Right to be called Chriftians, which he proclaims in his Title Page, and afferts throughout his Letter, fupports it from Scripture, and from the Doctrine of the Church of England in her Arti

cles,

cles, and inveighs against the Clergy as the People most forward to rob them of it; fince this is the Cafe, it will be worth while to fee how he makes this Claim out for his Friends. And truly they will have no Reason to thank him; for it follows from his own Arguments that they are no Chriftians; which is more perhaps than the Clergy of Northumberland, if he will but let them alone, would care to caft in their Teeth..

His firft Pofition is, That Quakers do believe the Baptifm of Chrift as fully and fincerely as any Chriftian ever did. And he Challenges them (viz. the Clergy,) to prove the Contrary, P. 3. And if they were to challenge him to prove that the Quakers do fincerely believe it, he would find it impoffible to give them Satisfaction: So that fuch abfurd Challenges are better let alone. They do not, by their own Confeffion, believe that to be the Baptifm of Chrift which all other Christians hold for fuch. And how fincerely they do believe what they call His Baptifm, will not be known, or credited on their bare Word. Every Body will judge of their fincerity as he is disposed,

But

But there may be a Fallacy in the Affertion: For they do not allow any to be properly Chriftians but themfelves (as this Writer himself infinuates a little further, and is the Confequence of his Doctrine, whatever he may have faid in the Beginning of his Letter to the Contrary.) So that what he says here, may in this Senfe be true enough, for any Thing we know, viz. that, whatever they mean by the Baptifm of Chrift, it is as fully and fincerely believed by one as by another of them. And he may fafely Challenge all the World to prove the Contrary.

His next step is, that sprinkling Infants, and figning them with the Crofs, mere Ceremonies, &c. p. 4.

are in his Opinion. Here too we have only his Word for it: And were he to add his folemn Affirmation, it would not advance his bare Opinion and Judgment into an Argument. And befides, what hath Infant Baptifm to do with the Point he has undertaken to make out, viz. That Quakers are Chriftians? He has spent four Pages in condemning the Practice of Baptizing Infants: But how doth this help towards proving either the Baptifm, or Christianity of Quakers? Why doth he take the Weapons

up

of

I

of the Anababtifts, (or Baptifts, as they call themselves) and fight in their Cause, seeming thereby to allow of Dipping, or the Baptifm of Adults (See Fran. Bugg's Quakerism Withering, p. 46. Lond. 1694); when at the fame Time he really difallows of that too, and oppofes the external Rite, which they use to make themselves Christians, as vehemently as he opposes the Baptifm of Infants? He brings no Conclufion for his own Right to Christianity either way; but only a Proof of his own Infincerity.

He would pretend indeed, as a Colour for this Proceeding, that the Clergy do Unchriftian the Quakers for denying Baptifm to Infants. This he repeats over and over, and in Answer to it tells them, that if they cannot prove that Infant Baptifm is the Baptifm of Christ, then the Foundation of their Charge against the Quakers is falfe. But this is a mere Pretence; for if this was all the Charge against them, they would only be reckoned and called Anabaptifts, or Antipadobaptifts. But the Charge npon which they are reported no Chriftians, is of a more grievous Nature, viz. The renouncing Water-Baptism in general, and denying it to all without Diftinction.

So

So that this Suggestion of his is not only falfe, but improbable, and can do him no Ser

vice.

The fame may be faid of his next Plea, p. 5. That Infant Baptifm is, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, an Article of Faith. And that the Quakers are unchriftian'd for not believing this Article. Because (as he says) it is neither contained in Scripture, nor can be proved thereby; as every Article of Faith, according to the Judgment of our Church, ought to be.

He hath read our Articles (as he hath done Bishop Taylor) without understanding the Subject or Design of them; otherwise he would have learned the Difference between affenting to a Doctrine, and obeying a Precept, between ·Belief and Profeffion, Faith and Baptifm; which are as clearly diftinguished in them, as they are in Mark xvi. 16. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be faved. Whereby it appears -that Baptifm is neceffary to Salvation, though it be not a necessary Article of Faith. What is faid in the Articles of Infant Baptifm, is no more than this, that it is in any Wife to be retained in the Church, as moft agreeable with the Inflitution