They also reject and condemn that Erastian tenet and opinion, that the whole or any part of the power, mission, qualifications, or administration of ecclesiastical officers, or ministers of the church of Christ, depends upon the authority and dictation of the civil magistrate, because it is manifestly destructive of the church’s power and authority, under Christ her Head, and derived from him, and likewise of the ministerial freedom and faithfulness of Christ’s embassadors:  and particularly they reject and condemn, as gross Erastianism (whether practiced before or since the Revolution, and especially since the incorporating union with England on terms diametrically opposite to our covenant union), the civil magistrate’s limiting the mission of office-bearers in the church, according to his will; prescribing certain qualifications, and restricting to certain limitations; such as the test, indulgences, allegiance, assurance, and abjuration oaths, act restoring patronages, and the act anent Porteous, together with the threatened deprivation of office and benefice, upon non-compliance; 1 Cor. xii, 28; Matt, xviii, 17, 18; John xx, 23.

They further reject and condemn that Erastian opinion, that the external government of Christ’s house is left unto the precarious determination of sinful men, or hath either its immediate or mediate dependence upon the will and pleasure of the civil magistrate, according to the import of the claim of right, the anti-scriptural basis of the revolution settlement.  This being evidently an impious reflection on the perfect wisdom of the church’s Head, subversive of the beauty of his house, and fertile of disorder therein, laying the kingdom of Christ obnoxious to spiritual tyranny and oppression, when strangers, enemies, or such as have no call or warrant to build the house of the Lord, put to their hand to model the form of her government as best suits their perverse inclinations and secular views, in express contradiction to the will and law of the God of heaven, Exod xxv, 40, and xxvi, 30; Ezek. xliii, 11; 1 Chron. xv, 12, 13; Neh. ii, 20, with many other texts above cited.

Again they reject and condemn that latitudinarian tenet, That the Lord Jesus Christ, the alone Head of the church, hath left his house void of any particular form of government, of divine institution exclusive of all other, under the New Testament dispensation:  which, is a manifest reflection upon his fidelity to him who appointed him, and most absurd to suppose of him who is true and faithful, as a Son over his own house, and contrary to Isa. ix, 6, 7; 1 Tim. v, 17; Heb. iii, 2, 3, 5; 1 Cor. xii, 28; Rom. xii 6, 7, 8; Acts xx, 17, 28; Matt, xxviii, 20.  Confess. chap. 30, Sec. 1, and to the propositions for church government.