Five disputations of church-government and worship

Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Dioceses to the Apostles as Bishops, and of Archbishops, Metropolitans, &c. I shall say but this: 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact, that two, or three, or twice so many say was done, when I have either cross testimony, or valid Reasons of the improbability: I believe such Historians but with a humane faith, and allow them such a degree of that, as the probability of their report, and credibility of the persons doth require. 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches, that I am told was done in some. 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law, for the Government of the Church and World. 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me, that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Universal Church, which is not contained in Scriptures, nor to be proved by them, I will not believe them; no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers, that pretended Tradition from Saint John; nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter, as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church. 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship, which yet is undetermined in Scripture, I take it not for a sufficient proof, that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law, or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like: no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper, in an upper room, but with twelve, and sitting, &c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles, as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore & ⟨p. 9⟩loco only (as of the kiss of love, hair, covering, eating things strangled, and blood, &c.) I take it not for a proof that this is an universal standing Law. One or two of these exceptions will shake off the proofs that some count strong for the universal obligation of the Church to Diocesans or Metropolitans.

Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops, and of Archbishops, Metropolitans, &c. I shall say but this: 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact, that two, or three, or twice so many say was done, when I have either cross testimony, or valid Reasons of the improbability: I believe such Historians but with a humane faith, and allow them such a degree of that, as the probability of their report, and credibility of the persons doth require. 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches, that I am told was done in some. 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law, for the Government of the Church and World. 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me, that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church, which is not contained in Scriptures, nor to be proved by them, I will not believe them; no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers, that pretended Tradition from Saint John; nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter, as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church. 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship, which yet is undetermined in Scripture, I take it not for a sufficient proof, that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law, or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like: no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper, in an upper room, but with twelve, and sitting, &c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles, as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore &