(ii) (rocfore that year,it's like. )4. And -i fthey were not in- flitttted in Scripture time,then no teflimonÿ fromAntiquity can prove them then inflituted. But indeed if wè had fuch tc/izui,ony and ,,nothing ofit in the Scripture itfelf,we (houid take it as little to ourpurpofe.For 5.doth Antrquityfay that the Insflitution vu Divine, of Zfniverfal obligation to the Church, or only that it was but aprudential limitation o f the excrc;fe of thefame Office (the like I demand of other like Tellimonies in cafe of Dioctfés, Metropolitans, &c.) if only thy later,it binds usnot,but proved; only the licet, and not the (Toilet at lcafl,as to all the Church. And thenevery Countrey that finds cauje,mayfet up another kindofgovern ment : Put ifit be the former that ú afferted as from anti- quity, then the Scripture containeth not all Gods. vniverfal Laws ; Which who ever affirmeth, mull go to. Fathers or Council; infleadof Scripture today,and to the infallibility ofthe Pope, or a Prophetical Infpiration to morrow, and next --- Sat. 27, once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apoftles modelledtheEcclefiaftical form to the Civil, and that as a Law to thewhole Church, we take it as their Concefion,that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbi-. fhop of Canterbury, then to the Civil Magiftrate of Can- terbury, (and e/pecially London lure is exemptedfrom his jupei iority.) And I yet know not that any Civil Magiftrate of Canterbury, or York, or London, or Worcef.Ier, bath any government in this Countrie, except the Soveraign Rulers at Weflminfler be meant. And I hope our Itine- rant courfe ofludges,will prove the right(to the objectors) of itinerant Overfeers of the Churches, for fettlement at leaft. Sea. 28. objeft. But Parifhes being not divided till long after the Apoilles days, there might be then no ordinary Affemblies but in theCity ;andyet the whole Territory
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=