Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57816
|
An answer to a scandalous paper of T. Hicks, term'd A rebuke to T.R. &c. with a reassumption our former complaint and charge against T. Hicks / by a lover of truth, Thomas Rudyard.
|
Rudyard, Thomas, d. 1692.
|
1674
(1674)
|
Wing R2176; ESTC R29339
|
14,120
|
48
|
AN ANSWER TO A Scandalous Paper OF T. Hicks term'd A Rebuke to T. R. c. 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 term'd 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 Lyes Slanders and Perversions traduc'd 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 Changling 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 prest 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 ANSVVER TO A Scandalous Paper Of T. Hicks c. Sect. I. HE first insinuates that my late Paper was not a Discussion of the Anabaptists Proposals to pursue his Charge sayes further That the whole of those Pages wherein I concern my self with the above named Proposals gave the Lye to my Title Page For the Reason of his first he sayes 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 my self 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 excus'd 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 Lye to the Title-Page I answer That if T. H. will please to review his and mine he may know whether the Lye 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 Publick to discuss our Charge of Forgeries against him He would perswade me or his Reader that I know to the contrary To which I say I never denyed but T. H. has been frequent in Boasting in Print and behind our Backs how ready he would be to abide a Publick Hearing but I must ever affirm my Belief that he intends nothing less witness one Meeting at Barbican the 9th of the 8th Moneth where he strove to avoid our Charge against him by charging us and we being Earnest in our Charge he hastily left the Pulpet and Assembly And another Meeting at Wheeler-Street the 16th of the same Month he came no nearer then a Neighbouring AleHouse though the Meeting was appointed and he was expected six or seaven 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 alledg'd that the Anabaptists proposed fifty or sixty excluding all others as Witnesses to hear the Debate whereas sayes 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 Publick Meeting and then but a few Hours with him And 2dly a second Assembly where he met us not at thence from Publick proposed a Private and at the Closewould shuffle us from having either publick or private Sect. IIII. Then he insinuates as if I had not answer'd the Proposals at all alledging I passed them over in deep Silence not in the least taking notice of my general Answer yet comprehensive viz. The Proposals for private c. 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 oblieged to give their Answers to such Charges as T. H. shall exhibit against them This Proposition I fully and largely discust withall telling him that it was both against the Laws Civil and Ecclesiastical to be oblieg'd 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 fum'd 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 Epithetes 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
him that W. K. and J. I. in Principles although now Confederates differ more then 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 sayes T. H. they differ not in these Essential Points â—â— Christianity as that Jesus Christ is a distinct Person without us that the Hâ—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 lyes 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 then 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 then these afore nam'd they may differ in them and so my Dictate not notoriously false though in these they agree but there are many more Principles then 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 then 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 c. one that he came to save All the other but to save a Few but as to the before mention'd 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 then quarrels against my Enquiry what Sort of Christian the Quaker was not And wholy 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 c. upon himself as I may hereafter shew 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 profest Turks or Heathens as you would have us shall not your Brother answer for his Forgeries Lyes and Slanders It is your Belief that an Heretick 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 Tryal 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 tire 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 your selves 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 then the Nature of the Contest the Anabaptist Mannagement thereof directly call'd 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 Counterfit 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 redeem'd by his Blood profess themselves oblieged 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 call'd 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 accompted 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 rose 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 Judgment and render to every man according to his Works It seems this is T. Hicks's 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 distinguisht Hereticks from Orthodox See Eusebius But T. Hicks is not of that mind 2. He hath not distinguisht 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 then an Eye for an Eye He washeth Not Feet anointeth Not with Oyl sings Not Psalms He confesseth and holds That no man can keep those Precepts 4. If this be a true Christian in Tho. Hicks's 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 dyed 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 â—beyed yea that the