THE Barbican-Cheat DETECTED; OR, Injustice Arraigned: BEING A Brief and Sober Disquisition of the Procedure of the Anabaptists Late-Erected Judicature in Barbican, London, the 28th of the Month called August, 1674. With some Observations upon their pretended Account thereof, in their Pamphlet, termed, The Quakers Appeal Answered. By Thomas Rudyard. Prov. 18.17. He that is first in his own Cause, seemeth Just; but his Neighbour cometh, and searcheth him. Printed in the Year 1674. Reader, HAd not apparent Deceit and Falsehood masked themselves under the Govert of Acting a Piece of Justice, it had excued the Occasion of reviewing that Day's Act, so comically performed upon the Stage of Abuse, I thus willingly express myself, knowing such Judicious and Unbyased there, conclude with me, The Actors thereof presented their Auditory with Painted Shows or Scenes of Judgement and Justice; when in Reality there was nothing less amongst them, yea, so opposite, that Truth was fallen in the Streets, and Equity could not enter. I presume thee Reader, not ignorant of that Noise and Stir Thomas Hicks and his Abetters (by his Comedian-Books, which he falsely terms Dialogues betwixt a Christian and a Quaker) have of late made (in this interval of public Connivance or Liberty) to represent us and our Principles unworthy of what we enjoy, or the Respect of men, regarding Sobriety and Virtue. His Talon lying in Forgery of Principles and Doctrines, and laying the Brats at our Door, he only has begot; which foul Practice of his has been evidently discovered in 2 Treatises by W. Penn, with Demand of Answer from his Brethren, If they would own T. H. and his Work, that so accordingly we might deal with them. The People called Anabaptists having publicly patronised him & his Work, and avowed them in Print, I can account of Tho. Hicks no less than their Agent and Representative, and solemnly protest against him and them as Confederates, in that Abuse of Forgeries, Lies, Perversions and Slanders, (justly charged, and in Print made out against him.)— And since they have in so public a manner taken cognisance of these Matters, and colourably determined the same, it may not be unseasonable for the sake of Truth, and detecting Falsehood, to make a serious Scrutiny into these Particulars apart, viz. 1. Their Commission. 2. The Calling of their Court, and Notice to Persons concerned. 3. The Capacity of the Judges. 4. The Method and Manner of their Procedure. 5. Their Decree or Judgement. Which with some brief Observations upon their pretended Answer to the Appeal, I shall close the following Discourse, and leave the same to the solid Perusal & Consideration of the Candid and Unprejudiced Reader. London, 26th 7th Month, 1674. T. R. THE Barbican-Cheat DETECTED, etc. First, AS for their Commission, they derived from a Book of William Penn, tituled, The Counterfeit Christian Detected, wherein is a Postscript by another Hand, viz. We expect to hear what the Baptists in and about London will ay (as being appealed to) concerning their Brother Tho. Hicks, his Proceeding in his Three Dialogues; And whether they approve thereof, or of such Play Books or Romances in Religion, yea, or nay— Hence would they derive their Authority, and this take they for a Commission * Anab. Appeal answ. but surely they understand Words better than thus ignorantly to mistake, to term this an Appeal (when it only refers to one.) But I need not wonder at such Slips, since he has so apt an Hand at Matters of greater Consequence. The words are (as being appealed to) respecting Appeal before made to them; and so there is in p. 28. & p. 40. of W. Penn's Book, entitled, The Counterfeit Christian Detected; which had been but Equal and Honest in T. H. and his Confederates to have delivered to that Auditory, and the Reader of his Relation. In pag. 28. After W. Penn had charged T. Hicks with many old and with seven new Forgeries, and cleared the same by plain Demonstration, he concludes, With you, the People called Anabaptists, I leave this Section; Right us, right yourselves; right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary, and yourselves of so Scandalous an Advocate. In p. 40. W. Penn, after he had charged him with twenty gross Perversions, etc. he concludes, Thus have I finished my Observations on his Peruersions, leaving them also with the People called Anabaptists, upon whom I cannot choose but frequently call for Justice against this their unjust Member: Concluding my Complaint in this Section in honest J. Husse's against the like Adversaries on the same Occasion: Some of those Propositions I did write and publish, other some mine Enemy did feign, now adding, then diminishing and taking away, now falsely ascribing & imputing the whole Proposition unto me. Here's the Appeal made to them that the Postscript mentions; and here's committed to them the two Sections, containing an Account of T. H's Forgeries and Perversions; for these calls W. P. for Justice against their Unjust Member. But alas! so far are they from answering his Just Demand, that they spare to mention his Complaint, as I may hereafter fully demonstrate in its place, and shall descend to the second Particular, which is: 2. The Calling of their Court, and Notice to Persons concerned. It is observable that W. P's Books were delivered at their-Meeting-House Doors the 2d of the Month called August last, which Thomas Hicks intimates in his Relation, pag. 3. Epistle. Soon after William Penn's Occasions drew him out of London, and upon the 10th of that Month G. Keith had a Dispute or Conference with T. H. whom T. H. had also traduced; and then not a word mentioned of a designed public Meeting; nor till they might be sufficiently assured of the Absence of W. P. & G. W. either of them being far Distant, and on before-designed Journeys. The 19th of that Month they leave a Letter with P. Ford, directed to W. P. to give him notice of a Meeting the 28th following— The 20th P. F. returned Answer: Yesterday I received a Letter from you directed to W. Penn, concerning a Meeting to be the 28th instant, at which you say, You Expect Him: This serves only to give you Notice, that he was gone into the East of England about Three Weeks ago; and when his Return will be, I know not; neither do I know how to give him Notice hereof: and therefore I do not see that he is likely to be there, except you had been pleased to have appointed a Time when he was in the City, or so near that he might had timely Notice of your Intentions: If this be designedly done, it is not fair; but if not, the Debate must be suspended till a time in which the Parties concerned with you, by mutual Consent, agree upon a Time. This I thought good to let you know, and do judge you ought to let others know it, that so Vain-Boasting may be prevented as much as in us lieth, which is all from your Friend, London, 20th of the 6th Mon. 1674. Philip Ford. The Anabaptists sending the like Letter to G. Whitchead's House, in his Absence also, being then far distant from London, this Answer was returned by G. Whitchead's Wife. I did presume to open my Husband's Letter, lest I might prejudicially keep it: now finding the Consequence requiring my Husband and W. Penn, at a Day and time within all liklihood they are incapable of answering, being very remote from this City; and the Truth is in Plainness, I know not when or where to send to either of them, and so did think it best to return the Letter, with this plain Information, That I am thy Friend, Ann Whitehead. 〈◊〉 T. H's Relation, Epist to the Reader. And what could not this prevail for a further Day? Not a small Suspension of Time? Alas! no; not with them (as appears) that designed nothing less than their Presence, and desired nothing more than their Absence. (But were they so Just to their Auditory to read Philip Ford's Letter, that the People might understand the Cause of their Absence? No such Matter; that would exceed the Bounds of Justice we must expect from their Hands) But to do. W. Kiffin Right, he openly mentioned as well the former as latter; but wrested them with such Artifice to his designed Ends, that they served to patch up a nouting Prologue to his mixed Auditory: and by the East of England in Philip Ford's Letter, he represented W. Penn, as in Travail in the East Country or East Indies, he knew not whether; the Pleasantness of which Discant so pleased the Confederates, and gratified the airy Sort, that for a Time they filled the whole House with Laughter; but for this public Abuse, W. K. has privately acknowledged his Mistake to his Friends, and so we excuse him. But as to W. P. and G. W's Absence, how grandly soever it pleased, and that I am well assured not a little; he represented as usually are Ru●negates, Excommunicates and Outlaws; and that because they appeared not upon the peremptory Summons. I must declare my Occasions have somewhat experienced me in the Practice of the Courts of Common Law and Equity, and of Courts Ecclesiastical and Civil within this Kingdom; but of all, from the Highest to the Lowest, there is none within the Verge of my Knowledge that are so peremptory in Summons, and so absolute in Decrees: The Excommunicate has forty Days to assoil himself; Persons not outlawed under two, if not three Terms: But we must be Adjudged, Condemned, Sentence past on us as Runagates or Outlaws upon eight or nine Day's Summons (and that not personal neither) beyond the Severity of all English Courts whatever. And who is ignorant of the frequent and common Practice in all English Courts; yea, as well in the high Courts of Parliament, and King, and Counsel, as all subordinate Courts and Judicatures, Civil or Ecclesiastical, to defer Hear, and suspend Judgements, till both Parties can be ready, and to give further Day, in case either Party by Reason of Absence or Distance cannot probablyattend: But this new Judicature knows or executes no such Fairness; but absolutely denies such common Justice, vide to J. Osgood, T. Hicks Relat. Epist. to the Reader. O horrid Abuse! blush and be ashamed ye Masters of Inquisition, and Pattern of Cruelty in this our Native Country, that knows no such Practice or Procedure, that you in open Stage have brought an Emblem & Representative. So shall I descend to the third particular under Disquisition. 3. The Capacity of the Judges. And truly, if such as they bespeak themselves, they are, without Exception, no less than infallible in this Case: say W. K. etc. Relat. Epist. Reader. The first time, I understood Infallibility was annexed to their Cathedra; but how comes this stamp of Infallibility upon these Judges with no less Authority then from the Quaker 's Ensample; if we will credit W. Kiffin's, &c. Logic, Relat. Epist. Reader, says he, for W. Penn says, That to which an Appeal is made must be capable of giving an Infallible Judgement; and so a true Judge: Consequently, says W. K. etc. we must be Infallible Judges in this Case. Must his Reader take for granted, that Infallibility is a natural Consequence of Capacity: I grant they were capable of doing right; must they therefore be Infallible? and have they done that Right? What! have you taken so much Pains to stigmatize the best of Men with Error, and the very Spirit of God in his People with Fallibility, and stamp Infallibility upon yourselves? Did it disgust you, that W. Penn made the Light of Christ, or Witness of God's Spirit in the Conscience (that arraigns the Murderer, pursues the Bloodshed, reproves the Unrighteous, and gives impartial Judgement without Respect of Persons) a true & upright Judge, and capable of true Judgement betwixt him and the Socinian; and shall you strain your Achievements to Infallibility? But why should W. Kiffin, etc. so unequally repeat W. P 's Words? Can they no more than T. Hicks, truly repeat a Sentence without Abuse? We might have expected better Dealing from their Gravity; but I debt it. Says W. Penn, Spir. of Truth vindic. p. 78. That to which he (viz. the Socinian) makes an Appeal must be capable, etc. or else he appeals foolishly. This respects & refers only to the Socinian's Appealing to the Light of God in the Conscience, and not to Man or any Sort or Sect of Men whatsoever: But W. Kiffin, etc. that they might sit in Judgement without Control, wrists that Discourse (which respected and referred to that particular Appeal to the Light or Spirit of God (so limited by the Appealers) & lays them down in other Words than had W. P. viz. That to which an Appeal is made, etc. or else the Appeal is foolish.— Compare but the Words, and their Artifice is seen; weigh their Sense and thou wilt see their Deceit: W. Penn by his refers only to the Appealers, and the Light to which the Appeal is made, respects not Men who distinct or separate from that to which the Socinian appealed, are fallible, nay, not capable of true Judgement: But W K. etc. (with A W. Penn saith) in an abusive Manner belies his Words, altars his Sense, wrists that to Men which was attributed to the Spirit of God, or the Light of God in the Conscience; and all this Pains to attribute Infallibility to themselves— Take but the Words as W. Penn really writ, without W. K. etc. their metamorphosing them.— That to which he makes an Appeal must be capable of giving an Infallible Judgement, and so a true Judge, or else he appeals foolishly: But the Light within is that to which he makes an Appeal, etc. Consequently, says W. K. etc. we must be Infallible Judges in this Case. Was the Socinian's Appeal to Men? Or was W. P 's Argument or Conclusion for the Judgement of Men? Nothing less. Had it been so, than those Anabaptists had half covered their Cheat, when now it is plain to the meanest 〈…〉 Man of Reason: And at this Rate might the Anabaptists argue, Is the Light or Spirit of the Almighty God capable of Judgement in the Quakers Sense; Ergo (we Anabaptists) Infallible Judges: And their Consequence is no less absurd; but it is not to be wondered, that they contest so highly for Infallibility, when the Credit of all their Procedure pends upon the Reputation of the Judges: And what Share of Integrity, or Measure of Impartiality these pretended Infallibles have manifested (by their answering the Appeal) will in measure appear by Inquiry of the Manner and Method of their Procedure, which is the next Particular under Disquisition. 4. The Method & Manner of their Procedure. Truly to understand their Meaning by their Words, or Intentions by their Expressions, other than each are calculated to cheat the Reader, and gull their Auditory, I find not. And how T. Hicks, W. Kiffin, etc. have made as well their Writings, published to the World, as their public Speeches at Barbican to serve those Ends of Abuse, I may under this Head demonstrate: As introductory thereunto (I observe in and for what W. Penn appeals for Justice; it is particularly to be relieved against T. Hicks' Injustice for 〈◊〉 many Forgeries and gross Perversions, particularly charged, and plainly demonstrated against him in two Distinct Sections of the Book, called The counterfeit Christian detected. Vide pag. 28. & pag. 40. 2. I observe in W. Kiffin, H. Knowls, etc. their Letter to W. Penn, dated Aug. 15. vid. Appeal. Ans. Epist. declare they will hear T. H. both in respect to those Doctrines and Matters of Fact, which he in his Dialogue had laid to the Quakers Charge. 3. I observe in their Letter of the 23d. to J. Osgood, they declare the Matter is only Matter of Fact, and not of Dispute: See Appeal Ans. Epist. 4. I take notice of the Judicatures Examination; and they go principally upon Doctrinals; see from pag. 1. to pag. 22. and for Matter of Fact but 10. pag. and in all, not W. P's Charges, as laid down by him, once read in their Assembly. But what must we understand? will they examine the Forgeries, Perversions, etc. given in Charge? will they enter into Doctrinals and Fact, or Fact alone? none shall know by their Writing, but by their Actions; 'tis manifest, they went upon neither fairly, but traduced both unjustly. Again, But W. K. etc. in their Letter. to J. O. tell us that T. H. his Charge was already exhibited in Print against him; and to what End? not to be opened or read at the Trials? Who would suppose a Charge, Article or Indictment to be exhibited against a Malefactor, but to be read against him. And what did these Infallible Judges (as they term themselves) read the Charge of Forgeries and Perversions, which W. P had laid down in two Sections of the Counterfeit Christian detected? No such Matter. Alas, these Judges had Ears for their Brother, and none for Truth; resolves to acquit him, though to their Infamy. I do demand of W. K. & you his Brethren, if any Court of Judicature in England should pretend to try a Malefactor, and determine aforehand not to hear his Accuser, or at Trial not read his Accusation, and yet acquit him: would not you brand that Court with Partiality and Injustice? I doubt not of your affirmative Answer in this Case. This is clearly our Case with the Anabaptists; W. Penn charges T. H. with Forgeries, Perversions, etc. demonstrates them in Print, as to Manner and Form, complains of the Injustice, and leaves the particular Sections with the Anabaptists. W. K. etc. call T. H. before them, never read the Charge, or required him to answer what W. P. had particularly laid down against him in those Sections, and pass Judgement for his Innocency and our Gild. If this be not Partiality and Injustice, I never knew what it was. But instead of reading the Charge against him, his Liberty is to give it to himself, and then acquit himself without Interruption: And truly this was not Casual neither, or occasioned by W. P's Absence; but what they require of him in their Letter, viz. to suffer him without Interruption; and I think all Men will take it for granted, that he would charge himself no more with one Hand, than he could ease himself with the other. And he who could counterfeit a Quaker, and frame such Arguments and Discourse for him, as gratified his Malice and Envy, to answer and make him speak as many horrid Untruths, and base Abuses, as his villainous Spirit could invent, doubtless, would never article against himself, or exhibit a Charge beyond his Reach of Acquittal: I do not believe, that one in ten of Forger, Cheat, Thief or Bloodshed, but having such Thames of Trial, could acquit themselves how guilty soever: But for T. H. I must say, Our English Right is maintained by this Maxim, Nemo tenetur prodere seipjum, No Man is bound to be his own Accuser: And for what T. H has. done to clear himself, I believe it is no more than the greatest Malefactors would desire in the like Case, had they such Brethren for Judges: But how equal such Procedure is on the Judge's Parts, who suffers such unjustice: A weak Capacity is able to give a Judgement. I doubt not, but W. K. etc. in the Eye of the Judicious and (notwithstanding their high claim to Infallibility) will appear to be one and Confederate in the Lies, Slanders, Forgeries and Perversions of T. Hicks, and equally chargeable with them. Of which I may now be a little particular, & from which he has not acquitted himself, nay, many of them not once mentioned in their pretended Answer to the Appeal. 1. In the two Sections of W. Penn's Book, titled the Counterfeit Christian detected, that charges and proves T. Hicks guilty of many gross Forgeries and Perversions, particularly therein expressed, as well to Matter as Manner, from pag. 6 to pag. 40. in the first of these, viz. that of Forgeries, no less than eight, and of Perversion in the second Section no less than 14. wholly omitted in their late Relation, although these are the Abuses W. P. particularly calls to the Anabaptists for Redress; vide p. 28. &. 40. 2. The following Section proving T. H. guilty of Lies and Slanders; he omits no less than eleven Particulars; and the next Section of T. Hicks his Contradictions, wholly passed over. And of those few Particulars he mentioned in the Barbican-Meeting, for the most part so miserably perverted, mangled and abused, as that they appear in Shapes, Forms & Dresses, far different from what they were laid down and explained in our Friends Books: Neither has he been less treacherous in his Answers thereto, producing Authorities or Citations from our Books, with Sentences mangled, Words most material wholly omitted, Parts of Sentences cut off, and that which is more abusive, hath in pag. 24, 27. brought Authorities from an Apostate's Pamphlet called, The Spirit of the Hat, heretofore printed or promoted by their own Party: In this Manner could he deal with us, and his Judges wittingly or ignorantly countenancing the same; vide Quak. App. Answ pag. 32. Although W. K. etc. in their Epistle, tell the World, That it was the Books of the chief Leaders among the Quakers were produced for T. H 's Discharge. Thus far have I been willing to observe ingeneral, and am ready to vindicate the Particulars thereof, and might now have instanced, but that the Books already in Print will largely manifest the same, to which I refer the Reader: Vid. Count. Chr. detected. from p. 6. to p. 54 5. Their Decree or Judgement. To find any thing in the pretended Answer to the Appeal or Relation thereof, that bespeaks itself a Judgement upon the whole, will be beyond the Skill of any of those Judges themselves: For, their Relation is such a Piece of Mixture of dark Abuse, Insinuations and Non constats, as if it were; and I doubt not but it was forged and calculated for a traducing of Truth and covering of Deceit, which comparing in some of many Particulars with their Act at Barbican, will easily demonstrate. But to their Judgement; Our Charge against their Brother is for many Forgeries, Lies and Perversions, particlarly charged and proved against him in two Books of W. P. entitled, Reason against Railing, and, The Counterfcit Christian Detected; which, if not relieved against, we should interpret as the Act of the whole Baptists, etc. vide Appeal Ans. Epist. So it was (as they themselves say) their Business to examine whether T. H. was guity, App. Ans. p. 1. viz. Whether he has been guilty or not guilty of Lies, Forgeries and Perversions, in Manner and Form as W. Penn charged and demonstrated against him? But have they given such a Judgement? No such Matter; they use not to be so plain dealing with the people, nor have we such Measure from their Hands, although they insinuate that was their Business, as pag. 1. App. Ans. But instead thereof, in a crooked and obliqne sort, they tell their Reader, That T. H. had charged us with several Opinions, and produced our Books; upon reading of which they found them to agree with what he had laid to our Charge, which the following Narrative (say they) will give a more full Account of: So that hitherto (say they) we see no Cause of just Blame to be laid unto Tho. Hicks. And what does his Relation produce touching our Doctrine, or his Perversions, Forgeries and Slanders not a Sixth thereof mentioned or touched, which, had our Charge been there producèd, would have clearly evidenced to the Shame of their Brother and Confusion of that Judicature? And he who will take the Pains to read those Books and compare Thomas Hicks his Charge, with his pretended Compurgation may have as large an lustance, and as clear a Prospect of as manifest a Cheat under the Covert and Mask of Justice and Religion, as our latter Age can produce. For as to the particular Points laid down in has Relation, they are but a Repetition of some few of his former Abuses, which are now repeated without our Answers And our Charges against him of Perversions, Forgeries, etc. wholly omitted. The Relation allows W. P. to answer such or such a Particular is a Lie, or Forgery, or Slander; but to tell him how, he denies him Liberty: As if a Prosecutor of a Malefactor should be only licenced to acquaint a Court, That the Man was a Thief, Murderer or Burglar; but must not reveal his Felony, Murder or Burglary; certainly this would be but a dissicult Way of discovering Offences, to punish Offenders. But that this has been the Way, Method and Practice of William Kiffin, Han. Knowles, etc. with their Brother Tho. Hicks not only their Procedure at their Judicature in Barbican, but the pretended Relation thereof doth fully demonstrate. So I shall descend to examine the Consistency of that Relation with itself, with Truth, and their Carriage at Barbican. Observ. 1. To Countenance or Colour their Pretence for desire of Justice, they give us a Text of Scripture out of Deuteronomy 19.17, 18, 19, etc. If a False Witness rise up against any man, to testify against him that which is Wrong; then both the men between wh●●n the Controversy is, shall stand up before the Lord, before the Priests and the Judges, which shall be in those days; and the Judges shall make diligent Inquisition; and behold, if the Witness be a False Witness, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done to his Brother, so shall ye put away the Evil from you. Compare this just and equal Law with the Anabaptists Judiciary; That when a Controversy was betwixt two (the Matters and Charge of both Parties exhibited in Print) they, in the Absence of one Party, without due notice (according to common English Right) hear one Party only, the other Party not heard; and then I leave to the Judgement of the Unprejudiced, whether this ancient just Law arraigns not their unjust Practice and partial Procedure. I cannot but take notice of their willing Omission of that part of the 18th Verse, which no less suits the present Occasion, though somewhat more distinctly reflecteth on T. H. his Practice against us— The words are, And behold, if the Witness be a False Witness, and hath testified falsely against his Brother, then, etc. That he has so testified, I doubt not but that his Conscience, as well as his Books in Print, are a clear Witness (and if he Repent not) he'll certainly have the Reward thereof: For the Lord is a jealous God; and the Lying Tongue, and the Heart that deviseth Mischief, he hateth. Observ. 2. In the Title-Page of the Q. Appeal Answered, mentioning the Barbican-Meeting (say they) Wherein the Allegations of William Penn in two Books lately published by him against Thomas Hicks, were Answered and Disproved. This may serve one sort of Readers to believe all W. P's Allegations and Charges against. T. H. were answered and disproved; others, that part, a great or small, but might gull most into a Persuasion, That W. P's Allegations or Charges against T. H. were at least read before disproved, when they were neither truly read nor answered, but only some miserably mangled by a Treacherous Hand, and so misrepresented, and the greater Number and most considerable not once mentioned or touched. Observ. 3. Tho Hicks bestows a Postscript, as an Addition to his former Abuse, wherein he attempts to wipe off some Particulars charged upon him, and would colourably excuse the Matters. The first is for his Abuse in a general Charge against us, That we make use of the Scriptures only to Silence them that plead for it as their Rule. And for this (general) Charge (he pretends) he has instanced one particular Person, by whom words of such an import were spoken: How suitable his Plaster is to his Sore, I leave that to those who will read the Books in Print, 'twere too tedious here to recite. My Intent is but to show his genius, that charges us with Baseness general, pretends to prove it by a Particular, and that not by any direct words, but words of such an Import. I appeal to the Judicious, if this be candid Dealing. At this rate of Proof, and some rebate too, 'twere easy to prove the Anahaptists in general the most Cruel and Treacherous sort that have appeared in the latter Ages of the World. Observ. 4. It's of N. Lucas' relating to some words, which T. H. variously charges him withal. That T. H. his Charge was as false as malicious, I doubt not; but for T. Hicks his words in the Close of his Paragraph— (I do assure thee, that no such Matter was referred to him) had he attested this or such like in a Court of Justice, he had scarce excused a Commitment; for he who affirms a Negative of Persons and Things acted out of his Presence shows his Confidence but incurred Perjury, or at least the Demerit of a False Witness, for not speaking the Truth of his Knowledge. Observ. 5. The next Abuse of us T. H. would excuse himself of, is this, viz. The Tendency (says he) of all the Quakers reasoning about instituted Religion, is to debauch Mankind, and to teach men to live in Rebellion against God. For this he produces W. Penn (as he says) for his Compurgator. The Paragraph is large, so I repeat it not; its Substance is to deny the U●e of Water-Dip●ing, or Babe-Baptism, and their Bread and Wine (termed unscripturally cripturally Ordinances of Christ) this T. H. supposes a Proof: But certain I am, that its easy to prove, that the enforcing of these Outward Ordinances (as he terms them) and the various Opinions thereof, each Party pretending no less Authority than the holy Scriptures for his Persuasion, has Occasioned by the Papists and Anabaptists in Germany and elsewhere more Massacries, Rebellions, Murders and Acts of Cruelty, than all other Articles or Opinions in Doctrine and Practice whatsoever. So to the Witness of God in the Conscientious Reader do I commit this for Judgement betwixt us and our ábusive Adversary, to judge whether he has not rather added to his Abuse then excused it. Observ. 6. I take notice of his representing an Appeal made by some (professed Socinians, or in their Behalf) and the Answer in Print, his Discant thereon, complaining, That our Friends, instead of hearing the Persons grieved, etc. constitute the Person offending to determine & give Sentence in his own Case: Such a Procedure as this: (ayes he) I believe is not to be instanced, the Quaker excepted, among any sort of Men, either Christian or Heathen. Answ. I answer his Complaint from his own Hand. First, As for their constituting W. P. to Answer the Appeal, instead of Hearing the Appealers: He tells us in the same page, the Answer of our Friends was, That William Penn had answered it: How then could they constitute him upon the Appeal (as Tho. Hicks falsely insinuates) to answer when it was answered before the pretended Appeal made. 2dly, As to the Complaint of our not Hearing the Persons grieved, and scornfully treating them, I answer; We scornfully treat no one; but they coming to advocate for a Nameless Socinian-Pamphlet, we thought it but reasonable to inquire the Author of the Abuse, who, Jesuit-like, had under Coverts and Disguise attempted to assassinate the Reputation of our Religion and Persons; such Mascaradoes in Religious Matters we did and do disdain, and judged their Missaries unworthy reception, and gave the Answer, as T. H. recites, as their due Demerit. And 3dly, For passing Sentence without Hearing the Person complained, not to be instanced, as he says, among any sort of men, either Christian or Heathen (us excepted) I answer, T. Hicks in his very next following words appollogizing (for the Barbican-Sentence) says he, It will be requisite (and I presume W. Penn hath not Reason to be offended, it being his own Method) for this once, that a Fool be answered according to his Folly. Well, what would this man have? Why so angry at us for doing that for which he justifies his own Party? Nay, I am sure he has parralelled our Case with Advantage, and that upon his own showing; In short, he rails, he abuses, he contradicts, he excuses; Not a Case (says T. H.) to be instanced; and presently he gives us one himself: which truly puts me in mind of a plain English Proverb, very suitable for his learning, viz. A Liar had need of a Good Memory. Obs. 7. And to verify this, take the last Passage in his Postscript upon his Discant of W. P. telling them, that their Appeal did not intent such Power of Judgement in the Baptists, that they should try whether Tho. Hicks was guilty, and to stand by their Judgement right or wrong; upon this T. Hicks runs his Ordinary Course of Mistake and Abuse, as if we would judge a Man without hearing, and pass a Sentence without Examination, and so descends to his Litany (saying) From such Government and Governor Good Lord deliver me. Alas! he had wittingly or willingly forgot the End of the Appeal; if he return but to his Judge's Epistle to their Reader, in their dark Representatives thereof, he will find our End of Appeal was to know, if they would own him and his Work, that according we might deal with him; and to manifest the Nature and Intent of the Appeal against T. H. see in pag. 22. in the Section of Forgeries charged on T. H. says W. Penn, And God will require this Wickedness at the Church's Hand to which he relates, if they indulge or connive at it: See more pag. 33, & 34. Does any believe it reasonable we should make our Enemies absolute Judges, or according to that come Anglicism, Ask a Man whether his Brother he a Thief, and submit to his Opinion? The Matter in Question was, whether they would own him and his Work, that we might deal with them separate, or as Confederates in Abuse. And he that would strain the Appeal further, may at that rate make the unconverted Gentiles Judges over Peter and John, who appealed to them; the Pharisees over Christ in the Parable of the Husbandman; and the Men of Israel over the Lord God Almighty, who were called to Judge betwixt him and his Vine: They are Judges to whom we call for Justice and Judgement, which, if denied, or not executed, we appeal from them, and testify against them and their Judgement; so this I affirm is Reasonable, Equal and Practicable, as well in Religious as Civil Matters, as well in Courts Ecclesiastical as Civil.; so we with W. P. deny their Judgement. Concluding with the Prophet's words, He looked for Judgement, but behold Oppression; for Righteousness, but behold a Cry, Isa. 5.7. Observ. 7. I observe T. Hicks takes no small Pains in his Postscript to present his Reader with his Willingness of a public Meeting, and Promise of regular Dispute, if we will believe the Rules he prescribeth, shall be so to him: How fair a Disputant, and how capable he is for that purpose, Time will experience hereafter. Surely T. H. hadst thou either regard to Honesty or any Measure of Truth amongst Men, thou'lst not have dared so to misrepresent G. W's Dealing with thee about a public Meeting: Certainly thou mayst remember G. W. did first charge thee for Gross Errors, Self Contradictions and Forgeries, and required an Open Meeting to make it good; Didst thou then directly accept of it? Thou knowest to the contrary; but instead thereof givest thy Six Particulars to thwart his Charge: Howbeit, G. W. did sufficiently condescend and earnestly endeavoured for a public Meeting with thee, to make good his Charge against thee; which thy perverse Delatory Letters (to evade his Charge) prevented as by the Letters then passed betwixt you may be made evident to any Mind and Understanding. Answerable unto this Account was the Carriage of William Kiffin and his Brethren at Barbican; what Pains in our Absence did they take to represent us, as Fugatives, as Runagates, as Persons not daring to meet them, as Persons with whom they had used their utmost Endeavour and Capacity to meet publicly, and always by us denied. Thus did they insult and romance behind our Backs, when at the same time (as I have just Cause to believe) they desired nothing less: Nay farther, such various Reports, such artificial Representations, such abusive Constructions, have they and their Confederates filled the Minds of the Unsteady People, as if to Misrepresent, to Belie and Slander us were so far from Injustice, that 'twere their Duty, yea, meritorious to be found (against us) in such immoral Practices. I grant, by Contending alone they have got the Goal (a Boy of Seven can do the like) at which Achievement they do not a little Rejoice and Insult: and as T. Hicks made a Quaker of his own, and baited him for being such, these designed a Meeting for themselves, and quarrel because they accomplished it. Mistake me not; I intent not to involve all those who are under the denomination of Anabaptists as Actors and Accessaries in this late Abuse; But Tho. Hicks, William Kiffin, Han. Knowles, Tho. Paul, John Norcott, Robert Snelling, Jonathan Jenings, Joseph Mortan, John Hunter, William Dix, Edw. Noble, Joh. Singleton Dr. Daniel Dyke, John Gosnell, Hen. Forty, Tho. Wilcocks, Maurice King, Tho. Plaint, Owen Davies, John Snelling, John Vernon, Ro. Maton, James Baron. Judges in the late Judicature. and their actual Abettors and Confederates be they, Presbyter, Independent, Socinian, etc. Neither intent I this to obstruct any other, who may further scrutinize their Work and late abusive Pamphlet; only thus much I judged my Duty, as a present Reproof to their late Actions of Abuse and Falseness. And this from a Real Lover of Truth, and Hater of Falsehood, Thomas Rudyard. THE END.