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
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
have the supream Right over it in all things that concern Religion either for making any new Orders or Offices that may tend to the Advantage of the Church and that no humane Authority can of Right interfere with or hinder it It can't indeed be denied but that Christ has instituted and ordained a Succession of Pastors of his Flock and committed certain proper Functions to them such as the preaching the Word the Administration of the Sacraments the Power of the Keys and the like and that there shall be such no Power on Earth has a Right to forbid so far there is a Divine Institution But that the supream Governor to whom these Pastors are subject has not a Power over them in all those things which the Scripture mentions nothing of and which are not any part of the Ministerial Office or Function this we absolutely deny All human Institutions must be subject to human Laws and since Convocations are such because not appointed by any Divine Law all the Power they have must be deriv'd from that Authority to which they are subject If it be said That if the Prince has this Power he may make a wrong use of it yet this does not prove against his Right Our Abuse of any thing is not an Argument that we have no Rightor Title to it If indeed the Prince should happen to be of a different Religion and disclaim all Right to his Supremacy over the Church or abuse it to the Destruction of it I see no Reason but if the Necessities of the Church should require it the Clergy now may have the same Privilege as the Primitive Christians and may assemble of their own accord as they might have done when their Emperors were Heathen Common Prudence will direct what is proper in such Cases As Right Reason and the Laws of Equity would advise That the chief Power over Ecclesiastical Affairs should be committed to the Sovereign Authority when Christian which is supposed upon that Account to be as much concerned for the Good of the Church as of the State And indeed where nothing is determined on either side this must necessarily be fixt there Because there is no other that can either by Divine or human Right lay claim to the like Authority There is no other possible way of determining the Bounds of the supream Power but by the Law of God or Nature It s Right extends over all things but what are either commanded or forbidden by them Now then allowing Mr. Hooker's Opinion That as for supream Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs the Word of God doth no-where appoint that all Kings shall have it neither that any should not have it yet for this very Cause it seemeth to stand altogether by human Right that unto Christian Kings there is such Dominion given As for the Law of Nature I think it must be granted to be no way concerned in the present Controversie Grotius does indeed allow That the Original of Synods is derived from the Law of Nature For Man being a sociable Creature does naturally associate himself with those who pursue the same Methods and Manner of Life So Merchants for the Improvement of Traffick so Physicians and Lawyers meet and consult together for the examining the Mysteries of their Art and for the advancing their Profession But then to prevent Mistake he distinguishes between an absolute Law of Nature which cannot be changed as to worship God honour our Parents and to do no Injury to the Innocent and that which is natural after a sort as being most reasonable and allowed of by Nature till human Laws interpose Thus every thing by Nature is common all Men are free the nearest Relation is Heir till by human Appointment and Consent Propriety and Subjection were introduced and the Inheritance disposed of by Will In this latter Sense he allows it to be natural to hold Synods but he denies it to be so in the other because then no Bishops would ever have petitioned the Emperors for leave to meet and St. Hierom's Argument to prove a Synod unlawful would be invalid Shew me saith he what Emperor commanded the meeting of that Council Synods therefore are to be accounted in the number of those things which being allowed of by the Law of Nature are yet subject to human Constitutions and may be assembled or prohibited by them And if in the Reigns even of the Pagan Emperors any Laws or Imperial Edicts had been published against holding Synods and the Necessities of the Church not evidently required their meeting but especially had those heathen Powers allowed them all the Liberty of meeting for Prayers and performing other Duties which Christ had appointed and were necessary to be done by them in Obedience to his Commands I know no Right the Clergy could have pretended for their assembling It is certain That the Church might subsist and be preserved without them And thereupon the Bishops were very careful not to offend or provoke their Governors by their Synodical meeting whatever Occasions there might be for them St. Cyprian as Grotius observes has shewn in several Places That when in times of Persecution there arose a hot Contest about receiving the lapsed into Communion and for the putting an end to it nothing seemed more necessary than for the Clergy to meet and consult together in common yet the Bishops deferred the meeting till the Storm was blown over which certainly they ought not to have done if Synods had been enjoin'd by a positive Law either Divine or Natural and could have been no more dispensed with than the Duties of worshipping God and honouring our Parents Since then there appears no Authority from Scripture or from the Practice of the Church after the State was Christian or from the Law of Nature to found this Pretence upon of the Clergy's having a distinct Right from the State of assembling themselves in Convocation it is evident That the Laws of the Land and the Suffrage of the Convocation in Henry the 8th's Reign and of all the Convocations that have been held since which by common Consent have invested the King with this Power and have submitted to it were not so rash and irreligious as some Men would insinuate Even the Convocations in Queen Mary's Reign when that Law was abrogated yet met and acted by her Authority But it is to be observed That the Arguments which are now produced to prove the Church Independent on the State by a Divine Right are the same which Mr. Hooker taxed as the Errors of some in his time who asserted the Unlawfulness of the Prince's exercising any Authority in the Affairs of the Church The Causes of common received Errors in this point seem to be especially two One That they who embrace true Religion living in such Common-wealths as are opposite thereunto in other publick Affairs retain civil Communion with them This was the State of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and Babylon the
measures of it Every one sees what Distractions such a Power might occasion and therefore we can't pay too great a Veneration to our Laws which have wisely provided against them That have intrusted this Power with the Prince whose Interest it is as much to preserve the Church as the State And I hope we have no Reason to believe but that he makes it as truly and sincerely his concern to vindicate the Cause of Religion as any amongst us If there are such Dangers threaten the Church that nothing but a Convocation can prevent no doubt but he will think it a great Obligation upon him to call one But yet it is not at all times necessary Mens Heats will not always suffer it And if it should chance to fire their Tempers instead of cooling them it would be then very Prejudicial We confess indeed with Grotius and Others That Synods are often times very useful to the Order and Government of the Church yet we also join with them that there may be such a time when they are far from being convenient much less necessary But our greatest wonder is at the Boldness of some Men who maintain That even when the Powers take on them the Protection of the Church whether they will or no Synods may lawfully and rightly be Assembled Of another Mind says Vossius were all those who have hitherto defended the Cause of the Protestants against the Papists and he cites several Authorities for it As for the Assertors of a Divine Right of Synods 't is something difficult to know their meaning they seem too much to distrust their Cause to speak plain enough to be understood If they mean no more by that Expression than that Christ hath so constituted his Church as to leave a Power of Goverment with the Bishops of it for the better ordering its Affairs who accordingly may either by Consent meet themselves or by their Authority call together their Clergy and agree on such things as are necessary for the ordering of it This is what in States not Christian will never be deny'd by us But if they pretend to a Power from God of Meeting and Acting independently on the Sovereign Authority tho' Christian and of Making and Establishing Ecclesiastical Laws and Constitutions without his Consent this is what we utterly deny And I would desire to know of the Author of The Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops by what Authority either from the Scripture or the Practice of the Church he will oppose this or with what Justice he can so severely reflect on the Memory of the first Reformers for being of the same Opinion But to return supposing we should allow this jus divinum which they contend for yet after all it must be left to human Prudence to determine when 't is proper for Convocations to meet and then who is it that must judge of the proper Seasons for it Who of the Clergy have a divine Commission to judge of the Reasons and fix the time for it Or suppose the Clergy should differ in their Judgments who is the supream Arbiter that must decide when it is most convenient and accordingly shall have the Power of summoning all the rest Superiority in Bishops over each other is an act of human Authority since Christ did not appoint a Head and therefore any one of those can't have a Power by Divine Right of summoning all the rest Where then must the Power be placed For they who urge such an Institution against us ought to assign where they would have the divine Power of summoning the Convocation to be lodged After all 't is Reason that must direct in these Cases when a Convocation ought to be Assembled of what Number of the Clergy it ought to consist where their Power is to be fixed and limited and to whom the chief Authority ought to belong of Calling and Dissolving them and of giving their Resolutions the Force and Sanction of a Law This the Wisdom of the Nation has entrusted with the Sovereign Power and the Church of England has ever since the Reformation own'd and acknowledg'd it to be its peculiar Province As for the Author of the Municipium Ecclesiasticum poor Man he is rather to be Pitied then Censured as to the arguing part of his Book he writes so much backwards and forwards for and against himself and withal so very obscurely that the most charitable Opinion of him is That he knew nothing of what he writ He is so strangly bewildred in his own Notions and so fond of Ill-nature that he is neither to be understood or convinced All he has urged in defence of the Divine Right of Convocations will as much prove a Divine Right of Constables and Church-wardens or any other Officers that may be useful for punishing Immorality or for supporting or advancing the Interest of the Church And for all the Argument I can find in his Book he might as well have called it a Criticism upon Honer's Iliads as an Answer to Dr. Wake This Author is one great Instance why I think a Convocation necessary that Malice and Uncharitableness may have their just Reward that he may be convinced that he who writes at all adventures upon every thing he least understands must not think to carry a Cause only by abusing and defaming his Adversary which is all that I can find he pretends to in all his Prints And lastly that he may be satisfied that his Ill-breeding which he values himself so much upon is but one way Meritorious I should not have digressed into this way of Writing was it not to inform this Author that there is a difference between Railing and Argument That the one is rude and indecent even when mixt with the other but without it 't is insufferable Thus have I run thro' all the parts of this Dispute about a Convocation which I thought necessary to be considered and discussed I have endeavoured to reduce the Controversie into as narrow a compass and to set it in as clear and true a Light as I could And as I have given my Thoughts freely so I have not been misled by any Prejudice or a desire of pleasing any Party My first Designs were to get a clear view of the Controversie and since there had been of late some heats about it I thought it not improper to expose my Enquires to publick Examination I consulted the best and most rational Authors that I could find had writ upon the Subject tho' I thought it unnecessary to fill out a Volume with Quotations But I shall add what the Learned Vossinus as well as Grotius says upon this occasion namely That besides the Divines all the Writers of Polity that are worth the Reading have declared the supreme Authority of Princes over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes to be one of the principal parts of the Imperial Right Dr. Wake as well as all the other Writers upon this Subject is wholly unknown to me But I can't but think upon an impartial Enquiry into the Controversie that he has given us a very just and learned Account of it and that he agrees with the most judicious and eminent Men that have treated the Subject before him What a peice of daring Confidence must it then be to tax those as mercenary designing Writers that only espouse a Cause which some of the greatest and most learned Men in the World have before defended But I shall urge nothing more but only That I have delivered what I judged to be Right without either Hopes or Fears FINIS * Epis. 23. Dr. Wake Act. Parl. An. 25. Hen. VIII Upon the submission of the Clergy and restraint of Appeals De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra c. 7. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Eccl. Polity l. 8. p. 462. That Clause of the 1st Eli. which gave the King Power to make such high Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes is now repealed Municip Eccles. Preface Defence of the Vind. of the depriv'd Bishops p. 104. See Rast. Stat. 22. H. VIII Ecclesiastical Polity p. 469. Preface p. 44. Ed. Lond. 1682. Vid. Stat. 16. R. 2. against purchasing Bulls from Rome G. Voss. Ep. 23. See Canon 1640. Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews's Sermon before the King at H. C. Canons 1640 Can. 1. See Bishop Andrews Sermon at Hampton Court See Bishop Taylor 's Duct Dub. L. 3. C. 3. Vid. Grot. de Imp. sum Pot. cir Sacra C. 3. Eccl. Pol. p. 444. C. 7. de Synodis See the Defence of the Vind. of the Deprived Bishops Municip Eccl. p. 439. See Bishop Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline p. 109. Eccl. Pol. 467. p. 440 441 c. Defence of the Vind. of the deprived Bishops p. 108. Eccl. Pol. p. 464. See the History of the Troubles and Tryal of Arch-Bp Laud p. 309. lb. p. 309. De Impersum Potest Circa Sacra Chap. 10. By Doctor Hody See Dean Nowel against Dorman See the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Independency of the Clergy on the Lay-Power by the Vindicator of the deprived Bishops Vid. Bp. Burnet's Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2 p. 399. See Dean Nowel who was Prolocut of the Convocat when the Articl were made in his Books against Dorman Hist. of the Reform Vol. 2. p. 400. See Bp. Taylor 's Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 23. Cap. 4. Vid. Selden de Synedriis See Vossius Ep. 23. Duct Dubitant l. 3. c. 4. Cap. 7. De Synodis Cap. 7. De Synodis Vid. Eccle Politie p. 461. P. 467. Acts 15. Chap. 7. De Synodis Voss. Epist 23. Cap. 1. De Imperio See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampton-Court See Bishop Andrew's Sermon at Hampt Court Cap. 7. Vid. Bp. Bramhal against the Scotch Discipline Vossius Epist 23. Vid. Bp. Taylor Ductor Dubitamium Archbp. Bramhal against the Scots Discipline c. Vos Ep. 23. De Imperio sum Potest circa Sacra
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