give a Character of the Presbyterian Ministers 5. When he hath a mind to expose any of our Ministers as absurd or ridiculous he is then pleased most disingenuously to advance him to be one of the most eminent among us that so he may make the World believe if their credulity be as large as his boldness in asserting that we are all such But this silly artifice will fail of its design among them who are acquainted with us He first accuseth them and that without exception as Proud Soure unconversible Here is not one true word where one is such among us and never a party consisted of all its individuals so well tempered as they should be many are such among his own party and yet we are far from being so unmanly as to make this the Character of the party I leave it to the Reader to judge what Humility or sweetness of mind our Author hath shewed in what he hath said or in what followeth That they have faces like their horrid Decree of Reprobation Where he venteth his spite against the truth of God as well as against the Men against whom he hath indignation Do not all the Reformed Divines except Arminians own a Decree of Reprobation yea doth not the Apostle so too Rom. 9. I wonder what a Face he thinketh the Apostle Paul had He and Presbyterians need not be ashamed to have their Pictures drawn and shewed with that of this Momus If a Presbyterian had spoken so ignorantly and indistinctly of such a head of Divinity how would he have accused them of Ignorance For who can own Election but they must at the same time acknowledge a preterition or Non-election and that as a positive Act of the Divine will See Rom. 9. 13. And who can say that some are Damned in time and yet this Damnation was not foreknown and foreappointed or decreed by him who worketh all things according to the Counsel of his own will If this Author will shew his Argumentative Talent as well as he hath that of Railing on this head it would be more easy to Answer him Their want of Humanity and common Civility and Catholick Charity are as many calumnies as words He asserteth I deny it and appeal to all that converse commonly among them But it is evident that what he asserteth of them he abundantly proveth of himself such Assertions being remote from all these vertues and good qualities That they dare not converse with them who differ from them lest the people take it ill is false They not only converse with them such of them as are Sober but have received some of them into a share of the Government of the Church And do not shun to converse with others of them as occasion requireth And if any people be displeased at this as I am sure the more intelligent are not they instruct them of the reasonableness of this practice His certainty that we have as little Learning as good nature which is next to none is a proof this Authors good Nature as many other passages of this Book are of his Learning about the measure I shall not determine seing it is easy for any unbyassed Reader to judge Presbyterians differing from all other Churches he boldly asserteth I deny not but there are some circumstantial things in which all the Churches in the World do differ one from another and our Church may be hath in some of the inferiour things her peculiar customs But in her Confession of Faith in her Government of the Church and in the worship of God it is evident that we are for the substance of these exactly one with the generality of the Reformed Churches And for the circumstances we are far nearer to the Reformed Churches than the Church of E. is which he gloryeth so much in and which indeed hath a Government Discipline and Worship widely different from the whole Reformed World yea on the matter they unchurch all other Churches by denying the validity of their Ordination and re-ordaining all who have not a Bishops hand laid on them We are far from carrying so toward Her or any other Church That which goeth for a proof of this absurd Assertion I shall now consider It is that we have banished the Lords Prayer the Creed and the ten Commandments the Doxology and the publick reading of the Scripture For the first of these It is false for we endeavour to make the people understand it And tell them the true use of it which is to direct them what to Pray for and also in most other things that concern Prayer It s true we do not commonly repeat the words of it but we neither condemn them who do it nor forbid to do it Our reason is There is no command for using these words nor do we find that the Apostles or the Church in their time did repeat the words Our reason for the other is these words are as fit to be used as any other It is false that the Author of the Answer to the ten Questions which he is pleased to ascribe to Dr. Rule on what grounds he best knoweth for it beareth no name used this as a reason against Repeating the Lords Prayer that it is inconvenient It is only said Quest 4 P. 20. That We are not tyed to what had been injoined if afterward it be found inconvenient while the discourse was of the use of the Doxology the Creed at Baptism and the Lord's Prayer now if any of these be inconvenient that Assertion is pertinent tho' the rest were not but were forborn on other grounds Yea If none of them were inconvenient what is said there is enough to free us from nonconformity to the Presbyterian Churches on this head with which that Antagonist chargeth us The words are plainly Hypothetick and therefore assert nothing Categorically Them who use the words of the Lord's Prayer we do not Judge either as acting against what is lawful or what is expedient If Mr. K. said that he forbore Repeating the Lord's Prayer because it is a Badge of the Episcopal Worship and did mean it was pressed in Scotland as such distinguishing mark perhaps it were not so absurd as our Author pretends though I had rather say we forbear it because it hath not now of a long time been the practice of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and we know no Command or other Principle that maketh it necessary What followeth imputed to Mr. James Urquhart we reckon horrid Blasphemy And if any will make it appear that Mr. U. said such words he ought to be desposed or to make very solemn profession of his Repentance for this Scandal But Mr. U. denyeth it and biddeth defiance to any who will attempt to prove it against him the other Blasphemies to the same purpose which follow we abhore as much as he or any other can do And I affirm that it is the grossest of Falsehoods that it is ordinary to hear our People speak so for my part
I have never heard such words from any nor have I heard by Report that any did speak them and I assure the World that if any among us were heard to utter such words they could not escape a severe Censure He saith the Creed is not mentioned at Baptism This we deny not but was it ever forbidden by our Church or were any ever Censured for using it We take Parents bound to Educate their Children in the Knowledge of the Chief Truths contained in the Scriptures And do often mention the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing a more full and plain System of Scripture Doctrine than the Creed doth though not differing in any Point from it For our National Engagements they are rarely mentioned at Baptism and but by few But if they were I know no Hurt in it except it be offending some tender Ears who love not to hear of the Ties which they have so little regarded after they had taken them on What he imputeth to Mr. Rule in denying this we regard not I am guilty of the same Dishonesty in saying what he or who ever that Writer is saith in the place cited by our Author For these other honester Presbyterians whatever be their Honesty we are not of their Opinion Nor are the Sentiments of Presbyterians to be judged of by what they say who had lest the Presbyterians and stood in opposition to them when the Papers he mentioneth were written His Imputation on Mr. Dickson that He called the Lords Prayer Creed and Ten Commandments rotten Wheel-barrows to carry Souls to Hell I am not foreward to believe it having nothing for it but this Author's Word But if he said so it was ill worded at best And if he meant any more than to express the danger of Peoples resting on having these by Heart as if that were to be Religious He deserveth to be Censured None of us disswade People from Learning them but do seriously press it and labour to make them understand them That we have abolished Publick Reading of Scripture is a Calumny It is true in stead of Reading by a private Person we have the Scripture Read and Expounded by the Minister and that a Chapter or Psalm at once And if any Read but two or three Verses it is an Abuse not allowed by us That the Precenter Readeth a Sermon in stead of Reading Scripture is two Falsehoods in one Breath one is that this is done I have heard indeed that one hath Read a written Sermon while the people were conveening But that this is either commonly or alwayes done I never heard also that this is in stead of Reading the Scriptures is false For as hath been said the Minister Readeth and expoundeth Scripture in stead of what had wont to be Read without Exposition by a private person who hath no Authority to teach publickly The Doxology we use not because we think Scripture Songs fittest to be sung as the publick Worship of God And this is not such though the matter of it be consonant to Scripture The Idle Story that he telleth of Maggy twitting a Minister with this is probable enough to be one of his Inventions But if it were true we think the Minister was undiscreet in calling it a Malignant Song We confess the matter of it is sung in Heaven If he will prove that the words are so too we shall use it They talk much of the Antiquity of this Hymn which I am not now at leasure to enquire into One of their Divinity Professors Mr. William Douglas at Aberdeen a diligent searcher into Antiquity Psalmâ—d Eccles. vindicata Q. 13. P. 69. bringeth testimonies for it out of Tertul Basil. c. who speak not of that Formula but Glorifying the Father Son and Holy Ghost And he citeth Baronius asserting it to have been used from the Apostles time But his Authority in such things hath little weight with Protestants Pope Damasus in the 4 Century enjoined it And it is probable that it was invented as a Testimony against Arianism But so was the Trina Immersio which the Episcopal Church doth not think fit to retain I Assent to the Author now cited Who after an heap of Authorities that he had collected saith it is no defect of Worship where it is left out And that none should be offended with these Churches that use it We constantly do the same thing materially naming the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Conclusion of our Prayers Another quarrel he hath with Presbyterian Ministers is they have no distinguishing Garb from the lay Men I hope this is no singularity What Churches except these of Rome and England do distinguish their Clergy by their Garb Our Ministers wear a Grave and Decent Habit and are mainly distinguished from the People by the Gravity and Edifyingness of their Conversation which is a better Characteristick than a close sleeved Gown on a Drunken and Swearing Priest That they reproved the King's Commissioner for appearing among them in a Scarleâ— Cloak is a notorious Falsehoood to call it no worse His saying They did it seemeth to make it a publick Rebuke in the Assembly or that it was done by the consent of all We do not know that ever any did so much as reprove his Grace privatly for this and if any did they were impertinent in so doing I never heard that any so much as whispered against it among themselves nor do I know a Reason why the Kings Commissioner is obliged to use another Garb than other persons of his Rank The long Story that he bringeth in about Mr. Lesks call for the sake of a quible used by my Lord R. to the Presbytry is a silly piece of impertinency only I take notice that he alledgeth that Mr. Lesk had for him the Elders which is false for none in the sense of the Law of Scotland are Elders but such as are received by the Presbyterians so as these men were not and for the Episcopal Church they own no Ruling Elders and the Law that set up that party having abolished all Presbyterian Judicatures did only allow Ministers to chuse such of the People as they thought fit to assist them Which can be no true notion of a Ruling Elder nor did ever such Elders sit or vote in their Synâ—ds His denying us to be Ministers is an impudent Assertion which he doth not attempt to prove and how it consisteth with the Catholick Charity which he blameth us for the want of I cannot apprehend That we are called by the People we think it more sutable to the Gospel way than to be imposed on the People by a Patron that we are sent by the people or our fitness judged of and determined by them is an impudent Falsehood Our Ministers are tryed and sent or ordained by the Presbytry who hath better warrant for so doing than a Bishop hath But if I should enlarge on every controverted point which this Pamphletteer starteth in his Rambling Discourse
Vindication meant that England and Scotland might be united in Trade and Civil Government and yet not so united Then certainly either that Author or this must be a very Dunse On this occasion he asketh may not the West of Scotland and the other parts of that Kingdom Trade together and be Governed by the same Laws And yet the West not impose their Kirk ways on the rest of the Kingdom And here he Triumpheth with a Responde Gilberte Some will think this fine Notion no great matter of triumph but rather it exposeth the meanness of the Authors understanding I hope he will accept of a rational Answer tho' it be from another hand then Mr. Rules whom he there insulteth over I say first there were no inconsistency nor would imply both parts of a Contradiction if Presbytry should be in the West and Episcopacy in other parts of the Nation tho' it might breed much breed much Confusion and were an irrational setlement Scotland being one National Church 2. The Reason why the same Government should be setled all the Nation over is because there is but one Government instituted or warranted in Scripture If our Rulers had other grounds for this determination these do not weaken but strengthen this 3. It is false that the West imposeth on the rest of the Nation The Law hath setled the same Church Government through the whole Nation and it is not in the West only that that Government is desired by Ministers and People Amidst his pretended Contradictions he findeth P. 81. some other faults with this Book that it saith P 151 Presbyterian Government was setled by Christ And this he doubteth whether it be an Oath or not but saith that it is an Oath is most natural to the words An intelligent Reader will wonder how such a Construction could be put upon such words by one whose witt is not a wool-gathering But his wonder shall be increased if he shall Read the whole passage out of the Book it self which is we desired to meet for other ends than setling the Presbyterian Government we know it was setled long before by Christ as his institution But fain he would disprove the truth of this assertion which he endeavoureth by two Topicks well suited to the size of his Learning The former is he setteth down a most Ridiculous parcel of Arguments against Episcopacy which he saith is our ordinary Cant Can he produce any Author among us that ever used such a way of a Reasoning And this he is obliged to do seing that which he professeth to be now on is to give some expressions out of their Printed Books as the Title of this his second Section beareth If the meannest of our party should talk at that Rate we would sharply Rebuke them If there be not on our side found stronger Arguments against Episcopacy we shall yeild the cause If he cannot tell us where these passages are to be found as he hath not done I leave to the World to pass a Judgement on his Conscience and Honesty I take notice of two things that he observeth before I come to his other mighty Argument One is we never call the Apostle St. Paul because he never Swore the Solemn League and Covenant This is to talk Ridiculously I will give him better Reasons for this our Practice tho' we can bear with them that do otherwayes than we do one is we usually give that Glorious Instrument in the work of the Gospel a more peculiar Title than that of Saint the Apostle Paul Every Good Man is a Saint and every one Canonized is called Saint But every one is not called an Apostle Again the Title of Saint before the name of any person doth in the Popish Church from whence we derive this Custom absolutely depend on the Popes Canonizing that person as that of Sir prefixed to ones name on the Kings Knighting of him They do not call a Man Saint only because he lived a Holy Life on Earth and is now in Heaven For then Moses Aaron David c. should have this Title prefixed to their Name which the Men I now debate with will not allow nor do they practise it Farther it may be made appear that the Primitive Church did not thus Saint Men but when she also Worshiped them and their Relicts As the Learned Mede Comment in Clav Apocalâ—pt sheweth out of Surios in T 6. No 28. That when from Council Constant under Comstantin Iconomach Some were sent to convince Stephen the Monk he accused them that they had banished the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint and would have these Holy Men called only Apostles and Martyrs And Cedrenus telleth us That the same Constantine made an universal Law which saith Mede was no doubt according to the Sentence of the Council that none of the Servants of the Lord should be called Saint but that their Relicts if found should be neglected Hence some will inferr that the use of this Praenomen began with St. Worship though afterwards it was confirmed by Canonization as St. Worship also was by the Pope and therefore they ought to be laid aside together It is true Mr. Mede laboureth to appropriate this Prohibition to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifying the honour of Intercession But I would gladly know what other Epithete which can betranslated St. they put in the stead of it Neither do I find ground from any good Author that ever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified an Intercessor But enough of this Digression which is sufficient to excuse Presbyterians in this matter Another thing I note on this first Argument of our Author that he saith the Author of the 2d Vind. from these viz. the senseless Discourse that he had framed for us and such like Arguments Allows no Church but the Presbyterian to be of Divine Institution and unchurcheth all the Episcopal Churches while yet he denyeth not Papists to be lawful Ministers The absurdity of this Allegation is manifest to any that have Read the Book he mentioneth for from the beginning to the end of it neither any of these Arguments nor any such Arguments are mentioned if he can point to the place where they are to be found I shall bear what blame he pleaseth to affix upon me on this account The Conclusion also that he draweth from these and such like Arguments is falsely and Disingeniously ascribed to that Author For no such Conclusion is to be found in his Book we ever acknowledged Episcopal Churches to be true Churches and their Ministers to be true Ministers His other Argument is if he can but refure the Learned Dr. Pearsons Defence of Ignatius Epistles or shew us any authentick record or received Antient History that Presbytry was ever the Government of the Church than we shall yeild the Cause If he will not be of our Opinion without this condition let him even enjoy his own For all that can be demanded that way having been abundantly done by several