This our Confession was publicly read, first in audience of the Lords of Articles, and afterwards in audience of the whole Parliament. There were present a great number of the adversaries of our religion, such as the forenamed Bishops, and some others of the Temporal Estate, and these were commanded, in Gods name, to state any objection to that doctrine if they could. Some of our ministers were present, standing upon their feet ready to have answered, in case any would have defended the Papistry, and impugned our affirmations. No objection was made, but there was a day appointed for voting on that and other matters. Again, our Confession was read over, every article by itself, in the order in which these were written, and the vote of every man was required. Of the Temporal Estate there only voted to the contrary the Earl of Atholl and the Lords Somerville and Borthwick; and yet for their dissent they produced no better reason than, "We will believe as our fathers believed." The Bishops (papistical, we mean) spake nothing. The rest of the whole three Estates, by their public votes, affirmed the doctrine.
Many voted in the affirmative rather than in the negative, because the Bishops would or durst say nothing to the contrary. For instance, this was the vote of the Earl Marischall,—"It is long since I have had some favour unto the truth, and since I have had a suspicion of the papistical religion; but, I praise my God, this day has fully resolved me in the one and the other. For, seeing that my Lord Bishops, who for their learning can, and for the zeal that they should bear to the truth, would, as I suppose, gainsay anything that directly repugns to the verity of God; seeing, I say, my Lord Bishops here present speak nothing contrary to the doctrine proponed, I cannot but hold it to be the very truth of God, and the contrary to be deceivable doctrine. And therefore, so far as in me lieth, I approve the one and damn the other. I do further ask of God that not only I but also all my posterity may enjoy the comfort of the doctrine that this day our ears have heard. Yet more, I must vote, as it were by way of protestation, that, if any persons ecclesiastical shall after this oppose themselves to this our Confession, they shall have no place or credit; considering that, they having long notice and full knowledge of this our Confession, none are now found in lawful, free, and quiet Parliament to oppose themselves to that which we profess. And therefore, if any of this generation pretend to do it after this, I protest that he be repute one that loveth his own commodity and the glory of the world, rather than the truth of God and the salvation of men's souls."
The Mass is prohibited.
After the ratification of our Confession by the whole body of Parliament, there were also pronounced two Acts, the one against the Mass and the abuse of the Sacraments, and the other against the supremacy of the Pope....
Queen Mary and the King of France do not ratify the Acts of Parliament.
These and other things done in lawful and free Parliament, we dispatched Sir James Sandilands, Lord St. John, to France, to our Sovereigns, with the Acts of the Parliament, that by them they might be ratified, according to the promise of their Highness's Commissioners made to us by the Contract of Peace. How the said Lord St. John was treated, we list not to rehearse; but, in any case, no ratification was brought by him to us. That we little regarded, or yet do regard; for all that we did was to show our dutiful obedience, rather than to beg of them any strength to our religion. That has full power from God, and needeth not the suffrage of man, except in so far as man hath need to believe it, if ever he shall have participation in the life everlasting.
We must make answer, however, to such as since have whispered that it was but a pretended Parliament and a privy convention, and no lawful Parliament. Their reasons are that the King and Queen were in France; that there was neither sceptre, sword, nor crown borne, and so on, and that some principal Lords were absent. We answer that the Queen's person was absent, and that to no small grief of our hearts. But were not the Estates of her realm assembled in her name? Yea, had they not her full power and commission, yea, the commission and commandment of her head, the King of France, to convocate that Parliament, and to do all things that may be done in lawful Parliament, even as if our Sovereigns had been there in proper person? That Parliament, we are bold to affirm, was more lawful, and more free than any Parliament that they are able to produce for a hundred years before it, or any that hath since ensued; for in it the votes of men were free, and given of conscience; in others, they were bought, or given at the devotion of the prince.
The Book of Discipline.
Parliament dissolved, consultation was had as to how the Kirk, which had been altogether defaced by the Papists, might be established in a good and godly policy. Commission and charge were given to Mr. John Winram, Sub-prior of St. Andrews, Master John Spottiswood, John Willock, Mr. John Douglas, Rector of St. Andrews, Master John Row, and John Knox, to prepare a volume containing the policy and discipline of the Kirk, much as in the Confession of Faith they had done in the matter of doctrine. This they did, and the book was presented to the Nobility, who perused it for many days. Some approved it, and were willing that it should have been set forth by a law. Others, perceiving their carnal liberty and worldly commodity somewhat to be impaired by its provisions, grudged, insomuch that the name of the Book of Discipline became odious unto them.... There were none within the realm more unmerciful to the poor ministers than were they which had greatest rents of the churches. But in that we have perceived the old proverb to be true, "Nothing can suffice a wretch;" and again, "The belly has no ears." Yet the Book of Discipline was subscribed by a great part of the Nobility.[169]...