restricted from advancing reformation, being bound down to observe that uniformity at present allowed, or that shall hereafter be declared by authority of parliament.  And further, Erastianism is here advanced to the degree of wresting the keys of government out of the hands of the church altogether—­taking to themselves the power of deposing all such ministers as shall not submit to their anti-christian impositions, and of declaring and ascertaining, by their own authority, what mode of worship or government shall take place in the church hereafter.  This Erastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidently injurious, both to the headship of Christ in his church, and to the church’s intrinsic power.  It pertains to the royal prerogative of Christ, to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, which he has done in the Word.  And it pertains to the church representative, by applying the laws of Christ in his Word, to declare who are qualified for the ministry, and who are not.  But here the civil power, without any regard to church judicatories, by a magisterial authority, judges and determines, the qualifications that gospel ministers must have, otherwise they cannot be acknowledged ministers of this church.  At the same time, it must be regretted, that the church, instead of faithfully discovering the sinfulness of foresaid conduct, and testifying against it, as an anti-christian usurpation, have declared their approbation thereof, by taking the above named illimited oaths, according to the parliament’s order; and also by the assembly’s enjoining their commission to act conform to the parliament’s directions respecting ministerial qualifications, in their admission of those that had formerly conformed to Episcopacy, and refusing to admit any into their communion without having these new ministerial qualifications.

4.  A fourth piece of Erastianism exercised since the commencement of the revolution settlement, against which the presbytery testify, is, the civil magistrate, by himself and his own authority, without consulting the church, or any but his parliament, privy council, and diocesan bishops, his appointing diets and causes of public fasting and thanksgiving.  A number of instances might here be condescended on.  So an act of the states, anno 1689, for public thanksgiving.  An act of parliament 1693, appointing a monthly fast, declares, “That their majesties, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, do hereby command and appoint, that a day of solemn fasting and humiliation be religiously and strictly observed, by all persons within this kingdom, both in church and meeting-houses, upon the third Thursday of the month of May, and, the third Thursday of every month thereafter, until intimation of forbearance be made by the lords of their majesties’ privy council; and ordains all ministers to read these presents a Sunday before each of these fast days, nominated,