Five disputations of church-government and worship

Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government, that is, the decrees of General Councils; I answer, 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Universal: It is the prerogative of God, yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Sovereignty to be the Law-giver to his Universal Church. There can be no Universal Laws without an Universal Law-giver: and there is no Universal Law-giver under Christ in the world. 2. And for General Councils (since ⟨p. 12⟩Scripture times at least) there have been no such things nor any thing like them, unless the Roman Empire, yea a piece of it, be the whole world. I know therefore no humane Universal Laws, whether it be for forms of Government, Liturgies, Holy days, or any thing else.

Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government, that is, the decrees of General Councils; I answer, 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Vniversal: It is the prerogative of God, yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Soraignty to be the Law-giver to his Vniversal Church. There can be no Vniversal Laws without an Vniversal Law-giver: and there is no Vniversal Law-giver under Christ in the world. 2. And for General Councils (since ⟨p. 12⟩Scripture times at least) there have beeen no such things nor any thing like them, unless the Roman Empire, yea a piece of it, be the whole world. I know therfore no humane Vniversal Laws, whether it be for forms of Government, Liturgies, Holy dayes, or any thing else.

Sect. 14. But the principal matter that tends to end our d•fference, is, the right understanding of the Nature of that Government that is properly Ecclesiastical: What is it that we must have Diocesans and Metropolitans to do? (besides what I have granted to Apostolical Bishops in the third Dispute?) Is it to Teach or Rule the people of the particular Churches? They cannot do it at so great distance, not knowing them nor conversing with them; at least so well as they that are on the place, as the ancient Bishops were. Is it to Rule the Presbyters only? Why then hath not every Church a Bishop to Rule the flock, but a Presbyter that is forbidden to Rule them (in all that which they call Jurisdiction themselves)? And how is it that Presbyters shall be Ruled by Diocesans, and the Diocesans by Provincials? not by force: For the Pastors have no coercive power by violence, or touching mens bodies or estates. Is it by bare commanding? Why what will that do on dissenters that disobey? shall they depose the Bishops or Presbyters that disobey them? But how? Not by any force, but command, or exhortation, or Excommunication. They can do no more that I know of. And what if they excommunicate a Pastor! Let the case be supposed as now it is among us: What if a Bishop with the few that adhere to him, excommunicated all the Pastors in the County that are not satisfied of the Divine Right of Diocesans, or of the lawfulness of all his imposed Ceremonies and Forms? The people will take it to be their duty (most generally where the Ministry hath been savingly effectual) to own their Pastors notwithstanding such an Excommunication, and the Pastors will take it to