assemblies above Synods, as the jewes had there Su∣preme Sanhedrin, Exod. 24. 2 Chron 19. And also betwixt the Sanhedrin and Synagogue, a middle Ecclesi∣astick Court called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Pre•…•…bytery Luk. 22: 66. Act. 22. 5. and also their least Sinagogue-Iudi∣catorie, wherein was both ruleing, and censures. Act. 26: 11. Compared with Act. 9: 1, 2. And with Mark. 5▪ 35, 36. Act. 18: 8. Answerable to our Kirk Sessions. which is largely demonstrat by Mr Gillespie, Aar. rod. lib. 1. Cap. 3. pag. 8. to 38. As this (I say) is clear, so it is evident, that it is much more then a meer subor∣dination of Courts or officers, which he most prove if he will conclude any thing to purpose against us, viz, The Prelats sole decisive power, and negative voice in judicatories, and their deryvation of all their authority from the Magistrat as his deputs, in their administration. Now, from the subordination of Courts, or officers, mentioned under the old dispensa∣tion, to conclude [the lawfulness of a Prelat (a pretend∣ed Minister of the new Testament) his taking from o∣ther Ministers all the power of Government, contrary to our Lords express command, his laying, aside the preaching Talent, and giving up all the ecclesiastick au∣thority which he pretendes unto, to one who is not, Qua talis, so much as a Church member] is a wide and wilde conclusion: yet that this is the conclusion which he must infer to prove his point, is beyond all Question.
2. Giveing, not granting to him that there was un∣der the old dispensation such a Hierarchy as he pleades for, and such a difference of degrees among Church officers, as he represents, how will he prove this con∣sequence [that the Government of the Church under the New Testament must be thus moulded, and have the same degrees of Ministers, as the Jewes had of Priests and Levits] this Connexion he supposes here, and offers afterward some smatterings in proof there∣of,