thout 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 subs