“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.