and the church of her spiritual liberty; but most surprising, that professed Presbyterian ministers should so greedily embrace and approve of Erastianism, as a valuable and glorious deliverance to the church of Christ!  In agreeableness to this Erastian article of the above act the parliament, in their act 1690, indicted and appointed the first general assembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newly constituted church; and it has ever since been the practice of the sovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her assemblies at his pleasure, and sometimes to an indefinite time.  It is further observable, that the king’s commission to his representative in assembly, runs in a style that evidently discovers, that he looks upon the assembly’s power and right of constitution as subordinate to him.  Thus it begins, “Seeing by our decree that an assembly is to meet,” &c.  Yet notwithstanding of this, the assembly 1690 (nor any after them, so far as was ever known to the world) did not by any one formal act and statue expressly condemn Erastianism, and explicitly assert the alone headship of Christ, and the intrinsic, independent power of the church, in opposition to these encroachments made thereupon, and therefore may be justly construed consenters thereto.  To conclude this particular, of the Erastianism of the present settlement of religion, it may be observed that although the Revolution parliament, from political views, did by Act 1st, Sess. 2d, rescind the first act of the second parliament of Charles II. entitled Act asserting his majesty’s supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical; yet, from what is above hinted, it may be inferred, that the Revolution state has still preserved the very soul and substance of that blasphemous supremacy (though possibly they may have transferred it from the person of the king, abstractly considered, and lodged it in the hand of the king and parliament conjunctly, as the more proper subject thereof):  for, in the words of Mr. John Burnet, in his testimony against the indulgence, quoted by Mr. Brown in his history of the indulgence, “To settle, enact and emit constitutions, acts and orders, concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical, according to royal pleasure (and parliamentary is much the same), is the very substance and definition of his majesty’s supremacy, as it is explained by his estates of parliament.”  But the Revolution act of parliament settling religion, is just to settle, enact and emit such constitutions, acts and orders concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical, according to parliamentary, instead of mere royal pleasure:  and therefore the act authorizing the Revolution settlement of religion, is the very substance and definition of a royal parliamentary supremacy.  The truth of this will further appear by the sequel.