Episcopacy NOT abjured IN HIS majesty's realm OF SCOTLAND.  
CONTAINING MANY Remarkable passages.  
NEWLY published.  
The Contents of the several Chapters follow in the next page.  
Printed 1641.   

The Contents of the several Chapters in this BOOK.  

CHAP. I.  

COntaining a Comparison betwixt this assembly and the council of Trent.   
1. They agree in like subtle policy in their proceedings, specified in 6. points.  
2. They disagree, in that the council of Trent, in external order was more formal than this, and more substantial in discussing the Articles.   

CHAP. II.  

Containing two reasons why we intend to speak only against the Act condemning episcopacy.   
1. Because the rest of the Acts are established upon the same grounds.  
2. Because their principal purpose in desiring this Assembly was to suppress episcopacy.  
3. The Act itself is set down verbatim, as it was set down in their printed copy subscribed by the Clerk▪   

CHAP. III.  

Discussing their four Considerations in their preface, whereby they allege they were moved to make this Act.   
1. The Consideration of the great mercy of God in the work of the reformation; wherein three notable falsehoods are remarked.  
2. That many evil innovations were obtruded upon the Church: wherein also three notable falsehoods are rem●rked.  
3. That by the Kings urging the book of Common Prayer, they were moved of necessity to make their Covenant: wherein are remarked 7. notable falsehoods.  
4. That many having subscribed the Covenant without their applications, yet according to the meaning it had 1580. therefore it is necessary, that the Assembly should declare the true meaning: wherein are shown divers falsehoods and impertinencies.   

CHAP. iv.  

Containing the state of the Question, as it was proponed to be voiced in the assembly.   
1. The necessity of right stating the Question.  
2. That their proposition is captious and confused, including three several Questions of divers natures, whereunto no one categorical answer could be given.  
3. That they set it down in many ambiguous words and terms.  
4. It is sophistically and subtly drawn à Thes●ad Hypothesin.  
5. That being proposed in that manner it could not possibly resolve the doubts, but rather increase them.  
6. The Question simply proposed had been fitter to resolve doubts.  
7. There are two points which they intend to prove unlawful in episcopacy. 1. That they have charge over mo● particular ●●ocks than one. 2. That they have power and pre-eminence over their Brethren.   

CHAP. V.  

That this power and pre-eminence is not contrary to the Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland, but most conform thereto, and to the first book of Discipline, and continual practice of the Church of Scotland.   
1. A distinction of the Confessions of Faith so called, in a positive and negative, and that the positive is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland.  
2. That there is no Article of this Confession condemning this power and pre-eminence,  
3. That the meaning of this Confession, concerning the point of Government, set down in the first book of Discipline, and long practice of the Church doth expressly approve the same.  
4. A parallel betwixt Superintendents and Bishops, wherein is shown that the power of Superintendents was no less than that which Bishops require now.  
5. That Bishops, retaining the office, title and Benefice of Bishops, had the power for 20. years after the reformation, and that by approbation both of the Church and civil estate.   

CHAP. VI.  

That this power and pre-eminence of Bishops was not abjured by the negative Confession or Covenant.   
1. That this negative Confession is not the proper Confession of the Church of Scotland, but an Appendix thereof.  
2. That it is only the first Confession whereunto all were sworn to adhere.  
3. Two reasons showing that by the oath of the Covenant or negative Confession episcopacy was not abjured. 1. Because it cannot have a meaning contrary to that whereof it is an Appendix. 2. Because it belongeth only to the King, and not to an assembly of the Church without the King, to declare in what sense the oath was required.   

CHAP. VII.  

An Answer to those passages alleged in the Act out of the Abjuration.   
1. Answered in general by Consideration of the words themselves.  
2. By the confession of the Moderator and his associates.  
3. A particular answer to the first passage, showing it to be cited falsely and impertinently.   

CHAP. VIII.  

An Answer to the second passage of the Covenant, wherein is shown clearly.   
1. A notable falsehood in the citation both by chang●ng words, and adding others not contained in the original.  
2. Divers reasons why this passage doth prove nothing to their purpose.   

CHAP. ix..  

An Answer to the third passage wherein are these particulars.   
1. It is shown to be impertinent.  
2. What is meaned by the word hierarchy.  
3. That there may be an hierarchy, neither Antichristian nor wicked, proved by the testimony of Calvin.  
4. Their first reason to prove that episcopal Government is the Antichristian, wicked hierarchy, is by▪ a false syllogism, ex omnibus particularibus & affirmantibus in secundâ figurâ.  
5. This reason passable amongst themselves because no man durst examine it, under pain of the censure of the Church.  
6. Their second reason childish and sophistical.  
7. Their third reason impertinently applied.  
8. Their fourth reason hath no consequence and far from the purpose.  
9 Their last reason is grounded upon a place in the second book of Discipline falsely related.   

CHAP. X.  

An Answer to the fourth passage containing three particulars.   
1. An explaining of the words.  
2. That the Doctrine and Discipline whereunto we are sworn to join ourselves, is not all the doctrine and discipline taught and practised in the Church of Scotland.  
3. That this Doctrine is expressly limitated in the Covenant by four limitations, by every one of which it is cleared, that this power and pre-eminence of Bishops is not abjured.  
4. The first limitation, that we swear only to adhere to that which is taught by God's Word; wherein there is nothing contrary to this point, but all is conform thereto.  
5. The second limitation is, that Doctrine which is professed by many notable Realms and Churches: no Realm nor Church did condemn this, except Gene●a, and that not absolutely, but many Churches did approve it expressly.  
6. The third limitation is, the doctrine particularly expressed in the first Confession of Faith: but no doctrine is expressed therein contrary to this point.  
7. The fourth limitation is, that Doctrine which was for a long time before professed by the King and whole body of the kingdom: But the King and body of the kingdom did expressly profess that they did approve this point here damned.  
8. The discipline is limitated by the same limitation.  
9 The discipline is either taken in a strict and proper sense for the censures of the Church, or else in a large sense, signifying the whole policy of the Church.  
10. In the first sense, it was as yet retained precisely in the Church of Scotland under episcopal Government; and therefore the oath is not broken.  
11. Discipline is again distinguished in these points which are essential and perpetual, and those which are accidental and mutable.  
12. The first sort are prescribed by God's Word, and were not abolished by episcopal government, but observed inviolable.  
13. The other sort is left to the liberty of the Church, and therefore alterable by the Church.  
14. To the observation of those, the Oath bindeth so long as the Constitution of the Church standeth in force; but being abrogate by a new Constitution, the Oath thereto is dissolved.  
15. Whosoever doth not follow the Church in those Alterations do against their oath.   

CHAP. XI.  

An Answer to the Acts of the general Assemblies alleged contrary to this point until the year 1580. wherein are these particulars.   
1. That no Act of assembly is, nor can be produced before that year 1575.  
2. The occasion of impugning episcopacy at that time. 1. some fiery humours lately come from Geneva, and zealous of Geneva Discipline. 2. The King's minority. 3. Factions amongst the nobility and Courtiers. 4. The Sacrilegious greediness of those gaping after the Church rends, who for their own ends abused the simplicity of some Ministers, and pride of others.  
3. That Bishops were not only tolerate, but approved by the Church until this year 1575.  
4. At this assembly in August 1575. was the first motion against episcopacy in the Church of Scotland.  
5. The proceeding of this assembly declared at length, whereby it is cleared that this point here in controversy was not challenged therein, but expressly approved by all.  
6. Nothing in substance concluded against episcopacy for five years after.  
7. A notable dissimulation of our Covenanters in citing an Act of this Assembly.   

CHAP. XII.  

Answering to the Acts of general Assemblies for establishing the second book of Discipline, wherein are these particulars.   
1. This book was brought in by the same occasions whereby episcopacy began to be challenged.  
2. This Discipline was never fully agreed unto by the Church, some points thereof never practised, and those which were practised but of short continuance.  
3. They do not themselves, nor will not approve some points in this book, but refuse obedience thereto, instanced in three particulars.  
4. This book nor any part thereof had any strength of a Law before the enjoining of the Oath.  
5. It is defective in the most substantial points of Discipline, and superabundant in points not pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline.  
6. And therefore the Discipline therein contained cannot be that, whereunto we are sworn to join ourselves precisely.   

CHAP. XIII.  

Answering to the Act of the Assembly at Dundee 1580. condemning episcopacy, together with the Act at Glasgo 1581. explaining the same containing these particulars.   
1. Albeit they condemned in these Acts episcopacy (as it was then used in Scotland) as unlawful in itself, yet did they not condemn these points here controverted.  
2. Neither did the Church then condemn any substantial point of episcopacy, except they did contradict themselves, instanced in six principal points of that Doctrine.  
3. They condemn only the corruptions which were at that time in Bishops themselves, whereof some are only supposed corruptions; some corruptions indeed, but only personal, and not essential to the office.  
4. The principal point they condemn in Bishops is, that they received not their Commission from the Church to exercise their charge: and yet it is evidently proved, that they had Commission from the Church to exercise all the points of their function.   

CHAP. XIIII.  

Answering to the rest of the Acts here cited.   
1. Their Acts can be of no greater force than the former whereupon they are grounded, and therefore refuted by the same reasons.  
2. Some particular observations upon these Acts, whereby it is showed that they make more against them, nor for them.  
3. Many of these Acts shows that they were concluded expressly against the King's majesty's intention.  
4. The reason why that Act of Parliament 1592. Establishing Presbyteries, was suffered to pass by the King and the three Estates.  
5. It was not because they did approve the same, but for eschewing of greater evils which were justly feared.  
6. That presbyterial Government in Scotland did not endure in full force above ten years.  
7. An Act of that Assembly 1589. disgraceful to the Church of Scotland.   

CHAP. XV.  

Discussing the Conclusion of this Act, wherein are contained these particulars.   
1. Their hyperbolical magnifying of their accurate proceeding in concluding this Act, not like to be true.  
2. The proposition of the Question by the Moderator, informal, obscure, ambiguous, sophistical, and such as could not be answered Categorically.  
3. The causes why they did so unanimously agree in their voicing was, because all were debarred whom they suspected would make any contradiction.  
4. The voices, as they are here declared, do neither fully answer to their proposition, nor condemn any thing in episcopacy, as it is now in Scotland.  
5. They cannot excuse this but by laying the fault up●n the Printer, which is not like to be true for many reasons.    

EPISCOPACY NOT abjured IN SCOTLAND.  

CHAP. I.  
A Comparison betwixt this Assembly and the council of Trent.  
THat turbulent and seditious Conventicle of Covenanting Ministers and misruling Elders assembled at Glasgow, Novemb. 1638. can be compared to none of that kind so well, as to that infamous council of Trent; which as it hath for a long time troubled the whole world, Emperors, Kings and Princes: foe this hath vexed mightily the King's majesty our dread sovereign, disturbed both Church and commonwealth, and hath led all his Subjects in Scotland blindfold to Rebellion, given evil example to other kingdoms, and brought an evident scandal upon the reformed Religion. There hath been no less human or rather satanical policy, and subtle close conveyance practised by the chief Rulers in that Assembly of Glasgow, both in the Preparation, Prosecution, and Conclusion thereof, (yet in this more malice, and less respect to the Supreme Magistrate, and present established estate of the Church) than in that of Trent.  
First, as the Pope and his Cardinals in the consistory professed, that they desired a general council, and did openly exhort the Emperor, Kings, Princes, and republics to concur with them: yet they declared evidently by their dealing that they desired, either not at all a council, or not such an one as should be assembled by the authority of the Emperor and Kings, or that any of them or their Ambassadors should have suffrage therein, and much less presidency according to the ancient custom of the Church, esteeming that their Authority, suffrage, or presence would cross their particular ends: Even so our Covenanters, albeit they often petitioned his majesty for the liberty of a general assembly, yet they declared plainly by their proceedings, that they did not desire such an one, as should be either convocated by his majesty's authority, or wherein he, his Commission or council should preside, or give suffrage, or be present, if it had been in their choice, accounting it so not to be a free Assembly.  
Secondly, as the Pope and his Cardinals in the consistory used politic means, that none or few of these Prelates, whom they supposed in any ways would cross their designs, should appear in the council: although publicly they did admonish all, yet by private threatenings and distastes, hindered from coming many of the Bishops of Germany, France and Spain: but on the contrary, allured by divers means those whom they supposed would favour their designs, as all the Bishops of Italy: so that when the council was at the greatest, there were above 150. Italian Bishops, whereof many were at the Pope's charges, yet not above 60. of all other Nations. So in this at Glasgow, politic means were used that none should be chosen Commissioners, except Covenanters; and of those, only the strongest and most obstinate, who had solemnly already sworn unto these things they intended to conclude: and on the other part, means were used that all those, who were suspected to be averse from their designs, or not forward enough, should be excluded: as is evident by the particular Instructions sent from the Tables of the Covenant unto all the Presbyteries of Scotland, which were discovered by the care and diligence of his majesty's Commissioner▪ and produced in open Assembly to their great confusion, whereby it was appointed that care should be taken that none should be chosen as Commissioner, for the Ministers or ruling Elders, but Covenanters, and those well-affected to the business; And if that any other happen to be chosen by the greater part, that all the best affected protest against them, and process them before the Assembly that they might be excluded from voicing, and for that effect also directed an informal and illegal Citations against all the Bishops, to exclude them from having place or voice in their assembly, who ought to have been (by the present laws of the Church of Scotland, and continual practice of the universal Church in all ages) the principal members thereof.  
Thirdly, as in the council of Trent, the Pope of Rome to have more voices favouring his designs, did create many titular Bishops, who had no Christian flock, and had never so much as seen that Church which they did represent. So likewise in this Assembly were brought in many Titular Lay-elders, as Commissioners from Presbyteries, wherein they had no habitations, nor ever did sit therein to exercise their rule of Elder-ship before the day of their election to be Commissioners to the assembly.  
Fourthly, the Pope and his Cardinals did complain that the Emperor and Kings would have prelimitate▪ the council by their directions: yet the Ambassadors and Prelates did in every Session and Congregation complain more justly, that the council was not free, being strangely prelimitate by the Pope and Consistory of Rome, both in the members and matters to be proposed, as also in framing of the Canons. So our Covenanters did require a free assembly, affirming, that as far as the assembly should be prelimitate either in the members or matters to be treated, so far the necessary ends of the Assembly and good of the Church was hindered, accounting it a most dangerous usurpation to any person or Iudicatori● whatsoever, to impose any such limitations, except an Assembly itself; And therefore did most grievously complain against his majesty, (although unjustly) for he required no limitations, but such as were prescribed by former lawful assemblies. Yet his majesty and the whole kingdom may more justly complain of them, who refusing the reasonable prelimitations of other former assemblies; did neverthesse's admit strange limitations from the Tables of the Covenant, (which was neither a lawful Assembly of the Church, nor had any authority over the same) and those also against the established Constitutions of former general Assemblies and laws of the kingdom, as appears evidently by those four papers of Instructions sent to every Presbytery, according to the which the Assembly was limitate both in the members and matters.  
Fiftly, as in the council of Trent nothing was admitted to Consultation, but Proponentibus Legatis, which gave occasion of offence to many: no Bishop, no Prelate, no regal ambassador, nor any good Christian had liberty to propose any thing, only the Pope's Legates had this Power, who did propose every thing as they received instructions from 〈◊〉: even so in this assembly, nothing was admitted to De●●beration, but Proponente Mo●●rator●; And he likewise was confined to the Ordinance of the Tables, who had before set down every Article which was to be treated: All propositions of any other whatsoever, though flowing from his majesty, by his Commissioner or council, were contemptuously rejected.  
Sixtly, as in the council of Trent, let the Fathers and Doctors deliberate and reason Pro & Contra as they pleased, yet nothing was concluded, until it was first agreed unto by the Pope and his Cardinals at Rome, and their determination, who never heard the reasoning▪ was sent to Trent to be enacted, and that no otherwise than it was set down by them; which gave occasion to that common proverb, That the holy Spirit, whereby the council was directed, came from Rome in a C●og-bag. So likewise all that which was done in this Assembly was fore-ordained by the Tables of the Covenant in Edinburgh: For there were all the members of the Assembly constituted, though contrary to the perpetual practice of the Church; there were all the Commissions framed, and a Cople thereof sent to every presbytery, as appeared by the production, since never one of them was different in one Syllable from another; there also was the whole order of the assembly set down, and accordingly observed; there were all things which were to be proposed in the Assembly, discussed and concluded by the Rulers of the Covenant, who for the most part were Lay-persons, Noblemen, Gentlemen, Burge●●es, and some few Ministers most forward in the cause: therefore it may be justly said, that the Spirit, whereby those holy Brethren of the Assembly were ruled, came not from Heaven▪ but directly from Edinburgh. I leave you to imagine by the effects what Spirit that was, which hath stirred up such Sedition, Rebellion, Disorder and Confusion both in Church and commonwealth.  
Then although in these points of Corruptions, and many other which for shortness we omit, this Assembly at Glasgow was not unlike that council of Trest; yet I will be bold to say, and that truly, that in some substantial points, that council was more formal than this assembly.  
For the council of Trent in the external order and Constitution of the members thereof, keeped more formality and decency according to the order of the Church many ages before. 1. There was none admitted to that council except Prelates of the Church, ambassadors of Princes, and the most learned Doctors in all Europe for the time; And such as the Prelates thought fit in the bounds of their jurisdiction to reason in weighty points of Doctrine. 2. In their Congregations and Sessions, they did sit every man in his own place according to his degree, with such gravity, modesty and decency, as did become Reverend Fathers, distinguished one from another by their habits, appointed by the Canons of the Church, making it appear to the beholders, a Venerable assembly. 3. In their proceedings were appointed the wisest of the Bishops, and most learned amongst the Doctors to frame the Articles, and being framed, were particularly one by one discussed, by weighty reasons maturely in several days and diets, all doubts particularly moved, and Objections solidly answered according to their grounds, using not only the testimony of former approved counsels, Fathers and learned schoolmen, but also very frequently the Authority of Sacred Scriptures: So that if in their conclusions they had pondered well the reasons alleged, and had concluded according to the same, and not according to the Pope's sole authority; that council might have had a more happy event for the we'll and peace of the Christian Church.  
But in this assembly at Glasgow was not observed that form, order or decency, which did become a venerable ecclesiastic meeting: for first, these, who were ever esteemed the principal members of all general or national counsels, to wit, the Reverend Bishops of the Church, were excluded; a company of laymen, Earls, Lords, Gentlemen and Burgesses, without warrant, authority, or example of the ancient Church were thrust in their rooms, bearing chief Sway in the Assembie, carrying all matters violently for their own ends; so that it was remarked by wise and grave men, that one Earl and one Lord made more speech in the assembly, than all the clergy, except the Moderator. 2. In their Sessions, no order or decency observed, all sitting pel-mell, without distinction of Degrees, save only that Lay-Noblemen and Gentlemen occupied the chiefest rooms with their swords and pistols by their sides; The Ministers mixed amongst Burgesses, Merchants, and noblemens' servants, hardly to be discerned from them by their habit or Carriage; Many of the Ministers in coloured clothes, all in short cloaks, except the Ministers of Glasgow who had their gowns; so that unless one had known their persons before, they should scarcely have discerned the Ministers from the Merchant or Taylor. 3. The Ministers were not there by the approbation of their Bishops according to the custom of the Primitive Church, and Acts of the general Assemblies of Scotland long after the Reformation, as for instance, in that assembly at Edinburgh July 1568. It was expressly ordained, that no Minister should leave his Flock, except such as were chosen by their superintendents: but by Commissions from their new invented form of Presbyteries, wherein laymen had the greatest rule, or rather from the Tables of the Covenant, who did not choose the most wise, modest and learned Brethren; but the most turbulent, seditious, and bold to oppose authority: fit members indeed of such an assembly. 4. In discussing of the matters which were concluded, no reasoning but superficial; no careful pondering of the Reasons, but all taken Implicit fide, which had any show; no exact distinguishing of the Articles, but many matters of different nature were h●dled up together confusedly, and with great precipitation were voiced and concluded. The Assembly continued only a month, and a great part of that time (to wit from the 21. of November to the 4. of December) was consumed in circumstantial points concerning the persons to be admitted to have voice in receiving and discussing their Commissions, in Contestations betwixt the Commissioner and the Covenanters, in excluding some of his majesty's Counsellors authorized by him to have voice in the assembly, contrary to the Practice of all Ancient approved counsels, either general or national; in rejecting most just protestations of divers Presbyteries against this assembly, as that of the Presbyteries of Glasgow, of P●ables, of Aberdeine, of the Channonry of Rosse; in refusing to hear read the most just declinature and protestations of the Bishops. And finally, in declaring certain books of the former Assemblies to be authentic registers.  
At last, the fourth of December they enter to the principal matters for which this Assembly was required, beginning at the condemnation of the six last general Assemblies, convened, continued, and concluded by the King's majesty's authority, and full consent of the Church, and ratified by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament: which they did in shorter space than could suffice to read them over; so precipitate were they in condemning absolutely so many grave Assemblies with such unanimous consent, as never one was called, but (without reason or judgement) condemned them all in one word, by implicit faith given to some few, neither of the most wise, or learned of the company, who had a Committee to invent some apparent reasons to annul the same: and that is most certain that the two part of those who voiced against them, had never seen the Acts and the proceedings of these Assemblies, or at least had never read nor perused them; But out of a blind zeal and jesuitical obedience, did it only, because they were so directed by the Tables of the Covenant, and their rebellious Leaders.  
In another Session they deposed and excommunicated summarily fourteen Bishops, upon a pretended false libel produced before the Presbytery of Edinburgh against them (which by no law or reason could be competent judges to their process) without lawful citation, contrary to the Acts of many general Assemblies, the Books of Discipline and perpetual practice of the Church; For the Church of Scotland was never accustomed, no, not in the most strict times of presbyterial government, to proceed so summarily to the sentence of excommunication against most notorious offenders, without mature deliberation and long space granted to the Accused, either to justify himself, or declare his repentance. 1. There was used three private personal Citations to appear before the Presbytery; next, if those were not obeyed, three public Citations one three several Sabbaths. 3. Followed three public prayers for their conversion, and if at any of these times they did appear, either to purge themselves of the crime imputed to them, or submitting themselves to the censure of the Church; The sentence of excommunication was not pronounced against them.  
In another Session, they condemned with one voice the Book of Common Prayer; the Book of Canons, the Book of Ordination of Ministers, and Consecration of Bishops; together with the Court of the High Commission: which space was not sufficient to have read over all those books, much less to peruse them throughly, and discuss the controverted points therein, which was necessarily requisite to be done before they had been absolutely rejected.  
But this is strange, that the principal and most weighty point, for the which chiefly they did procure this Assembly, should have been so slightly, & with such precipitation handled, to wit, whether Bishops should be retained or removed forth of the Church of Scotland: A Doctrine so universally approven by the whole Christian Church, even in her purest time since the Apostles days, and allowed in Substance by the reformed Church of Scotland, for many years after the reformation; And though repressed for a time, yet re-established again by divers more lawful Assemblies than this, ratified by divers Act of Parliament, and continued now for many years by-gon; there behooved to be many and weighty reasons why such a Doctrine should be conversed, with a serious deliberation to ponder and consider them; yet nevertheless in this Assembly in one short Session, the whole matter was proponed, discussed, voiced, concluded, and a large Act passed thereupon.   

CHAP. II.  
Concerning the Act against episcopacy.  
ALbeit it were an easy matter to refute all the controverted Acts of this assembly, yet leaving the rest at this time, we intend only to examine that Act, Sess. 26. Decemb. 8. Against episcopacy, And that for two reasons especially:  
First, because the grounds whereupon this Act is concluded, are the selfsame whereupon all the rest of the controverted Acts are grounded; and therefore these grounds being declared evidently to be infirm and weak, it will also appear that together with this Act of episcopacy, All the rest of their Acts depending thereupon shall be found to be ruinous, as I trust their fall shall be sudden.  
Secondly, because the principal aim of the most and chiefest of these, who were members of that Conventicle, was to suppress Bishops, because they esteemed them chiefly to have crossed their Sacrilegious and ambitious 〈◊〉: I or, ●efore Bishops were re-established, the Noblemen and Baro●s both possessed the substance of the Church ren●s, and also ruled the whole E●tate at their pleasure in council and Parliament, by their own voices, and voices of the Gentry and Borroughs, whom those factious 〈◊〉 did depend for the most part upon one Noble man or other: then finding that by the re-establishing of Bishops, their rents were taken out of their hands, and that they were like to lose their abbeys, and Prio●ies also; and finally, that their particular ends (not always tending to the we'll of the Church▪ or kingdom, or Honour of the Prince,) were crossed by the estate of Bishops: no marvel then, though they be moved by all means possible to suppress them; and for that effect have laboured to make use of the simplicity of some of the ministry, and proud humours of others impatient of Subjection to lawful authority, of whom some having aimed in vain at bishoprics (as is well known of divers of the ringleaders of that Faction) thought it best for their credit, to declare a great contempt of that estate, which they had with much labour sought after, without the desired effect, according to the fable of the Fox▪ others by their former misdemeanours both against the Church and regal Authority, being past hope of further advancement, did easily condescend to shake off that yoke, which their turbulent humours could never suffer them patiently to bear; those were made to blow the trumpet of Rebellion, both in their Pulpits and private conferences, drawing the people after them, and the simplest sort of Ministers also, who did not judiciously remark their secret ends, cloaked under the colour of Religion, and liberty of the Church, by which means this condemning of episcopacy was brought in head with all the consequences thereof.  
This is the point we mean to examine for the present, and that you may see the weakness of their reasons the better, we shall set down verbatim the Act itself, as it was conceived by them.  

Act of the assembly at Glasgow, Sess. 16. Decemb. 8. 1638. Declaring episcopacy to have been adjured by the Confession of Faith, 1580. And to be removed out of this Kirk.  
THe assembly taking to their most grave and serious Consideration, first, the unspeakable goodness and great mercy of God manifested to this Nation, in that so necessary, so difficult, and so excellent and divine work of Reformation, which was at last brought to such perfection, that this Kirk was reformed, not only in Doctrine and Worship, but also after many conferences and public reasonings in divers national Assemblies, joined with solemn humiliations and prayers to God, the Discipline and Government of the Kirk, as the hedge and guard of the doctrine and worship, was prescribed according to the rule of God's word, in the book of policy and Discipline, agreed upon in the assembly 1578. and insert in the Register 1581. established by the Acts of the Assemblies, by the confession of Faith, sworn and subscribed at the direction of the Assembly, and by continual practice of this Kirk. Secondly, that by men seeking their own things, and not the things of Jesus Christ; divers. Novations have been introduced to the great disturbance of this Kirk, so firmly once compacted, and to the endangering of Religion, and many gross evils obtruded, to the utter 〈◊〉 of the work of Reformation● and change of the whole form of worship and f●ce of this Kirk, commanded to receive with reverence a new Book of Common prayer, as the only form to be used in God's public worship, and 〈◊〉 contraveners to be condignly censured, and punished: and after many supplications and complaints, knowing no other way for the preservation of Religion, were moved by God, and drawn by necessity, to 〈◊〉 the national Covenant of this Kirk and kingdom, which the Lord since hath blessed from Heaven, and to subscribe the confession of faith, with an Application thereof abjuring the great evils wherewith they were now pressed, and suspending the practice of all Novations formerly introduced, till they should be tried in a free general Assembly: lastly, that some of his majesty's Subjects of sundry ranks have by his majesty's command subscribed and renewed the confession of Faith, without the former explication; And that both the one and the other Subscribers have subscribed the said Confession in this year, as it was professed, and according to the meaning that it had in this kingdom, when it was first subscribed, ●581. and afterward: The assembly therefore 〈◊〉 by the Subscription of his majesty's high Commissioner, 〈◊〉 of the Lords of secret council, Sept. 22. 1638. and by the Acts of council of the date foresaid, bearing that they should subscribe the said Confession, and ordaining all his majesty's Subjects to subscribe the same; according to the foresaid date and tenor, and as it was then professed within this kingdom; As likewise by the protestation of some of the Senators of the college of justice, when they were required to subscribe, and by the many doubtings of his majesty's good subjects, especially because the Subscribers of the Confession in February 1638. are bound to suspend the approbations of the corruptions of the Government of the Kirk▪ 〈◊〉 they be tried in a free general assembly; finding it proper for them, and most necessary and incumbent to them, to give out the true meaning thereof, as it was at first professed, that all his majesty's Subjects in a matter so important, as is the public Confession of Faith, so solemnly sworn and subscribed, may be of one mind and one heart, and have 〈◊〉 satisfaction to all their doubts; and that the posterity afterward may be fully persuaded of the true meaning thereof, after earnest calling upon the Name of God, so religiously ●●tested in the said Confession, have entered into a diligent search of the Registers of the Kirk, and books of the general Assembly, which the greatest part of the Assembli●● had not 〈◊〉 before, and which by the special providence of God were ●reserved, brought to their hands, and publicly acknowledged to be authentic, and have found that in the l●ter▪ Confession of the Kirk of Scotland; We profess 1. That we detest ●ll Traditions brought into the Kirk, without or against the Word of God, and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk. Next, We abhor and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine, but chiefly, all kind of Papistry in general, and part 〈◊〉 heads; as they were then damned and 〈◊〉 by the Word of God, and Kirk of 〈…〉 when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed, Anno 1580. & 1581. 1590. & 1591. Thirdly, That we detest 〈…〉 Antichrist, his worldly monarchy, and wi●●ed Hierchie●. Fourthly; That we join 〈◊〉 selves to this reformed Kirk in Doctrine Faith, Religion, and Discipline; promising and swearing by the great Name of God, that we shall continue in the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and defend the same according to Vocation and Power, all the days of our life.  
But so it is that episcopal government is abhorred and detested, and the Government by Ministers and Elders, in Assemblies general and provincial, and Presbyteries was sworn to and subscribed, in subscribing that Confession, and aught to be holden by us, if we adhere to the meaning of the Kirk, when that Confession was framed, sword to, and subscribed; unto which we are obliged by the national o●th and subscription of this Kirk, as is evident by the Acts of general Assemblies, agreed upon both before, 〈…〉 after the swearing and subscribing of the said Confessions; in the year above mentioned, and the book of policy agreed upon in the assembly which was holden at Edinburgh the ●4. of April, and 24. of October▪ Anno 1578. 〈◊〉 in the Register of the Kirk by Ordinance of the assembly holden as Glasgow 1581. and to be subscribed by all Ministers that then did bear, or thereafter were to bear office in this Kirk, by ordinance of the Assemblis holden the 4. of August at Edinburgh 1500. and at Edinburgh the 2. of July 1591. but specially in the 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. and 11. Chapters of the said Book.  
The Bishops being tolerate from the year 1572. till the Assembly holden in August 1575. And all this time the Assembly being wearied with the Complaints made against them, did enter in search of the office itself, and did agree in this, that the name of a Bishop is common to every one of them that hath a particular flock, over which he hath a particular charge, as well to preach the Word, as to minister the Sacraments.  
At the next Assembly which was holden in April 1576. such Bishops were censured, us had not taken them to a particular flock, in the general assembly convened in April, the year of God 1578. Sess. 4. Intimation was 〈◊〉 as followeth.  
For so much as the heads of the policy being concluded and agreed upon in the lust assembly, by the most part of the Brethren: certain of the Brethren had some difficulty in the head, de Diacon●t●; whereupon further reasoning was reserved to this assembly. It is therefore required, if any of the Brethren have any reasonable doubt or argument to propone, that he be ready the morrow, and then shall be heard and resolved. In the 6. Sess. April 26. According to the Ordinance made the day before; all persons that had any doubt or argument to propone, were required to propone the same: But none offered to propone any argument on the contrary. In the Assembly holden at Edinburgh, in October 1578. It was shown● by the Moderator thereof to the Noble, who were present, viz. My Lord Chancellor, the Earl of 〈◊〉, my Lord Seat●n, and my Lord Lind●ey, What care and 〈◊〉 die the assembly had taken to entertain and keep the purity of the sincere Word of God, unmixed with the inventions of their own heads; and to preserve it to the posterity hereafter, and seeing that the true Religion is not able to continue, not induce king without a good discipline and policy, in that part also have they employed their wit and study, and drawn forth out of the pure fountain of God's Word, such a Discipline as is meet to remain in the Kirk.  
In the same assembly, the special Corruptions were set down, which they craved such of the Bishops as would submit themselves to the assembly to remove, with pr●mise that if the general assembly hereafter shall find further corruptions in the said Estate, than hitherto are expressed, that they be content to be reformed by the said assembly, according to the Word of God, when they shall be required thereto. First, That they be content to be Pastors and Ministers of one flock: that they usurp no criminal jurisdiction, that they vote not in Parliament in the Name of the Kirk, that they take not up for the maintenance of their Ambition and riotousness, the Emoluments of the Kirk, which may sustain many Pastors, the Schools, and the poor; but be content with reasonable Livings according to their office: that they claim not to themselves the titles of Lords temporal, neither usurp temporal jurisdictions, whereby they are abstracted from their office; that they empire not above the particular elderships, but be subject to the same: that they usurp not the power of the Presbyteries.  
The Question being propounded by the Synod of Lowthian in the Assembly holden in July 1579. a●ent a general order to be taken for the erecting of Presbyteries, in places where public exercise is used, until the time the policy of the Kirk be established by a Law: It is answered, The exercise may be judged to be a presbytery. In the assembly holden at Dundie in July 1580. Sess. 4. The office of a Bishop was abolished by a particular Act; as appeareth by the tenor of the Act following.  
For so much as the office of a Bishop, as it is now used and commonly taken within this Realm, hath no sure warrant, authority, nor good ground in the Scriptures, but is brought in by the folly and corruption of man's inventions, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God, the whole assembly of the Kirk in one voice, after liberty given to all men to reason in the matter, none opponing himself in defending the said pretended office, findeth and declareth the said pretended office, used and termed, as is abovesaid, unlawful in itself, as having neither fundament, ground, nor warrant in the Word of God; And ordaineth that all such persons as brook or shall brook hereafter the said office, shall be charged simply to dimit, quit, and leave off the same, as an office whereunto they are not called by God: And such like to desist and cease from all preaching, ministration of the Sacraments, or using any way the office of Pastors, while they receive de ●ov●, Admission from the general Assembly, under the pain of excommunication to be used against them, wherein if they be found disobedient, or contradict this Act in any point, the sentence of Excommunication, after due admonition, to be executed against them.  
In the same Assembly holden Anno 1580. Sess. 10. This Article was appointed to be propounded to the King and council▪ that the book of policy might be established by 〈◊〉 Act of privy council, while a Parliament be holden, 〈◊〉 which it might be confirmed by a Law.  
The extent of the Act ma●e at Dundie, was interpreted and explained in the Assembly holden at Glasgow, in April 1581. Sess. 6. as followeth. Anent the Act made in the Assembly holden at Dundie against Bishops, because some difficulty appeared to some Brethren to arise out of the word (Office) contained in the said Act, what should be meaned thereby, the Assembly consisting far the most part of such as voted, and were present in the Assembly at Dundie, to take away the said difficulty, resolving upon the true meaning and understanding of the said Act, declare that they meaned wholly to condemn the whole estate of Bishops, as they are now in Scotland; and that the same was the determination and conclusion of the Assembly at this time, because some Brethren doubted whether the former Act was to be understood of the spiritual function only, and others alleged that the whole office of a Bishop, as it was used, was damnable, and that by the said Act, the Bishops should be charged to dimit the same: this Assembly declareth that they meaned wholly to condemn the whole estate of Bishops, as they were then in Scotland, And that this was the meaning of the Assembly at that time.  
The King's Commissioner presented unto this assembly the Confession of Faith, subscribed by the King and his household, not long before together with a plot of the Presbyteries to be erected, which is Registrate in the books of the assembly, with a Letter to be directed from his majesty to the Noblemen, and Gentlemen of the country, for their action of Presbyteries, consisting of Pastors and Elders, and dissolutions of Prelacies, and with an offer to set forward the policy until it were established by Parliament: The King's letter subscribed by his hand, to the Noblemen and Gentlemen, was read in open audience of the whole Assembly.  
This Assembly ordained the book of policy to be insert in the Register by the Act following.  
For as much as travel hath been taken in the framing of the policy of the Kirk, and divers suits have been made by the Magistrate for Approbation thereof, which yet hath not taken the happy effect, which good men would wish, yet that the posterity may judge well of the present Age, and of the meaning of the Kirk; the assembly hath concluded, that the book of policy agreed to in divers Assemblies before, should be registrate in the Acts of the Kirk, and remain therein ad perpetuam rei memoriam: And the Copies thereof to be taken to every presbytery; of which book the Tenor followeth, &c.  
Immediately after the inserting of the book of policy, called ther● the book of Discipline; The Assembly ordained that the Confession of Faith be subscribed as followeth.  
Anent the Confession of Faith lately set forth by the King's majesty, and subscribed by his highness: the Assembly in one voice acknowledgeth the said Confession to be a true, Christian, and faithful Confession, to be agreed unto by such as truly profess Christ, and have a care of Religion, and the tenor thereof to be followed out efoldly, as the same is laid out in the said Proclamation, wherein that Discipline is sworn to.  
In the general assembly holden at Edinburgh in October 1581. Sess. 10. Mr. Robert Montgomery is accused for teaching that discipline is a thing indifferent; Sess. 23. The assembly gave Commission to the Presbytery of Stirling, to charge Mr. Robert Montgomery to continue in the Ministry of Stirling, and not to meddle with any other office or function of the Kirk; namely, in aspiring to the bishopric of Glasgow, against the Word of God, and Acts of the Kirk, under the pain of Excommunication.  
In the same Assembly it is acknowledged that the estate of Bishops is condemned by the Kirk, Commission for erection of more Presbyteries was renewed: and a new Ordinance made for subscribing the Confession of Faith, and to proceed against whatsoever persons that would not acknowledge and subscribe the same.  
In the Assembly holden in April 1582. there was a new Commission for erection of Presbyteries where none was at yet erected: Mr. Robert Montgomery, pretending to be Bishop of Glasgow, was ordained to be deposed and excommunicate, except he gave evident t●kens of Repentance, and promise to superseed, which he did not: and therefore was excommunicate shortly after, according to the ordinance of this Assembly.  
In the general Assembly holden at Edinburgh 1582. The general Assembly gave Commission to some Presbyteries to try and censure such as were called Bishops, for the great slander arising by their impunity. Commission was given at this Assembly to present some Articles to the council and estates, for approving and establishing by their authority the Presbyteries, the synodal and general Assemblies in the 19 Sess. the assembly declared that 〈◊〉 Bishop may ●it upon the council in name of the Kirk.  
In the assembly holden Anno 1586. these two Articles were agreed upon. First, It is found that all such as the Scripture appointeth Governors of the Kirk, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, and Elders may convene to the general Assemblies, and vote in ecclesiastical matters. Secondly, There are four Office-bearers set down to us by the Scriptures, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and De●cons, and the name of Bishop ought not to be taken, as it hath been in the time of Papistry, but is common to all Pastors and Ministers.  
In the Assembly holden Anno 1587. Sess. 8. It was ordained that the admission of Mr. Robert Montgomery by the presbytery of Glasgow, suppose to the temporality of the bishopric only, be undone and annulled with all possible diligence, to the effect Slander might be removed from the Kirk. In Sess. 15. Mr. Rob. Pont she●ed the King's presentation to the bishopric of Cathnes, and desired the judgement of the assembly. The assembly in their Letter to the King's majesty, declared that they judged the said Mr. Rob▪ to be a Bishop already, according to the doctrine of S. Paul: but as to that corrupt estate or office of these who hath been termed Bishops heretofore, they found it not agreeable to the word of God, and that it hath been 〈◊〉 in divers Assemblies before.  
In the Instructions given to such as were appointed to wait● upon the Parliament, it was ordained in the same Assembly, Sess. 17. th●t they be careful that nothing b● admitted prejudicial to the liberties of this Kirk, as it wa● concluded according to the Word of God in the general Assemblies, preceding the year 1584. but precisely to seek the same to be ratified in the assembly holden in March 1589. where the Articles were made for the subscribing the confession of Faith with a 〈…〉, it was 〈◊〉 as followe●●▪  
For so much as the Neighbour Kirk in England is understood to be heavily troubled for maintaining of the true discipline and government, whose griefs ought to move us: therefore the presbytery of Edi●burgh was ordained to comfort the said Kirk in the said matter.  
In the assembly holden 1590. when the Confession of Faith was subscribed universally de novo, A ratification of the liberties of the Kirk in her jurisdiction, Discipline, Presbyteries, Synods, and general Assemblies, and an abrogation of all things contrary thereunto; was ordained to 〈◊〉 sought both of the council and Parliament. In the next Session, it was ordained that the book of Discipline, specially the controverted heads, should be subscribed by all Ministers that bear, or hereafter were to bear office in this Kirk, and that they be charged by the Presbyteries under the pain of Excommunication: seeing the Word of God cannot be keeped in sincerity, unless the holy Discipline be preserved. The Presbyteries were ordained to get a copy under the ●lerks hand; there was sundry Copies subscrib●d by the Ministers in the Presbyteries yet extant, as Haddington, 〈◊〉, &c. produced before the assembly.  
In the Assembly 1591. Sess. 4. The former Act anent the subscription to the book of policy is renewed, and penattis imposed upon the Moderator, in case it be not put in ex●cution.  
In the Assembly 22. May 1592. Sess. 2. These articles were drawn up, That the Acts of Parliament made 1584. against the Discipline, liberty, and authority of the Kirk be 〈◊〉, and the same Discipline, whereof the Kirk hath been in practice, precisely ratified; that Ab●●ts, Pryo●ies, and other prelates pretending the title of the Kirk, be not suffered in time coming. In the eleventh Session, the number of the Presbyteries were given up, and 〈◊〉 in the Parliament immediately following. The fifth of inn 1592. The liberty, Discipline and jurisdiction of the 〈◊〉 Kirk in her Sessions, Presbyteries, 〈◊〉 and general Assemblies is largely ratified, as the same was used and exercised within this Realm, and all the Acts contrary thereto abrogate: the King's prerogative declared not to be prejudicial to the same privileges grounded upon the Word of God: the former Commissions to Bishops 1584. rescinded, and all ecclesiastical matters subjected to Presbyteries, according to the discipline of this Kirk. Anno 1595. the Book of policy with other Acts is ratified and ordained to be printed.  
It was also cleared that episcopacy was condemned in these words of the Confession, His wicked hierarchy. For the Popish hierarchy doth consist of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, that is baptising and Preaching Deacons: for so it is determined in the council of Trent, in the 4. Chap. De Sacramento ordinis, Cant. 6. Si quis dixerit in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ non esse Hierarchiam divinâ ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis, Presbyteris & Ministris, anathema sit. Bellarmine likewise in his Book De Clericis cap. 11. saith, That there are three Hierarchies in the Militant Kirk: The first of Bishops, the second of Priests, the third of Deacons; and that the deacons are also Princes, if they be compared with the people: This proposition following; Hierarchia ecclesiastica constat ex Pontifice, Cardinalibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis & Regularibus, was censured by the faculty of theology in the university at Paris, as followeth; In ista prima propositione enumeratio membrorum Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae seu sacri Principatus, divinâ ordinatione instituti est manca & redundans atque inducens in errorem contrarium determinationi sacrae Synodi Tridentinae: The proposition was defective, because it pretermitted the Presbyters and Deacons; it was censured as redund●nt, because it made the hierarchy to consist of the Pope. Cardinals, Archbishops and Regulars; the Pope is not within the hierarchy, primates, Metropolitans, and Archbishops, but as they are Bishops. Furthermore, this hierarchy is distinguished in the Confession from the Pope's monarchy, and howbeit this hierarchy be called the Antichrists hierarchy, yet it is not to distinguish betwixt the hierarchy in the Popish Kirk, and any other as lawful: but the hierarchy wheresoever it is, is called his; as the rest of the Popish corruption are called his, to wit, Invocation of Saints, Cannonization of Saints, Dedication of Altars, &c. are called his, not that there is another lawful Cannonization, Invocation or Dedication of Altars▪ whatsoever corruptio● was in the Kirk, either in Doctrine, worship, or Government, since the mystery of iniquity began to work, and is retained, and maintained by the Pope, and obtruded upon the Kirk by his authority are his. A passage also out of the History of the council of Trent was alleged, where it is related, that the council would not define the hierarchy by the seven Orders: we have in our Confession of Faith the manifold Orders set a part and distinguished from the hierarchy, but as it is set down in the Cannon above cited: we have in the book of policy or second book of Discipline, in the end of the second Chapter, this Conclusion agreed upon. Therefore all the ambitious Titles invented in the kingdom of Antichrist, and in his usurped hierarchy, which are not of one of these four sorts, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons: together with the offices depending thereupon, in one word ought to be rejected.  
All which and many other Warrants being publicly read, and particularly at great length examined, & all objections answered in face of the assembly, all the members of the assembly being many times de●●red and required to propon● their doubts and 〈◊〉, and every one being heard to the full, and after much ●gitation as fully satisfied; The Moderator at last exh●rting every one to declare his mind did put the master to voy●ing in these terms: Whether according to the Confession of Taith, as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. and 1590. there be any other Bishop, but a Pastou● of a particular flock, having no power nor pre-eminence nor power over his Brethren, and whether by that Confession, as it was then professed, all other episcopacy is abjured, and aught to be removed out of this Kirk.  
The whole assembly most unanimously, without contradiction of any one (and with the 〈◊〉 of one 〈◊〉) professing full persuasion of mind, did voice, That all episcopacy different from that of a pastor over a particular flock, was abjured in this Kirk, and to be removed out of it. And therefore prohibits under ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 any to usurp, accept, defend, or obey the pretended authority thereof in time coming.  
Collected, visied, and extracted forth of the Register of the Acts of assembly by me Mr. A. Johnstone Clerk thereto, under my sign and subscription manual. A. Johnstone Cler. Eccl. Edinburgh, the 12▪ of Jan▪ 1639.    

CHAP. III.  
Discussing the four Considerations whereby they were moved to make this Act.  
OUr Covenanters before they come to the point, in the beginning of the Act, have set down four considerations whereby they allege they were moved, yea forced of Necessity to conclude this Act against Bishops: and albeit they do not directly appertain to the substance of the controversy, yet we will shortly observe some few notes thereupon, to show upon what impertinent Considerations this Act hath been grounded.  
Their first Consideration is of the unspeakable goodness and great mercy of God, manifested to this Nation in that excellent and divine work of Reformation, brought to perfection, not only in Doctrine and worship, but also in Discipline and Government, &c.  
Whereupon first we must remark, that if they had soriously considered that excellent work of Reformation, with due respect towards these worthy Reformers; (whom God used as instruments in effectuating that work) they should never have been moved thereby to have concluded such an Act as this, so directly contrary to their mind; for they at the Reformation did establish such a discipline and government in the Church according to God's Word, as whereby one pastor under the Name of Superintendent might lawfully have power and pre-eminence over other Brethren of the ministry, and over moe particular flock than one; which discipline and government continued with happy success in the Church of Scotland, above thirty years after the Reformation: but they have made this Act quite contr●dictorie thereto, That it is not 〈◊〉 for one Pastor 〈◊〉 have power and pre-eminence over other Brethren, nor over more particular flock than one.  
2. That which they allege that the second Book of Discipline is the perfection of the work of Reformation, can no wise be true; for that cannot rightly be called the perfection of any thing, which doth reverse and destroy the substance and nature thereof: but so it is that the Government established by the second book of Discipline, which was presbyterial, including an absolute parity amongst Pastors, did reverse and destroy the nature of the government established by the Reformation, which was episcopal, including directly superiority of one Pastor over others; and therefore it could no ways truly be called the perfection thereof.  
3. It is false that this Discipline was established by the Confession of Faith, as shall be hereafter qualified by discussing all the passages falsely and impertinently alleged for the same: As likewise I see not how it can be true, that this book of Discipline was established by the continual practice of the Church; for some points thereof were never practised in the Church of Scotland, and those which were practised contrary to the estate of Bishops, were not o● long continuance; the practice of 8. or 10. or 15. years (which is the most I can reckon) cannot be accounted such a continued practice, as may make prescription against the continual practice of the whole Christian Church for many hundred years before, and above six and thirty years since the approved practice of the principal points of their Discipline were discontinued, as we shall show more particularly hereafter.  
Their second Consideration is, that by men's seeking their own things and not the things of Christ, many Innovations and great evils have been obtruded upon the Church, to the utter undoing of the work of reformation, and change of the whole form of worship and face of the Church.  
To this we answer, that those Constitutions of the Church (which they call Novations and Evils, such as the establishing of Bishops; baptism in private places in ●ase of necessity; reverent Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Supper of the Lord; not refusing to give it to the sick who earnestly desire it; the thankful remembrance of God's special benefits by prayer; and preaching of the Word upon certain appointed days; the Cate●hizing of young children; and presenting of them to the Bishop to bless them by prayer for increase of knowledge and continuance of God's grace) are neither evils in themselves, but tending to the removal of evils from the worship of God: as irreverence and contempt of the Sacraments, neglect of a thankful remembrance of God's special benefits, and ignorance in youth, and to the establishing of great good in the Church, as sound Government, Reverence in the worship of God, thankfulness for God's benefits, increase of knowledge in the younger sort, and spiritual comfort to Christian souls in distress: Neither are they to be accounted Novations, but rather a restoring of the ancient Constitutions and customs of the Primitive Church in her purest times.  
2. These things cannot be said to be obtruded upon the Church, which were received by the Consent both of the Church in general Assemblies, and by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament, as all those Constitutions which they challenge have been: but on the contrary, those things are said more truly to be obtruded upon the Church, which are not brought in either by assembly or Parliament, yea directly against the Acts of both standing in force are violently urged upon the people, not only to receive them simply, but likewise to swear solemnly to the truth thereof by the great name of God, and that not by any having authority or lawful calling thereunto, but by certain seditious private persons: and such are their seditious Covenant and impertinent applications, or false interpretations of the Confession of Faith; whereby many persons of sundry estates were by false allurements and violent threatenings, forced against their minds, to swear directly disobedience to the King's Laws and Constitutions of the Church.  
Finally, it is also false, that those things which they call Nova●ions, have undone the work of Reformation, and changed the whole form of God's worship or face of the Church: For the work of Reformation is rather restored by the establishing of Bishops, which was destroyed in that point by their presbyterial Government, and absolute parity of Pastors; as we have touched already, and shall be more fully cleared hereafter. Then albeit some Circumstances and Ceremonies in God's worship, and external apparel of the Church have been changed, yet the substance and form of Faith, Religion, worship, and the beautiful face of the Spouse of Christ, the Church, doth notwithstanding remain still without change or alteration; which S. Austin Epist. 86. expresseth fitly, speaking of the like Novations in these words, una fides oft universa Ecclesiae, tametsi ipsa fidei unitas quibusdam diversis observationibus celebratur, quibus nullo modo quod in fide verum est impeditur, omnis enim pulchritudo filia regis intrinsecùs, illa autem observationes quae variè celebrantur, in ejus veste intelliguntur. That is to say, The faith of the universal Church is one, although the unity of the Faith itself be celebrated by some diversity of observations, whereby the truth of faith is not hindered; for all the beauty of the King's daughter is within, But these observations which are diversely celebrated are in her apparel. And Tortullian lib. de virg. vela●d. faith, Regula quidem fidei una omninò est sola immobilis & irreformabilis, &c. And a little after, Hâc lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante & proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei. That is to say, The rule of Faith is altogether one only, unchangeable, and such as admitteth no reformation; this Law of Faith standing firm, the rest that concern discipline and reformation may admit the novelty of Correction by the grace of God, which worketh a profitable progress even to the end.  
Their third Consideration is, that by the Kings urging of the Book of Common Prayer, they knowing no other way to preserve Religion, were moved by GOD, and urged by Necessity to renew the national Covenant, which the Lord since hath blessed from heaven, and to subscribe the Confession of Faith with an Application, abjuring and suspending all Novations formerly introduced, till they should be tried in a free general Assembly.  
To this I answer, first, that the Kings urging of the Book of Common prayer was not the true essential cause of their rebellious Covenant, but only an occasion greedily apprehended by the ringleaders, to make that a pretext to stir up the people to follow them in their Rebellion, which they had before purposed in their heart: For, if it had been the true cause when the King discharged that book, their Rebellion had there ceased; for sublata vera causa tollitur effectus, the true cause being taken away the effect must needs cease: But so it is that their Rebellion did never show itself in so damnable effects, as it did after the discharge of the book of Common prayer, and granting of all their petitions. 2. The urging of that Book containing no impious thing against God, nor hurtful to true Religion, could not be a just motive to move them by any necessity to such an action, as by the fundamental Laws of the kingdom is declared to be high Treason; when as Subjects without permission or knowledge of the King's majesty, do combine themselves in a mutual band of maintenance against all persons whatsoever, not excepting the King their sovereign; yea, it is most evident that this Rebellious Covenant was intended against the King's majesty directly, and against him only; albeit they cunningly dissemble and pretend the contrary; for from whom could so many potent Noblemen and gentlemen of such worth, with so great a number of their followers, possibly or by any liklihood fear any danger or harm in their persons or estates, for refusing the Book of Common prayer, or other things which they call Innovations, urged chiefly by the King's authority and special Command, if it were not from the King himself; Could they fear any harm from thirteen or fourteen Bishops, for the most part old decrepit and impotent men? or was there any, the smallest appearance of external Invasion, or inward conspiracy in the kingdom, before they made it by their Covenant? so it is manifest that it was from the King only they feared danger, being conscious to themselves of their misdemeanours and Rebellious intentions, by which it is more than evident, that the band of mutual defence was only intended against the King's majesty's self.  
3. Was there no other way to preserve Religion, but by Disobedience and Rebellion? it is a dangerous and harmful physic, which prescribes a remedy worse than the disease itself: the greatest danger which could come to Religion by this Book, was only in circumstances, Ceremonies, and some misinterpreted words, which being rightly understood could not have been rejected by peaceable, wise and understanding men, they might have been better interpreted or otherwise corrected, than by open disobedience to God and his Anointed: as Obedience (according to the saying of the Prophet) is better than sacrifice: so Disobedience and Rebellion bringeth more danger and harm to Religion, than the alteration of some indifferent Ceremonies and Circumstances can be able to do, as any wise man may consider by the miserable effects which ordinarily accompanieth Rebellion.  
4 It is false also that they were moved thereto by God. For God is the God of order, and the God of peace, the author and commander of obedience unto Superiors; and therefore cannot be called without blasphemy, the author of Rebellion, Disobedience, Disorder, and Confusion in Church or commonwealth, such as this Covenant is in itself, and hath produced all those evils as the proper effects thereof: It is the doctrine of Anabaptists and fanatical Libertines to ascribe all the foolish conceits of their brains to the motion of God's Spirit: But certainly, it is more probable that they have been moved to this Rebellious Covenant by that Spirit, whereby Chore, Dathan, and Abiram were moved to make insurrection, drawing all the Congregation of Israel to Rebellion against Moses and Aar●n, since both the Acts are very like one to another, as is evident by considering the circumstances. That Traitor Raviliack who killed Henry the Fourth of France, was a confident in his imagination; affirming, even to the very death, that he was not moved to that Fact by any par●●●ular respect, or instigation of another person, but only by God and the Virgin Mary.  
5. It is false also that they were thereto drawn by necessity; it was thought indeed that those of Lower Germany were drawn by some Necessity, to confederate themselves together against the King of Spain, (who was their Prince indeed) yet neither he, nor any of his Predecessors had such absolute sovereignty over them, as our King hath over Scotland; because he violented their consciences, compelling them not only to forsake, but also to forswear the true Religion, and embrace Popish idolatry; not by Proclamations only, but by fire and sword, and cruel torments in the Inquisition; whereby many thousands of them were put to death most cruelly, before ever they made any combination amongst themselves, or refused due Obedience to their Prince. Although nevertheless many wise and learned men are of opinion, that their rising in arms against their Prince, was not altogether justifiable before God: much less than can our Covenanters allege truly, that they were drawn by any necessity to this Rebellious combination; since for the refusal of that book, never a man in Scotland had lost his life or estate, or a drop of his blood, or was fined in a farthing, or had his body imprisoned, or a hair of his head touched before that Covenant.  
6. They allege that this was a renewing of the national Covenant enjoined by King James, which is most false; for it was a plain contracting of a new one, different in Substance from that which was sworn either the year 1580. or 1590. as they know well, and their own conscience bears them witness. The substance of a Covenant consists 1. in the authority whereby it is concluded. 2. In the parties betwixt whom. 3. In the matter or Articles whereunto they bind themselves. 4. In the end for the which it is contracted; but in all these points, this Covenant is different from the former enjoined by King James of h●ppy memory.  
First, the King's Covenant was enjoined by the authority of the King and his council, who only under God hath power to bind all his Subjects: but this was only framed and urged by private men, upon those, over whom they had no lawful authority civil or ecclesiastical.  
Secondly, in that Covenant the parties were the King's majesty our dread sovereign on th'one part, and all his Subjects on th'other part: in this, the parties are some particular private persons, Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Ministers, Burgesses, and Commons amongst themselves, excluding the King's majesty.  
Thirdly, the matter and Articles whereunto all are bound in the first Covenant, are the maintenance of true Religion according to the Confession of Faith, Abjuration of all Antichristian and Popish errors, the defence of the King's majesty's person, authority and estate; but in this, albeit they pretend to bind themselves by oath to the defence of all these, yet is it but a pretext to cover their Rebellion, and Protestatio contra factum: for it is evident that they have in this very Fact, many ways encroached upon the King's majesty's authority and estate, contrary to the fundamental Laws of the kingdom; but the principal Articles whereto they bind themselves is, 1. To stand together in the mutual defence one of another against all persons whatsoever. 2. To the maintenance of their false Applications of the Confession of Faith added thereunto, like the gloss of Orleans, destroying the meaning of the Text. 3. To forbear the practice of all those things which they call Novations, constituted by the consent of the Church, ratified in Parliament, and commanded by the King, which is directly to swear disobedience both to the King and the Church, and consequently to God also. 4. To reject the present Government of the Church established by the King's authority, consent of the Church in divers general Assemblies, and of the whole estates in Parliament: finally, to suppress one of the three estates o● Parliament, thereby destroying the fundamental Laws of the kingdom.  
Fourthly, the end of the first Covenant was to maintain peace and concord both in Church and commonwealth (which was many ways disturbed in those times) and defence of the kingdom from external Invasions and inward Seditions, which were upon too evident grounds then feared: but in this their Covenant the chief intended end was to disturb the peace both in the Church and kingdom, by stirring up seditious factions therein against the King and his loyal Subjects, that in those troubles (as fishing in troubled waters) they might work their own particular ends: and not to exclude external invasions, but rather to open a gate for strangers to enter, and if their secret practices with the King of France, and the Estates of Holland could have prevailed (as they were confident they should) to have brought in foreign forces within the bowels of the kingdom; But praised be God, those Estates were wiser than so, as to assist Subjects in their unjust Rebellion against their natural Prince.  
Finally, we must not omit their foolish and vain boasting here, and in their other pamphlets often repeated usque a● Nauseam, that their Rebellious Covenant hath been by the Lord blessed from Heaven; they conceive so, because of the great appla●se it hath had amongst themselves, and the prosperous succe●●e they have found in their erterprises against the King's Castles, in putting their Armies to the field, and harming the King's loyal Subjects without present damage to themselves: but let not him that putteth on his Armour boast himself, as he that putteth it off; Chore, Dathan and Abirars had good success at the first, and drew after them in their Rebellious Covenant two hundred and fifty Princes of the assembly, famous in the Congregation, and men of renown▪ as it is written, Numb. 16. 2. And a great many of the people against Moses and Aaron, the Prince of the people, and the high Priest of the Lord whom God had set over them; So that Moses being greatly astonished, fell down most abjectly upon his face before them, and could not know how to repress that Sedition, except the Lord had comforted and directed him: these men might have thought as our Covenanters do, that the Lord had blessed their enterprise from Heaven; yet ere it was long they found God's just judgement and Curse both from Heaven and Earth, for the Earth swallowed up some of them quick, and others were destroyed by fire from Heaven: Let all Seditious rebels therefore learn by this example to repent in time, and not to boast too confidently of their present success, but fear the end.  
The fourth and last Consideration is, because his majesty's Commissioners and council, by the King's Commandment, and others of his Subjects by ordinance of the council, had subscribed the Confession of Faith without their Applications; and that both the one & the other Subscribers had done it according to the date, tenor and mea●ing it had An. 1581. there, for they considered that it was expedient and proper for the general assembly to declare the true meaning thereof, as it was at first professed, to the end that all his majesty's Subjects may be one mind and heart, and have full satisfaction to all their doubts.  
Concerning this Consideration, we must observe that howsoever the subscribers of that rebellious Covenant did understand the Confession of Faith, yet those who did subscribe the King's Covenant at his majesty's command, both first and last, could not lawfully swear to it in any other sense than the King who required the oath did understand the same; for this is most certain, That all oaths required by a magistrate should be taken in the direct and explained meaning of him who required the oath: But it is evident that his majesty declared himself plainly enough, that he did not require his council, nor his other subjects, to sweat this Confession in such meaning as thereby either Episcopacy▪ or the other established Constitutions of the Church should be abjured; for otherwise, it had been a deluding of his majesty's Command by a jesuitical equivocation, who teach their Supposts that Axiom, unto dangerous interrogatories one may frame to himself a safe sense, and swear thereto, thought it be contrary to the meaning of him who required the Oath. Therefore I cannot conceive, that those judicious and discreet Noblemen would practise jesuitical tricks to elude his majesty's Command, in swearing that Confession and Covenant in another sense than they knew his majesty intended.  
2. Albeit, that in their subscribing and swearing they had all added expressly that restriction, According to the meaning it had Anno 1581. yet will it not follow that they had any doubt of the true meaning, for we must presuppone that all the Kings loyal Subjects did conceive, that that Covenant was no otherwise understood at that time by King James of happy memory, than it is now by King Charles; to wit, in such a sense as might stand with episcopacy, neither could it be otherwise understood as we shall declare more fully hereafter: and therefore, those needed not this Act of assembly to resolve them of their doubt in this point; and certainly, this Assembly hath casten more doubts and scruples in the hearts of men, than ever they shall be able to resolve, until it shall be declared Null, as indeed it is already really null in itself. It were an infinite labour to examine all the falsehoods of these Considerations, since there is scarce a line or a sentence therein, which doth not contain divers falsehoods; yet those which we have remarked are sufficient to declare how unfirme those considerations are to ground thereupon a necessity of concluding this Act.   

CHAP. iv.  
Containing the state of the Question concerning episcopacy, as it is here condemned.  
HAving already discussed the falsehood and impertinency of those four considerations, laid down for grounds in their preface to the Act; we must now come to discuss the Act itself: But first of all, before we enter to the reasons pr● or contra, the state of the controversy must be first set down, for there is nothing more requisite to the clear deciding of any controversy, than the right stating of the Question; but chiefly in these Controversies which are to be determined by voices or suffrages in a grave assembly of the Church, wherein every one ought to give his voice, not according to the example or injunction of other men, but according to a certain knowledge and conscience before God: therefore the Question must be clear without ambiguity, either in the matter, or in the words and phrases; It is a trick of Sophisters to propose a Question or determine it in obscure and ambiguous terms, which may be drawn to contrary senses; all such Questions ought to be plain, clear and simple, and such as one may easily conceive, and answer thereto directly and Categorically.  
But in this Act of the assembly the proposition of the Question is set down, in such ambiguous words and intricate phrases, that one can hardly either understand the meaning, or give a direct answer▪ And albeit the proposition of the Question be set down in the end of the Act after all the Reasons, yet we must consider it in the beginning, to the end we may try how pertinently or impertinently the reasons alleged, do conclude the determination of the assembly: It is proposed therefore by the Moderator in these words, Whether according to the Confession of Faith, as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. and 1590. there be any other Bishop, but a Pastor of a particular flock, having no pre-eminence nor power over his Brethren; and whether by that Confession, as it was then professed, all other episcopacy is abjured, and aught to be removed out of this Kirk.  
First, this proposition of the Question is altogether captious, including a sophism à multis interrogatis; for there are three several Questions expressly included therein, which are so different in Nature, that one cannot possibly answer to all in one manner, 1 Whether according to the Confession of faith, as it was professed in the year 1580. 1581. & 1590. there be any other Bishop, but a Pastor of a particular flock, having no pre-eminence 〈◊〉 power over his Brethren: to this, the voycers according to the meaning of the Covenanters behooved to answer negatiuè, that there was no other Bishop. 2. Whether by that Confession, as it was then professed, all other episcopacy is abjured: certainly, all Covenanters keeping their own grounds behooved to answer to this affirmatiuè, that all other was abjured. 3. Whether all other episcopacy behooved to be removed out of this Kirk, To this Question also they could not answer but affirma●●vè.  
Is it not then evident? that such a question as this ●ould not be put to voicing, except by those who had a mind to entangle simple men by a sophistical proposition; for in all matters which are to be determined by voices, the question ought to be so proposed, as the voicers may answer by a simple affirmation, or by a simple negation, and as it is called in the Schools Categoricè; otherwise, there behooved to be a strange confusion in di●tinguishing the voices. But to this Question as it was proposed, no one categorical answer could be given by any, but they behooved of necessity to answer negatiuè to one part, and affirmatiuè to another. I have known the Moderator to have been a quick and solid Logician, and I should marvel what could make him oversee himself so grossly in such a weighty business against all true logic, if I did know that passions and affections will often miscarry wise and learned men into great absurdities: or, that perhaps the Question was so framed at the tables of the Covenant, and appointed to be thus proposed at the Assembly; therefore he could not alter nor change the form, because of his Oath of obedience to them as his Superiors, although he knew it was against all logic and good reason.  
But lest they should object, that if the Questions though many in number, have such a necessary and essential coherence together, that the one being granted, the rest must be necessarily granted also, or that upon the Negative of the one, the affirmative of the other dependeth by necessary consequence; then it is not captious, but one answer may suffice for all. To this we answer, that these Questions have no such necessary Cohesion together, for although the answer of the first were granted to be true, yet the answer to the second may be false, & albeit the second be granted, the third may be false: for first, although it were granted that by the Confession of Faith, there were no other Bishops but such as were Pastors over a particular flock, and had no pre-eminence over their Brethren; yet is it not necessary to grant, that all others were abjured; for albeit there be no other Bishops expressed in the Confession of Faith, yet that will not exclude all others that are not expressed, yea even in divine Scripture; although in matters necessary to Salvation, Argumentum negativum à Scripturis be good and valid, it is not written, Ergo it is not necessary to Salvation; yet is it not so in all other particulars, not necessary to Salvation, it is not written Ergo it is not; much less can such a reason be necessary in human writs, such as the Confession of Faith is. First, because all human writs are subject to error, and not infallibly true; then because confessions do not comprehend every point, which may by any be called in controversy, but those only which are chiefly controverted with their principal Adversaries: Now this point of the preeminency of Bishops, &c. was not a point controverted, betwixt the reformers of Religion who set down the Confession, and their Adversaries the Papists; And therefore needed not to be mentioned in the Confession, and by consequent, albeit there was no such Bishops according to the Confession; yet it is not necessary that they should be abjured. Then there is as little coherence betwixt the last two questions, for although it had been abjured at that time, yet will it not follow necessarily, that it be now removed out of the Church for two reasons; first, because than it might have been abjured wrongfully and out of Ignorance; but afterwards men coming to better and sounder knowledge, that which rashly hath been abjured before, may be lawfully restored now. Next, because if there had been a Law and Constitution against it, for certain reasons of not expediency, the Church might have abjured it for that time; yet that Law being abrogated by lawful authority, it may be received again by the Church: for it is holden as granted by all, that Oaths given to human positive Laws, either civil or ecclesiastic, obliges no longer than the Law stands in force; Now therefore since the Law forbidding preeminency of one Pastor over others (if any such Law was) being now abrogated, and the contrary established, this preeminency ought not to be removed now, though formerly abjured.  
Secondly, There is great Ambiguities in the terms of the proposition themselves, yea, almost every word hath its own ambiguity: for 1. the word Confession is ambiguous, for although there be two writs which by some are called Confessions, yet there is one only proper and perfect profession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, neither ought there to be any more in one Church; to wit that large Confession set down at the beginning of the reformation, wherein is contained all the positive Doctrine maintained by that Church, which was acknowledged & received in the general Assembly, An. 1560. and ratified by the whole body of the kingdom in Parliament, 1567. and inserted verbatim in the body of the Act: that other which is called the negative Confession is only an Appendix of the former, containing an abjuration of certain special Errors of the Roman Church, so it is doubtful which of those Confessions is here understood. 2. There is likewise an Ambiguity in that word, According to the Confession; because it may be understood diversely, for either it implies that it is expressly contained therein, and so it is properly according to the same; or otherwise it may signify only that it is not contrary thereunto, though not particularly expressed: now episcopacy in the first sense perhaps is not according to the Confession, because it is not expressly mentioned therein, which is no absurdity as we have shown before; yet is it according to it in the second sense, because not contrary thereunto. 3. There is ambiguity in the words (As it is professed Anno 1580. &c.) For either it must be signified as it was then proposed in writ or print, and so certainly it was no otherwise professed at that time than it was from the beginning, and is now at this present▪ but hath been ever conserved unaltered, or uncorrupted in the Registers of the Church and kingdom, so that the particular restriction to those years 1580. 1581. 1590. is needless and superfluous: or by (Profession) is signified the sense or interpretation thereof, as it was understood and interpreted An. 1580. and thus also that restriction of the profession to those years, is no less superfluous; for it could not be, or at least ought not to have been by any otherwise interpreted in these years, or now, than it was understood at the beginning by those who set it down, for (as we say) unusquisque est optimus suorum verborum interpres, and the first Reformers, who framed that Confession, did interpret it in the first book of Discipline, and Acts of divers Assemblies thereafter, so as it did approve the power of one Pastor over others: Therefore, if any did interpret it in a contrary sense, they wronged greatly the worthy Reformers of the Religion, and we are not now obliged to imitate them in their wrongful dealing. 4. There is ambiguity likewise in the word (Bishop) which sometimes is taken in a general sense, as it is attributed to every Pastor in the Church who hath power to oversee the actions of the people in spiritual affairs: sometimes more particularly, as it signifieth those that have jurisdiction both over more pastors and people of a certain bounds called a Diocese, as it hath been taken in all Churches since the Apostles days, until this former age, but because this is discussed in the Question itself I speak no more of it.  
Finally, there is Ambiguities in those words (A particular flock,) for a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop, as well as a Parish is the particular flock of a Minister: many more Ambiguities might be remarked in the words of this Question, which for briefues we omit here, but shall be (God willing) discussed as occasion serves in the subsequent discourse.  
Thirdly, it is also subtle sophistical dealing, that they have drawn the Question à Thesi ad Hypothesin; they do not ask whether episcopacy be lawful in itself or not, but whether it should be retained or removed, in regard of the Confession of Faith, and of the Covenant, and that only as the Confession was understood An. 1580. 1581. & 1590. involving the Question in divers intricate suppositions, which they have done subtly for their own ends: first, because they were not able to bring any solid testimony of Scripture, or approved Fathers, or practice of true antiquity, to prove the unlawfulness of that office; and therefore, neither in this Act, nor in any other Act of this Assembly is there one syllable produced out of God's Word to approve their conclusions, but all their proofs are from their Negative Confession of Faith, impudently wrested from the true meaning thereof, from the Oath of the Covenant strangely misapplied, and from certain Acts of late general Assemblies; which all at the best are but human testimonies, and such manner of proofs is not consonant to their ordinary exclamations against human ordinances and Traditions of men, continually pretending to all their speeches and actions, God's Word, and Conscience which only is to be grounded thereupon. 2. They have framed the Question so, restricting the meaning of the Confession to the year 1580. &c. because it is evident that from the reformation until that time, they could not allege any Act of Assembly or Book of Discipline, showing that the Church had any such intention as absolutely to condemn episcopacy: but by the contrary, the Church had declared both by the first book of Discipline, and Acts of divers Assemblies (as shall be fully made clear) that she did so explain her meaning in the Confession of Faith concerning the point of Government, as she did approve expressly this power and pre-eminence, and charge over moe particular ●●ocks condemned by this Act. 3. They framed the question in this manner, to strike a terror of a fearful perjury upon the weak Consciences of these who could not discern rightly either the quality of the Oath or the matter thereof; to make them more pliable to their Rebellious projects, persuading them, that the swearers themselves and all their posterity were bound to the observation of that Oath, according to their false interpretation, notwithstanding of any interveening Law or Constitution absolving them from it; and that this fearful perjury could never be expiated, except they renewed their Oath to that Covenant, together with their false Applications and perverse interpretations, far different, yea flat contrary to their meaning who framed the Confession of Faith and enjoined the Oath, which as we shall show, is but an imaginary fear.  
It had been more plain dealing, and fitter to have removed all doubts, if they had proposed the Question more simply, and in more perspicuous terms, asking, Whether the Office of a Bishop be lawful in itself or not; for, if it had been solidly proven by God's Word to be unlawful, than it had been evident also, that the Oath whereby it was abjured, was lawful; and no man could have doubted but that Oath did bind, both the actual swearers and all their posterity to the observation thereof: but if it had been found by clear Scripture that the Office of a Bishop had been lawful, than no man could have doubted but the Oath whereby they did abjure it was unlawful; and therefore, that no man was bound to the observation thereof, but by the contrary, all were bound in Conscience to break such an Oath: or, if it had been found of middle nature, neither simply unlawful, nor necessarily lawful at all times, but a thing indifferent, in the power of the Church and Supreme Magistrate, to make a Law either establishing or abolishing the same, who might also require an Oath of all to observe that Law: then certainly, no man could have doubted but that so long as that positive Law stood in force, that Oath did bind all Subjects to the observation of it; as likewise that the Law being abolished by lawful authority, no man was further bound, but was ipso facto absolved from the Oath. So the Question being propounded in this manner, and resolved any other ways it had cleared all doubts and moved all to be of One mind and one heart; but being propounded in their manner, no resolution did take away all doubts (as they promised to do by this Act) but rather did multiply them and make them greater: For albeit it had been cleared, that episcopacy had been abjured by the Oath of the Covenant (which notwithstanding is not done) yet a greater doubt remained, whether that Abjuration was lawful or not; which could not be resolved except it had been first made manifest, that episcopacy was unlawful in itself by God's Word.  
Yet that we may follow them in their own method, and reason upon their own grounds, we shall leave at this time the probations which may be brought for the office of a Bishop from God's Word, and practice of the Primitive Church, which hath been sufficiently performed by divers learned Divines, to the which the best of that Sect could never sufficiently answer. Taking then the Question as it is set down by them, there are two points which they only here condemn in that office; first, that they have charge over more Parishes than one, secondly, that they have power and preeminency over their Brethren, we shall make it therefore evident, 1. That by the Confession of Faith, Books of Discipline, Acts of general Assemblies, and long continued practice of the Church of Scotland at the reformation and many years after, this pre-eminence and power of one Pastor over others, and charge over more parishes than one, hath been acknowledged to be lawful. Secondly, we shall show that none of those passages brought by them, at length in the Act itself, (which doubtless were the strongest they could find) forth of the abjuration in the Covenant, books of Discipline, and Acts of former general assemblies, do prove their conclusion; but that all of them are either falsely or impertinently cited, far by, or contrary to the meaning of the Authors, and therefore that all of them are Sophystically alleged.   

CHAP. V.  
That this pre-eminence and power of Bishops here questioned is conform to the true Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, to the first Book of Discipline and the long continued practice of the Church.  
FIrst, we must observe that there are two Confessions of Faith so called in the Church of Scotland, as we have remarked before, to wit, that large Confession, established at the first reformation, framed by John Knox, and other faithful Ministers Anno 1560. Confirmed by divers general Assemblies, received by the whole body of the kingdom, ratified by Act of Parliament 1567. and inserted in the body of the Act, which is the only proper Confession of the Church of Scotland, containing all the positive grounds of the Reformed Religion, especially in matters of Faith, controverted betwixt us and the Papists, and other heretics; the other called commonly the Negative Confession, which is not properly a perfe●t Confession, but an Appendix of the former, framed not by any Ordinance of the assembly of the Church, but by the appointment of the King's majesty and council; first sworn and subscribed by the King's majesty himself and his household, then by an Act of council dated the 5. of March 1580. It was ordained that all persons within the kingdom should swear the same; and for more commodious doing thereof, it was presented by his majesty's Commissioners to the assembly holden at Glasgow, 1581. that they might approve it, and enjoin every Minister to see the Oath taken by all their Parishioners, and it did contain an abjuration of most special gross errors of popery: the same abju●ation was again commanded by the King to be renewed in the year 1590. (when as that conspiracy of some Papists trafficking with the King of Spain was discovered) having annexed thereto a general band or Covenant, whereby all the Subjects binds themselves with the King's majesty for maintenance of true Religion, according to the Confession of Faith set down at the first reformation, and for the defence of the King's majesty's person, authority and estate, against all Enemies within and without the kingdom; to the end that true professors, and his majesty's loyal Subjects might more easily be discerned from hypocritical Papists and seditious rebels.  
Now as for that only perfect Confession there is no clause nor Article therein, which either expressly, or by any probable consequence condemneth this power and preeminency here controverted: neither have they been so bold, as to allege any passage out of the same; nor was it the meaning of those godly and learned persons who set it down, and proposed it to be received by the Church and kingdom of Scotland; nor the meaning of the Church and kingdom who accepted and approved the same, as the true Doctrine proved by God's Word, thereby to condemn any such thing: yea, it is most evident that they had a quite contrary meaning, as they themselves did publicly declare in the first book of Discipline, showing therein what manner of Government and policy they do require in the true reformed Church; to wit, that it should be governed by Superintendents in every Province, having power and pre-eminence over all the Ministers and all the Parishes within their bounds: for this book of Discipline was framed by the same persons who set down that confession of Faith, and at the same very time or shortly thereafter; and that by the command and direction of the great council of Scotland, admitted to the Government, by common cons●nt of the whole estates, in the Queen's absence, (being for the time in France) and ratifi●●● by Act of council, and manual subscriptions of the Counsellors, and of divers other men of worth the 17. of January 1560. approved by many general Assemblies, and the continual practice of the Church for twice as many years thereafter, as presbyterial Governmental remained in force.  
Then that we may see how far this power of Superintendents did extend, we must consider that the first Reformers of Religion, (because of the detestable enormities of papistical Bishops, which made their persons, offices, and very names to be detested) out of a certain zealous scrupulosity, would not at first give the title of Bishops to the rulers of the Church; yet nevertheless by the example of many other reformed Churches, gave to those who were appointed to their charge a title of the same signification, calling them (Superintendents:) So changing a proper Greek word into a barbarous Latin, for the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and the Latin word Superintendens do both signify one thing; to wit, such a one as is set over others to oversee their actions.  
Albeit by this book of Discipline, the whole kingdom was divided in ten Dioceses, expressly so called) and over every Diocese a Superintendent appointed to be set; yet in all the books of Assemblies we find only four who carried expressly this title, to wit, M●. John Spotswood (father to the late deceased John Archbishop of St. An●●●ws) called Superintendent of L●●thran, or Edinburgh: John Areskin of Diune Superintendent of Angus and Mearnes, or of Brechin: Mr. John Wonram Superintendent of Fyfe or S. Andrews: M. John W●llocks Superintendent of the West or Glasgow: those who were set over the rest of the Dioceses were called Commissioners, either because at that time they could not fi●d so many sufficient men, or for lack of sufficient means to maintain the estate of Superintendents, or as some rather think, because they esteemed this too absolute a Title, and near in signification to the title of Bishop; therefore they thought it more fit to call them Commissioners, as importing morse a dependency upon the general assembly of the Church, from which they received Commission to exercise their charge, not for any definite time, but ad vitam or ad culpam. Those same are at sometimes called Visitores by a word of the like signification with Episcopus, for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth likewise a Visitor, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Visitation, as 1 Pet. ●. 12. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is translated by all interpreters in dievisitationis, and so the Hebrew word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from the known word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} visitavit by the Septuagints is translated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and by Latines Inspector, Visitator or Praefectus: Howsoever they were diversely named they had all a like power and jurisdiction, which was no less than in the Church of Scotland, than the power which the Bishops had in the ancient Church; or in the Church of Scotland these many years by-gone, as may appear by this parallel, betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents.  

A parallel betwixt the power of Bishops and the power of Superintendents.  
FIrst, as every Bishop hath his own Diocese, over the which he hath superiority and jurisdiction, and therein a special city, for his sea and place of Residence, called the Metropolitan or cathedral city. So every 〈…〉 by the first book of Discipline Cap. 5. Art. 2. 〈…〉 pointed to him his own Diocese, to have 〈◊〉 power over all persons both pastors and people 〈◊〉 that bounds, and therein a certain place of ordinary residence, called there the Superintendents town; which for the most part were the same Cities, from which the Bishops of Scotland are now denominated.  
Secondly, As all the clergy in every Diocese are bound to give 〈◊〉 obedience to their ordinary Bishop, according to 〈◊〉 Canons of the Church. Right so by a special 〈…〉 general Assembly at Edinburgh, July 30. 1562. It is concluded by the whole ministers there Assembled, that all Ministers shall be Sub●●ct to their Superintendents in all lawful 〈…〉 as well in the book of Discipline, as in 〈…〉 Election of Superintendents; which is no other 〈…〉 but canonical obedience.  
Thirdly, As all Bishops are to be 〈…〉 of general or national counsels, 〈…〉 been in all ages, and needed not any 〈…〉 thereto, from the time that they were 〈…〉 consecrated to that office. So likewise in all 〈…〉 Superintendents and Commission●● 〈◊〉 were constant principal members of 〈…〉 Assemblies, and needed not any particular Commission thereto, but being once admitted to the office, were ever acknowledged thereafter, and received without any other Commission; as is evident by that assembly at Edinburgh July 1568. wherein the members of the general assembly are divided in two Ranks, some are appointed to be ordinary and perpetual members, as Superintendents and Commissioners of Provinces; the other sort are mutable, as Commissioners of Churches, universities, towns, and Provinces; the first had no need of particular Commission, but were perpetual and first called in the Roll, the other were changeable from assembly to assembly, and had new particular Commissions from those by whom they were directed. In the assembly at Edinburgh 1563. that every Superintendent shall appear the first day of the assembly: at Edinburgh March 1578. the same Act is renewed, and Bishops also are appointed to be present at all Assemblies, or else to be accounted unworthy of the office, and by divers other Acts: yea, after that the othee of Bishops begun to be questioned in the assembly 1579. July 7. Sess. 9 It is ordained That Bishops and commissioners of Provinces who abjent themselves from 〈◊〉 Assemblies shall be censured according to the Act, august 12. 1575. and that Act to be understood not only 〈◊〉 Bishops having power of Visitation from the Church, but also of such as have not that office.  
Fourthly, As all Bishops have power to hold their Synods twice in the year, when and where it shall please them within their own Diocese, and there all the clergy of the Diocese are bound to convene, and all matters which concern the Diocese are therein to be determined by the Bishop. So likewise albeit that in the first book of Discipline, there is no mention of synodal or provincial Assemblies: yet after by Acts of general Assemblies, it is appointed that every Superintendent and Commissioner shall hold Synods in their own bounds, wherein all matters pertaining particularly to their own Diocese or Province shall be determined, as appears by the assembly at Edinburgh March 5. 1570. wherein these two Acts are set down: first, It is ordained that offenders in heinous crimes shall not appear before the general Assembly, but shall be called before the Superintendents, and Commissioners of Provinces to appear before them in their synodal Conventions, and there to receive their injunctions, conform to the order used before in general Assemblies. Itein, It is ordained that all Question● concerning the Province shall be propounded first to the Superintendent et Commissioner, to receive resolution in their synodal conventions; and if they be diffieile, to be propounded to the next general assembly by the Superiatendent or Commissioner; with certification that no Question shall be received hereafter from any private Minister. So likewise in the assembly at Edinburgh 1568. It is ordained that no Minister exhort or read, or other person shall trouble the general Assembly with such matters as Superintendents may and aught to decide in their Synods; And if they do so their Letters shall be rejected.  
Fiftly, As no Pastor ought to have place in national Assemblies, except such as are authorized thereunto by their ordinary Bishop, according to the custom of the ancient Church: Although our Bishops in Scotland, since they were re-established, did never usurp this power to themselves, but left the Election of the Commissioner in the power of the Brethren of the presbytery: So likewise it was ordained in the assembly at Edinburgh 1568. That no Minister should have voice in general Assemblies, nor leave their flocks to attend thereat, unless they be chosen by their Superintendent, as men known able to reason, and of knowledge to judge in matters of weight. The same likewise we see testified to have been the custom of the Church of Scotland, by a Letter written by the Lord Glames then Chancellor of Scotland unto Beza, about the year 1575. when episcopacy began to be quarrelled, wherein Quaest. 2. he saith, Post reformatam Religionem consuetudine receptum est, ut Episcopi (under which word he comprehendeth the Superintendents) & ex Ministris, Pastoribus, ac Senioribus, tot, quot ijde● Episcopi jusserint, unum in locum conveniant, cum praecipuis Barronibus, ac Nobilibus, Religionem veram profitentibus, & de doctrinâ & de moribus inquisituri.  
Sixtly, As all the presentation of Benefices vacant were to be directed to the Bishop of the Diocese where the Benefice lies; so that if the person presented be found qualified, he may enjoy the same. So is it appointed at the Assembly holden at St. Johnstone June 1563. That when any Benefice shall chance to vaick, or is now vacant, that a qualified person be presented to the Superintendent of that Province where the Benefice lies, and that he being found sufficient, be admitted Minister to that Kirk, &c. Likewise in the Assembly at Edinburgh, 1578. (wherein they allege the second book of Discipline was agreed unto) one of the Petitions of the assembly preferred to the King and council was, That all presentations to Benefices may be directed to the Commissioner or Superintendent where the Benefice lies.  
Seventhly, As the Ordination of Ministers appertains peculiarly to the Bishop of the Diocese. So likewise the Ordination (which by the stile of Scotland is called Admission or Conftirmation) not only of Ministers, but also of Readers, Schoolmasters and principals of colleges, did appertain to the Superintendents in their own bounds, as is evident by the fifth Chapter of the book of Discipline, in the Article of Superintendents, and in the Article of Schools and Universities.  
Eightly, As Bishops have at all times had power to examine the life, doctrine and behaviour of the clergy of his own Diocese, and to admonish, correct, or censure them accordingly. So likewise in the same book of Discipline, Cap. 5. the Superintendents received power and authority to visit the Churches of their bounds, so often as they may, and therein not only to preach, But also to exmine the life, diligence and behaviour of all the Ministers, as likewise the orders of the Kirks, and manners of the people, and to admonish where admonition needeth, and to correct them by the censures of the Kirk, &c.  
Ninthly, As Bishops have power of suspension or deposition of Ministers, who are either scandalous in their lives, or heretical in their doctrine. So by the book of Discipline, and divers Acts of the Assemblies, that power doth appertain to Superintendents, Commissioners or Visitors, as is manifest by that place of the book of Disciplince, cited by us in the former Article: and by the assembly holden at Edinburgh, April 1576. wherein it is said, Anent the demand made by Mr. Andrew Hay Parson of Ranthrow, if every Commissioner or Visitor in his own bounds hath alike power and jurisdiction to plant Ministers, suspend and depose for reasonable causes: the assembly resolved affirmative, that they have alike power and jurisdiction therein, as is contained in the particular Acts concerning the jurisdiction of Visitors.  
Tenthly, As Bishops, because of their places and great charges in overseeing all the Churches, have greater rents appointed to them than to other Pastors. So likewise by the book of disciple, Cap. 5. in the Article for the provision of Ministers, is appointed almost four times as much stipend for the Superintendent, as for other private Ministers.  
Moreover, it is evident by many Acts of general Assemblies, that those Bishops who had joined themselves to the reformed Church, retaining still the office and title of Bishops, did by approbation of the general Assemblies, exercise their jurisdiction over the ministry and people of their own Diocese, even from the beginning of the Reformation almost; for in the Assembly at Edinburgh, 1582. Alexander Gordon Bishop of Galloway was authorized to plant Ministers, exhorters and readers, and to do such other things as has been heretofore accustomed to be done by Superintendents or Commissioners. In the Assembly at S. Johnstone, junc 1563. the Bishops of Orknay and Kai●hnes are allowed to exercise the same jurisdiction; and to show that they did not this by compulsion of Superior authority, but of their own voluntary motion, in that Assembly it is appointed, that a Supplication shall be preferred in name of the whole Assembly to the Queen's majesty, that she would be pleased to remit the thirds of the bishoprics (which were then in the Queen's hands) to the Bishops, who were allowed by the Church to be Commissioners, for planting of Churches within the bounds of their own Diocese: and thereafter Anno 1572. All Bishops were by special Act of the general assembly restored to the function, at the desire of the Earl of Lenox then Regent of Scotland: and the next year in the Assembly at Edinburgh 1573. certain limitations of their power were added, not very strict which no Bishop can refuse; 1. That the jurisdiction of Bishops in their ecclesiastical function, should not exceed the jurisdiction of the Superintendents, which heretofore they had and presently have; which jurisdiction, as we have declared, was no less than that which the Bishops require now. 2. That they should be willingly subject to the Discipline appointed by the general assembly as members thereof: This likewise is reasonable, and no Bishop will think himself exemed from the censure of a national assembly lawfully constituted, according to the established and approved orders of the Church. 3. That no Bishops give co●●ation of Benefices within the bounds of Superintendents without their consent and testimonial subscribed by their hands: This was also reasonable, for Superintendents were also Bishops, and it is conform to the ancient Canons of the Church, That no Bishop should give ordination or collation to any within the Diocese of another Bishop without his consent and testimonial. 4. That Bishops in their own Diocese visit by themselves, where no Superintend●nts are: which indeed is their duty, if they be not impedited either by infirmity, or by some weightier affairs of the Church. 5. That they give no collation of Benefices without the advice of three qualified Ministers: The Bishops of Scotland heretofore did astrict themselves further, for they were not accustomed to give collation of Benefices (except 〈◊〉 were to men of known worth in the exercise of the ministry before) without the advice of the whole Brethren of the Exercise in the bounds where the Benefice lies, committing the whole trial both of their life and doctrine to them, and according to their Testificate did accept or reject him who was presented.  
By this than which we have truly related out of the book of Discipline, and Acts of general Assemblies of the Church, it is manifest, that the true Confession of faith, as it was professed at the Reformation, and many years thereafter, had no such meaning as condemn or ●bjure the power and pre-eminence of One pastor over others, or over moe particular flocks than one: But on the contrary did approve the same, as it is explained (concerning the point of Government) by the book of Discipline and practice of the Church, under the title of Superintendent until the year 1590. and under the title of Bishop until the year 1580. for until those years neither the one nor the other were abrogated by the Assembly of the Church, the first Act condemning that jurisdiction under the title of Bishops was in that Assembly at Dundie 1580. and the first Act abolishing the office and title of Superintendents was in that Assembly at Edinburgh, August 1590. wherein it is declared that since Presbyteries were fully established, that Superintendents and Commissioners were neither necessary nor expedient. What regard should be had to those Acts we shall show hereafter.  
Is it not therefore too impudent and manifest a calumny, and a scandalous impurtation laid by our Covenainers upon the worthy reformers of the Church of Scotland; and those who did prosecute the same for many years, that their meaning in the Confession of Faith was to condemn that as unlawful, which they did approve by their plain and public declaration and continual practice? As it is also a subtle and hypocritical dissimulation of the ringleaders of this Rebellion (against the knowledge and conscience ●f those who knows the history of that Church since the Reformation) to profess and persuade people that their upright intentions is to reduce the Church to her former purity wherein she was constituted by the Reformations, and to abolish all novation●, since they are manifestly doing the quite contrary; abolishing, violently that order of Government which was established by the Reformation, and establishing in place thereof a most dangerous Novation, never heard of in many Christian Church since the beginning until this 〈◊〉 age, and whereof the Church of Scotland never thought of, nor dreamed at the Reformation or many years thereafter; until it was brought by a violent wind from Geneva, bringing therewith great trouble and disturbance to the Church of Scotland, and whole kingdom both first and last.    

CHAP. VI.  
Showing that this power and pre-eminence of Bishops was not abjured by the Negative Confession or Covenant.  
HAving shown that this power and pre-eminence of Bishops was not condemned by the principal and proper Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland. It follows also, that we show that it was not condemned by that abjuration in the Covenant called the Negative Confession; which by them improperly and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is called a Confession: For it is absurd, and almost repugnans in adjecto, to say that it should be the Confession of Faith in any Church, which doth not declare any positive point of Doctrine to be believed, but consisteth only of mere Negatives, which are not to be believed. It was only therefore set down as an Appendix of the true Confession, for that end which we declared before: For this is the ordinary manner both of public Confessions of Churches, and private Confessions of particular persons, first to set down the positive Doctrine in certain Articles and propositions, which are properly the Confession of Faith; and then by way of Appendix deduced from thence, to adjoin damning and abjuring of the contrary errors: so we see it done in most of the Confessions of reformed Churches, collected together in that book called Syntagma Confessionum. So doth befa in his Confession, and learned Zanchius in his: right so we must conceive the matter, that those abjurations of Popish errors set down in the Covenant, are but Appendices deduced from the Articles and propositions which comprehend the Confession of Faith: yea, the very words of that Covenant make it clear and evident, for therein it is first said, We believe with our hearts and confess with our mouths, that this is the true Christion, Faith and Religion, which is particularly expressed in the Confession of our Faith, established and confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament, &c. To the which Confession and form of Religion we agree in all points, &c. In these words is the proposition and sum of the Confession, the Appendix followeth thereafter in these words, And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary Doctrine and Religion, but chiefly papistry and particular heads thereof, &c. whereby it is evident, that it is only the proper ancient Confession of Faith set down at the Reformation, whereunto they did directly swear in that Covenant; but unto the abjuration of errors they did only swear indirectly, and by consequent, as they were contrary to the doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith.  
From this then that we have shown to be true, we may bring a forcible argument to prove, that by this abjuration the power and pre-eminence of Bishops is not abjured: For this abjuration being but an Appendix deduced by necessary consequence, it could not of itself have another meaning, or at least not a contrary sense to that Confession whereupon it depends; but so it is that the meaning of the Confession of Faith, as it was explained by the Church, was no other, but that it was lawful for one Pastor to have this power & preeminency over others, &c. Therefore the abjuration could not have a contrary meaning, to wit, that this power and preeminency was unlawful in itself. The assumption of this argument is already sufficiently qualified in the former Chapter by the book of Discipline, Acts of divers general Assemblies, and long continued practice of the Church. The proposition is evident in itself, for it is an absurd thing to say, that an Appendix should have a contrary sense to the principal proposition, from whence it is deduced by necessary consequence: all good Logicians know this, of which number to my knowledge the Moderator is one, who hath in his time composed many accurate propositions with their Appendices; and would not have suffered one of his scholars with patience to set down their Thesis with so evil knit consequences, as they would make us believe, is betwixt the confession of Faith, and the Abjuration of the Covenant depending thereupon. I can find no reason why he and other learned men of that assembly should be so far misled against all true logic and sound reason; except it be (as appears) that they have captivated their understanding to the Tables of the Covenant, that for obedience thereto they have forgot all rules of logic, to advance per fas & nefas their idol of presbyterial Government.  
But our Covenanters objects, that albeit the Confession of Faith might have been understood so by those who have set it down, and so interpreted by the Church for a long time, as that thereby this power and preeminency was not condemned; yet the general Assembly of the Church (to whom it appertains to interpret the Confession of Faith) might understand and interpret it otherwise, as it did in that Assembly at Dundie 1580. wherein episcopacy was condemned, and now in this Assembly at Glasgow, 1639.  
To this we answer first, It is possible indeed, that men might understand it otherwise then it was understood at the beginning, yea in a contrary sense as the Covenanters do interpret it now: But the Question is, whether both those contrary sense can be the true meaning of the Confession; I hope they will not judge so, except they would make the Confession of Faith like a nose of wax, (as some blasphemous Papists speak of the Scripture) or that they would make the Confession (which ought to be a firm and constant rule, to try the doctrine of all within the Church) like a Lesbian rule, which may be applied both to crooked and straight lines, or to contrary and contradictory senses. Then if it be so, it may be asked which of those is the true meaning? Certainly, there is no reasonable man but will esteem that to be the true meaning which is intended and expressed by the author thereof; For as we say, Vnusquique est su●ru●● verborum optimus interpres, except such a one as speaketh nonsense: but so it is, that they that framed the Confession of the Church of Scotland, and the Church who received the same, did declare their meaning therein to be such, as that thereby this power and preeminency was not damned, but directly approved; Therefore that contrary meaning which they ascribe to the Church in the year 1580. 1581. 1590. must needs be false.  
Secondly, This Covenant and abjuration therein was neither framed by the authority of the Church or general Assembly, nor was the Oath required by their authority: but both was done by the authority of the King and council, at whose direction this Covenant and abjuration was framed, and the Oath and subscription thereto required of all his Subjects by his Commandment; therefore it appertaineth only to his majesty and council to declare the meaning thereof, and in what sense he did require the Oath of all his Subjects: For this is a most true Axiom agreed unto by all orthodox writers, That all oaths required by a Magistrate should be taken according to the direct and plain meaning of him who requireth the same: But it is most manifest that neither the King nor council did require that oath in such a sense, as thereby episcopacy should be condemned; for he and his council did plainly declare before that time, at that same very time, and many times afterward, that his express meaning, purpose, and constant intention was, to continue the estate and office of a Bishop in the Church of Scotland; and to withstand all motions tending to the overthrow thereof, as we shall show more particularly. For first, that this abjuration was set forth by the King and counsels appointment, and that by his authority only the Oath was required, is manifest both by that Act of council, March 5. 1580. which they have prefixed before their Rebellious Covenant pressing thereby to make people believe, that it was authorized by the King: as likewise by the Acts of Assembly cited here by themselves, wherein is declared, That the King's Commissioner presented to the Assembly in April 1581. the Confession of Faith subscribed by the King and his household not long before, and in that Act approving this Confession cited here by them it is expressly acknowledged that it was set forth by the King's majesty. Next that it was to be understood according to the King's majesty's meaning, appeareth also by the same Act where it is said, That it should be followed out efoldly, as the same is laid out in the King's Proclamation, for that word Efoldly signifieth, that they should follow not only the words, but likewise the sense and meaning which was intended in his majesty's proclamation, not in a twofold sense, as if the assembly would intend one sense and the King another, but simply and sincerely by all in the same words and meaning which his majesty did express in his Proclamation. Thirdly, that his majesty did not intend, that it should be sworn and subscribed in such a sense or meaning, as that thereby episcopacy should be condemned is also most manifest. 1. By his majesty and council often rejecting the instant petitions of divers Assemblies, for establishing the second book of Discipline, whereby the power of Bishops is impaired, and absolute parity of all Pastors established; as they acknowledge themselves by that Act of the Assembly at Glasgow 1581. cited here by them, wherein are these words, Because divers suits have been made to the Magistrate for approbation to the book of policy, which yet have taken no great effect. Then because his majesty both before this time, at this time, and after, did show evidently that he did approve the office of a Bishop, as he testified by his divers protestations against those Assemblies which pressed to suppress the same, and by his presentation of Bishops to the places, whensoever they happened to be vacant; as he did at that same very time, present M. Rob. Montgomery to the archbishopric of Glasgow: and by that Act of Parliament 1584. whereby the whole jurisdiction of Bishops was ratified by his majesty with consent of the whole estates of the kingdom.  
Seeing then that this Abjuration or Confession (call it as they please) was framed by the King's majesty, appointed to be subscribed and sworn by his authority, and that in such a sense, as that thereby episcopacy was not understood to be abjured; It must be also presupponed, that all those who did swear or subscribe the same, did it in no other sense or meaning, otherwise they did swear falsely, sophystically, and by Equivocation: therefore it must necessarily be concluded, that by that Oath of the Covenant 1580. 1581. 1590. and 1591. Episcopacy, nor the power and pre-eminence of one pastor over others, or moe particular flocks than one, was not abjured by honest men, who had an efold and upright meaning in taking their Oath. Neither can the interpretation of this assembly at Glasgow 1639. give any sure warrant to those who hath sworn in a sense contrary to the King's meaning; for if this Abjuration or Covenant had been the Act of the Church properly, there had been some appearance that a lawful general Assembly now might give forth the true interpretation thereof; but since it is the King and counsels Act, and the Oath thereto required of all the Subjects by his authority, it doth not appertain to the general assembly, especially such an unformall and unlawful one as this, to declare in what sense it should be understood.  
So that it is but false and vain fear, wherewith they would burden the consciences of all the kingdom of Scotland, as being fearfully perjured, by establishing contrary to the pretended oath of the Covenant, the office of Bishops in Scotland, and giving obedience unto them: But on the contrary, they are rather forsworn and perjured, who contrary to the meaning of their first oath, have by their new rebellious Covenant and ordinance of their Assembly abjured episcopacy. And of this no man needeth to doubt, but that all those who have acknowledged Bishops, and have taken their oath of canonical obedience, and now by persuasion of their Leaders have broken their solemn Oath, in disobeying and contemning their authority, and ratifying their disobedience by another Oath, are evidently forsworn, as most of the Ministers of that Assembly have done; Let them in sincerity of mind search their own consciences in this point, and I doubt not, that if it have any life therein, they will find themselves sensibly pricked thereby.   

CHAP. VII.  
Wherein is answered to their Argument taken from four several sentences of the Abjuration, and particularly to the first.  
HAving now shown that neither by the principal Confession of Faith, nor by the Appendix thereof called Abjuration, nor by the first book of Discipline, nor by any Acts of Assemblies, nor practice of the Church many years after the reformation, this power and preeminency of Bishops here controverted is condemned; it rests that we answer to those Arguments which are brought by them in the body of the Act, to prove the determination of the Assembly, which are neither brought from the Word of God, nor from the testimony or practice of the primitive Church immediately after the Apostles days, nor from any words of the perfect Confession of Faith in the Church of Scotland, but all their Arguments are of a later foundation, and may be in sum reduced to three sorts; first, they bring certain broken sentences ●ut of the Abjuration in the Covenant, which they call the Confession, than some Acts of their late general Assemblies, and thirdly, some passages out of the second book of Discipline to the which we shall answer in their own order.  
And first they bring four several sentences out of the Abjuration or negative Confession, falsifying and wresting them strangely, as to make them appear to have some show of proving their determination: The first passage is in these words, We profess that we detest all Traditions brought into the Kirk, without, or against the Word of God, and Doctrine of this reformed Kirk. The second is, We abhor and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine, but chiefly, all kind of Papistry in general, and particular heads; as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God, and Kirk of Scotland, when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed, Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. The third is, That we detest the Roman Antichrist, his worldly Monarchy and wicked hierarchy. The fourth is, That we join ourselves to this reformed Kirk, in Doctrine, Faith, Religion and Discipline, promising and swearing by the great name of God, that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk, and defend the same according to our vocation and power.  
We answer first in general to all these passages, that by none of them is either episcopal Government abjured, for first in the words themselves, there is no mention either of Bishops or their power and preeminency over others, or their charge over moc particular flocks, or of Presbyteries of absolute parity of Pastors: Therefore except they have recourse to some secret meaning, these passage can serve nothing to their purposes: and we have shown before both by the meaning of the principal Confession of Faith, whereof this Abjuration is an Appendix, and by the explained meaning of his majesty by whose appointment this abjuration is framed, and who required the oath and subscription thereunto, that it cannot be understood in such a sense as that this power and preeminency of Bishops should be thereby abjured, and therefore neither the words nor the s●nse can be able to p●ove their purpose.  
Secondly, we prove the same by the Confession of the Moderator M. Alexander Henrison, and his associates the Apostles of the Covenant; for they in their Disputes with the Doctors of Aberdeen do confess plainly, that by swearing this Confession of Faith, episcopacy was not abjured, and that any man might safely swear that Confession and their Covenant also, without abjuring episcopacy; and by this profession they enticed many to sweat and subscribe their Covenant, who otherwise would n●t have done it. Now either they spoke sincerely at that time according to their knowledge and conscience, and so did flatly contradict this position, That by swearing the Confession of Faith episcopacy was abjured: or else by dissembling policy they did so profess, contrary to their own mind, to serve their own designs in advancing (per fas & nefas) their rebellious Covenant; And so did show themselves jesuitical temporizers and time-servers (En grain) abusing people most impudently to promote their own ends. Albeit this that we have spoken, already may suffice to clear that Abjuration and Coven●●t, or any part thereof, of any such meaning as they pretend, yet that the matter may be more evident, we shall examine particularly every one of these four sentences cited by them, showing that all of them are either falsely or impertinently alleged by them to prove such a conclusion.  
As to the first sentence here produced, by it we may judge (tanquam ex ungue Leonem) what we m●y expects of the rest of these reverend father's 〈◊〉: they begin with a manifest falsehood, and we 〈…〉 divers more in that kind; the words according to that citation are, We profess that we detest all traditions brought into the Kirk, without, or against God's Word, and Doctrine of this Reformed Kirk. Whereas in the Covenant itself it is otherwise, for there the words are, And finally we detest all his (to wit the Roman Antichrists) Traditions without or against God's Word.  
First, we answer that there is a great difference betwixt All Traditions absolutely, and the Roman Antichrists traditions; for albeit we detest as sincerely as they do all Antichristian traditions, yet do we not so detest all traditions absolutely, which have not express or particular warrant from God's Word, if they be not repugnant thereto: the Traditions of the Roman Antichrist are those which are invented by him, for upholding his tyranny over the consciences of men, made equal to God's word, and intruded upon the Church as parts of God's worship, those we detest and abhor from our very heart; but to abjure absolutely all Traditions which are not expressed in God's Word, it was never the meaning of the reformed Church of Scotland, nor of any well reformed Church; for all the ancient Fathers of the Primitive Church, and all Neoterick, Orthodox writers do teach, that some apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions are not only profitable, but also almost necessary to be retained in the church; Necessary I say, if not ad esse simplicter, yet ad bene esse, such as are according to these general rules of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. According to decency and good order, and tending to Edification: and such as are according to that rule of S. Austin lib. 4. contra Donat. cap. 41. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec concilijs constitutum semper retentum est, non nisi Apostolicà authoritate traditum, rectissimè crediture: of which there are many profitably retained in the Church, both concerning doctrine, manners, government, and circumstances of God's worship, as the distinction of canonical books from Apocrypha, the Constitutions of the Apostolic Creed, the manner of the celebration of Marriage before the Church, the sprinkling of water upon the head of the Child in baptism to be sufficient, the gesture of kneeling in the Supper of the Lord, the time and place of the ordinary Celebration thereof in the morning, and in the Church; and such likewise are the Appropriating of the name and title of Bishops, to these Pastors who are set in Authority over others, and divers ecclesiastical Canons concerning the manner of their Government.  
Secondly, albeit it had been so that all Traditions had been simply abjured, (which men of understanding would not have done) yet this sentence could not have served to prove their Conclusion; for although some of the points of the office of a Bishop, now appertaining thereto, be by Apostolic tradition or ecclesiastical constitution, yet this point here called in Question, that one Pastor may have power and preeminency over others, or over more particular flocks, is not a Tradition either against or without God's Word, and Doctrine of this reformed Church; but first it is a most certain written verity approved by God's Word expressly, and the Constant practice of the Church of God, from the very first Constitution of the visible Church and public exercise of God's worship, not only under the old Testament, but under the new also, continued in all Churches until this lust age, which cannot be denied without great impudencic: than it is not against the doctrine of the reformed Church of Scotland, but most conformable thereunto, as we have sufficiently declared before; therefore it is manifest, that this passage can prove nothing for their purpose, but is both falsely and impertinently produced by them.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Wherein is answered the second Passage of the Covenant.  
THe second passage cited from the Negative Confession or Abjuration, is no less falsified than the former, both in the change of words, and addition of others not contained in the original: the words of their citation are, We abhor and detest all contrary Religion and Doctrine, but chiefly all kind of papistry in general, and particular heads, as they were then damned and confuted by the Word of God and church of Scotland, when the said Confession was sworn and subscribed, Anno 1580. and 1581. 1590. and 1591. But the words in the original are only these, As they are now dawned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland: So that they change that particle (now) in (then) and add more which is not in the original, when the Confession was sworn and subscribed Anno 1580. & 1581. 1590. & 1591. Albeit this Alteration seemeth but small to change (now) in (then,) yet in effect, it is very material and subtly made to wrest the meaning of the words to their own purpose, contrary to the intention of those who framed this Abjuration, in making this (Now) relative to the damning of episcopacy in that assembly at Dundie 1580. and others thereafter, albeit it be evident, that there was no such thing intended in the framing of this Abjuration for divers reasons.  
First, that (now) in the King's Covenant, is not to be understood of that present definite time then, when the Covenant was framed or subscribed, but as it is expressly exponed a little before, Now for along time, to wit, from that time when the large Confession of Faith was set forth Anno 1560. and approved by the general Assembly, and ratified in Parliament 1567. By the which Confession those particular heads of papistry were condemned and confuted, and the true Doctrine opposite thereunto, Now for a long time openly professed by the King, and whole body of the kingdom, as it is expressly set down in the same place of the Covenant: therefore it is manifest that this (Now) is not relative to that Condemnation of episcopacy 1580. which was not then for a long time condemned, but only for that present year.  
Secondly, albeit we should grant that this (Now) was not to be understood of that definite time, yet doth it not serve to prove the point in controversy; for albeit by that Assembly 1580. Episcopacy as it was then used in Scotland was condemned, yet this power and pre-eminence, by approbation and practice of the Church of Scotland, were standing in force in the persons of Superintendents, Commissioners or Visitors, and not abrogated until the year 1590. to wit, ten years after▪ the setting down, and swearing of this Abjuration: And therefore this power and pre-eminence, which is the point in controversy, cannot be understood to have been then condemned in the Abjuration 1580. & 1581. for otherwise the Church should have condemned that which in the mean time they did approve and practise.  
Thirdly, notwithstanding that Act 1580. condemning episcopacy, as it was then used in Scotland, yet these points of the power and pre-eminence of one Pastor over others, and charge over moe particular flocks was not condemned, but expressly acknowledged to be lawful by that whole Assembly, wherein episcopacy was called in Question Anno 1575. 1576. as shall be evidently cleared when we shall come to discuss the Acts of those Assemblies.  
Fourthly, those points of papistry in general, and the particular heads damned and confuted by God's Word and Kirk of Scotland, were only such as were opposite to the doctrine contained in the principal Confession of the Church of Scotland, then of a long time professed by the King's majesty, and whole body of the kingdom, as it is expressly set down in the same place of the Covenant: But so it is, that there was no Doctrine contained either in the Confession of Faith, or professed now for a long time by the King and whole body of the kingdom, contrary to these points of power and pre-eminence of one Pastor over other Brethren, or moe particular flocks: therefore these are not points of papistry abjured by the Covenant, as being damned then by God's Word, or the Church of Scotland, and so this passage doth not more serve to prove their purpose than the former.   

CHAP. ix..  
Containing an Answer to the third Passage.  
THe third Passage is in those words We detest the Roman Antichrist, his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy. In this passage indeed there is no false citation as in the former two; yet is there as great impertinency in applying it to their purpose: for I cannot see what they can assume upon this proposition to conclude the point in controversy, except they would say, that all power and pre-eminence of one Pastor over his Brethren, or over more particular flocks is an Antichristian worldly monarchy, and all degrees of ecclesiastical persons is an Antichristian wicked hierarchy, and therefore detested and abjured: But if this Assumption were true, than the high priest in Jerusalem constituted by God himself had been an Antichristian Monarch, and the divers degrees of ecclesiastical persons distinguished by God himself had been an Antichristian wicked hierarchy; for it is most certain, that the High priest had power and preeminency over his Brethren, and charge over all the particular flocks in Judea. The Apostles likewise in the Christian Church, and their fellow-labourers, Tit●u, Timothy, and others had been Antichristian worldly Monarchs, for it is most certain, that they had power and prehe●ninence over their Brethren, and charge over moe particular flocks, as Bishops have now; which may be qualified by the writings of the Apostles, and the testimony of all the Venerable Fathers of the Primitive Church, who lived either in the days of the Apostles, or near to them. So likewise those Reverend fathers themselves, as Polycarpus, Ignatius, Cyprian, Austin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, &c. should be esteemed no better: yea likewise our Superintendents or commissioners of Provinces should have been Antichristian worldly Monarchs. So that the worthy Instruments of God in the reformation of the Church of Scotland, must be thought to have (instead of a laudable reformation) brought in an Antichristian worldly Monarchy in the Church of Scotland.  
But the principal words which they do most urge is the last c●●●se of this passage, His wicked hierarchy, by which words it was made clear (as they allege) in the Assembly that episcopacy was abjured: what was made clear in the Assembly we know not, but we shall make it clear (God willing) to 〈◊〉 (whose eyes are not blinded with partial affection) that those reasons produced in the Act in the end thereof at length (which doubtless were the most weighty they could bring) are foolish, childish and ridiculous, unworthy of such men as they would be accounted amongst the people.  
But before we enter to discuss their reasons, we must first explain the word hierarchy, and show what hierarchy is here condemned: first, the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} amongst the ancient Grocians was used to signify a certain magistracy, the charge whereof was to have a 〈◊〉 of Sacred and Holy things, as of Temples, Altars, and Sacrifices; and from thence was translated by an●ient Christian writers to signify the sacred orders of Rulers in the Church: Now that there is an holy order of Rulers in the Church I think no man can deny, even in presbyterial Government, there are three orders of ecclesiastical persons who bear rule in the Church, and have charge of sacred things, of distinct power and authority, to wit, Pastors, Elders, and Deacons, and so those orders may be ●afely called an ecclesiastical hierarchy; they who understand the Greek word, knows perfectly that it signifies no other thing, but 〈◊〉 of sacred things, or a holy Government: they cannot deny but these ecclesiastical functions have every one their own point of Government, and that about sacred and holy things, why then should they abhor the word, since they acknowledge the thing signified thereby to be competent to their ecclesiastical functions? Is it because the word is borrowed from ethnics? It should not be abhorred for this cause, more than the words Episcopus, Presbyter, and Pastor, which did signify also amongst the ethnics certain offices, or magistracies, as is well known to those who are versed in their writings. Or is it because it hath been abused by the Papists? neither can it for this cause be rejected, taken in a right sense, and separating papistical corruptions from it, more than the other titles given to ecclesiastical officers, which all have been abused in the Popish Church: and that this word Hierarchy may be used to signify the orders of ecclesiastical rulers in the Christian Church, I will bring no other testimony than that of Calvin, who was the first Author of presbyterial Government, he in his Treatise De N●cessitat● ref●rmanda Ecclesia, speaking of the Popish Hierarchy, saith; If they will set us down such an hierarchy, wherein Bishops have so pre-eminence, that they refuse not to be subject to Christ, depending from him as from their head, and referring all to him; wherein they do so entertain society amo●gst themselves, that they be no otherwise bound but by his truth: Then I must acknowledge that th●se are worthy to be called ex●crable, who will not reverence such an hierarchy, and with all humble obedience receive the same. Where we see that Calvin doth acknowledge, that there may be a lawful hierarchy neither wicked nor Antichristian, and such was this hierarchy in the Church of Scotland; consisting of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, wherein Bishops have so pre-eminence over others, as they refuse not to be subject to Christ, and depend upon him, as from their head, and not from the Pope of Rome, &c. And therefore in the judgement of Calvin, those who will not reverence such an hierarchy, are worthy to be accounted execrable and accursed; and since our Covenanters profess, that they reverence the judgement of Calvin more than all antiquity, I marvel how they can bless themselves in this, wherein he accounteth them accursed.  
To the same purpose likewise speaketh Beza, the chief promoter of presbyterial government in his Answer to Saravia De divers. grad. Minist. cap. 21. Albeit he doth not name hierarchy, yet speaking of the Orders in the Roman Church, whereof the hierarchy doth consist, he concludeth in these words, Neither do we accuse of this tyranny, all those who are called Archbishops or Bishops, for what arrogancy were this? yea, we do acknowledge all those who are so called, as faithful Pastors of the Christian Church, providing, they imitate the example of those holy Bishops, in reforming the house of God so miserably, deformed; according to the rule of God's Word; and obey them, and with all reverence receive them: so far are we from that whereof some do most impudently accuse us, that we should prescribe to any our particular example to be followed like to those impertinent men, who esteem nothing well done except that which they do themselves, &c. By the judgement then of these two learned men, whose judgements they can hardly contemn, all hierarchy is not condemned, nor all episcopacy under the name of hierarchy is to be abjured, but only in so far as it is Antichristian and wicked; that is to say, the manifold corruptions and abuses in the orders of ecclesiastical rulers brought in by the Pope to fortify his usurped tyranny; Those with you we also abjure and detest from our very heart. But so it is, that one Pastor to have power and pre-eminence over others, is not to be reckoned amongst these corruptions which were brought in by the Pope or Antichrist, but was appointed by God himself, and practised in the Church by those whom Beza doth acknowledge to have been faithful Pastors of the Christian Church.  
Now to come to the reasons which they set down at length in the end of the Act; the first reason whereby they press to prove that the order of Government under Bishops, having power and pre-eminence over other Pastors, as Presbyters and Deacons, is the P●pish Hierarchy, is in these words: The Popis● hierarchy doth consist of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, that is, baptising and Preaching Deacons, which they prove first by a Canon of the council of Trent. 2. By a testimony of Bellarmine. 3. By a Censure of the university of Paris, of certain Articles sent out of Ireland; which tedious probation was needless, for we do not deny their proposition, but grant that the Popish hierarchy doth consist of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons; But what then? they suppress the Assumption and Conclusion, yet according to logical Rules we may find them out, their Conclusion is known, to wit, that episcopal Government is the Antichristian wicked hierarchy. So to infer this Conclusion upon their proposition as it is set down, nothing can be assumed for the minor, but that episcopal Government consisteth of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. So the whole syllogism must be.  
The Popish hierarchy doth consist of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  
But episcopal Government consisteth of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons:  
Ergo, episcopal government is the Popish wicked hierarchy.  
But by their leave, this is a syllogism, Ex omnibus particularibus & affirmantibus in secundà figurâ, which concludeth not, as they who have learned the first rudiment of logic knows; such as that, Asinus habet aures, tu habes aures, ergò, tu es Asinus. I confess that this may be reduced to a syllogism in primâ figurâ, by converting the terms of the proposition, and making it universal, as Quic quid habet aures est Asinus, tu habes aures, Ergo, &c. But thus the Major is evidently false, and so likewise their syllogism may be deduced in the same manner, by converting the Major, and making it universal, but so it is no more their proposition, thus;  
All Orders of ecclesiastical Rulers consisting of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons is the Antichristian wicked hierarchy.  
But the orders of ecclesiastical rulers in episcopal  
Government consisteth of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  
Ergo, &c.  
But so the major is evidently also false, neither doth their reasons any ways prove it, for if it were true, we might as well prove thereby that the orders in the ecclesiastical Rulers in the Apostles days, and Primitive Church after them, was the Popish wicked hierarchy; for they cannot deny but therein were Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. As likewise that their presbyterial Government is the Antichristian wicked hierarchy, for they grant that their Pastors are Bishops, their Elders Presbyters, and their Deacons are ecclesiastical Rulers also.  
But they seem to object, that their Deacons are not preaching and baptising Deacons as ours are, and those of the Roman Church, but only distributers of the ecclesiastical goods: I answer, their Deacons are so much the worse, as unlike to Apostolic Deacons; and therefore our Deacons and Popish Deacons more Christian, and liker to those who were appointed by the Apostles, for Stephen who was the first of these Deacons was a Preacher, and for his preaching suffered martyrdom. Act. 7. Philip was a Deacon, and yet both a Preacher and Baptizer, Act. 8. 5. & 12. And so we must esteem that all the rest of the Deacons had the same power, nor are they able to show the contrary. We will not be ashamed therefore in this point, rather to join with Papists, wherein they adhere to God's Word and sound Antiquity, than to their new invented opinion disagreeing from both.  
This reason, notwithstanding the gross informality thereof, was good enough for the Common people, who are well pleased, with any show of reason coming from the mouths of their Leaders, and men of learning amongst them either would not or durst not inquire the strength of it: or if they did inquire in their own minds, durst not publish their opinion either by word or writ, because of an Act of this assembly, Sess. 23. Act. 17. prohibiting any person of whatsoever quality or degree to speak or write against this assembly, or any Act thereof under pain of incurring the censure of the Kirk.  
Therefore leaving the informality of this Argument, I answer to the substance of the matter; that all orders of ecclesiastical Rulers are and may be called an hierarchy we grant, in that sense which we have declared, but that all such is wicked and Antichristian we deny, and have even Calvin (the first founder of presbyterial Discipline) for our warrant, as we have shown already▪ and therefore that exception they make, That this hierarchy is called the Antichristian hierarchy, not to distinguish the hierarchy in the Popish Church from any other as lawful, But that the hierarchy wheresoever it is, is called His: is most false, and all the reasons they bring to prove it are as false and impertinent.  
First, they say, as Invocation of Saints, Canonization of Saints, &c. are called his, not that there is any lawful Invocation or Canonization of Saints, but wheresoever they are, they are his; even so (would they say) the hierarchy is called his, not as if there were any other hierarchy lawful, but all hierarchy wheresoever it is, is the Popes, therefore abjured. A solid reason indeed, and worthy of such an Assembly: for first they may as well conclude that all worldly Monarchy is abjured, because the Pope's worldly monarchy is abjured, and so be of the Anabaptiss opinion, that there ought to be no King in a Christian Church; and indeed it is to be lamented that their words, writings and practice do bewray their mind, that they approach too near to those damnable opinions.  
Secondly, this is a manifest putrid Sophis●●●, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter; All Antichristian wicked hierarchy is abjured, Ergo, All hierarchy is abjured simpliciter. A child or an ignorant that knew never a word of logic, may see by natural reason evidently the absurdity of this Argument, for albeit all wicked and Antichristian hierarchy is unlawful, and therefore to be abjured: but since there may be a lawful hierarchy in the Church as we have shown, which therefore needs not to be abjured simpliciter; as if one should reason thus; God hateth all wicked men, ergo He hateth all men simpliciter. This sophism is like that which is in their next Act against the Articles of perths' Assembly, to prove that Confirmation of Children is abjured, The Popish five bastard Sacraments are abjured, but Confirmation is one of the five bastard Sacraments, ergo abjured: It is abjured indeed to be a Sacrament, but not therefore simply, for so they may conclude as well upon that ground that Marriage is abjured, because Marriage is one of these five bastard Sacraments; albeit perhaps the Moderator has abjured marriage, yet I hope all the rest of the Brethren of the assembly will not do so. I marvel indeed, that men esteemed for learned and wise should have blotted paper with such trash, and put such childish Arguments in print, as if they had to deal with none but fools or Ignorants. Thirdly, there is a great difference betwixt Canonization or Invocation of Saints, and an hierarchy: for Invocation and Canonization are sunply evil in themselves, as against God's Word, albeit they had never had the Pope for their Author. But an hierarchy or order of sacred Rulers in the Church is not in itself evil, but only in regard of the Corruptions thereof in the Roman Church, for which respect it is called Antichristian and wicked, and therefore only abjured; though in itself separating these corruptions from it, it may be lawful and retained:  
Secondly, they bring a reason to prove this, that all hierarchy is the Popes in these words, Whatsoever corruption was in the Kirk, either in Doctrine, Worship, or Government, since the mystery of iniquity began to work, and is retained and maintained by the Pope, and obtruded upon the Church by his authority, is his, but all hierarchy is such; Ergo, &c. I answer, that neither the hierarchy in itself, that is the order of ecclesiastical Rulers, nor the power and preeminency of one of these orders above others, is a corruption of the Church, but a perfection thereof, as we have shown before, nor was it brought in since the mystery of Iniquity began to work, but established by God himself long before that mystery of iniquity; And albeit it was retained and maintained by the Pope, yet for that is it not to be rejected more than divers sound points of Doctrine, which are as yet retained and maintained by the Pope; God forbid we should think, that all which the Pope retains and maintains were wicked and properly Antichristian; finally, neither is it obtruded now upon the reformed Church by the Pope's authority, but restored to the former perfection by the lawful authority of the King's majesty, with consent both of civil and ecclesiastical Supreme ●udicatorie of general Assemblies and Parliaments: Therefore this hierarchy in our Church is neither to be accounted the Popes nor Antichristian.  
Thirdly, they allege a passage out of the history of the council of Trent to prove this, Where it is related that the council would not define the Hierarchye by the seven Orders▪ and that we have in our Confession the manifold orders set apart, and distinguished from the hierarchy: Ergo, Gl●ke. I profess I do not understand what they would conclude upon these words, but of this I am assured, they can conclude nothing that serves to prove their conclusion; It hath need of a sharp wit to find any clear consequence thereof pertinent to the purpose, and since they have set down no consequence themselves, it were an idle thing for me to trouble my brains to search it out, and therefore until it be better explained, I leave it.  
Lastly, they allege a passage out of their second book of Discipline, Cap. 2. in the end thereof: Therefore all the ambitious titles invented in the kingdom of Antichrists, and in his usurped hierarchy which are not of one of these four sorts, to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders and Deacons: together with the offices depending thereupon in one word ought to be rejected. If they would conclude upon this, that the ambitious title of Bishop, and the office depending thereupon is therefore to be rejected, (for I can see no other consequence that can be deduced of these words pertinent to the purpose in hand.) I answer, first that they have used as great falsehood in this citation, as they have done in divers others before, for in that same very place cited by them, the title of Bishop is one of these which they acknowledge is given to signify a Pastor of the Church, for a little before, they number these titles to be Pastor, Minister, Bishop, Doctor, Presbyter, Elder and Deacon; and yet they here in their citation, reckon only four titles, whereas in the book itself in the Chapter cited by them seven are reckoned, whereof the title of Bishop is one, and therefore not to be rejected as an ambitio●s title, nor the office depending thereupon. Secondly, the title of Bishop is not an ambitious title invented in the kingdom of the Antichrist, or the Pope's usurped Hierarchy, but is a title given by the Spirit of God in the Scripture to signify a spiritual function in the Church, Acts 1. 20. Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2. And therefore this Citation out of the Book of Discipline is both false and impertinent. Thirdly, Albeit it were truly alleged, and did prove the point directly, yet we account not the authority of that Book so authentic, asto make it an Article of our belief whatsoever is said there.   

CHAP. X.  
Containing an Answer to the fourth place cited out of the Abjuration.  
THe fourth and last passage of the Abjuration or Negative Confession, whereby they allege that episcopacy is abjured, is, We profess that we join ourselves to this reformed Kirk, in Doctrine, Faith, Religion, and Discipline; promising and swearing by the great Name of God, that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk, and defend the same according to our Vocation and power all the days of our life.  
First, we must remark that by these four distinct terms are not signified four several distinct things, but by doctrine, Faith and Religion is signified one and the selfsame thing, for Doctrine to be believed is the object of Faith and Religion consists in the practice of this Doctrine, and Discipline is the means to conserve Doctrine, Faith and Religion, and so we see in the next words, containing the promissory part of the Oath, they are all reduceed to two, Doctrine and Discipline.  
Secondly, we must consider what doctrine and discipline this is whereunto they swear; It is not every point of doctrine which hath been taught in the pulpits of Scotland, nor every point of Discipline which hath been practised in their Sessions, Presbyteries & Assemblies; for then (God knows) how doubtsome and uncertain an Oath this should have been, because those points have been often changed, and some directly contrary to other: the matter of an Oath should be so clearly and particularly set down as is possible; for it be set down indefinitely, men may involve themselves rashly in a contradictory Oath: And therefore those who framed this Oath, have wisely and considerately set down divers limitations of the matter of the Oath, whereby it is made clear and evident, what doctrine and discipline it is whereunto they promise by their oath to join themselves: But our Covenanters have dissembled subtly those necessary limitations, and set it down in general and indefinite terms, only naming in general the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of Scotland.  
Now that we may know more evidently what Doctrine and Discipline is here meaned, I shall set down at more length the words of the Oath as they be in the original: We believe with our hearts and confess with our mo●thes, &c. that this is the only true Faith and Religion, pleasing God and bringing salvation to man, which is now by the mercy of God revealed to us by the preaching of the blessed Evangel, and received, believed and defended by many notable Churches and Realms, and chiefly by the Church of Scotland; particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, established and publicly confirmed by divers Acts of Parliament, and now of along time publicly professed by the King and whole body of the kingdom. In these words are comprehended four necessary limitations of the matter of this Oath, without the bounds of which, it is not to be extended; Albeit it were sufficient to show that episcopacy was not abjured by this Oath, if we prove that by any one of these limitations it can be excluded, yet to make the probation more full we shall make it evident, that not by one only, but by all these four limitations, this point (That it is not lawful for one Pastor to have power and pre-eminence over his Brethren, or over more particular flocks than one) is excluded from this Oath, and therefore not abjured as a Popish error.  
The first limitation is, that they only did swear to adhere to that Doctrine, which is revealed by the preaching of the blessed Evangel, or by God's Word: But so it is that no doctrine condemning this power and preeminency, is revealed by the Gospel, or expressed by God's Word, or depending thereupon by necessary consequence, therefore by that Oath, none was sworn to adhere to any such Doctrine condemning that point: But the contrary doctrine is so clearly testified by the whole course of Scripture, both in the old and new Testament, that it is lawful for one Pastor to have power and pre-eminence over others, or over moe particular flocks, that we much admire why men so versed in Scripture can be so blinded as not to so so clear a Truth, or if they see it to be so impudent, and without conscience to abjure it as a damnable heresy, compelling others to abjure the same by so solemn and fearful an Oath, wherein they move them really to perjure themselves for eschewing a supposed perjury.  
The second limitation is, that the Doctrine whereunto they swear to adhere was that, Which was received, believed, and defended by many notable Churches & Realms, than when this Oath was first made: But so it is that this Doctrine declaring it to be unlawful, that one Pastor should have power and pre-eminence over others &c. was not received, believed, and defended by many notable Churches and Realms at that time; for we can show that the most of the reformed Churches and Realms at that time did profess and practise the contrary, as all the Churches of High-Germany, Rohemia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Hungaria, Helvetia, England, Ireland, and our own Church of Scotland: they cannot produce one Realm, nor any Church that had at that time embraced fully presbyterial Government, except one City of Geneva, which notwithstanding did not so absolutely condemn episcopacy as they do, as we have shown by the testimony of the two chiefest members of that Church, Calvin and Beza. There are now some Churches which have received the Geneva Discipline, as the Palatinate in High-Germany, the confederate Provinces of Lower-Germany, and the reformed Church of France, which notwithstanding had not that Discipline, nor a full established Church amongst them at that time: for the Palatinate continued in the Doctrine and Discipline of the August●ne Confession, until the year 1584. when John Cassitmere Prince Elector after his Brother L●d●wick's death brought in Calvinism, as Lucus O●iander in his epitome, Histor, Eccles. Ce●t. 26. lib. 4. cap. 20. doth testify. In the Low Countries, albeit there were many protestants before, yet had they not an established Church until the year 1583. when as they renounced the authority of the King of Spain: neither had they of France an established Church until the reign of Henry the Fourth. Read over all the Confessions of Reformed Churches contained in that Sy●tag●●●●onfessionum, you shall not find one of them condemning this power and pre-eminence, or episcopacy absolutely. But on the contrary, many of them do expressly approve it: Therefore since there was not many notable Churches and realms, which received, believed and defended, that it was unlawful for one Pastor to have power and pre-eminence over others, or over moe particular flocks, it is manifest that this point was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant.  
Thirdly, the matter of the Oath is expressly restricted to that Doctrine and Discipline, Which is particularly expressed in the Confession of Faith, set down Anno 1560. And ratified publicly by divers Acts of Parliament before this Abjuration was sworn: by which limitation is excluded from this oath all points of Doctrine and Discipline added since, either by Acts of general Assemblies, Synods or Presbyteries since that Confession was received, as that Act of the assembly at D●ndie, 1580. and at Gl●sgow, 1581. Condemning episcopacy, and others of that kind; and such are our Covenanters Additions or Applications of the Confession of Faith, expressed in their Rebellio●s Covenant: And the truth is, that they neither have nor can produce one word of that Confession condemning this power and pre-eminence, neither had the Church who established it any such purpose or intention to do so. But on the contrary, the same Church, at the same very time, in setting down the first book of Discipline, did approve that power and preeminency under the title of Superintendents; therefore this point was not abjured by the Oath.  
Fourthly, the matter of this Oath is determined to be that doctrine and discipline, Which was for a long time before, the first framing of this Oath, professed by the King and whole body of this kingdom. But so it is that no point of Doctrine condemning this power and pre-eminence, was professed for a long time before this, by the King or body of the kingdom: therefore that power and pre-eminence was not abjured by that Oath. For the King's profession we have shown Cap. 6. what it was at that time, and both before and after; then the profession of the whole body of the kingdom cannot be determined by particular men's opinions, but by public Acts either by the Supreme, civil or ecclesiastic Court. And they have not produced any Act of either of those Courts long before, showing such a profession; and therefore, it is to be presupposed that there was none such: But on the contrary, we can produce Acts of both those Courts, not only long before, but also continually since the Reformation, yea at that same very time when this Abjuration was first made, and some years after standing in force, approving this power and pre-eminence: the first Act they can produce, having any appearance of condemning episcopacy as unlawful, is that Act of the assembly at Dundee 1580. which notwithstanding doth not serve their purpose, first, because this Act was not long before (if not after) this Abjuration was first framed, being even that same very year about that same time. Secondly, albeit the office of a Bishop, as it was then in Scotland, be condemned, yet notwithstanding this point, that it was lawful that one Pastor might have power and pre-eminence given him, was agreed unto by the whole assembly, as we have signified before, and shall more fully declare hereafter. Thirdly, long before this the power and preeminency of Superintendents and Commissioners was publicly approved by the first book of Discipline, and by divers Acts of general Assemblies, even then, and some years after standing in force unrepealed, which we have before faithfully cited cap. 5. And as for the civil Courts both of council and Parliament, they declared their profession by rejecting of divers suits made for ratifying the second book of Discipline, which seemed to condemn this power and pre-eminence as in the Assemblies, 1578. 1579. and 1580. cited here by themselves; It is declared that divers suits were made for establishing the second book of Discipline by Act of Parliament, or otherwise, if that could not be obtained, by Act of council, but both the one and the other were often refused.  
Moreover, it was declared by the King and whole body of the kingdom assembled in Parliament at Edinburgh May 22. 1584. that they had no such profession: but on the contrary, in the 129. Act of that Parliament representing the whole body of the kingdom, the whole power, pre-eminence and jurisdiction of Bishops was ratified and confirmed in most ample form. By which it is evident, that there was no point of Doctrine long before the swearing of this Covenant received, believed and defended by the King and whole body of the kingdom, condemning this power and pre-eminence now in question; And therefore that it was not abjured by the Oath of the Covenant. And since it is so, it is strange with what face or conscience they can so 〈◊〉 abuse Christian people, as to impose falsely ●uch a burden upon the Consciences of all persons within the kingdom, both King and Subjects, Pastors and people, in pressing to persuade them against so many evident reasons, that they are all by virtue of that Oath so fearfully perjured, who have consented to the 〈◊〉 of episcopacy.  
But, because this point of episcopacy is understood by them rather to be abjured under the name of Discipline, than under the name of Doctrine: therefore to take away all way of Escape or subt●rfuge, we shall examine the point of Discipline also, and show how far it is included in the Oath; and albeit it be by all those former limitations excluded also, for these limitations are to be applied as well to the Discipline as to the Doctrine.  
Yet for further resolution, we must consider that the word (Discipline) is taken in divers significations, first strictly and properly, for that part of the policy which concerneth the censures of the Church, to be practised upon those who do err either in doctrine, or in manners of life. And so episcopacy, or power and pre-eminence of one Pastor over others is not contrary thereto, but may very well subsist therewith, and hath subsisted actually both during the government under Superintendents or Commissioners, as also under the Government of Bishops since they were re-established: for the same censures which were established by the book of Discipline, by the order set down before our Psalm books, and by divers Acts of general Assemblies long before Bishops were re-established, did still remain the same admo●itions private and public, the same sentence of excom●unication, and manner of proceeding therein, by three private and three public Citations before ecclesiastical Indicatories, the same public prayers ●ppointed by order of the Church of repentance to the delinquent, upon three several Sabbath days, the same form of pronouncing the sentence, and enjoining private or public satisfaction, the same manner of receiving and absolving of the pen●tent. As all within the Church of Scotland do know: And therefore it is evident, that this power and preh●minence of Bishops is not contrary to the Discipl●●e of the Church of Scotland taken in this ●eale; 〈◊〉 apparently it is taken in the Oath for in ●ll speeches or w●●●s of con●sequenc● chi●●● those which are see down for a sol●●● oath, ●hich aught to be plain and clear,) the words 〈◊〉 be taken in their proper and most usual sense, rather than in an unproper and figurative, except by some evident reason it appear that it must be taken improperly. And this certainly is the most proper and usual meaning of this word (Discipline,) as it is taken in the order set down before our Psalm books, in the second book of Discipline cap. 7. entitled of ecclesiastical Discipline, in the second book of Discipline everywhere, and most frequently by all ecclesiastical writers: and therefore those who have obeyed and received Bishops are not perjured, nor have broken that oath, whereby they did swear to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland. But on the contrary, those of this Assembly who have deposed and excommunicated with such precipitation so many Bishops and Ministers, without observing in their process these forms prescribed by the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, are evidently perjured according to their own grounds.  
Secondly, the word Discipline is taken at some times in a more large and ample signification, for the whole policy of the Church, which in the second book of Discipline cap. 1. is defined to be An order or form of spiritual Government, which is exercised by the members thereto appointed by the Word of God, for the we ●ll of the whole body: which policy cap. 2. is divided, first in regard of the persons, in that part which concerneth Rulers, and that which concerneth them who are ruled; secondly, in regard of the thing subject to this policy in three parts. 1. The policy which concerns the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments. 2 That which concerneth the censures of the Church or Discipline so properly called. 3. In that which concerneth the collecting and distributions of alms and ●ent of the Church.  
Now if any will be so obstinate as to contend, that the word Discipline is taken in this large sense in the Oath of the Covenant; for their satisfaction likewise, we must consider that in this Discipline or policy, it is requisite that we distinguish the points which are essential and perpetual, from the points accidental and mutable; or as it is expressly distinguished in the first book of Discipline cap. 9 Entitled of the policy of the Church in things utterly necessary, without the which there is no face of a visible Church, and in things profitable and not merely necessary: the points utterly necessary are those which are prescribed by God's Word to endure perpetually, as that there be Pastors, Teachers and Rulers in the Church, that God's Word be truly taught, and Sacraments administered according to Christ's Institutions, and that the censures of the Church be exercised against scandalous persons, and such other like things. The points not merely necessary but profitable are those, which are not particularly prescribed by God's Word, but left to the liberty of the Church to constitute by ecclesiastical Canons, setting down the forms, Ceremonies and Orders to be observed in God's worship, and ruling of the Church, according as the divers circumstances of time, place, and persons do require: Such as, how many Pastors under what names and titles they ought to bear rule in the Church, over what bounds or what particular persons they ought to have charge, when, where, in what order, gesture, or what habit they ought to preach, pray, or administer Sacraments, and exercise their authority, and divers other ecclesiastical Constitutions concerning their particular manner of Government.  
The first sort ought not to be altered or changed in substance, since they are appointed by God to be perpetual in the Church, and the oath taken in baptism, or entr●e to a calling, doth oblige every one within the Church according to their place and station therein, to observe them perpetually, albeit there had been no other Oath. But so it is that this power and preeminency here condemned, is not contrary to any of these essential points of the policy of the Church appointed by God's word, but most conform thereto, according to the practice of the Church both under the Old and New Testament; And therefore in swearing to adhere to these points of Discipline none have abjured this power and pre-eminence, but therewith have retained those essential points without change or Alteration.  
There be other points of episcopacy, which are comprehended under the accidental parts of the policy of the Church, such as are by what titles or names those who bear chief rule in the Church ought to be called, Whether Bishops, or Superintendents, or Commissioners, or precedents, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Moderatores, by whose advice they should exercise their authority, whether by Chapters▪ or Synods, or Presbyteries, or by other wise, godly and learned men, assumed by their own choice to be their C●uncell: Albeit indeed it be more expedient to use these titles and names, which have ever been used in the Apostolic and Primitive Church, and continued by long prescription in after ages, than those new invented titles, by men affecting singularity.  
These points being alterable in their own nature, as not being precisely commanded in God's word, may be changed by the Church in whose liberty they were left: and therefore no Oath could bind any man to the perpetual observation thereof, in case it pleased the Church for reasons of expediency to alter them; for according to that Common Regula Iuris, juramentum sequitur naturam actus super quo interponitur, if the things we swear unto be of their own nature perpetui Iuris, the oath taken thereupon bi●des to the perpetual observation, and no Creature is able to absolve us of that Oath. But if it be Iuris positivi, and only a Constitution of the C●urch or commonwealth concerning these things 〈◊〉 are left to the liberty of the Church or Supreme 〈…〉 then certainly, the oath taken thereupon, 〈…〉 longer than the Constitution standeth in force, but being altered by that same lawful authority whereby it was established, all are ipso facto loosed from the bond of that Oath: yea all those who have sworn to adhere to the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, are bound by virtue of that oath to follow the Church in the alteration she makes in those mutable points, and to obey the new Acts and Constitutions that concern the same. Although they be different or contrary to the former Acts, and all those who disobey therein contemptuously, are guilty of perjury: Therefore since the Church hath altered upon good and grave reasons those forms and Constitutions of presbyterial Government, established for a time not upon so good grounds unto the ancient approved manner of episcopal Government; all those within the Church are obliged notwithstanding of their former oath to follow the Church in her change without fear of perjury. And on the contrary all our Covenanters, who before the lawful abrogation of the Constitutions of the Church established by lawful authority, have not conformed themselves thereto, but disobeying them in their own persons, and by their exemplary practice enticed, yea compelled others to disobey and rebel to the disgrace of their mother their Church, and breaking of the bond of peace, whereby the unity of the Spirit is conserved do lie under a fearful perjury until they do seriously repent.   

CHAP. XI.  
Answering to the Acts of the general Assemblies produced against Bishops until that Act at Dundee, 1580.  
HAving disoussed those passages alleged out of the Abjuration of the Covenant, it rests that we answer in like manner to the Acts of divers general Assemblies, produced to prove that the Church hath condemned this power and pre-eminence of one Pastor over another and over moe particular flocks: albeit a sufficient answer may easily be gathered by the judicious Reader; out of that which we have said already, yet because many are moved by the Authority of those Assemblies, who do not understand the manner of their proceedings, we must consider them more particularly, to the end than we may show what weight and force they ought to have in the Church.  
Those Acts here cited by them for the more commodious answering without tautology may be disposed in three Ranks, first, some of them contain only preparations to the condemning of episcopacy, as those from the year 1575. to the 1580. next there are some that tend directly to the establishing of the second book of Discipline, transferring the power of Bishops to Presbyteries; thirdly, others are such as condemn episcopacy, which all we shall examine particularly in their own order.  
And first we must observe, that they never allege one word of any Assembly since the Reformation until that at Edinburgh 1575. albeit there were thirty general Assemblies in Scotland before that time, more uncorrupt, holy and venerable, than any of those which are alleged of them; for why they were not able to show by any probability, that before that time the Church of Scotland did think any evil of this power and preeminency, but did continually and constantly approve the same both by her Constitutions and practice.  
Next we must consider the causes and occasions moving the Ministers at that time to alter their judgements in this point, and if we remark the estate of the Church and kingdom of Scotland at that time, as it is known to all these who have taken pains to understand the true history of the Church and kingdom of Scotland in those days, we shall find evidently the occasions of this alteration of judgement.  
First, there were at that time some men of learning, but of fiery and violent humours, come into Scotland from Geneva, who because of their travels abroad and learning were had in great esteem; and they being themselves greatly in love with Geneva discipline, did labour by all manner of persuasions to move others to like both of the clergy and laity, especially Noblemen, to a liking thereof also; at least by entreaties, persuasions, and some show of reason made secretly amongst themselves a reasonable number both of Nobility and Ministry, who carried a great sway in general Assemblies, and were able to make a party if the former Government were called in Question.  
Secondly, they thought the time fit to further their design, in regard of the King's majesty's minority, being then about ten years of age at most, and therefore not capable of the knowledge of that which was most fit for the Government either of the civil or ecclesiastic estate, governed himself by divers men of divers humours.  
Thirdly, there was a great furtherance to this Alteration, in regard of the great troubles, divisions and factions at that time, amongst the nobility and Courtiers, every one striving to thrust out his Neighbour from that employment he had about the King and Court, as witness the violent death of three Regents, and the fourth, like enough, had gone the same way (if his Govermne●t had endured longer) and many of the Nobility cut off by particular quarrels, some justly, some unjustly under colour of legal proceeding: as witness likewise an Act of the assembly at Edinburgh 1578. whereby a solemn Fast was enjoined for divers reasons, Especially because of the civil and intestine, ungodly S●ditions and Divisions within the bowels of the kingdom: Some Noblemen therefore and Courtiers in those factious times, as fishing in troubled waters, to further their own ends did labour to make some pretext of Religion, and therefore did strive to ha●e the Church upon their side, abusing the simplicity of some of the ministry zealous of the new Discipline, and the pride of others impatient of subjection to their Bishops or Superintendents stirring them up to cast off their yoke: knowing that they by their Sermons and private practices might do much, to make the people incline to which faction they pleased best; And by that means to force the King's majesty for fear of a general insurrection to grant them whatsoever they desired, which policy our Covenanting Noblemen have carefully practised now with great but a dangerous effect: there was never yet in those times so bold a Traitor, but he found Ministers of that sect to Countenance him, and approve his doings both privately and publicly, as witness their applauding the Earl of Bothwell in his treasonable attempts, for it is certainly known that of those moneys which was collected by the Ministers for the relief of Geneva, a part was employed to wage soldiers for him, I know and could name if I pleased both the deliverers and Receivers thereof: It is known also that Ministers of that Sect had a chief hand in all those attempts which commonly are called Roads, as at the road of Stritilling, the road of Leith, and the Abbey road, and at the 17. day of December the Earl of Gowry found one of the prime Ministers of that Sect to justify his cause, and refuse to give thanks to God for the King's delivery from that treasonable Attempt. Finally, it is well known how King James of happy memory was vehemently troubled and vexed most unjustly by that Sect, during the time of that anarchy of the Church, as he himself left in record in his Basilicon Doron.  
Fourthly, to those occasions another was joined to further the ruin of episcopacy, to wit, the Sacrilegious greed of some of the nobility and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents, which they perceived they could never obtain so long as the Authority of Bishops did subsist, and therefore did use the uttermost of their endeavour to bear down that estate, pushing forward the Ministers to cry out against the Bishops, and to blue abroad their personal faults both in their Assemblies, Pulpits and private conference, to make the very office itself 〈◊〉 to the people.  
It is therefore more than manifest▪ that those troublesome and factio●s times cannot be accounted a good pr●sident for the Government of the Church in after ages; for shall a few turbulent Assemblies backed and 〈◊〉 forward by factious humours and sacrilegious greed of Noblemen and Courtiers? in the mi●orage of the Supreme Magistrate constituting a new Discipline, by the example of one small city of Geneva, confirmed only by the practice of fourteen or fifteen years at most, be able to counterpoise God's Word, the continual practice of the Church of God both under the old and new Testament, and the example of the blessed Apostles and their Successors, the venerable Pastors of the Primitive Church, continued in after ages in all Christian Nations until this last age; yea retained by the first reformers of the Church of Scotland, and approved by the Church therein for many years thereafter. So that the authority of these Assemblies ought not to move judicious men judging without partial affection: This much in general concerning those Assemblies whereby the estate of Bishops was oppressed in those days, yet to remove all scruple, we shall discuss particularly all the Acts alleged here out of these assemblies, showing that they serve little or nothing to the present purpose.  
First, they allege that Bishops were tolerated from the year 1572. until this year 1575.. But by their leave, they were tolerated from the very first years of the Reformation, for so many of them as did join themselves to the reformed Religion, retaining the title, office, and Benefice of a Bishop, did exercise their jurisdiction 〈◊〉 all the Pastors a●d people within their Diocese by approbation of the general Assemblies of the Church, as we have shown before, Cap. 5. So that this was not as they allege a mere toleration, but a full consent and approbation, at least in regard of their power and pre-eminence above Ministers, and charge over moe particular parishes. It is true that Anno 1572. there were divers bishoprics vacant, and that my Lord Regent did excuse himself to the Assembly, that they had been so long void; as appears by an Act of that assembly at Edinburgh, August 1572. wherein it is recorded, that Alexander Hay Clark of the council presented some Articles in name of the Regent to the Assembly, whereof one is My Lord Regent his grace minds, that with all convenient diligence, qualified persons shall be presented to the bishoprics now vacant, the delay whereof has not been by his own default, but by reason that some enteresse ●as made to those livings in favour of some Noblemen, before his acceptation of the regency; yet his Grace is persuaded that qualified persons shall be speedily presented, and in case of fail●i●, will not fail without the others knowledge or consent to present. So it appears by his excuse, and promise of diligence in times to come, that this was not a toleration only, but an earnest suit of the Church, that qualified persons should be presented as they were shortly after and accepted by the assembly: The Regent at this time was the worthy Matthew Earl of Lenox, a man of a noble and generous disposition, who bent himself to wrest the Church Livings out of the noblemens' hands, and to establish the Church in her proper lustre, which doubtless he had effectuate if he had been suffered longer to live, and so settled things therein, as King James of happy memory, and King Charles now reigning should not have had so much trouble and turmoil in redressing the estate thereof again: But not long after this, he was traitorously murdered at 〈…〉, and after his death another wind blowing, all his designs were reversed, episcopacy born down, and the Church brought to miserable poverty.  
The first Assembly alleged to prove their conclusion is that in August 1575. which notwithstanding doth nothing make for them, but against them rather, as we shall make manifest by the proceeding of that assembly and Conclusion thereof, according as we have faithfully extracted them out of the Register of the Assemblies. At this assembly indeed was made the first public motion against episcopacy (although they had before laid privately their plots in their own conventicles) at the very beginning of the Assembly, when they were calling the Roll of their names, the Bishops (according to the accustomed order in former Assemblies) being first called, the promoters of Geneva discipline set forward one John Durie, a man neither of the wisest nor most learned of the ministry, but of great boldness, which happily he had learned in the Cloister, having been sometime (as I have heard) a Monk in Dumfermling; he rising up made a Protestation, That the calling of the Bishops in the assembly should not prejudge the opinions and reasons which he and other Brethren of his mind had to oppone against the office and name of Bishops; this Protestation being vehemently seconded by others, the question was proposed to the assembly in these terms, Whether the Bishops, as they are now in Scotland, have their function of the word of God, or not: a more formal proposition indeed than this in the assembly of the Covenanters, albeit it have some ambiguity also: they thought it not sit to put the matter presently to the voicing, until it were sufficiently discussed by reasoning pro & contra; and for that effect there are three appointed upon every part to reason the matter, and to report their judgement and opinion to the assembly, and how far they could agree: the reasoners against episcopacy were M●. Andrew Meltin principal of the college of Glasgow, who was the chief man in this cause, M●. James Lawson Minister at Edinburgh, and M. John Craig Minister at Aberdeen: on the other part for Bishops were appointed M. George Hay Commissioner of Caithnes, M. David Lyndsay Minister at Leith, M. John Ro●● Minister at P●rth; they together having conferred and reasoned the matter at length, could not agree upon the principal question, and therefore the Assembly determined by an Act, That they think it not expedient presently to answer to the principal question: yet they who were appointed to reason the matter, reported to the Assembly that they had agreed altogether in certain points, First, that the name of Bishop is common to all them which have charge of a particular flock, to preach the Word and administer the Sacrament, which is their chief function by the Word of God. Secondly, That out of this number may be chosen one to have power to visit such reasonable bounds as the assembly shall appoint. Thirdly, That he may have power in these bounds to appoint Ministers, with consent of the Ministers of that province, and of the flock to which they are appointed. Fourthly, That he may have power to appoint Elders, and Deacons in every particular Congregation with consent of the people. Fiftly, That he may have power to suspend and depose Ministers for reasonable causes, with consent of the Ministers aforesaid. The which points of agreement were ratified and approved by the next general Assembly in April, 1576. whereby it is evident that they did not intend to diminish that power and pre-eminence, which Superintendents had before over private Ministers, or over the particular Congregations within their bounds, which as we have shown before was no less than tha● which Bishops now do require to have in the Church: And therefore that this assembly concluded directly against them, who condemn the power and pre-eminence of Bishops over Ministers and over more particular flocks than one.  
Secondly, we must remark a subtle dissimulation of our Covenanters, who in the Citation of this Act remember only one point of this Agreement to wit, That the Name of a Bishop is common to every one of them that hath a particular flock; but dissembles the other points of agreement which we have rehearsed importing this power and pre-eminence, because they found them directly contrary to their Conclusion.  
Thirdly, albeit they intended at this assembly presently to have thrown down episcopacy to the ground, yet because many wise, learned and godly Brethren did oppose them, standing firmly for the ancient discipline of the Church, there passed five or six years in these contestations before the final sentence was pronounced; in the mean time those Episcopomastiges ceased not to labour diligently by all means to draw others to their judgement, using likewise the persuasions of men of special note beyond Seas; as in the time of the Contestation, the Lord Glames then Chancellor of Scotland was moved by our Genevating Ministers to write to Beza, craving his opinion concerning the present Government under Bishops & Superintendents, to the which letter Beza made a large answer condemning the present Government, and setting down a plot of that policy and Discipline which he desired them to embrace, according to the which they did frame their second book of Discipline, and that in many points ipsissimis verbis, as may appear by conferring the Book with his Epistle.  
That second citation from the Assembly, April 1576. serves nothing to their purpose, for albeit Some Bishops were censured because they had not betaken themselves to a particular flock: yet this might consist with power and pre-eminence over other as is clear in the Superindents, who albeit they had particular flocks wherein they were specially bound to attend in preaching the Word, and administration of Sacraments, yet that did not hinder but that they might have charge over other Pastors and more Parishes.  
Finally, those corruptions of the estate of Bishops which are set down in the assembly at Edinburgh, 1578. were not fully concluded in that Assembly to be damned absolutely, but only proposed by some and craved to be considered.   

CHAP. XII.  
Answering to the Acts for establishing of the second Book of Discipline.  
THe second Rank of Acts cited out of general Assemblies are those which concern the establishing of the second Book of Discipline, such as are that Act of the Assembly in April 1578. Sess. 4. that in April 1578. July 1579. July 1580. Sess. 10. April 1581. 1590. 1591. Sess. 4. to the which they need no particular Answer, but Generally concerning this book of Discipline, we answer, first, that this Book of Discipline was brought in head, and urged by the same means and occasions whereof we spoke before, to subvert the former established Government, and to bear down Bishops, that the Church the more easy might be robbed of her patrimony by Noblemen and Courtiers gaping after the Church-rents, and factious humours striving to singularity, contrary to the mind of the wisest and gravest and most modest of the Ministry, and opposed continually by the King & council and whole body of the kingdom, as the very Acts themselves here produced by them do evidently declare.  
Secondly, the Acts of those Assemblies can be of no greater force than the book itself, for the establishing whereof they were made. But so it is, that this Book is not in itself that Discipline whereunto we swear to join ourselves in the Oath of the Covenant, first, because at this time the book of Discipline was but only a thing in fieri, not as yet concluded when the Oath was made, and therefore could not be accounted to be comprehended therein; for that Ordinance of the assembly at Glasgow, 1581. whereby that Discipline was appointed to be registrated in the Assembly books, did not make it a binding Law, neither was it intended for that end, but as it is expressly set down in the Act itself ad perpetuam rei memoriam, and that the posterity should think well of the intention of the Church. So it was but a thing intended by the Church, but not effected: as likewise that Ordinance of the Assembly at Glasgow 1590. concerning the subscription to that book, did not extend itself to all, but to actual Ministers only, and yet of those many did resist it; as particularly the Ministers of Angus and Mear●es, and divers other parts of the kingdom, for the which cause it was thought needful that a new Act should be made Anno 1591. enjoining again the subscription under a penalty, and particularly to those of Angus and Mear●es. This book was never ratified by any Act of Estate either in council or Parliament, without the which they themselves confess it could not be a Law, as they do in that Assembly July 1579. and that Assembly 1580 Sess. 10. As for that Act of Parliament 1592. here alleged, first, it was after the last urging of the swearing of the Covenant 1591. and therefore could not be included in the Oath. Secondly, it was but a partial ratification, not of the whole book, but of general, synodal, and of presbyterial Assemblies, and Parish Sessions, which did still remain under episcopal government with greater regularity than they were before.  
2. This book of Discipline many years after the first motion thereof, could not be agreed unto by the greatest and best part of the ministry, finding it for the most part but an Imaginary plot, which could be hardly effectuate or endure long in the Church without great corruption, as the event proved. Some of it never put in practice either in the Church of Scotland, or any other Church in the world, like to the frame of policy in Plato's Republik, or of Outopia, as those points de Diaconatu, concerning the collecting and distribution of the rents of the Church: in some points the contrary hath ever been practised, as it is appointed by that Book Cap. 7. That Landward Churches should not nor could not have particular Elderships, and yet ever after there was not so small a Landward Church, but had their particular Sessions consisting of the Ministers, Elders and Deacons. It is likewise there appointed that Elders once lawfully called to the office may never leave it again; and yet it hath ever been an use that he who was Elder this year should be cashiered the next, and every year a new Election made. Item, it is ordained Cap. 3. That all ecclesiastical Parsons, as Pastors, Elders, and Deacons should receive the ceremony of ordination to their office, which are declared to be Fasting and Prayer, and imposition of hands of Elderships, and yet they did never practise imposition of hands upon Elders or Deacons, but only in the Ordination of Pastors: many other points might be brought which either were never practised, or the contrary practice brought in.  
3. If this Book of Discipline be a declaration of the meaning of Church, whereby the negative Confession in the Covenant should be interpreted, than those who have sworn the Covenant, have sworn also to this Book of Discipline; if it be so then, which of all the Covenanters can free themselves of perjury, for I am assured, that the greatest part are not persuaded in their Conscience of the truth of all this Book of Discipline, nor will swear to adhere thereto all the days of their lives: let them put their Covenanting Noblemen, and other Gentlemen possessors of the Church Rents, to an assay to swear that point of this Book ca. 9 That to take any part of the patrimony of the Church (consisting of Tithes, Manses, Glaebs, Possessions, Lands, Biggings, annual rents, and any other thing which hath been at any time before, or shall be in times coming, given for the use and utility of the Church) and convert it to the particular and profane use of any person, we hold it a detestable sacrilege before God. Or that point Cap. 12. That this order which God's Word craves, cannot stand with patronages, or power of presentation, &c. put them (I say) to this Oath particularly, and make them understand, that by swearing to the discipline of the Church of Scotland, they are sworn also to this point; and than you shall find that they will rather renounce your Covenant before they take such an Oath: Or if they have so bad a Conscience as to swear so directly against their mind, before they perform really that which they swear, by restitution of the patrimony of the Church and quieting the Right of Patronage, they shall rather revolt from your Covenant, and conform themselves to the Book of Common Prayer, Book of Canons, and high Commission likewise. So if you should put many of the ministry, especially those who possess rich Parsonages, to swear particularly that point of the policy appointed by this Book, Cap. 9 & Cap. 12. To suffer the Deacons to intromet with all their Church Rents, and to distribute the same by the direction of the ruling Elders, giving one fourth part for the maintenance of their Lay-Elders and Deacons, another to their poor Hospitals and Schools: another for upholding the fabric of the Church and other extraordinary affairs, and only a fourth part to be given to the Minister; they should find few of them who would embrace their Covenant upon those Conditions. So then to persuade people that by swearing to adhere to the discipline of the Church of Scotland, they swear also to this book and to all the points therein, (whereunto the whole Church did agree fully in that assembly 1578. as they allege) either it is a false deluding of the whole Kingdom, in drawing upon their consciences the burden of a fearful perjury, or else the Covenanters themselves remain as yet under that fearful perjury, notwithstanding of the renewing of their Covenant, whereby they think that their perjury is expiate; for they have not as yet renounced those things which they are bound to renounce by their oath.  
4. This Book of Discipline is deficient in the principal points of Church discipline; there is no order set down therein of the censures of the Church, nor of the manner of proceeding to the sentence of excommunication against offenders, or in the absolution of the penitent, or of receiving them again into the Church who has been excommunicated: in which points that which properly is called the Discipline of the Church doth consist. Every Church hath her ecclesiastical Canons, whereby those things are directed, but this book omitting those Canons hath done, as that Painter, who having portrayed every Nation in its proper habit, did paint the French man naked with a pair of tailor's shears in his hand to shape to himself a fashion of habit, because he changeth yearly according to his fancy: even so this book of Discipline hath given to the Ministers, and Lay-Elders in their Elderships, a power to shape to themselves a new form of Discipline every year as they please; so that as I know perfectly, there were few Presbyteries or Sessions in Scotland, but had different manner of proceeding in these things, as I could instance in divers particulars, having seen and perused many presbyterial and Session books. And there is none amongst themselves, who frequented divers Presbyteries, but they know this to be true.  
Finally, this Book is superabundant also, meddling with those things which do not appertain to ecclesiastical discipline, as setting down rules restraining the civil and supreme Magistrate in the execution of his charge committed to him by God, debarring him from meddling with ecclesiastical matters, and not giving him so much power therein, as to a Shoemaker or Taylor being a ruling Elder, and giving him no definitive power, but only to be an executioner of that which they define, and such other points of jesuitical doctrine.  
Seeing therefore this book of Discipline was never fully approved, nor practised by the Church, nor fully ratified by the estate and kingdom, nor received fully by the Covenanters themselves, and since it is de●icient in principal points of Discipline, and superabundant in meddling wit●things impertinent, it cannot be accounted that discipline whereunto all are sworn by the oath of the Covenant: And therefore that all those Acts of Assemblies cited here for the establishing thereof are impertinent to prove their conclusion.   

CHAP. XIII.  
Wherein is discussed that Act of the general assembly at Dundee 1580. Condemning episcopacy, as it was then in Scotland.  
THe principal Act whereupon they chiefly insist, and ground this abjuration and meaning of the Church in these years when the Covenant was sworn, is that Act of the general assembly at Dundee July 1580. whereby The office of a Bishop (as it was then used in Scotland) is condemned as unlawful in itself: and that Act at Glasgow in April 1581. explaining the same, declaring it to be understood not of the spiritual function only, but of the whole office of a Bishop, as it was then used. Albeit the Church appeareth wholly to have condemned by those Acts all the points of the function of a Bishop, yet if we consider rightly, we shall find nothing in them which proveth directly the determination of this assembly; for I cannot see how the whole Church of Scotland did agree at that time in condemning as unlawful in itself, either this point of episcopacy which is condemned by this assembly of Covenanters 1638. or any substantial point either of the spiritual or temporal function thereof, except they grant that the Church at that time did contradict itself.  
First, I am assured they intended not to condemn in Bishops, as unlawful itself, the preaching of the Word, the Administration of the Sacraments, and the exercise of ecclesiastical Discipline, since they acknowledge themselves that these are the principal points of their spiritual function in that Act of the assembly 1575. discussed here before.  
Secondly, neither did they condemn as unlawful in itself, the name and title of a Bishop to be appropriated to some Pastors by others, for first, they did allow the title of Superintendent to be appropriated to some pastors, which is a word of the same sense and signification, and importing as great authority and jurisdiction as the other; And therefore it were but a foolish logomachy, or strife about words to allow the one title, and condemn the other. Secondly, it may as well be condemned as unlawful, to appropriate the name of Minister to the degree of preaching Pastors, which is common to all those who have charge in the Church: or to appropriate the name of Elder to their ruling Elders only, which is common to all Pastors, Apostles, Evangelists, and Bishops.  
Thirdly, neither did they condemn as unlawful in itself, their power and pre-eminence over the Ministers in their Diocese, or charge over moe particular Parishes, first, because there were points agreed upon by both parties before this assembly, and approved by a special Act as we have shown before, Cap. 11. Secondly, because this power was as yet still remaining in the persons of Superintendents, Commissioners and Visitors, and long after this time.  
Fourthly, neither did they condemn as unlawful in itself, their power of Convocation of synodal Assemblies and their moderation therein, for the Church acknowledged this power to be lawful in Superintendents, as we have shown by divers Acts of Assemblies, Cap. 5. for if it were unlawful in itself, it could not be thought lawful under any title whatsoever.  
Fiftly, neither did they condemn as unlawful in itself their sitting and voicing in council or Parliament, or other civil judicatories; for they acknowledge in the second book of Discipline, Cap. 11. That Pastors may and should assist their Princes when they be required in all things agreeable to God's Word, whether it be in council or Parliament, or otherwise. So a little before this time M. Robert Pont, who was a Pastor and Commissioner of Caithenes, had licence from the assembly to exercise the office of a Senator of the college of justice, which was a civil judicatory: That proviso which is added to this doth not import any unlawfulness in the office, Providing they neglect not their own charge, nor by flattery of Princes hurt the public estate of the Church; if any do so, it is but a personal fault, and not essential to the office, for Bishops may do more good in those places for the public weal of the Church, than their Apostles of the Covenant by their long staying in Edinburgh far from their own particular charges, attending the tables of the Covenant, and gadding up and down the country to stir up the King's Subjects to rebellion against him, and to disturb the estate of the Church and kingdom, as many of the Covenanting Ministers have done.  
These are the principal points both of the spiritual and temporal functions of the Bishops, and since they were not accounted by the Church unlawful in themselves, how can this be that this Assembly hath justly condemned The whole estate of Bishops as unlawful in itself; except the ambiguity lurk in these words which are there added and often repeated, As it is now used in Scotland, signifying that it was only the corruptions which were in those who were Bishops at that time which they did condemn, and not episcopacy absolutely. It may be true indeed, that there were some corruptions at that time in those who had the office of Bishops, or that they did not exercise their office aright, retaining some corruptions of the Roman Church, but for these personal faults, the office should not have been condemned of itself, since these corruptions might have been separated from the office, as they were indeed by the new re-establishment of Bishops in the year 1606. 1608.  
And certainly, they understood those corruptions which are remaked to have been in the Bishops by the book of discipline, Cap. 11. whereof some are corruptions indeed, but not competent to that office, as it was now established in Scotland by general Assemblies and Acts of Parliament: others of them are only supposed corruptions, which cannot be convinced to be such indeed, either by God's Word, or testimony of approved Fathers, or practice, or example of the primitive Church. 1. They say, it is a corruption that the name of Bishop should be appropriated to some few: we have answered to this a little before, showing that this is only a proud doting about questions and strife of words, as the Apostle says, 1▪ Tim▪ 6. 4. 2. They account it a corruption, that they addict not themselves to a particular flock: I answer, that they do so, for their Diocese is their particular flock; Then it is neither necessary nor expedient, that he to whom the general charge of many parishes is committed, should astrict himself to one Parish only, nor can the contrary be convinced from God's Word, wherein we find no such divisions of Parishes as is now. 3. They challenge them that they are called Lords over their brethren, and over the inheritance of the Lord: But first we say, that they are not called Lords in regard of their rule over their Brethren, but in regard of their temporal Lordships bestowed upon them by the liberality of Princes, and in regard of their place in Parliament and council: then this title of Lord, like as Dominus in Latin, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek is sometimes a word signifying absolute and illimitated Dominion. So we see that divers Emperors, albeit in effect they had absolute dominion, yet did they refuse often the title of Dominus because it was odious to people, and in this sense Bishops are not called Lords, neither do they arrogate to themselves such absolute and unlimited dominion, as to do what they pleased, but they must be ruled by the Canons of the Church. But otherwise the title of Lord is only a word of honour competent to every man of respect, to whom it pleases the Prince, or custom of the country to give that title, as in France we see the Bishops are no otherwise intituted than other ordinary Gentlemen, calling them Mounsieur; so likewise in Spain and Italy signior, which title is also given to any other man of worth; it is only the custom of the country of England and Scotland, whereby this title of Lord is given to Bishops, and not for any absolute Dominion they arrogate thereby. 4. They account it a corruption that Bishops should have further bounds to visit than they may lawfully (they would say conveniently:) but that corruption may easily be amended by division of the Diocese, as is lately done in the Diocese of St. Andrews, without abolishing the whole office. 5. That a Pastor should have criminal jurisdiction: we answer they have not this as Pastors or Bishops, but as a privilege by the Laws of the country annexed to their temporal lands, which notwithstanding they do not exercise in their own person, but by their Stewards or Bailif●es. 6. They count it a corruption, that Bishops would not subject themselves to the correction and censures of the particular Elderships or Presbyteries: this is but a supposed corruption, and if it were so, it were a great corruption indeed, and a most uncomely and confused disorder, to give liberty to the inferior members to correct the head; it is true indeed, that Bishops ought to be subject to the censures of general or national counsels, and none of them will think themselves exemed from such a one as is lawfully constituted. Albeit the Bishops did decline upon many just reasons this Assembly of Covenanters, which are at length expressed in their declinature, yet if that the assembly had been constituted according to the present established order of the Church, they would never have declined from the same. The last corruptions, they remark in the Bishops as they were then in Scotland, is, that they did not instruct their people in God's Word, which is a corruption indeed, but not essential to the office of a Bishop, or allowed by a Law: if any omit that duty, let them be censured for their personal fault, it is great iniquity to condemn the whole office as unlawful in itself, for the personal fault of one or two.  
But I perceive that the chief thing which was then condemned in episcopacy is, that they did not receive their Commission to exercise their charge from the Church, or that every Minister had not his voice in the Nomination or Election of Bishops, but that they were nominated and presented by the King, elected by those of the Chapton only, and consecrated by other Bishops, and this was the thing which moved them ●o despitefully to condemn that estate, in the constitution whereof every one of them had not a hand, and in all their proceedings both in the book of Discipline and Acts of Assemblies it appears, that this was the chief thing they required, that if they had had their Commission only from the Church or general assembly, they would have condescended to all other points of their function.  
1. In the second book of Discipline, Cap. 11. they confess that albeit Pastors as pastors have not power over more ●locks than one, yet if it be given them by the Church they may exercise it lawfully. 2. In the assembly 1575. it is agreed by both parties as we have declared, that amongst the pastors one may be chosen by the Church to visit certain bounds comprehending many particular parishes, and therein to plant Ministers, to suspend and depose them for reasonable causes. 3. In the assembly at Edinburgh 1578. one of the principal petitions they make to the Regent, was that none should be admitted to vote in Parliament in name of the Church, excep● such as have Commission from the Church. 4. In the second book of Discipline, Cap. 11. It is said that no person under whatsoever title ought to attempt any Act in name of the Church either in council or Parliament, having no Commission from the Church; so that if that had been done, we see that they acknowledge both their power and pre-eminence over other Pastors, their charge over moe particular flocks, their sitting in council, and voting in Parliament to have been lawful, which are the principal points both of the spiritual and temporal function of Bishops, which they challenge in this assembly to be unlawful.  
If then we can show that the Bishops have received from the Church such a Commission, to exercise all these points of their office, how can it be denied but they may exercise them lawfully, since this is the only exception against them in these things: Therefore we shall make it appear that Bishops have received from the Church this Commission. 1. Christ himself who is the head of the Church having all power, gave to the Apostles this Commission to exercise power and pre-eminence in all spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, over all both Pastors and people throughout the whole world. 2. The Apostles who were at the beginning the representative Church, gave the like Commission to Bishops over certain bounds over the which they received jurisdiction, as Paul gave to Timothy in Ephesus, and the bounds of Asia minor thereabout, Commission to plant Churches, to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, to have jurisdiction and Rule over them being ordained, to receive or repel accusations given in against them, and by consequent to judge and correct, or censure them: the same Commission received Titus in the kingdom of Creta; neither can it be doubted, but the rest of the Apostles gave the like Commission unto others in these Nations where they traveled to preach the Gospel, who were to succeed them in the rule and Government of the Churches, wherein they had not only the Name, but also the office, and that power of Bishops which is here called in controversy; as none can deny, except those who will impudently deny all t●rue records of antiquity, since all the o●thodox Fathers who succeeded the Apostles, and lived in the same age with them, do with unanimous consent testify the same. The which Commission was derived from the Primitive Church (who received it from the Apostles) to those of succeeding ages, confirmed by continual practice uncontrolled for the space of fifteen hundred years by any Orthodox writers, until this last age that some of the Church of Geneva began to call it in question. 3. The Commission to vote in Parliament they could not have at the beginning, when there was no Christian Magistrates or commonwealths, yet so soon as kingdoms and commonwealths received the public exercise of Christian Religion authorized by Laws, than the Church considering that many of the civil Laws did either directly or indirectly reflect upon ecclesiastical matters and Religion; and that it was very expedient, that ecclesiastical Constitutions for better obedience thereto should be strengthened by the Laws of the kingdom, they did earnestly supplicate Emperors, Kings and Magistrates that some Commissioners from the Church might have place in their sovereign Courts, whereby Laws were established to further therein the cause of God and the Church, and to take heed Nè Ecclesia aliquid detrimenti capiat: the which supplications Christian Emperors, Kings and Magistrates out of a pious zeal did grant, And therefore did authorise the Bishops and Prelates to sit in their sovereign Courts in name of the Church; this privilege many godly and learned Prelates did enjoy to the unspeakable good of the Church, and advancement of Christian Religion: so that it is no less, but rather a great deal mo●e wicked sacrilege to rob the Church of this so profitable a privilege, than to rob her of her patrimony: and therefore no marvel, though these who make no scruple in Conscience to be sacrilegious in the one, be also sacrilegious in the other.  
4. To come nearer to our Church of Scotland it is evident by all histories, that since there were Christian Princes therein, the reverend Bishops did not only rule the ecclesiastic affairs, but also had a great hand in the affairs of the civil estate, and did much good by their wise counsel to the King, the Church and whole kingdom, before Popish tyranny had place therein; and that since there were any formal Parliament in Scotland, the prelates made up the third Estate, and did represent the whole Church therein, both by the consent of the Church and fundamental Laws of the kingdom, so that to the enacting of any Law, the consent of Prelates was ever thought as necessary as any of the other two Estates. And therefore since by the fundamental Laws of this kingdom, no Act in civil or ecclesiastical matters ever had the strength of a binding Law without the consent of all the three Estates, whosoever will press to suppress the estate of Prelates do reverse and destroy the very fundamental Laws of the kingdom. 5. To come yet nearer to the reformed Church of Scotland, at the very first reformation, those who were appointed in the place of Bishops called Superintendents, had by Commission from the Church as great power and pre-eminence over other Pastors, and all the Parishes within the bounds of the charge committed to them, as Bishops do now require in their Diocese. It is true, the Superintendents had not vote in Parliament, nor could have; for why the Bishops retained still their possession in those places upon their ancient Commission, often ratified in Parliament both before and after the Reformation, never quarrelled by any general assembly of the Church, until that assembly at Edinburgh in October 1578. wherein the Bishops are required only, not to vote in Parliament in name of the Church without special Commission there●ra. And a few years before, to wit, at the assembly at Edi●burgh 1573. the whole jurisdiction and power of Bishops is expressly allowed by the Church, with some exceptious not very material as we remarked before, and yet there is no mention of excepting this power, to vote in Parliament in name of the Church, whereby they do tacitly at the least approve this the ancient Commission of the Bishops to vote in Parliament in name of the Church.  
Finally, at the last re-establishing of Bishops, thou Commission to vote in Parliament in name of the Church was expressly given to them by the Church; for first, by that assembly at Montrosse 1600 the Church gave Commission to a certain number of Ministers (though not under the title of Bishops) to have a care of the general affairs of the Church, and to voice in Parliament in name of the Church: then the general Assemblies at Glasgo● and Lithgow in the year 1606. 1608. 1610. they did under the very title of Bishops receive full Commission from the Church, not only to vote in Parliament, but likewise to exercise their whole jurisdiction, power and and pre-eminence over all Pastors and people within the bounds of their Diocese, and so every Bishop particularly by their election and consecration receives power to use this Commission, whensoever occasion shall be offered: neither is it necessary, that for every several Act they do in name of the Church, they have a new particular Commission for that effect; but it is sufficient, that by the consent of the Church and Estates of the kingdom, this power is annexed to the office of a Bishop for ever, so that whosoever should be elected to that office, should have this Commission once for all during his life time, or until by his malversation in his charge he be lawfully and legally deprived.  
It is true indeed, that the Church may add new Articles to their Commission, as times and occasions requires; as is done in England and Ireland where the Convocation of the clergy sits ever in the time of Parliament, to consider upon such Articles as are thought by common consent to serve for the we'll of the Church, and by them are presented to the Bishops, that by their care they may receive due ratification: but the turbulent behaviour of some Ministers in Scotland, who scorns to have their petitions proposed orderly by the Bishops, hath as yet barred the clergy of Scotland from that privilege.  
Now to conclude this point, since for aught we can see, the only exception that the Church of Scotland hath made against any point of the function of Bishops, at that time when episcopacy was condemned as unlawful, Anno 1580. & 1581. is that they had not their power and pre-eminence by Commission from the Church or general assembly, and since that exception, as we have shown, is now removed, it is evident that those Acts of the Assemblies at Dundee, 1580. and at Glasgow, 1581. do not serve to prove the Conclusion of this assembly, and therefore are impertinently alleged.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
Discussing the rest of the Acts of Assemblies here cited.  
SInce all the rest of the Acts in the subsequent Assemblies against Bishops are grounded upon these two former Acts, whereby the office of a Bishop was condemned, and since we have shown in the former Chapter that they do not serve to prove the Conclusion of this assembly, and therefore the rest of the Acts depending thereupon must have as little strength as they, so that we need not to insist in the particular discussing of every one of them: yet lest it be thought that we have over past them altogether, we shall remark some few particular observations upon them, whereby it may be perceived that if they serve not for their purpose here▪ yet that they serve in divers points against them. First, those Acts cited here concerning the presentation by the King, and admission by the Presbytery of Glasgow of M. Robert Montgomerie to the office of the Archbishop of Glasgow. and of M. Robert Po●s to be Bishop of Caith●es, and the divers ineffectual suits made by the general Assemblies to the King, council and Parliament, for advancing of their presbyterial Discipline, and suppression of Bishops, to wit, those presented by the Assemblies 1580. 1581. & 1587. serves against them in so far as they declare, that their violent proceedings against Bishops, and for establishing of their new discipline, was not allowed by the King's majesty and council, and whole body of the kingdom in Parliament all this time, but directly resisted, as contrary to their wills and manifest intentions, whereby it is evident, that neither the King nor the council, nor the whole body of the kingdom had any such meaning or intention, as by that oath of the Covenant, to abjure episcopacy. 2. Although that the King and estate suffered an Act to pass in Parliament 1592. establishing in a part their new discipline, yet was it not their meaning to approve the same directly. But for a pregnant reason of estate, they did tolerate lesser evils, that greater might be eschewed: for at that time it is well known, that the King and estate were mightily astonished by the late discovery of a dangerous conspiracy of sundry Noblemen of greatest power in the kingdom, by the practice of some tras●ieking Jesuites and Gentlemen affected to the Popish Religion, such as Father Creightou, father Abercromy, Sir William Graham of Fentry, M. George Carr, and others who brought in great sums of Spanish gold, and promised greater, whereby those Noblemen and many others of their Faction were corrupted to betray their Native country, promising by their letters, and subscription of blank papers, to give way and assistance to the King of Spain's navy to enter within the bowels of the kingdom: No marvel therefore, although (in so perilous a time, when a total ruin both of Church and kingdom, of policy and Religion was feared and threatened) the King and estate thought it fit for eschewing the present danger, to give way at that time to those new Disciplinarians, suffering that Act of Parliament to pass in their favour; fearing that if they should have resisted their present importunity, turbulent spirits (as some of them were) might have made a further distraction, even amongst these who adhered to the true Religion, whereby an other gate might have been opened for the entry of foreign enemies, and so the estate being thus divided should have been less able to resist the common enemy.  
This was the very true reason whereby his majesty was in a manner forced to condescend to this Act, whereof they brag so much, contrary to his own judgement and constant intention: as is evident by that which followed, for no sooner was that blast past, and that conspiracy repressed, but King James of happy memory did set himself more earnestly than ever he did before, to re-establish episcopal government, and bear down that new discipline, the evils and corruptions whereof disturbing both Church and commonwealth he perceived daily more and more.  
3 We must remark that this Act of Parliament 1592. was the first that ever did allow presbyterial Government by a Law, and therefore ought to be accounted the first establishment thereof in the kingdom of Scotland, whereby it appears, how short a continuance it had in this Church, and how soon it became loathsome to all estates of persons, Spuria, putamina non agunt altas radices: For not full eight years after this, in the assembly at Montrosse, 1600 it received a great blow, and episcopacy was by one step more advanced, wherein it was concluded that a certain number of ministers who were nominated by the King, should supply the place of Bishops, by voicing in Parliament in name of the Church, and to have a care of the general affairs thereof under the name. of Commissioners, whose power was enlarged by that Assembly at Haliru●house, 1602. and Bishops thereafter under their own proper title were established in their full power and jurisdiction by the general Assemblies of the Church 1606. 1608. 1610. & solemnly ratified by consent of the three Estates in Parliament, 1612.  
4. We cannot omit that Act cited out of the assembly March 1589. wherein it is said for as much as the Neighbour Kirk in England is understood to be heavily troubled for maintaining of the true Discipline and Government, whose griefs ought to move us: therefore the presbytery of Edinburgh was ordained to comfort the said Church in the said matter. I cannot conceive whom they call The Church of England here, except it be some few schismatics, who a little before this time were challenged before the star-chamber, for disturbing the Church and kingdom, by promoting unto the people a new form of Discipline, different in many points both from the Scottish Discipline, and that of Geneva; who because they did obstinately refuse to answer to some interrogatories proposed to them by the council of England, were committed to prison; of which number was one Wigintone, who stirred up three fanatical fellows, Edmund Coppinger, William Hacket and Henry Arthington to labour for their relief, persuading them that they were extraordinarily called thereto, Hacket being mightily possessed by this humour did give out that Christ was descended from heaven with his fan in his hand, and had called him extraordinarily to purge both Church and commonwealth, he sent out before him his two principal Prophets Coppinger and Arthington, to whom he assigned a diverse charge, that Coppinger should offer grace and mercy to the people, if they would believe and follow him, for the relief of the faithful servants of God, and Arthingtone should denounce God's wrath and eternal damnation to unbelievers who would not adhere to them: those two being sent by Hacket came to the streets of London, and did preach according to their charge, railing impudently against the Queen and council, declaring openly that she was fallen from her right to the crown, and that Hacket was their King whom they ought to obey, being placed in Christ's stead; whereby they moved great multitudes of the Common people to follow them, but before they could effectuate their purpose, they were prevented by certain of the council sent by the Queen, who apprehended them in the very Act at Cheapside the 16. of July 1591. for the which cause Hacket was executed as a Traitor, Coppinger killed himself in prison, and Arthington repenting him of his madness did confess their whole proceedings: in whose Confession it was declared that they had received an encouragement to this attempt from Scotland by the means of one Penry, who having been a certain space a Preacher in Scotland, wa● returned a little before this enterprise, and was lurking then in the City of London, or in some place thereabouts: this Penry was chiefly the man who procured these consolatory letters from the Assembly to his Companions, to the great disgrace of the Church of Scotland, as having given encouragement to further such a treasonable attempt: and apparently that letter written from Scotland by one Gibson to Coppinger was one of these consolatory letters ordained by the assembly to be written to them; wherein he saith, The best of our Ministers are most careful of your estate, and have sent for that effect a Preacher of our Church (to wit Penry) this last summer (1590.) of purpose to confer with the best affected Ministers of your Church, to lay down a plot how our Church might best travel for ●our relief. I have heard some of the wisest and gravest of the ministry of Scotland at that time, who did heavily regrate that the Church of Scotland was mightily abused by this Penry, who although he was for a time in great estimation amongst the people, and some of the chief Ministers likewise, yet they found him at last an arrant K●ave.  
I am sorry that the Brethren of this assembly have been so inconsiderate, as to refricare ban● scabie●, in calling to remembrance again, that oppro●ric of the Church of Scotland in these times, as having had two deep a hand in that attempt, to stir up a Combustion in our Neighbour kingdom and Church, but our Covenanters are so far from being ashamed thereof, as they cease not as yet to use all means to do the like, if they could find in England such fanatical fellows, as Hacket and Coppinger.   

CHAP. XV.  
Discussing the Conclusion of the Act.  
NOw after they have set down their confused rhapsody of Reasons for proving the determination of their Assembly, they conclude in these hyperbolical terms, All which and many other reasons being publicly read, and particularly at great length examined, and all objections answered in the face of the Assembly, all the members of the Assembly, being many times required to propone their doubts and scruples, and every one being heard to the full, and after much agitation as fully satisfied, &c. magnific words indeed. Dare pondus idonea fumo. able to give weight to the light smoke of their reasons: it is a strange matter if it be true that in one only Session, in the shortest day almost in the whole year the 8. of December, so many things could be done to the full, that all these reasons and many others could be particularly at great length examined in so short a space, All objections that could be proponed exactly answered Every member of the Assembly heard to the full, Every member of the Assembly being many times desired and required to propound not only their great Doubts, but their small scruples also; and after much agitation all being fully satisfied: certainly, the persuaders had need of great volubility of tongue, to repeat so many reasons in so short a time, to propose and to answer to many so strong objections, as might have been alleged against their Conclusions, and the Eloquence of Cicero or Demosthenes, yea, the tongues of Angels to persuade to the full all their hearers of the truth of their reasons and answers: and these who were contrary minded had need of pregnant wits to conceive all their persuasions so quickly, yea of some secret enthusiasm and divine inspiration to change their hearts, who not long ago were fully persuaded to the contrary, and had confirmed their per●wasion by their oath of canonical obedience to their Bishops, and had practised accordingly for a long time: all these things alleged here to have been done, had required a greater space to have done them Exactly to the full than the space of a whole month, which was the whole time this Assembly did sit in determining with this point many other Articles of no small consequence; so precipitate were they in their determinations, fearing les● they should have been prevented, before they had vented their great malice against Moses and Aaron, the King, and the Bishops to the Full.  
Secondly, after this Bravado the Moderator did put the matter to voicing in these terms, Whether according to the Confession of Faith, as it was professed in the year, 1580. 1581. & 1590. there be any other Bishop, but a pastor of a particular ●●ock, having no pre-eminence nor power over his Brethren, and whether by that Confession, as it was then professed, all other episcopacy is abjured, and aught to be removed out of this Kirk.  
This proposition we have discussed before at the beginning in stating the question as was most fit, to the end we might more easily perceive whether the reasons alleged did conclude directly the point in controversy: where we have shown evidently, that this proposition, as it is here set down, was informal, obscure, ambiguous, sophistical, and such a one as it was impossible to answer Categoric●, either affirmative or negative, as all voy●es aught to be given and are accustomed to be in any orderly meeting, therefore we need not to insist further therein in this place.  
Thirdly, when it comes to the voicing, they say, The whole Assembly most unanimously without contradiction of any one (and with the hesitation of one alla●erly) professing full persuasion of ●ind did voice, &c. No marvel, though all these who were present and admitted to give voice, did so without contradiction, since all those whom they suspected, would make any contradiction were either excluded from being Commissioners, or if they were chosen Commissioners, were debarred from voicing by the Rulers of the Covenant, according to the instructions sent from their Tables at Edinburgh, and directed to every presbytery, some publicly to all, some secretly to those of every presbytery, who were most affected to the cause; and to make this evident, it shall not be amiss to set down some of their instructions verbatim. 1. Order must be taken that none be chosen ruling-Elders but Covenanters, and those well-affected to the business. 2. That where the Minister is not well affected, the ruling-eld be chosen by the Commissioners of the Shire, and spoken to particularly to that effect. 3. That they be careful that no Chapter-men, Chappel-men, or Ministers, justices of peace, be chosen Commissioners although they be Covenanters. 4. That the Commissioners of the Shire cause convene before them the ruling-eld of every Chur●h before the day of the election, and enjoin them upon their oath that they give vote to none to be Commissioner, but to those who are named already at the meeting at Edinburgh. 5. That such as are erroneous in doctrine or scand●lous 〈◊〉 life (and such only they account those who are contrary to their Covenant) be presently processed, that they be not chosen Commissioners, and if they shall happen to be chosen by the greater part, that all the best affected protest against them, and come to the Assembly to testify the same. There were divers likewise who were chosen and admitted commissioners, and yet did remove themselves when the assembly was discharged by the King's authority, out of conscience of obedience to the Sover●igne majesty and detestation of Rebellion before this point was put to voicing: Therefore none remaining except these who were resolved to be partakers of Rebellion, no marvel, though none of them did contradict their rebellious Leaders.  
We see indeed this same unanimous consent in all the rest of the Articles which were put to voicing in this Assembly, whereby it may be clearly discerned, that all of them before this time were resolved upon amongst themselves, by a sensible preagreement at their Tables at Edinburgh, to the which agreement, they did astrict all the Commissioners before they were admitted to have voice in this Assembly: and for that effect it is enjoined both by their secret and public instru●tions. That every presbytery shall send their Commissioners to Edinburgh before the first of October (which was seven weeks before the day appointed to the beginning of the Assembly) to the end they may know their own strength the better at their next meeting. So that these Acts cannot be accounted the Acts of the general Assembly of the Church at Glasgow, but rather Acts of those seditious tables of Covenanters at Edinburgh, and only repeated here at Glasgow for the fashion.  
Fourthly, wherein was this unanimous consent of their suffrages? It was (say they) That all episcopacy different from that of a Pastor over a particular flock, was abjured in this Kirk, and to be removed out of the same. If this was their unanimous suffrage and no more, I marvel not that there were no contradiction: Yea, I believe, that if all the Bishops in Scotland, and all those who had refused to subscribe their Covenant, had been admitted to give their voice, they should not have contradicted this: for neither do these words answer to the propositon of the Moderator, nor do they condemn episcopacy in any point, as it was then used in Scotland, or in the primitive Church.  
As for the first, that it doth not answer directly to the proposition, I prove it in two substantial points: for first (as we declared before in setting down of the state of the question) the Moderators proposition included three distinct questions. 1. Whether according to the confession of Faith, as it was professed anno 1580. 1581. & 1590. there be any other Bishop but a Pastor of a particular flock, having no pre-eminence nor power over his Brethren. 2. Whether by the confession of Faith, as it was then professed, all other be abjured. 3. Whether all other ought to be removed out of this Kirk or not. But in voicing they answer only to the last two, omitting altogether the the first, which notwithstanding is the ground of both the other: And indeed considering the informality of the proposition, I esteem that they had good reason to answer so, for if they had done otherwise, their voices had been as informal and intricate as the proposition was, because they could not answer Categorically to all three at once, for why, according to their grounds they behoved to answer to the first Negati●●, and to the other two affirmatiuè; and therefore lest their answers should have been obscure and intricate, including both a negative and affirmative voice, they did wisely to answer to those questions only, to the which one affirma●ive voice might serve. 2. The propo●ition containeth two points of Episc●pacie, to wit, Charge over moe particular flocks, and power and pre-eminence over other Brethren, demanding, if both these points be abjured or not, and both to be removed: But in voicing they determine only the first point concerning their charge over moe particular ●locks than one, not a word of their abjuring or removing their power and pre-eminence over their 〈◊〉, which notwithstanding is the chief point that doth most grieve our covenanters, and for removing whereof they have raised all this trou●l● Be it therefore known to all, that this Assembly which was 〈◊〉 conve●ned to condemn episcopacy▪ did 〈…〉 this power and pre-eminence over their 〈…〉 therefore that this standing still in force in the Church of Scotland, whosoever yieldeth not due obedience to the Bishops according to their oath, are evidently perjured, and are not absolved from their oath by this Assembly except they would say that they have extended the Conclusion further than all their unanimous voices could suffer; which as they must confess is the greatest iniquity which can be committed by any Assembly whatsoever.  
Finally, if it be so, that no episcopacy is here condemned, except that which is different from a Pastor of a particular flock; there is nothing here condemned in the Bishops, either as they were of old in the p●imitive Church, or were of late in Scotland, and are as yet in England and Ireland, yea, no episcopacy is here abjured, except that of the Bishop of Rome, who only arrogates to himself to be the Pastor of the universal flock: all other Bishops requires no more, but to be a Pastor of a particular flock, and as Cyprian faith, Episcopatus 〈◊〉 est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur: there is no bounds prescribed by God's word of a particular ●lock, but the Church by the Authority of the magistrates, for the more commodious ruling of the Church, and for conserving unity, have divided Kingdoms in provinces, and provinces in particular Dioceses, and Dioceses in particular parishes, appointing to every part their own rulers, so that as a parish is the particular flock of a Presbyter or Minister; even so a Diocese is the particular flock of a Bishop, the province the particular flock of an Archbishop, and the Nation or kingdom in regard of the universal Church is the particular flock of a Primate. Neither may any Bishop lawfully usurp charge over the particular flock of another Bishop without his consent. Their Apostles of the Covenant who went through the Country to preach, not the Gospel of peace, but their seditious Covenant and mortal war against the King and all his loyal Subjects, albeit they pretend to be Pastors only of a particular parish, yet did violently intrude themselves to exercise charge in the parishes of other pastors, without warrant or authority, or lawful calling from the Church, and contrary to the Constitutions of the Church of Scotland, established even then when presbyterial government was in greatest force, drawing after them many thousands of people to disobedience and open Rebellion, and by consequent to perdition, except they repent; and yet who dare be so bold as to say to any of them cur ita facis?  
I cannot see what they can answer to this gross and absurd escape in not answering by their voices fully to the proposition, and extending the determination of the Assembly further than the voices can suffer, except that they would allege that it is a fault in the Printer, and that it was otherwise in the original Register, which is not like to be true for these reasons: first, because if it had been so that they had answered fully to the proposition, their suffrages should not have been categorical, but very informal and intricate, including both a negative and an affirmative voice. 2. Their Clerk M. Archibald Johnstone hath testified the contrary, by adding to this printed copy, and all other which I have seen his sign and manual subscription, testifying thereby that they are printed according to the original Acts contained in the authentic Register, out of the which he affirms, he hath not only collected and extracted these Acts, but also visied them, to see if the extract was according to the original; if he had committed such an absurd escape in omitting the very principal point whereupon the whole Act doth depend, and being that Act also for the which the Assembly was chiefly convened: he hath certainly shown himself a very ass, unworthy of that trust which the whole Assembly did commit unto him by an express Act, constituting him the only visitor and approver of all things that are to be printed concerning the Church or Religion. 3. Albeit it had been true that Johnstone might ●ave overseen himself so far, yet how could it be possible that the Moderator, and others committed to visit the Acts should have suffered such a fault, as reverseth the whole Act about the which greatest care was taken to pass forth before it was diligently corrected.  
Therefore I cannot but believe assuredly that there was no fault committed by the Printer, but that the Act was printed according to the original Register, and that it was so written in the Register, as it was voiced unanimously in the Assembly, and that the voycers had no other meaning then their words did express: and therefore that nothing in effect was concluded in this Act against episcopacy, as the title of the Act bears. And so we may conclude justly in these words of the satiric. Poet: Parturiunt moutes & nascitur ridiculus mus.  
FINIS.