First, AS for their Commission, they deriv'd 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 then 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 appeal'd to) respecting Appeal before made to them; and so there is in p. 28. & p. 40. of W. Penn's Book, entituled, 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 your selves; right our Profession of such an Unfair Adversary, and your selves of so Scandalous an Advo­cate.

In p. 40. W. Penn, after he had charg'd him with twenty gross Perversions, &c. 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 [Page 8]those Propositions I did write and publish, other some mine Enemy did feign, now ad­ding, then diminishing and taking away, now falsly 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 desend to the second Particular, which is:

2. The Calling of their Court, and Notice to Persons concern'd.

It is observable that W. P's Books were delivered at their-Meeting-House Doors the 2d of the Moneth 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 Moneth 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 publick Meeting; [Page 9]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 Moneth 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:

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.

[Page 11] 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 then their Presence, and desired nothing more then 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. VV. 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 mixt Au­ditory: and by the East of England in Philip Ford's Letter, he represented VV. 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 publick Abuse, VV. K. has pri­vately acknowledged his Mistake to his Friends, and so we excuse him.

But as to VV. 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; [Page 12]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 Dayes to assoil himself; Per­sons not outlawed under two, if not three Terms: But we must be Adjudged, Con­demned, Sentence past on us as Runnagates or Outlaws upon eight or nine Dayes 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 Hearings, and suspend Judgments, 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, [Page 13]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 then infallible in this Case: say W. K. &c. 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. Logick, Relat. Epist. Reader, sayes he, for W. Penn sayes, That to which an Appeal is made must be capable of giving an Infallible Judgment; and so a true Judge: Consequently, sayes W. K. &c. 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! [Page 14]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 your selves? 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 Blood-shed, reproves the Unrighte­ous, and gives impartial Judgment without Respect of Persons) a true & upright Judge, and capable of true Judgment betwixt him and the Socinian; and shall you strain your Achievements to Infallibility?

But why should W. Kiffin, &c. so unequal­ly repeat W. P 's Words? Can they no more then T. Hicks, truly repeat a Sentence with­out Abuse? We might have expected better Dealing from their Gravity; but I debt it.

Sayes W. Penn, Spir. of Truth vindic. p. 78. That to which he (viz. the Socinian) makes an Appeal must be capable, &c. 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, &c. that they might sit in Judgment with­out Controle, wrests that Discourse (which respected and referred to that particular Ap­peal to the Light or Spirit of God (so limi­ted [Page 15]by the Appealers) & layes them down in other Words then had W. P. viz. That to which an Appeal is made, &c. or else the Ap­peal is foolish.—Compare but the Words, and their Artifice is seen; weigh their Sense and thou wilt see their Deceit: VV. 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 Judgment: But W K. &c. (with A W. Penn saith) in an abusive Manner belies his Words, alters his Sense, wrests 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. &c. their metamorphosing them. — That to which he makes an Appeal must be capable of giving an Infallible Judg­ment, and so a true Judge, or else he appeals foolishly: But the Light within is that to which he makes an Appeal, &c. Consequently, sayes W. K. &c. 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 Judgment of Men? Nothing less. Had it been so, then those Anabaptists had half cover'd their Cheat, when now it is plain to the mea­nest [...] [Page 16]Man of Reason: And at this Rate might the Anabaptists argue, Is the Light or Spirit of the Almighty God capable of Judgment 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 apear 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 then each are calculated to cheat the Reader, and gull their Auditory, I find not. And how T. Hicks, W. Kiffin, &c. have made as well their Writings, published to the World, as their publick 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's Injustice for [...] [Page 17] 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, &c. 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, &c. gi­ven in Charge? will they enter into Doctri­nals and Fact, or Fact alone? none shall know by their Writing, but by their Acti­ons; [Page 18]'tis manifest, they went upon neither fairly, but traduced both unjustly.

Again, But W. K. &c. 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 Tryals? 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 Try­al 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, &c. demonstrates them [Page 19]in Print, as to Manner and Form, complains of the Injustice, and leaves the particular Sections with the Anabaptists. W. K. &c. call T. H. before them, never read the Charge, or required him to answer what VV. P. had particularly laid down against him in those Sections, and pass Judgment for his Innocency and our Guilt. 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, then he could ease himself with the other.

And he who could countefeit 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 villanous 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, [Page 20]Thief or Bloodshed, but having such Tems of Tryal, could acquit themselves how guilty soever: But for T. H. I must say, Our English Right is maintained by this Maxime, 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 then the greatest Malefactors would desire in the like Case, had they such Brethren for Judges: But how equal such Procedure is on the Judges Parts, who suffers such unju­stice: A weak Capacity is able to give a Judgment.

I doubt not, but W. K. &c. in the Eye of the Judicious and unbiassed (notwith­standing their high claim to Infallibility) will appear to be one and Confederate in the Lyes, 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. [Page 21]in the first of these, viz. that of Forge­ries, no less then eight, and of Perver­sion in the second Section no less then 14. wholely 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 Lyes and Slanders; he omits no less then eleaven Particulars; and the next Section of T. Hicks his Contradictions, who­ly 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 wholy 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 [Page 22]the same; vide Quak. App. Answ pag. 32. Although W. K. &c. 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 Judgment.

To find any thing in the pretended An­swer to the Appeal or Relation thereof, that bespeaks it self a Judgment 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 casily demonstrate.

But to their Judgment; Our Charge a­gainst their Brother is for many Forgeries, Lyes and Perversions, particlarly charged and proved against him in two Books of [Page 23]W. P. entituled, Reason against Railing, and, The Counterfcit Christian Detected; which, if not relieved against, we should in­terpret as the Act of the whole Baptists, &c. 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. VVhether he has been guilty or not guilty of Lyes, Forgeries and Perversions, in Man­ner and Form as W. Penn charged and de­monstrated against him? But have they given such a Judgment? 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 oblique 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 [Page 24]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, &c. wholely omitted.

The Relation allows W. P. to answer such or such a Particular is a Lye, or Forgery, or Slander; but to tell him how, he denyes him Liberty: As if a Prosecutor of a Malefactor should be only licensed to acquaint a Court, That the Man was a Thief, Murderer or Burglar; but must not reveal his Fellony, 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 VVilliam Kiffin, Han. Knowles, &c. with their Brother Tho. Hicks [Page 25]not only their Procedure at their Judicature in Barbican, but the pretended Relation thereof doth fully demonstrate.