BETHEL and SMITH;  
Or a Sober Answer to a Tantivy Pamphlet, entitled HOW and RICH, etc.  By one of the Inhabitants of the Burrow of Southwark, who is no Bromidgham Protestant. 
9 March. 1680/1  
THE pretty Bantling that has lately been laid to the charge of our four Parishes, and had probably as many (if not more) Fathers (for the Mother was without doubt true to the Troop, and the Babe has some of the features of several Faces well-known among us) one the B. of the Burrow, who (notwithstanding the pretences of Interest to bias him for Bethel and Smith) did certainly with his under- Janissaries engage for them as the French did for the English in the late Dutch War; another shrewdly suspected to be too much inclined to St. Thomas a Beckets Religion, though he appear an Anabaptist in that one instance of never having Christened any of his Children; a third so undeniably Popishly-affected that he has made choice to live in Tripple-Crown-Court; and the fourth, one who perhaps thought he might the more safely venture upon playing a trick of Youth because of his Interest in the Baudy-Court; (All which will yet doubtless be ready to declare themselves as innocent in the matter as the child unborn); this hopeful Babe I say, having as yet no other Name than that of its Godfathers, How and Rich, I shall take the liberty to add to it the Title of a Scurrilous Jeering Pamphlet, which the following serious Examination will make appear to be its due.  
After the reproachful term of Bromidgham-Protestant which they fasten upon the Intelligencer Mr. F. S. and which without question they hope will stick as a Brand upon the Sober-party in like manner as that of Papist in Masquerade does upon another sort of men. They hint at some strangers who concerned themselves in our Election, and slily call them no small— with a space, which they knew common use would prompt any ordinary Reader to supply undecently, whereas it is supposed that it was well known to the Authors, that among those strangers there were several true Protestant Peers that appeared in behalf of Bethel and Smith, against How and Rich; to whom though those famous Patriots were content to allow the Character of honest men, (which they may be for aught I know) yet certainly our noble Friend was very much in the right, who at one of our meetings told us that we ought to choose such hardy, roughhewn Representatives as the present juncture of Affairs required, and such as might effectually do the business of the King and Kingdom; and if Steward Smith be not such a one as well as his Partner, which I begin to suspect from the account those Pamphleteers (who it may be know him better than I) give of him, I recall my Vote, which before did him ho good, and my revocation of it I doubt can now do him no harm.  
For it cannot be denied that that part of the Tory-Pamphlet which is purely Narrative, is agreeable enough to matter of Fact. And besides by comparing the Pole-book with the Poors-book of the several Parishes, the Majority even of Scot and Lot men is on the one side of How and Rich by near a hundred; so that, I must be content to be represented by those two persons whom the Protestant dissenting Minister I mostly hear, and who is (I imagine) the person upon whom the Authors have in one part of the Pamphlet so scandalously reflected, has taught me not to make Arbitrators of my Religion and Conscience.  
The reasonably-to-be suspected-and not justlies-to-be-defended-author of that Pamphlet have laid hold of all advantages to render the honest party obnoxious to censure; else they would not so industriously have exposed their slips and falls, particularly those of Mr. F. S. whom they would insinuate to the World to have been mad or drunk under the phrase of being overcharged with Ale and Zeal.  
If by the Abuses said to be put upon How and Rich to weaken their Interest, are meant the scattering abroad and posting up libellous Papers against them by some of our party, those who did so must answer at Law for their imprudence, if How and Rich, are not so good Christians and Gentlemen as the Scribblers of that Paper represent them to be; for I for my part am no more able to justify such than our Tantivy-men are to defend what they are pleased to call Town-raillery.  
We never pretended to make use of an Appeal but upon grounds, which the discovery about Scot and Lot men has now removed; and the Pamphleteers cannot be thought to have been serious when they insinuated that the Inmates above all others had such a design; their condition in the World rendering them less to be suspected to appear in behalf of a Member whose true English disposition might incline him to require the anciently accustomed compensation for the trouble and charge of his service. So that the Scribblers might even have left off before they had begun; for I suppose that by this time I have made it appear that their Paper is a scurrilous jeering Pamphlet, Quod erat demonstrandum.   

London, Printed for S. F.