Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50970
|
The case of the afflicted clergy
|
G. M.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing M22; ESTC R217340
|
91,229
|
99
|
this part of his Satyr but lightly Mr. Camphel he saith nothing against and indeed his praise is in the Churches And our Author had met with him before page 15. And had told only of him That to please his Brethren he had been more severe against the Episcopal Clergy than was his Wont Nothing can be more false He is no Man-pleaser and he always had a true Zeal against that way and against the Immoralities of some of them And now sheweth no more of Zeal than is consistent with Wisdom and Moderation Mr. Rule cometh next on the Stage He is called Doctor Rule because he did practise Medicine and took the Degree of Doctor in it likewise when he had no other way to maintain his Family yet never giving over the Work of the Ministry but preaching frequently He was once Independent That is absolutely false At Aberdeen he withstood the Temptation when he had great Offers to take the Charge of an Independent Congregation And in Northumberland where he had his first Charge he suffered no small Loss because he would not fall in with that way His want of Latine and spâ—aking false Latine is false He is ready as he hath done to give proof to the contrary and to compete with this Pretender when he will For His Prayers in Latine they are longer or shorter as the occasion requireth but never so short as he alledgeth neither doth he use to pray very long in publick even in English For the Ignorance discovered in the things he hath written I wish this Sciolist would make it appear by a solid Refutation The passage that he bringeth for instance he is ready to defend with all the probability the subject Matter is capable of And if it were a mistake it is no proof of Ignorance to have a different Notion about a passage in an Author from them who follow as they lead who have gone before them If this Momus will make his Censure on the True Representation of Presbyterian Government it is like Mr. Rule or some for him will give him a fair Answer But lest all this be not enough to disparage him and his Ministry He often venteth himself bitterly against the Episcopal Party Others think quite contrary few Presbyterians do more seldom mention them and an Argumentative way rather than bitterness is his strain If it can be made appear that he hath done otherwise none shall blame him more than I shall do The many particulars he is accused of have obliged me to say more in his Vindication than I intended In the next place he giveth a Character of Mr. Meldrum He spendeth a great many words about him But the whole matter is in short That once he complyed with Episcopacy took the Oath of Canonical Obedience which our Author is told That he denyeth That going out for the Test he left the Episcopal Party because when the Test was taken away he was not permitted to return to his Ministry at Aberdeen The Worth and Integrity of this Man is known to all in Scotland and acknowledged by all except them who prize no Man but for being like themselves That he complyed once was a Token of Humane Infirmity That he hath now left that way is commendable tho' it stir the Choler of this Scribler His fourth Man is Mr. Kennedy who was chosen Moderator he is called Mr. Kennedy by his own party and if any familiarly call him Father Kennedy his Age may bear such a Designation but they who call him Bitter-Beard do mistake his Temper That he was with the Army at Newcastle or received 6000 Marks is most false He was never in England till 1690. when he was sent with others to London with an Address to the King The Causes of his Deposition 1660. are foully mis-represented It was only for his Opinion in the matters that then divided the Church That his Deposition was never taken off till the Penult day of the Assembly is not the least of the Lies that this Paper is loaden with It with others was taken off several years before and this was ratified by the General Meeting some Months before the Assembly and all that had been done in this matter was confirmed by the Assembly a day before it was dissolved § 12. The Moderator being chosen He telleth of a Competition for the Clerkship It may be some of these persons that he nameth might be mentioned in private Discourses but never any such competition appeared before the Assembly And most of them were so far from either petition or competition that they rather declined it when it was mentioned to them by their Friends He accuseth the Assembly as insufficient to represent the Church of Scotland as that of Trent was to represent the Catholick Church But he cannot deny that it represented the Presbyterian Church and was all that could be had of a Presbyterian Assembly And we deny not that the Council of Trent represented the Popish tho' not the Catholick Christian Church as was pretended And indeed there were some from all parts of the Nation even from the Northern Counties of Ross Murray Aberdeen That there wanted from one or two Counties maketh nothing against the Authority of the Assembly For there are places in the Highlands from which seldom or never there have been Commissioners at any Church Assembly What Spirit ruled in this Assembly he determineth with the same malice that hath hitherto appeared in his Book and mocketh at the Prayers that were put up for another Spirit By this and such like passages it appeareth what Spirit acteth this Scribler It is false That the Presbyterians in Scotland have always contested with their Kings about the Power of Calling Assemblies Their Kings never denied their Intrinsick Power in this except when they were influenced by a Prelatical Erastian Crew about them But on the contrary have setled it by their Laws as the Churches priviledge As in the Act 1592. which is ratified by an Act of this current Parliament neither did they deny to the King a Power of Calling Assemblies nor have ever refused to meet when called by him We think it most desirable when the King and the Church agree about this and it moveth this Mans spite that Affairs were so managed in this Assembly The ridiculous Expression in Prayer that he imputeth to Mr. Cunningham calling it a pleasant passage is a meer Forgery That Reverend and Wise Man understood well what he said He is not ashamed to tell Lies in the Face of the Sun and to impose upon our Senses when he not only denieth the Kings Letter and the Assemblies Answer to it to be published both which are extant in the printed Acts of the General Assembly but he falsifieth the Kings Letter most palpably in making the King say That he setled the Government because it was agreeable to the Inclinations of the People Whereas it is That Government which was judged to be so And that He would have them do
must make it appear that during the late Reigns never any Presbyterian was called Fanatick Rebel Seditious even while they lived peaceably that never any Minister was charged with preaching Rebellion and Sedition who yet either spoke nothing of the Differences of the Times or taught Loyalty and Obedience in all things Lawful even to such Rulers as were of different principles from us He must also demonstrate that no Presbyterians were Fined to the Ruin of their Families for peaceable Hearing the Word in a House or in the Fields Also he must shew that no Presbyterians were Imprisoned Banished or carried Captive and Sold as Slaves for not hearing Episcopal Ministers or for Hearing Presbyterians none of which he can prove But we can make the contrary of all three evident and should be at the pains to do it but that the whole Nation are Witnesses to the Truth of all these § 8. He cometh page 26. to a purpose by what course he draweth it into his method I know not wherein there is some place for Argument But I must the more easily dispatch it because I have debated that point in my former Vindication in answer to the ten Questions It is he pretendeth to take off the force of a Consideration that was in the Narrative of the Act of Parliament whereby the Government of the Church was lately setled in the Hands of Presbyterians viz. That the Reformation of this Church from Popery was managed by Presbyters To this he seemeth to answer two things 1. He denieth the Consequence Reply I know not that ever any did make this the Consequent Ergo The Government of this Church should be Presbyterian for he may know that Presbyterians fix the Government of the Church on a surer and immutable bottom viz. Divine Institution And do hold that whoever were the Reformers the Church ought to be governed by the Presbyters Acting in a parity Wherefore all his talk under this Head is wide from the purpose The true Design of mentioning Presbyters to have been our Reformers is to shew that the Government of this Church hath been Presbyterian even from the Infancy of Protestantism among us They being Presbyters who setled the Protestant Church and managed the Affairs of it from the beginning and ever till unfaithful and self-seeking Men after a tract of time got that way forcibly supprest and Church Domination set up for some years His enlargement on this his Answer is stuffed with Reproaches against the Reformation and against the Presbyterians I shall not rake into that Dunghil for it smelleth rankly of a Temper not much inclined to the Reformation and of an imbittered Mind His Citation out of Basilicon Doron I have clearly answered in the paper before-cited His alledging that the Presbyterians engage Parents when their Children are Baptized to bring them up conform to the Covenant is a gross falshood it is not enjoyned nor by one of many hundreds practised to mention the Covenant on such occasions He speaketh of Rules and Prayers to purge England of Prelacy and Superstition as used also at Baptism which I never was Witness to nor heard that it was done by any in our Nation But this Man pleaseth himself with whatever he can devise to expose the Presbyterians He cometh in the end of page 27. To another answer to that which he fancieth to be our Argument for Presbytery viz. To deny the Antecedent of it or that Scotland was Reformed by Presbyters Here the Gentleman giveth us a Specimen of his Argumentative Skill which will not make any Man admire the Learning of his party which they so much brag of while their Champions do manage an Argument so sillily He asketh Who Ordained these Presbyters Whether Bishops or not Ans It is an Impertinent Question For if they were Ordained the quality of the Ordainers maketh nothing to prove that they were no Presbyters nor that the Reformation was not carried on by Presbyters If the Design of his Question be to prove that they were not Ordained and so had no power to Reform the Church I refer him for Answer to the Learned Claude's Historical Defence of the Reformation Who proveth that every Christian hath power to Reform himself and that every Society of Christians hath power to Reform themselves from all principles and ways that are contrary to the Word of God And to set up Ordinances among themselves that Christ hath Instituted see part 2. c. 4. page 166. and part 4. cap. 1 3 4. The same is maintained by Calvin Instit lib. 4. c. 3. 4. Turrit part 3. loc 18. quest 25. But our present Debate needeth not that we should push this Opinion so far as these Learned Authors do He asketh If they were not Ordained by Bishops where are the Miracles that they have wrought to prove their Mission I shall not here alledge as some have done without being ever Answered by any of his party that there were not wanting among our Reformers extraordinary Appearances of God with them convincing the World of their being sent of him I shall first take notice of the conclusion of this Argument if it have any force which will be that our Reformation was unwarrantable as being carried on A non habentibus potestatem And it is pleasant to observe that this Author can brangle the Presbyterian Interest by no other Arguments than such as will with equal force shake our Reformation from Popery 2. That Miracles are necessary to shew a Mans Mission which is not communicated to him in the ordinary way in respect of the Modes and Circumstances none do maintain but Papists and such as in too many things Symbolize with them John Baptist and several of the Prophets wrought no Miracles and yet had an extraordinary Mission It is only to be expected that they should work Miracles who pretend to be extraordinarily sent to preach a new Doctrine or bring in a new Office into the Church which is not warranted in the Scripture Next he will prove That if they were Ordained by Bishops it cannot be called a pure Presbyterian Reformation His reason for this is strange to drop from the Pen of a pretended Protestant For saith he I suppose which none deny they were obliged to preach the Gospel as the Bishop who conferred Orders on them bound them thereunto Whither will bold Ignorance carry one Can none deny this his Assertion Do not all except Papists and a few Papizing Prelatists deny it If this were so must we not condemn Luther and all the Reformers who preached the Gospel otherwise than the Popish Bishops who conferred Orders on them injoyned The Inference that he subjoineth is none of ours We think our selves exempted from Episcopal Jurisdiction and obliged to abolish that Order not because the Gospel was at first preached by Presbyters but because that Order hath no Foundation in the Word § 9. A Goodly Argument he hath page 28. That Scotland was not Reformed by Presbyters viz. Some