AN ANSWER TO A Scandalous Paper OF T. Hicks, termed A Rebuke to T. R. etc.  
With a Reassumption our former COMPLAINT and CHARGE against T. Hicks.  
By a Lover of Truth, Thomas Rudyard.  
Printed in the Year 1674.   

Reader,  
NOt long since came to my Hands a printed Paper, subscribed Tho. Hicks, the Title, termed A Rebuke to Tho. Rudyard 's Folly and Impertinency: Its Design to answer a small Piece of mine, which was a Discussion of the Anabaptists printed Proposals of the 12th of October last, pretended by them, in Order to Meeting twixt them and us (to debate & prosecute our Charge of Forgeries against T. Hicks) As to his late Piece (weighing the Author and his present Circumstances) it is not at all unlike him; for him, who hath by Forgeries, Lies, Slanders and Perversions traduced an entire Body of People (as well in their Civil as Religious Capacities) who of all others (as many of his own Party will frankly acknowledge) have merited better Terms from him and his Brethren; from such a Person to expect Candid Dealing, was beyond my Expectation: And truly, he who reads his last with the whole Series of his prior Discourses, must conclude with me, that T. Hicks hitherto appears no Changeling; his Faculty being with Confidence to Abuse, and Recriminate his Opponent, and that unjustly, which comprehends the Sum of his Assertions and Probations against me. I might need no other Compurgators to acquit me of most of his Charge, but the Reader's comparing of my printed Paper with his pretended Answer: But inasmuch as many of these may fail to meet in one and the same Hand, and may meet with some not of Capacity to discern the present Disingenuity and Unworthy Abuse of T. Hicks towards me and my Friends, and he having inserted some New Matter therein, am I pressed to publish this Reply; the Material Particulars of his I shall briefly examine, and refer the Reader for more ample Satisfaction to each of our former Discourses already in Print.  
T. R.   

AN ANSWER TO A Scandalous Paper Of T. Hicks, etc.  

Sect. I.  
HE first insinuates, that my late Paper was not a Discussion of the Anabaptists Proposals; & to pursue his Charge, says further, That the whole of those Pages wherein I concern myself with the above named Proposals, gave the Lie to my Title Page.  
For the Reason of his first, he says, I had not mentioned one Third of them: And for the Reason of his second, I did not mention what they were.  
To which I say, In Case there is no answering of a Letter, without an entire Transcription in its Response (a Method of Writing this our Age useth not, nor does T. H. use it) I grant myself under a Mistake; but certainly, when in mine I acquainted T. Hicks and my Reader, 

1. That the Proposals were the Anabaptists.  
2. I nominated the particular Subscribers.  
3. Instanced the Time they boar Date.  
4. And that they were by them printed and published.    

1. I might be excused a Transcription, and so T. H's Censure, my reference being sufficient to direct what Proposals I then discussed, and intended to surview.  
2. As to his Allegation, that each Page gives the Lie to the Title-Page.   
I answer, That if T. H. will please to review his and mine, he may know whether the Lie belongs to me. or himself; but sure I am he is grandly mistaken, and I fear, wilfully.   

Sect. II.  
He proceeds, next, to quarrel me for acquainting him of his Unwillingness to meet us in Public to discuss our Charge of Forgeries against him; He would persuade me or his Reader, that I know to the contrary. To which I say, I never denied but T. H. has been frequent in Boasting in Print, and behind our Backs, how ready he would be to abide a Public Hearing; but I must ever affirm my Belief, that he intends nothing less, witness one Meeting at Barbican the 9th of the 8th Month, where he strove to avoid our Charge against him, by charging us; and we being Earnest in our Charge, he hastily left the Pulpit and Assembly: And another Meeting at Wheeler-Street, the 16th of the same Month, he came no nearer than a Neighbouring AleHouse, though the Meeting was appointed, and he was expected six or seven Hours: So till his Words and Actions correspond, he must excuse me, if I (with many more) hear his Words, and measure him by his Actions.   

Sect. III.  
His next Quarrel is, that I alleged that the Anabaptists proposed fifty or sixty, excluding all others, as Witnesses to hear the Debate; whereas, says T. H. It was fifty or sixty of a Siae.  
To which I answer, If he had not mistaken or abused my Words, he had wanted his Objection: What I discoursed of, as to Number of fifty or sixty related to his Party only, whom he called at the first Barbican Meeting and not to us at all; and that but fifty or sixty of a Side are allowed in the printed Proposals is very clear: And as to any Consent of a Hundred, or a Hundred and fifty of a Side, if the former Number were too few, sure I am there was no such Provision in the Proposals, nor Consent of larger Number (as I ever heard of) when I published mine; if any Thing to that Effect has since passed in Private I, questian its Performance; for all I have observed from T. H. is, that 1. We had a Public Meeting, and then but a few Hours with him. And 2dly, a second Assembly where he met us not at; thence from Public proposed a Private, and at the Closewould shuffle us from having either public or private.   

Sect. FOUR  
Then he insinuates as if I had not answered the Proposals at all, alleging I passed them over in deep Silence, not in the least taking notice of my general Answer, yet comprehensive, viz. The Proposals for private, etc. with small Amendment might pass as fit Mediums for an Orderly Dispute— But to the 9th Proposition, I had Just Reason to make my Objection against it, which is the next Particular he quarrels me for.   

Sect. V.  
The Proposition was in these words, And when your Paper is answered, that G. W. & W. P. be obliged to give their Answers to such Charges as T. H. shall exhibit against them. This Proposition I fully and largely discussed; withal telling him, that it was both against the Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical to be obliged to answer, before they know their Charge, before they understand whether the Charge would relate to Civil or Religious Concerns to Matters proper for their Debate, or Things Inquisitory inconsistent to their present Contest. T. H. with this is so fumed & fretted, that he engages all the Forces of his unclean Genius to bespatter me with the Terms of Talking Idly, Dishonesty, Want of Wit, and such like Epithets, which his Rage can vent against me, which as much hurt me as if he had said nothing: with no less Incivility he alike treats G. W. and W. P. insinuating (from my Demand of the Matters charged, or to be charged) That they are certainly Tardy and Conscious to themselves of Gild, as well in Civil as Religious Concerns, and therefore (says T. H.) demand the Charge aforehand. It were tedious, else I might also write the many conceited Expressions and borrowed Phrases, he has vented upon this Subject, which are as suitably applied as the former: But surely in my Apprehension he might have better spared his Proposition, then by abusive and shuffling Reflect seek to maintain it: Says T. H. They are afraid to engage before they know what it is, let the Reader judge whether Innocency would talk at this Rate. Can more acquaint Expressions come from a Master of Inquisition, or the Chairman of an Ecclesiastic or high Commission Court? He can prognosticate Gild from a just Defence, and insinuate that Innocency needs no prudent Guard: what says T. H? Does not your Pleading to hear your Charge first argue Gild? and would Innocency talk at this Rate? Notable Doctrine in Spain, but not in England, where (Nemo tenetur prodere se ipsum) no Man is bound to betray himself; but according to the Command of our Lord Christ, to be as wise as Serpents, and harmless as Doves. And to close his Paragraph with his Abuse on this Subject, T. H. falsely insinuates, That if T. Rudyard had either the Wit or Honesty, to have taken Notice of it, a Copy of their Charge was promised, upon Condition they would be obliged to answer; When there not such a Word, or any Thing of that Tendency in the printed Proposals.  
But that we may see how correspondent his late Impositions upon us, are to those Propositions he & his Brethren, made in his own behalf, upon our demands against him, take these two Instances:  
1. In their pretended Answer to our Appeal W. Kiffin, D. Dike, etc. in their Epistle say, If W. P. or G. W. or any other Leading Quaker, have any New Matter to object against T. Hicks— if they please to signify the Particulars to us in writing with their Hands to it, we shall return such Answer thereto, either by a public Meeting or otherwise, as to us may seem just. Again in the same Persons Letter, the 25th of the 7th Month, 1674.— or any New Matter to be objected against T. H. we are ready to give them such a Meeting for the Examination thereof, provided they give us an Account of those Particulars in writing before hand: A Particular of which was accordingly delivered.  
Now Reader, compare but the Terms made for himself, and Propositions made to us, and make the genuine Application.   

Sect. VI.  
His next Exception was occasioned upon my Distinguishing 'twixt writing a Discourse or Dialogue, and writing Dialogue-wise; which I thus briefly expressed: viz.  

1. That a Dialogue is nothing else but a Discourse between Two, Three, or more, which a Stander-by may write for others Information.  
2. But to write Dialogue-wise is, to inform that there was no such real Discourse, but only my own Sentiments of the Persons and Things I would represent.  
3. Tho. Hicks 's Books were really his own Sentiments; yet he represents them to the World as a Real Discourse, pag. 9   
This we complained of as an Abuse, which T. H. is pleased to term a mere Cavil, and for Demonstration, thus speaks for himself: for (saith he) I do assure him that it was not so understood, or intended by me in the publishing of it.  
1. To this than I say, that our first Article or Charge exhibited against T. Hicks (viz. A Dialogue betwixt a Christian and a Quaker, and yet made by T. H. therefore but a mere Fiction) It is now determined by his own frank Concession; and we accept of his Condemnation from his own Mouth: Herein hath he made good our first Charge against him; It was not (saith T. H.) so intended by me, it was not intended a real or true Dialogue; if not, then False and Fictitious, as we affirm, and not True or Real.  
2. But to mend the matter, or cover his Unreconcilable Contradiction, he tells us, that (though it was not a Real Dialogue) it was as True and Real, as if it had been a verbal Discourse.  
Answ. A strange Assertion! I have not before met with the like: What! a Fiction as true as a Reality itself? A man's own Sentiments of Persons or Things as true and real as the Persons and Things are in themselves? After this rate of T. H's Logic, 'twere not uneasy to affirm Pictures to be Real, Living Creatures; and Images or Representatives to be Real, Living Men and Women.  
But the Case is briefly thus 'twixt Us and him: 

1. T. Hicks promulgeth his Pamphlets as Real Discourses, terms them, Dialogues between a Christian and a Quaker.  
2. Allegeth, That therein is Faithfully represented some of their chief, etc. Opinions.  
3. Their Method of Reasoning.  
4. No other Answers than what the Quakers give.  
5. But now tells us, That it was not so intended or understood (as a Real Discourse or Dialogue) by him, when he published it. And yet to cover himself again, saith he, It is as True and Real, as if it had been a verbal Discourse. So that according to the Sense of his Discourse Falsity may cope with Verity, and Fiction outbrave Reality; and in his Sense also have the Preeminency, or at least, an Equal Authority.    
Not far unlike unto this, is T. H's after Argumentation, in Response to these Words of his Brother W. Loddington, viz. There is a Vast Difference betwixt a Dialogue composed for Informaties, and one for Disputation: In the first I writ my own Judgement, in the other an Adversaries. To this T. H. responds thus, Then my Title-Page is innocent, and their Quarrel is a needless Cavil, for as much as the Dialogue was writ altogether for Information, etc.  
To which I reply and pursue the Argument: In Case thy Books were writ for Information (and not for Disputation) as thou affirmest; then (as before) thou writest thy own Judgement, and not thine Adversaries; yet notwithstanding hast thou frequently insinuated and affirmed therein, That thou hast faithfully represented their Opinions, Practice, Reasonings, Defences, etc. And faithfully to do this (without Abuse or Injury to thyself or Adversary) in writing thy own Judgement only, and not thy Adversaries Judgement, is such a Piece of confused Contradiction & Non. Consequence, that it exceeds my Reason of Reconciliation: And in short, it has been T. H's Work, Labour and Practice to make & feign a Quaker, with Doctrines, Principles, & Reasonings in behalf of himself, and all called by that Name; and this, says he, now for Information Only, and so his own Judgement, and not ours; for this Fact we desire to have a Public and Free Auditory, to manifest his Abuse, and clear ourselves of the many Forgeries, Lies and Slanders, which by writing his own, and not our Judgement, he has unworthily aspersed us withal, and unjustly imposed upon us and our Religion.   

Sect. VII.  
But T. H. is very hot upon me for telling him, that W. K. and J. I. in Principles (although now Confederates) differ more than a Real Christian and a Quaker: This accounts T. H. so great a Crime, that it's the filling up of my Measure, I suppose he means of Iniquity: And tells me for Answer, My Dictate is notoriously false, and then gives in his Reason; For, says T. H. they differ not in these Essential Points ●● Christianity, as that Jesus Christ is a distinct Person without us; that the H●ly Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians; and of the Resurrection of the dead Body, and the Life to come; they are in Unity in these, wherein the discriminating Difference between a Christian and a Quaker lies.  
I reply; Thus we have T. H's Definition of Essential Principles, or (as his Words will bear) only Essential; for my Charge was, That W. K. & J. I. differed more in Principles than a Real Christian and Quaker: This, he tells me, is notoriously false, and offers for Reason thereof, they agree in those; and therefore if there be more Principles Essential than these afore named, they may differ in them, and so my Dictate not notoriously false, though in these they agree: but there are many more Principles than these afore named, wherein they may differ, so my Dictate not notoriously false (for all T. H. his Reason, that in these they agree) I need not search far for Proof, but the Anabaptists several Sistems of Faith, wherein they have many more pretended Essential Articles of Faith, than these afore-named, will evidence their far greater Number of Principles, and their Difference therein; particularly, about the Death of Christ, one, affirming him an Universal Sacrifice for all Mankind, the other Denying it, etc. one, that he came to save All, the other, but to save a Few; but as to the before mentioned particular Essential Principles, as T. H. terms them, they have been often answered by our Friends, and his Abuses often by them refelled.   

Sect. VIII.  
He than quarrels against my Enquiry, what Sort of Christian the Quaker was not? And wholly waving my prior Expostulation, he most abusively answereth me: But I must tell him, that the Reason for my Enquiry justifies my Question, and returns his Inquisition, etc. upon himself, as I may hereafter show: My Just Complaint and Enquiry in pag. 13. was thus, But suppose we are no Christians in your sense, or of your Dipping, are we therefore none? But suppose none at all, according to your present Sentiments of us, but Jews, professed Turks or Heathens (as you would have us) shall not your Brother answer for his Forgeries, Lies and Slanders? It is your Belief that an Heretic deserveth no Law, no Justice, no Equity from or against men of your Cast; ye should do well to explain, for I assure you it smelleth of your Predecessors: To this T. Hicks returns not a Word in Answer, but standeth as a condemned Mute, being loath to come to a fair Trial, whether Innocent or Guilty.  
But I further argued, That if no Argument will induce you to do us that common Right, that equal Justice that a Heathen would not deny us; But you still divert our Charge, and interpose such Discourse as may tyre the Auditory, and cover your Infamous Brother, and consequently his Abettors; If instead of Hearing our Charge, and Answering our reasonable Demands, you would prove Us NO Christians, and bid us take that for Answer, I propose as necessary in order therio, that you tell us, what sort of Christian the Quaker is not? explain yourselves to the World, What and Who is a True Christian? These were the Grounds and Reasons of my Question (the Particulars whereof follow after) and I presume not impertinent to our present Business, and no more than the Nature of the Contest, & the Anabaptist Mannagement thereof, directly called for from our hands; But how correspondent his Answer is to my Question, will be evident by due Comparison of them together. But inasmuch as his is general, and not answering my particular queries, to know a True and False, a Real or Counterfeit Christian; I shall first in sert his Confession, being but an evasive Response to my particular Question, and then again give him mine as really it is, for which I yet count him my Debtor for a more distinct Answer; but first take his Definition of a Christian: Said T. Hicks, For the Christian, I do hereby acquaint him that I do account such (by whatever Name they may be distinguished amongst men) who as Disciples of Christ being redeemed by his Blood, profess themselves obliged in order to their Eternal Salvation, to learn and believe the Doctrine, Obey the Precepts revealed in the Scriptures, and follow the holy Life of the Christ of God, that is, that Person who only is and is known by that Name, and is called the Christ of God by God the Father, by himself, by his Holy & Inspired Penmen and Apostles, by men of all Nations, as being the only Person accounted and ordained by God to be the Lord, Master and Saviour of men, who was the Seed of Abraham & David, born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem, crucified to Death at Jerusalem, risen from the Dead the third Day, and was afterward seen of the Apostles and many hundred of his Disciples, with whom he personally talked and conversed, and before whose Eyes he ascended into the Heavens, where he liveth to make Intercession, and governeth as Lord and Head over all, and whence he shall come to judge the World in Righteousness with an Eternal Judgement, and render to every man according to his Works.  
It seems this is T. Hicks' Christian! Now, I have four things to remark:  
1. He hath calculated his Confession to the Socinian Creed, in that he leaveth out Christ's Divinity as any part or Article of his Faith; either because he is a Socinian, or to do them a good Turn at this juncture for their Hearty Endeavours for his Cause. This very Article once distinguished Heretics from Orthodox: See Eusebius. But T. Hicks is not of that mind.  
2. He hath not distinguished about Precepts, between Shadowy and Substantial, Temporary and Eternal, Legal and Gospel.  
3. That He is NOT this Christian, because He doth Not obey all those Precepts: He doth Not as he would be done by: He walks Not by the Rule of the New Creature; He doth More than an Eye for an Eye; He washeth Not Feet; anointeth Not with Oil; sings Not Psalms: He confesseth and holds, That no man can keep those Precepts.  
4. If this be a true Christian in Tho. Hicks' Account, the Quaker must needs be a Christian, since he ever held and maintained on Occasion, That Christ came of Abraham's Seed; and more, to wit, that he is God over all; that Redemption is in his Blood; that he died, rose and ascended into Heaven, is there at God's right Hand, the Mediator and Intercessor; that the Scripture contains Godly Precepts that ought to be believed & obeyed; yea, that the Fundamental Doctrines of the Gospel are therein expressed; & that there shall be a great Day of general Judgement to Eternal Felicity or Misery, according to the Deeds done in the Body.  
This I say, the true Quaker ever owned and believed, and therefore a Christian by T. Hicks' Concession: But T. Hicks, this is not the Chrisiian thou hast printed in Opposition to the Quaker; for he is an arrant Counterfeit. Forger, Perverter and Slanderer, which is far from keeping the Precepts contained in Holy Scripture; that falsely said, Our Christ was a Mystical Romance; that our Religion was calculated to the Service of the Devil and our own Lusts; that we were as grand Impostors as ever were; that we refase Just Debts on Revelation; that we hold the Soul to be God; that me were as perfect as ever; that there is no Resurrection or Eternal Rewards; that we should confess, We rail on our Adversaries, on purpose to make our Friends believe we have the better, etc. This was thy printed Christian; see how thy Christians contradict each other; but Thomas, if all thy Duties be Sin (as it is one general Maxim among you) thy Christian Confession is one among the rest.  
I shall now assume my former Query, That you tell us what Sort of Christian ye mean, the Quaker is not? explain yourselves to the World, and not, who is a true Christian? ' And you (denying Inward Evidence and Revelation) tell us, whether Faith and Works, or Principle and Practice, or Pretended Faith and Principles without Works or Practice, make a Real Christian? which may serve for a Looking Glass, as well for yourselves as for us: I speak particularly to you, who are many Heads confederated this Day against us; Each Sort claims the Name, but who has the Nature in your Sense? Therefore answer plainly, without Equivocation or Evasion, what you mean by Christian?  

1: Do you mean the Presbyterian (so called) with the Directory?  
2. Or, do you mean the Independent with his Savoy-Confession?  
3. Or, do you mean the Anabaptist with his several and various promulged Sistems of Faith?  
4. Or, do you mean those that tell us, We must be DIPPED with them, as necessary to Salvation?  
5. Or, do you mean Such that hold, That Christ died not for all, nor was an Universal Sacrifice for all Mankind?  
6. Or, do you mean Such that profess their Faith, That Millions of People are Damned; or at least, left without Means of Salvation by Eternal Decree, before they Knew or Acted Good or Evil?  
7. Or, do you mean Such that Deny the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that he was not One with the Father in Glory before the World was?   
It is not my Purpose to draw you out beyond the Bounds of the Faiths or Beliefs of the present Confederacy, therefore I wave to mention such Sorts as are termed, the Church of England, etc. All I desire or expect from you at present is, to be plain and particular, which of these forementioned, or what others by Faith and Practice are the real & true, and which are, and how many of these Impostors, or if all? declare it that our Auditors upon your Attempts to prove us no real Christians, may be capable to judge whether you act like real Christians or Stagers against Christianity, that we may see, whether whilst you are Unchristianing others, you Heathenize not your Confederates, or others that merit the Name better than yourselves: Let us have it under all your Hands, that other Judicious and Indifferent Persons, as well as yourselves, may be capable to Judge betwixt you and us in this Matter of Controversy.  
But T. H. to close the Discourse, thus vents himself against me, Whereas T. R. hath made so great an Outcry against Forgery, I would only acquaint him, That if he knows the Quaker as well as he knows himself that did publish in Print the Attestation of several Persons without their Knowledge or Consent, merely to serum the Quakers Interest, than I count it n● Wonder that either myself or any other Person should be abused by T. R. or a Quaker.  
To which I answer: It is much 〈◊〉 man of T. H's Circumstances would not speak directly as well as thus insinuatingly (or with an If) to fix a Scandal upon me; were it true, why should he fear to tell me, I counterfited som● Persons hands, as the thing he write● may probably bear amongst man who may have a good Share of Honesty, though not sufficient Craft 〈◊〉 espy the Promulger's Subtlety? B● briesly I shall answer both as to th● supposed Attestation itself, and Ca● of it. It was thus; In the Year 167● One R. James, an Anabaptist Preacher, published in print a Pamphlet, termed A true and impartial Narrative of the eminent Hand of God that befell a Quaker & his Family at the Town of Panton in Lincolnshire, who (saith the Pamphlet) affirmed he was commanded of God to pronounce Mr R. James, Preacher of the Gospel, a Leper from the Crown of the Head to the Sole of the Foot; the same Judgement of Leprosy shortly after falling upon one of his Children, himself, Wife, and the rest of his Children being also afflicted with a painful Distemper, attested under the Hand of several credible Persons, Eye & Ear Witnesses: This leprous Child and sore afflicted Family, the Anabaptists pretend that they Cured, or were presently cured by their Prayers on purpose made for them, as their Pamphlet affirmeth; (but as for producing any Eye or Ear-Witnesses, that this Man or his Child was so really Afflicted or Healed by them, they failed in) This coming to London, was entertained with great Acclamation amongst the Anabaptists and other Professors, and pressed upon us and the Reader, as a Decision of the Controversy 'twixt Us & the Anabaptists, A Landmark of Providence and Finger of God, as their Pamphlet boasted: And truly when it came to my hands, I judged it a very strange Prodigy, if true, and a Miracle exceeding all I have read of in the holy Scriptures, done by the Prophets, Christ or his Apostles; and more especially, that when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, could not do many Wondrous Works in his own Country because of Unbelief, That the Anabaptists, whose Belief is that Miracles are absolutely ceased, should work such a miraculous Cure upon a leprous & afflicted Family, and that upon a Quakers, who still continued a Quaker (as they insinuated) Men whom they wholly conclude in Unbelief, was such a mighty Miracle, that I had not Faith to believe it, and therefore questioned its Verity; and upon Inquiry it was found a Deceitful piece of Imposture, and a most abominable Forgery, and the Forger of it to be the aforesaid R. James.  
But the Anabaptists confident attesting the Verity thereof, stirred such a Tumultuous Spirit with Uproars and Out-cries against our Friends, that several of them from far distant Places travelled to Panton in Lincolnshire, to inquire out the Verity thereof, and with some diligent search they found the Person (viz. R. Anderton) upon whom and his Family, the An baptists pretended they had wrought this great Miracle, or in truth had acted a ●i●ce of Cheat and Imposture: whereupon this said R. Anderton in the Presence of Dr. Lincoln, the Parish Parson, and above twenty of his Neighbours, declared that he never was a Quaker, or known by them, and never at their Meetings, except about a Quarter of an Hour at the Castle of Lincoln (when Ral●h James, the Forger of the Story was with him) and affirmed, he never had any Leprous Child, which his Neighbours with him then unanimously confirmed, and shown the Child alive, whom the Anabaptist affirmed to be Dead; and further affirmed, that neither himself nor any of his Family was troubled with any such Painful Distemper, as the Baptist say they had: The Tenor of which Account, with other material Circumstances that confirmed the Truth thereof, was committed in Writing by the Persons who travailed thither, to certify us at London and elsewhere, how the Case really stood, and what the Persons and Inhabitants declared, concerning the Matter: And at the Close of their Testimonial they declared, these Things were affirmed by the said R. A. and confirmed by the Inhabitants of the Town, whose Names (not Hands) thereto subscribed; and under the Title Inhabitants, the said Person writ down the Inhabitants Names; and at the Close of the Writing subscribed their own ●ands, as further Witnesses thereto; ●his or a Copy thereof, being sent to ●ondon, as pertinent to detect their abuse, and undeceive the World of ●uch a Piece of Imposture and abomi●ible Fraud, that they had forged, I ●serted in a small Pamphlet, tituled, ●he Anabaptist Preacher Unmasked, in a ●rther Discovery of his lying Wonder out of ●incoln-shire, to which I further refer ●e Reader for Satisfaction: This is ●e naked Truth, and the State of that ●ase, as well to the Matter itself, as ●inner of its Detection; and had ●ose Persons declared that such Dis●urse and Circumstances had been 〈◊〉, and passed before the Judges of 〈◊〉 Land (admitting it had been done their Presence) and given an Accept thereof; I know not why T. H. ●●uld cavil, so long as the Fact was 〈◊〉, as well to Circumstance as Subduce, or reflect on T. R. for publishing the Certificate or Account thereof sent him, and imputed that as a Piece of Crime, which was really an Act of Justice.  
I might now enumerate the many palpable Untruths despersively mixed in T. H 's Rebuke of T. R. such as his changing, Not only the Pages, but that the whole of them (wherein I concerned myself with the abovenamed Proposal) gives the Lie to my Title-Page;— And his charging me in passing over eight Proposals with deep Silence: These I am bold to say, T. H. if in his Wits or tolerable Understanding, knows are untrue Impositions, & nothing else the Roman-like flourishes to adorn his abusive Discourse, as too frequently the Wild Gallants in our Age mix their with profane Oaths; an ill Patter● to imitate: But that he may present himself an apt Scholar in that 〈◊〉 the like School, he gives us a pregnant Instance of his Proficiency, insinuating, That one in the Name of an 〈◊〉 Friend of ours had given us Counsel to be●… 〈◊〉 out with Huffing, to affirm or deny any ●hing, and that with the Highest Confi●●ence, etc. Who was it T. H. that ●ave this Counsel? Was it any other ●hen a nameless Libeler? and the pretended Friend of ours, Was it ●ot a feigned Jesuit? A Piece patched ●p and promulged by yourselves, to traduce us here and throughout this City and Nation? Was this Work Christian? Thy Brother Loddington ●old you, with much more, That the ●heet itself smelled of the Spirit of Persecution, which was the very worst Part of Popery; and gave you a due Rebuke ●or introducing us into your Meeting ●ith such first Entertainment:— Therefore as to the Advice of thy Confederate, and not our Friend, and ●●ou who wouldst thus traduce us, 〈◊〉 answer with the Honest Moralist, ●●rpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ●●sum.  
Thus having acquitted myself and Friends from T. H. and his abusive Paper, I can do no less then briefly to acquaint him and the Reader, That ou● Contest and Controversy at this Day against him, and with his Confederates, is not, 

1. For opposing his Christian and Quaker; but making a Counterfeit Christian and a False Quaker.  
2. Not for Truly stating our Principles, and attempting to refel them But for feigning and forging Principle that are not ours, thereby traducing us.  
3. Not for his not having Confidence in Press and Pulpit, and in other Assemblies in our Absence, to charge us with holding Doctrines and Opinions inconsistent with Christian Religion; But not having Courage to mee● us in Public to debate the Matters 〈◊〉 Controversy betwixt us in a Free an● Open Assembly.  
4. Not for his not pretending to b● ready to meet us in Public; But his re● avoiding to appear answerable to hi● Pretences, of which we have had a pregnant Instance.    
What shall I say? His Promises and Performances, his Words and Actions, are as correspondent as his and his Confederates have usually been, when they have been brought to Public Trial, as most Parts of this Nation can plentifully witness; like those of old, Who were strong to draw the Bow, but turned their Backs in the Day of Battle.  
But surely, were T. H's Diatogues and Discourses as True and Real as if they had been a Verbal Discourse, and his Authorities taken from our Books and Writings, as he not only in Words, but in Print has confidently, though falsely affirmed, what need he fear to give us a Public Meeting, to make an Open Disquisition of those Controversies? I must tell him, let him evade and shuffle as long as he can, we look upon it as our Right to have a fair and open Discussion of those Instances of Forgeries, Lies, Standards and Perversions, we have in Print exhibited against him: And I must say, were he really Innocent (according to the English Laws) his flying a Fair Trial will breed (and not without good Cause) great Suspicion of his Gild.  
I with many more discern with what Artifice the Confederates would divert our present Pursuit from T. Hicks, viz. with Forging, venting, promulging renewed scurrilous and abusive Eibels, nameless Pamphlets; and others, with forged or unknown Authors, Lampoons, Ballads and such like Weapons; how Manly, Spiritual or Christian the Generous Minds abroad, as well as the Honest and Simple-hearted amongst themselves, can discern, some to Derision, others to Sorrow of Hearts and Spirits: And to complete T. H's Defence, J. I. a Confederate, must single out & dare us to Battle with him, that the while T. H. might escape our Pursuit, or whilst the Eyes of the People are upon some new Encounter, T. H. might slip out of a Back Door: And truly, if the Night were come upon our Understandings, or our Eyes Purblind, we might gaze at these Cords of light Matches, and so divert our Battle to encounter a Cheat. Alas! In all that is written against us, I desire no more of the Unprejudiced Reader then to compare the Citations (observing the prior and subsequent Discourse) to consider the Author's Circumstances and Ends, and his Judgement I will abide; but as to him or any other, although (Articulariter) they might be answered on that or other Subject, his and their Ends being discovered: I shall (not abridging the Freedom of any other) renew my former Resolve, That if J. Ives will still appear as a Privateer against us, thinking by his Brawling Outcries to still the Noise of our Charge of Forgery, etc. exhibited against T. H. & stifle our Just Complaints against W. K. etc. by my Consent he shall rail on, Rabshekah-like, etc. till the Just Hand of the Lord overtake him: This is still my Mind, and other Answer I design him not; but expect, and cannot but press T. Hicks to give us a Public Meeting, and in a Free and Open Assembly answer our Charge exhibited against him; he knows, and so many of his Brethren, that our Request in this case is but reasonable: And that the Reader may know it is not without good Cause that we press to public Hearing and Discussion of the Controversies betwixt us & T. H. I shall instance some of the many abominable wretched, and as I may say, Hellish Doctrines, Opinions and Practices, which he feigned and forged, falsely imposed, and maliciously insinuated to be ours.  
1. That notwithstanding we have ever (since, & before we were reproachfully called Quakers) declared & owned the Holy Scriptures contained in the Old and New Testament, to be of Divine Authority, and that the Holy Men of God gave them forth as they were moved of the Holy Ghost; and that they are the Words of God, though Christ, according to the Holy Scriptures, is only called the Word of God, Joh. 1. it being his proper Name; as Rev. 19.13. Yet T. Hicks has maliciously insinuated and affirmed, that we render the Holy Scriptures to be of no more Authority than Aesop 's Fables, and esteem them inferior to our own pamphlets.  
2. That although we really and truly believe, and have ever in Words and Writing openly attested, and witnessed that the Blood of Christ only cleanses from Sins, and that his Blood was shed upon the Cross as an Universal Sacrifice; yet T. H. wickedly affirmed, That the Blood of Christ in our Esteem is worse than the Blood of a common Thief.  
3. That although we have ever declared, that by Faith In Christ and his Grace are we saved, & that there is no other Name given, by which Salvation is brought to our Souls; Yet T. H. has falsely and abusively affirmed, That the Quakers owning Jesus Christ, is indeed no other than a mere Mystical Romance.  
4. And although the Lord by his mighty Hand and outstretched Arm, has redeemed his Remnant from a vain Conversation, and separated us from the many and unfruitful Works of Darkness, which not only grieved his Good Spirit, but kept us in Bondage to the Enemy of our Souls and Mankind, and instead thereof hath raised and begotten in us a Desire, and earnest Breathing, that the whole Creation may return to God, and come under the Government of that just, holy and equal Law, To do as they would be done unto; yet T. Hicks, to vilify, scandalise and traduce us as well in our Civil as Religious Capacities in the Hearts and Spirits of the Generation in which we live, hath falsely and maliciously, and without just Cause insinuated and promulged these Wicked and Abominable Positions of and concerning us, viz.  
1. That the Tendency of all the Quakers Reasoning about instituted Religion, is to debauch Mankind.  
2. That their Meetings are only and principally to Decoy, Trapan and inviegle others.  
3. That their Principles improved are Destructive to all Human Society.  
4. That their Religion is a mere Cheat calculated only to the Service of the Devil and their own Lusts.  
5. He falsely insinuates that they pretend Revelation, to excuse them the Paying of their just Debts; thereby presenting it Dangerous for Persons to deal with them. These, with many more, are the Matters in Charge against him, already exhibited in Print, for which we can do no less than require a Free, Open and Public Meeting and Auditory, that if we prove him not a Forger, Liar and Slanderer, he may be fairly acquitted, else, that if upon a Disquisition of these and many others he be found Guilty, that he may bear the Weight and Burden of his own Work, according to that just and equal Law, Deut. 19.16. If a False Witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is Wrong. Vers. 7. Then both the men between whom the Controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the Friest and the Judges that shall be in those Days. Vers. 18. And the Judges shall make diligent Inquisition; and behold, if the Witness be a False Witness, and hath testified falsely against his Brother. Vers. 19 Then shall you do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his Brother, so shalt thou put the Evil away from among you. Vers. 20. And those which remain shall hear and fear, and shall henceforth no more commit any such Evil among you. Vers. 21. And thine Eye shall not pity, but Life shall go for Life, Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Hand for Hand, Foot for Foot.  
London, the 16th of the 9th Month, 1674. By T. Rudyard.