Some things of weighty concernment Proposed in Meekness and love by way of Queries to the serious consideration of the inhabitants of Aberdeen, which also may be of use to such as are of the same mind with them, else where in this Nation.  
Added by way of Appendix to a Book entitled TRUTH CLEARED OF CALUMNIES.  
Question 1.  
WHether it be a thing any wise warrantable in common equity, or true Christianity, for any person, or persons, to take liberty, both in Pulpit, and print, to speak against a people as dangerous, and Heretical, and yet wholly to debar that people from vindicating themselves, in either of these ways, so far as they can? Or whether it can be supposed, that any persons, except they wholly give up themselves Implicitly, to believe the accusers can make a true Judgement, in that case, upon the accused, especially considering that maxim of law. Quicunque inaudita altera parte, etc. i. e. He that without hearing both parties, pronounceth judgement, though he decide the right upon the matter, hath not 〈◊〉 the part of a just Judge, to which add 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 Magistrates to make search for that Book lately published in vindication of the people called Quakers? Or whether such a practice hath any warrant, except what flows 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 anti-scriptural and Popish in G. M. to prohibit his hearers from reading of that Book, by compareing it with Poison? Whether that was not to keep people in darkness, and dependence upon him? or with how little reason could he desire such a thing considering he asserted it to contain, an ample Confession, of all those Errors he had 〈◊〉 them with? And if so, whether it be likely, that it could prove dangerous▪ the Errors being so 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 trial of what is in it, be not like unto the Papists way, who bid their neighbours abstain from the Protestants books as poison? and whether may not even poison be tried (though not by eating it) in a way that is not hazardous to the tryer, especially seeing that which some may call poison, may be afterward found by sound trial, to be good and wholesome food, yea Medicine te expel 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 he not endanger such to be poisoned, whom he sends, or allows to come to our meetings, to hear what is spoke? and what knoweth G. M. but his spies, 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 he bring them forth so much among his hearers, if he thinks he gives strong Antidotes against them, I have heard some of his own hearers say, that, that which he calls the poison, wrought more effectually to persuade, even out of his mouth, than all his Antidotes could do to dissuade?  
Qu. 7. Whether the latter part of that allegiance 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 alleged by him, against the Quakers, are therein utterly denied. As for instance, the matter of Pelagianism in page 25. the matter of Popery in page 34. and of Arminianism pag. 65, etc.  
Qu. 8. Whether the said G. M. hath not manifested very much deceit, in saying also publicly, 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 spiritual duties commanded to be performed thereon, unless he understands them to be, simply the dispensing to hear a man talk an hour or two, and to have all the rest of the day to spend in idleness, vain communication, and frequenting the alehouse, etc. Which are the words mentioned page 72.  
Qu. 9 Whether it be any way unsuitable to the law of charity, or to the meek Spirit of Christ, to use plain, and downright dealing calling a Lie a lie? or whether any be to be blamed, for so doing, considering the practice of all the Prophets, and of Christ's and of his Apostles, how sharply they dealt with false teachers as may appear by these Scriptures? Isai. 56.11. Leu. 23. to vers. 33. Ezek. 34. Host 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 were of old? As for instance, whether it be a breach either of moral civility, or Christian meekness to say John Menzies lied in asserting Robert Barclay to have been educated in a Jesuits College, seeing it is utterly false?  
Qu. 11. And whether David Lyall, may not be judged more guilty of foolish rashness and envy, than any of us of the breach of civility to reprove him for it, who that he might not want something to say, against the Quakers, alleged 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 witness to be a lie?  
Qu. 12. Whether it be not a far greater breach of Charity in the Priests of Aberdeen, not only to speak all manner of evil falsely against that people in the Pulpit, but also there to stir up both Magistrates 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, threatening to stone and pistol their sober innocent Neighbours, and boasting that though they should do so, they should be under no hazard of the law, be like the fruits of Christ's flock? Or whether such practices, and boastings, be not more abusive of, and destructive to Magistracy, then meeting together in sobriety, and Gods fear, to wait upon him, and edify 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, than any thing that can be proved against the Quakers.  
Qu. 14. Whether singing, dancing, swearing, ask if the spirit be come, whistling and saying the spirit's upon them, in the Quakers meeting, be not Barbarous, and Atheistical and interruptions far of another nature, then for honest men in seriousness to stand up in your meeting houses, after your preaching is ended, and preach Repentance, seeing these practices above mentioned evidence how much ye stand in need of such an Advertisement, and both Reason and Christianity would say, it deserved, more civil and Christian usage, than 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 contrary to the Spirit of Moses who wished all the Lords people might be Prophets, and to the Apostle Paul 1. Cor. 14: 29. Ye may all Prophesy one by one, and to Luther and many of the first Reformers, and Martyrs, who held preaching to be the come privilege of Christians, and so many of them being Tradesmen did preach, judging it no inconsistance, though this generation of lofty Priests, (who may well be compared, in many things to those idle Shavelings, whom Luther reproves) are loath to admit of any such thing? knowing if it once should be supposed, that Tradesman▪ or Ploughman 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, than now are, and that there would be no such gapeing for presentations, the desirable baits of Stipends being removed, and as it would abate the pride and sumptuousness of the Priests, so it would clip shorter the strypt silk petticoats of their wives, and other gaudy apparel of their children?  
Qu. 16. Whether it can then pertinently be objected as a token of pride against the Quakers, that they preach Repentance especially against their doing 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 alleging it to be pride for men to address themselves in Prayers framed Ex tempore, seeing there are Prayers framed by the Church, and by learned men, heretofore (as they say) better than private men can make off hand, containing what ever is applicable to the condition of any Soul? 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 there 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 himself 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 form 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 do 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 express a mind filled with Pride as contain a manifest impertinency, for the same David Lyall to allege 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 itself is void of Reason, that either littlnes of body, blackness of feature, or meannes of outward Extract (for so I think he means by fellow) are inconsistent with the esse, or being of a Preacher, which if they had its probable himself could hardly have been 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 needful) it deserves that esteem they would have put upon it, or upon themselves because thereof; especially considering, many more impertinencies, and inconsistencies used by them, in their Pulpits, witness that one mentioned upon the same occasion, by the v D. L. to wit that its better to be an humble Devil, than a proud Saint▪ which if used by a Schoolboy, would have deserved hissing, if not whips, as being Repugnantia in adjecto.  
Let David Lyall, George Meldrum, John Menzies, three Priests 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.  
Given forth the 11. Month 1670, by R.B.