A vindication of the Church of Scotland being an answer to a paper, intituled, Some questions concerning Episcopal and Presbyterial government in Scotland : wherein the latter is vindicated from the arguments and calumnies of that author, and the former is made appear to be a stranger in that nation/ by a minister of the Church of Scotland, as it is now established by law.

QUEST. IX.

Whether Scottish Presbytery in the Church, be consistent with the Legal Monarchy in that Kingdom?

IF this Author knew us; he would not move this Question, and if he did not hate us, and not resolved to say all manner of evil against us, right or wrong, he would not (as he doth) resolve it in the Negative. We have no other proofs of the falshood of what he asserteth, but 1. Experience; which sheweth that in many Ages (in which Presbytery hath had place in this Kingdom, as hath been shewed above) it did well consist with the legal Monarchy of it. And 2. that he (nor none else) cannot shew what principle of Presbyterian Government, nor what practice of Presbyterians (that is commune to them all, or generally) is inconsistent with Mo∣narchical Government, as it hath been by Law owned in this Nation. We deny not but there have been some things acted by men of our Principles, in their Zeal for Religion, which we do resolve not to imitate; and tho' we can clear them from that degree of blame that the malice of their enemies casteth on them, and particularly from being no friends to Monarchy, and unfaithful to their Kings; yet we hope the excesses that have been in former Ages, while both parties were overheated in their contendings, will be a mean to teach more moderation to this and following Generations. Let us then hear what he hath to say for this his most

absurd, malicious, and false Position. After I have told the Reader, that the only thing that can with any shew give rise to such an apprehension, is, that Presbyte∣rians, being generally the more conscientious part of the Nation, could not com∣ply with the lusts of some of their Rulers, nor subject the interest of Religion to their will, while others were ready to abandon Law, Religion, and Reason, to please Men: who, in recompence of this, did exalt them above their Brethren.

§ 2. What he asserteth he offereth to prove, from the opposition of the Covenant to Acts of Parliament, the latter giving to the King what the former taketh from him. The first thing that he bringeth as an instance of this is, That Par. 1. ch. 2. Act 2. it is the King's prerogative to chuse Officers of State, Counsellors, Iudges; but the Covenant maketh this the prerogative of the Kirk, in that Art. 4. we swear to discover evil instruments, that they may be brought to tryal; and confirmeth it, that Anno 1648. it is asserted by the Church, that Duties between King and Subjects are the subject of Ministerial Doctrine, (for what he saith, that the Kirk must be as infallible in this as at Rome; I pass it as the froth of a malicious mind, void of rea∣son). A. 1. These passages were 20 or some fewer years before the Act of Par∣liament cited: how then can they be charged as taking from the King what he had not by those Acts for so many years after? But this is but a small escape in this learned Writer. 2. Will any man of sense say, that the power of chusing Officers is taken from the King, because Subjects are obliged to discover and com∣plain of ill men, or because Churchmen may tell Kings and Subjects their duties? such reasonings are to be hissed at, not answered: Hath a man lost the priviledge of chusing his own servant, because his son may tell him he hath hired a very bad man? Another Argument he bringeth is yet more ridiculous: It is the King's prerogative to call Parliaments; but Scotch Presbyterians hold, that the power of cal∣ling Assemblies, doth not flow immediately from the King, but from Christ. Answ. Baculus est in angulo ergo petrus stat; is just as concludent: What affinity is there between the King's power of calling Parliaments, and the Churches having no power to call Assemblies for Religious Matters? We deny not power to the King even to call Church-Assemblies; neither will we call any in contempt of the Ma∣gistrate; but we maintain, that the Church hath from Christ an intrinsick power to convene about his Matters, tho' the Magistrate should neglect to call them: but we confidently deny that the Church of Scotland ever did (or thought it fit to be done) call an Assembly without the authority of their King, where he was a friend to true Religion. Let him shew us what Magistrate called the Coun∣cil that is mentioned Acts 15. Another Argument he taketh from the King's power of dissolving Parliaments, inconsistent with which, he saith, is the 2d Article of the Covenant, (he should have said the 3d Article) where we bind to maintain the priviledges of Parliament; one of which is, the General Assembly, 1648. decla∣reth against the Negative Vote in Parliament. Answ. Could any other-man have made such an inference, unless Presbyterians had declared that it is not in the King's power to dissolve a Parliament, but they may sit as long as they will: which never was said, nor imagined; for the General Assembly, 1648. denying to the King a Negative Vote in Parliament: this doth not concern the sitting of the Parliament, but the validity of their decisions while they sit; also they say very little to this purpose, only in their Declaration, July 31. they say, that they see not how the priviledges of Parliaments, and the King's Negative Vote can consist; I wish

this had been left to the cognition of Politicians. But what the Assembly there says, was not their sentiment only, but of the Parliaments both of England and Scotland at that time; so that his inference is no better against Scotch Presbytery, than if he had asserted the inconsistency of Parliaments in both Nations with the Legal Mo∣narchy. That was a time when Debates about Prerogative and Priviledge had issued in a bloody War; the result of which was the ruin of both: Whereas now the King's Prerogative and the the Priviledges of Parliament being setled and ac∣knowledged, and the King's Negative Vote owned by all, none do more chear∣fully submit to the Legal Establishment in these things than the Presbyterians do.

§. 3. He saith, The Covenant depriveth the King of the power of making Laws, because Covenanters swear to continue in the Covenant all their days against all opposi∣tion. A goodly Consequence indeed: We swear not to obey sinful Laws; ergo, the King and Parliament may make no Laws at all. What he alledgeth in further proof, That the Assembly July 28. 1648. declared against an Act of Parliament & Committee of Estates, dated in June the same Year, and in general against all others made in the Com∣mon Cause without consent of the Church, is as little to the purpose: For it is not the same thing to declare the Laws of Christ condemning the sinful Laws of Men, and to affirm, that Men may make no Laws without the Churches consent; neither will we plead for every thing that hath been acted. Notwithstanding I hope Pres∣byterians will learn to give all due deference to the Publick Acts of the State, even when they cannot comply nor give obedience to them. He further Argueth, That they deny to the King the Prerogative of making Leagues and Conventions of the Subjects, because the Covenant was taken without the King. This was no Act of Pres∣byterian Government, but an Act of the Estates of Scotland, of all Ranks; and this they thought to be necessary for securing of their Religion from Popish Adversaries, who designed to overturn it, as afterward appeared, when the Design was more ripe, and it was fit to bring it more above board. He proveth also that Scotch Pres∣byterians are against this Prerogative of the King, because June 3. 1648. The As∣sembly declareth against the Bond subscribed by the Scotch Lords at Oxford, and in∣flicteth the highest Ecclesiastical Censures against them, and such as had a hand in it. Answ. Sure he could not obtrude this on the belief of any, unless he had been con∣fident that what he saith would never be examined: For in that Act of the As∣sembly there is nothing like condemning the King's calling his Subjects together; but their condemning of a wicked Act that some of them (being but in a pri∣vate capacity) did when they were together. For this Bond was not framed nor signed by any Parliament, or other Representative of the Nation, called by the King, but by a few Lords sojourning out of the Nation, who met and condemned what was done at home by the Representatives of the whole Nation. This Bond was sent to the Assembly by the Convention of Estates of the Nation, as the Act it self saith, that the Assembly might give their Opinion about it; and they decla∣red the wickedness of it, and appointed Church-censures against the guilty: What is there in all this that is derogatory from the King's Prerogative of Convening his Subjects?

§. 4. His last Effort to prove the inconsistency of Monarchy and Presbytery is, That the Presbyterians deny the King's Prerogative of making Peace and War: Which he proveth, because the Assembly 1645. Feb. 12. declare them guilty of sin, and censurable, who did not contribute to carry on the War. Answ. All that the

Church did in this was, That in a solemn warning to all the People of all Ranks, for convincing them of sin, and pointing out their Duty to them, among other Du∣ties, such as Repentance, Reformation, &c. they held it forth as a Duty for People to obey the Orders of the Estates of Parliament, toward their own Defence when a bloody Army of barbarous Irish-men was in their Bowels. If this his Argument can cast any blame on Presbyterians, 'tis this, that there are cases in which they allow the States and Body of the Nation to resist the King so far, as to hinder him to root out the Religion that is by Law established among them: And one should think that he might have been by this time convinced that this is not pecu∣liar to Presbyterians, but that all the Protestants in Britain are engaged in the same thing. Nor can Papists reproach Protestants with it, for their Principles runneth yet higher.