against some of the Rules of his own Profession 't would be more proper for the College of Physicians to judge of the Nature and Manner of it But where the Crime has no Relation to the Profession there is required no Skill in Physick to judge of it If a Person be convicted of Heresie 't is just he should be tried by the spiritual Power and according to what has been judged by them so to be But if his Offence be against the King or the Publick if he refuse Allegiance to his Majesty or Obedience to his Laws be he a spiritual Person or not there is no doubt but his Majesty has a Right to forbid him the Exercise of any Office or Function within his Territories The King does not judge herein of his Qualifications as a Divine but of his Duty as a Subject And as such has a Right to command his Obedience and to punish him as he thinks fit for his Disloyalty But if what the Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops urges is of any Force as That the Church and State tho' Christian are two distinct Societies and that spiritual Persons tho' defended and preserved by the Sovereign Power have yet as such no Dependence upon it and are not subject to its Authority How advantageous soever this may prove to the Church it will be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State For if the Prince has no just Power over spiritual Persons as such it must follow That in several Cases he can have no Authority over them as temporal As suppose any of that Body should be guilty of a Crime which requires such a Punishment as can't be inflicted without depriving him of his Ecclesiastical as well as his Civil Rights 't is plain according to that Author's way of arguing That in such a Case the State can have no Authority to punish And if the Clergy will not pass Sentence against him he must go unpunished For how guilty soever he may be the King can pretend no Authority either to imprison or banish him Because according to this Author the supream Power has no Right upon any Account whatsoever to prohibit him the Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Function which he must do if he punishes him either of the fore-mentioned ways The same Reasons will I think also forbid the Civil Authority from having any Right of sentencing an Ecclesiastical Person to Death as well as to perpetual Imprisonment be his Offence of what Nature soever The Consequences of such Notions are more than sufficient Confutations of them The great Grotius who could have no Interest or Prejudice to mis-guide his Judgment in Relation to this Controversie is of Opinion That the Right of removing a Pastor from the Cure of any certain Place ought always to remain in the highest Power So Solomon deposed Abiathar from being Priest The Vindicator of the deprived Bishops has been at some pains to prove that Abiathar was not high Priest Which whether true or no is little to his Purpose for if he was a Priest and deprived by a Lay Power it is sufficient So the Bishops of Rome were more than once deposed by the Imperial Authority as is owned by Bellarmine himself And to prove this says Grotius is not difficult For if the supream Authority hath a Right to forbid any one the City or Province he must of Necessity have a Right to prohibit him the Ministry of that City or Province For this is included in the other For he who has a Power over the whole must have the same no doubt over the part And he adds That if the Sovereign Power had not this Right the State could not be able to provide for its own Security But what seems to me most absurd in the Management of this Controversie by the Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops is this That he condemns all those of Schism who go upon different Principles or that conform with these who fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops For by this means he not only involves the Christians of several Centuries in the same Guilt even from Constantine's time till Papal Usurpations were introduced who submitted to Bishops put into the Places of others deprived by the Emperors as has been learnedly shewn in a great many Instances beyond all Possibility of a Reply But he also condemns and contradicts himself For I believe his Practice has been contrary to his present Opinion Since if I mistake not he held Communion with the Church of England till the late Revolution And I believe this Doctrin of the Prince's Authority over spiritual Persons was the same then as now If not what can those Words signifie That the King is over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Mr. Hooker tells us That the Prince has by this the same Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as the Pope had usurped before the Reformation And indeed if these Words do not imply That Ecclesiastical Persons as such are subject to the King's Authority they signifie nothing And if they carry such a Sense with them they must also denote the Sufficiency of the King's Authority for depriving Bishops of their Sees upon a just Cause And tho' it be granted there were no Instances of this Nature in the late Reigns yet the Case is much the same if such a Doctrin was then held and maintained by the Church And if 't is a Sin to communicate with the Bishops who are put into the Sees of them who were deprived by the Supream Power 't is a Sin also not to separate from that Church which requires all its Members to acknowledge and believe such a Right to belong to that Power For the Nature of the Church is the same whether the King exercises that Authority or not if it be owned and allowed by the Church to belong to him But this Author pretends that he has the Church and the Laws on his side since Queen Elizabeth's Time and that he will agree to the Supremacy as then stated by her and as it is expressed in the 37th Article If he will put the Cause upon this Issue we must also submit to be determined by it For we cannot desire to carry the Supremacy farther than it was in that Queen's Time and as 't is specified in that Article But then we demand That the Words may be explained according to the most easie and natural Sense of them and not understood only as this Author would interpret them The Queen lays claim to the same Authority over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons that was Exercised by all Godly Princes in Scripture and which at all times belonged to the Imperial Crown of England And this must include the Power which was given to her Predecessors Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th The 37th Article allows the King all that Power which we contend for and asserts his Supremacy over all sorts of Persons as well
Authority yet neither can any Ecclesiastical Canon be made or any new Heresie be declared without their Advice and Approbation Grotius is indeed of Opinion That the supream Civil Authority has a Right to make Laws without the Consent of the Clergy for the Government of the Church Because if it could not it would receive some Right of governing from the Synod and consequently could not be supream whereas the highest Power being subject to God alone has under him the sole Right of Governing Besides if the supream Power could not enforce the Observance of that without a Synod which it might with one then it should receive part of its Right and Authority to govern from thence And by Consequence some part of the Government must be lodged in the Synod Which it can neither challenge by Human or Divine Right God having no-where committed such a Power to the Church and therefore not to Synods And for these Reasons he is of Opinion That the highest Power has a Right to make Orders for the Government of the Church without a Synod And to confirm it he adds the Examples of the Hebrew Kings and some of the first Christian Emperors that have exercised their Authority about things sacred without any such Convention of the Clergy But tho' these Reasons should prove such a Right in General to belong to the supream Power yet it cannot be doubted but that the same Power may so far dispense with the Execution of it as to consent That no Laws shall be made relating to Religion without the Counsel and Approbation of the Clergy But if it may be thought reasonable to have the Advice of the Clergy in all Matters of such Importance it must be also absolutely necessary That the Civil Power which is to enforce the Observance of the Injunctions resolved on by the Spiritual should have the Right of judging of its Determinations especially where all Mens Consciences as well secular as Ecclesiastical are to be concluded by them This is most certain That it is a Duty incumbent on the Prince whether the Clergy give their Opinions or not to reform and correct Abuses in the Church and he must answer for his Neglect to God if he does not do so And if before any Declaration of the Judgment of the Clergy he has a Right to order what is necessary in sacred Affairs 't is plain That his Power is superior to theirs and that it cannot be less at the meeting of a Synod than it was before it The supream Authority continues the same whether it acts by the Counsel of others or without it And there can be no Obligation to comply with it but that of Reason and Prudence The Notion of the King's Supremacy over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil established by our Laws owned and asserted by our Clergy and very frequently vindicated with much Strength and Learning by the greatest Men of our Church ever since the Reformation grants all that Right and Power to the King over Convocations that we contend for This Power says the Excellent Mr. Hooker being sometime in the Bishop of Rome who by sinister Practices had drawn it into his Hands was for Iust Considerations by Publick Consent annex'd unto the King 's Royal Seat and Crown from thence the Authors of Reformation would translate it into their National Assemblies or Synods Which Synods are the only Helps which they think lawful to use against such Evils in the Church as particular Iurisdictions are not sufficient to redress In which Cause our Laws have provided That the King 's Super-eminent Authority and Power shall serve As namely when the whole Ecclesiastical State or the Principal Persons therein do need Visitation and Reformation when in any part of the Church Errors Schisms Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts Enormities are grown which Men in their several Jurisdictions either do not or cannot help Whatsoever any Spiritual Power and Authority such as Legats from the See of Rome did sometime exercise hath done or might heretofore have done for the Remedies of those Evils in lawful sort that is to say without the Violation of the Laws of God or Nature in the Deed done as much in every Degree our Laws have fully granted that the King for ever may do not only by setting Ecclesiastical Synods on work that the thing may be their Act and the King the Motioner unto it for so much perhaps the Masters of the Reformation will grant But by Commissions few or many who having the King's Letters Patents may in the Vertue thereof execute the Premises as Agents in the Right not of their own peculiar and ordinary but of his Super-eminent Power This Passage as tho' designed on Purpose against the present Opposers of the King's Supremacy is not only an Account of the Power our King has over his Convocations by the Law of the Land but also a Vindication of that Law in investing him with such Authority And I the rather thought it deserved to be taken notice of that I might oppose the Judgment of this great and learned Man to the Censures of two late Authors who have taken a great deal of Freedom in blackening the Memory of the Convocation in Henry the 8th's Reign for surrendring up to the King the Right and Liberty of meeting without his Leave The Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum in his Preface insults over that Convocation as under the lash of a Praemunire and from thence seeks to prejudice the Authority of the Convocation-Act But this is a great Blunder for the Praemunire was off at least three Years before and released by Act of Parliament in the 22d of Henry the 8th the Convocation-Act being not till the 25th But to let that pass this whole Eighth Book of Ecclesiastical Polity is designed for a Vindication of the Kings Power in that Particular as also of our Laws and the Consent of the Clergy by which it was confirmed Except therefore we make the King's Authority over the Clergy less in the greatest things than the Power of the meanest Governors is in all things over those which are under them how should we think it a Matter decent that the Clergy should impose Laws the supream Governors Assent not asked But lest some sort of Men should pretend that this 8th Book is not so much and truly Mr. Hooker's as those which are published by himself which however is not questioned by the last of these Authors mentioned that quotes from it how much to his purpose I shall consider hereafter I shall add a Passage out of his Preface There was says he speaking in Reference to some who had a Dislike to the Constitution of the Church then established by Law in my poor Understanding no Remedy but to set down this as my final resolute Persuasion Surely the present Form of Church-Government which the Laws of this Land have established is such as no Law
State of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this Case because the proper Affairs and Actions of the Church as it is the Church hath no Dependence on the Laws or upon the Government of the civil State an Opinion hath thereby grown That even so it should be always This was it which deceived Allen in the writing his Apology The Apostles saith he did govern the Church in Rome when Nero bare Rule even as at this Day in all the Churches Dominions the Church hath a spiritual Regiment without Dependence and so ought she to have amongst Heathens or with Christians Another Occasion of which Mis-conceit is That things appertaining to Religion are both distinguished from other Affairs and have always had in the Church spiritual Persons chosen to be exercised about them By which Distinction of spiritual Affairs and Persons therein employed from temporal the Error of personal Separation always necessary between the Church and Common-wealth hath strengthned it self These Notions have been often made use of by the Papists in their Disputes against the King's Supremacy and 't is strange they should be now revived when they have been so learnedly considered and refuted by Mr. Hooker Dean Nowel Bishop Iewell and other great Men of our Church And I may add That some of our present Adversaries Opinions are much the same with those of the Scotch Disciplinarians refuted by Bishop Bramhal The Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops hath told us That Mr. Hooker for whom he pretends a very great Respect tho' for what Reasons I know not since they differ in every thing is against him in making the Church one Body with the believing State And therefore I suppose he would have it taken for granted That his Reasons are more conclusive in making them distinct Indeed it was necessary for this Author's Purpose That the Church and State should be separate Societies for all the Weight of his Arguments depends upon it and if this should fail his whole Fabrick must sink of Course It was certainly time for him to call a new Cause and since the Practice of the whole Church is against him to omit Authorities and the Sense of Antiquity and to retire to downright Reason But he would have done well to have considered and answered Mr. Hooker's Arguments before he had produced any others on the contrary side For certainly if the Common-wealth be Christian if the People which are of it do publickly embrace the true Religion this very thing doth make it the Church And to make it a separate and independent Society from the State where all Mens Principles are the same is a Notion neither agreeable to Scripture or Reason But I shall not pursue an Argument which has been already so fully and learnedly managed by Mr. Hooker to whom I shall refer the Reader But I think my self obliged to do Mr. Hooker Justice in a Passage cited from him by this Author as though it made for him and which appears to me to be designed to prove directly contrary This Author it seems would perswade us that Mr. Hooker is of his Opinion That the Deprivation of spiritual Persons by the Civil Power is not justifiable by even our present secular Laws And to this end he cites these Words all Men are not for all things sufficient and therefore publick Affairs being divided such Persons must be authorized Iudges in each kind as common Reason may presume to be most fit Which cannot of Kings and Princes ordinarily be presumed in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical so that even common Sense doth rather adjudge this Burthen to other Men. This indeed looks plausibly as it is here set down without its Connexion with what goes before and follows it But however all that it can prove by its self is only That it may be more proper for spiritual Persons to judge in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical But then it denies not That if Princes are so pleased they may judge themselves this takes not away their Right though it may be Prudence in them to appoint others to sit in their stead But let us see the full Scope and Extent of Mr. Hooker ' s Words As says he the Person of the King may for just Considerations even where the Cause is civil be notwithstanding withdrawn from occupying the Seat of Iudgment and others under his Authority be fit he unfit himself to judge so the Considerations for which it were haply not convenient for Kings to sit and give Iudgment in spiritual Courts where Causes Ecclesiastical are usually debated can be no bar to that Force and Efficacy which their Sovereign Power hath over those very Consistories And for which we hold without any Exception That all Courts are the King 's And then follows All Men are not for all things sufficient c. And after that he goes on We see it hereby a thing necessary to put a difference as well between that ordinary Iurisdiction which belongs unto the Clergy alone and that Commissionary wherein others are for just Considerations appointed to join with them as also between both these Iurisdictions and a third whereby the King hath transcendent Authority over both Why this may not lawfully be granted unto him there is no Reason Now take the whole together and the Argument turns on the other side and proves That the Judgment of the supream Power is in all manner of Causes to be the highest But hower were Ecclesiastical Courts alone to judge of spiritual Matters and there could be no Appeals from their Decisions which yet the supream Power has a Right to receive yet these Courts do not exercise any Power that is not derived from the Supremacy either mediately or immediately The Laws by which they act and exercise their Jurisdiction proceed from thence and the Courts are constituted by its Authority So that all that is done there is by Virtue of the King's Commission But besides if the King had no Power at all in spiritual Cases yet it does not appear That the Cause of the deprived Bishops is purely spiritual they are as much Ecclesiastical Persons now as they were before their Deprivation And though they may not exercise any part of Episcopal Power in the King's Dominions yet they still retain their Office and have a Right to perform all the Duties of it where and whensoever the Sovereign Power will authorise them to it It was the Opinion of Archbishop Laud That the Use and Exercise of his Jurisdiction in Foro Conscientiae might not be but by the Leave and Power of the King within his Dominions If his Majesty should forbid a Physician to practise within his Dominions for some Crime committed by him 't is plain That by this means he is not degraded from his Profession nor will it follow That his Majesty ought to be acquainted with that Art before he pronounces Sentence against him If his Offence had been
Opinions or Innovations in Religion by a judicial Sentence against them in Convocation without the Pleasure of the State The Church will by this means be deprived of its Liberty and never be in a Capacity of deciding any Controversies which may disturb its Peace and Unity And if the Prince be Heretical as 't is not impossible and will not suffer the Meeting of a Convocation our Religion will then very probably be corrupted by Errors and Heresies and the Church unable to relieve it by being divested of the Power of summoning its Clergy by whose united Opinions and Decrees a timely stop might be put to all false Doctrines and Divisions To this I answer That the Case is the same wherever the Power shall be lodged Let us suppose in a Metropolitan Now 't is not impossible but he also may be a Heretick and will not suffer a Convocation of the Clergy For if the Authority is in him the inferior Order must be as much subject to his Will as to that of the Civil Governor and may as equally be deprived of their Liberty of Meeting by the one as the other and so it may be let the Authority be placed in any other Hands But perhaps it may be thought that the Civil Power is not a proper Judge of the Necessities of the Church when its Faith or Discipline are in danger of being corrupted or destroyed Let it be granted That there may be others more fit to judge of these things tho' it may happen that even some of the Clergy themselves may be mistaken in these Matters and may be sometimes very unfit Judges of the most proper Times for calling a Convocation Yet I hope the King is not to be precluded from all Council and Advice in such Cases If any of the Clergy had the Power they would not I presume make use of it upon their own single Opinion They would certainly ask the Advice of the most Wise and Judicious in such Matters And why the King may not have the same Priviledges and Opportunities of Enquiry I can see no Reason But it is objected That the Office of the Clergy is distinct from that of the Civil Power and they receive no Parts of it from thence and therefore cannot be under its Jurisdiction So it was also among the Jews yet their Kings had the Supream Power over their Priests The Power and Authority of the King is Spiritual though he is not invested with the Spiritual Office The King indeed seems in some Cases to be subject to the Priestly Office as he is to receive the Sacraments Absolution and the like from them So also is he subject to his Physician as to his Health he is to be governed by his Rules and Methods for preserving Life Yet this does not diminish his Authority over either His Right over them as Supream Governor still remains the same But 't is again objected That the Care of Souls is the particular and immediate Business of the Clergy And the observance of the true Religion being necessary to that end 't is undeniable that they ought to have a Power of endeavouring to preserve it by such ways as may seem most effectual and proper for it To this we may answer That the Supream Governor has the same Care incumbent upon him he is obliged to preserve and defend the true Religion to see it rightly observed and to punish those that do Evil For which Reason G. Vossius as well as Grotius is of Opinion that Princes have the Supream Authority in Sacred Matters by a Divine Right For if they are the Ministers of God for Good they must have the Supream Command in Religious Matters whereby to enforce Obedience to them And indeed if the Commission given by God to Moses and Exercised afterwards by Ioshua and the Iewish Kings and never abolished by our Saviour does give the same Right and Authority to Christian Kings now to call Ecclesiastical Assemblies as they did it can't be denied that they also Act by a Divine Commission And it is one great Business of theirs that Divine Things should be rightly ordered and the Salvation of Men procured They are the Defenders and Guardians of the Divine Law The Inspectors of the Actions of all Men and have accordingly a Power to Reward and Punish 'T is also necessary that Kings should have the chief Command in Religious Matters because Religion is of mighty Service to the Civil Government nothing more advantageous for the preserving Peace and Unity Love of our Country Justice Equity and all other Moral Duties which 't is a Princes Duty to maintain And which he has no means of effecting so well as by his Sovereign Power in all Sacred Concerns And therefore to deprive him of this Power is to forbid him the Exercising those Commands which a Vertuous King is obliged to Upon the whole then it can't be denied That by our Constitution the King has the sole Power of calling and dissolving Convocations and that they have no Authority to Act but what is derived from him And whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy grants as much That this Power is no other than what was Exercised by the Iewish Kings and afterwards by the first Christian Emperors and was never disowned and protested against by the Clergy That the Practice of the Christians before the Conversion of the Supream Authority is not concerned in the Dispute and that the Scriptures are either for us or wholly silent in the Matter Tho' I think we may fairly urge That the Examples of the Iewish Kings and the general Authority given to Princes by God do sufficiently prove even from Scripture that this Power does belong to them That the Ends of Government require That where all profess the same Religion they should all be subject to the same Common Head in Spiritual as well as Civil Affairs And that He to whom the chief Care of the Church is committed and to whom it principally belongs to preserve and defend the Orders and Constitutions of it should also have the Principality of Power in Approving and Establishing them But if the Clergy have the sole Power by a Divine Commission of making Ecclesiastical Laws it will follow That 't is the Prince's Business to maintain and see them observed whether he is willing to consent to them or not He cannot refuse to obey them himself nor to oblige others to submit to them Nay more if the Clergy have a Divine Right to meet and constitute any Orders without the leave of the Supream Power they have a Right also to Decree and Enact what Laws they may judge beneficial to the Church how opposite soever to the Constitutions of the State They may declare what Doctrines they please to be taught in the Church provided they be not repugnant to the Law of God For if their Right is Divine their Power is Absolute and Uncontroulable where Scripture has not determined the bounds and
of God not of Men and the whole Work was his not the Apostles As for the use of the Keys which is perpetually annext to the Pastoral Office that implies no Iurisdiction The denouncing the Divine Threats and Punishments and the enjoyning restitution of Goods unjustly gotten are only so many declarations of the Divine Law Excommunication is of the same kind The denying the Sacraments to notorious Offenders is not Exercising any Dominion over them but is only a Suspension of the Pastors own Act and therefore is not any part of Jurisdiction From the whole it appears That the Authority which was committed to the Clergy does not reach to the making of Laws or to oblige any Persons to be subject to their Injunctions by Vertue of their own Power They may do both by the consent and permission of the Supream Authority but of themselves they can pretend no Right They are only allowed by the Scriptures to declare and deliver their Opinions about any Religious Matters but the Sovereign Power alone can confirm them and give them the force of Laws But however if at any time there may seem to be absolute necessity for a Convocation to meet for the condemning Errors and Heresies which may have crept into and have disturbed the Peace of the Church Though the Prince in such a Case will not consent to the Assembling the Clergy they may notwithstanding as many of them as think fit give their Opinions concerning such false Notions And if their Opinions have any weight in them they may be perhaps as much regarded by the judicious part of the World as the Judgment of a whole Convocation For when Men Publish their Reasons concerning any Opinions every Body is at liberty to Discuss and Examine them to search into the strength of their Arguments be able to discover whether their Thoughts are well weighed or whether they are not the effects of a peevish mis-guided Zeal rather than of a serious deliberate Judgment The World can then judge whether Mens Enquiries into others Notions and their Censures of them are impartial or not whether a Man's prejudice or perhaps his Ignorance or both do not biass or mis-lead his Apprehensions It is not impossible that Men may side with a Party in a Convocation only because 't is the greatest may judge against Men and their Opinions only because they are theirs but the World may be best satisfied of the Reasons and Motives of every Man's Judgment when they are submitted to Publick Examination Besides the Consent of a Church may be known by the unanimous Writings of all the Great Men of that Church that have treated of such Subjects For the Affairs of Religion have been more often managed this way and the Consent of the Church more frequently signified by Communication of Letters as Grotius observes than by Synods I would not be thought to derogate from the usefulness of Convocations and from that Respect and Submission which is justly due to their Decisions Whenever the King shall be pleased to give them leave to sit and Act every Man is obliged to be determined by their Orders and Decrees as soon as ever they are legally confirmed But there is not at all times a necessity for their Meeting and there may be often greater Reasons to urge against than for it Grotius assigns these as two of the chief Ends of having Synods one is to counsel and direct the Prince in the advancement of Truth and Piety the other that the Consent of the Church may be Established and made known But a Synod is not absolutely necessary upon either of these accounts Counsel is not necessary for a Prince in things that are sufficiently plain by the Light of Nature or Supernatural Revelation Who doubts but he that denies a God a Providence or a Iudgment to come that calls in question the Divinity of Christ or the Redemption purchased by him who I say can doubt that a Man so profane may not be put out of Office or banished the Common-wealth without the advice of others Besides the Prince has the Judgment of former Synods to assist and guide him in such Cases so that he need not be obliged to call a new one He hath the perpetual Consent and Determinations of the most Serious and Learned Men who have lived in all other Ages as well as the present so that a Synod cannot be absolutely necessary for this End As for the Consent of a whole Church there may be other Methods as was already observed of declaring that without the Meeting of a Convocation If then the Ends for which Convocations are to be called are not indispensably necessary certainly their Right to sit cannot be Divine But however it may be this to me seems very apparent that they are guilty of a very great Sin against God and their own Consciences if any such there are that either publickly maintain or secretly believe the Divine Right of Convocations independent on the Supream Civil Authority and yet submit to be Members of such a one as has no Power to Sit or Act but what depends solely upon the Pleasure of the State If they are convinced that the Clergy have a Divine Commission to Assemble themselves and that the Concessions made by the Clergy in Henry the Eighth's Time were unjust and sinful why don't they Act agreeably to themselves Why don't they protest against the Power of the Prince to call them refuse his Writs and disobey his Summons For the very Meeting by his Appointment is an acknowledgment of his Power and an actual Surrendring of those Rights which they pretend are only theirs by Vertue of the Divine Institution and consequently are in the very least degree for ever unalienable If then there are any as I would willingly believe there are not who plead for such a Divine Right and yet submit to be called to Convocation by a Lay-Authority they must grant at least that their Practice is very inconsistent with their Notions But this I leave to the Consideration of the Elaborately confused Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum But yet in asserting the King's Authority over Convocations we don't mean that he may prescribe what himself thinks good to be done in the Service of God How the Word shall be taught how the Sacraments Administred That he may by judicial Sentence decide Questions which may arise about Matters of Faith and Christian Religion that Kings may Excommunicate Finally that Kings may do whatsoever is incident unto the Office and Duty of an Ecclesiastical Judge But to give Mr. Hooker's Words we mean That the King 's Royal Power is of so large compass that no Man Commanded by him can plead himself to be without the limits and bounds of that Authority And that Kings should be in such sort Supream Commanders over all Men we hold it requisite as well for the ordering of Spiritual as Civil Affairs in as much as without universal Authority