resbyters,"
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, appointin