Question 1.

WHether it be a thing any wise warrantable in common equity, or tru Christianity, for any person, or persons, to take liberty, both in Pulpit, and print, to speak against a people as dangerous, and Hereticall, and yet wholly to debar that people from vindicating themselves, in either of these wayes, so far as they can? Or whe­ther it can be supposed, that any persons, except they wholly give up them­selves Implicitly, to beleive the accusers can make a true Judgement, in that case, upon the accused, especially considering that maxime of law. Quicunque inaudita altera parte, &c. i. e. Hee that without hearing both parties, pronoun­ceth judgement, though hee decide the right upon the matter, hath not [...] the part of a just Judge, to which ad the consideration of these passages of Scrip­ture. 1. Thess: 5.21. Prov: 18.13. Isayah 41:21.

Qu. 2. Whether then it was not contrary to the laws both divine, and hu­mane, for the Priests in Aberdeen, to importune the Magistrats to make search for that Booke lately published in vindication of the people called Quakers? Or whether such a practise hath any warrant, except what flowes originally from the Spanish Inquisition, as being directly contrary to equity, and to the Scriptures above mentioned?

Qu. 3. Whether also it was not both Antiscripturall and Popish in G. M. to prohibit his hearers from reading of that Booke, by compareing it with Poyson? Whether that was not to keep people in darknes, and dependance upon him? or with how little reason could he desire such a thing considering hee asserted it to contain, an ample Confession, of all those Errors hee had [...] them with? And if so, whether it be likely, that it could prove dangerous▪ [Page] the Errors being soo gross and monstrous, which by him, and his Brethren, are charged upon that people, that their confessing them, would rather scare people, then engage any to like them?

Qu. 4. And whether H. M. his bidding people abstain from that Book as poison, without tryall of what is in it, be not like unto the Papists way, who bid their neighbours abstaine from the Protestants books as poison? and whe­ther may not even poison be tryed (though not by eating it) in a way that is not hazzardous to the tryer, especially seeing that which som may call poison, may be afterward found by sound tryall, to be good and wholesom food, yea Me­dicin te expell such poisonable Doctrines, as your Priests infuse into people?

Qu. 5. And seeing G. M. bids his hearers abstain from the Quakers words as from poison, doth hee not endanger such to be poisoned, whom hee sends, or allowes to come to our meetings, to hear what is spoke? and what knoweth G. M. but his spyes, may be touched, so that it may be said, as it was then, is Saul also among the Prophets?

Qu. 6. And seeing G. M. counts our words as poison, why doth hee bring them forth so much among his hearers, if hee thinks hee gives strong Antidots against them, I have heard some of his own hearers say, that, that which hee calls the poison, wrought more effectually to persuade, even out of his mouth, then all his Antidots could doe to diswade?

Qu. 7. Whether the latter part of that allegance of G. M. (viz. that all they had charged on the Quakers, was confessed to, in that book) be not a ma­nifest untruth, in respect the greatest charges alledged by him, against the Qua­kers, are therin utterly denyed. As for instance, the matter of Pelagianisme in page 25. the matter of Popery in page 34. and of Arminianisme pag. 65, &c.

Qu. 8. Whether the said G. M. hath not manifested very much deceit, in saying also publikly, that the said book asserts it, not only to be a thing easy, but pleasant for wicked people, to keep holy the Sabbath day, and to perform the spirituall duties commanded to be performed theron, unles hee understands them to be, simply the dispensing to hear a man talke an hour or two, and to have all the rest of the day to spend in idlenes, vain communication, and fre­quenting the alehouse, &c. Which are the words mentioned page 72.

Qu. 9. Whether it be any way unsutable to the law of charitie, or to the meek Spirit of Christ, to use plain, and downright dealing calling a Ly a Ly? or whe­ther any be to be blamed, for so doeing, considering the practise of all the Pro­phets, and of Christs and of his Apostles, how sharply they dealt with false teachers as may appear by these Scriptures? Isai. 56.11. Lev. 23. to vers. 33. Ezek. 34. Hos. 4. from 6. to 10. ibid. 5.1. Mich. 3; 5. Mat. 3.7. Joh 8.

Qu. 10. Whether then they be not prejudiced, who accuse the Quakers for useing the same terms, seeing they are willing to make the application mani­fest, by comparing the fruits of the present pretended Preachers, with those that wer of old? As for instance, whether it be a breach either of morall civi­lity, or Christian meeknes to say John Menzies lyed in asserting Robert Barclay to have been educated in a Jesuits Colledge, seeing it is utterly false?

Qu. 11. And whether David Lyall, may not be judged more guilty of foo­lish [Page] rashnes and envy, then any of us of the breach of civilitie to reprove him for it, who that hee might not want something to say, against the Quakers, alledged a notorious untruth upon God, in saying, that the God of Heaven shut the mouths of all the Quakers, that not one word was spoke among them, as their last monthly meeting, the 3. of the 11. month; which divers of their own Church Mem­bers, can witnes to be a ly?

Qu. 12. Whether it be not a far greater breach of Charity in the Priests of Aberdeen, not only to speake all manner of evill falsly against that people in the Pulpit, but also ther to stirre up both Magistrats and people to imprison and persecut them? Whether that be not more like the Practice of the Phari­sees and of Demetrius the Silver Smith then the Ministers of Christ?

Qu. 13. Whether beating, striking, punching, pulling out of hair, and that openly in the streets, threatning to stone and pistoll their sober innocent Neigh­bours, and boasting that tho they should doe so, they should be under no haz­zard of the law, be like the fruits of Christs flocke? Or whether such practises, and boastings, be not more abusive of, and destructive to Magistracy, then meeting together in sobrietie, and Gods fear, to wait upon him, and edifie one another, which is expressy commanded, Heb. 10. or if such actings be not liker John a Leyden, and the tumults, and cruelties of Munster, then any thing that can be proved against the Quakers.

Qu. 14. Whether singing, dancing, swearing, asking if the spirit be come, whist­ling and saying the spirit's upon them, in the Quakers meeting, be not Barbarous, and Atheisticall and interruptions far of another nature, then for honest men in seriousnes to stand up in your meeting houses, after your preaching is ended, and preach Repentance, seeing these practises above mentioned evidence how much yee stand in need of such an Advertisment, and both Reason and Christianity would say, it deserved, more civill and Christian usage, then Imprisonment or a pair of stocks?

Qu. 15. Whether David Lyall, his expressions, intimating his fears of the increase of Preachers, doth not show him contrarie to the Spirit of Moses who wished all the Lords people might be Prophets, and to the Apostle Paull 1. Cor. 14:29. Yee may all Prophesie one by one, and to Luther and many of the first Re­formers, and Martirs, who held preaching to be the commen priviledge af Christians, and so many of them being Tradesmen did preach, judging it no inconsistance, though this generation of loftie Priests, (who may well be com­pared, in many things to those idle Shaveli [...]gs, whom Luther reproves) are loath to admitt of any such thing? knowing if it once should be supposed, that Trad [...]smen ▪ or Ploughmen should preach, it would also follow that Preachers might be Tradesmen, and so win their living with their hands, as did the Apostle. 2. Cor. 4:12. ibid. 9:18. Whether if so, it be not probable fewer would be ambitious of that office, then now are, and that there would be no such gapeing for presentations, the desireable baites of Stipends being removed, and as it would abate the pride and sumptuousnes of the Priests, so it would clip shorter the strypt silk petticoats of their wives, and other gawdy apparell of their children?

[Page]Qu. 16. Whether it can then pertinently be objected as a token of pride against the Quakers, that they preach Repentance especially against their doeing it without study, or premeditation, as if trusting to the Spirit of God for utte­rance were pride, which is expressly allowed commanded, and practised in the Script. Luc. 21:14, 15. Acts 2:4. 1. Cor. 2:14. and 1. Cor. 14:29. 1. Pet. 4:11?

Qu. 17. Whether that doth not homologate the Popish argument for a Li­turgy alledging it to be pride for men to addresse themselves in Prayers framed Ex tempore, seeing there are Prayers framed by the Church, and by learned men, heertofore (as they say) better then privat men can make off hand, containing what ever is applicable to the condition of any Soule? Or whether it may not by the same argument be pressed upon David Lyall, as a point of pride, for him, or his Brethren, to use any Prayer, except that examplar, left by Christ, com­monly called the Lords Prayer, seeing they themselves make the extent of it so large, as ther can be no condition of any particular person, which they will not reduce to some of the heads of it, and that enlargements, and Tautologies to God, are not only vain, and needles, but also by himselfe prohibited?

Qu. 18. And whether it savours more of pride, to preach without premedi­tation which is but a speaking unto man, then to pray without premeditation, which is a speaking unto God? And seeing David Lyall and his Brethren pray ex tempore, and without premeditation, of any conceived forme of prayer, may it not be laid at his and their door, first to clear themselves of pride, as to this matter, especially when they doe not pretend to pray by the immediate teaching and leading of the Spirit, in which the only true Prayer is framed, that is accep­table unto God?

Qu. 19. Whether or no it did not as well expresse a mind filled with Pride as containe a manifest impertinency, for the same David Lyall to alledge as a to­ken of the Quakers pride, that a little black fellow came into the Church ( such were his expressions) whether these words I say savour not as little of Humility, as the thing it selfe is void of Reason, that either littlnes of bodie, blacknes of fea­ture, or meannes of outward Extract (for so I think hee means by fellow) are in­consistant with the esse, or being of a Preacher, which if they had its probable himselfe could hardly have beene admitted to be one?

Qu. 20. Whether if such words and expressions be the fruits of premedi­tation and study, (which these men cry up so much, and judge so needfull) it deserves that esteeme they would have put upon it, or upon themselves because therof; especially considering, many more impertinencies, and inconsistencies used by them, in their Pulpits, witnes that one mentioned upon the same occasion, by the aforsaid D. L. to witt that its better to be an humble Devill, then a proud Saint ▪ which if used by a School-boy, would have deserved hissing, if not whips, as being Repugnantia in adjecto.

Let David Lyall, George Meldrum, John Menzies, three Preists in Aberdeen, who have lately most appeared in Pulpit against them called Quakers, and among all their fellow-preists are here in mostly concerned, answer these Queries, if they can, without using those shifts and tergiversations, which the Papists used against the Primitive Reformers.