Chapter V: Part II (1)

Containing the grounds of the Presbytery's testimony against the constitutions both civil and ecclesiastical at the late Revolution, anno 1689: as also, against the gross Erastianism and tyranny that has attended the administration both of church and state, since that memorable period: with various instances thereof, &c.

After the Lord, for the forementioned space of twenty-eight years, had, because of their manifold sins, sorely plagued this church and nation with the grievous yoke of prelatical tyranny, bloodshed, oppression and fiery persecution, and thereby had covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and had thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of the daughter of Judah, yea, brought them down even to the ground; he was pleased, in his holy sovereignty, to put a stop to that barbarous cruelty that was exercised upon his people, at the last national Revolution, by the instrumentality of the prince and princess of _Orange_; which is the more remarkable, in that those whom the Lord employed as the rod of his anger, to strike off that monstrous tyrant _James_ duke of _York_ from the _British_ throne, were natural branches sprung up from the same stock: and this at a juncture when not only the church of Christ was in the greatest danger of being totally extirpated, but the whole land in hazard of being again overwhelmed with popish darkness and idolatry. But although a very fit opportunity was then offered the nations for reviving the long buried work of a covenanted reformation both in church and state, and re-establishing all the ordinances of God in purity, according to their scriptural institution: yet, alas! how deeply is it to be lamented, that, instead thereof, the multitude of his tender mercies being forgotten, there was a returning, but not to the Most High; yea, a turning aside like a deceitful bow; so that, in many respects, our national guilt is now increased above what it was in former times: wherefore, as the presbytery desire with the utmost gratitude to acknowledge the divine goodness, in giving a respite from the hot furnace of persecution; so they likewise find themselves, in duty to their princely Master and his people, obliged to testify and declare against foresaid revolution settlement, in a variety of particulars, with the many defections and backslidings flowing therefrom. Likeas they hereby do testify against the constitutions, both civil and ecclesiastic, at the Revolution, _anno_ 1689, in those respects, and for these reasons:

1. Because that in the civil constitution, these nations once united together in a scriptural and covenanted uniformity, unmindful of their former establishment upon a divine footing, wherein king and people were to be of one perfect religion, and the supreme magistrate obliged by solemn oath to maintain and preserve the same inviolable, did call and invite _William_ and _Mary_, prince and princess of _Orange_, unto the possession of the royal power in these lands, in a way contrary to the word of God, as _Deut._ xvii, 15: "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." _2 Sam._ xxiii, 3: "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men, must be just, ruling in the fear of God."

In opposition to these clear precepts, the nations did choose the foresaid persons to sway the civil scepter over them, who were neither brethren by birth, nor religious profession, being educated in a church where Erastianism prevails, as appears from their ascribing such an extensive power to the civil magistrate, as is inconsistent with the intrinsic power of the church. Accordingly, by these principles, said prince of _Orange_ did regulate his conduct, in the assumption of his regal authority, consenting to swear two distinct oaths, whereby he obliged himself to preserve and maintain the two distinct and contrary religions (or modes of religions worship), Presbytery and Prelacy, and so betrayed both to God and man his politic, worldly views, and proclaimed himself destitute of that truth and religious fear, which is the essential character of every person who may warrantably be invested with supreme authority over the Israel of God. And as they wanted scriptural, so likewise covenant qualifications, namely, known integrity, approven fidelity, constant affection, and zeal to the cause and true church of God; and therefore could not in a consistency with the covenanted constitution, and fundamental laws of the crown, be set up as king and queen of these covenanted lands.

Again, as during the persecuting period the nations generally were involved in the guilt of perjury and deep apostasy, by the many sinful contradictory tests, oaths and bonds then imposed; so, in a particular manner, those who, by virtue of their birth and dignity, ought to have been the defenders of the nation's privileges, both sacred and civil, on the contrary, as privy councilors to the two impious brothers in their rage against the Lord and his Anointed, and as members of their iniquitous parliaments (where perverting equity and justice, they framed the most heaven-daring and abominable mischiefs into a law, and then with the utmost cruelty prosecuted the same), had many of them brought themselves under the fearful guilt of these atrocious crimes of murder, perjury, tyranny and oppression, and thereby, according to the law both of God and man, not only forfeited their lives, had the same been duly executed; but also divested themselves of all just right and title to act the part of the nations' representatives, in choosing and installing any in the office of supreme civil governor, until at least they had given suitable evidence of their repentance. Yet such were the constituent members of that committee of estates, and first parliament, employed in the Revolution settlement, without so much as making any suitable public acknowledgment of their wickedness in the active hand the generality of them had in the former bloody persecution, as appears from a comparative view of the lists of the members of parliament, and particularly the duke of _York's_ last parliament, with act second of the acts and orders of the meeting of estates, _anno_ 1689. Yea, by viewing the lists of _James_ VII, his privy council, annexed by _Wodrow_ to the second volume of his history, it is evident, that a great number of the nobility alone, members of that bloody council, were also members of foresaid convention of estates, the members of which convention (seven bishops excepted) were exactly the same with the members of the first parliament at the Revolution. For this, compare second act of the meeting of estates, with act first, parliament first, of _William_ and _Mary_. By all which it is evident, that from princes who had thus removed the bound, and discovered no just remorse for their sins, there was little ground left to expect a happy establishment of religion, in restoring the flock of Christ to the full possession of those valuable privileges and liberties wherewith he had made them free.

The character of the constituent members being considered, the constitution itself, and wherein it is inconsistent with our covenanted establishment, and is therefore hereby testified against, comes next to be considered. Although the declaration of the meeting of estates in this kingdom, containing their claim of right, comprehended much more of their civil liberties, and formal rights of government, than was enjoyed under the former monstrous tyranny, yet by no means sufficiently provided for the legal establishment of our former happy reformed constitution, which necessarily obliged the civil rulers to employ their power to maintain and defend, not only the doctrine, but also the Presbyterian worship, discipline and government, as the only and unalterable form instituted by Christ in his house. Whereas this craves the abolition of prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church above presbyters in _Scotland_, simply as it hath been a great and insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the reformation from Popery, without regarding the divine right of Presbytery, and the contrariety of Prelacy to scripture revelation. In agreeableness to which demand, when the first parliament met in _Scotland_ immediately after the Revolution, which began the ____ day of _April_, 1689, in _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, entitled _Act abolishing Prelacy_, they abolished Prelacy for the foresaid reason, and further declare, that they will settle by law that church government in this kingdom, which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people. Accordingly, in the second session of the same parliament, _Act_ 5th, _June_ 7th, 1690, the parliament establishing the Presbyterian church government and discipline, as it had been ratified and established by the 14th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592, reviving, renewing and confirming the foresaid act of parliament, in the whole heads thereof, except that part of it relating to patronages, afterward to be considered of. Likewise, in the above mentioned act at the Revolution, the thirty-three chapters of the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith (exclusive of the catechisms, directory for worship, and form of church government formerly publicly authorized, and Covenants National and Solemn League) were ratified and established by the parliament. And the said Confession being read in their presence, was voted and approven by them, as the public and avowed Confession of this church, without taking any notice of its scriptural authority. And further, in the same session of parliament, by the royal power allenarly, the first meeting of the general assembly of this church, as above established, was appointed to be held at _Edinburgh_, the third _Thursday_ of _October_ following, the same year, 1690. And by the same civil authority and foresaid act, many of the churches in _Scotland_ were declared vacant.

2. The presbytery testify against the ecclesiastical constitution at the Revolution; particularly, in regard, 1st--That the members composing the same were no less, if not much more exceptionable, than those of whom the state consisted; the whole of them one way or other being justly chargeable with unfaithfulness to CHRIST, and his covenanted cause, by sinful and scandalous compliance with the public defections of the former times, or actively countenancing the malignant apostasy of the lands, which will appear evident, by considering, that the Revolution Church consisted of such office-bearers, as had, in contradiction to their most solemn covenant engagements, fallen in with, and approven of the public resolutions. And these public resolutioners, who had betrayed the LORD'S cause, which they had in the most solemn manner sworn to maintain, were, without any public acknowledgement demanded or offered, or adequate censure inflicted (even, after that the LORD had remarkably testified his displeasure against that leading step of defection, by suffering these vipers, which we thus took into our bosom, to sting us almost to death) for this their scandalous defection and perjury, admitted and sustained members of the Revolution Church. Again, the Revolution assembly consisted of such ministers as had shamefully changed their holding of CHRIST, and sinfully submitted, in the exercise of their ministry, to an exotic head, _Charles_ II, who had, by virtue of his blasphemous supremacy, and absolute power, taken the power of the keys from Christ's ministers, and afterward returning only one of them (viz.: the key of doctrine) to such as accepted his anti-christian, church-destroying, and Christ-dethroning indulgences, attended with such sinful limitations and restrictions, as were utterly inconsistent with ministerial freedom and faithfulness, declaring the acceptors to be men-pleasers, and so not the servants of Christ (of which above). Of this stamp were the most of them, who, without any public acknowledgment of that horrid affront they had put upon the church's true Head, dared to constitute and act as the supreme judicatory of the church of Christ, _anno_ 1690. Again, the foresaid assembly was almost wholly formed of such as had petitioned for, accepted of, and pretended to return a God-mocking letter of thanks for that blasphemous unbounded toleration, which that popish tyrant, the duke of _York_ (as is noticed formerly), granted, with a special view to reintroduce abjured popery; and therefore while it extended its protection to every heresy, did exclude the pure preaching of the gospel in the fields; which toleration (according to _Wodrow_) was joyfully embraced by all the Presbyterian ministers in Scotland, the honored Mr. Renwick only excepted, who faithfully protested against the same.

But further, the Revolution assembly did partly consist of such members as, contrary to our solemn covenants, had their consciences dreadfully polluted, by consenting unto, subscribing, and swearing some one or other of the sinful wicked oaths, tests and bonds, tyrannically imposed in the persecuting period, or by persuading others to take them, and declining to give warning of the danger of them, or by approving the warrantableness of giving security to the bloody council, not to exercise their ministry, but according to their pleasure. Moreover, they were all, generally, manifestly guilty of the sin of carrying on and maintaining schism and defection from the covenanted church of CHRIST in _Scotland_. As also (which from the history of these times is evident), the ruling elders in that assembly, being generally noblemen, gentlemen, and burgesses, were mostly such as had an active hand in the tyranny and persecution that preceded, and in one respect or other, were stained with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Thus, that assembly was packed up, chiefly, of such blacked compilers, as, one way or other, were deeply involved in the apostasy, bloodshed and cruelty of the preceding period, yet had not broke off their iniquities, by a public confession of these crying sins, before that meeting; nor can it be found, that any adequate censure was inflicted on any of them for the same. Therefore, the presbytery testify against the Revolution church, as consisting mostly of such scandalous schismatical members, as could not, in a consistency with the scriptural rule, and laudable acts of this reformed church, have been admitted to church privileges, far less to bear office in the house of God; until, at least, they had been duly purged from their aggravated scandals, and given evident signs of a real repentance, according to the Word of God, 2 _Chron._ xxx, 3: "For they could not keep the passover at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently." And _Ezek._ xliv, 10: "And the Levites that are gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astray away from me after their idols, they shall even bear their iniquity;" v. 13: "And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holy place; but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations which they have committed."

Next, the presbytery declare and testify against the Revolution church, because plainly Erastian, and utterly inconsistent with the covenanted constitution of the reformed church of _Scotland, anno_ 1648: the truth of which charge will appear obvious, from considering the act of parliament, on which the civil power settled the constitution of the Revolution church, viz., _Act_ 114, _James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th; where, _inter alia_, it is expressly declared, "That it shall be lawful to the kirk ministers, every year at least, and oftener, _pro re nata_, as occasion and necessity sall require, to hald and keepe general assemblies, providing that the king's majesty, or his commissioner with them, to be appointed be his highness to be present at ilk general assembly, before the dissolving thereof, nominate and appoynt time and place, quhen and quhair the next general assemblie sall be halden: and in case neither his majesty nor his said commissioner beis present for the time, in that town, quhair the said general assemblie beis halden, then, and in that case, it shall be lesum for the said general assembly be themselves, to nominate and appoint time and place, quhair the next general assembly of the kirk sall be keeped and halden, as they have been in use to do these times by-past." Here, in this act, a manifest invasion and traitorous attack is made upon the headship and supremacy of Christ, as a Son in, and over his own house. He who is God's annotated King in Zion, and sits on the throne of his holiness, is hereby robbed of his crown rights; the intrinsic power, the spiritual liberty and freedom, granted by Christ to his church, is encroached upon. It is a received opinion among all true Presbyterians, that the church hath an intrinsic power to meet in the courts of Christ's house, from the lowest to the highest, by virtue of the power committed to her by the Lord Jesus Christ, without dependence on the civil power. This is agreeable to scripture, _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii, 18, 19, where the apostles receive the keys immediately from the hands of Christ their Lord and Master. And as one principal part of that trust Christ has committed to his church, this has been the constant plea of the reforming and reformed Presbyterian church of _Scotland_. Let us hear what that renowned and faithful minister, and venerable confessor for Christ, the Rev. Mr. John Welsh, says to this particular, in his letter to the Countess of _Wigton_ from _Blackness_, 1606, when a prisoner for this same truth. Having asserted the independence of the church, the spiritual kingdom of Christ, upon any earthly monarch, and her freedom to meet and judge of all her affairs; he adds, "These two points, 1st, that Christ is Head of his church; 2d, that she is free in her government from all other jurisdictions, except Christ's. These two points, I say, are the special causes of our imprisonment, being now convicted as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been ever waiting with joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation thereof, if it should please our God to be so favorable as to honor us with that dignity. Yea, I do affirm, that these two points above written, and all other things that do belong to Christ's crown, scepter and kingdom, are not subject, nor cannot be, to any other authority, but to his own altogether: so that I would be glad to be offered up as a sacrifice for so glorious a truth." So far he. But now this assembly of _treacherous_ men, by settling themselves upon such a constitution have openly given up this scriptural truth and Presbyterian principle handed down to us, sealed with the sufferings and dearest blood of the faithful Confessors and Martyrs of Christ, and have consented that it is unlawful for the office-bearers in the Lord's house to exert their proper power in calling and appointing general assemblies, however loudly the necessity of the church may call for them, unless the king authorize their diet of meeting, which he may, or may not do, according to his pleasure.

Again, it is evident, that the revolution church is constituted in the same Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in _Scotland_. For proof of which, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically asserted to be of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit and formal act of Assembly, at or since the revolution. As the prelates' high ecclesiastical court was called, adjourned and dissolved, in the king's name, so likewise are the assemblies of the Revolution Church. As the Episcopalians owned the king, in the exercise of his Erastian supremacy over them, so the Revolution Church, instead of opposing, did take up her standing under the covert of that anti-christian supremacy, and has never since declined the exercise thereof. And, as the civil power prescribed limits unto, and at pleasure altered, the prelatic church, so this church has accepted of a formula, prescribed by the civil power, requiring that all the ordinances within the same be performed by the ministers thereof, as they were then allowed them, or should thereafter be declared by their authority, as _Act_ 23d, _Sess._ 4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, expressly bears. By what is said above, it may appear, that this church is Erastian in her constitution. But it is further to be observed, that the present constitution is no less inconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted constitution of the church of _Scotland_, in regard that the retrograde constitution, to which the church fled back, and on which she was settled at the revolution, was but an infant state of the church, lately after her first reformation from Popery, far inferior to her advanced state betwixt 1638 and 1649 inclusive. It was before the church had shaken off the intolerable yokes of Erastian supremacy and patronages; before she had ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained, her spiritual and scriptural claim of right, namely, the divine right of presbytery, and intrinsic power of the church, the two special gems of Christ's crown, as King on his holy hill of Zion; before the explanation of the national covenant, as condemning episcopacy, the five articles of _Perth_, the civil power of churchmen; before the Solemn League and Covenant was entered into; before the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith, the Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Directory for worship, Form of Presbyterian church government and ordination of ministers, were composed; and before the acts of church and state, for purging judicatories, ecclesiastical and civil, and armies from persons disaffected to the cause and work of God, were made; and all these valuable pieces of reformation ratified with the full and ample sanction of the supreme civil authority, by the king's majesty and honorable estates of parliament, as parts of the covenanted uniformity in religion, betwixt the churches of Christ in _Scotland, England_ and _Ireland_. And therefore, this revolution constitution amounts to a shameful disregarding--yea, disclaiming and burying--much (if not all) of the reformation attained to in that memorable period, and is a virtual homologation and allowance of the iniquitous laws at the restoration, _anno_ 1661, condemning our glorious reformation and sacred covenants as rebellion; and is such an aggravated step of defection and apostasy, as too clearly discovers this church to be fixed upon a different footing, and to be called by another name, than the genuine offspring of the true covenanted church of Christ in _Scotland_.

Besides what has been already noticed, respecting the sinfulness both of the members constituent, and the constitutions at the revolution, it is to be further observed, as just matter of lamentation, that, at this period, when such a noble opportunity was offered, no suitable endeavors were made for reviving the covenanted cause and interest of our REDEEMER; no care taken that the city of the Lord should be built upon her own heap, and the palace remain after the manner thereof; but, on the contrary, a religion was then established, not only exceedingly far short of, but in many particulars very inconsistent with, and destructive of, that blessed uniformity in religion, once the glory of these now degenerate isles. The presbytery, therefore, in the next place, do testify against the settlement of religion made at the revolution, and that in these particulars following:

1. Instead of abolishing Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, as it had been abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant, and stands condemned by the word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, conform to the divine law, it was then, with all its popish ceremonies, anew secured, confirmed and established, in both these kingdoms, as the true religion, according to the word of God, to be publicly professed by all the people; and the supreme civil magistrate solemnly sworn, at his inauguration, both that he himself shall be of the Episcopal communion, and that he shall maintain inviolably the settlement of the church of _England_, in the kingdoms of _England_ and _Ireland_, and territories thereunto belonging. Thus the revolution has ratified the impious overthrow, and ignominious burial, of the covenanted reformation in these two kingdoms, that was made in the persecuting period, and has fixed a legal bar in the way of their reformation, in agreeableness to the sacred oath the three nations brought themselves under to God Almighty.

2. As to the settlement of religion in _Scotland_, the presbytery testify against it: because it was a settlement, which, instead of homologating and reviving the covenanted reformation between 1638 and 1650, in profession and principle, left the same buried under the infamous act rescissory, which did, at one blow, rescind and annul the whole of the reformation, and authority establishing the same, by making a retrograde motion, as far back as 1592, without ever coming one step forward since that time, and herein acted most contrary to the practice of our honored reformers, who always used to begin where former reformations stopped, and after having removed what obstructed the work of reformation, went forward in building and beautifying the house of the Lord.

That this backward settlement at the revolution, was a glaring relinquishment of many of our valuable and happy attainments, in the second and most advanced reformation (as said is), and consequently, an open apostasy and revolt from the covenanted constitution of the church of _Scotland_, is sufficiently evident, from the foresaid act of settlement 1690; where (after having allowed of the _Westminster_ confession) they further add, "That they do establish, ratify and confirm, the Presbyterian church government and discipline, ratified and established by the 114th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592." So that this settlement includes nothing more of the covenanted uniformity in these lands, than only the thirty-three articles of the Confession of Faith, wanting the scripture proofs. Again, that the Revolution settlement of religion did not abolish the act rescissory, nor ratify and revive any act, between 1638 and 1650, authorizing and establishing the work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, after abolishing some acts anent the late prelacy in _Scotland_, they declare: "that these acts are abolished, so far allenarly, as the said acts, and others, generally and particularly above mentioned, are contrary or prejudicial to, inconsistent with, or derogatory from, the Protestant religion, or Presbyterian church government, now established." Where observe, that this general clause is restricted to acts and laws, in so far only, as they were contrary to the religion settled in this act; and therefore, as this act includes no part of the covenanted reformation between 1638 and 1649, so this rescissory clause abolishes laws, not as against foresaid reformation, but only in so far as they strike against the revolution settlement, which the act rescissory could not do. Again, in another clause of the same act, it is added: "Therefore, their majesties do hereby revive and ratify, and perpetually confirm, all laws, statutes and acts of parliament, made against Popery and Papists." The only reason that can be given for the revival of laws, not against Prelacy, but Popery, when abolishing Prelacy, is, that the parliament, excluding the covenanted reformation from this settlement of religion, resolved to let the whole of it lie buried under the act rescissory. For as, in reality, there were no laws made expressly against Prelacy before 1592, but against Popery and Papists; so, had they said, laws against prelacy and prelates, they thereby would have revived some of the laws made by the reforming parliaments, between 1640 and 1650; wherein bishops and all other prelates, the civil places and power of kirkmen, &c., are expressly condemned. Again, in the foresaid act, they confirm all the article of the 114th _Act_, 1592, except the part of it anent patronages, which is to be afterward considered. Now, had the revolution parliament regarded the reforming laws to have been revived, and so the act rescissory to be rescinded, by their _Act_ 5th, 1690, they would not have left this particular to be again considered of, seeing patronages were entirely abolished by an act of parliament 1649; but, having the ball at their foot, they now acted as would best suit with their political and worldly views. Once more observe, that when the revolution parliament ratified the act 1592, they take no notice of its having been done before, by a preceding parliament in 1649. All which plainly says, that the reforming laws and authority of the parliaments by which they were made, are not regarded as now in force. To conclude this particular, if the settlement of religion, made in 1690, had revived and ratified the authority of our reforming parliaments, and laws made by them; then, as these obliged the king to swear the covenants before his coronation, and all ranks to swear them, and obliged to root out malignancy, sectarianism, &c., and to promote uniformity in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, in the three nations, so the revolution settlement would have obliged all to the practice of the same duties, and that, before ever king, or any under him, could have been admitted to any trust; while all that would not comply therewith, would have been held as enemies, not only to religion, but to their king and country also, as was the case when reformation flourished. But, as the very reverse of this was authorized and practised at the revolution, it convincingly discovers, that the settlement of religion, made in 1690, left the whole of the reformation attained to, ratified and established by solemn oaths and civil laws between 1640 and 1649, buried under that scandalous and wicked act rescissory, framed by that tyrant, _Charles_ II, after his restoration. Nor is there to be found, in all the acts, petitions, supplications and addresses, made by the assemblies at or since the revolution, any thing importing a desire to have that blasphemous act rescinded, which stands in full force, to the perpetual infamy and disgrace of the revolution settlement of religion, so much gloried in, by the greatest part, as happily established.

2. The presbytery testify against the Revolution settlement of religion, not only as including avowed apostasy from the covenanted constitution of the reformed church of _Scotland_, and a traitorous giving up of the interests and rights of Christ, our Lord and REDEEMER, in these, and especially in this land; but also, as it is an Erastian settlement, which will appear, by considering 1_st_. The scriptural method then taken, in establishing religion: instead of setting the church foremost in the work of the Lord, and the state coming after, and ratifying by their civil sanction what the church had done; the Revolution parliament inverted this beautiful order, both in abolishing Prelacy, settling Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard of doctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolishing Prelacy, as it was not at the desire of the church, but of the estates of _Scotland_, so the parliament did it in an Erastian manner, without consulting the church, or regarding that it had been abolished by the church, _anno_ 1638, and by the state, 1640, in confirmation of what the church had done. Thus, _Act_ 3d, 1689, 'tis said, "The king and queen's majesties with the estates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy." Again, when establishing presbytery, _Act_ 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastian manner, whereby the order of the house of God was inverted in the matter of government; in regard that the settlement of the government of the church in the first instance, properly belongs to an ecclesiastical judicatory, met and constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and it is afterward the duty of the state to give the sanction of their authority to the same. This Erastianism further appears in the parliament's conduct with respect unto the Confession of Faith: see _Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2d, _Parl._ 1st, wherein thus they express themselves: "Likeas they, by these presents, ratify and establish the Confession of Faith, now read in their presence, and voted and approven by them, as the public and avowed confession of this church." Hence it is obvious, that the parliament, by sustaining themselves proper judges of doctrine, encroached upon the intrinsic power of the church: they read, voted, and approved the Confession of Faith, without ever referring to, or regarding the act of the general assembly 1647, or any other act of reforming assemblies, whereby that confession was formerly made ours, or even so much as calling an assembly to vote and approve that confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, without regarding the church in her assemblies, either past or future, is gross Erastianism, and what does not belong, at first instance, to the civil magistrate, but to the church representative, to whom the Lord has committed the management of the affairs of his spiritual kingdom, may appear from these few sacred texts, besides many others, namely, _Numb._ i, 50, 51: "But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all the things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle and all the vessels thereof, and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle; and when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down, and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." See also chapters iii, and iv, throughout; also _Deut._ xxxiii, 8, 10; 1 _Chron._ xv, 2; 2 _Chron._ xix, 11; _Ezra_ x, 4. So _David_, when he had felt the anger of the Lord, for not observing his commandments in this particular, says, 1 _Chron._ xv, 12, 13, to the _Levites_, "Sanctify yourselves that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order." Likewise Hezekiah, a reforming king, did not himself, at first instance, set about reforming and purging the house of God; but having called together the priests and Levites, says to them, 2 _Chron._ xxix, 5: "Sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place;" compared with _ver._ 11; _Mal._ ii, 7; _Matth._ xvi, 19. "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." And xxviii, 18, 19, 20: "All power is given unto me, go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." From all which it may safely be inferred, that as the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Lawgiver of his church, has committed all the power of church matters, whether respecting the doctrine or government thereof, to church officers, as the first, proper receptacles thereof; so, for civil rulers, at first instance, by their own authority, to make alterations in the government of the church, and to settle and emit a standard of doctrine to the church, is a manifest usurpation of ecclesiastical authority, and tyrannical encroachment upon the ministerial office. It needs only to be added, that this Revolution conduct stands condemned by the Confession of Faith itself, in express terms (as well as in the holy scriptures), _chap._ xxiii, _sect._ 3, "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word or the keys." And also, by the beautiful practice of our reformers, betwixt 1638 and 1649, who observed the scriptural order, the church always going foremost, in all the several pieces of reformation attained to, and then the state coming after, by exerting their authority, in ratification and defense of the church's acts and deeds, in behalf of reformation.

3. The Erastianism of this settlement of religion, appears plain from the act of parliament 1592, noticed above, upon which the Revolution parliament did found it, as in _Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2, 1690, by which the forementioned act 1592, is ratified, revived, renewed and confirmed, in all the heads thereof, patronage excepted. Now, in regard that act 1592 contains an invasion upon the headship of Christ, and intrinsic power of the church, and ascribes an Erastian power to the civil magistrate over the church, making it unlawful for the church to convocate her superior judicatories, but in dependence upon the king for his licence and authority; and in regard the Revolution parliament did revive and renew this clause in foresaid act 1592, as well as other heads thereof, it must needs follow, that this settlement of religion cannot be freed of the charge of Erastianism. Nor is it very strange that statesmen, who had been educated in the principles of Erastianism, should be fond of reviving an act that robbed Christ of his crown rights, and the church of her spiritual liberty; but most surprising, that professed Presbyterian ministers should so greedily embrace and approve of Erastianism, as a valuable and glorious deliverance to the church of Christ! In agreeableness to this Erastian article of the above act the parliament, in their act 1690, indicted and appointed the first general assembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newly constituted church; and it has ever since been the practice of the sovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her assemblies at his pleasure, and sometimes to an indefinite time. It is further observable, that the king's commission to his representative in assembly, runs in a style that evidently discovers, that he looks upon the assembly's power and right of constitution as subordinate to him. Thus it begins, "_Seeing by our decree that an assembly is to meet_," &c. Yet notwithstanding of this, the assembly 1690 (nor any after them, so far as was ever known to the world) did not by any one formal act and statue expressly condemn Erastianism, and explicitly assert the alone headship of Christ, and the intrinsic, independent power of the church, in opposition to these encroachments made thereupon, and therefore may be justly construed consenters thereto. To conclude this particular, of the Erastianism of the present settlement of religion, it may be observed that although the Revolution parliament, from political views, did by _Act_ 1st, _Sess._ 2d, rescind the first act of the second parliament of Charles II. entitled _Act asserting his majesty's supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical_; yet, from what is above hinted, it may be inferred, that the Revolution state has still preserved the very soul and substance of that blasphemous supremacy (though possibly they may have transferred it from the person of the king, abstractly considered, and lodged it in the hand of the king and parliament conjunctly, as the more proper subject thereof): for, in the words of Mr. John Burnet, in his testimony against the indulgence, quoted by Mr. Brown in his history of the indulgence, "To settle, enact and emit constitutions, acts and orders, concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical, according to royal pleasure (and parliamentary is much the same), is the very substance and definition of his majesty's supremacy, as it is explained by his estates of parliament." But the Revolution act of parliament settling religion, is just to settle, enact and emit such constitutions, acts and orders concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical, according to parliamentary, instead of mere royal pleasure: and therefore the act authorizing the Revolution settlement of religion, is the very substance and definition of a royal parliamentary supremacy. The truth of this will further appear by the sequel.

4. The presbytery testify against the Revolution constitution and settlement of religion, as it is not a religious, but a mere civil and political one; "not built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" but upon the fluctuating inclinations of the people, as the formal foundation thereof. For proof of which, consider the acts of parliament relative to the abolition of Prelacy, and the establishment of presbytery. In consequence of an article of the claim of right made by the estates of Scotland, the _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, _Parl._ 1689, declares, "That whereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right, declared that Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church above presbyters, is and hath been a great and insupportable grievance to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the reformation, they having been reformed from Popery by presbyters, and therefore to be abolished: our sovereign lord and lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy, and all superiority of any office in the church in this kingdom above presbyters; and do declare, that they, with advice aforesaid, will settle by law that church government in this kingdom, which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people." Agreeable to this, one of king William's instructions to the parliament 1690, is, "You are to pass an act establishing that church government which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people." Accordingly we have the _Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2d, 1690, settling Presbyterian church-government in the same form, and on the same footing. And so much king William, who, doubtless, was perfectly acquainted with the true intent and meaning of that act, declares in his letter to the assembly indicted by him that same year. From all which (without noticing the Erastian form of these acts, &c.) it may be observed, that there is somewhat done that is materially good; but then there is nothing importing the contrariety of Prelacy to the scriptures of truth, nor the divine right of Presbyterian church government, so that the whole of this settlement is purely political, done for the pleasure of the good subjects of Scotland: for, 1st, the only reason why Prelacy is complained of and abolished, is, because it was grievous and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the people. It is not so much as declared contrary to law, though well known that it was condemned by many of the reforming laws; far less is it declared contrary to the word of God, and reformation principles founded thereupon. Neither is it said to be a grievance to the nations, though it is manifest, by the nations entering into a solemn covenant to extirpate it, that it was an insupportable burden to all the three. And the great reason assigned for the people's dissatisfaction to Prelacy, is _antiquity_, "they having been reformed from Popery by presbyters," as if our reformers had only contended for a church government merely human; whereas they strenuously maintained the divine right of presbytery, and condemned Prelacy as contrary to the word of God. This reason would be equally strong against presbytery, on supposition that prelates had got the start of presbyters in the reformation from Popery. Again, 2d, upon the same, and no better ground, was Presbytery established, namely, because it was more agreeable to the inclinations of the people, and as it was of a more ancient standing in Scotland than Prelacy. Further, that the divine right of presbytery is not acknowledged in this settlement, appears from the express words of the act itself, wherein it is designated, "the only government of Christ's church in the nation;" not the only government of Christ's church laid down in the word of God, received and sworn to by all the three nations, ratified by both civil and ecclesiastical authority. A clear evidence, that church government was regarded as ambulatory only, and what might be altered at pleasure. Hence, while the king was settling presbytery in Scotland, he was also maintaining, as bound by oath, Prelacy in England, &c. And so Presbytery, for peace's sake, as most agreeable to the inclinations of the people, was settled in Scotland as the government of Christ's church there. Thus, there is a settlement of religion, and yet not one line of scripture authority, or reformation principles legible therein: and, as one said (though a strenuous defender of the settlement), "The glory of that church is at a low pass, which hangs upon the nail of legal securities by kings and parliaments, instead of the nail which God has fastened in a sure place;" which, alas! is the case with the church of Scotland at this day. It is true, that the parliament call their settlement, "Agreeable to God's word;" but it is as true, that, from their conduct toward both (abolishing Prelacy, and establishing Presbytery, from these political motives above mentioned), it is abundantly plain, that they believed neither of them to be formally and specifically agreeable to, and founded upon the word of God; but that they regarded all forms of church government as indifferent, and thought themselves at liberty to pick and choose such a particular form as best suited the humors and inclinations of the people, and their own worldly advantage. Accordingly, we find the parliament 1689, appointing a committee to receive all the forms of government that should be brought before them, to examine them for this purpose, and then report their opinions of them to the house.

That the parliament at this time, or the king and parliament conjunctly, acted from the above latitudinarian principle, is further evident, from their establishing and consenting to the establishment of these two different and opposite forms of church government, Presbytery in _Scotland_, and Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, and both of them considered as agreeable to the word of God, and the only government of Christ's church in the several kingdoms, where they were espoused; which, as it is self-contradictory and absurd, so it is impossible they could ever have done this, if they had believed the divine right of either of them. And finally, by this conduct of theirs, the state declared their approbation thereof, and resolution to copy after the 16th _Act, Sess._ 2d _Parl._ 1st of _Charles_ II (yet in force), which ascribes an Erastian power to the king, of settling church government as he shall think proper. By all which it appears quite inconsistent with the Revolution settlement, to consider church power in any other light, than as subordinate to the power of the state. And yet with this political and Erastian settlement of religion, the Revolution Church have declared themselves satisfied; they have not condemned Episcopacy, as contrary to the word of God, nor positively asserted the divine right of Presbytery, and disclaimed the claim of right and act of settlement, as their right of constitution; but, on the contrary, approved of both, as appears from the commission's act, 1709, and their address to the parliament, 1711, both homologated by the succeeding assemblies. Whereby they declare, that they have dropped a most material part of the testimony of the reformed church of _Scotland_, and are not faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, in maintaining the rights of his crown and kingdom. From the whole, it may too justly be concluded concerning the Revolution settlement of religion, what the prophet _Hosea_ declares of the calf of _Samaria, Hos._ viii, 6: "For from Israel was it also, the workman made it, therefore it is not God; the calf of _Samaria_ shall be broken in pieces." It is not a divine institution founded upon the word of God, and regulated by his revealed law; but a human invention, owing its original in both kingdoms to the inclinations of the people, and governed by laws opposite to the laws of Christ in the word.

Hence we have the idolatrous institutions of Prelacy, established in the one nation, and Erastianism, under the specious pretext of Presbytery, in the other; and both under an exotic head of ecclesiastical government.

From what is said above, respecting the Revolution constitutions, and settlement of religion in the nations, it will appear, that the same are opposite to the word of God, and covenanted constitutions of both church and state, and to the reforming laws, between 1638 and 1650, ratifying and securing the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church, and all divine ordinances, sacred and civil, according to scripture revelation; and therefore cannot be acknowledged as lawful, by any that make the law of God their rule, and desire to go out by the footsteps of the flock of Christ.

The Presbytery proceed now to consider the administration since the late Revolution, as standing in immediate connection with the forementioned constitutions and settlement: only, in the entry, it may be observed, that as the mal-administrations, civil and ecclesiastical, are increased to almost an innumerable multitude, so that it would be next to an impossibility to reckon them all; the Presbytery propose only to observe so many of the most remarkable instances, as shall be sufficient to justify a condemnation of the present course of the nations, although the constitutions could not, be excepted against as sinful. And,

1. The Presbytery declare and testify against the gross Erastianism that has attended the administrations of both church and state, since the Revolution. As the constitutions of both (above noticed) were Erastian and anti-scriptural, so their conduct ever since has been agreeable thereto, tending evidently to discover that, while the state is robbing out Redeemer of his crown, and his church of her liberties, this church, instead of testifying against, gives consent to these impieties.

Particularly, 1, as at the forementioned period, so ever since, the king has continued, by his own authority, to call, dissolve, and adjourn the national assemblies of this church. The first Revolution Assembly was held, by virtue of an Erastian indictment, and by the same power dissolved. The nest was, by royal authority, appointed to be at _Edinburgh_ 1691, but by the same power, adjourned to 1692, and then dissolved, without passing any act; and though again indicted to meet 1693, yet was not allowed to sit until _March_ 1694, near a year after the parliament had made an humble address to the sovereign for granting that privilege. But it would be endless to attempt an enumeration of all the instances of the exercise of Erastianism in this particular, which is annually renewed. How often, alas! have the assemblies been prorogued, raised, and dissolved, by magistratical authority, and sometimes without nomination of another diet? How frequently also, have they been restricted in their proceedings, and prelimited as to members, and matters to be treated of, and discussed therein; depriving some members of their liberty to sit and act as members, though regularly chosen, merely, because such had not taken the oaths appointed by law? All which exercise of Erastian supremacy natively results from the parliamentary settlement 1690. And when no adequate testimony was ever given by the church against such Erastian usurpations, but they are still crouched under and complied with, it may justly be constructed a tame subjection and woful consent to this supremacy. That this is no forced inference from the continued practice of this church, appears from this (besides other evidences that might be adduced), viz., That as the Revolution parliament, when ratifying the Confession of Faith, entirely left out the act of Assembly 1647, approving and partly explaining the same (wherein these remarkable words are, "It is further declared, that the Assembly understands some parts of the second article of the 31st chapter, only of kirks not settled or constituted in point of government") as being inconsistent with the Erastian impositions of the magistrate. So this church, when they cause intrants into the ministry subscribe the Confession, do not oblige them to subscribe it with this explanatory act (which does by no means admit of a privative power in the magistrate, destructive of the church's intrinsic power), but they only do it as the parliament ratified it.