Act, Declaration, & Testimony for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation Part 2

Accordingly, in the second session of the same parliament, _Act_ 5th, _June_ 7th, 1690, the parliament establis.h.i.+ng 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 a.s.sembly 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 const.i.tution 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 a.s.sembly 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 const.i.tute and act as the supreme judicatory of the church of Christ, _anno_ 1690. Again, the foresaid a.s.sembly was almost wholly formed of such as had pet.i.tioned for, accepted of, and pretended to return a G.o.d-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 a.s.sembly 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 b.l.o.o.d.y 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 a.s.sembly, being generally n.o.blemen, 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 a.s.sembly 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 G.o.d; 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 G.o.d, 2 _Chron._ x.x.x, 3: "For they could not keep the pa.s.sover 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 a.s.semblies, providing that the king's majesty, or his commissioner with them, to be appointed be his highness to be present at ilk general a.s.sembly, before the dissolving thereof, nominate and appoynt time and place, quhen and quhair the next general a.s.semblie 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 a.s.semblie beis halden, then, and in that case, it shall be lesum for the said general a.s.sembly be themselves, to nominate and appoint time and place, quhair the next general a.s.sembly 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 heads.h.i.+p and supremacy of Christ, as a Son in, and over his own house. He who is G.o.d'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 princ.i.p.al 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 a.s.serted 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sembly of _treacherous_ men, by settling themselves upon such a const.i.tution 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 a.s.semblies, 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 const.i.tuted in the same Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in _Scotland_. For proof of which, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically a.s.serted to be of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit and formal act of a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.semblies 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 const.i.tution. But it is further to be observed, that the present const.i.tution is no less inconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted const.i.tution of the church of _Scotland_, in regard that the retrograde const.i.tution, 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 a.s.serted, 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 G.o.d, 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 const.i.tution 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 h.o.m.ologation 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 const.i.tuent, and the const.i.tutions at the revolution, it is to be further observed, as just matter of lamentation, that, at this period, when such a n.o.ble 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 abolis.h.i.+ng Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, as it had been abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant, and stands condemned by the word of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d Almighty.

2. As to the settlement of religion in _Scotland_, the presbytery testify against it: because it was a settlement, which, instead of h.o.m.ologating 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 const.i.tution 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 establis.h.i.+ng the work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, after abolis.h.i.+ng 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 abolis.h.i.+ng 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, wors.h.i.+p, 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, pet.i.tions, supplications and addresses, made by the a.s.semblies 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 const.i.tution 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 abolis.h.i.+ng Prelacy, settling Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard of doctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolis.h.i.+ng 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 establis.h.i.+ng presbytery, _Act_ 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastian manner, whereby the order of the house of G.o.d 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 const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sembly 1647, or any other act of reforming a.s.semblies, whereby that confession was formerly made ours, or even so much as calling an a.s.sembly to vote and approve that confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, without regarding the church in her a.s.semblies, 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._ x.x.xiii, 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 G.o.d of Israel. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our G.o.d 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 G.o.d; but having called together the priests and Levites, says to them, 2 _Chron._ xxix, 5: "Sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord G.o.d 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 a.s.sume 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 heads.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newly const.i.tuted church; and it has ever since been the practice of the sovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her a.s.semblies at his pleasure, and sometimes to an indefinite time. It is further observable, that the king's commission to his representative in a.s.sembly, runs in a style that evidently discovers, that he looks upon the a.s.sembly's power and right of const.i.tution as subordinate to him. Thus it begins, "_Seeing by our decree that an a.s.sembly is to meet_," &c. Yet notwithstanding of this, the a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sert the alone heads.h.i.+p 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.

ent.i.tled _Act a.s.serting 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 const.i.tutions, 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 const.i.tutions, 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 const.i.tution 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 pa.s.s an act establis.h.i.+ng 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 a.s.sembly 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 G.o.d, 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 a.s.signed 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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, 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 pa.s.s, which hangs upon the nail of legal securities by kings and parliaments, instead of the nail which G.o.d 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 G.o.d's word;" but it is as true, that, from their conduct toward both (abolis.h.i.+ng Prelacy, and establis.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d; 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 lat.i.tudinarian principle, is further evident, from their establis.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, nor positively a.s.serted the divine right of Presbytery, and disclaimed the claim of right and act of settlement, as their right of const.i.tution; but, on the contrary, approved of both, as appears from the commission's act, 1709, and their address to the parliament, 1711, both h.o.m.ologated by the succeeding a.s.semblies. 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 G.o.d; the calf of _Samaria_ shall be broken in pieces." It is not a divine inst.i.tution founded upon the word of G.o.d, 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 inst.i.tutions 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 const.i.tutions, and settlement of religion in the nations, it will appear, that the same are opposite to the word of G.o.d, and covenanted const.i.tutions of both church and state, and to the reforming laws, between 1638 and 1650, ratifying and securing the doctrine, wors.h.i.+p, 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 G.o.d 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 const.i.tutions and settlement: only, in the entry, it may be observed, that as the mal-administrations, civil and ecclesiastical, are increased to almost an innumerable mult.i.tude, 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 const.i.tutions 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 const.i.tutions 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 a.s.semblies of this church. The first Revolution a.s.sembly 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 pa.s.sing 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 a.s.semblies 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 a.s.sembly 1647, approving and partly explaining the same (wherein these remarkable words are, "It is further declared, that the a.s.sembly understands some parts of the second article of the 31st chapter, only of kirks not settled or const.i.tuted 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 a.s.sembly 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_, h.o.m.ologating the Revolution settlement, subst.i.tuted 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 a.s.semblies, together with after acts of parliament, relative thereto. In his letter, dated _February_ 13th, 1690, to the commission of the a.s.sembly, 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 a.s.sembly 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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sembly 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 inc.u.mbent 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 a.s.sembly records); so the a.s.sembly 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 G.o.d'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 a.s.sembly 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 h.o.m.ologators 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.

3. A _third_ instance of the Erastianism practiced since the revolution, is, that the king and parliament have taken upon them to prescribe and lay down, by magistratical authority, conditions and qualifications, _sine qua non_, of ministers and preachers. For proof of which, see _Act_ 6th, _Sess._ 4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, where it is enacted, "That the said oath of allegiance be sworn the same with the foresaid a.s.surance, be subscribed by all preachers and ministers of the gospel whatever--certifying such of the foresaid persons as are, or shall be, in any public office, and shall own and exercise the same without taking the said oath and a.s.surance in manner foresaid,--ministers provided to kirks shall be deprived of their benefices or stipends, and preachers shall be punished with banishment, or otherwise, as the council shall think fit." Also, _Act_ 23d, 1693, it is ordained, "That no person be admitted or continued to be a minister, or preach within this church, unless that he have first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance, and subscribed the oath of a.s.surance in manner appointed. And further statute and ordain, that uniformity of wors.h.i.+p be observed by all the said ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed and allowed therein, or shall hereafter be declared by the authority of the same: and that no minister or preacher be continued and admitted hereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe, and do actually observe, the foresaid uniformity." The Erastianism in these acts seems screwed up yet a little higher, by _Act_ 7th, _Sess._ 5th, _Parl._ 1st, 1695; where, after appointing a new day to such ministers as had not formerly obeyed, it is ordained: "With certification that such of the said ministers as shall not come in between and said day, are hereby, and by the force of this present act, _ipso facto_, deprived of their respective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant, without any further sentence." The Erastianism in these acts is so manifest at first sight, that it is needless to ill.u.s.trate the same; only it may be remarked, that, by these acts, the civil magistrate prescribes new ministerial qualifications, viz., the oaths of allegiance and a.s.surance; and these imposed instead of an oath of allegiance to Zion's King, viz., the oaths of the covenants. As also, that ministers are hereby restricted from advancing reformation, being bound down to observe that uniformity at present allowed, or that shall hereafter be declared by authority of parliament. And further, Erastianism is here advanced to the degree of wresting the keys of government out of the hands of the church altogether--taking to themselves the power of deposing all such ministers as shall not submit to their anti-christian impositions, and of declaring and ascertaining, by their own authority, what mode of wors.h.i.+p or government shall take place in the church hereafter. This Erastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidently injurious, both to the heads.h.i.+p of Christ in his church, and to the church's intrinsic power. It pertains to the royal prerogative of Christ, to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, which he has done in the Word. And it pertains to the church representative, by applying the laws of Christ in his Word, to declare who are qualified for the ministry, and who are not. But here the civil power, without any regard to church judicatories, by a magisterial authority, judges and determines, the qualifications that gospel ministers must have, otherwise they cannot be acknowledged ministers of this church. At the same time, it must be regretted, that the church, instead of faithfully discovering the sinfulness of foresaid conduct, and testifying against it, as an anti-christian usurpation, have declared their approbation thereof, by taking the above named illimited oaths, according to the parliament's order; and also by the a.s.sembly's enjoining their commission to act conform to the parliament's directions respecting ministerial qualifications, in their admission of those that had formerly conformed to Episcopacy, and refusing to admit any into their communion without having these new ministerial qualifications.

4. A fourth piece of Erastianism exercised since the commencement of the revolution settlement, against which the presbytery testify, is, the civil magistrate, by himself and his own authority, without consulting the church, or any but his parliament, privy council, and diocesan bishops, his appointing diets and causes of public fasting and thanksgiving. A number of instances might here be condescended on. So an act of the states, _anno_ 1689, for public thanksgiving. An act of parliament 1693, appointing a monthly fast, declares, "That their majesties, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, do hereby command and appoint, that a day of solemn fasting and humiliation be religiously and strictly observed, by all persons within this kingdom, both in church and meeting-houses, upon the third _Thursday_ of the month of _May_, and, the third _Thursday_ of every month thereafter, until intimation of forbearance be made by the lords of their majesties'

privy council; and ordains all ministers to read these presents a _Sunday_ before each of these fast days, nominated, by authority; and ordains all disobeyers to be fined in a sum not exceeding 100., and every minister who shall not obey, to be processed before the lords of their majesties' privy council; and requiring sheriffs to make report of the ministers who shall fail of their duty herein, to the privy council." But it is to no purpose to multiply instances of this kind, seeing it has been the common practice of every sovereign since the revolution, to appoint and authorize national diets of fasting, with civil pains annexed. And as the state has made these encroachments upon the royalties of Christ, so this church, instead of bearing faithful testimony against the same, have finally submitted thereto. In agreeableness to the royal appointment, they observed the monthly fast for the success of the war against _Lewis_ XIV (of which above), and in favor of the Pope, which king _William_ was bound to prosecute by virtue of a covenant made with the allies at the _Hague, February_, 1691, to be seen in the declaration of war then made against _France_, wherein it is expressly said, "That no peace is to be made with _Lewis_ XIV, till he has made reparation to the Holy See for whatsoever he has acted against it, and till he make void all these infamous proceedings (viz., of the parliament of _Paris_) against the holy father, _Innocent_ XI." Behold here the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy, and his power and dignity, both as a secular and ecclesiastical prince; and in the observation of these fasts, the church did mediately (_tell it not in Gath_--) pray for success to the _man of sin_--a practice utterly repugnant to Protestant, much more to Presbyterian, principles, and which will be a lasting stain upon both church and state. As this church did then submit, so since she has made a resignation and surrender of that part of the church's intrinsic right to the civil power, see _Act_ 7th, _a.s.sem._ 1710: "All ministers and members are appointed religiously to observe all fasts and thanksgivings whatever, appointed by the church or supreme magistrate; and the respective judicatories are appointed to take particular notice of the due observation of this, and _Act_ 4th, 1722, _Act_ 5th, 1725." From which acts it is manifest, that the Revolution Church has not only declared the power and right of authoritative indicting public fasts and thanksgivings for ordinary, even in a const.i.tuted settled national church, to belong, at least equally, to the civil magistrate, as to the church; but, by their constant practice, have undeniably given up the power of the same to the civil power altogether--it being fact, that she never, by her own power, appoints a national diet of fasting, but still applies to the king for the nomination thereof. And further, as a confirmation of this surrender, it appears from their public records, that when some members have protested against the observation of such diets, the a.s.sembly would neither receive nor record such protest. Now, the sinfulness of this Erastian practice still persisted in, is evident from the Scriptures of truth, where the glorious king of Zion a.s.signs the power of appointing fasts, not to the civil magistrate, but to the spiritual office-bearers in his house. _Jer._ xiii, 18: "Say unto the king and queen, Humble yourselves." Here it is the office of the prophets of the Lord, to enjoin humiliation work upon those that are in civil authority, contrary to the present practice, when kings and queens, usurping the sacred office, by their authority, say to ministers, "Humble yourselves." See also, _Joel_ i, 13, 14, and ii, 15, 16, compared with _Numb._ x, 8-10.

Here whatever pertains to these solemnities, is entrusted to, and required of, the ministers of the Lord, without the intervention of civil authority. The same is imported in _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii, 18; _John_ xx, 23--it being manifestly contained in the power of the keys committed, by the church's head, to ecclesiastical officers.

Moreover, this Erastianism, flowing from a spiritual supremacy exercised over the church, is peculiarly aggravated by these particulars:

1. That commonly these fasts have been appointed on account of wars, in which the nations were engaged, in conjunction with gross anti-christian idolaters, who have been most active in their endeavors to root out Protestantism. Now, it cannot but be most provoking to the Majesty of Heaven for professed Presbyterians to observe fasts, the professed design of which, includes success to the interest of the avowed enemies of our glorious REDEEMER. Again, the above practice is aggravated, from this consideration, that these diets of fasting, with civil pains annexed to them, are sent by public proclamation, directed to their sheriffs and other subordinate civil officers, who are authorized to dispatch them to the ministers, and inspect their observation thereof.

And while professed ministers of Christ tamely comply with all this, it amounts to no less, than a base subjection of the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, in the solemnity of fasting in a national way, to the arbitrament of the civil powers, when whatever time and causes they appoint, must be observed.

From all which, in the words of the ministers of _Perth_ and _Fife_, in their testimony to the truth, &c., 1758, the presbytery testify against the above Erastian conduct, as being, in its own nature, introductory to greater encroachments, and putting into the hands of the civil powers, the modeling of the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, and things most properly ecclesiastical.

5. Another piece of Erastianism, respecting the present administration, which the Presbytery testify against, is the king and parliament their arbitrarily imposing several of their acts and statutes upon ministers and preachers, under ecclesiastical pains and censures; while this Revolution Church, by their silent submission and compliance therewith, have, at least, interpretatively given their consent thereto. Thus, as the oaths of allegiance and a.s.surance were enjoined upon all in ecclesiastical office, under the pain of church censure (of which above), so likewise, _Act_ 6th, 1706, ordains, "That no professors and princ.i.p.als, bearing office in any university, be capable, or be admitted to continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shall own the civil government, in manner prescribed, or to be prescribed by acts of parliament." In consequence of which, there is an _Act_ 1707, an act in the first year of king _George_ I, and another in the fifth year of his reign; by all which statutes, ecclesiastical persons are enjoined to take the oath of abjuration, with the other oaths, under pain of having ecclesiastical censures inflicted upon them. And they ordain, "That no person be admitted to trials, or licensed to preach, until they have taken the public oaths, on pain of being disabled." The foresaid act, in the fifth year of _George_ I, ordains, "all ministers and preachers to pray in express words for his majesty and the royal family, as in former acts." The king and parliament at their own hand prescribe a set form of prayer for the Church of _Scotland_, and that under Erastian penalties, upon the disobeyers. Again, by an act of 1737, framed for the more effectual bringing to justice the murderers of Captain _Porteous_, it is enacted, "That this act shall be read in every parish church throughout _Scotland_, on the first Lord's day of every month, for one whole year, from the first day of _August_, 1737, by the minister of the parish, in the morning, immediately before the sermon; and, in case such ministers shall neglect to read this act, as is here directed, he shall, for the first offense, be declared incapable of sitting or voting in any church judicatory; and for the second offense, be declared incapable of taking, holding or enjoying any ecclesiastical benefice in that part of _Great Britain_ called _Scotland_." The Erastianism of this act is very plain, the penalties thereof are ecclesiastical, and infer a kind of deposition; seeing the disobeyers are hereby disabled from exercising and enjoying what is essential to their office. Moreover, the wickedness of this act appears, in that it was appointed to be read on the Sabbath day, and in time of divine service; whereby ministers being const.i.tuted the magistrates' heralds to proclaim this act, were obliged to profane the Lord's day, and corrupt his wors.h.i.+p, by immixing human inventions therewith, which was directly a framing mischief into a law. Yet, with all these impositions above noticed, this church has generally complied; and thereby declared that they are more studious of pleasing and obeying men, than G.o.d, seeing their practice therein infers no less, than a taking instructions in the ministerial function, and matters of divine wors.h.i.+p, from another head than Christ.

6. The last piece of Erastian administration in church and state, the presbytery take notice of, and testify against, is that of patronages.

When the parliament 1690, had changed the form of patronages, by taking the power of presentations from patrons, and lodging it in the hands of such heritors and elders as were qualified by law, excluding the people from a vote in calling their ministers, this Erastian act, spoiling the people of their just privilege, was immediately embraced by the church, as is evident from their overtures for church discipline, 1696, where they declare that only heritors and elders have a proper right to vote in the nomination of a minister. Also their overtures, 1705 and 1719, do lodge the sole power of nomination of ministers in the hands of the majority of heritors, by giving them a negative over the elders.h.i.+p and congregation. But, as if this had not been a sufficient usurpation of the people's right, purchased to them by the blood of Christ, by an act of parliament, 1712, the above act, 1690, is repealed, and patrons fully restored to all their former anti-christian powers over the heritage of the Lord; which yoke still continues to oppres