yourself? Why so, more than from me? From the bishops? Right, if the supreme power of the commonwealth will have it so; if not, why from them rather than from me? From a consistory of presbyters themselves, or joined with lay elders, whom they may sway as they please? Good, if the supreme governor of the commonwealth will have it so. If not, why from them rather than from me, or from any man else? They are wiser and learneder than I; it may be so, but it has not yet appeared. Howsoever, let that be granted. Is there any man so very a fool as to subject himself to the rules of other men in those things which do so nearly concern himself, for the title they assume of being wise and learned, unless they also have the sword which must protect them? But it seems you understand the sword as comprehended. If so, do not you then receive the rules of God’s worship from the civil power? Yes, doubtless; and you would expect, if your consistory had that sword, that no man should dare to exercise or teach any rules concerning God’s worship which were not by you allowed._” This will be thought strong arguing, if you do not answer it. But the truth is, you could say nothing against it without too plainly discovering your disaffection to the government. And yet you have discovered it pretty well in your second _Thesis_, maintained in the Act at Oxford, 1654, and since by yourself published. This _Thesis_ I shall speak briefly to. SCOTCH CHURCH POLITICS. You define ministers of the Gospel to be those _to whom the preaching of the Gospel by their office is enjoined by Christ_. Pray you, first, what do you mean by saying preaching _ex officio is enjoined by Christ_? Are they preachers _ex officio_, and afterwards enjoined to preach? _Ex officio_ adds nothing to the definition; but a man may easily see your purpose to disjoin yourself from the state by inserting it.