« PreviousContinue »
Queries to the Presbyterians,
( By the Author of the Anti-counter-Queries, Counter-queried) Upon several Things mention' in their Queries, in their Addrefs and
Petition to the QUEEN upon the Toleration, and their other Papers; Viz. 1. As 10 Their Lenity. II. Their Loyalty. III. Of the good Character they give to themselves. IV. Of the vile Titles they give to the Clergy. V. of their own Sufferings in the Time of Episcopacy. Vi. Of the Divine Right of their Government. VII. Of the Purity of their Worship.
I. Of their Lenity. Assing by the Cruelties they exercis'd upon very many in the Days of Oliver, such as Dr. Wishart, afterwards Bishop of Edinburgh, whom they kept Seventeen Months in Haddo's-Hole, without permitting him so much as to change a
Shirt; how shall they answer for their Lenity in the Beginning of this Revolution, in the Rabbling out of above Three Hundred Ministers, in exposing them and their Families to the Inclemency of the Weather, in the Dead of Winter, to the Ha-zard and Loss of some of their Lives? And how did the First P---------- in the 1690 Year ratify the Deed of the Rabble, that Ministers remov'd by that Crew, should have no Access to their Paroches; and this without giving a Hearing to them, or granting to them the Privilege of a common Thief? And when this was tossá in P-------- that it would be a Reflection to ratify such
a Deed; it was carried on by this Reason, That it was the Way and Method of the Reformation : So will not this Inference clearly follow : Whatever was done at the Reformation, should be a Rule to Posterity; but Rebellion and Rabbling was such, therefore it should be a Rule to Posterity?' And did not M.G. M. in a printed Sermon on 137. Pf: 5. in the HighChurch, approve of this Rabbling; so that the Actors, by his Gospel, were not obliged to repent of their Presbyterian Revolution-Lenity? And yet have they not the Confidence, in their Petition, to say, That they took in and continued feveral Hundreds of Episcopal Ministers in Scotland; whereas after a critical Search, it will be found, that there were scarce 30 Apoftates of the Clergy, that went in to Pres bytry in Scotland? And for them that were continued, was not that to be imputed to the happy Circumstances of the Ministers, to which Presbitry could have no Access, nor peaceable Living? And were not many others in a constant Vexation by the Tiranny of Presbitry, perfecuted, without giving an Account of their Informers or Accusers, tho' in the Case of a Presbiterian Teacher, they acted far otherwise? What false Stories, Lies and Calumnies, suborning and encouraging of false Witnesses, did they not raise and practise, to thrust Ministers from their Livings, without asking a Question for Conscience Sake? Is not this too well known, and shall be proven in several Places in the Nation? We can instance a large Town and Incorporation in the North, where M.W.M. à Presbiterian Teacher, intending to make Room for Two Teachers of his own Gang, by raising false and defamatory Libels against the Two Episcopal Ministers of the Place, a young Gentleman (who was educate Preibiterian) told, The Episcopal Ministers were good Men, and generally beloved of their People, and it would be a Difficulty to get them turn’d off. Besides he told, that these were Unchriftian and Unlawful Methods: To which M.W. M. that Presbiterian Gospeller, answered, thus, We must have up Presbitry at any Rate : Which indeed coold the Gentleman's Affe&tion to Presbitry for ever. And now when Presbiterians have the Impudence to say at home, That they brought in and continued several Hundreds of Ministers, where almost every Shiré in the Nation can further give them the Lie, what may not they say Abroad and among Strangers ? Besides, how mercilesly weré feveral Ministers perfecuted by SIS A, without making any Difference betwixt Compliers and no Compliers, is and shall be proven: For not long ago did he not persecute them separately with's Presbiterian Dilemma, thus : To one he says, Have you complied? If it was answered, Tea; he told, I love you all the worse, they are honester. Men that did not. To anothers
, if he asked, Have you complied? If it was answered, Nay; then he says, How can you then expect any Favour from the Government ? So berein, as in many Things else, he shew the Spirit of the Party.
II. Of Their Loyalty IT is ordinary for Presbiterians, on such Occasions, to cast up their Loyalty; but i ask them, Whether this be in their Principle or in their Practice? If in their Prin.
TO] ciple, must they not abjure the Solemn League and Covenant, which limits the King, but not the Parliament? If in their Practice, how shall they prove their Loyalty from the Days of Queen Mary of Scotland, when they refus’d to her Son K. James the VI. to pray for her, when Prisoner in England and in Hazard of Execution, which came on her at last; the King's Words were a very Christian Petition, That it might please God to illuminate Her with the Light of His Truth, and to save her from the apparent Danger wherein she was cast: The King gave Orders to the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrews to officiate at Edinburgh that Day; but by the Order of the Kirk, the Arch-Bishop was prevented by setting up one Mr. John Couper, a Probationer; which the King seeing, told from his Seat, That Place was appointed for another, but if he did obey Commands, he should be allowed to proceed: Meß John told lawcily and phanatically, That he should do as the Spirit should direct him; and thereupon very justly was forced to give Place to the Bishop. Spotsw: Hist: P: 354.
Another Instance of Loyalty to King James the VI. is of Mr. John Welsh, who preach'd, That the King was posést with a Devil, and one Devil being put out, seven worse were to enter. And that the Subjects might lawfully rise, and take the Sword out of his Hand. Sporlw: Hist: P. 430.
Witness also Mr. Robert Bruce's fawcy Reply to the King: I see, Sir, your Resolution is to take Huntley in Favour, which if you do, I will oppose, and you shall choose whether you shall lose Huntley or me, for both you cannot keep. Spotsw: P. 417. This Story is brought in to prove one of the Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety, by the Author of that Book.
But above all, Mr.David Blake’s Pulpit-Language is memorable, That the King had detected the Treachery of his Heart: That all Kings were the Devil's Bairns : That he might pray for the Queen for Fashion's sake, for she would never do them good: That the Queen of England was an Atheist. And other insolent Speeches to this purpose, is recorded by. Spois. p. 423.&c. and the said Blake when cited, was backed with his Kirk-Brethren, and declined the King and Council as proper Judges of Ministers Do&trines in Pulpit, as is recorded in the publick Registers at that time, which is a Vindication of the Verity of Archbishop Spotswood's History, and of Archbishop Bramhall's Frir Warning to beware of the Scots Presbyterian Discipline. Which stands true and sure, for all the pretended Answer given to it by Mr. Robert Baillie.
This, with their appointing a Fast on that Day, wherein the King appointed a Feast for entertaining the French Ambassador; and their attempting to keep the King Prisoner in the Council by a Rabble, Headed by the Lord Lindsay of Byres, are Demonstrations of their Villainy and treasonable Practices.
And as for King Charles I. it is evident to a Demonstration that they were the Perfons Unking'd him, and delivered him to the Hands of thofe thut beheaded him: It was their Principle to fight against him in the Field where they might kill him with a Musquet Ball; and what Difference is betwixt that and bringing his Head to a Scaffold ? " And whether was it they who resisted the King, or they who assisted him, that took away his Life? Or who did execute Montrole, the Instrument that appeared in his Defence ? Or who was better acquainted with Presbiterian Principles than the Author of the Hind let loose, who vindicates the Murder, and whom the Kirk in this Revolution sent to St. Andrew's as Teacher, and as a fit Man to train up the Youth at the University, and there to preach his loose Principles? And is there any thing more true than what the Independents say to the Presbiterians, It was you that took of the King's Head; for we took off" but Charles Stuart's Head? Or as Salmasius says, It was the Presbyterians that bound the Sacrifice, and the Independents that offered it. The Solemn League and Covenant, the A&t of the Weft-Kirk, and the Penitential Address of the Synod of Aberdeen, &c. which may be inserted in these Miscellanies, will declare who are to be blam'd for this barbarous Murder.
And for your Loyalty to King Charles II. witness your Insurrections' at Pentlanil-Hills and Bothwel-Bridge, &c.
And for King James VII. witness Monmouth's and Argyle's Rebellion; and Profession of constant Loyalty to him, and yet deserting the fame King in his Distress; an Instance of your Hypocrisy as well as of your Disloyalty? And if they instance their Loyalty to King William, is not this owing to his Power who kept them in awe, oher wife would they not have the Kingdom sworn totheir Solemn League and Covenant before this time of Day?
III. Of the high and loft ý Titles wherewith they extol their Faction. TH Hus the Petition begins, The Church of Christ in Scotland------- secured to us both by
the Laws of God and the Realm. What? Is not the Episcopal Church in Scotland
a Church of Christ? Or has Christ two Churches contradictory to one another, the one consisting of a Parity, the other of an Imparity? And how can that be the Church of Christ, that cannot nor dare offer to prove a Ministerial Succession from the Apostles? Or how can they prove themselves Christians when they baptize into a Party and not in the Principles of the Catholick Church, and mostly with a Covenant, which nullifies the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, being thereby engaged into the Devilish Sins of Schism and Rebellion ? And how comes the Church of Christ to put so small a Value on Baptism, as not to baptize dying Infants, except it be in a Church or on a Lecturing Day? Yea suffer them to die in the very Church, except. their Sermon be done? Or how are they Christians in their Prayers, that will not say the infallible Prayer of Jesus Christ? And have not we as great Reason not to call them Brethren, as St. Augustine had to say of the Donatifts, Now we cannot call them our Brethren, becausa they will not say, Our Father? Or how are they Christians in their Singing, when they do not distinguish themselves from Jews, who will sing the Psalms of David, but not one New-Testament Hymn ? And if their Pastors have not lawful Ordination, how can they administer the Lord's Supper? Or give the Seals of the Covenant of Grace? And with what Confidence can they call their Judicatory the Court of Christ, where there is so much Partiality, Injustice, suborning and encouraging of false Witnesses, as hias been, and shall be further proven to a Demonstration ? And can there be a truer Character given of Judges of such Courts of Christ (so called) than this, That truly Christ has little Credit of his Deputes ? IV. Of the vile. Characters they give the Clergy,' to wit, Tynorant, Negligent,
Scandalous and Erroneous. THE He old Sehismaticks, who accounted themselves the Godly Party, and rais’d scan
dalous and defamatory Libels against the Catholick Bishops, are not yet dead; so long as this Party is alive. But as for Ignorance, pray what great Proofs have they given of their Learning ? Have not their great Champions in publick bewrayed their Ignorance? Is this a Proof of Learning in D. R. in his Vindication of the Kirk of Scotland, to say on these Words of St. Jerome,
of St. Jerome, Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat ? makes that ( excepta ordinatione ) to be the ordering of the Meetings? Or what great Learning is there in that Author of Ratio Sacra, who p. 7. calls Cain an Arminian, Socinian and a Papist? Or what greater Ignorance than to say, That Christ died a Martyr for Presbyterian Government, and prove this from 19. John 19. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews? And for the People, I do not believe there is a more ignorant Crew in Christendom than they are, whichi I could demonstrate. Who thought they got more good to their Souls, than those who went to Hill-Conventicles, and yet who more erroneous and ignorant? M.W.V.an indulged Preacher declares in his Review of the History of the Indulgence, p: 527, 528. where he shews, that the People believed, That Baptism by Curats was the Mark of the Beast: That it was as lawful to hear them, as to worship Calves at Dan and Bethel ? And that a Woman dying had no other Evidence that it was well with her, but that she never heard a Curat?
As for Negligence, how many Score of Teachers can we instance in the Nation, who never catechis'd, seldom visited the Sick, and never gave the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, tho’they look on themselves as Ministers of Chirst?
And as for Scandals, I shall only ask them this applicable Query, Was it not great Confidence in a common Whore, who had born Seven Bastards in Adultery,and Three in Incest, to call a Woman Whore, who had brought forth but one Child in single Fornication ?
And for Error, as the Party can be libelled with many, may not the General Aff: be indi&ted for this one, in passing by the Censuring of Mr. James Hog, who in the 320 pag. of his Casuistical Essay,&c. avowedly affirms, That the saying of the Lord's Prayer, by concluding Prayers with it, Is an Engine from Hell
, subversive of the Gospel of Christ?' And does he not aver, that he doubts not of the Concurrence of the Generality of the Godly to say with him? Now, if this be not Scandal, Erorr and Blafphemy, what else can be fo? And tho' this was represented to the Gen: Alf: by S. H.C. of Calder, was it not slighted ? and so must it not be look’t on as the Sentiment of the
V.Of their Sufferings and Perfecutions in the time of Episcopacy. Ere I question them, Who was it that ever suffered for being either Christian or
Presbiterian, but for Practices which Episcopal Persons should suffer for,if guilty of them,as Preshiterians were? Or, I ask them, Whether it was the Presbiterians or Cameronians that fuffered? If it it be said, they are all one, then I ask, Why did the Presbiterians in their Address ro K: Fa: VII. disown the Cameronians as any of
their Coinmunion? And when D. R. vindicates the Presbiterians from the rabbling of the Ministers, does he not charge the Cameronians with it, who (he says) was not of their Communion? Yet do not the Presbiterians inrol them for Martyrs, even Mr. Cargil, who excommunicate the King and the Royal Family; so that their wild Adings were Cameronian, but their Suferings are Presbiterian? Or what Government under Heaven would tolerate such Preachers as these, who said, That it was as lawful to sacrifice Children to Moloch, as to pay Cess to the King ? See the forefaid M.W.V. 610 P. of the forecited Book.
VÍ. Of their Government. SEеing Presbiterians look on their Government to be of Divine Right, I pose them
with this Question, which never was, nor ever can be answered, Whence have Presbyterians their Ordination : If they say, from Christ, then I ask whether Mediately or Immediately; if immediately, whether from the Magistrate, the People, or Apoftolical Succession ? Not from the Magiltrate, for that is Erastianism: Not from the People, for that is Independency: Not from the Bishops, for that they disown as Antichristianisin. If Immediately, how can they prove it, or distinguish themselves from Quakers, or the new Prophets ? If they say, St. Paul speaks, 1 Tim: 4. 14. of the laying on of the Hands of the Presbitry, then it is questioned, Whether or not are they the Successors of that Presbitry, which St. Paul speaks of? For how can they prove they are'fo ? Or did that Presbitry consist of Preaching and Ruling-Elders? And how came Presbiterians to have a different Notion of that Text from ferom and Calvin their
pre: tended Patrons ? Or, was not St. Paul present at that Ordination, who, 2 Tim: 1.6. calls that the laying or of his Hands?. Or if the Presbiters at the Reformation had Power to ordain, which was not given to them at their Ordination) how shall the prefent Presbiterians prove their Succession from them? Or if Christ' did institute a Presbiterian Parity, how came He in His own College to have Twelve Apostles above Seventy Disciples? If they say this was for a Time; what better is their Argument than the Quakers, who say (without Proof) that the Use of the Sacraments was but temporary, and not perpetual? How can they prove the Time and Place, or by what Scripture can they prove that a Farity did fucceed to an Imparity? Or how can they prove when Episcopacy succeeded to Presbitry in any part of the World in the primitive Times? Is it not then an Hazard to the Souls of Men to be under the Tutory of an usurped and unordained Miniftry, who are not sent to preach, nor have Power to administer Sacraments? Are not the Words of Jeremiah, to this purpose, very terrifying, 23d ch. 30, 31, 32.----- I sent them not, nor commanded them, therefore they Ball nor profit this people, faith the Lord.
VII. Of th: Purity of their Worship. WHen the Presbyterians speak of the Purity of their Worship, I desire to know
where their Worthip is, to see if after Examination of it, any can subscribe it, as Men may or may not subscribe to the Confession of Faith which is in a Book ? And if it be impossible to know a Scots Presbiterian Worship, how is it possible to subscribe to it? Whether is it the Worship of Edinbnrgh or of Aberdeen, that I shall own ? If of Edinburgli
, whether of the Old Kirk, or of the New Kirk? If they say that all have but one Worship, then if One, Two or Three of the Teachers prays Blasphemy or Nonsense, must not this be look’t on as the Worship of the Scottish Kirk? And was it
very sound Divinity, that M. G. M. taught, when in Pulpit, he told, That it was better to have extemporary Prayers than Set Forms, tho' the one half were Sense, and the other half Nonsense? There are Nine Hundred Parishes in Scotland, and consequently Eighteen Hundred Worships every Lord's Day; and no Parish knowing how the other worships GOD: Is not this like a House full of Fidlers, every one playing a different Tune?
If they tell us, that the Directory is a Standard for Worship, may it not be answered, First, That the Directory is no Worship. 2dly, That they themselves observe not the Directory, which enjoins the reading of Scripture, and the saying the Lord's Prayer. 3dly
, Whether is it a Directory for the Spirit or for themselves? It is Blafpheiny to say that it is for the Spirit ; and does it not limit the Spirit to fay,that it is for themselves? Have they any warrant from Scripture to pray publickly off-hand to God, if they be not immediately inspir’d? Why do they sing to God by a Book and not pray to God by a Book? Why do they study their Sermons left they speak Nonsense to the People, and not study their Prayers left they speak Nonsense to God? Is it not a fad Matter to have a Worship to God in Words that they would not have printed, and with Faces that they would not wish painted ?
OBSERVATIONS On the Treatment of some Episcopal Ministers in the
North, by the Kirk Presbytries. Written several years ago by Mr. T. J. at I-----ss; which he called, The Groans of the Ministers of the Gospel in
Scotland, under His Majesty's Protection by A&t of Parliament.
T is certain, these Ministers never owned the Authority of the present Presbi
terian Judicatures over them, as Ministers of the Gospel, but declared against
it on all Occasions. II. In the Year 1694, when the Commission of the General Assembly came North, and began to summon fome Ministers in the Diocess of Aberdeen before them, the whole Ministers of the Diocess came by themselves or Delegates, and protested againit their Procedure, declined their Authority, and appealed to his Majesty for Protection, as their Protestation printed and published doth bear. The Ministers of Ross did so at Inverness that same Year.
In this Case they continued till the Year 1695, when by the Act of that Session of Farliament, July 16. it was declared, That all fuch ( Ministers ) as sball duly come in and qualify themselves, as said is, (that is by taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Afsurance) and shall behave worthily in Doctrine, Life and Conversation, as becomes Ministers of the Gospel, shall have and enjoy His Majesty's Protection as to their respective Kirks and Benefices.
From this Act two Things are evidently clear, First, That their being Episcopal in their Judgment, and consequently the refusing to own the Authority of the Prerbiterian Judicatures over them, could be no Cause of Censure or Deposition; for they needed no particular Act of Parliament for Protection in any other sense, but to secure them against these Judicatures: For had they been Presbiterians, or willing to fubmit to them, then all the Laws of the Kingdom had been in their favours, though that Act had not been made, they need only Protection as to their Opinion; and they had publickly owned and declared, that by a formal Protestation and Appeal both at Aberdeen anii Invernefs the Year before, whereby they utterly refused to own their Authority over them, or to submit to it.
As Things stood at that Time, the Protected Ministers feared no Hurt from any thing, but Presbiterian Judicatures, and the Nature of all Protections is a Security from something hurtful. It is then a downright Violation of the King's Protection, to depose any of these Ministers for owning that Opinion, and pleading the Benefit of that Protection; as the Presbitery of Ross did depose Mr. Robert Ross Minister at Tain, and Mr. Donald Forbes Minister at Kilmuir, in the Year 1699, without any
other Malversation either proven or alledged, but only for refusing to own their Authority, and pleading the Benefit of his Majesty's Protection.
This the Officers of State seemed sensible of: For upon Complaint made by the deposed Ministers, they ordered them back to their Charges notwithstanding the Prefbitry had deposed them, and the Sentence never taken off ; yer in the Year 1700 the Commission of the Assembly deposed these two Ministers pro fecundo, for the fame Reason allenarly.
It is here to be observed, that the Judicatures dealt much more severely with the protected Ministers than they did before they were taken into his Majesty's Protection : For in the Year 1694, these two Ministers joined in the Protestation at Inverness against the Authority of the Commission of the Assembly; yet the Commission took