Page images
PDF
EPUB

GOD thro' the Satisfaction, Merits and Mediation of Christ,as our high, Prieft,and was afterwards profecuted by the Arch-Bishop of Dublin and banished the Kingdom: But let a Man be what he will in his private Opinion, there is no way for him by a Liturgy to vent his Errors, or to cheat the People: And truly when we confider what fad ftuff is Preached and Prayed and vented in Catechifing(as I have hinted at in my Fourth Number)it is an invincible Argument to let the People understand the neceffity of a found and folid Liturgy, and to oblige the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom, to make their Families Nurseries of Piety and Devotion, by the Book of Common-prayer; and in procefs of time this might bring the Commons, to Knowledge and Solidity, and let them see how far they have been misled by falfe Teachers, fuch Teachers as are not afraid to print fuch Words as thefe; That the Lord's Prayer is a loathfome, lifeless, fapless Worship, as the Author of the Cafuiftical Effay afferts, and an Engine from Hell to pervert the Gospel of Chrift; yea, the Author doubts not but to get all that are exercised in Godliness to fay with him. See pag. 318, 320.

As for the Fafts and Festivals, they are Helps, Hedges and Ornaments in the Church, by which the fubftantial Points of Religion are Yearly Preached, and the futable Devotions are put up in an Unity and Uniformity. We know at Edinburgh, how Men worship God at London and Dublin: So that three Kingdoms are like one Paroch Kirk, and one Kirk like one Man, with one Heart and one Mouth Worshipping and Glorifying God.

I am blam'd by fome of my own Friends, for using some Invectives against my Adverfaries, particularly Numb. 4. But when they have read his Answers, and found, that there was not fix Lines in nine Sheets of Paper, without either Railing, Scolding, Lying or Pedantry; they told me, he deserved ten times more, but that Satyr, perfonal Reflections or uncharitable Truths should not proceed or drop from the Pen of an Episcopal Minifter; because that was but like the Party we condemn our felves. I took very well with the Reproof, and therefore in my last Number I used not one harsh Expreffion, but an Advertisement to all Parties to come to my Meeting-house, that I might let Men fee with their Eyes from the Books, which we both mentioned,how palpably my Adverfary falfified, in the chief Points debated between us. I am ready to renew the fame Challenge in any place within the City of Edinburgh. I did this to the Conviction of all that came to hear me, but none of my Antagonist's Party came to the Place. I refer it to the Univerfities, and if they do not find him an impudent Lyar, I fhall undergo what Penance they please to impose upon me.

I fhall not contend with them in Railing or Lying, but for Truth and Reasoning I fhall never yield. And in these my Numbers I make it plain, that I have the beft of the Reformers on my fide, particularly Mr. Calvin for Epifcopacy, Liturgy, Fafts and Festivals and Church Ceremonies: So that a Church of England Man can hardly fay more for the Doctrine, Worship and Government of that Church, which Presbyterians daily pray God to confound and overturn. They have all the SeEtarians, Deifts, Atheists and Republicans on their fide;but if God be with us who can be against us? It is His Cause we have in Hand, and we need not fear tho' twenty Legions of Devils oppofe us.

THE

Anti-Counter-Querist

COUNTER-QUERIED.

To the Reader.

HE Things I take most notice of in the Anti-Counter-Querift, are,
His confident Affertions: As,

I. That the Establishment of Presbitry is a Fundamental Article in

the Union.

II. That the Chriftians of Conftantinople (whofe Diffent is upon
Principle of Confcience) would prize the Liberty which Diffenters" in
Scotland have, who feparate only upon Policick.

III. That the Act of Union did confirm the fole Right of Baptizing to the Presbiterian Kirk, and the abufing of that Ordinance and of Marriage, mov'd the Government to take that Priviledge out of the Hands of the Epifcopal Clergy.

IV. That it is but of late that the Epifcopals in Scotland, claim'd to be of the Church of England.

V. That the Jetting up of the Book of Common-Prayer was not fo much as attempted in the Time of our late Epifcopacy.

VI. His afferting the Loyalty of Presbiterians, and the Difaffection of the Clergy, to the Civil Government.

VII. That the perpetuating Epifcopal Ordination in Scotland, does fupport a Party, who never pretended Confcience, for Jeparating from the establift'd Government and Worship.

The Anti-Counter-Querift is answered by these following Counter-Queries.

[ocr errors]

The FIRST Affertion.

That the Establishment of Presbytry is a Fundamental Article of the Union.
AS
S to the Eftablishment of Presbytry, by the Union, it is demanded, Who
can interpret the Articles of the Union better than the Parliament it felf?
Or, who can give the Meaning of the Law better than the Sovereign and the Parlia-
ment, when inconvenient Emergencies fall out? Or, was ever the Kirk Government
fo much as mention'd in the Treaty of the Articles of the Union? Or, did ever the
Queen and Parliament intend, that the Establishment of Presbitry should be like the
Laws of the Medes and Perfians, that should never alter?

2do. Did ever the Sovereign and Parliament intend by the Establishment of Presbitry in Scotland, that the Queen's Indulgence to the Epifcopal Clergy, which was be fore the Union, fhould be of no Effect? Or, by the Union, is there an arbitrary and illimited Power put in the Hands of Presbitry, to murder Epifcopacy and the Liturgy, in Scotland, but to establish it in England,where the Presbiterians have a Tolleration? Or that these who are Epifcopally inclin'd in Scotland,fhould not have the Word preach'd and Sacraments adminiftred by an Epifcopal Ministry? Or that none should baptize the Children of Bishops, Presbiters, or of Deacons or their Flock, but Presbiterians, who baptize in to a Party, and not in the Principles of the Catholick Church: As alfo, many of them baptize and communicate in the Solemn League and Covenant, which was refcinded by Parliament, and never yet reviv'd by any Law in this Revolution? 3tio. Either the Queen and Parliament fecure Prebiterian Government in Scotland, because it is of Divine Right, or upon the Account of its being a convenient Politick for the Time. If because it is of Divine Right, then must not Englaud confefs her Church to be but an Human Conftitution? If upon a politick Conveniency, then, Can Presbitry claim more than Jews, Turks and Pagans in fuch Circumstances? Or, what if that Politick, in process of Time,. fhould be found inconvenient? Is there no Remedy, but ftill to continue, tho' it were in the Power of Governours to help it? What if Presbiterian Opinions, and the Inclinations of the People, should alter? Is not this a poffible Suppofition? And has not the like been feen? And what if Presbitry be found an infupportable Grievance to the Nation, as truly it is? Is there no Remedy provided for the Peace of the Kingdoms, fpecially if they fee better Things, and are in Confcience convinc'd that they were in an Error? Or can any Human E

stablishment

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

stablishment make a falfe Kirk to be true, or a wrong Party to be Right? Or what Unity have Presbiterians with any National Church in the Chriftian World? Or what Unity have they among themselves,except it be in doing Mischiet? For do not not all Men perceive,that no Paroch in Kingdom knows how the Other worship God? 4to. Did the Union intend (to please the Presbiterians) to let Epifcopacy and the Book of Common-Prayer, fink, die and expire in Scotland; or to promote their own Church in any Part of the World except in Scotland? If fo, ought not Presbiterians to get a Declaration from the British Parliament, that this was the Meaning thereof, before we be oblig'd to believe them? Or is it likely, that the Wisdom of the Govern. ment should favour Presbitry for its ill Nature, and trample upon Epifcopacy for its good Nature?

5to. When James Stewart, in his Letter to Mijn Heer Fagel, lays, That it is against the Nature of the Chriftian Religion,that one Party should have Power to perfecute another: And that it is abfurd to think,that a fubjequent Parliament cannot difannul what a former decreed: May not this plead for the Epifcopal Clergy now, as well as it did for Papifts and Presbiterians when King James VII. gave both a Tolleration by an Arbitrary Power, against the Law of the Land, and when Epifcopacy was as well eftablished by Law at that time, as ever Presbitry was at any other time?

6to. Can there be a firmer Union betwixt the Two Kingdoms,than there is between Man and Wife, of different Principles and of Religions? And yet may not the Husband notwithstanding the Matrimonial Ties,curb the Infolencies of an infulting Wife? Yea,may he not divorce her, when it is evidently made appear, that she made feveral Attempts to cut his Throat,and that purpofely to get another Husband to her felf of her own Opinion and Principles.

6to. And is not this the very Cafe of the English Church and the Scots Kirk, when it is found by Experience, that Presbyterians are fworn Enemies to the Hiearchy and the Liturgy? Or why fhould Toleration in England, to Diffenters, be right, and to Scots Diffenters be wrong? Have they any better Answer to to this, than that Byword in Scotland, Hackerton's Cow; or that in England, The Cafe is alter'd,faid Ployden? 7mo. Is it not evident, that Scots Presbitry intends to give a fecond Overturn to the Church of England, while in Scotland they imprisoned Epifcopal Minifters who were qualified, and made no Ufe of the Liturgy; when in the mean time, they protected the general Meeting of the Quakers, from the Infults of the Rabble? Yea, do they not constantly preach, and pray,and write against it? Did not the Committee of the General Assembly make an Act, ordaining all their Incumbents in the Nation to preach it down? And will not thefe Men fight against it,if ever it be in their Power? And may we not thank their Weakness rather than their Wills, that they are not in in Arms already; for no lefs do they threaten? See Inftances hereof in the Poftfcript.

The SECOND Affertion.

That the Chriftians of Conftantinople,who diffent upon a Principle of Confcience, would prize the Liberty that the Clergy have in Scotland, who dissent but upon Politick.

WI

Ith what Confidence or Confcience can this be afferted? Have not the Chriftians of Conftantinople, Baptifm, Confirmation and the Lord's Supper, from the Patriarch? And have not the Diffenters in England Indulgence to baptize? And has not the Patriarch Power of Ordination, and of perpetuating the Apoftolical Succeffion? And is not this the Liberty that is deny'd to the Clergy in Scotland? Yea, did not a learned Senator, openly in the College of Juftice, declare in the Cafe of Mr. Greenfbileds, That an exauctorate Bishop had no more Power to Ordain, than a common Ballad-Cryer? Again, whereas it is faid, that it is not Confcience but Politick that makes the Clergy diffent from their Presbitry: With what Knowledge or Confcience can this be faid, when by the Principles of the Teft, the Clergy, Heretors, and all in publick Trust, were fworn to breed their Children therein, and against Phanaticifm as well as against Popery? Is not Epifcopacy fworn against Presbitry by the Teft, as well as Presbitry is fworn against Epifcopacy by the Solemn League and Covenant? So then I ask this bold Afferter, Whether it was GOD or the Devil told him this? If it was GOD, how can he prove it? If the Devil, who fhould believe him or the Devil either, who was a Liar frum the Beginning?

The THIRD Affertion.

That the Act of Union did confirm the fole Right of Baptizing to the Presbyterian Kirk.

IS

S not this in plain Terms to fay, That no Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, or any of their Hearers or Adherent,sfhall have Liberty to baptize or marry their own Children,

unless

unless it be with a Presbiterian Teacher? Is it poffible that a wife Proteftant British Parliament, could mean fo much by the Union? Would it, for all the Union,put fuch a Sword in Presbiterians Hands as would cut it's own Throat? Would it cut off it's own Leg to put on a Timber Leg? Muft the Epifcopal Party in Scotland receive Ordinances from Presbiterians, whom they believe not to be lawful Ministers? And if fome fcandalous Marriages were made by two or three Curats in Scotland, what could be the Caufe of this, but that the Power of Bishops in depofing and cenfuring irregular Practices in their Clergy, was reftrain'd by Presbiterians? And when the Clergy made Complaints to the Advocate and Magiftrates,(who had Power to punish fuch delinquent Clergy men) this was not taken notice of out of any Com. paflion to the fcandalous Marriage-Makers,(whofe Straits reduc'd them to fuch Shifts) but out of Cunning to uphold the fcandalous Report on the Clergy in general, and to Stain the whole Epilcopal Order?

The FOURTH Affertion.

That it is but of late that the Epifcopal Clergy claim'd Communion with the Church of England.

IS

'S not this a notorious Falfhood! For had not the Clergy of Scotland their Ordination from England in 1662, by Bishops whole Presbiterian Ordination was look'd upon as Invalid, to wit, Mr Sharp, Fairfoul, Lighton and Hamilton? And did not the Bishops of Scotland ordain and confecrat? And did not many of the Clergy confecrat the Elements by the Book of Common-Prayer? Befides, did not the Epifcopal Clergy and Laicks abjure Presbitry with its Solemn League and Covenant, and promifed to breed up their Children in these Principles, and ftill to adhere to that Abjura

tion.

The FIFTH Affertion.

That the Bishops never so muchas attempted the Bringing in the Book of Common-prayer when they were in Power.

May not, Presbiterians be counter-queried upon this Point, thus, Why did they not bring in the Solemn League and Covenant, when thefe Twenty Years and upwards, they are in Place, and yet preached it up in the Hills against King and Laws when they were out of Place? And (as is faid) there was Ufe made of the Liturgy, and of other Form of found Words in it? And now when the Clergy is out of Poft,is it not lawful for them to be in the Communion of the Church, and to ule the Service which is against no Law, but only against Presbiterian Acts of Affemblies, to which in Confcience the Clergy cannot conform by the Principles of the Teft? Befides tho' fomething were defective in former Times, as the Want of a Liturgy, will that fay, that Things should never be amended, when Occafion prefents?

The SIXTH Affertion.

That Presbytry is well affected to the Civil Government, and the other Party diffaffected.

Is i

it not a new World, when Rebels get the Name of Loyalifts, and Loyalifts are called Rebels, and yet none of them chang'd in their former Principles? The one profeffing the Doctrine of paffive Obedience, and the other the Doctrine of Refittance, for mantaining their Kirk Government? Which of thefe will readily make the best and most Christian Subje&t in a Nation? How have fome of the Clergy been perfecuted who qualified to the Government? How does Presbiterian Loyalty confift with threatning to rife up in Arms against Queen and Parliament? And who will be the Rebels in Cafe they do rife? And of whom muft the Queen expect Affistance in cafe of a Presbyterian Resistance, but of Epifcopal Subjects? And are thefe the Men who should be trampled on by Presbiterian Tyrany, or Lenity as they call it? Ought not fuch peaceable Subjects have an Indulgence from a Proteftant Queen by Law, as Presbyte rians had from a Popish King? And whether is the Memory of Oliver the Ufurper more favory to thefe Loyalifts, than the Memory of K. Charles the Martyr? And is not the Calf-Head Club a noble Cadet and beautiful Branch of the Presbiterian Family? The SEVENTH Affertion.

That the Perpetuating an Epifcopal Succeffion, is but the fupporting of a Party, that never pretended Confcience to feparate from the established Government, till of late.

WAs not the Clergy fworn against Presbitry and canonically fworn to Epifcopacy? And now feeing many of the Clergy and of the Laity are convinced of the Invalidity of Presbiterian Ordination, and of the Abfurdities of their Worship, and that no Paroch in the Kingdom knows, how their next Paroch worships God, with what Con

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Confcience can the whole Nation conform to Presbitry? Yea what Lofs might the Chriftian Religion be at, tho' Presbitry were rooted out of the Earth? Had not Chrift a Church upon Earth before ever Presbiterian Government was heard of in the World? And feeing they lay no Claim to the apoftolical Succeffion, and confequently have no Title to our Saviour's Promife: 28 Matth. Lo I am with you to the End of the World; With what Confidence fhould they defire (by the Union) to be continued as a true Church to the End of the World, when they do not derive their Miniftry from the Apoftles? Or can they fhew for fifteen Hundred Years a Presbiterian National Church in any Part of the World? Or are there not an Hundred Chiefs of Kin in Scotland, who are Four Hundred Years elder than Presbiterian Government? Or have the Presbiterians better Arguments for their Antiquity than the learned Mr. David Williamfon, who in his Sermon before the Parlia ment on the 2 Palm 10. (which he, after Delivery of it, did print) and afferts that Chrift died a Martyr for Presbitry, which he proves by thefe Words, Jefus of Nazareth King of the Jews; which if true, will it not follow, that the Jews were Presbiterians? And if fo, will it not follow from that, that it was the Presbiterians that crucified Chrift? And if they crucified him, will they ftand upon it to crucify the Church of England? And if this be found to be their Intention, ought not all the true Sons of the Church look to their own Security?

W

POSTSCRIPT.

[ocr errors]

Hereas the Presbiterian Querifts boast of their Lenity and Loyalty, they must either be in Jeft,or elfe be ftranegly infatuate, if they believe themselves For the Spirit of the Hynd let loose which juftifies the Murther of King Charles I. and of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrew's, is the Complexion of that Party, and a historical Narration of their. Lenity to the Epifcopal Clergy (even those that did not use a Lirurgy and were qualified)in this Revolution will demonftrate, That the tender Mercies af the Wicked are cruel. If fometimes the Wolf be bound up in Chains, he is but a Wolf ftill, and as ill as ever he was when let loofe: And their Design upon the Church of England is manifeft from their Imprecatory Prayers throughout the Nation, against the Bishops, and the Book of Common Prayer, calling it Popish and Idolatrous: Five Hundred Inftances can be given of this, I shall mention Two, One is of B. F, who faid, Lord bear down this Popish and Idolatrous Book of Common-Prayer, and if Thou do not more for us Lord, will Thou keep it on the other Side of Tweed: And the fame Perfon in a Sermon faid, They tell us Prayers and Tears are proper Weapons of the Church; but Sirs, I'll tell you much better, Swords and Pistols.

Again, about Three Years ago, when an English Regiment lay near to the City of Edinburgh and used the English-Service, the Presbiterian Holder-forth in that Place, took Occafion to express himself according to the ignorant Zeal of the Partie, and in the common Cant told in Pulpit, That the Book of Common-Prayer was rank Po. pery and Idolatry; at which the Chief Officer of the Regiment (hearing that this was faid) gave Orders to the Chaplain to lay afide the Service, because it gave Offence; which gave great Occafion of Clamour among the well principled People, who are the Supernumerary Part in that Paroch, and gave Ground of Jealoufie to infer, that the Commanders were either Heart Phanaticks, Luke-warm, cowardly. or were brib'd by the Presbiterian Party.

You

The next Lords Day, the Holder-forth took Courage to lay to his People, fee Sirs we have filenced a Regiment, we'll foon filence the Curate: The Church of England,Sirs,is the Great Goliab; but the Kirk of Scotland is but Little-Davie; but you'll fee Little Davie will take a Sling and a Stone, and brain the Great Goliah to · the Ground.

Whereas the Anti-counter-querift in his roth Querie afferts, That R.C. was convict of Forgery, anent M. D's Catechifm by M. WJ. It is anfwered, That M. W. J was convict of M. R. C's Candour and Ingenuity, and produced the Book before famous Witnesses in Edinburgh, who are ready to prove the Anti-counter-querift to be an impudent Liar. A publick Account of this Matter fhall be shortly publish'd, and that to the Difgrace of the Party.

It is better known in the Stewartrie of Orknay, that a reverend Brother of that Party was convict of Sheep-ftealing; and when this was brought above, the whole Fra- fourd ternity concerned themselves for the poor guilty Brother, and interceeded with the Juftices of Peace to let that Procefs fall: The Juftices would not do it, but upon Condition, that all the Brethren fhould fay the Lord's Prayer in their respective Congregations, which was yielded to,and (as we hear) continues fo: I conclude there fore, that it was a happy Sheep-stealing that brought in the Ule of the Lords into that Country.

FINI S.

"prayer

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »