The Quakers Looking-Glass Looked Upon

To the Reader.

FRiendly Reader, I do here Present thee with a small Tract, Containing a Brief Reply to a Book put forth lately by Luke Howard a Quaker, Entituled, A Looking-Glass for the Baptists; The Contents of which Book, and the Intents of the Author is to obscure the Truth of the Narrative which is hereunto annexed, which Narrative is a Relation of some Remarkable Passages Concerning one Charles Bailey an Eminent Quaker, and sometimes a Prisoner in Dover upon the Quaking account, during which time of his said Imprisonment those (Extravigancies were committed by him) and also to reproach and defame the Publisher of the said Narrative; But how little he hath accomplished his End in the first, (in opposing himself against so manifest a Truth) and how much he hath discovered his folly and envy in the latter, doth in some measure appear in this following Discourse.

I also hereby further certify thee, That the aforesaid Narrative was not Published to blemish the Persons of the Quakers, nor yet from a spirit of Envy, as the Quaker would insinuate, but to show what enormities the pretended light (to which they make the Scriptures give way and bow) leads them; And that those that are in danger of being beguiled, by heeding a Light within themselves, above the light of the Holy Scriptures, may not be deceived by them, to follow the uncertain motions of their own Heads, but may rather follow the Council of the Apostle, 2 Pet. 19.20 We have a more sure word of the Prophets, (saith he) meaning the Scriptures, to which ye do well that ye take heed (mark) as unto a light that shineth in a dark Place, &c. And finally, he that knows the hearts, knows that this is my end in Publishing both the Narrative and this, and he will one day decide all Controversies depending between them and us, and then shall every man receive according to his Works; In the mean time read and consider what follow: And so I leave thee to the Guidance and Blessing of the Lord,

THIS Quakers Looking-Glass is false, it presents two Faces, one as if they did, another as if they did 〈…〉 Charles Bailey 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 Bailey; 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 Bailey 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 Bailey 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 falsehoods, when we say no more then himself confesseth, That to our knowledge they did own Bailey a that time for an eminent Quaker. The which I shall make further appear by these three following Particulars.

• 1. That the said Bailey did prophecy, 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 Bailey 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 Apostasy from the Truth.
• 6. By some sober reflections upon his false accusations, as they are scattered through his book.

First, that the Quakers did own Bailey for an eminent Quaker amongst them before and after his pretended Vision, Prophecy 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 joining 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 Bailey; 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 join 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 Bailey, and were daily privy to his words and actions, were so Moon-blind, that they could not see Bailey 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 Bailey, but when they came to the Quakers in the Castle, they would speak the thing as it was, and that Bailey 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 justify the evil doer, and bear world in hand as if the Baptists were transgressors for speaking the thing that is true.

2. That Bailey 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 Justify 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 Bailey had prophesied falsely in the name 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 Warrison, 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 Bailey touched 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 leg, which he said he also received cure for. by Bailey, and thereupon he threw away all his plasters, and clouts that formerly he used. And this was trumpeted about town and Country, that Charles Bailey 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 Bailey stroakt it in order to cure, and Samuel Tavenor came from Dcale (upon Edward Salisbee 's report of these cures, to advise with Bailey about the cure of his Wife who had been 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 cried 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 honor of all the rest, so that to conclude this particular, I say, if the Quakers coming to Bailey to be taught by him, to be healed by him, to pray with him and to Justify his words and actions against all opposers, and to give him the hand and fixed look, were owning of him, then did our looking-glass-maker himself and his Brethren in this Town and hereabouts own Bailey as a most eminent Quaker, both at and after the projects he played mentioned in the Narrative.

3. That Bailey was led by the Quakers spirit, Luke will by no means allow, and so acquit himself from the crime of being led by a deluding spirit, he says Bailey 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 Bailey 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 Bailey Erred, he had saved me some labor to Query when he so erred, if Luke mean in the Business of Woollet; I grant 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 show this to be his intent, he desired God to show his Power for the confirmation of his Eternal truth, as he did of old Again, 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 floor, as it also handled another Quaker about the same time in the same Prison, where he lay some time upon the floor, 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 joined with him in that attempt upon Woollet, show any other but that he and they were all led and acted by the same spirit; nay, and I myself have seen the same spirit show itself 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 Bailey and the rest of the Quakers are led by one and the same spirit.

And it is evident also Bailey was acted by the same spirit with the Quakers, in his Vision and Prophecy against me, and the Judgments 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 Bailey 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 therein: for they justified him and condemned me as he did. Truly, if Luke had told us in what Bailey 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 Bailey 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 Bailey 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 Bailey 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.

Reply. The case in hand between Luke and I is not equivalent, 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 Bailey did the Quakers doctrine, in what he did in his Prophecy, 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 Bailey in what he did, as 'tis proper for me to say, That Bailey 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 Bailey, who so 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 Luke's Cavilling comparisons fall to the ground; But Luke goes further, and to Assure his reader that Bailey 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 Bailey 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 Bailey then acted, nor is Luke less Injurous to his two female Friends, who were as mad in that mad action (about Woollet ) as Bailey 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 Bailey 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 clear the case at once, tells his Reader in the same page, That they are as clear from Charles Bailey in the sight of God, as they are from us: Reply, That Luke Howard is clear from us I grant. 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 clear from Bailey when he acted as in the Narrative then Judah was from his sin with Tamar; when she had his Bracelets, Signet and Staff, for then Bailey 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 Bailey and his fellow Females.

In the next place, I shall (according to what I have propounded) take off his evasions, by which he endeavors 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 Bailey: Reply, how incongruous is this to reason, That she on whom Bailey 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, no, nor nobody 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 Bailey, but did not disown him, nor does he pretend so, for Bailey 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 Bailey 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 knows in his own conscience to be true. As if the only way to cut off occasion of reproach from such as wait for it, were to own and Justify 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 Bailey was not established 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 endured 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 show 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 Bailey pass for one, having all the forenamed Characters upon him.

But in the next place the man, (to make his Glass Cleer) he 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. Bailey, hath been by us called Quakers denied for many years. Reply,

But not a word, where when or for what he was denied, and so ye make this evasion impertinent yourself; And though ye do disown him now, that is nothing to us in the case in hand, we say in the Narrative that Bailey was then owned by you, when he played 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 denied him (as 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 favor of his old friend a little, and tells us, that we have belied 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 ways of wronging a man in this case, one is when we declare more of him then is true, the other is when we 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 whilst 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 runs into the same transgression over shoes and Boots two, and Retrogrades 28 Years back, to rake for matter to reproach us. This man sure instead of making us a Looking-Glass, had need have made himself a Prospective-glass, 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 Baptism &c.

Reply▪ For Nicholas Woodman, I know not whether there were such a man or no, but by Luke Howards and some others report, who say, he lived as orderly as Luke Howard, for they both proved profane sinners against the Light and grace they had received from God, Woodman 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 Woodmans 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-glass-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 shows 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-glass-maker has as much need of a Looking-glass as his neighbor, mean 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 Christ's Doctrine and the Baptists Practice.

And that the man might manifest himself so far degenerate from his Baptism and faith, as if he had forgotten that Jesus Christ is the root, in his own example and command of believers Baptism 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 glass, pray neighbor look in your glass again; 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 Baptism then Luke Howard can: And thus you see the Quakers Narrative of the Root and Rise of the Baptists in Kent, is plucked 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 particular baptism, and upon this the man falls to calumnizing stoutly, calling us a confused brood of Baptists all rooted in Babel 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 usually 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 show 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 God's love to the Jews only, and after changed their opinion both Preachers and people, and believed the universal love of God to the Gentiles, also see Acts 11 18. when they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified 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 particular 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 ourselves 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 neighbor 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 clothing, 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 Glass, much more ravenous, who Ranges above twenty, yea, near thirty years back, to rake up matter from his own Companion to reproach us with, and to smite us with the fist of falsehood; if Luke make another Glass, 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 stuff, pag. the 10 he calls us blasphemers against the light of Jesus which they declare, calling it natural, & the Quakers dark light, with many more blasphemous words, as the Jews did of old, hereupon he brands us with 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 holiness, 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 lips testify 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 glass.

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 controversy 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 furnished with such Arguments.

Again, to show 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 envy are out of, pag. 12. And then to show himself to be no boasting Pharisee, he tells me, That I do Caperna • m -like exalt myself, and that for no other cause that I see, but my saying, that if the Quakers denied that they owned Charles Bailey 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 become twofold more the Child 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 Envy 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 Works, 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 Witnesses in this case, who know that whilst the Quakers meet without any interruption, we were interrupted for several months together, almost every Lord's day, at our public Meeting-place, and there we continued till our Meeting-House was defaced, the doors barrd and locked 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 falsehood 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.