up such a bodie it cannot be acknowledged for a lawfull and free Assembly But how prove they Commissioners admitted to be members of this Assembly not to bee such as are requisit to make up such a bodie First they alledge that the most part at least of the Clergie conveened at this Assembly are ipso facto deprived and their places voide as if they were naturally dead because they have never in presence of the Archbishop Bishop Superintendent or Commissioner of the Province or Dyocie subscribed the articles of Religion extant in the acts of Parliament nor given their oath for acknowledging our Soveraigne Lords Authoritie nor have read their testimoniall thereupon and the confession in their parosh Kirks after their returne as they are bound by act of Parliament Anno 1572. that whereas they bee bound by act of Parliament Anno 1606. to maintaine the Kings honour dignitie and prerogative Royall to with stand all persons power or estates that shall impugne or impaire the same and at their admission were obliged to performe this duetie of their alleageance and to testifie in their conscience that the King is suppreme governour as well in matters spirituall and ecclesiasticall as temporall according to the act of Parliament 1612. Yet notwithstanding his Majestie having ordained by act of Councell and Proclamation following thereupon that all the Liedges should swear and subscribe the said Confession together with a generall Band for defending his Majesties Person and Authoritie against all enemies within or without the Realme they have not only refused to subscribe the said Band and Confession but in their Sermons and other speeches disswaded deterred and hindered others to subscribe the same and have publickly protested against the subscription thereof The answer is easie The act of Parliament 1572. was never put in practise conforme to the tennour of it and order there set down or if put in practise the practise could not endure long For Archbishops Bishops and Superindentents continued not long after If there were any force in this reason all the Assemblies of our Kirk since the abolition of Bishops and Superintendents might be called in question and wee have had no lawfull ministers Yea their own pretended Assemblies did consist of many who could not produce a testimoniall of their oath and confession conforme to the tenour of that act Lastly the substance of that act hath been keeped conforme to the later acts made thereanent and none of the Ministers conveened at the last Assembly but have subscribed both the confession of Faith and Band for maintenance of the Kings authority either of late when the Covenant was subscribed or before when they past their degrees in Schooles or upon some other occasion But what suppose that act were yet in force that they had neglected to take their oath and were therefore deprived ipso facto of their benefice and ecclesiasticall living yet it followeth not that they are deprived of their office or can be unlesse they wilfully refuse to subscribe and take their oath to acknowledge the Kings authoritie It is to be observed that that act was made when some stood for the Kings Mother and would not acknowledge the King for Soveraigne during her life As for the promise made in Parliament by the Estates Anno 1606. have they failed in performance or the Subjects whom they represented Have they not in the last Parliament ratified that act As to the act for the oath of supremacie An. 1612. it concerneth only such as were to be presented to any benefice and not every Minister That act was a ratification of the act of Glasgow are altered in the act of Parliament and in place of these words Conservation and purgation of Religion are put in Supreme governour as well in matters spirituall and ecclesiasticall as temporall which words were avoided in the same oath when the conclusions were agreed upon at Leeth Anno 1572. Howbeit they then drew up a plate-forme of policie near to the English and put in the words Conservation and purgation of Religion which are used in the confession of Faith extant in the acts of parliament So they have abused their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow But what have the Commissioners done contrare to these acts oathes or promises They have refused to subscribe the confession of Faith and band enjoyned by the King and Councel hindered others and protested against the Proclamation Might they not doe that and not violate these acts Doth the acts of the Kings prerogative binde them to subscribe any confession or band in whatsoever sense it shall please his Majestie to make Or is it the meaning of the oath of supremacie The Estates I am sure never intended such a meaning Both must be interpreted by the first confession of Faith the act for the Kings oath at his Coronation the declaration made in Parliament 1592. and second book of discipline Notwithstanding of the ratification of the former act concerning the Kings prerogative and the act for the oath of imsupremacie his Majestie behoved to have a grant of posing habits upon Kirk-men at the last Parliament which needed not if he might have done it by vertue of these acts of Parliament Anno 1606 and 1612. and yet that is a matter of lesse importance then to enjoyne subscription to a confession in another sense then was received at the first and second universall subscription For now in the interpretation of the authoritie enjoyning subscription the confession is made to consist with Episcopacie and other novations introduced since the fame was first received Was there not reason then to refuse to diswade others and to protest against it Moe reasons are to be found in the protestation it felf Some Ministers were urged with subscription and of those some yeelded who notwithstanding had place in the last Assembly But what suppose all had protested and refused to subscribe as they were enjoyned by the Councel that could not have disabled them to fit and voice in the Assembly unlesse they had been legally convict before of offence in so doing and remained obstinate But let the Reader here observe the decliners legerdemaine They would seeme to be foreward for subscription of that confession which was enjoyned by the King and Councel but challenge men for not subscribing the said Confession that is the Confession extant in the acts of parliament for of no other have they made mention before in their declinatour They have vilipended the later confession and covenant in former times and we doubt notwithstanding of this taxing of others that they will subscribe this confession themselves without their own limitations and acceptions as the Doctours of Aberdene have done but that perfidious men will subscribe any thing And yet so impudent are they that they will have other troubled for not subscribing contrar to the true sense and meaning of the confession to make a partie and new rent in this Kirk They alledge that the Commissioners directed to
were Primats Archbishops and Bishops in office after mans invention allowed for the time We acknowledge none such in our Kirk Their consecration to the office was without the knowledge or consent of our Kirk and is laid to their charge in the complaint given in against them A knavish prat And yet forsooth they talk as if they were Primats Archbishops and Bishops in office like those of old Risum teneatis amici But what suppose they were acknowledged to be such in office should they disdaine commission from Presbyteries Paul and Barnabas were sent from the brethren at Antioch to the Councell which was holden at Ierusalem act â—5 They alledge that this doth enforce the nullity of an Assembly if the Moderator and Praesident for matters of doctrine and discipline shall be neither the Primat Archbishop nor Bishop but who by plurality of Presbyters and Lay-mens voices shall be elected which happily may be one of the inferior clergie or a lay-person For this their Presidentship they alledge canons of ancient Councels and custome of old both in other nations and our own not yet restrained by any municipall law Acts of parliament either of late or of old have not set down any order for moderation of generall Assemblies or nationall Councels Nor do we alledge the act of Parliament 1592. ratifying the liberty of generall Assemblies provinciall Synods and Presbyteries for free election of their Moderators Yet there is nothing in that act against free election or for Presidentship of Bishops We had no Ministers primats or Bishops either in stile or in office at that time Yea the power granted before to Bishops in that troublesome year 1584. and soon after quite abolished was then granted by that act to Presbyters as the right spirituall office-bearers in the Kirk And as for acts of ancient Councels we passe them as no paterns to us nor pertinent for them For we have no such Bishops primats or Metropolitans as were of old as hath been already answered And as impertinent it is to alledge that this presidentship is so intrinsecally inherent in them as they are Bishops that hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Presidents of all Assemblies of the clergie As the Chancelour of the kingdome hath place in Councell and Session not by any act or statute but hoc ipso that he is Chancelour For we know no difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter to be made by the word of God Neither do we acknowledge our fourteen forloppen Ministers for Bishops in office so much as by the constitutions of our Kirk Yea when we had Superintendents and Bishops yet the Moderator of the generall Assembly was freely chosen and never a Bishop chosen but once It was ordained in the book of policie chap. 7. that in all Assemblies a Moderator shall bee chosen by common consent of the whole brethren conveened This freedome our Assemblies ever had since the reformation till Spotswod sometime pretended primat began to usurp the place of the Moderator in their pretended Assembly holden anno 1616. Suppose the act of Parliament 1592 did restraine their authority yet say they the restraint is restored by act of Parliament 1606. and 1609. and all acts prejudiciall to their jurisdiction abrogat But that act of Parliament anno 1606. concerning the restitution of the state of Bishops can not be understood to concerne the spirituall office but only their temporall state jurisdiction priviledges and preheminences belonging thereto For by the act of Parliament 1597. when vote in Parliament was granted to Ministers provided to Prelacies their office in the spirituall policy and government of the Kirk was remitted to the Kings Majestie to be advised consulted and agreed upon by his Majestie with the generall Assembly at such times as his Majestie should think expedient to treat with them thereupon But there past no agreement before the act of Parliament 1606. but rather cautions to restraine them from all preheminence or power in the spirituall policie and government And in the act of Parliament 1612. which ratified the act of Glasgow 1610. the remit of the estats in the Parliament 1597. was mentioned and it was declared that all doubtfull and controverted points concerning the jurisdiction discipline and policie foresaid was not determined till that Assembly holden 1610. How then could the act of restitution anno 1606. be understood of restitution to their old papall preheminence and jurisdiction in the policie and government of the Kirk Next if they were restored to all their old preeminences in the spirituall jurisdiction and policie by the act 1606. what needed they any Assembly afterward to grant them some preheminence in ordination and jurisdiction Why stepped not the pretended Primat to the place of Moderatorship at their own pretended Assemblies holden anno 1606. 1608. 1610. without election Thirdly how could the Parliament restore them to any spirituall jurisdiction or preheminence who never had it at any time before For they had not been Bishops in office at any time before that they needed restitution Will they say because they had the titles of the benefice or Bishoprick the Parliament might put them in possession of the spirituall jurisdiction and enter them into the office then the Papists may be moved more justly to call them Parliamentarie Bishops then the English in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne who because of some rites and customes omitted at their inauguration sought the ratification of the Parliament for supply as Sanderus de schismate Anglicano lib. 3. reporteth and therefore were called parliamentary Bishops Hinc nomen illis impositum ut parliamentarij episcopi dicerentur In their printed Declinatour they alledge a little after in the same section that they have received their authority not from the Parliament but from Christ from whom they have received the spirituall oversight of the clergie under their charge This clause is not to be found in the Declinatour presented before the Assembly in writ but insteed thereof two lines bloted out Now it seemeth they are somewhat bolder after they have consulted with their brethren in England who now mantaine that their authority is not derived from the Prince But suppose the episcopall authority were institute by Christ which is false what calling had they to exerce that authority They had none from the Kirk And if not from the Parliament then none at all And yet before they said their authority was restored to them by act of Parliament 1606. which seemeth to import a contradiction And suppose from the Parliament as good as not at all As for the act of Parliament 1609. concerning the Commissariats it reacheth no further then the former Their consent to both these acts in Parliament and sundry other is one of the points of the complaint given in against them Nay they procured them and yet are not ashamed to alledge them howbeit to small purpose Being destitute of acts of Parliament or Assembly they argue from their
one to the Bishop-rick of Glasgow by the brethren of the west was declared unlawfull neither agreeing with the word of God nor custome of the Kirk howbeit it was only to the temporality and these brethren were enjoyned with all possible diligence to see that admission annulled that slander may be removed from the Kirk as they would answer upon their obedience At the same Assembly Mr. Robert Pont related to the Assembly that a presentation to the Bishoprick of Cathnesse was offered to him for some losse he had sustained and desired the judgement of the Assembly if he might enjoy the rent with a safe conscience seeing he was willing to serve at the Kirk of Dornoch and to take the charge of visitation at the pleasure and direction of the Assembly But in the letter sent to his Majestie the Assembly declared that Mr. Robert Pont was already a Bishop according to the doctrine of St. Paul and worthy of a competent living in that regarde But as for that corrupt estate or office of those who were called Bishops in former times they finde it not agreable with the word of God and that it hath been damned in diverse Assemblies neither is the said Mr. Robert willing to accept the Bishop-rick in that manner In the same Assembly it was ordained that all Pastors of whatsoever sort shall be subject to the try all and censure of their Presbyteries and Synods for their life and doctrine as well as of the generall Assemblies That such as passe degrees in schools subscribe the confession of Faith In the instructions for the Commissioners appointed to attend upon the King and Parliament they were injoyned to admit nothing prejudiciall to the discipline of the Kirk as it was concluded according to the word of God by the generall Assemblies preceeding the 1584. year so far as lay in their power In the Parliament holden the moneth of Iuly following the temporality of benefices was annexed to the crown and it was thought meet and expedient that his Highnesse shall have recourse to his own patrimonie that is the proper rent of the crown disponed of old to the Clergie and Monasteries All and sundry lands Lordships Barronies Castles Towres c. Pertaining to Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Pryoresses or whatsoever other Prelat were annexed and united to the crown In the Assembly holden anno 1588. Ministers were enjoyned to deale with Noblemen and Gentlemen for subscribing the confession of Faith In a word the servants of God never rested till the wound which the Kirk had received anno 1584. and 1585. was perfectly cured and not so much remained as the skar thereof Yea that any Minister should be appointed a visitour at any time where Presbyteries were constitute was not thought expedient as was declared by the Assembly 1590. As for that act of Montrose let them answer to it say they that have their calling by that Commission We professe that we have a lawfull calling by the election of the Clergie who are of the chapter of our Cathedrals and consecration of Bishops with his Majesties consent and approbation according to the lowable laws and ancient custome of this Kingdome and Kirk in ancient times Because they see they are not able to answer for the breach of the cautions concluded with consent of his Majestie and the Ministers aspiring to Prelacies they professe plainly they regard not these cautions and that they have not their calling by that commission at Montrose The Minister commissioner to vote in Parliament was tyed by the act at Montrose not to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Kirk but to behave himself as other Ministers not voters in Parliament The plotters for Episcopacie consented and seemed willing he should be so bounded and restrained glade of any beginning Now when they arrogat to themselves the power and office of a diocesan Bishop and are catched in the snare they refuse to stand to that act So they bewrey that they had even then a purpose to deceive and betray the Kirk of GOD. and because they are not able to answer let them answer say they that have their calling by that commission They said in the former section that posterior act derogat from the prior now they make prior acts to derogat from the posterior For they professe that they have their calling by election of the chapter and consecration of Bishpos according to the lawes and customes of ancient times They can not deny but chapters of Cathedrals and election of Bishops by chapters were condemned by our Kirk as Popish and the office of a diocesan Bishop or consecration to the office to have been damned and detested by our Kirk They can not so much as alledge a warrand of any of their own pretended Assemblies for their election by chapters or this their consecration Three of their own number went to England after their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow and without their knowledge or consent were consecrated Bishops by their brethren the English Bishops returned and consecrated the rest of their fellows But for the breach of these cautions manner of election and the usurpation of that office by consecration that is for their treacherous dealing they are cited to answer before the Assembly and are worthy of condigne censures and punishment deprivation note of infamie and excommunication the three punishments to be inflicted respectivè for transgressing of the cautions Have they not by their own profession in this section confessed they are guilty of the most haynous offences laide to their charge in the lybell We passe that which they adde concerning their homage for their temporalities and acknowledging of the Kings supremacie as not pertinent to the present purpose and the complaint taken out of Cyprian as not belonging to usurpers Lastly they conclude that it is manifest by the premisses how absurde it is and contrarie to all reason and practise of the Christian Kirk that Archbishops and Bishops shall be judged by Presbyters much more by a mixed meeting of Presbyters and Laikes conveening without lawfull authority from the Kirk By the Kirk it seemeth they meane the Bishops They cite some old Councels declaring and determining how and by whom Archbishops and Bishops are to be judged But it is manifest by our refutation of the premisses that this Assembly consisted of Commissioners both Ministers and ruling Elders whom they call Lay-men chosen according to the order of our Kirk and that meetings of Clergie and Lay-men have been not only in the Apostles times but also in times of Popery and that we are not to be directed by the Canons of these Councels which they cite but by the established order and Canons of our own reformed Kirk which are agreeable with the practise of the Apostolicall and best reformed Kirks in our time Semper petunt principium They take that for granted which is denyed That they are Archbishops and Bishops It is not only denyed but they are summoned to answer for usurping
this Assembly have forefaulted his Majesties favour in granting this Assembly and the libertie to be members thereof and were in the same estate and condition they were in before his Majesties proclamation and royall pardon because they are supposed to be of the number of these that adhered to the last protestation that it be lawfull for them as at other times so at this to hold Assembly notwithstanding any impediment or prorogation in the contrare they continue their meetings and tables discharged by authoritie refuse to subscribe the Band according to his Majesties and Councels command for maintaining the Kings Person and authoritie and protested against it and insisted with the Liedges to subscribe the Band of mutuall defence against all persons whatsoever that in their protestation they declared Bishops and Arch-bishops to have no warrand for their office to have no place or voice in Assembly notwithstanding his Majestie had declared by proclamation that they had voice in the Assembly to that effect as they have constantly beene in use in all Assemblies where they were present and therefore that it is a fearfull thing to conveen with these at this Assembly in respect of sundrie acts of Parliment ordaining that none impugne the authority and diganitie of any of the three Estates or procure innovation or diminution of their power and authoritie under the paine of treason and they arrogat to their meetings a Soveraigne authoritie to determine all questions and doubts that can arise contrare to the freedome of the Assembly whither in the constitution and members thereof or in the maters to be treated or manner of proceeding We answer first in generall They forfaulted not his Majesties favour in granting an Assembly for his Majestie did not recall the indiction of the time and place for holding the Assembly notwithstanding of all that is here alledged and therefore they might still conveen to the place at the time appointed As for the particular points alledged we answer Pardon was offered upon condition of acquiescing in the Kings declaration and offers But pardon importeth offence which is denyed Therefore the condition of acquiescing could not bee admitted and the offers in the declaration were not satisfactorie to their former protestations complaints supplications The Assembly was granted absolutely without any condition least his Majestie should leave in his subjects minds the least scruple and for setling a certain peace They protested that it should be lawfull for them being authorized with lawfull commission as at other times when the urgent necessitie of the Kirk requireth so in this exigence to assemble themselves at the dyet appointed for the Assembly notwithstanding of any impediment or prorogation in the contrary Of the lawfulnesse to conveen in Assembly when there is urgent necessitie we have set down some reasons already and moe are extant in print concerning that purpose They had need to fear the danger of prorogation both because the present case could not suffer delay and doolefull experience have taught us that prorogations from dyet to dyet ended at last in no dyet whereby the Kirk was bereft of her libertie to hold yearly Assemblies which they would now recover by this indiction taking it for a re-entrie Their meetings or tables as the adversaries call them continued because the cause continued preferring supplications giving in complaints attendance upon gracious and satisfactory answers and performance of the same making Protestations when there was need and yet in peaceable manner not in great companies as at the beginning for giving satisfaction to the Lords of Councel They have offered to cleare the necessity of their meeting and their carriage before the Parliament to whom they have appealed They have refused to subscribe the confession of faith again at the King and Councels command after their late subscription for the reasons already mentioned and the band for mantainance of the Kings person and authority because it is not the same in tennor with the old generall band subscribed anno 1590. The narrative is changed some lines designing the Papists and their adherents to be the partie threatning danger to Religion and the Kings person are omitted and no other partie designed in particular So that the band may be used against the Covenanters themselves who have been taxed for disorders disturbers of the peace of this Kirk and Kingdome to the danger of Religion and prejudice of his Majesties authoritie as they have complained in their Protestation They continued in seeking subscriptions to the Covenant till the holding of the Assembly because of references to the Assembly His Majesties Commissioner acquiesced in their explanation of the clause of mutuall defence where they declared their mutuall defence of each of other was not for their own privat quarrels but only in defence of the true Religion of the laws and liberties of this Kingdome and of his Majesties person and authority in preservation of the same What further can bee justly craved of them Such as were pretended Bishops had no warrand for voice in the generall Assembly unlesse they be authorized with lawfull commission The Superintendents and Bishops presence of old was required more for their triall then any need of their voice But the Assemblies were wearied with complaints made upon them and after many conferences and much disputation found their office unlawfull which was never since approved by any pretended let be lawfull Assembly So the custome of old doth not serve such as only pretend or usurpe the same office Nor are they capable as Ministers of any commission from any Presbyterie because they have deserted their flocks and have no particular charge For loppen Ministers and usurping Prelats should have no place in the generall Assembly The act of Parliament discharging the impugning of any of the three Estates or procuring the innovation or diminution of their power was made in a troublesome time in the year 1584. was protested against when it was proclaimed with other acts That third Estate of Prelats suffered innovation and diminution of their Estat within three years after by the act of annexation anno 1587. and in consideration of the great decay of the Ecclesiasticall Estate these are the words of the 113. act following the Commissioners of small Barrons and free-holders were declared to be members of the Parliament to sit upon the articles and vote in publick to supplie that decay So there may be three Estates without the Ecclesiasticall or Bishops And the acts of Parliament following were made by the Estates howbeit there were then no Bishops Yea acts were made against Bishops as anno 1592. Howbeit Ministers were not Prelats yet others who had the Prelacies voted as the third Estate For it is in respect of their Barronies that such as have Prelacies vote in Parliament whither they be Ministers or not By the act of Parliament 1597. Ministers provided to Bishopricks Abbacies Priories were declared to have vote in Parliament but without the knowledge of the Kirk
presidentship in Synods that one of them in absence of the Metropolitan should preside in the generall Assembly rather then one of the inferiour clergie It is true by an act of Assembly holden at Glasgow anno 1610. those who were stiled Bishops in respect of their benefices were constitute Moderators of the diocesan Synods and that act was ratified in Parliament anno 1612. But that ratification was upon supposition that the Assembly was free and lawfull and was desirous of that ratification none of which are they able to make good Next when we had Bishops and Superintendents Moderators of Synods the generall Assembly choosed others then Superintendents or Bishops to moderat By the cautions at Montrose it was provided that the Minister voter in Parliament should not arrogat to himself any further preheminence or jurisdiction then any of the rest of their brethren under the paine of deprivation Where it was alledged falsly in the falsified act of that null and pretended Assembly holden in December anno 1606. that they should be Moderators of Synods yet to make men beleeve that they were moderat and sought no further it was provided in that same falsified act That the Moderator of the generall Assembly be chosen by the voices of the said Assembly certaine leets beeing first nominated and propounded freely as use hath been in times by-past So by their own grant it followeth not that one of the Bishops moderating the diocesan Synod should preside in the generall Assembly in absence of the Metropolitan himself whose name was not so much as heard of in their own pretended Assemblies They answer to that which is alledged against the office of a Bishop out of the act of Assembly holden anno 1580. where it was declared that it had no ground or warrand out of the Scriptures First that if the corruption of the time shall be regarded the authority of this Assembly might be no lesse regarded then that of Glasgow 1610. This is transcendent impudencie Were the times corrupt Were not all the heads of the book of discipline concluded after free reasoning in many Assemblies preceeding Was not the election of Commissioners free Was not liberty granted to any man that was willing to oppone Was there any rent or division in our Kirk in those times Was not the same act ratified in the Assembly following Was not the confession of Faith subscrived by persons of all ranks soon after and Presbyteries erected did not our kirk adhear to that act still after So if that time was corrupt the purest and best times following were corrupt Was ever that act contradicted by any other act since that time to this houre But observe whiles without all shame they would empaire the authority of that Assembly they suffer of their own accord their own pretended Assembly holden at Glasgow 1610. to fall to the ground Next they say it is ordinare for prior acts of Assemblies and Parliaments to give place to posterior But we mantaine there was no act followed to repeale the former If they will alledge the act of Glasgow 1610. First that Assembly is not to be numbred among the Assemblies of our Kirk and was declared null at this last Assembly upon grounds unanswerable Next that same corrupt Assembly did not determine or declare the office of a Bishop to have any warrand out of the word nor did they restore that office as it was brought in by mans invention and used of old but only made Synods and Presbyteries obnoxious in ordination deprivation excommunication and some other points to these who were then stiled Bishops in respect of their benefice and not Bishops in office yet not without limitations and upon assurance that they should be lyable to the tryall and censure of the generall Assembly But they alledge the Assembly holden anno 1586 where it was found that the name of a Bishop hath a speciall function annexed to it by the word of God that it was lawfull to the generall Assembly to admit a Bishop presented to a benefice by the King with power to visite admit and deprive Ministers to be Moderators of Presbyteries and to be subject only to the censure of the generall Assembly Neither was the office of a diocesan Bishop declared by this Assembly to have any ground or warrand in the word or that any might be consecrat thereafter to such an office invented by man Yea that Assembly declared in the sixth Session that there are foure ordinare office-bearers set down to us in the Scriptures to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons and that the name of Bishop ought not to be taken as it hath been in time of Papistrie but is common to all Pastors In the tenth and eleuenth Session they declare that by the name of Bishop they meane only such a Bishop as is described by the Apostle They declare that the name of Bishop hath a speciall charge and function annexed to it by the word of God the same that the Pastor hath They declared then that Bishop and Pastor are all one and that a divine or apostolicall Bishop is the Pastor of a particulare flock and hath not a generall charge over a whole diocie It is true they assented at that time that it was lawfull to admit a Pastor Bishop or Minister presented to a benefice by the Kings Majestie with power to visite admit c. as said is But then consider this Assembly was the first which was holden after the desolation made anno 1584. and 1585. and consisted not only of none subscribing Ministers but also of many who had subscribed in that houre of darknesse as Bishop Adamson afterward called these two years of desolation preceeding And yet did not allow more to him who was admitted to the Bishoprick then to any other Minister to whom they gave the like power and with the same restrictions which were prescribed to others and only till further order were taken as that in visitation of the bounds limited to him he proceed by advise of the Synod and such as they shall appoint to him that in receiving presentations and giving collations he shall proceed by the advice and voice of the Presbyterie and certaine Assessors to be joyned with him at the least the most part of the Presbyterie and Assessors till further order may be taken that if he admit or deprive without consent of the most part of the Presbyterie it shall be a sufficient cause of deprivation and the deed shall be null So this power and preheminence was not in respect of any Episcopall office but by commission from the Assembly as was granted to other Ministers and during the time prescribed by the Assembly and only till further order were taken And indeed this shadow of preheminence granted first at a conference in Haly-rude-house not long before by some courting and chief subscribing Ministers now again at this Assembly endured not long For in the Assembly holden in Iune 1587. the admission of