The Interest of England in the Matter of Religion, Essays 1 · Section 25 – Section 27
Section XXV.
As concerning the Liturgy, the Presbyterians do not gain-say the lawfulness of a stinted form of Prayer, in as much as the observing either of a Form or a Directory is not of the substance of prayer, but an accident or circumstance belonging to it, and left to humane determination. It is further granted by them, that in some parts of publick worship a form is ordinarily necessary; as in the Sacramental actions, in the act of Baptizing, and of consecrating and delivering the Lords Supper. And herein will be no dis-harmony, because they are Scripture forms. Likewise in such parts of Divine Service where it is not necessary, they can submit unto it for the Churches peace: Nevertheless they are not satisfied in the present Liturgy, but desire it may be laid aside, or much reformed. And what solid reason withstands the equity of this desire? Moderate Prelatists have acknowledged considerable imperfections in the Book of Common-Prayer, and Bishop Usher hath collected sundry particulars in his direction concerning the same presented to the House of Commons upon their request. Let sober judgments consider, whether this or that form of prayer be of the substance of that sacred exercise, or only its outward shape and dress. If it were of the substance of Religious Worship, it would require Divine Institution to make it lawful, as do other parts of instituted Worship. If it be only an outward shape and dress left to humane prudence, it is variable according to the difference of times. Whosoever observes impartially shall find that Political Prudence was joyned with Christian Piety in composing the English Service Book. In the beginning of Reformation the wisdom of the State so ordered, that so great a change might be made with as little noise as was possible, and with regard to what the Nation would bear. Accordingly when a Rebellion was raised in Coruwal, and Devonshire, about the change of Religion, King Edward to appease the matter told the people, That it was no other then the old Service in the English Tongue. Likewise when this form was revived by Queen Elizabeth, one might conjecture, that care was taken, that no passage offensive, even to the Papists, might remain therein; for we find an alteration in the Letany very material. Whereas King Edwards books ran thus, [From all sedition and privy conspiracy, from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, from all false Doctrine and Heresie.] These words [From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities] were left out in Queen Elizabeths time, and ever since. Whereupon the Papists throughout this Kingdom resorted to our Divine Service for the first ten years of that Queens Reign. And this came to pass also by the Popes connivance, who was not then in despaire of reducing England by fair means. But sithence Papists have been Recusants. Wherefore if forms be variable, according to the difference of times, and the present Liturgy was compiled with respect to the peace of former times, and the reconciling of Papists to Protestants, but is now become by change of times, an occasion of dividing Protestants from each other, without hope of regaining Papists: Can Religion or Reason plead for the rigorous imposing of it (especially without very much emendation) upon godly peaceable Ministers and people that daie not use it throughout? Doth the Life and Soul of Religion lye in the Common-Prayer? Is it as ancient as Christianity, yea, or of equal extent with the Protestant Reformation? Whence is it then that many will have no communion with those that do not use it, or would cast out of the Church those that cannot use it throughout, who nevertheless in all necessary parts of worship are conformable to Protestant Doctrine and practice? Is that efficacy or excellency in it, that the laying it aside would much impair and weaken Religion, and darken its glory? Let it be then examined, whether it hath made the comers thereunto more perfect then others, more knowing in Religion, more pious and blameless in their conversation then those that frequent it not. Let experience come forth and witness; which (if constant and universal) is the best proof of the efficacy or imbecillity of any institution. Suppose a Liturgy were framed of Confessions, Petitions, and Thanksgivings, wholly collected out of Sacred Scripture, both for matter and expressions, would it be inferiour to that which is now in question? Doubtless such a form would be a happy expedient to put an end to this controversie.
Section XXVI.
Canonical subscription lately imposed is a yoke of bondage, to be considered by all those that have a true regard to such liberty in Religion, as equity and necessity pleads for, Blessed be God who hath put it into the Kings heart to extend compassion to a multitude of his faithful Subjects, and to remove this yoke; let not this or the like be laid on their necks any more. The Canon requires a subscribing to the thirty nine Articles, to the Common-Prayer Book, to the book of ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons; that all these contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of God. This is unreasonable, unprofitable, and unnecessary. It is unreasonable; for were it just and reasonable, it must suppose not only perfect verity throughout the whole, without any mixture of error; but also either a spirit of infallibility in the composers of those books, or the like measure of judgment and perswasion in all Orthodox and pious Ministers, concerning all particulars in so large a volume, written by men subject to error. That there is not perfect Verity without mixture, or grounded suspition of error, there is real evidence. To assert a spirit of infallibility in the composers thereof, is not consonant to Protestant principles. To suppose the like measure of faith and judgement in all Orthodox godly Ministers concerning fallible writings is absurd; and to rack men unto it, is an imitation of that Tyrant, that would stretch miserable creatures unto the length of that bed of torment upon which he laid them It is also unprofitable: For these forced large subscriptions are known to be no sure hold-fast of the multitude drawn into them, whereof many come hand over head, meerly as to an injoyned form; others more considerate do it in their own sence. And indeed the best service which this Injunction doth, is to lye as a bar to exclude the more deliberate sort, or as a clog to oppress their consciences. If to remedy this evil you allow men to use their own limitations and explanations, the business it self is insignificant. It to satisfie several parties, you pen the Doctrines and Forms in ambiguous tearms, the swaying part of the Church will draw them to their own peculiar sence, and establish their own opinions, to the crushing of dissenters; as by the potency of some Prelates, Arminianism was asserted for the Doctrine of the Church of England.
Lastly, it is unnecessary, for we suppose the benefits pretended by it are unity in Doctrine & uniformity in Practice; both which may be as well attained and far more kindely, without this enforced Subscription, if no Minister be suffered to preach or write any thing contrary to the established Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, nor ordinarily for the main to neglect the established Rule. But what inconvenience, if in things of lesser weight, a latitude were allowed? A little variety indulged in some particles, is no impeachment of Uniformity, but rather an establishment thereof with contentment and tranquility. Contrariwise, as the wringing of the Nose draws forth blood; so over-straining and rigid injunctions distemper the mindes of men otherwise peaceable, and stir up strife.
Section XXVII.
Moreover, the publick state of these differences is such, that the Prelatists may and ought to descend to the Presbyterians in the proposed moderate way; but the Presbyterians cannot come up to the Prelatists in the height of their way. For the Prelates condescention stands only in omission or forbearance of certain things which seem to them lawful and laudable, but the subjection of the Presbyterians stands in subscribing and conforming to certain things which to them seem unlawful: And common equity will soon pass its verdict, that the condescention of the one is far more easie then the subjection of the other. Bishop Davenant in his Determinations resolves in one question, that a Protestant may not with a safe conscience be present at the Popish Mass, because he wounds his conscience by impious dissimulation, thereby making a shew of approving that pretended expiatory sacrifice. In another Question he resolves, That Papists are bound to be present at the English Divine Service, because nothing occurs therein, that can be by themselves reproved. In applying this to our case, it is far from my thoughts to make the comparison between Presbyterians and Prelatists parallel with that between Protestants and Papists; but I make the reason of both cases parallel: for as Papists find nothing in the Protestant Liturgy (according to their own principles) impious or unsound; in like manner the Prelatists can find no positive thing in the propounded terms of accommodation, contrary to divine right and primitive practice; only as the Papists find not so much as they would have in our Liturgy, so the Prelatists in the said proposals: Nay, the Papists have better colour of reason to separate from our publique Service, because, although they find nothing positively unsound, yet according to the Roman Faith they may pretend fundamental defects therein; as the want of the sacrifice of the Mass: but the Prelatists can here alledge no such thing; the supposed defects and omissions being only in things remote from the foundation of Faith and Religion. For we trust the greater number of them do not hold, that there is no Church without a Prelate having sole jurisdiction over the Clergy; That there is no Ministry but what is ordained by such a Prelate; That there is no true divine Service, where the Common-Prayer Book is not used; and that there is no acceptable worship, without humane mystical Ceremonies. Let them that have taken up such opinions sadly consider whether they are led therein by conscience, or by humour and designe.