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.
2. Another instance of Erastianism practiced by both church and state,
is, that when the king and parliament did bind down episcopal curates
upon congregations, forbidding church judicatories the exercise of
discipline upon the impenitent, and enjoining the Assembly to admit
such, without any evidence of grief or sorrow for their former apostasy,
upon their swearing the oath of allegiance, and subscribing a _formula_,
homologating the Revolution settlement, substituted in the room of the
covenants; the church approved of this settlement, and protection
granted by the civil powers to such curates all their lifetime in their
churches and benefices, who yet were not brought under any obligation to
subject themselves to the government and discipline of the church. The
truth of this is manifest, from sundry of king _William's_ letters to
the Assemblies, together with after acts of parliament, relative
thereto. In his letter, dated _February_ 13th, 1690, to the commission
of the Assembly, he says, "Whereas there has been humble application
made to us by several ministers, for themselves and others, who lately
served under episcopacy; we have thought good to signify our pleasure to
you, that you make no distinction of men, otherwise well qualified for
the ministry, though they have formerly conformed to the law,
introducing Episcopacy, and that ye give them no disturbance or vexation
for that cause, or for that head: and it is our pleasure, that, until we
give our further directions, you proceed to no more process, or any
other business." In another letter, dated _June_ 15th, 1691, he says,
"We are well pleased with what you write, to unite with such of the
clergy, who have served under Episcopacy; and that you are sufficiently
instructed by the General Assembly to receive them; from all which, we
do expect a speedy and happy success, that there shall be so great a
progress made in this union betwixt you, before our return to _Britain_,
that we shall then find no cause to continue that stop, which at present
we see necessary; and that neither you, nor any commission or church
meeting, do meddle in any process or business, that may concern the
purging out of the episcopal ministers." And in a letter to the
episcopal clergy, he says, "We doubt not of your applying to, and
concurring with, your brethren the Presbyterian ministers, in the terms
which we have been of pains to adjust for you; the _formula_ will be
communicated to you by our commissioners," &c. See also the 27th _Act,
Parl._ 1695, where it is declared, "That all such as shall duly come in
and qualify themselves, shall have and enjoy his majesty's protection,
as to their respective kirks and benefices, they always containing
themselves within the limits of their pastoral charge, within their said
parishes, without offering to exercise any part of government, unless
they be first duly assumed by a competent church judicatory; providing,
nevertheless, that as the said ministers are left free to apply, or not,
to the foresaid church judicatories," &c. To which agree, _Act_ 2d,
_Parl._ 1700; _Act_ 3d, _Parl._ 1702; _Act_ 2d, _Parl._ 1703, &c. Behold
here the civil magistrate, exercising the supremacy in matters
ecclesiastical, in that he both establishes the old _Scots_ curates in
their respective parishes, upon their former footing, limits them in the
exorcise of their function, discharging them from exercising any part of
ecclesiastical polity, but upon their uniting with the Presbyterians, on
the terms he had adjusted for them. And further, by his authority stops
the exercise of church discipline against these curates (though the most
of them were notoriously scandalous); nay, even discharges the Assembly
from proceeding to any other business, until they received other
directions from the throne. Which palpable instance of Erastianism in
the state, was not only peaceably submitted to, but heartily acquiesced
in by the church: for as they had declared they would censure no
prelatical incumbent for his principles anent church government, however
much disaffected to a covenanted reformation, and had given frequent
discoveries of their readiness to receive into communion the episcopal
curates, according to the terms prescribed by the parliament (as appears
from the Assembly records); so the Assembly 1694, _Act_ 11th, having
framed a sham _formula_, for receiving in the curates, containing no
such thing as any renunciation of abjured prelacy, the abominable test,
and other sinful oaths these creatures had taken, but only an
acknowledgment of the Revolution settlement of religion, as established
by law, by the foresaid act, appointed their commission to receive all
the episcopal clergy who applied, and being qualified according to law,
would also subscribe their _formula_, and that without requiring the
least show of repentance for their scandalous public sins, and their
deep guilt of the effusion of the blood of God's faithful saints and
witnesses during the tyranny of the two brothers. These instructions to
the commission and other judicatories (as appears by their acts), were
successively renewed by the Assembly upward of twenty times, from 1694
to 1716, and were indeed attended with good success, as is evident from
their address to the queen, recorded _Act_ 10th, 1712; where they
declare, as an instance of their moderation, "That since the Revolution,
there had been taken in, and continued, hundreds of the episcopal
curates upon the easiest terms," viz., such as were by the royal
prerogative adjusted to them. Which practice, as it declares this church
homologators of Erastianism, so is directly opposite to Presbyterian
principles, the discipline and practice of our reformed church of
_Scotland_, and to the laws of Christ, the supreme lawgiver, _Ezek._
xliv, 10-15; _2 Cor._ vi, 17, 18, &c.