THIS Quakers Looking-Glaſſe is falſe, it preſents two Faces, one as if they did, another as if they did〈…〉Charles Baily for an eminent Quaker; And that this is ſo, ſee what he ſaith page 10. viz. ſome new Con­verted Friends, ſaith he, did own Charles Baily; but the Men Friends, (meaning himſelf and three or four more Priſoners in the Caſtle) did not own him ſo much; But this we did not ac­quaint the Baptiſts with, ſaith he; Hence note, Luke Howard appears in his Looking-Glaſs with two Faces; Firſt, one toward the Baptiſt, as if he did own Charles Baily as an eminent Qua­ker, but now as with another Face he pretends it was not ſo much as we did think; And here his Glaſs is true if turned towards him­ſelf, but falſe to the Baptiſts, becauſe we know not (as himſelf confeſſeth,) but that he owned Baily as much as the reſt did. Se­condly, from hence we may alſo note by the way, what little Cauſe the Man hath to make ſuch an Out-cry againſt the Baptiſts, as if they forged and publiſhed falſhoods, when we ſay no more then himſelf confeſſeth, That to our knowledge they did own Baily a that time for an eminent Quaker. The which I ſhall make fur­ther appear by theſe three following Particulars.

• 1. That the ſaid Baily did prophecie, ſee falſe Viſions, and pre­tend to work Miracles, as appears by the Narrative hereunto an­nexed.
• 2. That he was then in fellowſhip with the Quakers, and owned by them.
• 3. That Baily was led by the Quakers ſpirit into theſe delu­ſions.
• 4. Examine the Quakers evaſions, by which he endeavors to ſhift off the Truth of our Narrative.
• 5. Pluck up by the roots the Authors prodigious root of the Bap­tiſts in Kent, and diſcover the Authors Apoſtacy from the Truth.
• 6. By ſome ſober reflexions upon his falſe accuſations, as they are ſcattered through his book.

Firſt, that the Quakers did own Baily for an eminent Quaker a­mongſt them before and after his pretended Viſion, Prophecie and Miracles mentioned in the Narrative, appears, by their then af­firming and juſtifying him to be led by the true Light, as they did by their hearing him preach, and devoutly joyning with him in Prayer.

But this is a poor Proof, ſaith our Looking-Glaſs-Maker, pag. 9. To which anſwer, That if this be not a ſufficient proof they owned him. I know not what is or can be ſufficient, nor do I know any Rule the Quakers have, by which I ſhall know when they own one another. But to ſhift this off, the Quaker ſays, they were only new convinced friends that owned Baily; Himſelf and three or four more then in priſon with him, did not own him ſo much. Reply. If by (ſo much) you mean ye did not joyn with him in his devotion, I grant it; for your reſtraint from him hin­dered you in that; but at the ſame time ye juſtified him as highly as the reſt in your Diſcourſe concerning him and his actions, and condemned the Baptiſts for oppoſing him in his fooliſh attempts, though now ye would have the World believe, ye did not own him ſo much as friends at liberty did.

As if all the Quakers in Dover and Folkſtone, and thereabouts, that had fellowſhip with Baily, and were daily privy to his words and actions, were ſo Moon-blind, that they could not ſee Baily was led by a falſe light, ſo well as our Looking-Glaſs-Maker could, through the ſtone-walls of Dover-Caſtle, ſee how this man lifts up himſelf above his brethren.

But Luke, to heal up this tells us, That friends abroad were afraid to judge Baily, but when they came to the Quakers in the Caſtle, they would ſpeak the thing as it was, and that Baily erred.

But this we did not think fit to acquaint the Baptiſts with, ſaith he. Reply. Behold, here is the Quakers Method: That al­though they know a thing to be true and juſtly charged upon them, yet it is their prudence to deny or not acknowledge it, That they may preſerve the reputation of their erroneous light; and thoſe poor ſilly ſouls that are led aſide thereby, and contrary to their knowledge and conſcience will juſtifie the evil doer, and bear world in hand as if the Baptiſts were tranſgreſſors for ſpeaking the thing that is true.

2. That Baily was owned by the quakers as one in fellowſhip with them, and that not only by new converted friends without, but alſo by Luke and his Brethren within the Caſtle, is further mani­feſt, that after his fooliſh prophecy, viſion and miracles they did Juſtifie him in thoſe his fopperies before Suſanna Tavenor, and condemnd her as a lying envious perſon becauſe ſhe ſaid to Luke and the reſt in Priſon, that Baily had propheſied falſly in the name3 of the Lord, and had ſeen a falſe Viſion, (meaning that mentioned in the Narrative, and ſo violent they were againſt her for ſo ſaying, that ſhe could not be at quiet amongſt them when ſhe came to the priſon to viſit her then husband John VVarriſon, who was a Qua­ker, and then in priſon with L•ke, and the other Quakers in the Caſtle; Again, that they did own him for an eminent Quaker is further evident, in that divers of them went to him for cure of their divers diſeaſes; As for inſtance, Luke Howard (our Looking-Glaſs-Maker) and An•e his then Wife, went to him to be cuted of her ſore eyes; and Baily touch'd them, (as his manner was, in or­der to cure her, and ſhe reported that he had cured her; and this Luke knows in his own Conſcience is true.

Likewiſe Katherine Fernn a quaker now living in Dover came to him to be cured of Convulſion fits, and reported that ſhe had received cure by him, alſo Edward Sa•isbee of Deal another Quaker to be cured of his ſore legg, which he ſaid he alſo received cure for. by Baily, and thereupon he threw away all his plaiſters, and clouts that formerly he uſed. And this was trumpeted about town and Country, that Charles Baily a quaker being then in Dover Priſon had an extraordinary gift healing, by which (as they re­ported) he had cured Divers, inſomuch that divers others that were not Quakers came to the priſon to him for cure, namely William Williams, who had a ſwelling in his face, and Baily ſtroakt it in order to cure, and Samuel Tavenor came from Dcale (upon Edward Salisbee's report of theſe cures, to adviſe with Baily about the cure of his Wife who had bin long weak and lame. But of all theſe he cured not one except the Quakers, nor all them neither, as ſome of the Quakers have in my hearing lately confeſſed; yet had he Caſt the Devil out of Woollet but as effectually as the Qua­kers ſay he cured them, (which he ſaid had been done if ſome of the Baptiſts had not been preſent) doubtleſs he had been cryed up for that miracle far more then for all the reſt of his fooliſh projects but now the poor man failing in their loſſes the honour of all the reſt, ſo that to conclude this particular, I ſay, if the Quakers com­ing to Baily to be taught by him, to be healed by him, to pray with him and to Juſtifie his words and actions againſt all oppoſers, and to give him the hand and fixt look, were owning of him, then did our looking-glaſs-maker himſelf and his Bretheren in this Town and hereabouts own Baily as a moſt eminent Quaker, both at and after the projects he playd mentioned in the Narrative.

3. That Baily was led by the Quakers ſpirit, Luke will by no4 means allow, and ſo acquit himſelf from the crime of being led by a deluding ſpirit, he ſayes Baily was not guided by their ſpirit, when he acted as in the Narrative is expreſſed, in page the twelfth, of his Looking-glaſs he ſaith, This Baptiſt Paſtor and many of his flock and of his mind would have the world believe that Charles Baily and the reſt of the Quakers were led by one and the ſame ſpirit when he erred in his heart.

To this I reply, and ſay, he was led by the Quakers ſpirit & preached their doctrine, and was in all reſpects as deep died a Quaker as Luke Howard himſelf, and if Luke had uſed a little more plainneſs, and told us when and in what Baily Erred, he had ſaved me ſome labour to Query when he ſo erred, if Luke mean in the Buſineſs of Woollet; I graunt he did err in that, but he did not in that err from the Quakers, for it is evident he was moved by the dictates of the ſame ſpirit, by which he pretended to cure the Quakers, in which they highly owned him, and doubtleſs his and their deſign in thoſe attempts of his, was to confirm their doctrine and to proſelite the Baptiſts to the owning of their principles, and to this purpoſe he called the Baptiſts to ſee this Tragedie, and told them they ſhould ſee the Power of God. And that he might further ſhew this to be his intent, he deſired God to ſhew his Power for the confirmation of his Eternal truth, as he did of old Againe, that he was Carried forth into that action by the Quakers ſpirit: Appears by the opera­tion and working of it with him at that time; which was in the ſame kind and after the ſame manner that it frequently had done in other Quakers, viz. By its violent motions, throwing him down upon the floore, as it alſo handled another Quaker about the ſame time in the ſame Priſon, where he lay ſome time upon the floore, Plunging and Beating himſelf, and Groaning as if he would have given up the Ghoſt (and this Perſon is now none of the meaneſt Quakers in Dover) nor did the poſture and actings of Bailys two female companions that joyned with him in that attempt upon Woollet, ſhew any other but that he and they were all led and acted by the ſame ſpirit; nay, and I my ſelf have ſeen the ſame ſpirit ſhew it ſelf by the ſame operation upon our Looking Glaſs-Ma­ker himſelf, making him quake and ſhake, that people without doors heard the violent noiſe of it; by which it appears, that Baily and the reſt of the Quakers are led by one and the ſame ſpirit.

And it is evident alſo Baily was acted by the ſame ſpirit with the Quakers, in his Viſion and Prophecie againſt me, and the Judg­ments5 that he denounced againſt me; for that which gave the oc­caſion was, my oppoſing him and them in their Quaking Prin­ciples and Doctrine; and doubtleſs, he did as much deſign the Confirmation and Crediting their doctrine in this, as he did in the other of his Projects ▪ But if Luke think Baily erred in this his attempt concerning me, I think ſo too; and that our Look­ing-Glaſs-Maker and the reſt of the Quakers erred with him ther­in: for they juſtified him and condemned me as he did. Truly, if Luke had told us in what Baily erred, and for what they now deny him, as he pretends, his Glaſs had been clearer, and he had done his Cauſe ſome right, in taking off a juſt ground of ſuſpici­on, that Baily firſt forſook them ſeeing himſelf deluded by them.

From all this it evidently appears, That neither the Paſtor nor any of his Flock (as Luke ſcoffingly words it) do wrong the Qua­kers at all, in ſaying that Baily was a Quaker, and led by their ſpi­rit at the time of his Projects mentioned in their Narrative: But to wipe away all this, Luke tells us, that Baily is departed from them, and therefore they are not to be charged with his Actions, no more then the Chriſtians of old with thoſe that departed from them: and ſeems to be much offended, pag. 13. What now, Baptiſt-Paſtor, (ſaith he) wouldeſt thou have judged all the diſciples, becauſe Peter denied his Maſter, and for Judas's ſake, have ſaid they were all alike, and led by one and the ſame ſpi­rit, &c. And then, as if the Man thought himſelf an Artiſt at Looking-Glaſs-making, he ſays, See thy face thou blinde Paſtor, thy Jewiſh ſpirit would have accuſed all the Brethren for their ſakes, that went out from them, and have ſaid they were all alike, &c.

Reply. The caſe in hand between Luke and I is not equivolent, to that he alludes to, for neither Peter nor Judas did pretend, in denying their Maſter, to advance their Miniſtry and the Goſpel, as Charles Baily did the Quakers doctrine, in what he did in his Prophecie, Revelation and prodigious Miracles: And therefore it would have been as impertinent for any to have charged all the Apoſtles with their ſin, who never owned them in it, as the Qua­kers did Baily in what he did, as 'tis proper for me to ſay, That Baily was led by the Quakers ſpirit: And the caſe of them which went out of the Church, John 2.19. to which Luke Howard al­ludes, makes as little to his purpoſe, for they departed from the A­poſtles doctrine, Act. 2.43. (as Luke himſelf has done) and their caſe is more applicable to himſelf then to Charles Baily, who ſo8 highly owned the quakers doctrine at that time that he preached it up, ſuffered for it, Pronounced Judgment againſt the oppoſers of it; and pretended to work miracles to confirm it, and therefore, his being rather an act of perſevereing in, then a departing from your Spirit and doctrine, quite alters the Caſe and all Lukes Cavilling compariſons fall to the ground; But Luke goes further, and to Aſ­ſure his reader that Baily was no ſober quaker when he acted as in the narrative expreſſed, he terms them mad Actions, page 8.

Reply, Luke, in this is very uncharitable methinks to his old Friend, (though then he and the reſt of the Quakers befriended him) in that they Judge Baily now according to thr event of his actions, and not according to the intent of his mind, which was to advance that which Luke calls truth, and as diſingenious to himſelf, ſeeing he is led by the ſame ſpirit by which Baily then acted, nor is Luke leſs Injurous to his two female Friends, who were as madd in that madd action (about Woollet) as Baily was, but thoſe he wholly ſcreens from the world in his glaſs, and lett•them not be ſeen therein at all, though he know in his conſcience they are co-workers with Baily in that undertaking, but this argues that Bailys leaving them ſince that time is his greateſt crime, and therefore the Burthen is by Luke laid and left upon Bailys back, and the two female friends are Befriended.

But laſtly, Luke to cleer the caſe at once, tells his Reader in the ſame page, That they are as cleer from Charles Baily in the ſight of God, as they are from us: Reply, That Luke Howard is cleer from us I graunt. For he (long ſince) left the Baptiſts and turned a lewd Ranter, ſcoffing at, and oppoſing the ordinances of Chriſt then, at he doth now. But he was no more cleer from Baily when he acted as in the Narrative then Judah was from his ſin with Tha­mar; when ſhe had his Bracelets, Signet and Staff, for then Baily had their ſpirit, held their principles, and Preached their Doctrine, and here is an end of his ſhifts to evade the truth or Narratve concern­ing Baily and his fellow Females.

In the next place, I ſhall (according to what I have propound­ed) take off his evaſions, by which he endeavours to darken the truth of the Narrative, and firſt, Luke tells us in page the 10. That his Wife did ſend a Letter to London about Baily: Reply, how in­congruous is this to reaſon, That ſhe on whom Baily had newly wrought a miracle, ſhould write againſt him, and that then the reſt of the Quakers here ſhould not know it, to diſown him with her,7 no, nor no body elſe knew of it unrill now, let the judicious reader Judge of this.

Again in the ſame page he tells us, two friends came and teſtified againſt Baily, but did not diſown him, nor does he pretend ſo, for Baily preached amongſt them after he came out of Priſon, which was ſome Months after his falſe Viſion, &c. But was this known to the Baptiſts (who ſay Baily was a deceiver) that two friends had teſtified againſt him; No ſaith Luke, this we did not acquaint the Baptiſts with, and why ſo, why faith Luke becauſe we knew they waited for miſchief. Reply.

What ſilly fenceleſs ſhifts are theſe, to evade that which Luke knowes in his own conſcience to be true. As if the only way to cutt off occaſion of reproach from ſuch as wait for it, were to own and Juſtifie the offender, and to condemn and cenſure the innocent and offended; And in page the 7. The Quaker to evade that which Juſtly ſticks upon him, tells the world that Baily was not eſtabliſht amongſt them. Reply,

This is ſtrange (if true) what, one that zealouſly owned and preached up the Light within, confirmed the ſame doctrine by miracles (if the reports of Quakers may be credited) de­nounced Judgments againſt the oppoſers thereof, and indured im­priſonment for their doctrines ſake, and yet not be an eſtabliſhed Quakers ▪ If theſe be not the indelible Characters of an eſta­bliſhed Quaker, let them ſhew me what they are, and by what rule; (if they have any) I may know which are, and which are not Eſtabliſhed Quakers; mean time they muſt needs give us leave to let Baily paſs for one, having all the forenamed Characters upon him.

But in the next place the man, (to make his Glaſs Cleer) hee gives it a Rubb, and that (as he thinks) to purpoſe two: And do ye not know (ſaith he) in your conſciences, that he, viz. Baily, hath been by us called Quakers denyed for many years. Reply,

But not a word, where when or for what he was denyed, and ſo ye make this evaſion impertinent your ſelf; And though ye do diſown him now, that is nothing to us in the caſe in hand, wee ſay in the Narrative that Baily was then owned by you, when he plaied thoſe prepoſterous Pranks, and was then led by the ſame ſpirit with you, and I have made it appear to be true, and I further ſay, I do not know whether you have yet denyed him (as8 ye term it) for ſome of ye have of late reported that he has paſt through the town and no: took ſo much notice of his old friends as might be expected, and methinks this ſmells as if he were not quite diſlocated from you, or elſe that this ſtrangneſs of his towards you, ariſes from this, that he perceiving himſelf to be deluded by your Light, he keeps a loof from you as a company of poor deluded and miſtaken Creatures. Another while, (in page 7. you have the Quaker ſpeaking in favour of his old friend a little, and tells us, that we have belyed him in ſome things, as bad as he was, or as we would make him to be, but names, no particulars wherein we have wronged him, Reply.

To this I ſay, there is two wayes of wronging a man in this caſe, one is when we declare more of him then is true, the other is when wee do not declare all that is true, in the firſt of theſe I have not failed; But in the latter I have, and when I know in which of theſe two our Looking-glaſs-maker means I have wronged his friend in, it may be I may make him an amends.

But in the mean time I ſhall go on to examine his prodigi­ous root.

And firſt here I take notice, that whileſt Luke Howard is alar­ruming the world againſt us, as if we were the veryeſt miſcreants that ever lived, for Blabbing out a tale of truth, which he would have had been hid, he clamours thus (what a thing of ten years ſtanding) that is the great crime, ſee page 8. and page the II. And you ſhall ſee he himſelf runns into the ſame tranſgreſſion over ſhooes and Boots two, and Retrogrades 28 Years back, to rake for matter to reproach us. This man ſure inſtead of making us a Looking-Glaſſe, had need have made himſelf a Proſpective-glaſſe, but to his ſtory, page the 5. in the years 1643. and 1644. ſaith he, the Baptiſts, had their entrance into Kent and many were Dipped by William Kiffin into the belief of particular election, and amongſt others Luke Howard and Nicholas Woodman profeſſed repentance and faith and were dipped, as Luke in deriſion terms it, and then in page the 8. he tells his reader, this Nicholas Weodman proved an idle perſon, he took a wife who married him for his profeſſion-ſake, that he proved a lewd man, ſpent his wifes eſtate, abuſed her body and then leſt her and went and Preached Water Baptiſme &c.

Reply ▪ For Nicholas Woodman, I know not whether there were ſuch a man or no, but by Luke Howards and ſome others re­port,7 who ſay, he lived as orderly as Luke Howard, for they both proved prophane ſinners againſt the Light and grace they had received from God, VVoodman to Idleneſs and looſe living, and Luke Howard to a wanton and lewd Ranter. And may not ano­ther by the ſame rule, that Luke upbraides us with VVoodmans bad living, twitt us with Luke Howards too, who was Baptized with him and caſt his looſs life as dirt in our faces; And in particular his Railing book that he has writ againſt us, in which he expreſſeth more enmity then our common oppoſers uſually do, But ſeeing our Looking-glaſſe-maker had no other but his Apoſtate Brothers faults to blemiſh us with, he would have ſeemed a wiſer man, and have done himſelf a kindneſs, to have concealed them, for no wiſe man would have raked in that hole where he knew his own Infamy lay buried ▪ But this ſhews the height of his anger a­gainſt the Baptiſts, that he will pluck out his own Bowels but that he will beſmear them. Truly in this buſineſs our Looking-glaſſe-maker has as much need of a Looking-glaſſe as his neighbour, meane time, let him ſee and know, that Woodmans Bad living, and Luke Howards wanton actions, and ertoneous principles, are alike diſowned by the Bapttſts, They being alike contrary to Chriſts Doctrine and the Baptiſts Practice.

And that the man might manifeſt himſelf ſo farr degenerate from his Baptiſme and faith, as if he had forgotten that Jeſus Chriſt is the root, in his own example and command of beleevers Baptiſme Math. 3. and Math 28.18. he tells us page 8. that Nicholas Woodman was the riſe and root of the Baptiſts in Kent, But that this Paragraph is falſe, Appears preſently from his own Pen, for he tells us many were Baptized in Kent by William Kiffin before Nicholas Woodman preached or Baptized any, for William Kiffin he ſaith Baptized Woodman, ſo that if a man be the root of the Baptiſts in Kent it muſt be in Kiffin, and not Nicholas Woodman ac­cording to his own glaſſe, pray neighbour look in your glaſſe a­gaine; and further Luke mentions none that Wooodman Baptized, it is a queſtion therefore whether Woodman Baptized any or no. And laſtly, here are more then an 100 Baptiſts in and about Dover that were not Baptized by Woodman, nor by any that he Baptized, who are living witneſſes againſt the Quakers falſities, and can (if need require) give a better account of the Original and line of their Bap­tiſme10 then Luke Howard can: And thus you ſee the Quakers Nar­rative of the Root and Riſe of the Baptiſts in Kent, is pluckt up Root and Rind: And to proceed to take notice of his fifth and ſixth page, where he ſaith, But ſome of thoſe baptized by William Kiffin changed their opinion, and believed the univerſal Love of God to all: Well; and what then, Why ſome, ſaith he, thought it their duty to be baptized into the univerſal Love of God; But, he ſaith, none were Baptized again in all Kent except one Cox of Canter­bury.

Reply, Here is a great Cry and little wool, a talk of rebaptizing and yet but one in all Kent was Baptized; but then our hiſtorian tells us, the reſt held their Baptiſm but changed their opinion into the univerſal love of God, and devoutly preached it up; if they had been naturalized into that by their perticular baptiſm, and upon this the man falls to calumnizing ſtoutly, calling us a confuſed brood of Baptiſts all rooted in Babell and confuſion, blind leaders of the blind with other ſuch like terms, and he concludes that their baptiſm into the faith of particular election being falſe, neither branch nor fruit can be true. &c.

Reply it is uſualy for ſuch as once owned and profeſſed the way of the Lord, and after depart from it as Luke Howard hath done, to become the fierceſt oppoſers of that truth they once profeſſed; ſee for example Acts 20, 29 and 30. and therefore 'tis no marvel if he give ſuch fowl meaſure to the Baptiſts; but to requite the Quaker for his kindneſs, that the Reader may ſee his Spirit is not good, I will ſhew where he would have found ſuch another brood of Baptiſts as he has found in Kent, namely, the Church at Jeruſalem, the 3000, Acts the 2. were Baptized into the faith of Gods love to the Jews on­ly, and after changed their opinion both Preachers and people, and be­leived the univerſal love of God to the Gentiles, alſo ſee Acts 11 18. when they heard theſe things, they held their peace, and gloryfied God ſaying, Then hath God granted to the Gentiles alſo Repentance un­to life, here they changed in their opinion but held their Baptiſm, for no mention is made of re-baptizing any of them.

Now if this Quaker had lived amongſt them, and been led by the ſame ſpirit he now is, he might by the ſame rule he clamours a­gainſt us, have condemned them for a confuſed brood of Baptiſts, rooted in Babel and confuſion. Firſt Baptized into the particular11 and then changing their opinion into the General, and devoutly preach that up as Peter did, Acts, the 10. and thereby have con­cluded them blind leaders of the blind, as he blindly accuſed us.

Now I ſhall return to page the 8. where he tells us, that ſince Woodmans time there are many filthy unheard of abominations a­mongſt us, both in ſpirit and practice, and there might be more ſaid, as ſome of our ſelves know, but that he tells his Reader he is not willing to relate in print except he be provoked to it, &c.

Reply, Doth the man think, that I ſhould return him thanks for his civility in concealing that which he had not to ſay, or if ſaid, could not prove, but however he has diſcloſed his Maſter-piece, he ſhoots at random for he names no perſon amongſt us: and ſo hitts no perſon that I know of: for I know none amongſt the Baptiſts that are guilty of ſuch unheard of abominations as he talks of, and were not my neighbour Howard a Quaker, that pretends ſo much to plain dealing, I ſhould take this for very fowl dealing, to put forth in print ſuch a charge againſt a whole Congregation of Peo­ple to reproach them, and mention no perſon or particular thing amongſt us, that the accuſed if guilty might be known, or if inno­cent might defend themſelves; but this being the meaſure the Qua­ker uſually meets to him that oppoſes him. I ſhall place this for ſome of his plain dealing.

But to follow him a little further in his own Track,•n page 8 11 and 15 I find him very angry becauſe we bring forth a thing of ſo long a ſtanding, Calling us Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, and that the Ravening nature is ſtanding in us, which can look 9, or 10. years Back (ſaith he) to ſmite with the fiſt of wickedneſs, and to Perſecure an innocent people, and with many more ſuch evil terms he upbraids us, and here I may anſwer him with his own argument. Are the Baptiſts Ravenous, &c. for look­ing 10 years back, and is not Luke Howard by his own rule and Glaſſe, much more ravenous, who Ranges above twenty, yea, neare thirty years back, to rake up matter from his own Companion to reproach us with, and to ſmite us with the fiſt of falſhood; if Luke make another Glaſſe, I adviſe him to look in it and ſee himſelf be­fore he ſend it out to others. And now I ſhall collect a few more of thoſe many accuſations, with which his book is ſtuffe, pag. the 10 he calls us blaſphemers againſt the light of Jeſus which they declare, calling it naturall, & the Quakers dark light, with many more blaſ­phemous words, as the Jews did of old, hereupon he brands us with9 odious terms of men-ſlayers and murderers, and that the body of death is ſtanding in us; where the murderer lives, and where the Ser­pents life is, whoſe wiſdom is earthly, ſenſual and Diveliſh, that bites at their heels, and accuſes us with things of many years ſtand­ing, and then as if he had forgot his own ſtory of 28 years ſtand­ing, he tells us page the 15. that if we had not been drunk with the Whores Cupp of abomination, and envious holyneſs, getting words to talk, and profeſſing in the ravenous nature, we would not fetch ſuch old matter againſt Quakers of ten years ſtanding and print it, &c, To which upon the whole I anſwer, with that Scripture Rom. 2.3. Thinkeſt thou this, O man that Judgeſt them and doeſt the ſame things, that thou ſhalt eſcape the judgment, thine own mouth con­demns thee and not I, yea, thy wicked own lipps teſtifie againſt thee Job 15.6. for if the Baptiſts be ſuch wickeed perſons as Luke pretends, for reporting a truth of 10, years dat (which Luke in his conſcience knows it ſo) Is not Luke then by the ſame rule much worſe, in fetching up a far older ſtory, and that falls on two, as appears by his own glaſſe.

Again, if Luke had proved by ſome convincing arguments, that the Quakers Light is Chriſt, and then made it appear that the Bap­tiſts had blaſphemed, in denying that men are redeemed and juſti­fied by that light within themſelves, and not rather by faith in the death, reſurrection and Aſſention of Chriſt without us, for us, which is the chief point in controverſie between us, and ſpared his bad language, this might have taken ſome impreſſion upon a judicious Reader. But it ſeems that Luke finds, that to Callumnize his op­poſer is the eaſieſt way of anſwering, and 'tis like, himſelf is beſt furniſht with ſuch Arguments.

Again, to ſhew the heat of his Anger againſt the Truth, and to render us vile and odious, he tells the World, That we make thoſe which we dip more foul in heart, and twofold more the Child of the Devil then they were before page 4. and 8. And then, as if he had given us a mortal wound, he exalts himſelf and his party as high as Heaven (in his own conceit) telling the world that they viz. the Quakers do worſhip God in ſpirit and truth, which the de­vil and all they that do his works of envie are out of, pag. 12. And then to ſhew himſelf to be no boaſting Phariſee, he tells me, That I do Caperna•m-like exalt my ſelf, and that for no other cauſe that I ſee, but my ſaying, that if the Quakers denied that they owned Charles Baily they would render themſelves falſe perſons.

To all this I reply, that if Luke Howard were as able to prove, as he is apt to accuſe, he would be an able Quaker: But failing in his proofs, he appears more like a Scold then a ſober Chriſtian, whereas now if he had made it appear in ſome particular perſon or perſons, who after Baptiſm in water (according to the Command and Example of Chriſt, had becom twofold more the Childe or Children of Hell then before: He had made his Glaſs a great deal clearer to any Judicious Reader: But it may be he, ſuppoſing himſelf guided by an un-erring light, he counts his Say-ſo is proof ſufficient to condemn all his oppoſers.

And then to beguiie his credulous Reader into a Fools Paradiſe, he tells him, The Quakers worſhip God in ſpirit and truth, which the devil and all that do•is works of Envie are out of.

Reply. Theſe are great ſwelling words of vanity, but when Luke has proved the Quakers are ſo free from the Devil and his VVorks, and do worſhip God in ſpirit and truth (by comparing the Scriptures and their Practice together, it ſhall then be part of my Creed too, to believe they are ſuch, but not before.

Now after all this with many more clamorous accuſations (as may be ſeen in his Looking-Glaſs againſt the Baptiſts, he concludes his fallacious Narrative with a boaſt, page 11. Our Rock is not like yours, our Enemies themſelves being Judges, ſaith he. And then (Oh ye fools) ſo ſoon as ye have liberty to meet, where you were afraid to meet before for fear of a man, and ye crept into cor­ners, &c.

Reply. The Boaſter builds upon the Sand, and this his accuſa­tion is as ſandy as his foundation: for I appeal to all the judicious inhabitants in Dover, who are VVitneſſes in this caſe, who know that whilſt the Quakers meet without any interruption, we were in­terrupted for ſeveral months together, almoſt every Lords day, at our publick Meeting-place, and there we continued till our Meeting-Houſe was defaced, the doors barrd and lockt up: After that, we met elſewhere in Town conſtantly; And truly, I cannot but admire, that the Quaker ſhould have the face to publiſh ſuch a falſhood in Print, in which the Magiſtrates and People of the Town, and his own Conſcience too (if not ſeared) will all bear witneſs againſt him, and on our part in this matter: but this is juſt like the reſt of his Glaſs.