Queries to the Presbyterians,

(By the Author of the Anti-counter-Queries, Counter-queried) Upon feveral Things mention'd in their Queries, in their Addrefs and Petition to the QUEEN upon the Toleration, and their other Papers; Viz. 1. As to 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 Epifcopacy. VI. Of the Divine Right of their Government. VII. Of the Purity of their Worship.

P

I. Of their Lenity.

Affing by the Cruelties they exercis'd upon very many in the Days of Oliver, fuch as Dr. Wilbart, afterwards Bishop of Edinburgh, whom they kept Seventeen Months in Haddo's-Hole, without permitting him fo much as to change a Shirt; how fhall they anfwer for their Lenity in the Beginning of this Revolution, in the Rabbling out of above Three Hundred Minifters, in expofing them and their Families to the Inclemency of the Weather, in the Dead of Winter, to the Hazard and Lofs of fome of their Lives? And how did the First P-in the 1690 Year ratify the Deed of the Rabble, that Minifters remov'd by that Crew, fhould 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 tofs'd in P---- that it would be a Reflection to ratify fuch 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, fhould be a Rule to Posterity; but Rebellion and Rabbling was fuch, therefore it should be a Rule to Pofterity? And did not M. G. M. in a printed Sermon on 137. Pf: 5. in the HighChurch, approve of this Rabbling; fo that the Actors, by his Gofpel, were not obliged to repent of their Presbyterian Revolution Lenity? And yet have they not the Confidence, in their Petition, to fay, That they took in and continued feveral Hundreds of Epifcopal Minifters in Scotland; whereas after a critical Search, it will be found, that there were scarce 30 Apoftates of the Clergy, that went in to Pref bytry in Scotland? And for them that were continued, was not that to be imputed to the happy Circumftances of the Minifters, to which Presbitry could have no Access, nor peaceable Living? And were not many others in a conftant Vexation by the Tiranny of Presbitry, perfecuted, without giving an Account of their Informers or Accufers, tho' in the Cafe of a Presbiterian Teacher, they acted far otherwife? What falfe Stories, Lies and Calumnies, fuborning and encouraging of falfe Witnesses, did they not raise and practife, to thrust Minifters from their Livings, without asking a Question for Confcience Sake? Is not this too well known, and fhall be proven in feveral Places in the Nation? We can inftance a large Town and Incorporation in the North, where M. W. M. a Presbiterian Teacher, intending to make Room for Two Teachers of his own Gang, by raifing falfe and defamatory Libels against the Two Episcopal Minifters of the Place, a young Gentleman (who was educate Prefbiterian) told, The Epifcopal Minifters were good Men, and generally beloved of their People, and it would be a Difficulty to get them turn'd off. Befides he told, that these were Unchristian and Unlawful Methods: To which M. W. M. that Presbiterian Gospeller, anfwered, thus, We must have up Presbitry at any Rate: Which indeed cool'd the Gentleman's Affection to Presbitry for ever. And now when Presbiterians have the Impudence to fay at home, That they brought in and continued several Hundreds of Minifters, where almoft every Shiré in the Nation can further give them the Lie, what may not they say Abroad and among Strangers? Befides, how mercilesly were feveral Minifters perfecuted by SIS A, without making any Difference betwixt Compliers and no Compliers, is and fhall be proven: For not long ago did he not perfecute them feparately with's Presbiterian Dilemma, thus: To one he fays,Have you com plied? If it was answered, Tea; he told, I love you all the worse, they are honefter Men that did not. To another, if he asked, Have you complied? If it was anfwered, Nay; then he fays, How can you then expect any Favour from the Government? So herein, as in many Things elfe, he fhew the Spirit of the Party.

II. Of Their Loyalty.

IT is ordinary for Presbiterians, on fuch Occafions, to caft up their Loyalty; but I ask them, Whether this be in their Principle or in their Practice? If in their Prin

ciple,

ciple, muft they not abjure the Solemn League and Covenant, which limits the King, but not the Parliament? If in their Practice, how fhall 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 Prifoner in England and in Hazard of Execution, which came on her at laft; the King's Words were a very Chriftian Petition, That it might please God. to illuminate Her with the Light of His Truth, and to fave her from the apparent Danger wherein he was caft: 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 fetting up one Mr. John Couper, a Probationer; which the King feeing, 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 fawcily and phanatically, That he bould do as the Spirit fhould direct him; and thereupon very juftly was forced to give Place to the Bifhop. Spotfw: Hift: P: 354

Another Inftance of Loyalty to King James the VI. is of Mr. John Welsh, who preach'd, That the King was poffeft with a Devil, and one Devil being put out, seven worse were to enter. And that the Subjects might lawfully rife, and take the Sword out of his Hand. Sporfi: Hift: P. 430.

Witness alfo Mr. Robert Bruce's fawcy Reply to the King: Ifee, Sir, your Refolution is to take Huntley in Favour, which if you do, I will oppofe, and you shall choose whether you fball lofe Huntley or me, for both you cannot keep. "Spot/w: P. 417. This Story is brought in to prove one of the Caufes 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 fake, for she would never do them good: That the Queen of England was an Atheist. And other infolent Speeches to this purpose, is recorded by Spotf. p. 423. &c. and the faid Blake when cited, was backed with his Kirk-Brethren, and declined the King and Council as proper Judges of Minifters Do&trines in Pulpit, as is récorded in the publick Registers at that time; which is a Vindication of the Verity of Archbishop Spotswood's Hiftory, and of Archbishop Bramhall's Fair Warning to beware of the Scots Presbyterian Difcipline. Which ftands true and fure, for all the pretended Anfwer given to it by Mr. Robert Baillie.

This, with their appointing a Faft on that Day, wherein the King appointed a Feaft for entertaining the French Ambaffador; and their attempting to keep the King Prifoner in the Council by a Rabble, Headed by the Lord Lindsay of Byres, are Demonftrations of their Villainy and treasonable Practices.

And as for King Charles I. it is evident to a Demonftration that they were the Perfons Unking'd him, and delivered him to the Hands of thofe that beheaded him: It was their Principle to fight against him in the Field where they might kill him with a Mufquet Ball; and what Difference is betwixt that and bringing his Head to a Scaffold? And whether was it they who refifted the King, or they who affifted him, that took away his Life? Or who did execute Montrofe, the Instrument that appeared in his Defence? Or who was better acquainted with Presbiterian Principles than the Author of the Hind let loofe, who vindicates the Murder, and whom the Kirk in this Revolution fent 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 fay to the Presbiterians, It was you that took off the King's Head; for we took off but Charles Stuart's Head? Or as Salmafius fays, It was the Presbyterians that bound the Sacrifice, and the Independents that offered it. The Solemn League and Covenant, the Act of the Weft-Kirk, and the Penitential Address of the Synod of Aberdeen, &c. which may be inferted in thefe Mifcellanies, will declare who are to be blam'd for this barbarous Murder.

And for your Loyalty to King Charles II. witness your Infurrections at Pentland-Hills and Bothwel-Bridge, &c.

And for King James VII. witnefs Monmouth's and Argyle's Rebellion; and Profeffion of conftant Loyalty to him, and yet deferting the fame King in his Distress; an Inftance of your Hypocrify as well as of your Difloyalty? And if they inftance their Loyalty to King William, is not this owing to his Power who kept them in awe, oherwife would they not have the Kingdom fworn totheir Solemn League and Covenant before this time of Day?

III. Of the high and lofty Titles wherewith they extol their Faction. 'Hus the Petition begins, The Church of Chrift in Scotland------- fecured to us both by the Laws of God and the Realm. What? Is not the Epifcopal Church in Scotland

TH

a

a Church of Christ? Or has Chrift two Churches contradictory to one another, the one confifting of a Parity, the other of an Imparity? And how can that be the Church of Chrift, that cannot nor dare offer to prove a Minifterial Succeffion from the Apostles? Or how can they prove themselves Chriftians when they baptize into a Party and not in the Principles of the Catholick Church, and moftly with a Covenant, which nullifies the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, being thereby engaged into the Devilish Sins of Schifm and Rebellion? And how comes the Church of Christ tó put so small a Value on Baptifm, as not to baptize dying Infants, except it be in a Church or on a Lecturing Day? Yea fuffer them to die in the very Church, except. their Sermon be done? Or how are they Chriftians in their Prayers, that will not say the infallible Prayer of Jefus Chrift? And have not we as great Reafon not to call them Brethren, as St. Auguftine had to fay of the Donatifts, Now we cannot call them our Brethren, because they will not fay, Our Father? Or how are they Christians in their Singing, when they do not diftinguish themselves from Jews, who will fing the Pfalms of David, but not one New-Teftament Hymn? And if their Paftors have not lawful Ordination, how can they adminifter 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 Chrift, where there is fo much Partiality, Injustice, fuborning and encouraging of falfe Witnesses, as has been, and fhall be further proven to a Demonstration? And can there be a truer Character given of Judges of fuch Courts of Christ (fo called ) than this, That truly Chrift has little Credit of his Deputes?

IV. Of the vile Characters they give the Clergy, to wit, Ignorant, Negligent, Scandalous and Erroneous.

THE

He old Sehifmaticks, who accounted themfelves the Godly Party, and rais'd fcandalous and defamatory Libels against the Catholick Bishops, are not yet dead, fo 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 fay on thefe Words of St. Jerome, Quid facit Epifcopus 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 Papift? Or what greater Ignorance than to fay, That Chrift died a Martyr for Presbyterian Government, and prove this from 19. John 19. Jefus of Nazareth, King of the Jews? And for the People, I do not believe there is a more ignorant Crew in Chriftendom than they are, which I could demonstrate. Who thought they got more good to their Souls, than thofe who went to Hill-Conventicles, and yet who more erroneous and ignorant? M.W.V. an indulged Preacher declares in his Review of the Hiftory of the Indulgence, p. 527, 528. where he shews, that the People believed, That Baptifm by Curats was the Mark of the Beaft: 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 inftance in the Nation, who never catechis'd, feldom vifited the Sick, and never gave the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, tho' they look on themselves as Minifters of Chirft?

And as for Scandals, I fhall only ask them this applicable Query, Was it not great Confidence in a common Whore, who had born Seven Baftards in Adultery,and Three in Inceft, to call a Woman Whore, who had brought forth but one Child in fingle Fornication?

And for Error, as the Party can be libelled with many, may not the General Ass: be indicted for this one, in paffing by the Cenfuring of Mr. James Hog, who in the 320 pag. of his Cafuiftical Effay,&c. avowedly affirms, That the faying of the Lord's Prayer, by concluding Prayers with it, Is an Engine from Hell, fubverfive of the Gospel of Chrift? And does he not aver, that he doubts not of the Concurrence of the Generality of the Godly to fay with him? Now, if this be not Scandal, Erorr and Blafphemy, what else can be fo? And tho' this was reprefented to the Gen: Aff: by S. H.C. of Calder, was it not flighted? and fo must it not be look't on as the Sentiment of the Party?

HE

V.Of their Sufferings and Perfecutions in the time of Epifcopacy.

Ere I queftion them, Who was it that ever fuffered for being either Chriftian or Presbiterian, but for Practices which Epifcopal Perfons fhould fuffer 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 faid, they are all one, then I ask, Why did the Presbiterians in their Addrefs to K. Ja: VII. difown the Cameronians as any of

their

their Communion? And when D. R. vindicates the Presbiterians from the rabbling of the Ministers, does he not charge the Cameronians with it, who (he fays) 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; fo that their wild Actings were Cameronian, but their Sufferings are Presbiterian? Or what Government under Heaven would tolerate fuch Preachers as thefe, who faid, That it was as lawful to facrifice Children to Moloch, as to pay Cefs to the King? See the forefaid M. W. V. 610 P. of the forecited Book.

VI. Of their Government.

Seeing Presbiterians look on their Government to be of Divine Right, I pofe them with this Queftion, which never was, nor ever can be answered; Whence have Presbyterians their Ordination: If they fay, from Chrift, then I ask whether Mediately or Immediately; if immediately, whether from the Magiftrate, the People, or Apoftolical Succeffion? Not from the Magiltrate, for that is Eraftianifm: Not from the People, for that is Independency: Not from the Bishops, for that they difown as Antichriftianifm. If Immediately, how can they prove it, or diftinguish themselves from Quakers, or the new Prophets? If they fay, St. Paul fpeaks, i Tim: 4. 14. of the laying on of the Hands of the Presbitry, then it is queftioned, Whether or not are they the Succeffors of that Presbitry, which St. Paul speaks of? For how can they prove they are fo? Or did that Presbitry confift of Preaching and Ruling-Elders? And how came Presbiterians to have a different Notion of that Text from Jerom and Calvin their pretended Patrons? Or, was not St. Paul prefent 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 Succeffion from them? Or if Chrift did institute a Presbiterian Parity, how came He in His own College to have Twelve Apoftles above Seventy Difciples? If they fay this was for a Time; what better is their Argument than the Quakers, who fay (without Proof) that the Ufe 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 Epifcopacy fucceeded 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 ufurped and unordained Miniftry, who are not fent 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 fball not profit this People, faith the Lord.

as Men

VII. Of the Purity of their Worship.

When the Presbyterians fpeak of the Purity of their Worship, I defire to know where their Worship is, to fee if after Examination of it, any can fubfcribe it, may or may not fubfcribe to the Confeffion of Faith which is in a Book? And if it be impoffible to know a Scots Presbiterian Worship, how is it poffible to subscribe to it? Whether is it the Worship of Edinburgh or of Aberdeen, that I fhall own? If of Edinburgh, 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 Blafphemy or Nonsense, must not this be look't on as the Worship of the Scottish Kirk? And was it very found 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 Senfe, and the other half Nonfenfe? There are Nine Hundred Parishes in Scotland, and confequently 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 ir not be answered, First, That the Directory is no Worfhip. 2dly, That they themselves obferve not the Directory, which enjoins the reading of Scripture, and the faying the Lord's Prayer. 3dly, Whether is it a Directory for the Spirit or for themfelves? It is Blafphemy to fay that it is for the Spirit ; and does it not limit the Spirit to fay,that it is for themfelves? Have they any Warrant from Scripture to pray publickly off hand to God, if they be not immediately infpir'd? Why do they fing to God by a Book and not pray to God by a Book? Why do they ftudy their Sermons left they speak Nonfenfe to the People, and not ftudy 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 fome Epifcopal Minifters in the North, by the Kirk Presbytries.

Written feveral Years ago by Mr. T. J. at I-----fs; which he called,

The Groans of the Minifters of the Gospel in Scotland, under His Majefty's Protection by Act of Parliament.

I. T is certain, thefe Minifters never owned the Authority of the prefent Presbiterian Judicatures over them, as Minifters of the Gospel, but declared against

it on all Occafions.

II. In the Year 1694, when the Commiffion of the General-Affembly came North, and began to fummon fome Minifters in the Diocess of Aberdeen before them, the whole Ministers of the Diocess came by themselves or Delegates, and protested against their Procedure, declined their Authority, and appealed to his Majefty for Protection, as their Proteftation printed and published doth bear. The Ministers of Rofs did fo at Inverness that fame Year.

In this Cafe they continued till the Year 1695, when by the Act of that Seffion of Farliament, July 16. it was declared, That all fuch (Minifters) as fball duly come in and qualify themselves, as faid is, (that is by taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Affurance) and fhall behave worthily in Doctrine, Life and Converfation, as becomes Minifters of the Gofpel, fhall 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 Epifcopal in their Judgment, and confequently the refufing to own the Authority of the Prefbiterian Judicatures over them, could be no Caufe of Cenfure or Depofition; for they needed no particular Act of Parliament for Protection in any other sense, but to fecure them against thefe 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 Proteftation and Appeal both at Aberdeen and Inverness the Year before, whereby they utterly refused to own their Authority over them, or to fubmit to it.

As Things food at that Time, the Protected Minifters feared no Hurt from any thing but Presbiterian Judicatures, and the Nature of all Protections is a Security from fomething 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 Rofs did depofe Mr. Robert Rofs Minister at Tain, and Mr. Donald Forbes Minister at Kilmuir, in the Year 1699, without any other Malverfation either proven or alledged, but only for refufing to own their Authority, and pleading the Benefit of his Majefty's Protection.

This the Officers of State feemed fenfible of: For upon Complaint made by the depofed Minifters, they ordered them back to their Charges notwithstanding the Pref bitry had depofed them, and the Sentence never taken off; yet in the Year 1700 the Commiffion of the Affembly depofed these two Minifters pro fecundo, for the fame Reafon allenarly.

It is here to be obferved, that the Judicatures dealt much more feverely 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 Proteftation at Inverness against the Authority of the Commiffion of the Affembly; yet the Commiffion took