An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of…

Now for answer to these: First, I simply deny the connection of the proposition of the fourth argument, because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative, from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government, to the exercising of it independently. Neither hath he said any thing for proof hereof. Next, the Reader will easily perceive, that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proof both of the propositions and assumptions, have not so much as the least colour of pertinency, and far less of proof. In both these arguments, when he would prove the proposition, he speaketh to the assumption, & contrariwise. But these things I delight not to insist upon: only I shall give two Distinctions, any one of which, much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable unto him▪ First, I distinguish his propositions. That power & authority which the Church of Corinth, the seven Churches of Asia, and other Apostolical Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves, the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition: but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolic ⟨p. 31⟩Churches, and so have not such fullness of power as they had. Put the case that the Apostolic Churches were no greater then might and did ordinarily assemble together into one place for the worship of God, yet since by reason of the trouble• of those times (which suffered not the Christians to spread themselves abroad all the country over, but confined them within Cities and safe places) those Churches were not planted so thick and near together, as that they might have the conveniency of Synodical consociation: hence it appeareth that they might do many things in and by themselves, which particular Congregations now having the conveniency of consociation with neighbour Churches, ought not to do in and by themselves. But this I have said gratis, having in my former Treatise at length declared that the Apostolic Churches (at least the most and principal of them) were greater then could assemble ordinarily in one place of worship, and that they were served with sundry both Pastors and Elders, & that therefore our Parochial Churches ought not to be (in respect of the points in question) compared with their Churches, nor our Parochial Presbyteries with their Presbyteries.

Now for answer to these: First, I simply deny the connexion of the proposition of the fourth argument, because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative, from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government, to the exercising of it independently. Neither hath hee said any thing for proofe hereof. Next, the Reader will easily perceive, that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proofe both of the propositions and assumptions, have not so much as the least colour of pertinency, and farre lesse of proofe. In both these arguments, when he would prove the proposition, he speaketh to the assumptiō, & contrariwise. But these things I delight not to insist upon: only I shall give two Distinctions, any one of which, much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable unto him First, I distinguish his propositions. That power & authority which the Church of Corinth, the seven Churches of Asia, and other Apostolicall Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves, the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition: but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolique