maintains that the Ministers who of old took the canonical Oath did not swear the contradictory thereto when they took the Covenant whence it will follow necessarily that they who have taken the Covenant do not contradict that Oath if they should take the Oath of canonical Obedience and indeed it will be hard to find out a contradiction either in termes or by necessary consequence But if the obligation of the Covenant as to that second article shall be found to cease whereof afterward the lawfulness of the other Oath will be clearer 3. It would be considered that the Reverened Persons intrusted by Law to call for that Promise from Ministers do not search into mens apprehensions concerning the grounds of their power all they seek is obedience to them in things lawfull and honest as being presently in power being by Law ordinary Overseers of the Ministry in their duties and chief Ordainers of them who enter into the Ministry But it is said where obedience is promised there is an acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Power Office and Authority because obedience formally cannot be but to a lawfull Authority therefore he that in his conscience thinketh a Bishops Office unlawfull cannot so much as promise obedience to him in things lawfull and honest lest by his taking such an Oath he make himself guilty of establishing that which he accounts unlawfull But 1. it is not obedience under a reduplication and as formally obedience they call for if it be obedience materially Ministers doing their duties in things really lawfull they are satisfied 2. Suppose it were so that obedience as formally obedience were required yet it were hard to say it could not be promised or that it could not be acknowledged that they have any lawfull Authority for waving the consideration of any ecclesiastical Office wherein they may pretend to be superiour to other Ministers and giving but not granting that as church-Church-ministers their Office and superiority were unlawful yet looking upon them as the Kings Majesties Commissioners in Causes ecclesiastical for regulating the external order of the Church in their several bounds and impowred by the law of the land so to do they being also Presbyters and having power with others in Ordination and Jurisdiction ecclesiastical it will be hard to say that their power is not lawfull and that obedience is not due to them The strictest Presbyterians will not find ground to disown their Office in that consideration There are three things mainly which bear off Brethren of both these sorts and ranks from submitting to and concurring in their duties under the present Government 1. Their fears of future evils 2. Their present thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop over Presbyters in the Church 3. Their former Engagements by the bond of the Covenant which they conceive still binds them As to the first their fears there can be no sufficient ground in these to bear them off from that which for the present is found to be their duty If evils feared should come and Brethren in conscience toward God not able to comply with them then suffering might be the more comfortable but the gracious providence of God watching over his Church the goodness and wisdom of our Soveraign and of Rulers under him considering the temper of this Nation may make all these fears vain and disappoint them and it is not for us to be too thoughtful or to torment our selves with fears before the time In the mean time it would be well considered by Brethren that bear off from concurrence if they do well in withdrawing their counsels from their Brethren and in doing that which tendeth to the loss of their enterest in and respect with persons in present Authority in regard whereof they might be exceedingly instrumental to prevent any thing that is feared 2. As to their thoughts of the unlawfulness of the Office of a Bishop something hath been said of the lawfulness of their concurrence in unquestion'd duties even upon that supposition something also hath been said of the acknowledgment of the lawfulness of their Office looking upon them as Presbyters commissionated by the King for external ordering of Church-affairs in their severall bounds and of the lawfulness of obedience to them as in that capacity It is not the purpose of this Paper to dispute much for their Church-capacity or Rule over Presbyters or anent the Office of Bishops as an order of Church-ministers Only as to this three things would be seriously pondred by Brethren 1. Where they are able to find in all Christs Testament any precept for meer Presbyters preaching and unpreaching in a full equality of power to rule the Church of Christ to give Ordination to Ministers to judge in all controversies of Religion ministerially and do all acts of Government in the Church or where they can find any example of such a Presbytery doing these acts without some superiour Officer acting with them or directing them in their actings or where there is any inhibition either expresse or by necessary consequence that no Gospel-minister should in any case have superiority in power over others in Church-affairs 2. Let it be considered if descending from the Scripture times it can be found in any Writer who lived in the first two or three ages after Christ or in any History or Record relating to these times not to speak of after-ages it can be found that there was any such Church-officer as an unpreaching Elder joyned in full equality of power with Preaching-elders in acts of Ordination of Ministers from which if they be necessary parts and members of the Presbytery they cannot be excluded and in all other acts of Jurisdiction or if there be any mention of the names or power of any such persons Or if it can be from these Writers found that there was ever any Ordination of Ministers or exercise of Jurisdiction ecclesiastical by Ministers i. e. by meer Preaching-presbyters without some one stated President over them under the name of Bishop who was to go before them in these actions and without whom nothing was to be done in these Shall not the practice of that primitive Church which followed the Apostles as it were at the heels be most able to shew us which way they went and what was their practice It is too horrid a thing to imagine and that which a modest Christian can hardly down with that immediately after the Apostles times the whole Church of Châ—â—â—t should agree to so substantial an alteration of the Government of the Church suppos'd to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles as to exclude one sâ—â—t of Officers of his appointment and to take in another not appointed by him And that it should be done so early Statim post tempora Apostolorum aut eorum etiam tempore saith Molinaeus Epist 3. ad Episcop Winton Bishops were set up in the time when some of them especially John were living viventibus videntibus non
that Article the Covenant is not to be understood in sensu divisô but compositô which sureth to Mr. Baxters complex frame And therefore asserts that continuing of Bishops with a negative voice in Ordination and ministerial Meetings might be permitted without breach of Covenant And if it be so as this learned man and others mention'd concede What reason is there to bend the Covenant against the present Episcopacy of Scotland which is establish'd to govern the Church not excluding but with consent of Presbyters with as great moderation as any was in the primitive Episcopacy But it will be said then we stand bound against the English Prelacy as it is explained in the Covenant Ans It will be time to dispute that when we are called to live under that frame of Prelacy In the mean time let it be granted that the Church establishment amongst us is not that which the Covenant describeth to be renounced neither are we rashly to judge the way of other Churches which we are not called to own they are to give an account of their own way to God and the King and will allow us a discharge from meddling in their affairs and they are not like in hast to give us any place or calling in modelling their Church-government to which all protestant Churches ought to pay reverence But again it will be said was not the form of Episcopacy that was in Scotland before from which the present is nothing different abjured in the National Covenant before we had any dealing with England anent change of their Church-government Ans If we will believe the Ministers who reason'd with the Doctors of Aberdeen and they were the prime promoters of the Covenant and carried with them the sense of the body of the Covenanters they who subscribed that Covenant might with great liberty voice in an Assembly concerning Episcopacy without prejudice notwithstanding their Oath And upon this ground would perswade the Doctors to subscribe the Covenant because in so doing they should not be taken as abjuring Episcopacy as the Doctors thought But notwithstanding their Oath and subscription had their liberty remaining entire to voice for Episcopacy in an Assembly See their answer to the Doctors their fourth and tenth demands And the truth is that as in the explication added anno 1638. Episcopacy is not mentioned as abjured so neither was it abjured by the National Covenant as it was enjoyn'd to be subscribed anno 1580. It is alledged that under the name of the Popes wicked Hierarchy the Office of Episcopacy was abjured But they who say so would consider that the abjuring of the Popes wicked Hierarchy imports not an abjuration of the Office of a Bishop more then the Office of a Presbyter or a Deacon which are parts of that Hierarchy so called by the Council of Trent Canon Sess 7. as well as the Office of a Bishop If the Covenant do not under that expression abjure these Offices neither doth it abjure the Office of a Bishop seing these are parts of that which the Papists call Hierarchy as well as this The intent of that Covenant was not to abjure the Office of Bishops more then of Presbyters or Deacons but to abjure the Hierarchy so far as it was the Popes his wicked Hierarchy as it also abjureth his five bastard sacraments so far as he maketh them Sacraments for sure Orders or Ordination of Ministers and Marriage which he maketh two Sacraments are not abjured in the Covenant as to the matter of them but only as to the relation of being Sacraments which the Pope puts on them even so the Popes Hierarchy is abjured counted and called wicked not as to the matter of these Offices comprehended under the ecclesiastical word Hierarchy for then the Office of Presbyters and Deacons should be also counted wicked and abjured but as to the dependance of all these Offices on him as the fountain and head of the Church under Christ and the corruption adhereing to these Offices and flowing from him so far as they are his depending on him corrupted by him there is wickedness in them or joyn'd to them and so they are abjured as in another word of that Covenant his blasphemous Priest-hood is abjured yet in that the Office of Presbyter is not abjured But mean time the Offices themselves which are said to make up that Hierarchy are not abjured nor are to be rejected but purged from what is his or any dependance on him or corruption flowing from him And so the Office of a Bishop amongst Protestants Bishops now being loosed from that dependance from the Sea of Rome and the Pope who as head of the Church claimed a plenitude of power over the whole Church and made all Christian Bishops and Ministers but as his slaves and vassals portioning out to them such measure of jurisdiction as he thought fit as their stiles in this Countrey imported of old Ego N. Dei apostolicae sedis gratiâ Episcopus I say the Office of the protestant Bishop is no more a part now of the Popes wicked Hierarchy then is the Office of a Minister or Deacon But further it may appear that under the name of the Popes wicked Hierarchy the Office of Bishops was not abjured in the National Covenant 1. The enjoyner of that Covenant to be taken by the subjects was King James of blessed memory He having himself with His family subscribed that Oath and Covenant gave charge to all Commissioners and Ministers within the Realm to crave the same Confession from their parishoners and proceed against the refusers as the words of the charge bear March 2. 1580. This was the first injunction for taking the Covenant which was mainly intended for securing the Religion and the King who favoured it and professed it from Papists who were sound practising with forraigners against him and it and for clearing the King and his Court from aspersions But that the King by that Covenant intended the abjuration of the Office of protestant Episcopacy it is most improbable and by many things the contrary appeareth 1. The instrument in penning that Covenant at the Kings command was Mr. John Craig His Minister a very learned man who but nine years before Jan 12. anno 1571. had given his consent in the Assembly of the Church which then did meet at Leith that Commissioners might be appointed to joyn with these whom the Council should appoint for settling the policy of the Church of these Commissioners he himself was one and with him Dun the Superintendent of Angus Winrame Superintendent of Fyfe and others the resolution they came to was that there should be of the most qualified of the Ministry some chosen by the Chapters of the cathedral Churches to whom vacant Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks might be dispon'd and they to have power of Ordination and to exerce spiritual Jurisdiction in their several Diocesses and at the Ordination of Ministers to exact an Oath of them for acknowledging His Majesties Authority
were good that these former principles were better remembred and used in the present case Further the Presbytery of Edinburgh in their Paper printed Octob. 5. 1659. pag. 8. of that Paper speak very soberly disclaiming it as none of their principles that no difference of opinion can be suffered by them We are say they clear that in many things of common practice in a Church there may be agreement by accommodation though differences of judgment remain c. Again say they we readily yield that as we prophesie but in part men in a Church may compose debates by putting end to contentions though they be not all of one judgment and therein we judge the Apostle hath set the rule before us 1 Cor. 11. 16. A Golden Rule indeed the practice whereof in its just sense might bring us much sweet peace But not to insist upon the judgments of learned men concerning the Case of submission to and acting in duties with Meetings anent the constitution whereof or members there may be some difference in judgment If we will hearken to a man greatly learn'd and known to be no great friend to Bishops we shall hear him perswading to obedience and submission to them in things lawful Theodore Beza being written to by some Ministers in England who excepted against some customes in the discipline and order of that Church their controversie had not then risen so high as to strike at the Office of Bishops only some customs in discipline and ceremonies in external order were most stood upon He Beza Epist 12. though disliking these things yet plainly averres to them that these customes are not tanti momenti as that for these they should leave their ministry and by deserting their Churches give advantage to Sathan who seeketh occasion to bring in greater and more dangerous evils He wisheth them there to bear what they cannot amend to beware of all bitterness And albeit they could not come to be of the same mind with others yet with a godly concord to resist Sathan who seeketh all occasions of tumults and infinit calamities And he doth most gravely obtest the Ministers with tears as he saith Vt Regiae Majestati omnibus Praesulibus suis ex animo obsequantur Beza pleads for hearty obedience in things lawful to the Bishops of whom he speaks honourably in that Epistle not hinting at the unlawfulness of their Office nor offering to perswade the Ministers to do against their Office Sunt maximi viri saith he qui singulari Dei Opt. Max. beneficio papisticis Episcopis successere He accounts not them nor their Office popish but saith By the singular mercy of the most great and good God they have succeeded the popish Bishops or come in their place even as by the singular mercy of God protestant Ministers have come in the place and room of popish Priests And how well he esteems of the Office and of the men in the Office likely abating somewhat of his peremptoriness in the heat of dispute with some as he had cause may appear not only by what he saith in that Epistle exhorrescimus ut contra Regiae Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem ministri suô ministeriô fungantur But from his Epistles to Grindal Bishop of London Epist 23. commending Grindals Christians patience and lenity addeth Majori posthac paena digni erunt qui authoritatem iuam aspernabuntur closing his Epistle Deus te custodiat intanâ—â— commisso tibi munere sancto suo spiritu regat magis aâ— magis confirmet And in his 58. Epistle to that same Bishop he saith Dominus te istic at London speculatorem judicem constituit By all which it may appear that it would have been far from Beza's mind that Ministers should give no obedience to Bishops established by the Laws of a Kingdom not so much as in things undoubtedly lawful or that they should have refus'd concurrence with Bishops in ordering the Church and acting in unquestionable duties 2. The present Question concerns the case and carriage of two kind of Ministers 1. Some refuse to come to Synods although called by the Kings Majesties command signified by His most honourable privie Council where Bishops do preside They refuse also to come to Presbyteries where a Moderator pretending no more power then any of themselves presides being nominated by the Bishop in the Synod to continue till the next Meeting of the Synod Such Meetings they withdraw from albeit nothing be required of them but to act in unquestionable duties for regulating the Church and suppressing according to their power of sinful disorder albeit there be no imposition upon their judgments nor subscription required nor declaration that they allow any thing they count amiss in the constitution of these Meetings or any constituent members thereof Yea where it might be permitted to them if they intreated for this to case their conscience by signifying their scruples which they cannot overcome anent the constitution of these Meetings or anent the members thereof so be they would do this with that inoffensive modesty humility and respect to the supreme Authority and the Laws of the Land and to such Meetings and the members thereof that becomes and after that to concur in their undoubted duties Concerning such Ministers the question is whether they may and ought to concur with such Meetings of their Brethren in carrying on their undoubted duties or if it be unlawful so to do 2. The other rank of Ministers are these who falling within the compasse of the Act of Council at Glasgow and of Parliament whereto it relates do rather choose to part with their Ministry then to seek a Presentation from the Patron and Collation thereupon from the Bishop yea who will quit their Ministry rather then that they will once come in terms of treating with a Bishop to try upon what conditions they may have the liberty to enjoy their Ministry and to serve God therein for the good and salvation of his people 3. As to the case of Brethren of the former sort several things are worthy their most serious consideration which may render them somewhat jealous of the unwarrantableness of their present way 1. Hath not the Supreme Magistrate even according to their own principles an undoubted power to convocate Synods when he sees it needfull Never were there any protestant Ministers no nor christian Ministers before this time who being convocated to a Synod or Church-meeting by the Soveraign Christian Magistrate did refuse to come at his command Nor is there any rank or degree of Subjects that can without the stain of sinful disobedience refuse to meet upon His Majesties command and Ministers cannot plead exemption from the common duties of Subjects 2. Brethren would consider whether it would prove a sufficient ground to justifie their not-coming to the Synod upon His Majesties command by His Council because that command to come to the Synod is joyned with another commanding to concur dutifully c. And the
contradicentibus as is manifest by History in the successors of Mark at Alexandria and others Can it be imagin'd that such a thing as the Office of a Bishop should have been set up so early in the times of the Apostles and they not contradicting it had it been contrary to Christs mind How unlikely is it that in those times when the piety and zeal of Christians was so great and knowledge too there should have been no opposition to the Office of Bishops had it been judged a wronging of Christs Ordinance How unlikely is it that in times of such fiery persecution Christs Ministers should be carryed with ambition to seek the superiority over others in an Office against his mind Or that people would have yielded to the ambitious courses of Pastors How can it be thought that the whole Church in these times without any known exception should have taken up that way of Government by Bishops without any co-action to it by civil Power without any advice or direction from General Assemblies and Councils which then were not in being If this way had not been universally judged lawfull yea it may be suppos'd descending from a higher warrant then voluntary agreements of men We do never hear of any opposition to the Office and dignity of a Bishop over Presbyters till it was made by one Aerius in the fourth age whom Epiphanius calleth a frantick man he being enraged that Eustathius whom he undervalued in comparison of himself was preferred to him and got the Bishoprick which he ambitiously aimed at began to talk against the dignity and order of Bishops and is therefore counted by Epiphanius and Augustine no children in knowledge an heretick in whatever sense they mean and also he is justly censured and condemned by Blondel Gers Bucer Molinaeus to Andrews as a disturber of a lawful order in the Church albeit they cannot come up to think that Episcopacy is a divine Institution or apostolicall Now let Brethren in modesty consider how unlike it is that the Office of a Bishop should be contrary to the institution of Christ in his Word that began so early even in the Apostles times without their contradiction that was so universally submitted to by the primitive Christians in their most firy tryals that hath continued in the christian Churches not only these infected with the Roman apostasie but the eastern Church that disclaimeth the Popes supremacy and that for 1500. years after Christ without any contradiction save of one man who never had a marrow no not Jerome whatever be said concerning him by some that is still owned by most of the reformed Churches who have rejected the Pope not only by these of the Lutheran way under the name of Superintendents quid est Episcopus nisi Superintendens saith Jerom epist ad Euagrum but also by some of the Calvinean way as may be seen by Zepperus Eccles Pol. And formally that is even owned as lawfull being well-moderated by the stoutest Disputers against the divine right of it Albeit men in their passionat strains to popular auditories sometimes cry out upon the Office of a Bishop as an anti-christian and popish domination yet in the protestant Episcopacy that is owned there is no more of the Pope then there is of a Mass-priest in a Minister or of a Conclave of Cardinal-presbyters in a Commission of the Church or a Presbytery The Episcopacy that is now is the very primitive Episcopacy which Timorcus descriving Ep. 10. Sect. 25. affirmeth to be that nothing in Ordination or Jurisdiction be done by Brethren under the Bishop without him and he alone doing nothing without them in these and avowes the same not to be contrary to the Covenant The Episcopacy that now is is that same Office for substance which Ignatius had at Antioch Polycarp at Smyrna â—ornâ—lius in Rome Iraeneus at Lyons in France Cyprian in Carthage and many others had in other places before the Niven Council and which Chrysostome Augustine and many others had after and it should be our desire to God that our Bishops as they hold the same Office and Place for substance these did so they may imitate their vertues and graces and be notable Instruments for advancing God's glory in their stations But 3. it would be considered that the holding of Episcopacy as a Government unlawfull and contrary to the Word of God will cast too great an imputation upon this Reformed Church of Scotland For laying aside the times of war and confusion since the year 1638. wherein in the midst of the noise of Armes and Armies there hath been small opportunity for a serious free disquisition anent these matters it will be found that before that year Episcopacy had been for a far longer time owned by this Reformed Church then Presbytery had been For untill the year 1580. Episcopacy was not abolished in Scotland the Office of Bishops was really used in Scotland till the year 1580. in which the General Assembly at Dundee declared it unlawfull and yet they could not get their Presbyteries set up by the Authority of the Land till twelve years after in the year 1592. But evident it is that at the time of making that Act at Dundee Bishops were in the Land for so the Act it self in the body of it imports Forasmuch say they as the Office of Bishop is now used in this Realm c. And is clear also from their Order they give to process the several Bishops if they lay not down their Office Now from the time of general Reformation from Popery to the time of that Act of Dundee there were full twenty years the Reformation being in the year 1560. during all which time the Church of Scotland was governed by some singulares personae particular persons in several circuits in the Land some under the name of Superintendents Commissioners or Visitors of Countries some under the name of Bishops where popish Bishops embraced the Reformation they had their power continued and Commission given to them for ordaining Ministers and using Jurisdiction and when the civil Magistrate presented any Orthodox to vacant Bishopricks they were accepted of by the Assembly Edinburgh Aug. 6. 1573. where the Regent promising to the Assembly that qualified persons shall be presented to vacant Bishopricks the Assembly concludes that the jurisdiction of Bishops in their ecclesiastical Function shall not exceed the jurisdiction of Superintendents And the Superintendent of Lothian is called by John Knox at his installing anno 1560. the Pastor of the Churches of Lothian and these who represent that Countrey promise to give obedience to him as becomes the sheep to their Pastor It is manifest then that for twenty years after the Reformation Bishops whether under that name or other names continued in Scotland and it is remarkable that our Reformers were wiser men then to put a Presbytery in their Creed For in the Confession registrated in Parliament anno 1567. which before had been presented though they had zeal enough against
and for obedience to their Ordinary in all things lawfull And accordingly some were provided to Bishopricks at that time neither did the Church in the following Assembly at St. Andrews March 1571. take exception at these Articles of agreement It is true at Perth August 1572. they received the same but with a protestation it was only for an interim c. But this we may say that the learned Penner of the National Covenant allowed of Bishops a few years before this Covenant Nor is there any evidence that he changed his mind or that he did in that draught of the Confession mean protestant Bishops which then he approved by the Popes wicked Hierarchy which is abjured 2. As for the King himself that He minded no abjuration of the Office of a protestant Bishop by that Covenant may be evident by this that when He and His family took that Covenant and when he enjoyn'd it to the subjects there was no such thing known in this Church as a Government by Presbyteries the whole Government consisting in Ordination and Jurisdiction exerced in the several parts of the land being in the hands of some under the name of Bishops some under the name of Superintendents or under the name of Commissioners of Countreys who exercis'd the same in their several precincts other Government there was not but by some single persons having power in their several bounds It is true the Assembly quarrel'd what they did amiss but yet they were then really Bishops And it is not like the King did swear himself or put others to swear against the Church-government that was then in the Countrey and was not rejected by the Church till July 12 1580. Yea it is evident that the King and His Council minded not to swear down protestant Episcopacy by that Covenant For suppose the General Assembly in that same year 1580 July 12. did passe an Act against Episcopacy the like whereof had not been done in this Church before yet the very year following 1581. though the King and Council had presented the Confession to the Assembly to be subscribed by them and the people in several Parishes at their order or by their perswasion yet that very same year an Act of Council is made confirming expresly that agreement 1571. at Leith concerning Archbishops and Bishops And this was done six months after the sending the Confession to the Assembly and the Councils Act for subscribing this being in October that in March 1581. Now is it any way probable that the King and Council had they intended to abjure Episcopacy in the Confession should within six moneths make an Act for confirming a former agreement for establishing Episcopacy And this Act of Council was no secret For the King openly avowed it in the business concerning Montgomery Bishop of Glasgow whom the King would not suffer to be processed upon the account of his accepting a Bishoprick because as he said he had so lately ratified the agreement at Leith 1571. Neither did the Assembly or any Ministers speak of that deed of the Kings and Councils as contrary to the Covenant albeit in these dayes they had a way of using liberty enough and more then was sitting And it being plain that the Covenant in the intention of King and Council who injoyned it first and transmitted it to the Assembly and subjects doth not abjure Episcopacy Why should the subjects take themselves bound as swearing down Episcopacy by that Oath seing every Oath is to be taken in the declared sense of the Imposers which is consistent with the words of it But it will be yet said that the General Assembly at Glasgow 1638. have declared that in that National Covenant Episcopacy was abjured in the year 1580 and they enjoyned that all should subscribe according to the determination of that Assembly and many have done so Ans 1. It seemeth very strange that any Assembly or Company of men should take upon them to declare what was the sense of the Church in taking a Covenant or Oath when few or none of the men were living who took that Covenant or if living few or none of them were members of that Assembly at Glasgow 1638. As juramentum est vinculum personale so say the Casuists So no man or company of men can take upon them to define what was the sense of dead men in taking an Oath or Covenant while they were alive unlesse they can produce some authentick expresse evidence that such was their meaning in taking the Oath and Covenant in their life-time Now all that the Assembly of Glasgow hath produced in their large Act Sess 16. declaring Episcopacy to be abjured anno 1580. amounts to nothing more but this that before Jul. 1580. at which time some moneths after the Covenant was enjoyn'd by the King to be taken by the subjects the Church was and had been some years labouring against Bishops who notwithstanding continued till after the Act at Dundee 1580. And that after the year 1580. there was much opposition to that Office by the Assemblies But all their citations of Acts come not to this point to prove that Episcopacy was abjured by the Covenant or any words in it nor do these ancient Assemblies after 1580. ever assert any such thing men being then living who knew the sense of the Covenant that it was against Covenant to admit of Episcopacy but they go upon other grounds in oppugning that Office How strange is it that Assemblies of Ministers who had taken that Covenant are never heard to plead against Episcopacy though they loved it not upon that ground And that fifty eight years after when most or all of these first takers of it are worn out a generation riseth that will plead that their Ancestors took that Covenant in that sense abjuring Episcopacy whereas there is in no Act of these ancient Assemblies after the Covenant was taken or at the taking of it any assertion that it was their mind in taking that Covenant to abjure Episcopacy And that Episcopacy was not in the intention of the takers of the National Covenant of old abjured by the Covenant no nor unlawfull in it self even in the judgment of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland may appear in that within six years after that year 1580. a General Assembly at Edinburgh do declare that the name of Bishop hath a special charge and function thereto annexed by the Word of God and that it is lawful for the General Assembly to admit a Bishop to a Benefice preferred by the Kings Majesty with power to admit visit and deprive Ministers and to be Moderators of Presbyteries where they are resident and subject only to the sentence of the General Assemblies It seems within six years the General Assembly at Edinburgh retracted the Act of Dundee 1581. But 3. Strange it was that the Company met at Glasgow an Assembly against which as much is said and upon good grounds as against any other in our Church had power