THE DECLINATOUR AND PROTESTATION Of the some sometimes pretended Bishops, PRESENTED IN FACE OF THE LAST ASSEMBLY.  
REFUTED AND FOUND FUTILE, BUT FULL OF INSOLENT Reproaches, and bold Assertions.  
EDINBURGH, Printed by JAMES BRYSON, ANNO DOM. 1639.   

BEfore the conveening of the national Assembly, indicted by his Majesty to be holden at Glasgow in Novem. 1638. The sometime pretended Bishops and Archbishops of this Kirk were cited publicly, throughout the Kirk of this Kingdom, to compeare before the said Assembly, for answering to a complaint given in against them to several Presbyteries, and by the presbyteries, according to the order of the Kirk, referred to the general Assembly. When the Assembly was convened some of these sometime pretended Prelates, to wit, Mr. Io. Spotswod, Mr. Pa. Lyndsay, Mr. Da. Lyndsay, Mr. Io. Maxwell, Mr. Wal. Whitefurd, Mr. Tho. Sydserfe; in stead of their compearance, gave in a Declinatour and Protestation; which was presented by Mr. Robert Hammiltoun Minister at Glasfurde; and was urged to be read in face of the Assembly. This their Declinatour and Protestation was made in name of all the Archbishops and Bishops within this Kingdom: as if it had been done with the knowledge and consent of all the rest: which is known to be false, and in name of others their adherents, whom yet we have found to be very few; and these either corrupted with bribes, terrified by threatenings, or circumveened with false informations, as divers of them with tears have acknowledged; and therefore have passed from their Declinatour. They appoint it to be given in to his Majesty's Commissioner, whom they do not decline; and crave it to be read in presence of the Assembly; whom they do decline as judges, not directing their speech to the Assembly itself, with respect and reverence, as legal forms require: Coram vobis excipiendo & opponendo, cum debita reverentia, or the like. They compeare not personally, but appoint a Procurator. Howbeit some of them were in the town where the Assembly convened; or within few miles, when their Declinatour and Protestation was given in. They might have presented themselves to sustain the reasons of their Declinatour, or to clear themselves some way of the offences laid to their charge in the libel, with Protestation that they adhered to their Declinatour, notwithstanding of their compearance. Protestants in principio, medio, & fine praesentis comparitionis & oppositionis: quod per praesentem actum vel comparitionem, seu aliquem alium vel aliam quem vel quam facere contigerit in futurum, non intendimus nec volumus in vos tanquam in judicem competentem aliqualiter consentiri. Practica Papiensis per Petrum de Ferrariis in forma declinationis alicujus judicis. But he that doth evil hateth the light.  
The Assembly, having considered the Declinatour and Protestation, found themselves judges, notwithstanding any thing was aleadged: which was then briefly answered; and now more amply for the justification of their proceedings.  
They acknowledged that a general Assembly, lawfully called, is a most necessare and effectual means, for removing distractions, and settling peace in the Kirk; and yet have they been the chief instruments to bereave the Kirk of this liberty: first by prorogations from time to time, at last by prorogation to no certain time; that so the impediment of their advancement might be removed out of the way.  
They acknowledge that his Majesty hath authority by his prerogative royal to call Assemblies: as is acknowledged by the Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. and Parliament 1612. But withal they profess, that it is not lawful to conveen, without his Royal consent and approbation, unless we will put ourselves in question to be called for sedition. Here, they flatter for their own private ends, or rather betray the cause of CHRIST. We acknowledge that the Prince, when he seeth cause, may convocat a general Assembly; but we deny, that it is sedition to hold Assembly without his consent. The Christians for the space of 300. years held their Counsels and Assemblies under the persecuting Emperors; and yet were not in so doing guilty of sedition. But it will be alleged, that the case is different, where there is a Christian Magistrate professing the same Religion. It is true, his consent should be sought earnestly: but if he be negligent or wilfully refuse, the Kirk may hold her Assemblies, if they find necessity. For in this case he differeth not from the unbeliever. Paria sunt non apparere & non esse. The Papists, standing for the Pops right to call general Counsels, yet maintain, that if he doth not, nor will not convocate, they may conveen without him, or although he should oppose. See that professor of both the laws Antonius de Rosellis in his Monarchiae Part. 2. cap. 30. And in the third Part cap. 3. when the Pops Apostasy or Heresy is notorious, any faithful man or sound Christian may convocate the Council per uìamrequisitionis, vel monitionis; non per viam citationis, vel authorizationis: by way of warning and requisition, not by way of citation or authorising. But when they are convened, quicunque ipsos vocasset, talem vocationem authoriz are possunt: whosoever called them together, they may authorise that calling. For it is not requisite to the substance, that a superior should call them together. This Professor lived under the Emperor Frederik the third, and ended his days in the year 1467. The Bishop of Spalleto in his second book de Repub. Ecclesi. cap. 7. Num. 18. aledgeth to this purpose a passage out of jacobus Almaynus; where he sayeth, that the eye seeing the body in danger may give warning to the rest of the members, that the body may defend and preserve itself. So any particular Kirk, seeing the necessity of convocating a Council may make manifest the necessity to other Kirks; & sic denunciative congregare, non autem praeceptive; and so convocate, not by precept or command, but by way of denunciation or warning. As after a Physician hath showed to a man, what is necessary for his preservation, he is bound to do it, not by virtue of the Physicians precept, but of the precept of the divine and natural law. This jacobus Almain was a Sorbonist Professor, about the year 1510. The ground of the Kirks right is laid down by the Council of Constance. Concilium generale potestatem a Christo immediate habet. The general Council hath power immediately from Christ. See Antonius de Rosellis in the part above-cited. What we have alleged for general Counsels holdeth more firmly for national and provincial: seeing they are more necessary than the general. In former times, Primats convocated national, and Metropolitans provincial Counsels, without seeking a particular grant from Princes to every meeting. For the Canons of Counsels appointed such meetings to be kept. A tacit consent of Princes was sufficient. And this tacit consent was collected by their grant of liberty to profess Religion, and submitting their sceptres to the sceptre of CHRIST. In granting liberty of Religion they granted liberty to hold Synods, no less than weekly meetings of congregations to divine service. That French Catholic who wrote that treatise delibertate ecclesiastica in defence of the Venetians writeth to the same sense. Imperatores cum libertatem Religionis edictis suis Ecclesiae concesserunt, simul jus libere cogendi synodos illis attribuisse. Nam cultus Christiani haec pars est prorsus necessaria & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So it was answered in the Assembly holden in December anno 1561. to some Courteours. Take from us the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the Evangel. For without Assemblies how shall good order and unity in doctrine be keeped. Seeing then Assemblies are so necessare, and CHRIST hath provided for all necessaries to his Kirk, and promised his presence where but few are convened in his name, the Christian Prince cannot deprive the Kirk of this liberty. Neither is this Kirk deprived of liberty to hold her Assemblies by any law or act of Parliament, incase the Prince will not indict time and place. Our Kirk had liberty to hold Assemblies, and to appoint time and place till the year 1592. and yet were not the Assemblies called in question for sedition. The Assemblies were frequented by men of credit in Court about the King and his Regent's. Some were authorized with commission from them from time to time to repair to the same. Commissioners have been directed from the Parliament to confer with the Commissioners appointed by the Assembly, concerning Ecclesiastical affairs. Appellations of laic patrons were ordained by act of Parliament to end and take decision at the general Assembly. Superintendents and titulars of prelacies were ordained by act of Parliament, to be called before the general Assembly, and to be deprived, incase they were found Heretical in doctrine. The acts ratifying the jurisdiction of the Kirk, namely the act james 6. Par. 6. cap. 69. Ratifieth consequently the general Assemblies, where all jurisdiction is ordered, and censures sometimes exerced. The Parliament holden anno 1592. did not grant liberty to hold Assemblies, as if the Kirk had not had such liberty before, but ratified her former liberty to hold Assemblies yearly, or oftener pro re nata, and to appoint time and place for the next Assembly by themselves, incase his Majesty or his Commissioner were not present in the town. But if any of them were present, it was provided, that they should appoint time and place. This provision gave not a privative power to his Majesty to refuse a general Assembly, so long as he pleased, (for then the liberty of holding general Assemblies could not be said to have been ratified) but only a privilege or prerogative to appoint time and place for the yearly Assembly. The act of Parliament 1612. which they allege in their Declinatour, acknowledgeth the indiction of time and place to appertain to his Majesty, but doth not give a privative power to frustrate the Kirk of her yearly Assemblies if he please; which were ratified before, but that being presupposed, bindeth him to appoint time and place. If they will infer, that it is sedition to conveen an Assembly a any time, if the Prince will not indict time and place, in respect of that act of Parliament, they must remember that the act 1612. was only a ratification of the act of their pretended and null Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. the nullity whereof hath been made evident at the last Assembly: and so they bewray their treachery against CHRIST and his Kirk, and for consenting to the ratification of such a Declaration in Parliament ought to be severely punished, suppose there were no other offence to be laid to their charge. The yearly Assemblies were a great impediment to their course: therefore that liberty must not endure any longer. But for reverence of the honourable Estates, we make the best construction we can. Howsoever, the Kirk may lawfully hold her Assemblies, howbeit there were no act of Parliament, and the Prince (we speak in the general) refusing to indict time and place, the necessity of the Kirk being urgent is to be suspected of disaffection to Religion notwithstanding of his external profession. Error, cui non resistitur, approbatur, & veritas cum minimè defensatur, opprimitur. Negligere, quip, cum possis, deturbare perversos, nihil aliud est quam fovere. Dist. 83. Can. Error. The Reader may find more to our purpose in the reasons already printed for holding general Assemblies.  
Howbeit the Assembly holden at Glasgow in November 1638. was indicted by his Majesty, and they acknowledge that it was indicted by lawful authority, yet they hold the Assembly itself most unlawful and unorderly, in sundry respects, and their proceedings void and null in law, for the causes and reasons following: which we trust shall prove frivolous.  
Their first exception is taken from the time of election of the Commissioners to the Assembly. That they were chosen by the Presbyteries before the Presbyteries were authorized to make election, in respect his Majesty's warrant, to indict the Assembly was not published, till the 22. of September following. The election of Commissioners is ever in the liberty of the Presbyteries, when there is apparent occasion of an Assembly, as at this time they were put in full expectation both of a Parliament and Assembly: And there was need of timous election, that the Commissioners might have the longer time to prepare themselves for the matters of importance, which were to be treated. The Barons and freeholders' make choice of their Commissioners to voice in Parliament yearly, howbeit no Parliament be indicted. They themselves procured Commissioners to be chosen in sundry parts Anno 1617. before the Assembly was indicted upon the fourth of November to be holden at St. Andrews the 25 of that infant; upon a report that his Majesty would have a general Assembly, and the five articles considered: but would not appoint the time or place, till the Commissioners were chosen. Their drift was to hold or not hold Assembly, as they should find the Commissioners which were chosen, would for the most part serve their turn. But what need we to insist upon this point, seeing there was no Commissions produced at the last Assembly, which were of date before the 22. of September the time of indiction. The Table, say they, by their usurped authority did give order, and direction for all Presbyteries to elect Commissioners, and to keep a fast upon the 16 of September. These whom they miscall, the Table did not command or charge the presbyteries to elect or fast; but because of the expectation we had of an Assembly, invited them to seek God's blessing with fasting, both to the election of Commissioners, and proceedings of the Assembly: and because we had been out of use these many years of Assemblies rightly constitute, sent to them their best informations and caveats.  
They except next against the Commissioners themselves: for if the Assembly be not constitute of such members as are requisite to make up such a body, it cannot be acknowledged for a lawful and free Assembly. But how prove they Commissioners admitted to be members of this Assembly, not to be such as are requisite to make up such a body.  
First, they allege that the most part, at least of the Clergy, convened at this Assembly, are ipso facto deprived, and their places void, as if they were naturally dead; because they have never in presence of the Archbishop, Bishop, Superintendent, or Commissioner of the Province or Dyocie, subscribed the articles of Religion extant in the acts of Parliament, nor given their oath for acknowledging our Sovereign Lords Authority, nor have read their testimonial thereupon, and the confession in their parosh Kirks after their return; as they are bound by act of Parliament, Anno 1572. that whereas they be bound by act of Parliament, Anno 1606. to maintain the King's honour, dignity, and prerogative Royal, to with stand all persons, power, or estates, that shall impugn or impair the same, and at their admission were obliged to perform this duty of their allegiance, and to testify in their conscience that the King is suppreme governor as well in matters spiritual, and ecclesiastical, as temporal, according to the act of Parliament 1612. Yet notwithstanding his Majesty having ordained by act of Council and Proclamation following thereupon, that all the Liedges should swear and subscribe the said Confession, together with a general Band for defending his Majesty's Person and Authority, against all enemies within or without the Realm, they have not only refused to subscribe the said Band and Confession, but in their Sermons and other speeches dissuaded, deterred, and hindered, others to subscribe the same; and have publicly protested against the subscription thereof.  
The answer is easy: The act of Parliament 1572. was never put in practice conform to the tenor of it, and order there set down: or if put in practice, the practice, could not endure long: For Archbishops, Bishops, and Superindentents continued not long after. If there were any force in this reason, all the Assemblies of our Kirk since the abolition of Bishops, and Superintendents might be called in question; and we have had no lawful ministers. Yea, their own pretended Assemblies did consist of many, who could not produce a testimonial of their oath and confession conform to the tenor of that act. Lastly, the substance of that act hath been keeped conform to the later acts made thereanent, and none of the Ministers convened at the last Assembly, but have subscribed both the confession of Faith, and Band for maintenance of the King's authority, either of late, when the Covenant was subscribed, or before when they passed their degrees in Schools, or upon some other occasion. But what suppose that act were yet in force that they had neglected to take their oath, and were therefore deprived ipso facto of their benefice and ecclesiastical living, yet it followeth not that they are deprived of their office, or can be, unless they wilfully refuse to subscribe, and take their oath to acknowledge the King's authority. It is to be observed, that that act was made when some stood for the King's Mother, and would not acknowledge the King for Sovereign during her life. As for the promise made in Parliament by the Estates, Anno 1606. have they failed in performance, or the Subjects whom they represented? Have they not in the last Parliament ratified that act. As to the act for the oath of supremacy An. 1612. it concerneth only such as were to be presented to any benefice, and not every Minister. That act was a ratification of the act of Glasgow are altered in the act of Parliament, and in place of these words, Conservation and purgation of Religion, are put in, Supreme governor as well in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical as temporal, which words were avoided in the same oath, when the conclusions were agreed upon at Leeth, Anno 1572. Howbeit they then drew up a plateforme of policy near to the English, and put in the words, Conservation and purgation of Religion, which are used in the confession of Faith extant in the acts of parliament. So they have abused their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow. But what have the Commissioners done contrary to these acts, oaths, or promises? They have refused to subscribe the confession of Faith, and band enjoined by the King and Council, hindered others, and protested against the Proclamation. Might they not do that, and not violate these acts? Doth the acts of the King's prerogative bind them to subscribe any confession or band in whatsoever sense it shall please his Majesty to make? Or is it the meaning of the oath of supremacy? The Estates, I am sure, never intended such a meaning. Both must be interpreted by the first confession of Faith, the act for the King's oath at his Coronation, the declaration made in Parliament 1592. and second book of discipline Notwithstanding of the ratification of the former act concerning the King's prerogative, and the act for the oath of imsupremacie, his Majesty behoved to have a grant of posing habits upon Kirk-men at the last Parliament which needed not, if he might have done it by virtue of these acts of Parliament, Anno 1606 and 1612. and yet that is a matter of less importance then to enjoin subscription to a confession in another sense, than was received at the first, and second universal subscription. For now in the interpretation of the authority enjoining subscription, the confession is made to consist with Episcopacy and other novations introduced since the fame was first received. Was there not reason then to refuse, to dissuade others, and to protest against it? More reasons are to be found in the protestation it self. Some Ministers were urged with subscription, and of those, some yielded, who notwithstanding had place in the last Assembly. But what suppose all had protested and refused to subscribe as they were enjoined by the Council; that could not have disabled them to fit and voice in the Assembly, unless they had been legally convict before of offence in so doing, and remained obstinate. But let the Reader here observe the decliners legerdemain: They would seem to be forward for subscription of that confession which was enjoined by the King and Council, but challenge men for not subscribing the said Confession, that is the Confession extant in the acts of parliament: for of no other have they made mention before in their declinatour. They have vilipended the later confession and covenant in former times, and we doubt, notwithstanding of this taxing of others, that they will subscribe this confession themselves, without their own limitations and acceptions; as the Doctors of Aberdene have done: but that perfidious men will subscribe any thing. And yet so impudent are they, that they will have other troubled for not subscribing contrar to the true sense, and meaning of the confession to make a party, and new rent in this Kirk.  
They allege, that the Commissioners directed to this Assembly have forefaulted his Majesty's favour, in granting this Assembly and the liberty to be members thereof, and were in the same estate and condition they were in before his Majesty's proclamation and royal pardon, because they are supposed to be of the number of these, that adhered to the last protestation, that it be lawful for them, as at other times, so at this to hold Assembly, notwithstanding any impediment or prorogation in the contrary, they continue their meetings and tables discharged by authority, refuse to subscribe the Band according to his Majesties and Counsels command, for maintaining the King's Person and authority, and protested against it, and insisted with the Liedges to subscribe the Band of mutual defence against all persons whatsoever, that in their protestation they declared Bishops and Archbishops to have no warrant for their office, to have no place or voice in Assembly, notwithstanding his Majesty had declared by proclamation, that they had voice in the Assembly to that effect, as they have constantly been in use in all Assemblies where they were present, and therefore that it is a fearful thing to conveen with these at this Assembly, in respect of sundry acts of Parliament, ordaining that none impugn the authority and diganitie of any of the three Estates, or procure innovation, or diminution of their power and authority, under the pain of treason: and they arrogat to their meetings a Sovereign authority to determine all questions and doubts that can arise contrary to the freedom of the Assembly, whither in the constitution and members thereof, or in the matters to be treated or manner of proceeding.  
We answer first in general, They forfaulted not his Majesty's favour in granting an Assembly, for his Majesty did not recall the indiction of the time and place, for holding the Assembly, notwithstanding of all that is here alleged, and therefore they might still conveen to the place at the time appointed. As for the particular points alleged, we answer: Pardon was offered upon condition of acquiescing in the King's declaration and offers. But pardon importeth offence, which is denied: Therefore the condition of acquiescing could not be admitted, and the offers in the declaration were not satisfactory to their former protestations, complaints, supplications. The Assembly was granted absolutely without any condition, lest his Majesty should leave in his subjects minds the least scruple, and for settling a certain peace. They protested that it should be lawful for them, being authorized with lawful commission, as at other times, when the urgent necessity of the Kirk requireth, so in this exigence to assemble themselves at the diet appointed for the Assembly, notwithstanding of any impediment or prorogation in the contrary. Of the lawfulness to conveen in Assembly, when there is urgent necessity, we have set down some reasons already, and more are extant in print, concerning that purpose. They had need to fear the danger of prorogation, both because the present case could not suffer delay, and doleful experience have taught us, that prorogations from diet to diet ended at last in no diet, whereby the Kirk was bereft of her liberty to hold yearly Assemblies which they would now recover by this indiction, taking it for a reentry.  
Their meetings or tables, as the adversaries call them, continued, because the cause continued, preferring supplications, giving in complaints, attendance upon gracious and satisfactory answers, and performance of the same, making Protestations when there was need; and yet in peaceable manner not in great companies, as at the beginning, for giving satisfaction to the Lords of Council. They have offered to clear the necessity of their meeting, and their carriage before the Parliament to whom they have appealed. They have refused to subscribe the confession of faith again at the King and Counsels command, after their late subscription, for the reasons already mentioned; and the band for mantainance of the King's person and authority; because it is not the same in tenor with the old general band subscribed anno 1590. The narrative is changed, some lines, designing the Papists and their adherents to be the party threatening danger to Religion and the King's person, are omitted, and no other party designed in particular. So that the band may be used against the Covenanters themselves, who have been taxed for disorders, disturbers of the peace of this Kirk and Kingdom, to the danger of Religion, and prejudice of his Majesty's authority, as they have complained in their Protestation. They continued in seeking subscriptions to the Covenant till the holding of the Assembly, because of references to the Assembly. His Majesty's Commissioner acquiesced in their explanation of the clause of mutual defence, where they declared their mutual defence of each of other was not for their own private quarrels, but only in defence of the true Religion, of the laws and liberties of this Kingdom, and of his Majesty's person and authority in preservation of the same. What further can be justly craved of them? Such as were pretended Bishops had no warrant for voice in the general Assembly, unless they be authorized with lawful commission. The Superintendents and Bishops presence of old was required more for their trial, than any need of their voice. But the Assemblies were wearied with complaints made upon them, and after many conferences and much disputation found their office unlawful: which was never since approved by any pretended, let be lawful Assembly. So the custom of old doth not serve such as only pretend or usurp the same office. Nor are they capable, as Ministers, of any commission from any Presbytery, because they have deserted their flocks, and have no particular charge. For loppen Ministers, and usurping Prelates should have no place in the general Assembly. The act of Parliament discharging the impugning of any of the three Estates, or procuring the innovation or diminution of their power, was made in a troublesome time in the year 1584. was protested against when it was proclaimed, with other acts. That third Estate of Prelates, suffered innovation and diminution of their Estate within three years after by the act of annexation anno 1587. and in consideration of the great decay of the Ecclesiastical Estate, these are the words of the 113. act following, the Commissioners of small Barons and freeholders' were declared to be members of the Parliament to sit upon the articles, and vote in public to supply that decay. So there may be three Estates without the Ecclesiastical, or Bishops. And the acts of Parliament following, were made by the Estates howbeit there were then no Bishops. Yea acts were made against Bishops as anno 1592. Howbeit Ministers were not Prelates, yet others who had the Prelacies voted as the third Estate. For it is in respect of their Baronies that such as have Prelacies, vote in Parliament, whither they be Ministers or not. By the act of Parliament 1597. Ministers provided to Bishoprics, Abbacies, Priories, were declared to have vote in Parliament, but without the knowledge of the Kirk. When it came to their knowledge, much opposition was made, none consented but upon conditions, which should have been insert in the act of Parliament: which was to be made for Ministers vote in Parliament. It is true that anno 1606. there was an act for restitution of the state of Bishops, but the Kirk repining: because the conditions were not insert in the act. And many Ministers subscribed a Protestation against the said act; yet was not the act 1584. renewed, nor Bishops restored to their spiritual estate, nor were there then any Bishops having any spiritual estate whereunto they could be restored, nor was the whole third estate restored which before was impaired. For that third Estate consisteth of Abbots and priors, as well as Bishops. But how doth it follow, that because such as were provided to Bishoprics were restored to vote in Parliament, they were thereby restored to vote in the general Assembly; who were not then, nor yet to this hour restored to the spiritual office of a Bishop. Or how is the third Estate impugned by calling them to censure or trial, seeing they consented to the act of their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow, whereby they are made liable to the trial of the general Assembly in their life and conversation, office, and benefice; as also by the tenor of the King's Proclamation, and his Majesty's Commissioners Declaration given in to the last Assembly; bearing expressly that all and every one of the Bishops and their successors shall be answerable to, and from time to time censurable by the general Assembly. Their consenting to that same act of restitution is censurable, and a point of the libel given in against them. Can they not distinguish betwixt the state and the persons? Yea may not the general Assembly or any particular Minister impugn an Estate erected or restored in name of the Kirk without her consent, and to the prejudice of her liberties? It is a calumny, that the meetings in Edinburgh, which they call the tables, arrogat to themselves sovereign authority to determine all questions and doubts, that can arise contraire to the freedom of the Assembly: for they give only their best advice and opinion when it is asked, and call instantly for a rightly constitute and free Assembly to determine doubts, and settle this Kirk in peace.  
They allege, the Presbyteries have loosed their right, if they had any, to direct Commissioners to the general Assembly in so far, as they have deposed their Moderators appointed by their Bishops in their Synods to govern them, and elected others in their place contraire to the act of Glasgow 1610▪ and act of Parliament 1612. It is the height of impudency to call in question the right of Presbyteries to choose their own Commissioners, which they have ever had since their erection. The Assembly holden at Glasgow was a pretended Assembly and therefore any Presbytery might from the beginning suspended obedience to the acts thereof, till it were declared null in a free general Assembly, as it was at this last. The act of Parliament was only an act ratifying the act of that same pretended Assembly, and by their own procurement, or rather another act, adding, omitting, altering the words and clauses of that act, and that with their knowledge and consent, if not by their device and procurement. And therefore are censured in this last Assembly for transgressing the caveats in this point as in many other. Put case no just exception might be taken against the constitutions and proceedings of that Assembly: they fore-falted their right of appointing Moderators to Presbyteries at their Synods, because whatsoever power was granted to them was upon assurance, that we should have yearly, or at set times general Assemblies, and that they should be liable to their trial which was not performed. And therefore Presbyteries have rather failed in that they returned not sooner to their former liberty. Beside this, the sometime pretended Prelates deserted the Synods, and appointed substitutes, who had not the same power to appoint Moderators. Many Moderators dimitted their office of their own accord, and then the Presbyteries according to the act of Glasgow itself, had power to choose their own Moderator. Many Moderators remained still unchanged till the last Assembly. But put the case the Presbyteries had faulted in displaceing their Moderators, the Bishop's substitutes, doth it follow that they have fore-faulted their liberty of choosing Commissioners to the general Assembly. Every transgression deserveth censure or reproof, but not deprivation from liberties.  
They allege next that the Ministers choosen Commissioners to this Assembly had not a lawful commission because the Ministers did associate to themselves a ruling Elder out of every Pariosh, who being ordinarily the Lord of the pariosh or man of greatest authority in the bounds, doth overrule them both by their authority and number, being more than the Ministers: of whom some being ordinarily absent, and five or six, or so many of them put on the leit and removed, there remain but a few Ministers to voice to the election, the Presbyteries formerly never associating to themselves lay-elders in election of Commissioners to the general Assembly, but only for their assistance in discipline and correction of manners, calling for them at such occasions as they stood in need of their Godly concurrence; whereas it was expressly provided by act of Assembly 1582. that they should be fewer in number then the Pastors. Likeas these 40. years and upwards they have not been called at all to Presbyteries, and by the act at Dundie 1597. whereby it is pretended, that Presbyteries have authority to send these lay-Commissioners, the only act authorising Presbyteries to send Commissioners to the general Assembly, it doth no way appear that lay-elders had any hand in choosing of Commissioners. It is no new thing that Noblemen and Barons have been choosen Elders. We find that they have been Elders in the Elderships of particular congregations soon after the reformation. It were absurd to see the Nobility and gentry best skilled for government set aside, and the meaner sort not so well educat and able, to rule over them. The like may be said for Presbyteries. It is a needless fear, that they will overrule the Presbytery by their authority, Ministers moderating the meeting, and going before them in reasoning and voicing. Nor can any such thing be laid to their charge in electing of Commissioners to this last Assembly. They can not overswey their Ministers by their number, if they will not be deficient to themselves. If some Ministers be ordinarily absent, so may some Elders, and it hath fallen forth so usually, and doth so at the same time. That five or six Ministers being put on the let and removed few will remain, so five or six Elders being removed there will be more Ministers to choose the elder. But what hindereth either the one or the other to voice to the election of others (howbeit they be put on the leits) either before, or after their removell. The number of Ministers is to be considered according to the number of the Pariosh's, not according to their absence or presence which is casual, and for the most part there are more Ministers in a Presbytery, then can be of elders, taking but one out of a Pariosh. For in some burghes there are two or three, or four, or eight Ministers. As for the answer to the doubt proponed in the Assembly holden in April 1583. In the book of Policy agreed upon after reasoning and deliberation in many Assemblies: It was concluded there shall resort some Elders out of every parosh to the Presbyteries, which importeth that more than one out of a Parosh may resort. Ministers were ordained to subscribe the book by acts of the Assembly Anno 1590. and 1591. And consequently after 1582. Next that act provideth that the proportion be keeped in the fewer number; but there was never such a proportion determined, and till it be determined, it is as good, as no act. For otherwise it should be left to the Ministers of ever Presbytery, to appoint what number they please. Thirdly, there is more reason for the conclusion of the book of Policy made before, and ratified after that act: that as there is one Minister sent from every particular Kirk, so there should be likewise one ruling Elder at the least; for one Kirk hath no more privilege than another. It was ordained in the general Assembly holden at Middleburgh Anno 1581. that every Eldership of the particular Kirkes' send to the Classes (which we call the Presbytery) a Minister and an Elder, and from every Classes to the Synod, two Ministers and two Elders; So that the number was made equal, not only in presbyteries, but in Synods also. And Bucerus in his book De gubernation ecclesiae page 101. saith likewise, That there is a like number of Pastors and Elders sent to their provincial Synods. It is false, that the ruling Elders were called to the Presbyteries only at such occasions as the Ministers stood in need of their godly concurrence. For it was ordained by the book of Policy, that the common Eldership, that is the Presbytery, should consist of Pastors, Doctors, and ruling Elders, and so they were constitute at their first erection. By act of that same Assembly. April 1582. the Ministers are bound to exhort them to resort to the Presbyteries at all times, but for matters of weight to urge them strictly. And who doubteth but the election of Commissioners to the general Assembly entrusted with the common affairs of the whole Kirk, is a matter of weight. That the act made at Dundie Anno 1597. is the only act authorising Presbyteries to send Commissioners to the general Assembly, is as false. It hath been the continual practice of our Kirk since the erection of Presbyteries, that Presbyteries direct Commissioners to the general Assembly. In April 1582. We have this direction. It is not thought expedient that the Presbytery be astricted to direct their Moderator to the Assembly, but that they have liberty to choose such as they shall think meetest for the comfort of the Kirke. Whereby appeareth that order was established before, that Presbyteries direct their Commissioners. The act 1597. then, did not first, or only authorise Presbyteries with this power, but only circumscribed the number: Meetest it was that Presbyteries should have this power, because they were ordinare Assemblies, had their power of ordinary jurisdiction, admitting, deposing, excommunicating, and therefore had their meetings weekly, and were upon all occasions ready to direct Commissioners. Neither is that act 1597. the only act authorising Presbyteries to direct ruling Elders, or as they call them Lay-commissioners to the general Assembly: For seeing Presbyteries directed Ministers in Commission, the ruling Elders could be directed by none other after the erection of Presbyteries. It was ordained in june 1563. that every Superintendent cause warn the Shires, Towns, and Parosh-kirks within his jurisdiction, to send their Commissioners to the general Assembly. In july 1568. it was ordained that Ministers and Commissioners of Shires should be chosen by the Ministers and Gentlemen at the Synod. After the erection of Presbyteries, we find them in the register books of the Assemblies to have been directed from Presbyteries, and specially Anno 1592. When the act of Parliament was made for ratification of the liberties of Assemblies, Synods, Presbyteries, etc. And july 1595. March 1595. And Anno 1596. For proof likewise see in the Presbytery books of Edinburgh, gentlemen directed in Commission with Ministers Anno 1593. and 1596. That the ruling Elders had hand in the election of Commissioners when they sat in the Presbyteries appeareth evidently: For in the Assembly holden in july 1568. Where order was set down for choosing of Commissioners to the general Assembly with power to vote, it was ordained, that Ministers and Commissioners of Shyrs be chosen at the Synodall convention with consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen, meaning ruling Elders. And therefore when the Presbyteries were created, and had the power to direct Commissioners, Ministers, and Elders, could not be chosen, but in like manner by Ministers and Elders common consent. Such like when the act 1597. ordained that every Presbytery direct no more Ministers than three, and but one in name of the Barons: It is presupposed, that Presbyteries directed them before, but only defineth the number. It cannot be meant that Ministers shall choose Ministers, and the Gentlemen Elders one in name of the Barons, or that Ministers shall choose both Ministers and Barons, nor were it reasonble. But it is said of both alike, that they shall be directed from the Presbytery. By the book of Policy the ruling Elders office and power, is to hold all sorts of Assemblies, Presbyterial, Synodall, national, with the Pastors and Doctors, for establishing good order and execution of discipline, to treat of things concerning the Kirk, to choose a Moderator with common consent, to send forth visitours for the bounds within their jurisdiction, in the Presbyterial meetings, to make constitutions for decent order in their particular Kirks without prejudice of the rules set down by provincial or general Assemblies, to excommunicate, to elect and depose ecclesiastical office-bearers: For these are granted to Pastors, Doctors, and Elders conjunctly; and as Ambrose writeth upon 1. Tim. 5. of the Elders in the primitive times, nothing was done without them. Vnde & Synagoga & postea ecclesia, seniores habuit sine quorum consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. If they may have an hand in excommunication, election and deposition of office-bearers choosing the Moderator, making constitutions, establish good order, and generally to treat of all things which concern the Kirke, ought they not to have an hand in election of Commissioners to the general Assembly? Nay, rather in this than in any thing else. For Commissioners to the general Assembly are entrusted with the common affairs of the whole Kirk, as hath been already said. They are called ruling Elders and governor's, not half or in part, but whole, and doth not the choosing of Commissioners belong to ruling and government: Ministers themselves do not direct Commissioners, but as rulers. They allege that ruling Elders sat not in Presbyteries these forty years and upwards: But the aspirers to prelacies began the rent in our Kirke forty years since and upwards. No wonder then suppose that, with many other things went out of frame; so long as unity and integrity continued, they continued. The times of division cannot prescribe against the good order established, and yet even after the act 1597. which was made in the year after division entered, we find in the Presbytery books of Edinburgh February 1600. Commission given to some Ministers and gentlemen to the Assembly. And in the Catalogue of the Commissioners to the Assembly holden Anno 1601. Barons directed from Presbyteries. Ambrose complaineth in the place above-cited, that the conjunct government of Elders, which was first in the jewish Kirk, and after in the Christian, was worn out of use, whither through sloughtfulnesse, or pride of the teachers, he cannot tell. Quod qua negligentia absoleverit, nescio; nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis superbia, dum soli aliquid videri volunt. The causes of our Elders forebearing to resort to the Presbyteries may be divers; partly, the pride of some Ministers, who would not encourage and countenance them, as they ought, and were directed by the Assembly; that governing by themselves alone, they might seem somewhat: partly, the unwillingness of others, loath that gentlemen should be made privy to the trials of their offences, as we have heard there by some of both sort, and fear there be some at this present of the same disposition; and partly the division and rent, which have vexed this Kirk these many years. But seeing there was never an ordinance to exclude them, and there can be no prescription against the word of God, whereunto this order is declared to be consonant by act of Assembly holden in October 1582. And the book of policy, the imminent danger to Religion, constrained them to take their own place again: By the way I would demand these ministers, who are content they sit with them in the lowest and suppreme judicatory, the Session and general Assembly, why they repine at their association in Presbyteries and Synods: there can be no sufficient reason rendered; It was the order set down at the concluding the constant policy, and is the order observed in other Kirks. The elders exercise not their office fully but in the presbytery, where ordinare jurisdiction is exercised, the power of excommunication, deposition, admission, etc.  
They except yet against the Ecclesiastical persons, meaning, Ministers directed Commissioners to this Assembly, that they may be justly thought unworthy and uncapable of commission to a free and lawful Assembly for their behaviour in times bypast. First, for that by their seditious and railing Sermons and Pamphlets, they have wounded the King's honour, and Sovereign authority, and animate his Liege's to rebellion.  
This is imputed to all, but not verified of any of the number, nor have they designed any person in particular. It is sufficient that neither the Presbyteries sending, nor the Assembly admitting, doth know any such.  
Next, they allege they are known to be such as have been either schismatically refractory, and opposite to good order settled in Kirke or State, or having promised, subscribed, and sworn obedience to theìr ordìnar, have never made conscience of their oath, or contrar to promise and practise, have resieled to the contempt of Authority, and disturbance of the Kirke, or such as are under the censure of the Kirke of Ireland, for their disobedience to order, or under censures of this Kirk or convened, at least deserving to be convened before their ordinar, or a lawful general Assembly: for transgressions, deserving deprivation. We know none schismatically opposite to good order, unless they mean such as have opposed to their encroaching upon the liberties of the Kirk; and their shameless usurpation. An oath should not bind a man to iniquity or impiety. The intrants did not understand what was the established order, from which we have declined, nor foresee the intent of the Prelates, to bring in so many novations in Religion. The oath to the ordinar was exacted by virtue of an act of a null and pretended Assembly, and that ordinare was no lawful ordinare, but an usurper. These ordinaries have exacted also oath and subscription to articles of their own devising, and maintenance of their usurped authority, which is a point laid to their charge in their libel. The censures inflicted (if there were any) upon three or four Ministers, Scots-men, returning from Ireland to Scotland, were infflicted for adhering to our confession of Faith, which manifesteth them to be faithful and constant members of this Kirke, and therefore fit to voice in her Assemblies. They gave satisfaction to the Assembly by their answers to the interrogatories proponed to them. Some of them were thrust out by themselves, before they went to Ireland. As for such as were under censure in this Kirk, we know none, but such as were censured by the then pretended Bishops in the court of high Commission, a judicatory erected without consent of our Kirke, or of the Estates in Parliament, and discharged by Proclamation before they were chosen Commissioners. This is also a point of their libel, the holding of such courts, and tyrannical domination in the same. Nor do we know any convened before the pretended ordinare, for any offence which might make them uncapable of commission. If any deserved to be convened before them, or a lawful general Assembly, they should have been processed before, or warned to compeare before this Assembly: seeing a full and free Assembly was indicted. But we know none that hath deserved to be convened for any transgression deserving reproof, far less deprivation. The transgressions imputed are either falsely imputed to them, as the uttering of rash and unreverent speeches in their sermons against his Majesty's Council and their proceedings, reproving his Majesty's laws and ordinances, using application in their sermons; not tending to edification, intruding themselves in other men's charges and pulpits without calling and authority, pressing the people to subscribe their Covenant, or are no transgressions, as to proceed against Ministers to the censure of suspension or deprivation in their Presbyteries, opponing to the subscribing of a Covenant offered by his Majesty, and allowed by the Council, or holding of conventions, without his Majesty's knowledge and consent; seeing the end was for supplications to his Majesty, complaints, and informations, and to prevent the great alterations in Religion, which were intended. They pretend that in charity they forbear to express the personal faults, of which too many of these who were directed Commissioners to this Assembly are guilty. They have learned to calumniate boldly, upon hope that somewhat will stick in men's minds. This general imputation is more uncharitable, then if they had designed the persons and expressed the faults in particular. But they cannot otherwise ease their own vindictive spirits. In the mean time the Commissions are valide, suppose afterward they should prove them to be such as they allege: and we will not be too credulous, namely when men declared infamous do calumniate. They except next against laymens' decisive voices. It standeth not with reason, Scripture nor antiquity, say they, that laymen should be authorized by Ministers to have decisive voices in a general Assembly. That in the act of Dundie 1597. whereby those Elders pretend to have this place, there is no warrant expressed for them to deliberat and determine. So by laymen, they mean our ruling Elders, who are not mere lay-men but office bearers in the Kirk, and are called in the book of Policy Ecclesiastical persons. Next, observe, that they except not only against the Assembly holden last at Glasgow, but also against all the Assemblies holden since the reformation. For the Elders have had power to voice in Assemblies from the beginning. And the order of choosing Commissioners with power to voice was set down first anno 1568. among which are the Gentlemen Commissioners from shires. There was no need therefore to express the act 1597. which was concluded before anno 1568. the 7. chap. of the book of Policy, and continually practised since the reformation. The general Assembly is called in the book of Policy, the general Eldership of the Kirk. If their reason were good, Ministers have no warrant by that act 1597. to voice in the general Assembly. For there is no express mention in that act of Ministers power to deliberate and determine. The truth is, that act doth not touch but presupposeth the power of both, and only defineth the number both of the Ministers and Barons to be directed Commissioners from the Presbytery to the Assembly. So you see, they profess plainly, they do not acknowledge any of our former Assemblies in the purest times, nor any other in time to come constitute after the like manner, nor the national Counsels in other reformed Kirks, for lawful Assemblies. It is sufficient for answer that this Assembly was constitute according to the acts of our Kirk, to which they ought to be subject: if there were no more, this one passage in their Declinatour deserveth condign punishment to be inflicted upon them, that they dare so malapertly impunge the established order of our Kirk, because they are not able to answer to an Assembly rightly constitute. Yet howbeit they will not grant decisive voice to lay-men, they allow them presence and assistance. So will the Papists▪ But they will have them to be allowed and authorized by the prince, which condition is not required by the Papists. They allow that his Majesty in person or by his delegates, may see good order keeped, have a chief hand in all deliberations and determinations, and may delegat by his sovereign authority such lay-men as he pleaseth to have definitive and decisive voice, without which delegation it is presumptuous intrusion upon the Pastoral charge. By the act 1597. which was made by their own procurement to restrain the great number of Ministers directed from Presbyteries, to oppose to their corrupted courses, it was ordained that Barons or gentlemen should be nominat by the Presbytery, and not by his Majesty, and have had after that decisive voice in Assemblies. How many noblemen and Barons, only called for by the king's letter and not delegat as Commissioners, have voiced at their own pretended Assemblies, and helped to carry matters by plurality of voices? But now it appeareth that after they had served their turn with them to set them up they were to bide them a due hereafter.  
Ite for as Laici, non est vobis Locus Icy.  
Yea, they entreat the king's commissioners in the words uttered by the fathers at the council of Chalcedom. Mitte for as superfluos. Send forth the superflous. That which was spoken to Clerks, and Monks, who came to trouble the Council, because they had embraced the error of Eutyches, they apply to the ruling Elders, noblemen, and gentlemen, chosen lawfully Commissioners to this Assembly. For such insolent and contumelious speeches, they ought to be severely censured, howbeit there had been no libel given in against them. To the same purpose they allege the direction given by Pulcheria, the Empress to Strategus Commander or Captain of Bythinia, to drive by force out of the Council of Chalcedon, such Monks, Clerks, and Ley-men, as did but pester the Council, and suffer none but such as the Bishops brought with them. This also was for avoiding of disturbance. In the mean time you see that Laymen not appointed by the Prince, but brought by the Bishops were allowed to be present at the Council of Chalcedon. But how agreeth that saying of Theodosius the younger, that it is unlawful for him, that is not in the rank of the most holy Bishops to meddle with Ecclesiastical treaties and affairs? It seemeth to cross that, which they granted before to his Majesty and his delegates. For how can he or they, if this be true, have a chief hand in all deliberations and determinations, or a decisive voice. Yea by this saying Ministers, or preaching Presbyters ought not to meddle with Ecclesiastical affairs, for they are not set in the rank of Bishops. This saying of Theodosius is alleged by the Papists against the definitive voices of Emperors and Princes themselves. And therefore we may conjecture whereunto their course doth tend, notwithstanding of the fair show they made a little before. But as for that saying of Theodosius extant in the Council of Ephesus, Whittaker de conciliis proveth it to be forged, quia non habetur in antiquis exemplaribus, It is not extant in the old copies, and it is false in itself. For he did meddle. And howbeit Theodosius was not present himself at the Council, yet he sent Candidianus, who informed him of their proceedings. Thirdly, the words are not rightly translated, for the words are not, the order or rank of Bishops, but, the catalogue of Bishops: meaning that none should meddle with the affairs and questions to be treated in the Council, but such as were sent from their Kirks, and were written up in the catalogue which their Bishops brought with them. This is observed by junius. For the same respect which Theodosius had, Martinus was moved, say they, to say at the Council of Chalcedon, non esse suumsed Episcoporum tantum subscribere, that it was not his part, but the Bishops only to subscribe. How could they urge him to subscribe, if it belonged only to Bishops? This famous man Martin was an Abbot, or the father of many Monks. He refused to subscribe, because he favoured not the cause, but the error of Eutyches another Monkish father. Always we see what Assemblies they intended to have had, even just like the Popish; Bishops only having decisive voices, and no other Assembly shall we have, if they can attain to their intent. But to return to the point. We let them understand our Assemblies are not to be ordered according to the pattern of these Monkish times. The question is, whither they will acknowledge this Assembly to be constitute according to the constitutions and practice of our own Kirke. But lest the Reader should conceive an error to be in this, that Laymen should have decisive voice in Assemblies, we will by the way stay a little upon this point. Their argument brought against it is Bellarmine's, but it is naught. For if it be intrusion upon the pastoral charge, the Prince can not authorise Laymen to give decisive voice in Assemblies, which they granted before: for that were to intrude them into the pastoral charge. And by the same reason neither he nor his delegates can have decisive voice: but the truth is, it is no intrusion into that pastoral charge, which is proper to the Pastor, which is to preach the word publicly and minister the sacraments. But this is not the end of meeting in Assemblies, but to root out Heresies, redress abuses, and deliberate upon the common affairs, which is not the proper charge of Pastors, but common also to others endued with knowledge of the Scriptures; or as Doctor willet's saith, this office to be performed in Counsels; is common to the whole Kirk. If to feed be taken more largely, and to open up the true sense of the Scripture, or to refute Heresies, or mend abuses be to feed, than others than Pastors may be said to feed in that large sense. Ministers in Assemblies do not feed as Pastors, but as delegat from their Kirks they take heed that no corruption in doctrine, nor abuse in manners creep in. But that mere lay-men, howbeit not ruling Elders or office-bearers in the Kirk, may have decisive voice in Counsels, providing they be endued with gifts sufficient and be freely choosen by the Kirks of the bounds, where they are resident, is made evident by Scripture, reason and antiquity. In the Council holden at jerusalem act 15. not only the Apostles and elders, but also other brethren had decisive voice. There was much disputing v. 7. and the whole multitude keeped silence v. 12. whereby it appeareth that in the time of the disputation many beside the Apostles and Elders spoke. The Apostles, Elders and Brethren sent choosen men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch to make known to them what was concluded and agreed upon in the Council 23. and 25. And in common, the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, which importeth a decisive voice. Whereupon the Cardinal Arelatensis at the council of Basile, gathered that others than Bishops should have decisive voices in Counsels, unde apparet alios quam Episcopos in conciliis habuisse vocem decidentem. A Aeneas Silvius lib. 1. de concilio Basileensi. But the text beareth that others beside the Apostles and Elders wrote in their epistle, It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us. It seemeth these brethren were such as disputed and reasoned pro & contra upon the matter in hand' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and placet were the words used in giving definitive sentence in Counsels. Next, there is reason for it. The national Council or general Assembly representeth the whole Kirk of the nation in a most solemn manner. Therefore it should consist of men of all ranks, and not of Clergy men only. Bellarmine compareth general Counsels to a Parliament. But persons of all sorts and ranks, by the persons representing their Estate, have voice in the Parliament. Natural equity requireth the like to be observed in national Counsels. Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari & approbari debet, That which concerneth all should be handled and approved by all. But matters of Faith and manners the subject, whereupon national Assemblies do treat are common and concern all, the Laity as well as the Clergy. It is against reason that Ministers should lay a yock upon the people without their own consent and approbation. The Scripture is the only supreme judge of all controversies in religion: the Council doth only interpret and point out the sense and meaning of the Scripture, which gift Laymen may have. Yea the judgement of one Layman agreeing with the Scripture is to be preferred before the judgement of a whole Council contradicting the Scripture. And Gerson examinat. Doctr. Par. 1. sayeth, any learned man ought to oppose to a whole Council, if he perceive them to err through malice or ignorance. Pastors are commonly chosen to sit in Counsels, because it is presumed that they have the greatest skill in Ecclesiastical matters. But it may fall out otherwise: for the gifts of knowledge and spiritual wisdom are not precisely tied to them. Nazianzen detested the Synods where rude and ignorant Bishops, whereof there were many in his time, did vote. Merito illas Synodos detestabatur, in quibus Episcopi suffragia ferentes essent rustici, idiotae, illiterati, nulla sacrarum literarum scientia praediti, nec in rebus sacris exercitati, qui utique aequum judicium ferre non possunt. Spalatensis. Lib. 7. cap. 3. Num. 29. Marsilius Patavinus in his Defensor pacis part. 2. cap. 20. taketh GOD to witness, that he knew many Priests and some Prelates who could not speak congruous latin: and because the most part of the Bishops and Priests had small skill in the Scriptures, he wisheth or adviseth a general Council to be filled up with others who were not Priests: generale Concilium etiam per non Sacerdotes integrari. Sic enim fecerunt Apostolicum senioribus. Before Luther's time scarce one Bishop of a thousand could read latin. Sibrandus de conciliis P. 44. It were absurd to sendignorant Pastors and often times ungodly to a Council, and exclude learned Godly and wisemen.  
The Bishop of Spalleto saith, That it is not the title of a Bishop should give him the right of suffrage, and if he be unfit, his placet is ridiculous. l. 7. c. 3. num. 29. In his 7. book c. 3 num. 5. he proveth that Laymen may vote in council, for this reason because they may have the gift to expound or open up the meaning of the Scripture. Paulus etiam Laicos fideles agnovit posse & solere sacram Scripturam ex dono spiritus explicare prophetae duo aut tres, &c: 1. Cor. 4. 29. As for practise in ancient times, notwithstanding of the pride of the Clergy and superstition prevailing, we have proof sufficient. Theodoretus Bishop of Cyrus, epist. 81. Required a Council, consisting not only of Bishops, but also Magistrates, and others in dignity, that are learned in divine things, and to declare plainly what is their judgement. Isidorus Mercator, in his order of celebrating Counsels, saith, Deinde ingrediantur & laici qui electione Concilij interesse meruerunt. Let lay-men enter, who by the choice of the Council, merit to be present. Marcilius Patavinus, in the chapter above-cited, alleged this place for our purpose; and addeth, multo magis igitur literati & in lege divina periti, quanquam non sacerdotes existant. The decrees of the second Council of Orange were subscribed by Laymen of great dignity, Laici etiam illustres & magnifici viri subscripserunt, Magd. Cent. 5. cap. 9 And in the Synod holden at Cullen. Anno 887. There were present religious Laymen, with whose consent the decrees of that Council were promulgat. At the Council of Metz holden under Arnulphus were present many Earls, and other nobles, with other Laymen, fearing God. In the beginning of the first chap. we have these words, Episcopi & Presbyteri & fideles Laici qui ante nos fuerunt juxta sacram Canonum authoritatem saepius in Christi nomine convenientes, justiciam Dei statuerunt, & idcirco suis diebus pacem habuerunt. They tell us that therefore Fathers had peace in their days, when Laymen convened in Chists Name with the Clergy, and made righteous decrees. These Counsels are alleged for our purpose by the Bishop of Spalleto in the chapter abovementioned. The Author of the review of the Council of Trent, a French Catholic, lib. 1. cap. 8. Maintaineth that from all antiquity Laymen have had their place in Counsels, not only to deliberat, but to determine also, & alledgeeths for his purpose not only act. 15. 23. But also examples, specially of counsels holden in France and Spain. The French Synod holden An. 742. hath these words, By the advice of the Churchmen and Princes of the Realm, We have ordained, decreed, etc. saith Carloman, Duke and Prince of the French Pepin, a French Duke and Prince called another Synod at Soissons consisting of Churchmen and some chief Laymen of the Realm, with whom he enacted some ecclesiastical laws, An. 744. The council of Meaux, holden under Charles the second, An. 845. maketh mention of some other counsels that consisted of clergy and lay-men, so were Earls & other godly laym-en, at the council holden at Pistis, a town upon the river of Seyn, Anno 963. Both Clergy & lay-men flocked in great troops to the council at Tribur in France and at the end of that council, we have these words, This holy subscription was confirmed and fairly approved by the reverend profession and worthy answers of the Priests, Deacons, and Lay-nobilitie. At the famous council of Constance were present 24. Dukes, 140. Earls, diverse delegat from cities and corporations, diverse learned Lawyers, diverse Burgesses of Universities. At the first council of Pisa there were the delegates of Universities, the Proctors of cities, and some Doctors in law, to the number of 400. All of whom (saith the apology of that council) treating of points in divinity, when they had deposed the two Antipopes that contended for the Popedom, and elected Alexander the fifth, made many good ordinances in the Kirk of God. So at the second council of Pisa, there were also the delegates of Universities `with sundry Doctors in law, and other men in great abundance, well skilled in matters both divine and humane. Many other Synods or counsels are cited in that eight chapter, whereunto we refer the Reader. As for the Popish distinction of consenting and defining, or determining; that Laymen consented but did not define or determine: the reader may find expressions in the contrary in the examples above-cited. Whittaker proveth that the Bishops themselves subscribed as consenting: How ridiculous it is to grant them power to debate upon or discuss any question, and consent or descent to the determination, either on the one side, or other, & not to determine what is that less? For if the Clergy men have determined, and the Laymen consent not, their determination is frustrate. Right judgement cannot be given, but after the discussing of the cause, saith the Bishop of Spalleto in the chapter above-cited. Neither doth he admit some of the council to be judges, and others to be disputers only. Now seeing mere Laymen orderly elected have had, and aught to have decisive voice in counsels, much more ruling Elders, seeing they are chosen out of the laity as fittest to govern: And if the fittest be not chosen, it is an abuse or neglect which should be amended. The Elders at the council of jerusalem were not only preachers, but rulers; for the name was common to both, and both are comprehended, where the sense distinguisheth not. If Bilson Pag. 180. comprehend Deacons under the name of Elders; with greater reason may we the ruling Elders: and so do our Divines, junius, Alstedius, and others disputing upon this subject. Yea, Zwinglius in his Epistles, taketh here Elders only for the ruling Elders. Always seeing the constitutions of the Eldership was directed from the jewish kirk, the Kirk of jerusalem was in this, as in many other things, a pattern to the rest. This digression was necessary, howbeit their acception toucheth not the point in question to wit, Whither this last Assembly be constitute according to the acts, and established order of our Kirk.  
They allege, That if the pretended Commissioners, both Lay and Ecclesiastic, were for none other cause declinable, yet ought they to be declined, because the most part, if not all the Commissioners directed to this meeting, have precondemned episcopal government, have condemned, at least suspended obedience to the acts of the general Assembly and Parliament: concerning the five articles of Perth, have approved their Covenant, as most necessary to be embraced of all in this Kingdom, and not only have given judgement of these things before hand, but by most solemn oaths bound themselves to defend and stand to the same, as doth appear by their Covenant, petitions, potestations, pamphlets, lybels, and sermons; for a judge probably suspect, may be declined: and of all probabilities the most pregnant, is, when the judge before he come to judgement, doth give sentence of the things judged. Hitheretill they have declined the Commissioners as incompetent judges, now they decline them as suspect: which is recusatio judicis suspecti.  
Suppose it were true, what is here alleged of all or the most part, yet can they not be set, for as it was answered at the Synod of Dort, to the Arminians, using the like exception, that by this reason Arrius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and other like Heretics, could not have been condemned justly in the counsels of Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon: because the orthodox teachers who had impungned their doctrine before, sat as judges upon their doctrine, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria impugned the heretical opinion of Arrius before the Council of Nice was convocat, and yet sat as judge at the council of Nice upon Arrius. Did not Cyrillus sit in the Council of Ephesus upon the Nestorians? howbeit he had impugned their doctrine before. In Hassia when some defended the Vbiquitars error, they were condemned in a general Synod by such as had impugned their errors before, notwithstanding of the same exception. It is no new thing, but accustomed in the Kirke of God at all times, that when any error did spring up, faithful Pastors did timeously oppose both by word and writ: lest it should spread, and infect the whole body: and yet did not therefore forefault their right in giving their voices in the Synods where these errors were condemned. The Divins of Hassa defied the Ariminians to give one example of a lawful Synod that ever did the like. Next, suppose they had all precondemned episcopal government and the five articles of Perth, they had condemned, but that which was condemned before by our Kirk, and never retreated by any lawful Synod. Thirdly, the acknowledgement of episcopal government and practice of the five articles were not absolutely condemned by the Covenant. But the acknowledgement of the one, and practise of the other, was suspended till the trial of a free and lawful general Assembly, whither they were contrar to the confession of Faith and abjured by it, for the satisfaction of some, who in other respects did not allow of them; and being found to be abjured by the confession of Faith, as they are found and cleared to be at the last Assembly, they are bound by oath to stand to the confession of Faith in all the points of it. Fourthly, the Commissioners convened, did not judicially condemn before, but according to their several places and stations, they gave warning of the novations entered, in, which hindered them not to alter their mind, if they had heard any thing to convince them of the contrar at meeting with others in the Assembly. The examples alleged are to small purpose. Our reformers protested against the Council of Trent, not only because Pope Leo the tenth had precondemned Luther's doctrine by his Bull dated the eight of june 1520. and Paul the third his successor, likewise by his Bull dated in August 1535. but also declared the intention of their appointing to convocat that council was to root out that new sprung up heresy. And as it was answered to the Arminians, that council was not a free council. The Prelates and other members of that council were sworn slaves to the Pope, and had power to determine nothing but what pleased him to approve by his Nuncioe. Our first reformers would not be acknowledged for Doctors of the popish Kirk, and had made separation from them before. Maximus patriarch of Constantinople, refused to go to the council of Antioch, because he foresaw he would be constrained to the deposition of Athanasius, Hosius of Corduba feared likewise their determinations: but it is one thing to refuse presence, where they fear ungodly determinations: another thing to decline the authority of a lawful council, when they are cited to answer a foul libel. It becometh them to side with persecutors rather than Hosius, with Pope, Leo rather then Luther and other reformers, of whom some of them have spoken disdainfully. Next, there is difference between an inferior Synod and the supreme. The council of Antioch was not an ecumenical council, which was the supreme. The general Assembly whereunto our Prelates were cited, is with us the supreme: of which more in the answer to the next section.  
Next they allege, That all, if not the greatest part of the pretended Commissioners, have declared themselves party to the Archbishops and Bishops of this Kirk: for in that they declined the Bishops to be their judges as their party, as their declinatours, petitions, declarations, and protestations do bear, have they not simul & semel & ipso facto, declared themselves to be their party's party, that is the Bishops? And have not only declined, but persecuted them, by calumnies and reproaches, invaded their persons, opposed and oppressed them by unlawful combination: for the subscribing and swearing whereof they have by their own authority indicted fasts, have by the aid of the multitude entered in the Kirks of worthy men, usurped upon their charges, caused read the unlawful Covenant, threatened or compelled some, otherwise unwilling to set their hand to it; processed, suspended, removed, obedient and worthy Ministers by the usurped authority of their Table & Presbyteries, notwithstanding the defence of declinator & appellation was used by not a few in their Presbyteries, intending by this means to disable them from being Commissioners, and directly or indirectly caused their stipends to be keeped back, by which means not the least part of the subscribing Ministers hands hath been obtained to their Covenant. Seeing they have declared themselves party, it can subsist with no law or reason that the same persons shall be both parties and judges.  
We answer, they declined them as party, when they supplicated and complained upon them before the Lords of secret Council. Was it reason that they should judge upon the complainers, or complaints made upon themselves? When they covenanted, they suspended only acknowledgement of their authority, till the trial of a free general Assembly: Calumnies and unjust reproaches we deny. None of the Commissioners have hithertils invaded their persons, nor have any of them been invaded by any other, so far as we know; But Master David Lyndsay by Boys and servant women, when he was come from his new Matins and evensong, and as we use to say flagranti crimine. Their conbination against them was with reservation to trial. What fault was there in fasting and seeking God's blessing to the actions were in hands, all tending to reformation? where fore should people be hindered from striking Covenant with God and amongst themselves for the defence of Religion by the refusal of a perverse Minister? These worthy Ministers processed, suspended, or removed were worthily censured by their Presbyteries for their Arminian, and Popish doctrine, vented both in private and public, to the endangering of many souls, or for their scandalous lives. Were these men fit to be Commissioners to the general Assembly. To decline the Presbytery as competent judges could not be admitted, nor to appeal to any but to a free general Assembly. These men who declined the Presbyteries have declined the Assembly, whereby we may see upon what intent they did decline. That not the least part of the subscribing Ministers put to their hand to the Covenant for fear of keeping back their stipends, is a mere calumny. Others were postponed not for not subscribing, but for neglecting their charge and wandering from their flocks. For all than that is here alleged, the Commissioners to this Assembly might lawfully sit as judges to the complaint, or libel given in against them; seeing they were chosen and authorized by their Presbyteries, with commission to deliberate and voice in this Assembly. Next, they were not judges in any particular or proper cause of their own, but in a cause concerned the whole Kirk.  
Therefore in making the Commissioners their party, they make the whole Kirk of Scotland their party. For they had a free commission from all the Presbyteries, according to the order of our Kirk, to make up the representative of the whole body. How shall discipline be exerced, if such as are guilty shall reject Sessions, Presbyteries and Synods as party? but because there may be some time partiality in inferior judicatories, they may be appealed from, but the supreme judicatory of the Kirk, the general Assembly can not be declined in a cause Ecclesiastical and competent as party, without making the Kirk of Scotland party. The Arminians excepted against the Synod of Dort, that they were both judge and party, and therefore would not submit to their trial. Our decliners have borrowed this buckler from them. But the answer made to them by the Divines at Dort may serve for answer to our decliners; to wit, that the Synod did not consist of persons lying under any Ecclesiastical censure, that they cannot be called a party, unless all the Belgic Kirks from whom the Commissioners were directed be taken for party. Repraesentant enim illis Ecclesias, quarum credentialibus instructi in hac Synodo comparuerunt. And if the Belgic Kirks be their party, they can not be reputed members of their Kirk, but must confess they have made separation from them, say the Divines of Hassia. There can be no lawful exception taken against a Synod by the members of these Kirks which do constitute the Synod. Pars minor pars nova, debent stare judicio corporis repraesentati per Synodum, loquentem mandato, ore, & ex sensutotius corporis, say the Divines of Geneve. Consideration is to be had of times to come, lest that such as are guilty shift the ordinary judicatories of Presbyteries and Synods, and a door be opened to the entry of sects and heresies, say the Divines of Breme. In their own proper and peculiar cause no man can be both party and judge, but in a common and public cause it may be say the Divines of Emden. In a word all the Divines at the Synod of Dort agreed upon these answers. We answer in the same manner. And the decliners know very well that the body of this Kirk which directed the Commissioners was sensible of their usurpation and oppression.  
They make a tragical outcry, that under pretence of summons, the like whereof was never used, nor in the like manner, against the most heinous malefactor in the kingdom, they have devised, forged, invented and published a most infamous and scurrile libel, full of impudent lies and malicious calumnies, against the Archbishops and Bishops of this Kirk. Truly we hold them the greatest malefactors among us. As for the libel, the most part may be gathered out of their own declinatour, and is as evidently known to all sorts of people within the country, as that they are Bishops. So that it was questioned at the last Assembly, whither it was needful to lead witnesses in points notorious and as well known as that the Sun shineth at noon-tide. Some personal offences were so well proven, that Commissioners of all ranks were ashamed of their profanity and lewdness. Time served not to stay upon the trial of the rest, but if they be not silent, more will be verified to their greater shame. If they had been innocent, no doubt they had compeared and adhering to their declinatour insulted: but, howbeit none more impudent, they durst not face the Assembly. They complain that the table prescribed in certain articles the order to be keeped in the citation and public reading of the libel, according to which directions the libel was read in sundry Kirks, and in Edinburgh in all the Kirks, notwithstanding of my Lord Commissioners command given to the Provest and Bailies to the contraire. None took upon them to prescribe, but only to advise and inform what course should be keeped for citation in the surest and most legal manner. Seeing we have been these many years out of use of ordinar Assemblies, the course to be keeped could not be found out by every one till they were informed. Neither were there informations sent from the meetings at Edinburgh to any man, to the knowledge of the Assembly, but were private directions sent from hand to hand. Public reading of the libel was needful, not to make their enormities known to the people, for they were too well known before, but for the surest way of citation, seeing my Lord Commissioner refused to take any sure course for citing them: which if he had done, they had not been cited in so public a manner. Not but that they deserved citation per proclama▪ to be summoned by Proclamation, yet that manner was not resolved upon till other means were thought more difficile and not so sure. As for my Lord Commissioners discharge to read the summons in the Kirk of Edinburgh, they were read in sundry Kirks before the discharge was presented to the Magistrates. And what reason was there to stay citation of so heinous offenders to compeare before their ordinary judge? His Majesty had declared before, that no Subject should be exemed from censure. But how shall they be censured if they be not cited? Nor did the Commissioner offer to take another course. So it was evidently seen, their intent was to frustrate all citation.  
They challenge them for their proceedings in the citation. First, because they proceeded against all charity, which delighteth not in the discovery of men's nakedness, backbiteth not with the tongue, much less writeth a book against a brother. justice requireth that public sins be rebuked publicly; they themselves laboured to frustrate all other manner of citation. Should usurpers oppressors, profane and lewd men pass uncensured through want of citation. The welfare of the Kirk should be dearer to us then the reputation of seducers and undermyners. Sold not the house of God be purged of filth and dirt? Next, for breaking of order, in breaking the Apostles rule and act of Parliament. The apostle it is true directeth young Timothy not to rebuke sharply an Elder, but to entreat him as a Father, meaning an elder in years, as appeareth by the opposition of young men. The direction is for private reprehensions, but these that sin publicly or scandalously should be rebuked openly, whether they be elder or younger. The dregs of profaneness are more sour and stinking in old men then in young. But they have both elder & younger among them. So are there of the complainers, some younger, some elder. Their third estate is not impugned in all the libel, howbeit their persons be made lyabell to public citation and censure, and so the act of Parliament not violated thereby But of that act we have spoken sufficiently already. Thirdly, for not proceeding according to any lawful form, but specially against the order prescribed by acts of the general Assemblies. March 1596. and April 1592. For the first it is not transgressed. For the libel containeth special crimes sufficiently instructed and notorious, ut nulla tergi versatione celari possunt. Other crimes are subjoined wherewith they were slandered, which were to be verified by informations from the parts where the slander did first arise: of which some were proven, the rest lay over for lake of time, wherein if they please, an other Assembly will insist. It seemeth rather they think the libel too special. Hinc illae lachrymae. That Assembly was a corrupt Assembly and began the rent of our Kirk. Yet their act beareth no more, but that all summons contain a special cause and crime, and that none be summoned super inquirendis. The libel contained special causes, and none of them were summonded super inquirendis. As for the act 1582. ordaining that in process of deprivation of Ministers there be a libeled precept upon forty days warning, if they be within the Realm, sixty, if without, to be directed by the Kirk, and such Commissioners as elect and admit the persons complained upon, summoning them to compeare and answer upon the complaint, and incase of their absence at the first summons, the second to be directed upon the like warning, with certification if he fail, the libel shall be admitted to probation, and he shall be holden pro confesso. That form of proceeding was ordained for inferior judicatories which sit at frequent diets. For it is ordained, that if he compeare not at the first citation, he shall be summoned de novo with certification. But the general Assembly sitting but once in the year could not begin and end such a proceeding for the space of three year, if this order were to be keeped by them. Next, because that direction is for them who admit, but the general Assembly doth not admit Ministers. Yea the persons summoned were never admitted to their great benefices according to the order set down by the Assembly. Thirdly, that form of proceeding presumeth that the person complained upon may be out of the Realm or within, but in the remotest part, and that they can not be cited by public Proclamation to compeare before inferior judges. But the decliners were summoned by Proclamation in the most eminent Kirks within the kingdom, to compeare before the general Assembly, so that these who were within the country, or near the borders, could not be ignorant of the citation. Fourthly, that form was for faults in the office or lives of Ministers deserving deprivation, this for citation of such as usurped jurisdiction and tyrannised over the whole Kirk, and were banded together in one common course against the established order and policy of our Kirk. Fifthly, the act itself permitteth appellation to the general Assembly, if after the decreit he find himself wronged thereby. It is clear then, the act concerneth only citation before inferior judicatories. Sixthly, diligence was used to publish the summons, as soon as might be after the indiction of the Assembly, and had been execute sooner if the Commissioner had taken another course. Howsoever, there was time sufficient; as appeared, in that the citation come to their knowledge, both those who were within, and those who were without the country. Citatio contumaciam juducere potest, si scientia citationis apprehenderit citatum, atque ita comperiatur malitiose aut dolose latitare. That the citation come to their knowledge, as well of these without as at home, is clear by subscriving the declinatour, and compearance of their procurator before the Assembly, whereupon instruments were taken that their compearance did justify the citation. The fourth challenge is, of proceeding against common equity, which admitteth summons only by the authority of that judge before whom the delinquent is to compeare. But so it is that the summons were directed by the authority of pretended Presbyteries for compearance before the general Assembly. See their malapertness in calling the weekly meetings of Ministers pretended Presbyteries, slighting the order established with so great deliberation by our Kirk, with consent and concurrence of the civil authority. But for answer to the challenge. They know it hath been the continual practice of our Kirk, that inferior judicatories have cited delinquents to compeare before the superior, and necessare it is so to do, because the general Assembly sitteth not frequently, nor may not sit oftener according to the act of Parliament then once in the year, except prore nata. If every citation began at the Assembly for compearance at the next, delinquents might persist in their offences and perhaps escape all punishment. And as for the present case, there was danger in delaying to the citation of the Assembly.  
They complain, That reference of the complaint was made by the Presbyteries to the general Assembly, the parties never being summoned to compeare before the Presbytery, whereby either in presence of the party, or in case of contumacy, the complaint might be referred to the general Assembly. The complaint was made upon breach of the cautions for the most part, and could not be well tried without the trial of pretended Assemblies, whereupon the parties complained upon, would build most of their defences. Therefore the Presbyteries referred the trial of the complaint to the general Assembly, as the most able and undoubtedly competent judge, without citation before themselves: and as matters stood for the present, they could do none otherwise, without great disturbance and interruption to be made by their adherents, and assistance of civil power. It was fit the complaint presented to the Presbyteries should be registrat in their books, seeing it was the ground of their citation. Suppose there had been no complaint made to the Presbyteries, not only some, but all the Presbyteries in the Kingdom might have cited them to compeare before the general Assembly: because they pretended they were Pastors of all the Kirks within their pretended Dyocies, and Moderatours of every Presbytery within the Dyocie, and beside did many things in common to the prejudice of all the Kirks of the Realm by their voting in Parliament, sitting and tyrannising in the high Commission, overruling Assemblies, keeping conventions of their own, and directing articles to Court, to the prejudice of the Kirk. What suppose then they had been cited not only every one in their own pretended Dyocie, but all of them in all the Kirks in the Kingdom? seeing there was a common cause, and the persons complained upon, were a faction combined to the overthrow of the whole Kirk.  
The fifth is, That the proceeding was against all decency and respect due to men in their place, the said Bishops being persons in dignity, and some of them of his Majesty's most honourable privy Council, known to be of blameless conversation, to have deserved well: that to be thus reviled and traduced, redoundeth to the reproach of the Church and Estate, and Gospel, whereof they are preachers.  
So will notorious thiefs standing in the panel allege boldly they are honest men. Their dignities are abominations. They are a reproach to the Kirk and Estate: they are ashamed of the Gospel, and the Gospel ashamed of them. If tyrants and oppressors may brag of their deserts, then may they also, that they have deserved well. And yet howbeit the public citation hath tended to their disgrace, the disgrace was not intended by the citation, but trial: howbeit disgrace followed upon the manner of the citation, because none other sufficient means could be had: nay disgrace and contempt preceded the citation.  
Lastly, they charge the Commissioners to the general Assembly their consciences, in the sight of God, as they must answer before his great and fearful tribunal, if they suspect, or know not certainly according to the judgement of charity, these whom they thus accuse to be free of these crimes, where with they were charged.  
A bold and shameless outcry: for the Commissioners are so far from suspecting them to be free, that they rather believe them to be guilty of the crimes laid to their charge respectiuè, some of more, some of fewer, and some of the most odious. Their carriage is so profane, men of credit and account are reporters, & sometime their own familiars, & some of the offences laid to their charge, are committed in the very sight of the people. They ground the charge of their conscience upon this, That having libeled the general, they had to seek the specification theirof, as appeareth by their articles, and instructions sent abroad. The most and great offences were notorious and common to them all. For other personal faults there was loud slander, and fama clamosa. For these in respect of legal proceeding, witnesses behoved to be cited, and inquisition to be made, which the Assembly since hath found sufficiently proven in sundry, and would have found more, if time had served: for there was as loud slander for other crimes not yet brought in judgement.  
They ask, If any man will think that the Commissioners at this Assembly, can be judge in their own cause: They allege a reason out of the Canon law, that if the Pope be at variance with any man, he ought not to be judge himself, but choose arbitratours; and some examples, to wit of Ludovicus Bavarus and all the estates of Germany with him, pleading this nullity against the sentence, and proceeding of john 22. and his Council; and of the Archbishop of Cullen, who in the year 1546. did plead the nullity of Pope Paul the third his Bull of excommunication, because he protested so soon as a lawful Council was opened, he would emplead the Pope as party, being guilty of many things censurable in the Council.  
Would not any man think our decliners to be great Readers, and well versed in histories? And yet they have borrowed all this stuff out of the review of the Council of Trent, concealing the book and chapter from whence. We know, that inferior judges cannot be judges in their own cause. And therefore Gregory upon this ground reproved justly januarius Bishop, because he excommunicated a nobleman Isidorus, for some injury done to him, 23. quest. 4. inter querelas. And yet cap. Guillisarius. Silverius anathematised Guilisarius, because he desired him to come peaceably to his Palace, to deal with him pro ecclesiasticis quibusdam dispositionibus, for things disponed to the Kirk, but took him captive, and banished him. And 2. quest. 7. Si quis erga. If any was to complain upon a Bishop, he is ordained to deal friendly with himself before he complain to the Primate or any other judge, or else to be excommunicate. The gloss upon this last chapter distinguisheth thus. If the injury concern the Prelate only or specially, he may not excommunicate for that injury: but if it concern the Kirk he may. And the gloss upon dist. 63. cap. Salonitanae, maketh this clear: If injury concern principally the Prelate, than he must forbear. But the general Assembly is the supreme judge in causes ecclesiastical: neither doth the Assembly judge in their own cause, but Christ and his Churches, and concerning themselves, as members and persons representing the collective body. But of this we have treated sufficiently before. It maketh nothing for them then, that if the Pope be at variance with any man he must not be judge himself. Is there no more but variance betwixt them, and the Assembly? and they a party, some difference standing betwixt them and our Kirk, which must be taken up by arbitrators? intolerable presumption. Are the liberties of Christ's Kingdom, but the subject of some variance betwixt us and these usurpers? The gloss meaneth, that the Pope himself may not take men's possessions or goods upon a light opinion, that they belong to the Kirk, till the matter be decided. Non debet ipse esse judex & rem occupare. Gloss in Can. Consuetudo. 16. q. 6. Neither are their examples to the purpose. For the Emperor Ludovicus Bavarus pleaded that nullity against the sentence and proceeding of john 22. and of his Council, upon this ground; that the said john pretended to have a plenitude of power over him and his Empire, even in temporal matters, and did actually conspire against him and the laws of the Empire, and caused him to be pursued as an enemy, as the Reader may see in the review of the council of Trent. Hermannus Archbishop of Cullen being excommunicate by pope Paul the third, because he was upon the work of reformation of his Kirks, appealed from his sentence by writ, wherein he setteth down his reasons why he did not acknowledge him as judge, because he had been a long time accused of heresy and idolatry. He appealed from his sentence to a lawful Council of Germany, wherein he would prosecute his plea against him as party. Our decliners make our national Council their party. Non credo quod à sententia Concilij appelletur: quia concilium est loco senatus. 16. quest. 1. c. eccles. habet Senatum A quorum Senatorum sententia non appellatur ita nec a sententia Concilii, saith Antonius de Rosellis par. 3. cap. 21. The national Council is the supreme Senate of the Kirk, from which as we may not appeal in a cause competent, so we may not cast or refuse the same.  
They complain, that the Authors of the late Protestation were injurious to their place and authority in the Assembly, because they will grant neither Primate, Archbishop nor Bishop voice deliberative, nor decisive in the general Assembly, unless they be elected by the Presbyteries. The act abovementioned made Anno 1597. by their own procurement, ordained that Ministers & Barons should be directed with commission from presbyteries. We have had no other act since for the choice of Commissioners to the general Assembly. In the Assembly holden at Montrose anno 1600, when the cautions were concluded, It was statute and ordained, that none of them that shall have vote in Parliament, shall come as Commissioners to the General Assembly, or have vote in the same in any time coming, unless he be authorized with commission from his own Presbytery to that effect. This act was not annulled by their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow; nor if it had, should it have been of any force: seeing it was a null and pretended Assembly. As for Counsels of old, where Primats, Archbishops, and Bishops had place and voice, they are not the right pattern to be followed by us, as we have already answered. Nor yet do they make any thing for them. For these of old were Primats, Archbishops, and Bishops in office after man's invention allowed for the time. We acknowledge none such in our Kirk. Their consecration to the office was without the knowledge or consent of our Kirk, and is laid to their charge in the complaint given in against them. A knavish prat. And yet, forsooth, they talk as if they were Primats, Archbishops and Bishops in office, like those of old. Risum teneatis amici? But what suppose they were acknowledged to be such in office? should they disdain commission from Presbyteries? Paul and Barnabas were sent from the brethren at Antioch to the Council which was holden at jerusalem act. ●5.  
They allege, that this doth enforce the nullity of an Assembly, if the Moderator and President for matters of doctrine and discipline shall be neither the Primate, Archbishop nor Bishop, but who by plurality of Presbyters and laymen's voices shall be elected, which happily may be one of the inferior clergy, or a lay-person. For this their Presidentship, they allege canons of ancient Counsels, and custom of old, both in other nations and our own not yet restrained by any municipal law. Acts of parliament either of late or of old have not set down any order for moderation of general Assemblies or national Counsels. Nor do we allege the act of Parliament 1592. ratifying the liberty of general Assemblies, provincial Synods, and Presbyteries for free election of their Moderators. Yet there is nothing in that act against free election, or for Presidentship of Bishops. We had no Ministers primats, or Bishops, either in style or in office at that time. Yea the power granted before to Bishops in that troublesome year 1584. and soon after quite abolished, was then granted by that act to Presbyters, as the right spiritual office-bearers in the Kirk. And as for acts of ancient Counsels, we pass them as no patterns to us, nor pertinent for them. For we have no such Bishops, primats or Metropolitans, as were of old, as hath been already answered. And as impertinent it is, to allege that this presidentship is so intrinsically inherent in them as they are Bishops, that hoc ipso that they are Bishops, they are Precedents of all Assemblies of the clergy: As the Chancellor of the kingdom hath place in Council and Session not by any act or statute, but hoc ipso that he is Chancellor. For we know no difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter to be made by the word of God. Neither do we acknowledge our fourteen forloppen Ministers for Bishops in office, so much as by the constitutions of our Kirk. Yea when we had Superintendents and Bishops, yet the Moderator of the general Assembly was freely chosen, and never a Bishop chosen but once. It was ordained in the book of policy chap. 7. that in all Assemblies a Moderator shall be chosen by common consent of the whole brethren convened.  
This freedom our Assemblies ever had since the reformation, till Spotswod sometime pretended primate began to usurp the place of the Moderator in their pretended Assembly holden anno 1616. Suppose the act of Parliament 1592. did restrain their authority, yet say they, the restraint is restored by act of Parliament 1606. and 1609. and all acts prejudicial to their jurisdiction abrogat. But that act of Parliament anno 1606. concerning the restitution of the state of Bishops can not be understood to concern the spiritual office, but only their temporal state, jurisdiction, privileges and preeminences belonging thereto. For by the act of Parliament 1597. when vote in Parliament was granted to Ministers provided to Prelacies, their office in the spiritual policy and government of the Kirk was remitted to the King's Majesty to be advised, consulted, and agreed upon by his Majesty with the general Assembly, at such times as his Majesty should think expedient to treat with them thereupon. But there passed no agreement before the act of Parliament 1606. but rather cautions to restrain them from all pre-eminence or power in the spiritual policy and government. And in the act of Parliament 1612. which ratified the act of Glasgow 1610. the remit of the estates in the Parliament 1597. was mentioned, and it was declared, that all doubtful and controverted points concerning the jurisdiction, discipline, and policy foresaid, was not determined till that Assembly holden 1610. How then could the act of restitution anno 1606. be understood of restitution to their old papal pre-eminence and jurisdiction in the policy and government of the Kirk? Next, if they were restored to all their old preeminences in the spiritual jurisdiction and policy by the act 1606. what needed they any Assembly afterward to grant them some pre-eminence in ordination and jurisdiction? Why stepped not the pretended Primate to the place of Moderatorship at their own pretended Assemblies holden anno 1606. 1608. 1610. without election? Thirdly, how could the Parliament restore them to any spiritual jurisdiction or pre-eminence, who never had it at any time before? For they had not been Bishops in office at any time before, that they needed restitution. Will they say, because they had the titles of the benefice or Bishopric, the Parliament might put them in possession of the spiritual jurisdiction, and enter them into the office; then the Papists may be moved more justly to call them Parliamentary Bishops, than the English in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, who because of some rites and customs omitted at their inauguration, sought the ratification of the Parliament for supply, as Sanderus de schismate Anglicano lib. 3. reporteth, and therefore were called parliamentary Bishops. Hinc nomen illis impositum, ut parliamentarij episcopi dicerentur. In their printed Declinatour they allege a little after in the same section, that they have received their authority not from the Parliament, but from Christ, from whom they have received the spiritual oversight of the clergy under their charge. This clause is not to be found in the Declinatour presented before the Assembly in writ, but instead thereof two lines bloated out. Now it seemeth they are somewhat bolder after they have consulted with their brethren in England, who now maintain that their authority is not derived from the Prince. But suppose the episcopal authority were institute by Christ, which is false; what calling had they to exerce that authority? They had none from the Kirk. And if not from the Parliament, than none at all. And yet before they said their authority was restored to them by act of Parliament 1606. which seemeth to import a contradiction: And suppose, from the Parliament, as good as not at all. As for the act of Parliament 1609. concerning the Commissariats, it reacheth no further than the former. Their consent to both these acts in Parliament and sundry other, is one of the points of the complaint given in against them. Nay they procured them, and yet are not ashamed to allege them, howbeit to small purpose. Being destitute of acts of Parliament or Assembly, they argue from their presidentship in Synods, that one of them in absence of the Metropolitan should preside in the general Assembly, rather than one of the inferior clergy. It is true, by an act of Assembly holden at Glasgow anno 1610. those who were styled Bishops in respect of their benefices, were constitute Moderators of the diocesan Synods, and that act was ratified in Parliament anno 1612. But that ratification was upon supposition, that the Assembly was free and lawful, and was desirous of that ratification: none of which are they able to make good. Next when we had Bishops and Superintendents Moderators of Synods, the general Assembly choosed others then Superintendents or Bishops to moderate. By the cautions at Montrose it was provided, that the Minister voter in Parliament should not arrogat to himself any further pre-eminence or jurisdiction then any of the rest of their brethren, under the pain of deprivation. Where it was alleged falsely in the falsified act of that null and pretended Assembly holden in December anno 1606. that they should be Moderators of Synods, yet to make men believe that they were moderate and sought no further, it was provided in that same falsified act, That the Moderator of the general Assembly be chosen by the voices of the said Assembly, certain leets being first nominated and propounded freely, as use hath been in times bypast. So, by their own grant, it followeth not that one of the Bishops moderating the diocesan Synod should preside in the general Assembly in absence of the Metropolitan himself, whose name was not so much as heard of in their own pretended Assemblies.  
They answer to that which is alleged against the office of a Bishop out of the act of Assembly holden anno 1580. where it was declared, that it had no ground or warrant out of the Scriptures: First, that if the corruption of the time shall be regarded, the authority of this Assembly might be no less regarded than that of Glasgow 1610. This is transcendent impudency. Were the times corrupt? Were not all the heads of the book of discipline concluded after free reasoning in many Assemblies preceding? Was not the election of Commissioners free? Was not liberty granted to any man that was willing to oppone? Was there any rent or division in our Kirk in those times? Was not the same act ratified in the Assembly following? Was not the confession of Faith subscrived by persons of all ranks soon after, and Presbyteries erected? did not our kirk adhear to that act still after? So, if that time was corrupt, the purest and best times following were corrupt. Was ever that act contradicted by any other act since that time to this hour? But observe, whiles without all shame they would impair the authority of that Assembly, they suffer of their own accord their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. to fall to the ground. Next, they say, it is ordinare for prior acts of Assemblies and Parliaments to give place to posterior. But we maintain there was no act followed to repeal the former. If they will allege the act of Glasgow 1610. First, that Assembly is not to be numbered among the Assemblies of our Kirk, and was declared null at this last Assembly upon grounds unanswerable. Next, that same corrupt Assembly did not determine or declare the office of a Bishop to have any warrant out of the word, nor did they restore that office as it was brought in by man's invention, and used of old, but only made Synods and Presbyteries obnoxious in ordination, deprivation, excommunication, and some other points, to these who were then styled Bishops in respect of their benefice, and not Bishops in office, yet not without limitations and upon assurance, that they should be liable to the trial and censure of the general Assembly. But they allege the Assembly holden anno 1586, where it was found that the name of a Bishop hath a special function annexed to it by the word of God, that it was lawful to the general Assembly to admit a Bishop presented to a benefice by the King with power to visit admit and deprive Ministers, to be Moderators of Presbyteries, and to be subject only to the censure of the general Assembly. Neither was the office of a diocesan Bishop declared by this Assembly to have any ground or warrant in the word, or that any might be consecrat thereafter to such an office invented by man. Yea that Assembly declared in the sixth Session, that there are four ordinare office-bearers set down to us in the Scriptures, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons, and that the name of Bishop ought not to be taken as it hath been in time of Papistry, but is common to all Pastors. In the tenth and eleventh Session, they declare that by the name of Bishop they mean only such a Bishop, as is described by the Apostle. They declare that the name of Bishop hath a special charge and function annexed to it by the word of God, the same that the Pastor hath. They declared then that Bishop and Pastor are all one, and that a divine or apostolical Bishop is the Pastor of a particular flock, and hath not a general charge over a whole diocie. It is true, they assented at that time that it was lawful to admit a Pastor, Bishop or Minister presented to a benefice by the King's Majesty, with power to visit admit etc. as said is. But then consider, this Assembly was the first which was holden after the desolation made anno 1584. and 1585. and consisted not only of none subscribing Ministers, but also of many who had subscribed in that hour of darkness as Bishop Adamson afterward called these two years of desolation preceding: And yet did not allow more to him who was admitted to the Bishopric then to any other Minister to whom they gave the like power, and with the same restrictions which were prescribed to others, and only till further order were taken: as that in visitation of the bounds limited to him, he proceed by advice of the Synod, and such as they shall appoint to him; that in receiving presentations and giving collations he shall proceed by the advice and voice of the Presbytery, and certain Assessors to be joined with him, at the least the most part of the Presbytery and Assessors, till further order may be taken; that if he admit or deprive without consent of the most part of the Presbytery it shall be a sufficient cause of deprivation, and the deed shall be null. So this power and pre-eminence was not in respect of any Episcopal office, but by commission from the Assembly, as was granted to other Ministers, and during the time prescribed by the Assembly, and only till further order were taken. And indeed this shadow of pre-eminence granted first at a conference in Halyrudehouse not long before, by some courting and chief subscribing Ministers, & now again at this Assembly, endured not long. For in the Assembly holden in june 1587. the admission of one to the Bishopric of Glasgow by the brethren of the west, was declared unlawful, neither agreeing with the word of God nor custom of the Kirk, howbeit it was only to the temporality, and these brethren were enjoined with all possible diligence to see that admission annulled, that slander may be removed from the Kirk, as they would answer upon their obedience. At the same Assembly Mr. Robert Pont related to the Assembly, that a presentation to the Bishopric of Cathnesse was offered to him, for some loss he had sustained; and desired the judgement of the Assembly, if he might enjoy the rent with a safe conscience, seeing he was willing to serve at the Kirk of Dornoch, and to take the charge of visitation at the pleasure and direction of the Assembly. But in the letter sent to his Majesty the Assembly declared that Mr. Robert Pont was already a Bishop according to the doctrine of St. Paul, and worthy of a competent living in that regard. But as for that corrupt estate or office of those who were called Bishops in former times, they find it not agreeable with the word of God, and that it hath been damned in divers Assemblies; neither is the said Mr. Robert willing to accept the Bishopric in that manner. In the same Assembly it was ordained, that all Pastors of whatsoever sort shall be subject to the try all and censure of their Presbyteries and Synods for their life and doctrine, as well as of the general Assemblies; That such as pass degrees in schools subscribe the confession of Faith. In the instructions for the Commissioners appointed to attend upon the King and Parliament, they were enjoined to admit nothing prejudicial to the discipline of the Kirk, as it was concluded according to the word of God by the general Assemblies preceding the 1584. year, so far as lay in their power. In the Parliament holden the month of july following, the temporality of benefices was annexed to the crown, and it was thought meet and expedient that his Highness shall have recourse to his own patrimony, that is the proper rent of the crown disponed of old to the Clergy and Monasteries. All and sundry lands, Lordships, Baronies, Castles, Towers, etc. Pertaining to Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Pryoresses or whatsoever other Prelate were annexed and united to the crown. In the Assembly holden anno 1588. Ministers were enjoined to deal with Noblemen and Gentlemen for subscribing the confession of Faith. In a word the servants of God never rested till the wound, which the Kirk had received anno 1584. and 1585. was perfectly cured, and not so much remained as the scar thereof. Yea that any Minister should be appointed a visitor at any time where Presbyteries were constitute, was not thought expedient, as was declared by the Assembly 1590.  
As for that act of Montrose, let them answer to it, say they, that have their calling by that Commission. We profess that we have a lawful calling, by the election of the Clergy, who are of the chapter of our Cathedrals, and consecration of Bishops, with his Majesty's consent and approbation, according to the lowable laws and ancient custom of this Kingdom and Kirk in ancient times.  
Because they see they are not able to answer for the breach of the cautions; concluded with consent of his Majesty, and the Ministers aspiring to Prelacies, they profess plainly they regard not these cautions, and that they have not their calling by that commission at Montrose. The Minister commissioner to vote in Parliament, was tied by the act at Montrose, not to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Kirk, but to behave himself as other Ministers not voters in Parliament. The plotters for Episcopacy consented and seemed willing he should be so bounded and restrained, glade of any beginning. Now when they arrogat to themselves the power and office of a diocesan Bishop and are catched in the snare, they refuse to stand to that act. So they bewray that they had even then a purpose to deceive and betray the Kirk of GOD. and because they are not able to answer, let them answer, say they, that have their calling by that commission. They said in the former section, that posterior act deerogate from the prior, now they make prior acts to derogat from the posterior. For they profess that they have their calling by election of the chapter and consecration of Bishpos according to the laws and customs of ancient times. They can not deny, but chapters of Cathedrals and election of Bishops by chapters were condemned by our Kirk as Popish, and the office of a diocesan Bishop or consecration to the office to have been damned and detested by our Kirk. They can not so much as allege a warrant of any of their own pretended Assemblies for their election by chapters, or this their consecration. Three of their own number went to England after their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow, and without their knowledge or consent, were consecrated Bishops by their brethren the English Bishops, returned and consecrated the rest of their fellows. But for the breach of these cautions, manner of election, and the usurpation of that office by consecration, that is, for their treacherous dealing, they are cited to answer before the Assembly, and are worthy of condign censures and punishment, deprivation, note of infamy, and excommunication, the three punishments to be inflicted respectiuè for transgressing of the cautions. Have they not by their own profession in this section confessed they are guilty of the most heinous offences laid to their charge in the libel? We pass that which they add concerning their homage for their temporalities, and acknowledging of the King's supremacy, as not pertinent to the present purpose, and the complaint taken out of Cyprian, as not belonging to usurpers.  
Lastly, they conclude, that it is manifest by the premises, how absurd it is, and contrary to all reason and practise of the Christian Kirk, that Archbishops and Bishops shall be judged by Presbyters, much more by a mixed meeting of Presbyters and Laikes conveening without lawful authority from the Kirk.  
By the Kirk it seemeth they mean the Bishops. They cite some old Counsels, declaring and determining how and by whom Archbishops and Bishops are to be judged. But it is manifest by our refutation of the premises, that this Assembly consisted of Commissioners both Ministers and ruling Elders, whom they call Laymen, chosen according to the order of our Kirk, and that meetings of Clergy and Laymen have been not only in the Apostles times, but also in times of Popery, and that we are not to be directed by the Canons of these Counsels which they cite, but by the established order and Canons of our own reformed Kirk, which are agreeable with the practice of the Apostolical and best reformed Kirks in our time. Semper petunt principium. They take that for granted which is denied. That they are Archbishops and Bishops, It is not only denied but they are summoned to answer for usurping such offices.  
They pretend, that none of them will decline the lawful trial of any competent judicatory in the kingdom, especially of a general Assembly lawfully constitute, or his Majesty's Commissioner, or Laics having authority and commission from sovereign authority.  
They will be sure to have such a judge as shall acquit them or none at all; An Assembly like to their own pretended Assemblies. Seeing the whole pack of them are complained upon, and for crimes common to them all, where shall we find other Bishops and Metropolitans to sit in judgement upon them? What needeth any further answer, but that it is manifest by sundry passages of this their Declinator that they will not, and because guilty, dare not, stand to the judgement of a general Assembly constitut as the last was according to the established order and practise of our Kirks and therefore are justly cut off as rotten members from the body.  
After the reasons of their Declinator and refusal of the judgement of the Assembly, they come to their protests.  
First, for the reasons foresaid, and for discharge of their duty to God, to his Kirk, and to our sacred Sovereign, least by their silence they betray the Kirks right, and their own consciences, that they in their own names, and in behalf of the kirk of Scotland, are forced to protest that this Assembly be repute, and holden null in law, and that no Kirk-man be holden to appear, assist, approve it. And therefore that no letter, petition, subscription, interloquitor, certification, admonition, or other act whatsoever, proceeding from the said Assembly, or any member thereof, shall be any way prejudicial to the Religion and confession of Faith by act of Parliament established, nor to the Kirk, or any member thereof, nor to the jurisdiction, liberties, privileges rents, benefices, possessions of the same, acts of general Assembly, Council or Parliament in favours thereof, nor to the three Estates of the kingdom, or to any of them, nor to themselves or any of them in their persons or Estates, authority, jurisdiction, dignity, rents, benefices; reputation and good name, But that all such acts and deeds are, and shall be repute unjust, illegal and null in themselves, with all that hath followed or may follow thereupon.  
If their reasons alleged be found frivolous, as they were by the Assembly, and are cleared so to be by this answer, their protest is not worth a fig. They protest in name of the Kirk of Scotland, when as they will not acknowledge her Commissioners freely chosen, nor her Assembly constitute according to the established order, nor any other Assembly constitute according to the said order, but will have this Assembly, and consequently this Kirk, to be their party, and yet will protest, professed as they are, in name and behalf of this Kirk. Afraid are they that some thing should be done prejudicial to Religion, and the confession of Faith established by Parliament, meaning that which is extant in the acts of Parliament, but pass by the confession sworn to, and subscribed by Subjects of all ranks throughout the whole Realm, and by themselves. We acknowledge not acts of null and pretended Assemblies. We interpret not every act of Council or Parliament procured, or assented to by them, or made in their favours, to be made in favours of the Kirk. The Kirk herself must be judge of the favours bestowed on her. If their authority, jurisdiction, dignity, rents, benefices, reputation, good name etc. Be prejudicial to the authority, jurisdiction, liberties, and the spiritual welfaire of the Kirk, good reason the estate of the Kirk be preferred to the estate of some few factious men. There may be three estates without the bastard estate of Bishops, Abbots, Pryors erected in time of Popish darkness.  
They protest next, if the Assembly call in question, discuss, and condemn things, not only in themselves lawful and warrandable, but also defined and determined by acts of general Assemblies and Parliaments, and in practise accordingly, to the disgrace and prejudice of the reformed Religion, authority of the laws and liberties of the Kirk and kingdom, weakening his Majesty's authority, disgraceing the profession and practice he holdeth in the communion of the Kirk where he liveth, and branding of reformed Kirks with the foul aspersion of Idolatry and superstition: that what shall be done in this kind, may not redound to the disgrace or disadvantage of the reformed Religion, nor be repute a deed of the Kirk of Scotland.  
The Assembly hath condemned nothing lawful and warrandably defined and determined before in Assembly or Parliament and practised accordingly, they intended not to weaken his Majesty's authority, disgrace his practice and profession, or brand any reformed Kirks with soul aspersions, but only to reform the abuses and corruptions entered in their own Kirk, and to oppose to what more was likely to have entered with the receiving the Service book and book of Canons, without relation to any other Kirk. If any disgrace redound to others, it is but per accidens, and it may be retorted, that their Canons, and constitutions are intended for the disgrace of our Kirk, which we do not affirm. Next, they must distinguish betwixt a free Kirkand a Kirk lying in thraldom. But the decliners would have us to refuse nothing which is received in any other reform Kirk, if the same be imposed, lest they be disgraced by our refusal: which were to make up a fine hotchpotch.  
They protest, that they embrace and hold the Religion presently professed according to the confession of Faith ratified in Parliament anno 1567. as the true Religion, and detest all contrary errors.  
But they make no account nor mention of that confession where contrary errors are specified or designed, and it appeareth for no other cause, but that they perceive the episcopal government and other innovations which they were to introduce to be abjured by that confession, which is a tacit yielding to the true meaning and sense delivered by the last Assembly in their Declaration.  
They protest, that the Episcopal government is lawful and necessary, and that the same is not opposed for any defect or fault in the government or governor's, but by the malice and craft of the devil envying the success of that government these many years bypast.  
It hath been condemned by our Kirk as unlawful and hurtful, yet they dare contradict and protest it to be lawful and necessary. That government which is not warranded by the word, and overthroweth the joint government of Pastors and Elders, which is warranded by the word can not but be faulty. If the government be faulty, the governor's can not but be faulty in governing. The devil could not envy the success of so faulty a government as hath brought in the Antichrist to sit in the temple of God. Suppose there were no fault in the government but that it were lawful and necessary, but what means have they come by it? Or what moderation have they keeped after their usurping of it? Intrarunt ut vulpes, regnarunt ut Leans. But how prove they the success of their government to have been such as the devil could not but envy it?  
By the planting of Kirks with able and learned Miinisters, recovering of the Kirk rents, helping of Ministers stipends, preventing jars betwixt the King and the Kirk which in former time did dangerously infest the same, keeping the people in peace and obedience, and suppresing of Poprie, which was never at so low an ebb as before the stirs.  
They have planted many Kirks with unsufficient or scandalous Ministers, or corrupters of Religion and perverters of the people. They have recovered great rents to themselves, and would recover the rents of the rest of the Prelacies to build up the crownests again. They have procured by the moyen they had, augmentation of stipends to tie Ministers to dependence upon them, or to tie them to their fat stipends, that no alteration in Religion should lose their grip: and yet no Kirks worse provided than such as belong to their own benefices they have hindered the augmentation of stipends to such Ministers as would not dance to their piping. They have raised jars betwixt the King and the Kirk, and in the Kirk itself, that they might obtain the more easily their intent. But how they keeped peace betwixt the King and the people may be seen by their instructions sent up to court anno 1609. the many threatening letters sent down from court, and proclamations from time to time, and most of all by their dealing at this present. If there were no other to keep the people in peace and obedience, there would be little peace or obedience in the country. Their favour borne to Papists processed or to be processed, their familiarity with them more than common, and employment of them may let us see, that if Poprie be suppressed, it is not suppressed by them, but by other means, as the powerful preaching of the word, or the clearing of controversies wherewith our Kirk was troubled or by the authority of men in place and credit in the country. But we doubt that Popry is at so low an ebb, nor will it be seen till the light of this present reformation discover them. Sure we are, to bring in Popry piece and piece, was not the mean to suppress Poprie.  
They protest, that seeing these who for scrouple of conscience did mislike the service book, Canons or high Commission which were apprehended or given forth to be the cause of the trouble of this Kirk, have now received satisfaction, and his Majesty is graciously pleased to forget and forgive all offences by past in these stirs, that all the Subjects may live in peace and love; laying aside envy, hatred and bitterness: and if any refuse so to do, that they bear the blame, and be thought the cause of the troubles may ensue, and that the same be not imputed to them or any of them, who desire nothing more nor to live in peace and concord with all men, under his Majesty's obedience, who have committed nothing against the laws of the Kingdom and Kirk, which may give any just cause of offence, and who are so far from wishing any harm to any man in his person or estate, notwithstanding all the injuries and indignities they have suffered, that for quenching this present combustion; they could be content after clearing their innocence, not only to lay down their bishopric at this Majesty's feet, but also, if it so pleased God to lay down their lives, and become a sacrifice for this atonement.  
We answer, Others for scrouple of conscience mislike the service book, canons, or high Commission. But they are not in the number of these who make any scrouple: How can we who mislike, like them to be Ministers, far less governor's in our Kirk, who do not mislike them: what satisfaction can we receive by the discharge of these books, seeing other books more corrupt may be imposed afterwards, seeing the matter is not condemned, but avouched to be a mean to beat out idolatry and superstition, seeing they themselves were not taken order with for their corrupt disposition, and intent to obtrud them, and to raise persecution for them. They may do in and by the Council, as much as may trouble Ministers and professors, howbeit they sit not in the Court of high Commission. The books were but the instrumental cause of the troubles and stirs, but they were the principal cause, authors and procurers of the troubles. The five articles, which have wrought much disquietness these twenty years bypast, were not quit, but the practice left free whereby division could not but be entertained. Can Religion be settled in peace, or religion be preserved in purity their government continuing? they would be loath to lay down their Bishoprics at his Majesty's feet, if they were not confident to take them up again. Yet they will not do it, till their innocence be cleared, that is, they will never do it: for their innocence will never be cleared. If you will believe them, they could be content like jonas to be cast in the sea to procure a calm. They have lived like Salamanders in the fire of combustion, and now on a sudden would quench the fire with their blood. Will they lay down but their Bishoprics at the feet of the Kirke, as they ought to do, and that will quench the combustion: But they will lay them down only where they are sure to receive them again.  
They protest deeply, that they use not this declinatour and protestation out of fear of any guiltiness, whereof any of them is conscious to himself, but of conscience of their duty to God and his Church, being most willing every one of them to undergo the most lawful and exact trial of any competent judicatory in the Kingdom, or of his Majesty's Commissioner foresaid. But the general Assembly cannot be denied to be the most competent judicatory in the Kingdom. They beseech my Lord Commissioner to interceded with his Majesty, for appointing a free & lawful general Assembly, such as God's word, the practice of the primitive Kirk, and laws of the Kingdom doth prescribe, with all convenient speed, that they or any other of the Clergy may be heard to answer all accusations, abide trial for clearing of their innocence, or receiving condign punishment. But it is made evident already, that they mean by the primitive Kirk, not the primitive that is Apostolical, as appeareth by the Canons of some ancient counsels, which are no rule to us. Nor can we have any other Bishops to judge upon them, seeing we have none but such as are complained upon and summoned. The laws of the Kingdom have not prescribed the order and constitution of our general Assemblies, nor is it pertinent to them. All the while they request not an Assembly to be appointed, as the Kirk within this Kingdom hath prescribed and observed from time to time: are these men to be suffered in this Kirk, that will not submit themselves to the trial of the supreme judicatory constitute according to the acts and constitutions of our Kirk? So it is not only this, but all other Assemblies constitute according to the prescribed order of the Kirk that they shun.  
They protest, That this protestation in respect of their lawful absence, may be received in their own name, and in name of the Kirk of Scotland, that shall adhere to the said protestation, at the hands of Doctor Robert Hammiltoun Minister at Glasfurde, to whom they gave power and mandat to present the same in or at the said Assembly etc. They say not to the said Assembly, or with reverence to the said Assembly. The vanity of their protesting in name of the Kirk of Scotland, and their adherents we have laid open before. What cause can they pretend for lawful absence. Some of them were in Glasgow and Hammiltoun, and might have presented their Declinatour and Protestation themselves, if their haughty spirits would have suffered them to compeare before Presbyters, to whom they were terrible in former times.  
Lest their deep Protestations should make men believe that they are the most innocent men that may be, you shall have here subjoined good Reader the crimes and offences which were laid to their charge, and were either so notorious that they could not be denied, or clearly proven before the Assembly.  
After that, such as were aspired to Prelacies had obtained in the general Assembly by the King's assistance, and not without great opposition of the better and most judicious sort of the Ministry, that Ministers might vote in Parliament, it was agreed unto by themselves, that they should be nominate and recommended by the Kirk to his Majesty, who should have vote in Parliament, and whom his Majesty should choose, they should be admitted by their Synods, where they were resident. But they regarded neither the recommendation of the general Assembly nor admission by their Synods. As for cautions to keep him that shall have vote in Parliament from corruption, howbeit they agreed unto them for the present, yet afterward their actions bewrayed, they had no intent to keep them. They voted in Parliament without lawful entry or admission, the Kirk disassenting and repining, or without inserting of the cautions, which were agreed upon to keep the Ministers voters in Parliament from corruption. Whereas it was provided by the cautions that he shall not presume at any time to propone in Parliament, Council or convention any thing in name of the Kirk, without express warrant and direction of the Kirk, but such as he shall answer to be for the well of the Kirk, under the pain of deposition from his office, nor keep silence, or consent to any thing that may be prejudicial to the liberty and well of the Kirk, under the same pain. And yet have they voted and given assent to many acts in Parliament prejudicial to the liberties of the Kirk, almost in every Parliament which hath been holden since they began to take the place to vote in Parliament. Whereas the Minister voter was bound at every general Assembly to give an account anent the discharge of his commission since the Assembly preceding, and to submit himself to their censure, and stand to their determination without any appellation, and to seek and obtain ratification of his doings at the said Assembly under the pain of infamy and excommunication, yet since they began to vote in Parliament, the liberty of holding general Assemblies yearly was taken from us, and when we had any of their own framing, yet made they no account of their proceedings in Parliament, nor sought ratification of their proceedings in Parliament, Council or convention. Whereas he was bound to content himself with so much of the benefice which shall be given him by his Majesty as might not prejudge any other Minister within his benefice or without, yet they bestow waste the emoluments of the Kirk to maintain their riotousesse and ambition, which might sustain many Pastors. Whereas he was bound not to delapidat his benefice set or make any disposition thereof without special consent of his Majesty and the general Assembly, yet it is found that they had delapidared their benefices. Whereas he was bound by the cautions to attend faithfully upon his own particular flock, and there anent to be subject to the trial and censure of his own Presbytery and Provincial Assembly, as any other Minister nor bearing commission to vote in Parliament, they have neglected all Ministerial duty in any particular congregation, and deserted their particular flock. Whereas it was provided that in administration of discipline, collation of benefices, visitation and other points of Ecclesiastical government, he shall not usurp nor acclaime to himself any power or jurisdiction farther than any of the rest of the brethren, They notwithstanding have usurped power and jurisdiction over their brethren of the Ministry, & the people in or out of the high Commission, to admit, suspend, deprive, fine, confine, Pastors or Professors at their pleasure. Whereas it was provided that in Presbyteries Provincial and general Assemblies, he shall behave himself in all things, and be subject to their censure as any other brother of the Ministry, they notwithstanding over rule Synods and Presbyteries and general Assemblies when they are convocat. Whereas it was ordained that none of these that shall have vote in Parliament shall come as Commissioners to any general Assembly, or have vote in the same in any time coming, except he be authorized with commission from his own Presbytery to that effect, they have notwithstanding taken place in their late pretended Assemblies, without commission from any Presbytery, and have moderated and over ruled as they pleased. Whereas there are certain constitutions and acts of our Kirk for the right constitution of general Assemblies, yet have they holden these few Assemblies not constitute according to the constitutions of our Kirk, but after their own device, and for acts to be made for the advancement of their course, which Assemblies are found and declared to be null in this last Assembly for such reasons as are expressed in the acts of the last Assembly now extant in print. Whereas the office of adiocesan Bishop hath been condemned by our Kirk as having no warrant in the word of God, and never since hath been allowed to this hour, no not in their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow: Three of their number notwithstanding went to England without the direction, knowledge or consent of any Assembly, lawful or pretended, received consecration to the office of a Bishop, returned and consecrated the rest of their fellows to that office damned by the acts of our Kirk. Whereas the court of high Commission was not errected by consent of the estates or good liking of any Assembly, yet they accepted the power of that court, and thereby have tyrrannized over Ministers and other Subjects. They have also undertaken civil and temporal jurisdictions, titles, and dignities, as to bear offices of estate, to sit in Council, Excequer, Session contrary to the acts of our Kirk. They relax excommunicate Papists when they please. They have interdicted morning and evening prayers, when they thought they were injured by the people. They have falsified the acts of their own pretended Synods They have vitiated interlyned or deleted acts and sentences of Presbyteries, Synods and Assemblies. Incest and Adultery hath fallen forth by their licence for private marriages. They have refused to admit Ministers unless they first take on the order of deacons. They exacted unlawful oaths of intrants, and thereupon debarred the most qualified and obtruded the most scandalous upon congregations. They have taught Popery and Arminianism, and advanced such to the Ministry as were infected with the same Heretical and erroneous doctrine. They brought in novations in the worship of God by a pretended Assembly, and now at last intends to alter the whole frame of Religion, of doctrine with error, or worship with superstition, or discipline with tyranny by the service book, book of canons, book of ordination, without so much as the colour of any pretended Assembly. Beside they have detained or interverted sowms of money dedicat to pious uses as colleges & relief of captives. Beside all these offences, notorious of themselves, or proven before the Assembly, the lousenesse and profanity of their lives was made known, how they have been given to excessive drinking, filthy dancing, profane speeches, open profanation, of the Sabbath by their journeys abroad, or drinking carding or dicing at home, usual playing at cards and dice, excessive gaining, contempt of all public ordinances and family exercises, bribery, simony, unhonest dealing, abusing of their vassals, sclandering of the Kirk, and stirring up authority against the subjects with their lies and calumnies. They are slandered also for other grosser crimes, but time served not for sufficient trial. Because they were not able to abide the trial: they have declined, and protested against the last Assembly. For which offence only they deserve excommunication, according to the act of the general Assembly holden in April 1582.  
Because they complain in their declinator, that obedient and worthy Ministers have been removed from their places by the usurped authority of the table and Presbyteries, notwithstanding they had declined and appealed from their judgement, you shall see good Reader what worth was in these Ministers, and what just reason there was for removing of them.  
It hath been sufficiently proven and made good against some of these deposed Ministers, to wit, Mr. David Mitchell Minister in Edinburgh, Mr Alexander Gladstones Minister in St. Andrews, commonly called the Archdean of St. Andrews, Mr. William Wishart Minister at Leeth, Mr. john Crightoun Minister at Pasley, Mr. Thomas Foster Minister at Melrose, Mr. Roberts Hammiltouns Ministers at Lesmahago & Glasfurd; and others of their sort, that they have taught points of Popery and Arminianism, conditional election, the power of freewill, resistibility to effectual grace, the extent of Christ's death and merit to the damned in hell as well as to the blessed in heaven, Christ coming into the world clauso virginis utero, auricular confession, papal absolution, That the Pope is not the Antichrist, That the Kirk of Rome is the true Kirk, That reconciliation with the Kirk of Rome is easy, That the Kirk of Rome errs not in fundamentalibus, nor differeth from reformed Kirks in the same, That there is no more difference betwixt us and them then betwixt the green and blue colours of justinian's army, or that it was a mouthful of moonshine, that the formal cause of our justification standeth in our inherent righteousness, That Christ's body is present in the sacrament circumscriptiuè and change the sacrament of the supper into a sacrifice, the table into an altar, and Ministers into Priests, That GOD was the cause of isack's lie for not punishing his father Abraham, That there was possibility to fulfil the law, That predestination was a doctrine newly hatched in hell justly to be deleted out of God's word, That the excrements of the Romish religion, and jesuits learning was better than the quintessence of our Religion, although it were squeezed in a limbeck, That absolute active obedience is to be given to all the commandments just or unjust of Princes, That they have railed against our reformers and reformation, and affirmed that the chief reformers of our Religion were but deformers, and had thrown out better things than they had brought in, diminished the necessity and utility of preaching, commended the service book and book of canons, and affirmed that by the faith of the Kirk of Scotland, diverse parts of God's true worship were abjured; That they have cursed their own congregation and threatened to concur to their destruction. They have called their people jackanapes, Babbouns, perjured Bitch's, mad Dogs, and that it were more lawful to pray for such as had lain 500 years in hell then for them. That they neglected the exercise of discipline, hindered the delating or punishment of offenders, baptised children of notorious Papists, defrauded the poor of their right and mantenance allowed unto them, received bribes for saving scandalous persons from public censure, baptised children in their beds without prayer before or after, interverted and applied to their own use moneys collected for relief of some Ministers in the Palatinat or some captives under the Turk. That they deserted their flocks, profaned the Sabbath-day by all sorts of loose carriage, That they were given to drinking, profane speeches and pastimes, swearing, fight, brawling with their Parishioners, that some of them went so drunk to the Pulpit, that they forgot their Text: That some of them swore, they would rather renounce God, than be Puritans; They judged the author of the practice of piety to be damned in hell, because by his book he had made many Puritan Ladies, That when they were delated for such offences, they contemned the authority of the Presbyteries, relying upon the favour of the Prelates, and have declined this last Assembly.  
Because in their Declinatour they allege that too many of the Commissioners members of the last Assembly are guilty of many personal faults and enormities, which in charity they forbear to express in this their Declinatour, you have here subjoined good Reader, a Catalogue of the Commissioners members of the last Assembly whereby you may perceive how frequent the Assembly was, and of what sort of persons it did consist. We have not read nor remembered a more solemn Assembly of our Kirk since the entry of Christian Religion, let be since the reformation, nor more more able to clear themselves of any faults or enormities can be laid to their charge.   

Commissioner for the King's MAJESTY.  
james Marquis of Hamiltoun, Commissioners from the Presbyteries of Scotland, both of the Ministry, and of the ruling Elders, and of Burgesses, as they are within the Presbyteries.  

Presbytery of Dunce.  
Master Alexander Carse minister at Polwart,  
M. john Hume Min. at Eccles.  
M. Thomas Suintoun min. at Saint Borthanes.  
Sir David Hume of Werderburne Knight Elder.   

Presb. of Chirnside.  
M. George Roul minister at Mordingtoun.  
M. Thomas Ramsay min. at Foldoun.  
M. Walter Swintoun min. at Swintoun.  
james Earl of Hume Elder.   

Presb. of Kelso.  
M. Richard Sympson min. at Sproustoun.  
M. William Penman min. at Morbuck.  
Andrew Ker of Lintoun Elder.   

Presb. of jedburgh.  
M. Robert Brounley min. at Kirktoun.  
M. james Wilkie minister at Creling.  
M. Robert Cunninghame min. at Hawick.  
Sir William Dowglas of Cavers Elder.  
Robert Simpson burgess of jedburgh.   

Presb. of Assiltoun.  
M. john Matland min. at Glenkirk.  
M. Harry Cockburne min. at Gingilkirk.  
john Lord Cranstoun Elder.  
M. Alexander Hume Bailyie burgess of Lawder.   

Presb. of Melrosse or Selkirke.  
M. William jameson min. at Langnewtoun.  
M. Robert Martin min. at the new-kirk of Ettrick.  
M. john Knox min. at Bowdoun.  
Sir john Ker of Cavers Elder.   

Presb. of Dumbar.  
M. Patrick Hammiltoun min. at Innerweek.  
M. john Lawder min. at Tuninghame.  
M. john Dalyel min. at Prestoun Kirk.  
Sir Patrick Hepburn of Waghtoun Knight Elder.  
George Purves burgess of Dumbarre.  
M. Patrick Hume burgess of Northberwick.   

Presb. of Hadingtoun.  
M. john Ker minister at Salt-prestoun.  
M. james fleming minister at Bathans.  
M. john Oswald minister at Pencaitland.  
john Lord Hay of Yester Elder.  
M. George Grace common Clerk burgess of Hadington.   

Presb. of Dalkeith.  
M. james Porteous minister at Lesswade.  
M. james Robertson minister at Cranstoun.  
M. Oliuhar Colt minister at Inneresk.  
William Earl of Louthian Elder.   

Presb. of Edinburgh.  
M. Andrew Ramsay minister in Edinburgh.  
M. Harry Rollock minister in in Edinburgh.  
M. William Colvinu minister at Crachmount.  
john Lord of Balmerino Elder.  
james Cochran Dean of Gilled in Edinburgh.  
Thomas Paterson burgess of Edinburgh.  
M. john Adamson Principal of the University of Edinburgh.   

Presb. of Linlithgow.  
M. Richard Dickson minister at Kinneill.  
M. Andrew Keir minister at Carrin.  
M. james Symson minister at Bathgate.  
George Dundas of that ilk Elder.  
james Glen Provest of Linlithgow.   

Presb. of Sterling.  
M. james Edmistoun minister at Saint Ninians.  
M. William justice minister at Gargunnock.  
M. Edward Wright minister at Clackmannan.  
Sir William Murray of Toughadame Elder.  
Thomas Bruce Provest of Stirling.   

Presb. of Peebles.  
M. john Bennet minister at Kirkurde.  
M. Robert Levingstoun min. at Skirling.  
M. Hue Ker minister at Traquare.  
james William son Provest of Peebles.   

Presb. of Middlebie.  
M. Simeon johnstoun minister at Annan.  
M. john Hammiltoun minister at Wasters.  
james Lord johnstoun Elder.   

Presb. of Lochmaban.  
M. Robert Henderson minister at Lochmaban  
M. David Roger minister at Vndergarth.  
james Douglas of Moussell Elder.   

Presb. of Penpont.  
M. George Clèland minister at Durisdeir.  
M. Samuel Austin minister at Penpont.  
William Ferguson of Craigdarrot Elder.   

Presb. of Drumfreis.  
M. james Hammiltoun minister at Drumfreis.  
M. William Makjore minister at Carlaverock.  
M. Alexander Tran minister at Lochroytoun.  
john Charteris younger of Empisfield Elder.  
john Irwing late Provest of Drumfreis.   

Presb. of Kircubright.  
M. Samuel Rutherford minister at Anweth.  
M. William Dalglish minister at Kirkmabright.  
M. john Makleland minister at Kirkcudbright.  
Alexander Gordoun of Earlstoun Elder.  
William Glendinning Provest of Kirkcubright.  
Robert Gordoun of Knokbrox burgess of new-Galloway.   

Presb. of Wigtoun.  
M. Andrew Anderson minister at Kirkinner.  
M. Andrew Lawder minister at whitherne.  
Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw Elder.  
Alexander Make ghie burgess of Wigtoun.   

Presb. of Stranrawer.  
M. john Leving stoun minister at Stranrawer.  
M. james Blair minister at Portmontgomerie.  
M. Alexander Turnbull minister at Kirmaden.  
Robert Adair of Kinhilt Elder.  
james Glover Clerk of Stranrawer.   

Presb. of Air.  
M. james Bonar minister at Moyboll.  
M. john Fergushill minister at Vchiltrie.  
M. Robert Blair minister at Air.  
john Earl of Cassils Elder.  
john Stewart late Provest of Air.   

Presb. of Irwing.  
M. Rober Bailie minister at Kilwinning.  
M. William Russel minister at Kilwinning.  
M. David Dickson minister at Irwing.  
john Lord Lowdoun Elder.  
M. Robert Barclay Provest of Irwing.  
Matthew Spense Provest of Roysay.   

Presb. of Argyle.  
M. Donald Makilvorie min. at Inraay.  
M. Nicol Makcalman min. at Kilmow.  
M. james campbel minister at Kilsman.  
Archbald campbel of Kilmun Elder.   

Presb. of Dumbartane.  
M. David Elphinstoun min. at Dumbartan.  
M. Robert Watson minister at Cardrosse.  
M. john Stirling minister at Badernock.  
Walter Mackalley of Ardincapill Elder.  
john Sempell Provest of Dumbartan.   

Presb. of Paslay.  
M. William Brisbane minister at Erskine.  
M. john Hammiltoun minist. at Innerkip.  
M. Matthew Brisbane minister at Killellan.  
john Brisban of Bishoptoun El.  
john Spreull burgess of Ranfrew.   

Presb. of Glasgow.  
M. john Bell elder minister at Glasgow.  
M. Zacharie Boyd minister at the Barony Kirk there of.  
M. james Sharp minister at Goven.  
The Earl of Eglingtoun Elder.  
Patrick Bell Provest of Glasgow.  
David Spence Clerk of Rutherglane.   

Presb. of Hammiltoun.  
M. Patrick Hammiltoun minister at Cambuslang.  
M. james johnstoun minister at Stenhouse.  
M. john Heriot minister at Blantyre.  
William Bailzie of Carphin Elder.   

Presb. of Lanerk.  
M. William Livingstoun minister at Lanerk.  
M. Alexander Somervell minister at Daulfingtoun.  
M. Richard Ingles minister at Westoun.  
Sir William Bailzie of Lammintoun Elder.  
Gideon lack Bailzie of Lanerk.   

Presb. of S. Andrews.  
M. Alexander Henderson minister at Luchers.  
M. Andrew Auchinleck minister at Lergo.  
M. james Bruce minister at Kingsbarnes.  
john Lord Sinclar Eder.  
james Sword burgess of Saint Andrews.  
Ninian Hamilton burgess of Caraill.  
Thomas Symson town-Clerk of Kilrinnie.  
William Hamiltoun burgess of Anstruther easter.  
john Tullous Clerk of Anstruther wester.  
james Airth Clerk of Pittenweeme.   

Presb. of Couper.  
M. David Dalgleish minister at Cowper.  
M. john Moncreiffe minister at Collessie.  
M. Walter Buchannan minister at Seres.  
john Lord Lindsay Elder.  
George jameson merchand burgess of Cowper.   

Presb. of Kirkaldie.  
M. Robert Douglas minister at Kirkaldie.  
M. Frederik Carmichaell minister at Kennoway.  
M. Robert Cranstoun minister at Scoonie.  
john Earl of Rothes Elder.  
john Williamson burgess of Kirkaldie.  
David Symson of Monturpie burgess of Dysart.  
M. Robert Cunyghame burgess of Kinghorne.  
George Gairdine burgess of Bruntiland.   

Presb. of Dumfermline.  
M. john Row min. at Carnok.  
M. john Duncan minister at Culrosse.  
M. james Sibbald minister at Torrie.  
Robert Lord Burley Elder.  
james Reid Provest of Dumfermline.  
Gilbert Gourley Bailie of Culrosse.  
john Bardie Burgess of Innerkethin.   

Presb. of Dumblane.  
M. Harry Livinstoun minister at Kipping.  
M. Andrew Rind minister at Tullicutrie.  
M. William Edmistoun minister at Kilmadock.  
Sir George Stirling of Keir Knight Elder.   

Presb. of Auchterardour.  
M, George Muschet minister at Doning.  
M. james Row minister at Muthill.  
M. john Grahame minister at Auchterardour.  
james Earl of Montrose Eld.   

Presb. of Perth.  
M. Robert Murray minister at Methven.  
M. john Robertson minister at Perth.  
M. Alexander Petrieminister at Rind.  
john Earl of Weemes Elder.  
Thomas Durhame Dean of Gilled in Perth.   

Presb. of Dunkeld.  
M. William Menyies min. at Kenmure.  
M. john Anderson minister at cargil.  
Mungo campbel fear of lawyers, Elder.   

Presb. of Meggill.  
M. George Symmer minister at Meggill.  
M. George Halyburtoun minister at Glenylla.  
james Lord Cowper Elder.   

Presb. of Dundie.  
M. Andrew Wood minister at Monyfooth.  
M. john Robertson minister at Achterhouse.  
David Grahame of Fentrie E.  
james Fletcherprov. of Dundie   

Presb. of Forfar.  
M. john Lined say minister at Aberlemno.  
M. Silvester Lammy minister at Glames.  
M. Alexander Kynninmount minister at Killimure.  
james Lion of Aldbarre Eld.  
David Hunter Provest of Forfar.  
john Grahame Baitie of Mont rose.  
Robert Demster Bailie of Brechen.   

Presb. of Merns.  
M. james Sibbald minister at Benholme.  
M. Andrew Mill minister at Fetteresso.  
M. Alexander Symson minister at Conveth.  
Sir Gilbert Ramsay of Balmam Elder.   

Presb. of Aberdene.  
M. David Lyndesay minister at Balhelvie.  
M. William Guild minister at Aberdene.  
james Skien of that ilk Elder.  
M. john Lundie Humanist for the University of Aberd.   

Presb. of Deir.  
M. Andrew Cant minister at Pitsligo.  
M. james Martin minister at Peterhead.  
M. Alexander Martin minister at Deir.  
Alexander Fraser of Fillorth Elder.   

Presb. of Aufurd.  
M. john Young min. at Keig.  
M. john Ridfurd minister at Ki●bettock.  
M. Andrew Strachan minister at Tillineshill.  
M. Michael Elphinstoun of Balabeg Elder.   

Presb. of Turreff.  
M. Thomas Michael minister at Turreffe.  
M. William Douglas minister at Forge.  
M. Geo. Sharp min. at Fyvie.  
Walter Barclay of Towie Eld.   

Presb. of Kinkairne.  
M. Alexander Robertson minister at Clunie.   

Presb. of Garioch.  
M. William Wedderburn minister at Bathelnie.  
Andrew Bairdburges of Bamfe   

Presb. of Forresse.  
M. William Falconer minister at Dyke.  
M. john Hay min. at Taffert.  
M. David Dumbar minister at Edinkaylly.  
William Rosse of Clava Elder.  
M. john Dumbar Bailie of Forresse.   

Presb. of innerness.  
M. john Howistoun minister at Wartlaw.  
M. Patrick Dumbar minister at Durris.  
james Fraser of Bray Elder.  
Robert Bailie Bailie of innerness.   

Presb. of Tain.  
M. Gilbert Murray minister at Tain.  
M. William Mackeinyie minister at Tarbet.  
M. Hector Monro minister in neither Taine.  
Sir john Mackeinzie of Tarbet Elder.  
M. Thomas Mackculloch Bailie of Taine.   

Presb. of Dingwall.  
M. David Monro minister at Kiltairne.  
M. Murdoch Mackeinyie minister at Contain.  
john Monro of Lumlair Eld.   

Presb. of Dornoch in Sutherland.  
M. Alexander Monro minister at Gospie.  
M. William Grace min at Clyne.  
George Gordon brother to the Earl of Sutherland Eld.   

Presb. of Thurso in Caithnes  
M. George Lesly minister at Bower.  
M. john Smairt.  
john Murray of Pen-land Eld.   

Presb. of Kirkwal in Orkney.  
M. David Watson minister at the Kirk of the Isle of Wastrey.  
M. Walter Stewart minister at the Kirk of Sutherom-oldsay.   
Revised according to the ordinance of the general Assembly, by me Mr. A. Ihonstoun Clerk thereto: Edinb. 12 of Feb. 1639.  
FINIS.