A LOOKING-GLASS for Baptists, &c.

IN the Year 1643. and 1644. the People call'd Baptists began to have an entrance into Kent; and Anne Stevens of Can­terbury (who was afterwards my Wife) being the first that received them there, was dipped into the Belief and Church of W. Kiffin, who then was of the Opinion commonly called, The particular Election and Reprobation of Persons; and by him was also dipped Nicholas Woodman of Canterbury, my self, and Mark Elfreth of Dover, with many more both Men and Women, who were all of the Opinion of the particular Point, and who reckoned themselves of the Seven Chur­ches in that Day, who gave forth a Book call'd, The Faith of the Seven Churchs; which was then opposit to the Baptists that held the general (and is still the same) at which time there was great contest betwixt those Baptists called, The General, as Lamb, Barber, and those which held the Ʋniversal Love of God to all; and Kiffen, Patience, Spillman and Colyer, and those that held the Particular Election; so that if any of the particular Men or Wo­men of the Seven Churches aforesaid, did change in their Opini­ons from the Particular to the General, that then they were to be baptized again, Because (said they) You were baptized into a wrong Faith, and so into another Gospel, using that saying, That if any man bring any other Gospel, then that which we have received, let him he accursed; whereupon several denied their Belief and Baptism, and were baptized again into the General Opinion or Belief: But N. Woodman aforesaid, with M. Elfreth, with all of then in Kent (ex­cept Daniel Con of Canterbury, which never baptized any) held their Baptism in the particular, but changed their Opinions to the General, & some to Free-will, and the Mortality of the Soul, and ma­ny other things too redious here to relate, from whence did arise [Page 29]almost all the Baptists which now are in Kent, whose Root is Babel and Confusion (which so much boast themselves in this day of a little Calm) so that in their Root (to wit. Baptizing into the Faith of Particular Electioners) they being false, neither Branch nor Fruit can be true, but a confused Breed, Increase, and Body is the very best state they can lay claim unto by their own Rules, if the General Opinion and Practice of Lamb and Barber be true, of whose Opinion these Baptists in Kent profess now to be of, (though they did arise from the particular Root) and devoutly preach't it up, as if they were Naturaliz'd into the Root of the General, by Baptism: and so make Proselites to themselves in that which they know not whereof they do affirm, not being Spi­ritually Baptiz'd into the Ʋniversal Love of God; and so you Lead­ers of this People cause them to err, and they that are led by you are destroyed (for where the Blind lead the Blind all must needs fall into the Ditch) and when they are proselited to hold Truth in Ʋnrigh [...]eousness, they are made two-fold more the Children of Hell then they were before, because they are now covered with a Profession without Life, which God's Spirit leads not to, but mans Traditions, as before proved by their false Baptism: And here many simple Ones think themselves in their state to be Rich and Full, because they can now say something for their Opinion, as they have leavned of their Leaders, when as they are Poor, Blind and Naked, and as empty of the Spirit of Life to lead as ever they were in dayes past, and as ignorant of the One Lord and One Baptism by One Spirit, into the One Body, whereof Christ Jesus is the Head, as ever they were, because the Root and Foundation of their standing is rotten, and laid in Babel and Confusion; and all this appears sufficiently unto those whose Eyes are opened by the Eye-salve of Jesus, who counsels all to buy of him Eye-salve, that they may see (to wit) themselves in the Fall, and him who is the Light a Quickening Spirit to redeem up to God, out of the Fall; and all such behold and understand things which dif­fer, and can see the Ground and Root of you, and of the Bitter­ness which remains in you Carnal Baptists, against the Spiritu­al Ap [...]eatance and Light of Jesus, and the Truth professed in it by the People of God called Quakers. Oh! the height [Page 30]of Enmity, and Abomination of Cruelty, which lodgeth in the Hearts of some of your proud Leaders, who call the Scripture their Rule, and yet walk so contrary to it; for doth it not say, Do unto all Men as you would they should do unto you? which in ma­ny things you do not; as in your Printing and Publishing Forge­ries, and Falshoods, and the Miscarriages of some who never were established amongst us; but since denied by us: do you not hereby seek to cast Dirt upon us all in your Pamphlets, as if it were a thing of yesterday, and allowed of by us at this time? Cannot you see your Envy and great Hypocrisie in this thing? For do not you know who are the Authors of that Story, that it is about Ten Years ago, that Charles Baily was a Prisoner in Dover? And do not you know in your own Consciences, that he hath been by us, call'd Quakers, deny'd for many Years? And is he not then to us as a Stranger or Heathen man, according to the Scriptures? And what is that in you, that lays his Miscarriages to our Charge? now, is not that against the Scriptures, which you call your Rule? And besides, you belye him too in some things, as bad as he was; and so you shew your spirit to all men, and especially to the Wise in Heart, who will forever conclude you to be as you are, and that he is not to be accounted of us, nor his Actions laid to our Charge, as you envious People have done: you were moved to do it; but surely you were so moved in Envy, as were Josephs Brethren, when they sold him into Egypt (it was a Murdering Motion at the best of it) but God was with him to their Shame and Confusion of Face in due time, and so is he with us: and I do believe, though you do not now Blush, yet you shall Blush and be Ashamed, when the Fruits of your own doings shall correct your Folly: For what have you to glory in, but your own Shame? If we should look back among your Society, as you deserve what might be said, as many of you well know, and some pretended Leaders too, Thou that saith, another should not Steal, dost thou Steal? here read your selves: but for the sake of the Sim­ple I shall not here inlarge, yet suffer a little to be said concern­ing N. Woodman aforesaid, who was the first Baptist-Preacher and Dipper reared up in this County of Kent, from whence your Rice is, whose Evils I will not lay to the charge of the Ʋnconcerned in this matter; but to speak a little to inform you, which know not [Page 31]your Root and Rice, which before is call'd Babel and Confusion, and rotten; and now judge your selves if it were not so; for there be many yet living, which know the Truth of this following Dis­course, and much more.

This Woodman took to Wife and honest sober widdow Woman in Dover, named Katherine Brown, who lived in good fashion in the Town, and for his Profession's sake married him, who in idle­ness spent her Means, and then abused her Body with many Blows; when he had her in the wide Fields in the Wilde of Kent, then would he leave her there to shift for her self, and himself go from Place to Place to preach up Water-baptism; of whose (with more since his time) filthy unheard of Abominations, both in spirit and practice, there might be more said then you can say of C. Baily, as some of your selves well know, which we are not willing to relate in Print, except provoked to it by your here­after Carriages. Now, C. Baily we are as clear of, as we are of you in the sight of God and Wise Men, and as clear as the Churches were of them denied by them in the Primitive Times, of which the Scripture is a full Witness for us, and against you in this Case, un­to your great shame in putting forth this your Folly in Print of Ten Years conceivings.

Now this Man, your Root, and from whence you rose, was not in his day inferior to any of you, in preaching the Scripture words without Life, as you do, and in getting Disciples to him, as you do; but his Folly was made manifest, as yours in due time will also be, who through feigned words deceive the Hearts of the Simple, and make them two fold more the Children of Hell, then they were before they came amongst you, as said Christ Jesus to the Pha­risees, in whose steps you are found, with the Sheep's Clothing, but in the Wolves Nature, inwardly ravening; and so your Righ­teousness doth not exceed theirs, because the Ravening and Mur­dering Nature is standing in you, as in them, which can look seven, eight, or ten years backward, to smite with the Fist of Wickedness, and persecute the Innocent with your Tongues for want of power in your Hands to effect your Wills, whose Opinions we well know, and much more then is here said; and what is here said, is not there a cause for it? let the Unbyassed in Heart and Mind judg [...] in the Case, and let the Lord judge, who [Page 32]judgeth not as man in the Fall judgeth, but will judge Righteous Judgement. But to return, Now this Man your Root is gone, and many which knew him not are gotten into his Form, cry­ing up your Water-Baptism as the Jews did Circumcision, and a Temple, with other things, which God commanded in its Day, as was Baptism to John, which was to decrease; but the one Bap­tism of Christ by the one Spirit into the one Body was to increase, as John testified of him, and stands a Witness in the Holy Scrip­tures against you all. And so we say, There is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism to be contended for, and to be lived in, by all who are of the Church which is in God, of which Christ Jesus is the Head, World without end, when all things which are seen shall have an End.

And this Testimony lives in my Heart for God. That it is nei­ther Baptism, nor not Baptism in Water, that availeth any thing no more then Circumcision, but a New Creature (here read yourselves) and as many as walk according to this Rule (to wit, of the New Creature) Peace be unto them, and to the whole Israel of God; and now Wisdom is justified of her Children, and every Tree is known by its Fruit, & so are you to all, whose Eyes are open to see your Folly and Envy, in raking Ten Years back, as if you had sate brood­ing the Cockatrice Egg all this time, to hatch forth the Serpent's Seed of Envy, to come behind, and bruise the Heel of an Innocent People, which have deny'd, and do deny (and all along our Prin­ciple hath been against) such spirits as C. Bayly's was of Ten Years since, and is of now. But Richard Hobbs, who takes to hims [...]f the name of Pastor of the Baptists in Dover, s [...]th in p [...]g [...] 7. of their Hatcht up Envy, That [...]f the Quaker [...] should de [...] Charles Bayly to be owned a very eminent Man amongst them at the time of his Imprisonment, that then they will render themselv [...] [...] Per­sons that ever professed Religion. Thus, Capera [...] [...] ex [...]lts himself, as it he spoke Truth, and knew all the Q [...]s Minds at that time; but his Anger over-ruli [...]g his Knowledge [...] to seek of his Proof, although he seems to prov [...] [...]t by his com [...] on Lords Day after, as he saith, to the Prison, and there saw C. B. and most of the Quakers in Town with him; and he Pray'd, and some of them kneel­ed; A poor Proof: He there neglects relating, That several of he Men Friends were then Prisoners in Dover Castle; and besides, [Page 33]amongst them at Liberty there were some which did not own C. Bayley so much as R. Hobbs reporteth of, though to him it was not declared; and besides, Anne Howard my Wife (I being then a Prisoner in the Castle) did so far disown him, that she sent up to London, to the Elders of Friends, and gave them an Account of his mad Actions, who sent down two Friends to look after him, and they testified against him, when they saw him; this Friends did not acquaint the Baptists with, who we knew waited for Mischief: but Friends Care was of him, to preserve him, if possible, and to restore him in the Spirit of Meekness and Love, as our Duty is according to Scripture; but when no Re­covery can be, then deny'd, as he was and is to this day. And how can be charge the Principle or Body of our Friends with him, save Envy it self? And besides, those Friends which chiefly were with him in the Prison were young Convinced, and tender, and could not easily discern, and afraid to judge, not knowing what to say; but to us in the Castle Prison▪ when they came up to us, they would speak as it was, but this did not we see meet to acquaint the Baptists with, but rather endeavoured to get him to London, which was done in order to his Recovery; so that Friends are clear of him in the sight of God, and according to Scripture, al­though the Baptists in envy seek to lay Stumbling-blocks in the way of the Simple by it, & so do transgress the Law of God, and Scrip­tures, which they in words call their Rule, which say, Thou shalt not lay a Stumbling-Block in the way of the Blind, but shalt fear thy God: But they shew their Spirit to the full; and the Lord judge between us and them for his Seed's sake. And surely if these men had been in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles, they would have done as the Jews did, lay blame to the Life and Doctrine of them, because of Mis­carriages in Judas, and others, of which the Scripture declares much, and that through them the Name of God was blasphemed; but surely the Blasphemers were to bear their burden from the Lord, as well as the Cause-givers, and so mus [...] all now; for the Lord will not be mocked, but as every one sows so must he reap, even the fruits of their own doings; and so must you for all your Blasphemy against the Light of Jesus, which we declare of, which every man is lighted withal, according to the Scriptures, though you presumpuously sometimes call it Natural, and scoffingly and enviously, the Quakers dark Light, [Page 20]with many more blasphemous words, as the Jews of old did, in whose steps you are found walking, and whose works you are found do­ing in the spirit of envy, which said, This is the Heir, come let us kill him, that the Inheritance may be ours: now he that envyeth is a Man­slayer or Murderer; and we know, that no Murderer hath Eternal Life abiding in him; and we may justly desire of the Lord, to be deli­vered from such unreasonable men, which so shew your Teeth, as very ready to bite, if you had but power; crying out in a publick Assembly of Baptists in Dover, That he which answered your false Accusations of eight or mine years Envy, deserv'd to have his Ears nail'd to the Pillory, for only his setting two Letters for his Name; which shews your spirit to all wise men sufficiently: And therefore, let your Profession be what it will, the body of death is standing in you, in which the Persecutor and Murderer lives, for how unlike a true Christian are your works, in raking for matter ten years back, to beget in people an evil Opi­nion of the Quakers? and what will you get by it amongst the wise in Heart but shame and contempt? for our Rock is not as your rock is, as late experience hath shown, our Enemies themselves being Judges; and now you shew, what seed you are of, by biting at our Heels, and smiting us with the Fist of Wickedness, and persecuting us with your Tongues for want of power, laying to our charge his spi­rit, which we have deny'd ten years ago. O ye Fools! so soon as ever the King gives you a little Liberty to meet, where you were afraid of man to meet but a little time since, and so crept into Cor­ [...]ers; is this the glorious & beautifullest Fruit you have to appear with? surely this is not the Wisdom which is from Above, which is [...]irst Pure, then Peaceable, and easie to be entreated; but that wisdom which is from Beneath, where the Serpent's life is, which is earthly, sensual and devilish, which bites at the Heel: Surely Dust is and shall [...]e the Serpents meat, and upon his Belly shall he go all the days of his life: [...]ere read your selves, if you can understand what it means, saith [...]e who is a true Friend to all mens Eternal Peace,

THE Water-Baptist's Reproach REPELD, &c.

THis Water-Baptist, that he might appear a Methodical Writer, presents his Reader with an Epistle, as a Key to open the Secrets of his succeeding Discourse. But that they are of the least Allyance each to other in that sense, I cannot find; but both being wrought with Envy, and Mad­ness; they may pass with a probatum est for Companions. Its some difficulty to determine, whether the Zeal of our Author run him more into the former; or latter? but certainly he may claim a considerable share of either. And if his Proselites, whom he passes through his Watery Element, be no better clean­sed from their Confusion and Filthiness, then his Lines of Con­troversie; he might better spare his Pains, and they their Trou­ble. 'Tis possible, R. Hobbs presuming the Impress passing the hands of the Water-Criticks, or Book-Readers of the Town, might change its ill shaped Dress, and present it more refined to the World; so spared a Review of his seven or eight Moneths Pains. Yet I'le not set so little by our Author, but own to all that he barks, which may be Argument enough for Approbati­on, that h [...]'s fit to go out.

In his Epistle he thus treats his Reader, viz. I do here present thee with a sma [...]l Tract, containing a brief Reply to a Book put forth by Luk [...] Howard, intitul [...]d, 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.

First I answer, R Hobbs has not here dealt candidly with me, and his Reader, referring us to an annexed Narrative, when there's not one Section, Chapter, or Particular in all his succeeding Discourse, or any Piece annexed, that imports [Page 44]any such Matter: so that the Cause of his Cavil cannot be easi­ly examined, he not shewing us what he cavils at; an Absurdi­ty, had it been by us, would have been baited to purpose. Yet that I may afford our Adversaries that Assistance and Supple­ment they ever denyed us, I have traced back the Controver­sie, and am willing to allow him the help of any Narrative formerly printed, so far as it may clear the Truth, of what's in Controversie betwixt us.

1. Then first, I find that in the Re-printed Pamphlet relating to the Lincolnshire Prodigy, there's a supplemental Letter, and a pretended true and impartial Relation of some remarkable Passa­ges of Charles Bayly.

As for the Letter, it bears date from Dover, June 10. 1672. by a Nameless Author, and without any Accompt to whom sent: stuft full of Calumny, and Reproach, attended with such Cir­cumstances, as might well excuse the naming either the Forger or Fosterer thereof; however its Tincture and Complection may well discover who writ it; and should Richard Hobbs deny to father it, and cast it upon some or other of his Brethren, as did his Brother Ralph James, when charged with that notorious Lye (in the Front of his Pamphlet of Eye and Ear Witnes­ses of that pretended Miracle wrought upon the Leper by his and his Brethren's Prayers) who said, it was none of his Composing; yet its Language would betray it: See his Sub­terfuge, p. 13. See pag. 9. (and a fur­ther Circumstance, Luke Howard has charged it upon him, which R. Hobbs denies not by his Re­ply) not much differing from that Dialect in which his pretended true Relation is penned. And then

2. The Relation relates to C Bayly; who, say they, acted several things as a Quaker from the 13th of O [...]tob. to the 22th, 1667. (which really was in 1661.) which the Forgers would charge upon all called by that Name, which is the Cause of Con­troversie betwixt Luke Howard and R. Hobbs, the first clearing, the 2d casting all the Dirt of Charle [...]'s [...]ise cringe upon us; which R. Hobbs terms in L. Howard obscuring the Truth of the Narrative.

And that the Impartial Reader may have a just Understan­ding whether R. Hobbs or L. Howard has been Malicious and [Page 45]Clamarous uttering a Reproach and Slander, cavilling against the Truth, and abusing his Reader; I shall descend in these few Particulars to evince to the impartial Understanding: and shall go on

• I. To manifest the nullity of the Water-Baptists Charge by his Letter and Relation.
• II Our Clearness from its Impositions.

But previous hereto I would have the Reader take notice, that its neither my Work, nor Purpose to vindicate C. B. (whose Miscarriages long since separated him from us, and against whom our Testimony was many years past given out for his Disobedience to that everlasting Light and Truth of God: for the Sake of which Truth R. Hobbs is so inraged against us) But to clear the Truth, and the faithfull Followers of Christ from the wretched Impositions and calumnious Impostures of our Malitious Adversaries. Then

I. The Nullity of Water-Baptists Charge appears in these par­ticulars.

• 1. Its own Contradictions, and most apparent and palpa­ble falsness.
• 2. His averring those things, that absolute necessary Con­sequence doth contradict and deny. Which if prov'd, will be no hard Matter to determine, Whether R. Hobbs his Evidence in this matter be sufficient to prove us guilty of his C [...]lumny and Reproach? for which I need to go no further, then R. Hobbs, con­tradicting and charging R. Hobbs by his Letter and Narrative in Print

1. R. Hobbs, that C. Bayly's Miscarriages might [...]ly upon us, and upon that Truth of God we bear Witness unto, he affirms in his said Letter (Pag. 17) that C. Bayly did those Actions at the same Time, when he was owned by us as a very eminent Man a­mongst us, yea, says he, "After he had acted these things in the "Narrative, they did own him as aforesaid. Here's the Accusers Charge, from which he would evince all call'd Qua­kers to be guilty of his Miscarriage. And to prove his Position, he lays down this onely Argument, and none other, viz. As appears by this (says he) One Lords day, after this Tragedy was past, I came to visit my Brethren in Prison, and went into C. Bai­ly's [Page 46] Chamber to reason with him: in which Time came in most of the Quakers of the Town, See the Letter dated June 10. 1672. with whom Bayly went to Prayer, and divers of them I observ'd fall down upon their Knees in that Duty; my self, and three more Bap [...]ists stav'd in the Chamber all the while he was in Prayer: in which Praye [...] I very well remember he ear­nestly bagg'd of God, that he w [...]la send his A [...]gel, and bind me Hand and Foot, and cast m [...]mo Chains of Darkness▪ Thus would he prove, Co. Bayly was owned after his Miscarriages, as divers joyning with him in Prayer.

Answ. As for most of the Quakers of the Town coming there, or joyning in Prayer in such manner, as he deceit­fully and falsly insinuates, is after in its place answer [...]d and refeld: but as to the Time instanced when this was pretended, I further say, R. Hobbs forgetting the Method his pretended Impartial Relation was penn'd in, or his Z [...]al out-running this Policy in the very Front of those his remarkable Passages gives us this very Story in the first Paragraph of those recorded Actions, See Pag. 1. & 2. of the Relation. and there rel [...]tes that C. Bayly fell to praying, &c. (relating that Passage) O Lord God of my Life send down thine Angels and bind this thine Enemy Hand and Foot, for he (meaning R. Hobbs) hath opposed and resisted thy pure Spirit, &c. So that what is pretended to be last in his Letter, is first in his Im­partial Relation.

But should it be objected, That this Piece of Remark was ill plac'd in the History, and might be an after Passage, though first related here.

Answ. That is not probable, for the 2d Story following this of the Prayer begins thus, About two Dayes after, &c. (rela­ting plainly to the Time of the former Story) And follow­ing that begins another Paragraph thus, Within a short Time af­ter, &c And ending the whole Relation with a Story of O [...]tob. 22th, 1667. so that R. Hobbs his onely Proof of C. Bayly being own'd by the Quakers, after his acting those Passages in the Nar­rative absolutely falls to the Ground without the least Colour or Pretence of Truth, if the pretended Historical Impartial Relation be in the least to be credited. And to put all our of [Page 47]doubt, with a most solemn asseveration that History is thus closed, viz: This Relation we that subscribe do testifie in the presence of God is true: under which is printed no less then R. Hobbs, and the Names of eight persons more.

And so if the Relation be true, the Letter is most horridly false; and whether to believe R. Hobbs in one, or R. Hobbs in the other, or R. Hobbs in either, I leave the Juditious Reader to Judge.

2. Another Passage observable in R. Hobbs his Letter is this: neer the Close thereof to give his Reader a pregnant Testi­mony of his Modesty about the publishing the Relation, sayes he, The only Reason why it was not published sooner, was, be­cause I should seem to some as if I had boasted; And must R. Hobbs his Reader credit him in this? I must needs say, the Pha­risee hath told a fair Tale to enforce a belief, that 'twas no small share of self-denyal in him, that refused the proclaiming an instance of Providence, that would add so highly to his Praise. But alass! if R. Hobbs were guilty of any such [...]t­ter, he most grandly mistooke himself in a few Lines b [...]e, where (surmising that some Readers might Question th [...] ve­rity of the Relation or Honesty of the Forgers to detain it in Obscurity for so many Years before it came to Light) he excuses himself and insinuates to his Reader, that the Fault was not his: And saith R. Hobbs, If any question, why it is published now, and not before, my Answer is this, I sen a Coppy of it to a Friend in London some Time ago.

So that after this rational Acc [...]mpt of his Innocency 'twere unreasonable to charge R. H. for keeping this Story for so ma­ny Years for fear of his appearing to some, as if he had boasted, as he gives for his only Reason, when he tells his Reader a­gain, how little he was accessary to its being so long kept in obscurity, giving this further Reason for its Publication; I saw (saith he) the Truth of Christ might be advantaged thereby.

Further Instances not much less absurd (in this Letter) might be brought to shew the intolerable Folly and Abuse of this en­vious Water-Baptist, whose bitter and malitious Spirit has led him thus to be a shame to his party, Abuse to his Reader and Derision to juditious Men.

3. The next matter is the Printed Relation it self, at the foot of which is written, ‘This Relation we that subscribe do testifie in the Presence of God is true, we being Eye and Ear Witnesses of these things, some at one time, and some at another: Tho. Patridge, Simon Lovelace, John Heale, Christo­pher Streeting, Thomas Williams, Richard Hobbs, John Hobbs, John Finnes, Edmund Finnes.’

Here's there joynt Asseveration or Protestation, that the Relation is true, every Particle thereof averred unto by no less then Nine Witnesses; and this to credit thei [...] Story concerning Charles Bayly; which whether true or false relates not to us: yet to manifest the Ʋnreasonable Abuse of its Forger, I shall remark his indirect Dealing with, and Imposing upon his Reader.

1. In presenting the Relation under the hands of nine Per­sons, as Witness [...]s thereto, yet in Fact five of them dead before the drawing up of the same: which L. Howard charges in p. 3. upon R. H. and has no Answer to i [...], and if that be not a full Testi­mony and Proof of that Piece of Abuse, look but to R. Hobbs his foremention'd Letter from Dover of June 10. 1672 where he confirms the sam in these words, and when (sayes he) the Narrative was drawn, I shewed it to all the Persons, that are now alive, who all own every Sentence in it. But whom alive, and whom dead, not a word: a d [...]uble Abuse.

2. But 2dly, That which has a more Scarlet-dye, and ren­ders the Forgers of it most criminal, is, that under their hands each Person testifies to every Particular of the Relation, as each being an Eye and Ear Witness to every Passage, and Par­ticle of the Narrative.

Here I must take notice, that its usually observed, that the Judges (in Matter relating to meum & tuum) in case a Witness testifies beyond the Bounds of his Knowledge in any one Par­ticular, do suspect him for all; yea, and reject him as a Person not to be credited: and shall so many, and frequent Instances of Unconscionable Abuse be exposed to the Eyes of our Un­derstanding; and yet the Exposer stand with an untoucht Reputation? I leave it to the Impartial; and return to the Matter.

It had been Modest for these Water-Baptists to have testified; that some of them were Witness to one particular, & some of them to another (as probably they might) & not so audaciously to bra­son it by their bold, though unadvised Asseveration: We (eve­ry one of them) do testifie every Sentence in it to be true, and that in the Presence of God: when 'twas impossible, that all could be privy to every Sentence, as the thing it self fully demonstrates. Its easie to reconcile, who made them to Err? viz▪ their Pastor R. Hobbs, who speaks the like Language in his Printed Letter of June 10. 1672. When the Narrative was drawn, I shewed it to all the Witnesses that are now alive: who all own every Sentence to be true, and still fresh in their Memories: when the greater number of them are dead, and none of them witness to one and the same Matter, as hereafter will appear.

Yea, but return to the Relation or Narrative it self; and it presents another Complexion: not all, nor one half of them witnessing every Sentence; but clearly otherwise. To some Sentence no Witness, other one, others two or three: and so giving such Testimony to the respective Parts, as then were said to be present at the particular Action: as appears thus out of their own Relation or Narrative.

1. The first paragraph relates a Report of Charles Bayly's coming from France, and the Noise of his coming to Dover, See the Narra­tive printed 1672. pag. 19. and being taken from the Quakers Meeting. This was but a Report to the Water-Baptists Witnesses, who then were in Prison: and so they not Eye and Ear Witnesses, as affirmed.

2. After this Historical Discourse is an Account of C. Bayly's Preaching, R. Hobbs his Opposition, and C. Bayly's Prayer a­gainst him, that he might be bound hand and foot, &c. And this Sentence closed without Witness (with an &c.) and not one Water Baptist mentioned to be there, but R. H. much less all the pretended Eye and Ear Witnesses. See p. 19, 20.

3. Nex [...] is a full Acc [...]mpt of Charles Bayly's Prophecy (as there its termed) against R. Hobbs; in the Body of which Rela­tion Tho. Patridge is said to be present with R. H. and not a Word [Page 50]of any other. Therefore to the foot of that Paragraph is sub­scribed,

4. Then followeth a Discourse betwixt C. B. and R. H. where there is not the least mention made of any of the many Eye and Ear Witnesses to be then present; which Sentence ends thus: ‘This, I testisie, is true; witness my Hand, Richard Hobbs.’

Certainly, R. Hobbs did much mistake the Point, when he by his Letter confidently affirm'd, That all owned every Sentence to be true. But to proceed,

5. The next Paragraph of the Narrative gives a further Rela­tion of R. Hobbs, and closed the History of C. Bayly's Prophe­cyes against him, which mentions not more then Three to be present; and is witnessed by Tho. Patridge, Edmond Finnes, John Hobbs; and had the rest been there, we had without doubt heard of it.

6. And lastly the Relator gives us a large Story of a Contest 'twixt C. B. and one Wollett a man frenzie in his Brain, who took C. Bayly to be one of the Locusts come out of the Bottomless Pit, because of his Hair, &c. where was present Five of the Baptists, as sayes the Story, viz. T. Patridge, Ed. Finnes, Simon Lovelace, Jo. Hales and Chr. Streeting; not one word mentio­ned of their Pastor, who usually bore the greatest part in the other Acts: or of the Three other writ under in the general Attestation. Yet sayes R. Hobbs in his Letter, All averred every Sentence (and he himself subscribed it) to be true: although ma­ny of them (as plainly demonstrated) absent, when several of there presented Matters were acted; & most of them dead, when the Relation drawn up: as appears largly by R. H's Letter and Narrative it self.

Now therefore I recommend it to the Judicious and Impar­tial, of what Perswasion soever, to judge of R. H's Labours, whether they be the Product of Love, or Envy? of sound Un­derstanding, [Page]or a confused Mind? And whether he now brought his super-annuated and confused Story to Light in order to clear the Truth, and Love to his Opposers, as he boldly insi­nuates; or rather as a Relique of that Enmity and Hatred, which the Wicked One has sown in his Heart, from which his Water-Washing has not cleansed him: and to the Witness of God in all I appeal.

Having waded through the Depths of R. Hobbs his unstable Foundation, and vewed the irregularity of this Watery-Builder; let's now return to his latter piece of Architect, and examin, What Monuments he now raises upon the old Bottom.

1. Then first I observe, that in the Front of his Reply to encourage the Reader, who might suspect his Cause (by reason of the confused witnessing of the late Relation) he tells him, That the Truth of the Narrative is further evidenced.

Upon the view of this large Averment, I presently turned over his whole piece, if possible to find him as good as his word; but alas; it was Labour lost: for instead of producing fresh Witnesses, and new Evidences, as he boldly insinuates; he brings pregnant Instances of his old Abuse, and that accompanied with an ill-favour'd way of Canting, which issues from him much like a Proverb out of a Fool's Mouth.

2. Then next, he proceeds to certifie the Reader, That the Narrative was not published to blemish the Persons of the Quakers, nor yet from a Spirit of Envy, pag. 3. And truly, if R. Hobbs did expose his Fardle to the World in a Spirit of Love, and to advance the Reputation of the Quakers, I must acknowledge my Mistake. And whether he did it not for the End he denieth; such who weigh the Circumstances following, may judge first of

• 1. An old Story of so many years standing now to be brought out in Print.
• 2. And of a Person, that since these Miscarriages has never been owned amongst us.
• 3. And to be accompanied with so many Instances of severe Reflections.
• 4. Backed with such a number of apparent Contradictions and Falsities.

As the Proverb is, He that runs, may read; and needs not an Interpreter.

3. But he tells us plainly, what his Quarrel is against, that if any unkind Blows fall on us, we may know for whose sake it is, pag 3. He and his Legion are against neither Great, nor Small, but Israel's King. Its against the Light, the Power of God his Bat­tle is pitcht, sayes this Water-Baptist, Its their Light Within, whom I withstand. Alas! neither he, nor all the dark powers on Earth shall be able to extinguish it, whose Growth and Increase in despight of all their Opposition over-spreads the people not only in this Nation, but also in the Islands afar off; This ac­compts be his Enemy, and why? for any other cause, but by reason it tells him the Truth when he heeds it? This would he charge with all the Villanies and Enormities, that ever were com­mitted, sayes this Water-Baptist, to shew to what Enormities the pretended Light leads them. Let me tell thee, Has there been one that has caused thee to speak Evil of the Wayes of God, he shall bear his Iniquity: but know, thou shalt not escape the Judgments of the Lord, who hatest the Light, and comest not thereto for Reproof.

But certainly, thou comest up to, if not exceedst the vilest of Men, to charge gross Miscarriages upon that, which many of thy own Party acknowledge God's Gift, and good in its place; they will at least say. Its the Light of a Natural Conscience; or of the Mosaical Law, or the Reliques of that Impression, that was in our first Parents, which shews Moral Duties, and to know there's a God, &c. But, sayes this Water Baptist, it leads them to Enormities: which yet he neither has, nor can prove. I must acknowledg, that if he takes this for good Arg [...]ment. If a Person having been Water-dipt, and owned the Water-Baptist- Faith, and whilst amongst them commits one or other Enormous Crime, or Wickedness, for which they disown him, or cast him out of their Fellowship, or Communion; if the Cause of his Miscar­riages must be charged upon their Faith-Ordinances, and not his Disobedience to what he profest; then R. Hobbs deals with us, as he would be dealt withal; else not. Again, the E­pisconalian, Presbyter, Independent, Water Baptist, &c. all pre­tend the holy Scriptures to be their Rule for Faith and Worship, [Page 53]daily Miscarriages being acted, and fallen into by Persons un­der those Names, or Distinctions, shall it be said, See what Enormities the Holy Scriptures lead them into? No; no­thing less: no more is the Light of the Son of God to be charged by Reason of him who professed his Truth, but held it in unrighteousness: but as the Scripture saith, If we walk in the Light, as he is in the Light, then have we Fellow­ship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin.

So the Light is clear from R. Hobb's his dark Impositions and our Fellowship clear from him, and all such unfruitfull Wor­kers of Darkness. But to close his Charge, he exhorts against the Light within (Terming it the dark Imaginations of our own Heads) and rather to follow the Council of the Apostle Peter, which he Sophistically words thus: we have a more sure word of the Prophets (saith he) meaning the Scriptures, to which we do well if we take heed (mark) as to a Light that shineth in a dark place, &c. when as our Translation is, word of Prophecy, and not Pro­phets, as the Water-Baptist insinuates, and whence he comments, that the word of Prophecy there spoken of is the Scriptures, and not the Testimony of Jesus, Rev. 19.10. the Spirit of Pro­phecy; although the Latin and Greek, as well as English has it word of Prophecy, Lat. verbum Propheticum, and the Greek [...].

And if at this rate he can for his wicked End thus make bold with the holy Scriptures; I Question not, but he will wrest and expound his Opposers words to the like Purpose, yet I doubt not but to his own shame and Confusion, which I shall descend to examine.

4. That I may not wrong R. Hobbs, who truly speaks the Sub­stance of his matter at the first, take his own words at large. (saith he) This Quakers Looking Glass is false, it presents two Faces; one as if they did, another as if they did not own Charles Bayly for an eminent Quaker. And that this is so, see what he saith Pag. 10, viz. some new converted Friends, saith he, did own Charles Bayly; But the Men-Friends, saith he, (meaning himself and three or four more Prisoners in the Castle) did not own him so much.

Here's the Water-Baptists Charge naturally dividing it self into these particulars, which I shall briefly examine and answer.

• 1. R. Hobbs affirms that L. Howard in Pag. 10, of his Book should say, that some new converted Friends did own Charles Bayly, viz. for an eminent Quaker.
• 2. But the Men-Friends (meaning himself and three or four more Prisoners in the Castle) did not own him so much.

1. Then to the first Charge, that L. Howard saith, that some new converted Friends did own C.B. for an eminent Quaker, I Answer that in Pag. 10. or any other page of his whole Book there is not any such matter, or any such Expression of L. Howard; nay, so much from it, and L.H's words so far di­stant, to what this Impostor would impose, that they are clear­ly otherwise, for Luke reciting R Hobbs his Expression in his Letter of June 10 1672. Where Hobbs alledges, Pag. 17. of their Nar­rative. that if the Quakers should deny Charles Bayly to be owned as a very eminent Man amongst them (at the Time of his imprisoment) that then they will render them­selves the falsest Persons, that over professed Religion. Which Averment of the Water-Baptist L. Howard fully answers, and at the Close of his Discourse to that Point he tells them, A­mongst them at Liberty (which then few were) there were some, which did not own C.B. so much, as R. Hobbs reporteth of: which Luke descends to particulars to shew. Which way of Answer to the Water-Baptists Charge is both proper and full, giving not the admittance to his Constructions, much less to affirm, that Luke Loward saith, Some own'd him to be a very eminent Man amongst them.

2. The Water Baptist charges L. H. for saying, the Men Friends (meaning himself, and three or four more Prisoners in the Castle) did not own him so much.

1. Here R. Hobbs turns Critick advancing his bald Criticisms to such a bulk, that they bear the Burthen of his ensuing Dis­course: Not so much four or five times repeated in two Pages, yet an absolute Forgery. Had the Man spoke this only to his Watery Auditory; it might upon his ipse dixit have passed for Or­thodox; but he must give us leave to tell him, that he by his Lines [Page 55]in Print has horridly wronged his Opposer, and as considerably abused his Reader: for L. Howard has neither word or Sen­tence, that imports any such matter, as he most audaciously charges: nay, so far were the Men from little or more joyn­ing with C. Bayly in Prayer, which is the Water-Baptist's charge of owning of him, that they had not Liberty of Access to him, being then Prisoners in Dover-Castle, yet insinuates the Water-Baptist from this (and that as the words of L. Howard) The Men owned him, but not so much. Certainly, the Man was hard put to it, that thus straind to ease himself; could not self-Evidence of this Antiquated Relation against an Apostate, separated from us so many Years ago, have been a Probatum suf­ficient to have decided the Controversie betwixt us, but it must be thus redoubled, not only once, nor twice, but with more renewed Instances of Lying Abuse, and Imposture to the Shame of himself, and Sorrow of the Flock to whom he affirms to be a Pastor.

2. And out of these very words so much has this mighty Ar­tist framed the very Pillets of his Building: so by Theft and Violence makes be a Fortress against us. Remember R. Hobbs, though stoln Waters be sweet; her Guests be in the Depths of Hell.

Certainly, had R. Hobbs taken a dose of Opium, he could not have more intoxicated his Brains then he has by this Occa­sion of Contest. And to see an instance hereof, take his own Words

3. In pag. 1. of his Reply speaking of his Antagonist; we know not (saith he) but that he owned Bayly as much as the Rest did; well them, where's the Owning? Said R. Hobbs pag. 1. It 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, Is this proof sufficient? Said R. Hobbs pur­suing the Question, If this be not a sufficient proof they own'd 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. Here our water-Baptist tells us, if this be not the Quakers Rule [...]o own one another he's at's wits end; for he knows no other. But what, will not he turn back, and shew us his other side? yes: [Page 56]after R. Hobbs has told his Reader this fair Tale, that L. Howard own'd C. Bayly as much as any, and the only proof of owning him was, by joyning in Prayer, &c. and if that was not sufficient Proof; he knew not what was: he bringing again an Objection of L. Howard, that he and some more were in Prison, did not own him so much (observe L. Howard uses not that Expression of so much, but its Hobbs his Forgery) which Negation of L. Howard the Author thus answers: If by so much you mean, you did not joyn with him in his Devotion, I grant it; for your Restraint from him hindered you in that. What's now become of the only owning? all this (so much) faln in the Dirt by a down-right contradi­ction. How well then our Water-Baptist has proved his Charge upon his Antagonist, I leave it to the Considerate Reader.

But more of Confusion I have not often found in so brief a Writer; And I cannot but take notice of this Impostors Con­fidence, that in despight of all his forgeries and lying Citati­ons of L. Howard's Answer to his first confused Relation, yet he's so audacious to affirm; that he says no more of Luke, then he himself confesseth: when Luke Howard's words, sentences and ex­pressions are as opposite to the Water-Baptist's protests and aver­ments of them, as Light to Darkness it self.

R. Hobbs, let me advise thee as a Friend, to receive Luke Howard's Book; and thy own Reply, and pass Just Judgment upon thy own Work: if not, give me thy Reason Let not thy Zeal, and rage against us so blind thy understanding to pro­duce such monstrous effects; and after thou hast inspected thy own untimely Birth, and seen as well as thy Reader, of how little weight thy way of Argument is to rectifie the mistakes, or resolve the Doubts of the unprejudiced and unbyassed Inquirer at this day. Answer me, whether if thy old piece of envy and new-vampt story of C Baily were really true as to him-wards, what do's it more concern us, then the many hundreds, that about the year 1660. and since Apostatized from you; yea, many of your Pastors and Teachers, that have Revolted, and some to that Perswasion you frequently stigmatize us with all, as being most obnoxious to the Gust of the people? We have generally for­born to put them, and their Miscarriages in Print, as being weak Arguments to found Religion, knowing that as well in the [Page 57] primitive times, and the first Apostolick dayes, as in these Lat­ter Ages there were still such, who made Shipwrack of Faith and a good Conscience, and caused the Name of God and his Truth to be blasphemed and evil spoken of; and so it is now.

But why dost thou quarrel, that an Account of our Friends dealing with C. B. was not daily brought to thee? Its more, then the Roman Priest's themselves desire of persons not nearer related, then thou and us. Must thou be a Confessor; else no plain deal­ing? must we acknowledge to thee all passages of Christian Care to one or other, else justifie an Evil-doer? strange Infer­ence! Its scarce that time of Day: when thou hast power, com­mand it; till then, thou and thy Calumny rest together.

I cannot but observe, how natural it is for this water-Baptist to correct his Antagonist; yet himself double guilty of being more like a Scold, then a sober Christian: truly next after a per­sonal knowledge of both, I recommend their Books to the Con­siderate Reader; who may with ease determine, where the fault lies: besides Luke Howard's solid behaviour in Dover has not be­spoke him the scurrilous term of wanton and lewd Ranter as this wicked water-Baptist most falsly insinuates; whose upright Life, and sober Conversation never merited such unjust dealing from this Traducer, or any other. And so, I Justly Charge it upon him, as a false Accusation.

And to evidence, what spirit he is of, the very dialect he writes in, and his own Work will easily Discover: Have we more Modest Expression from him, then the vilest or debauchest of men, canting at us, as if meer Lascivious and wanton. It he menti­ons the Women of our Friends, guibing at them thus, Their Fe­male Companions. and such like airy Epithetes: if Sufferers; up­on the quaking account, and quaking Principles, with many more out of that Treasury of Envy and Hatred, which in store he has long horded up against us, and now belches it out, as an unsa­voury stink in the Nation.

I have read over the whole Discourse of two Sheets; and tru­ly I think, the Press is not very often troubled to so little, or so ill purpose: and did not the Covetousness of the Printer exceed the Ingenuity of the Writer, I Judge he had never passed h [...] pittiful Pamphlet. As to what is more in his piece, its either such, as [Page 58]falls under the apparent nullity of the Forgers Arguments; or with the confused heaps of his meer Imposturs, and Abuse. And if any thing else remains deserving Regard, 'tis in the Knowledge of such, whose personal acquaintance with the Forger and Fact can more properly answer, if not stop the Mouth of this envious, and confused Babler, with whom I leave him, and his Piece, as they see cause for further Reproof and Examination.