sacrifice for so glorious a truth." So far he. But now this assembly of
_treacherous_ men, by settling themselves upon such a constitution have
openly given up this scriptural truth and Presbyterian principle handed
down to us, sealed with the sufferings and dearest blood of the faithful
Confessors and Martyrs of Christ, and have consented that it is unlawful
for the office-bearers in the Lord's house to exert their proper power
in calling and appointing general assemblies, however loudly the
necessity of the church may call for them, unless the king authorize
their diet of meeting, which he may, or may not do, according to his
pleasure.

Again, it is evident, that the revolution church is constituted in the
same Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in _Scotland_. For proof of
which, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically asserted to
be of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit and
formal act of Assembly, at or since the revolution. As the prelates'
high ecclesiastical court was called, adjourned and dissolved, in the
king's name, so likewise are the assemblies of the Revolution Church. As
the Episcopalians owned the king, in the exercise of his Erastian
supremacy over them, so the Revolution Church, instead of opposing, did
take up her standing under the covert of that anti-christian supremacy,
and has never since declined the exercise thereof. And, as the civil
power prescribed limits unto, and at pleasure altered, the prelatic
church, so this church has accepted of a formula, prescribed by the
civil power, requiring that all the ordinances within the same be
performed by the ministers thereof, as they were then allowed them, or
should thereafter be declared by their authority, as _Act_ 23d, _Sess._
4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, expressly bears. By what is said above, it may
appear, that this church is Erastian in her constitution. But it is
further to be observed, that the present constitution is no less
inconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted constitution of the
church of _Scotland_, in regard that the retrograde constitution, to
which the church fled back, and on which she was settled at the
revolution, was but an infant state of the church, lately after her
first reformation from Popery, far inferior to her advanced state
betwixt 1638 and 1649 inclusive. It was before the church had shaken off
the intolerable yokes of Erastian supremacy and patronages; before she
had ecclesiast