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.
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 assurance, 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 assurance 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 assurance in manner appointed. And further statute and ordain, that uniformity of worship 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 illustrate the same; only it may be remarked, that, by these acts, the civil magistrate prescribes new ministerial qualifications, viz., the oaths of allegiance and assurance; 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 worship or government shall take place in the church hereafter. This Erastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidently injurious, both to the headship 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 assembly'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.