discipline, ratified and
established by the 114th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592." So
that this settlement includes nothing more of the covenanted uniformity
in these lands, than only the thirty-three articles of the Confession of
Faith, wanting the scripture proofs. Again, that the Revolution
settlement of religion did not abolish the act rescissory, nor ratify
and revive any act, between 1638 and 1650, authorizing and establishing
the work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, after
abolishing some acts anent the late prelacy in _Scotland_, they declare:
"that these acts are abolished, so far allenarly, as the said acts, and
others, generally and particularly above mentioned, are contrary or
prejudicial to, inconsistent with, or derogatory from, the Protestant
religion, or Presbyterian church government, now established." Where
observe, that this general clause is restricted to acts and laws, in so
far only, as they were contrary to the religion settled in this act; and
therefore, as this act includes no part of the covenanted reformation
between 1638 and 1649, so this rescissory clause abolishes laws, not as
against foresaid reformation, but only in so far as they strike against
the revolution settlement, which the act rescissory could not do. Again,
in another clause of the same act, it is added: "Therefore, their
majesties do hereby revive and ratify, and perpetually confirm, all
laws, statutes and acts of parliament, made against Popery and Papists."
The only reason that can be given for the revival of laws, not against
Prelacy, but Popery, when abolishing Prelacy, is, that the parliament,
excluding the covenanted reformation from this settlement of religion,
resolved to let the whole of it lie buried under the act rescissory. For
as, in reality, there were no laws made expressly against Prelacy before
1592, but against Popery and Papists; so, had they said, laws against
prelacy and prelates, they thereby would have revived some of the laws
made by the reforming parliaments, between 1640 and 1650; wherein
bishops and all other prelates, the civil places and power of kirkmen,
&c., are expressly condemned. Again, in the foresaid act, they confirm
all the article of the 114th _Act_, 1592, except the part of it anent
patronages, which is to be afterward considered. Now, had the revolution
parliament regarded the reforming laws to have been revived, and so the
act rescissory to be rescinded, by