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.
Pages:
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151