astian settlement,
which will appear, by considering 1_st_. The scriptural method then
taken, in establishing religion: instead of setting the church foremost
in the work of the Lord, and the state coming after, and ratifying by
their civil sanction what the church had done; the Revolution parliament
inverted this beautiful order, both in abolishing Prelacy, settling
Presbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard of
doctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolishing Prelacy, as it was not at
the desire of the church, but of the estates of _Scotland_, so the
parliament did it in an Erastian manner, without consulting the church,
or regarding that it had been abolished by the church, _anno_ 1638, and
by the state, 1640, in confirmation of what the church had done. Thus,
_Act_ 3d, 1689, 'tis said, "The king and queen's majesties with the
estates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy." Again, when
establishing presbytery, _Act_ 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastian
manner, whereby the order of the house of God was inverted in the matter
of government; in regard that the settlement of the government of the
church in the first instance, properly belongs to an ecclesiastical
judicatory, met and constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;
and it is afterward the duty of the state to give the sanction of their
authority to the same. This Erastianism further appears in the
parliament's conduct with respect unto the Confession of Faith: see
_Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2d, _Parl._ 1st, wherein thus they express
themselves: "Likeas they, by these presents, ratify and establish the
Confession of Faith, now read in their presence, and voted and approven
by them, as the public and avowed confession of this church." Hence it
is obvious, that the parliament, by sustaining themselves proper judges
of doctrine, encroached upon the intrinsic power of the church: they
read, voted, and approved the Confession of Faith, without ever
referring to, or regarding the act of the general assembly 1647, or any
other act of reforming assemblies, whereby that confession was formerly
made ours, or even so much as calling an assembly to vote and approve
that confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, without
regarding the church in her assemblies, either past or future, is gross
Erastianism, and what does not belong, at first instance, to the civil
magistrate, but to the church representative, to whom the Lord has
committed t