« EelmineJätka »
GOD thro’the Satisfa&tion, Merits and Mediation of Christ,as our high, Priest,and was afterwards prosecuted 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 consider what fad stuff is Preached and Prayed and vented in Catechifing(as I have hinted at in my Fourth Number )it is aninvincible Argument to let the People understand the necessity of a sound 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 process of time this might bring the Commons, to Knowledge and Solidity, and let them see how far they have been misled by false Teachers, such Teachers as are not afraid to print such Words as these ; That the Lord's Prayer is a loathsome, lifeless, Sapless Worship, as the Author of the Cafuiftical Elay afferts, and an Engine from Hell to pervert the Gospel of Christ; yea, the Author doubts not but to get allthat are exercised in Godliness to say with him. See pag. 318, 320.
As for the fasts and Festivals, they are Helps, Hedges and Ornaments in the Church, by which the substantial Points of Religion are Yearly Preached, and the sutable 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 Glori
I am blam'd by some of my own Friends, for using some Invectives against my Adversaries, 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, personal Reflections or uncharitable Truths should not proceed or drop from the Pen of an Episcopal Minister; because that was but like the Party we condemn our selves. I took very well with the Reproof, and therefore in my laft Number I used not one harsh Expression, 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 Adversary fallified, 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 Universities, and if they do not find him an impudent Lyar, I shall undergo what Penance they please to impose upon me.
I shall not contend with them in Railing or Lying, but for Truth and Reasoning I shall never yield. And in these my Numbers I make it plain, that I have the best of the Reformers on my side, particularly Mr. Calvin for Episcopacy, Liturgy, Fafts and Festivals and Church Ceremonies : So that a Church of England Man can hardly say 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 oppose us.
To the Reader.
I. That the Establishment of Presbitry is a Fundamental Article in the Union.
II. That the Christians of Constantinople (whose Dissent is upon Principle of Conscience) would prize the Liberty which Disenters in
Scotland have, who separate only upon Policick. III. That the Act of Union did confirm the sole Right of Baptizing to the Presbiterian Kirk, and the abusing of that Ordinance and of Marriage, mov’d the Government to take that Priviledge out of the Hands of the Episcopal Clergy.
IV. That it is but of late that the Episcopals in Scotland, claim’d to be of the Church of England.
V. That the setting up of the Book of Common-Prayer was not so much as attempted in the Time of our late Episcopacy.
Vi. His asserting the Loyalty of Presbiterians, and the Disaffection of the Clergy, to the Civil Government.
VII. That the perpetuating Episcopal Ordination in Scotland, does support a Party, who never pretended Conscience, for separating from the establist°d Government and Worship. The Anti-Counter-Querist is answered by these following Counter-Queries.
The FIRST Assertion.
can interpret the Articles of che Union better than the Parliament it felt? Or, who can give the Meaning of the Law better than the Sovereign and the Parliament, when inconvenient Emergencies fall our ? Or, was ever the Kirk-Government so much as mencion’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 Persians, that should never alter?
2do. Did ever the Sovereign and Parliament intend by che Establishment of Presbis try in Scctland, that the Queen's Indulgence to the Episcopal Clergy, which was bco fore the Union, should be of no Effea? Or, by the Union, is there an arbitrary and illimited Power pur in the Hands of Presbitry, io murder Episcopacy and the Liturgy, in Scotland, but to establish it in England, where the Presbiterians have a Tolleration ? Or that these who are Episcopally inclin'd in Scotland, should not have the Word preach'd and Sacraments administred 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 also, many of them baptize and communicate in the Solemn League and Covenant, which was rescinded by Parliament, and never yet reviv'd by any Law in this Revolution ?
3rio. Either the Queen and Parliament secure Prebiterian Government in Scotland, because it is of Divine Right, or upon the Account of its being a convenient Politick for the Time. II because ic is of Divine Right, then must not Englaud confefs her Church to be but an Human Conftirution ? It upon a politick Conveniency, then, Can Presbitry claim more than Jews, Turks and Pagans in luch Circumstances ? Or, what if chat Politick, in process of Time, should 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 Supposition ? And has not the like been seen? And what if Pres. bitry be found an insupportable Grievance to the Nation, as truly it is ? Is there no Remedy provided for the Peace of the Kingdoms, specially if they see better Things, and are in Conscience convinc'd that they were in an Error ? Or can any Human E
stablishment make a false Kirk to be true, or a wrong Party to be Right? Or what Unity have Presbiterians with any National Church in the Christian World ? Or what Unity have they among themselves,except it be in doiog Mischiet? For do not not all Men perceive,char no Paroch in Kingdom knows how the Other worship God?
450. Did the Union intend to please the Presbiterians) to let Episcopacy and the Book of Common-Prayer, link, die and expire in Scotland, or to promote their own Church in any part of the World except in Scotland ? If so, 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 Presbirry for its ill Nature, and trample upon Episcopacy for its good Nature ?
580. When James Stewart, in his Letter to Mijn Heer Fagel, lays, That it is against the Nature of the Christian Religion,that one Party should have Power to perfecute another : And that it is abfurd to think that a subjequent Parliament cannot disannul what a former decreed : May not this plead for the Episcopal Clergy now, as well as it did for Papilts and Presbiterians when King James VII. gave both a Tolleration by an Arbitrary Power, against the Law of the Land, and when Episcopacy was as well established by Law at that time, as ever Presbitry was ac any other time?
610, Can there be a firmer Union betwixt the Two Kingdoms,than there is between Man and Wife, of different Principles and of Religions? And yer may nor the Husband notwithstanding the Matrimonial Ties,curb the Insolencies of an intuliing Wife? Yea,may he not divorce her, when it is evidently made appear, that she made leveral Attempts to cut his Throat, and that purposely to get another Husband to her self of her own Opinion and Principles.
6to. And is not this the very Case of the English Church and the Scots Kirk, when it is found by Experience, that Presbyterians are sworo Enemies to the Hiearchy and the Liturgy ? Or why Should Toleration in England, to Dilleniers, be right, and to Scots Disenters be wrong? Have they any bercer Answer to to this, than that Byword in Scotland, Hackerton's Cow; or chac in England, The Case is alter’d, said Ployden?
7mo. Is ic not evident, that $cots Presbirry intends io give a fecond Overcurn to the Church of England, while in Scotland they imprisoned Episcopal Ministers who were qualified, and made no Use
of the Liturgy; when in the mean time, they protected ihe general Meeting of the Quakers, from the Insults 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 thele Men fight against ic,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 less do they threaten ? See Instances hereof in the Postscript.
The SECOND Affertion. That the Christians of Constantinople,who dissent upon a Principle of Conscience,
would prize the Liberty that the Clergy bave in Scotland, who dissent but
Ich whar Confidence or Conscience can chis be asserted? Have not the Christians
of Constantinople, Baptism, Confirmation and the Lord's Supper, from the Parri. arch? And have not the Dissenters in England Indulgence to ba prize? And has not the Patriarch Power of Ordination, and of perpetuatiog the Apoftolical Succession? And is not this the Liberty that is deny'd co che Clergy in Scotland ? Yea, did not a learned Senator, openly in the College of Justice, declare in the Case of Mr. Greenfaileds, That an exauctorate Bilbop had no more power to Ordain, than a common Ballad-Cryer? Again, whereas it is said, that it is not Conscience but Politick that makes the Clergy dissent from their Presbitry: With what Knowledge or Conscience can this be said, when by the Principles of the Test, the Clergy, Heretors, and all in publick Truit, were sworn to breed their Children therein, and agaioft Phanaticism as well as against Popery? Is not Episcopacy sworn against Presbitry by the Test, as well as Presbisry is sworn against Episcopacy by the Solemn League and Covenant ? So then I ask this bold Aflerter, Whether it was GOD or the Devil told him this? It it was GOD, how can he prove ic? If the Devil, who should believe him or the Devil cither, who was a Liar frum the Beginning?
The THIRD Affertion. That tbe Act of Union did confirm the sole Right of Baptizing to the Presby
terian Kirk. S not this in plain Terms to say, That no Biskop, Presbyter, Deacon, or any of their Hearers or Adherent,shall bave Liberty to baptize or marry their own Children,
voless it be with a Presbiterian Teacher ? Is it possible that a wise Protestant British
The FOURTH Affertion.
on from England in 1662, by Bishops whole Presbiterian Ordination was look'd upon as Invalid, ro wit, Mr Sharp, Fairfoul, Lighion and Hamilton? And did not the Bishops of Scotland ordain and confecrat? And did not many of the Clergy consecrat the Elements by the Book of Common-Prayer? Besides, did nor che Episcopal Clergy and Laicks abjure Presbicry with its Solemn League and Covenant, and promised to breed up their Children in these Principles, and still to adhere to thac Abjuracion.
The FIFTH Affertion.
mon-prayer when they were in Pomer.
'bring in the Solemn League and Covenant, when these 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 laid, there was Ule made of the Licurgy, and of other Form of sound Wordsin it? And now when the Clergy is out of Poft,is it nor lawful for them to be in the Communion of the Church, and could the Service which is against no Law, but only against Presbiterian Acts of Assemblies, to which in Conscience the Clergy cannot conform by the Principles of the Test? Besides tho' something were defective in former Times, as the Want of a Liturgy, will that say, that Things Tould never be amended, when Occasion presents?
The SIXTH Affertion.
called Rebels, and yet none of them chang'd in their former Principles? The one profelling the Doctrine of passive Obedience, and the other the Doctrine of Rehitance, for mantaining their Kirk Governmeot? Which of these will readily make the best and most Christiaa Subject in a Nation? How have some ofthe Clergy been perfecuted who qualified to the Government? How does Presbiterian Loyalty consist with threarniag io rise up in Arms against Quteo and Parliament? And who will be the Rebels in Care chey do rise? And of whom must the Queen expect Alistance in case of a Presbyterian Relistance, but of Episcopal Subjects? And are these the Men who Thould be crampled on by Presbiterian Tyrany, or Lenity as they call it ? Ought not such peaceable Subjects have an Indulgence from a Protestant Queen by Law, as Presbyte. rians bad from a Popish King? And whether is the Memory of Oliver the Usurper more lavory to these Loyalists, than the Memory of K. Charles the Martyr? And is not the Calf-Head Club a noble Cadec and beautiful Branch of the Presbiterian Family?
The SEVENTH Affertion.
that never pretended Conscience to separate from the established Government,
till of late. W is not the Clergy sworn against Presbitry and canonically sworn to Episcopacy?
And now seeing many of the Clergy and of the Laity are convinced of the Invalidity of Presbiterian Ordination, and of the Absurdities of their Worship, and that 00 Paroch in the Kingdom knows, how their next Paroch worships God, with what
[ 4 ] Conscience can the whole Nation contorm to Presbitry? Yea what Loss might the Chriftian Religion be ai, cho' Presbitry were rooted out of the Earth ? Had nor Christ a Church upon Earth before ever Presbiterian Goveroment was heard of in the World? And seeing
And seeing they lay no Claim to the apostolical Succession, and consequently have no Title to our Saviour's Promise: 28 Matth. Lo I am with you to the End of the World; With what Confidence Mould they desire by the Union) to be continued as a crue Church to the End of the World, when they do not derive their Ministry from the Apostles ? Or can they shew for fifteen Hun. dred Years a Presbiterian National Church in any part of the World ? Or are chere not an Hundred Chiefs of Kin in Scotland, who are Four Hundred Year's elder than Presbiterian Government? Or have the Presbiterians better Arguments for their Antiquity than the learned Mr. David Williamson, who in his Sermon before the Parliament on the 2 Psalm 10. (which he, after Delivery of it, did print) and asserts that Christ died a Martyr for Presbitry, which he proves by these Words, Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews; which if true, will ic not follow, that the Jews were Presbiterians ? And if so, will it not follow from that, that it was the Presbiterians that crucified Christ? And if they crucified him, will they stand 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?
Hereas the Presbiterian Querists boast of cheir Lenity and Loyalty, they must W
either be in Jelt,or else be tranegly intacuare, if they believe themselves;
For the Spirit of the Hynd let loose which justifies the Murther of King Charles J. and of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrew's, is the Complexion of that Party, and a historical Narration of their. Lenity to the Episcopal Clergy ( even those that did not use a Lirurgy and were qualified in this Revolution will demonftrare,That the tender Mercies af the Wicked are cruel. It sometimes the Wolf be bound up in Chains, he is but a Wolf ftill, and as ill as ever he was when let loose: And their Design upon the Church of England is manifest from their Imprecatory Prayers throughout ihe Nation, against the Bishops, and the Book of Common Prayer, calling it Popish and Idolatrous : Five Hundred Instances can be given of this, I shall mention Two, One is of B. F, who laid, Lord bear donn 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 same Person in a Sermon said, They tell us Prayers and Tears are proper Weapons of the Church; but Sirs, 1'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 Occasion to express him felf according to the ignorant Zeal of the Partie, and in the common Cant cold in Pulpit, Thac the Book of Common-Prayer was rank Po. pery and Idolatry ; at which the Chief Officer of the Regiment ( hearing that this was said ) gave Orders to the Chaplain to lay aside the Service, because it gave Offence; which gave great Occasion of Clamour among the well principled People, who are the Supernumerary Part in that Paroch, and gave Ground of Jealousie to inter, that the Commanders were either Heart Phanaticks, Luke-warm, cowardly or were brib'd by the Presbiterian Party.
The next Lords Day, the Holder-forib took Courage to lay to his people, ' You fee Sirs we have filenced a Regiment, we'll soon silence the Curate: The Church . of England, Sirs,is the Great Goliab; but the Kirk of Scotland is but Little Davie ; but • you'll see Little Davie will take a Sling and a Stone, and brain the Great Goliah to • the Ground.
Whereas the Anti-counter-querist in his roth Querie asserts, Thar R.C. was convict of Forgery, anent M. D's Catechism by M. WJ. It is answered, 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-querist to be an impudeni Liar. A publick Account of this Matter Thall be Ahortly publishd, and that to ihe Disgrace of the Party.
It is better known in the Stewartrie of Orknay, that a reverend Brother of that Party was convict of Sheep-stealing; and when this was brought above, the whole Fra.
board teroity concerned themselves for the poor guilty Brother, and incerceeded with the Justices of Peace to let that Procels tall: The Justices would not do it, but upon Condition, that all the Brethren should say the Lord's Prayer in their respective Congregations, which was yielded co,and (as we hear) continues to : I conclude there. fore, that it was a happy Sheep-stealing that brought in the Ule of the Lords into that Country:
" prayer F I N I S.