sixth who it is well known had no such power and soveraignty in himself as our present Protector hath And to this end he saith And now Candles Ashes and Images being gone as you see there followed in the next moneth after to wit March that the Protector still desiring to go forward with his designment of alteration sent abroad a Proclamation in the Kings name with a certain Communion-book in English to be used for administration of Sacraments in stead of the Mass-book But whether it was the very same that was rejected a little before in the Parliament or another patched up afterward or the same mended or altered is not so cleer But great care there was had by the Protector and his adherents that this Book should be admited and put in practice presently even before it was allowed in Parliament To which effect Fox setteth down a large Letter of the Council to all Bishops exhorting and commanding them in the Kings name to admit and put in practice this Book We have thought good say they to pray and require your Lordships and nevertheless in the Kings Majesties our most dread Lords name to command you to have a diligent earnest and careful respect to cause these Books to be delivered to every Parson Vicar and Curate within your Diocese with such diligence as they may have sufficient time well to instruct and advise themselves for the distribution of the most holy Communion according to the Order of this Book before this Easter time c. praying you to consider that this Order is set forth to the intent there should be in all parts of the Realm one uniform manner quietly used To the execution whereof we do eftsoons require you to have a diligent respect as you tender the Kings Majesties pleasure and will answer to the contrary c. From Westminster the 13. of March 1548. By all which and by much more that might be alleadged it is evident that all that was hitherto done against Catholick Religion for these first two years until the second Parliament was done by private authority of the Protector and his adherents before Law and against Law c. 40. And if we look farther into the Preamble of the first Statute that confirmed this Book by him also set down a little after sect 35. we may find that the said Book was appointed first for Uniformity and next that it or some other had been set on foot before by the Lord Protector in the Kings name The words are Where of long time saith the Act there hath been in this Realm of England divers Forms of Common-Prayer commonly called the Service of the Church as well concerning Mattens and Evensong as also the whole Communion called the Mass c. And where the Kings Majesty with the advice of his most entirely beloved Vncle the Lord Protector and others of his Highness Council hath heretofore divers times assayed to stay Innovations or new Rites concerning the premisses yet the same hath not had such good success as his Highness required in that behalf Whereupon his Highness by the most prudent advice aforesaid being pleased to bear with the frailty and weakness of his Subjects in that behalf of his great clemencie hath not been only content to abstain from punishment in that behalf but also to the intent that an uniform quiet and godly order should be had concerning the premisses hath appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain of the most learned and discreet Bishops to consider and ponder the premisses and thereupon having as well an eye and respect to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scriptures as the usages of the Primitive Church should draw and make one convenient and meet order rite and fashion of Common-Prayer and administration of Sacraments to be used in England Wales c. The which at this time by the aid of the Holy Ghost with uniform agreement is of them concluded set forth and delivered to his Highness great comfort and quietness of mind in a Book entituled The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments c. Now truly I cannot for my part see how we can make either the first Imposition or receipt of this Book lawfull if we stick not to our main principle in acknowledging the present supream Christian Magistrate to be head of the Church which doubtless the Protector was in the non-age of the King And if those elder Reformed Protestants amongst us did well to conform to this authority in abolition of the Masse and other very ancient services and that notwithstanding the Book had been by Parliament already rejected there seems to me great reason to conform to what an Act of Parliament and a Protector of more power hath determined concerning another alteration of this kinde To think that the Book or the Ceremonies thereby appointed had of themselves separate from that Authority by which they were devised and imimposed any such inherent and divine worth as for their own sake to claim admittance and continuance were plainly to contradict the act it self and the Stories of those times which tell us by whom it was made and by whom commanded and it doth plainly cross the judgement of Mr. Hooker himself who in his answer to Mr. Travers fol. 471. may be found giving sentence for indifferency in the use of these things as in themselves by the instance of kneeling sitting or walking at receiving of Sacraments his words are An order as I learn there was tendred that Communicants should neither kneel as in the most places of the Realm nor sit as in this place the custome is but walk to the one side of the Table and there standing till they had received passe afterwards away round about by the other which being on a sudden begun to be practised in the Church some sat wondring what it should mean others deliberating what to do till such time as at length by name one of them being called openly thereunto requested that they might do as they had been accustomed which was granted and as Master Travers had administred his way to the rest so a Curate was sent to minister to them after their way which unprosperous beginning of a thing saving onely for the inconvenience of needless alterations otherwise harmless did so disgrace that order in their conceit who had to allow or disallow it that it took no place Was there indifferency and harmlesness in the use of these things then and now they onely inconvenient as causing distraction and scandall to the generality of other receivers and could Master Hooker record without censure the custome of that Congregation whereof he was Minister in receiving of the Communion sitting and for ought appears gave it so to them himself whereas yet the Service Book had appointed it kneeling and shall we now think of any inherent divine worâ—â—in the things themselves No sure this would but too plainly argue them guilty of Superstition that so maintain
may be retained as with some it is and with us it is and it may be spared as it is with others spared or retained all is one no claim groweth that way But last of all where it was used as by Samuel to Saul by Zadoc to Solomon yet they claimed nothing in the parties they anointed but called them still Gods and never their own anointed They knew no claim lay by it Nay if it had been a Sacrament as it was but a Ceremony he that ministreth the Sacrament hath no interest in the party by it but God alone and then much lesse he that performeth but a Ceremony is to plead any meos So that every way this claim vanisheth of Christi Pontificis Afterwards he reproves all claim made by the people of power over them as though they were their anointed or had his right to govern from their suffâ—ages And setâ— forth also by divers instances of personal failings both in Government and Religion as well among the Roman Emperors as others that no such pretence of fault could debar the person him that was in power of this priviledg and title so as to give liberty of touching him either with hand tongue or pen or the like For saith he It is the administration to govern not the gift to govern well the right of ruling not the ruling right It includes nothing but a due Title it excludes nothing but Vsurpation And he asks the question who is anointed and answers it on whom the right rests And so again he asketh Who is inunctus and answers He that hath it not that is as I conceive hath not this right by administration to govern or immediate possession of the Government If he be a Foreigner like the Pope he is to be accounted an Usurper as medling in anothers mans jurisdiction Or if he be as he after instanceth in Nimrod one who cared for no anointing thrust himself in and by violence usurped the throne came in rather like one steeped in vinegar then anointed with oil rather as a Ranger of a Forrest then a Father of a family he was no anointed nor any that so cometh in These words at first view will seem to a prejudiced Reader to contradict and overthrow all said before in defence of the authority and respect to be given to the chief Magâ—strate but when we shall have considered those qualifications that debar him this anointing and then whether it abate Subjects in their just obedience or him only in having just title to it and then whether this repulse and resistance of such an one may be made whilst he is first entring or afterwards also and by whom then made we may then well reconcile him to what was said before For first having spoken of that sacred power which belongs to each Christian King as anointed he was to oppose to it all foreign claim whether craftily entred upon as the Pope mentioned before or forcibly as now instanced in Nimrod especially if a Heathen or of another Religion in which respect he could not be reckoned among the Christi not caring for anointing or to have care of Church or Religion which is the drift of this Discourse When as if we should understand that every one that a discontented party will call Usurpers or do make a forcible entry may be by those that live under his obeisance withstood upon any allegation we make him contradict himself in commending that submission which Primitive Christians gave to their former Emperors although known Usurpers and some of them different in Religion 43. But he will be best understood to gainsay such kind of Liberty or meaning by the immediate following words But on the other side David or he that beginneth a royal race is as the Head on him is that right of ruling first shed from him it runs down to the next and so still even to the lowest border of his issue so that then you finde that it is not that which now is usually called Usurpation the possâ—ssion of the government by a new Person or Family that is Usurpation indeed for how then should any amongst Christians be thought a lawfull beginner of a Royal Race who in his possession must needs dispossess some person of the old family which could never be supposed to want some such relating to him in kindred as to be apparantly within the lowest borders of this natural Issue as he said before And if he did do so as David did to the family of Saul and have not the like Divine anointing and warrant as he had how shall Subjects be so guided in their distinction as not mistake and think every one a Usurper For if such an one be a Usurper then are Christian Kingdoms governed by a race of Usurpers Nay by Usurpers too if as he saith right be to be derived from the first beginner of a Race 44. And it is also to be noted that this derivation of right from first seisure as though his right were best even as Davids was better then any that followed doth contradict that fancy of prescription as meer fancy indeed wherein it is made worst or rather to have no worth at all but that the Successors do arrive at Lawfulness accordcording as by degrees they shall be removed from it 45. And to prove his meaning to be that Subjects may not upon any such Allegation rise or resist we shall finde him instancing in the case of Saul of whom he saith fol. 791. I verily think God in this first example of his first King over his own people hath purposely suffered them all to fall out and to be found in him even all that should fall out in any King after him to enforce their Position that so we might find them answered to our hands To touch them in Order they would easily have quarrelled at Sauls mis government Not at the first he then was a mild and a gracious Prince Never came there from any Princes mouth a more princely speech then the first speech he is recorded to have spoken Quid populo quod flet what ailes the people to complain A speech worthy everlasting memory so they complain not without cause But within a while he grew so stern and fierce as no man might speak to him Upon every light occasion nay upon no occasion at all his Javelin went straight to nail men to the wall not David onely but Jonathan his Son and Heir apparant and no cause why In the 13. Chapter it is said Saul had then been King a yeer and reigned two years in Israel yet it is well known his reign was fourty years Their own Writers resolve it thus how long soever he reigned he was a King but two years All the time after he was somewhat else or somewhat more then a King And they let not to tell what applying to Saul that of the Psalm Tyrants that have not God before their eyes seek after my soul And that Vnder thy wings shall
set up in his house any Religion he would and no man controle him for it To look to every one therefore but especially to Mica and to care for all but above all the matter of Religion Ne quisque videat quod rectum est there that every one be not allowed to see Visions there At least Ne quisque faciat that see what they list they be not suffered to set them up But if the Eye will not be rectified the Hand be restrained And sure no where doth the eye more misse â—or the hand swerve then in this and therefore no where more cause to call for a King then for this Oâ—e would think this were impertinent and we were free enough from Mica We are not Even to this day do men still cast Images or Imaginations all as one in the mould of their conceits and up they set them at least for their own houshould to adore And then if they can get such a fellow as is hereafter described a Levite for ten Shekels and a Suit or because now the world is harder ten poâ—nd they are safe and there they have and hold a Religion by themselves For evident it is by this Text setting up of false Worship is the cause why Kings were missed and the redress of it why they were placed The cause I say and the first cause of their placing and therefore this a part and a principal part of their Charge I will touch them severally 1. A part to look to Mica and his false Worship Why this is matter Ecclesiastical It is so and thereby it appeareth I think that Kings have and are to have a hand in matters of that nature If Religion were at faulâ— because there was no King and that one there must be to set it right again For is it once to be imagined that the cause of corrupt Religion is laid on the want of a King and yet when there is one he should not meddle with it Rather the consequence is strong on the other side Mica thus did because there wâ—â— then no Kiâ—g therefore when there is one he will look better to it that never a Mica of them all shall do the like Thus it went when there was no King after when there was one I find again the not taking the High places which were plâ—ces meerly Religious where the people did Sacrifice in pated still to the King as his fault and yet shall he have nothing to do with High places or sacrificing either there or any where else Very strange it were that they who are by God himself by an express Ego dixi â—ermâ—d Gods should yet have nothing to do with Gods affairs And no less that being termed by Isaiah Nutritii Foster-Fathers to whose care the Church is committed to cherish and bring up should yet be forbidden to intermeddle with the Church in that which is of all fostering the principal part Verily when the Apostle speaketh of the service that Kings do unto God he doth not onely use the term of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Publick Officer but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too as it were Gods Deacon oâ— Servitor by a name peculiar to the Church Offices and this he uses twice for one other It can therefore neither be denied nor doubted of in that Idâ—latry came up by defect of Kings but that Kings were placed to pull down Idolatry and to plant and preserve the true Service of God In a word there is a King in Israel that there may not be a Mica in Israel That is that no man be suffered to set up any form of Worship formerly used if not now allowed which was Micha's case with his Teraphim and think that through some lâ—gal sanctimony inherent to the Ephod and to that Priest that shall officiate as being a Levite he shall be justified herein and they onely condemned that devise some new form to be exercised in their private meetings and set up some other sort of persons even some Son of their own to be their Minister therein No the use of a King will plainly appear out of what he hath said before That Gods people or a Church cannot be without such a Government which is necessary for them as a Church even for the making and keeping them the people of God that is for keeping them united in one true Relgion That to him Omnis anima every soul is to be subject having power both to direct and correct for else it would be for Israel to have no King when there is a King And therefore since as he proved he is to take care of Religion and to see what forms of Worship are set up it is not allowed to any to set up their private imaginations now as Mica did his Images of old 52. In those differences between the Nonconformists and Papists the one in their imaginations liking of no form or settlement made by humane Direction or Precept and the other attributing too much to their Images the things themselves so settled that speech of our Saviors concerning the disagreement between the Samaritans and the Jews hath by way of comparison often come into my miud I have on the one side thought that to frame a Worship out of opposition and to have no reason for it but because our Fathers did so is but too Samaritan like to worship we know not what Whilst without due consideration of the different degree of splendor and greatness which the Church shall by the goodness of God have in doing these things at one time more then another we shall ingratefully forget to make suitable return in our expressions and acknowledgments thereof in his Worship But then on the other side again when inward devotion is chiefly expected to fancy that this or that precise form might out of any inherent worth in it self or out of singular opinion we have of some persons who first instituted them be onely observed and none other were now unreasonably to follow the example of the Jews in fixing all adoration in one precise place without consideration that the Christian Church is not now like theirs included in one Nation nor can be presumed so tyed to the constitution of any one Prince herein as they were to Solomon as to exclude others of equal jurisdiction and power from making such alterations as they shall find suitable to that present condition they shall be in If upon the score of ancâ—ent inâ—itation alone we transgress the order of that Church under which we live then singularity and difference will render us but Innovators and prove us rather antick then antient in our way of Worship 53. In these much more I might have alleadged out of these Authors I have pitched upon in justification of supream Magistrates power in ordering the affairs of the Church but these alleadged being as I conceive plain and enough for satisâ—action of any unprejudiced person I have spared that labor and have also out of ease to the