The Interest of England in the Matter of Religion, Essays 1 · Section 28
Section XXVIII.
The greatest shew of reason opposing this moderation is a pretended fixation in Religion; and indeed it is but a shew and colour. That Religion is a thing unmoveable, all that be truly religious do from the heart acknowledge; and for the immobility thereof, none contend more earnestly then the Presbyterians. But they fix its unmovable state in the Canonical Scripture, and they continually cry to the Law and to the Testimony, against humane Traditions and Inventions, in one Extream, and against Enthusiasms in the other. Upon occasion of any aberration in Doctrine or practice they recall us to the primitive rule and pattern; and what is received from the Lord, that deliver they to the Churches. That sacred Rule they willingly suffer not to be captivated in its interpretation by the Churches infallibility, as do the Papists; nor by proud and arrogant reason, as the Socinians; nor by impulse and imagination, as the Euthusiasts: but they maintain it in its full authority to interpret it self, whose authentick interpretation we are inabled to discern by rational inferences and deductions, wherein we make use of reason not as an argument, but as instrument.
As for the Decrees and Canons of the Church, what rightful Authority doth make them as the Law of the Medes and Persians that altereth not? Must things be enacted by the Church once and for ever? And whether they be little or great, clear or doubtful, necessary or superfluous, must they be held unquestionable and indisputable? Surely this is to Idolize humane Constitutions, and to equalize them with Divine; and to lead the people to a blind implicite faith, and a neglect of searching the Scriptures. And upon this ground those large Churches, as the Roman, Grecian, Aethiopick, Armenian, Indian, and the rest, are obstinately divided for many ages from each other, and holding to this principle of unalterable Traditions and Constitutions, they will be divided to the end of the world. Had not all Ecclesiastical Canons and Decrees a beginning, and that at sundry times, and in divers manners? And are not many of them as it were but of yesterday? And when they were brought in, where was the pretended fixation? Doubtless Religion may be alike altered by Addition as by Substraction. Nay, Hath there not been Substraction also? Are not divers Customs and Ceremonies of great antiquity now quite abolished among us? If the Church of Rome may erre, why not the Church of England? Indeed the Papists that hold their Church infallible, may hold the Decrees thereof unalterable, but the Church of England claims no such priviledge. Was it necessary that our first Reformers should see all things at the first day-break out of the night of Popery? Or if they saw all things requisite for their own times, could they foresee all future events, and provide remedies for inconveniencies which time might bring forth. It is a wise saying of a learned man, That time it self is the greatest Innovator; and again, That Physick is an Innovation. Surely as the naturall, so the body politick, sometimes needs physick, and oftentimes moderate Reformations do prevent abolitions and extirpations. Besides, a great alteration in this kind hath continued in a stated posture for many years, which inferres a greater necessity of an accommodation. Nevertheless there is no attempt or question made of changing any thing, that toucheth sound faith, and good life, or the substance of divine worship. Yet in the Doctrine of the Church somthing possibly may have been inserted as an Article of Faith, which is but problematical; and in a fundamental Article some inconvenient expression may be used, and this questionless may be altered without any imputation of uncertainty to the established Doctrine. Some change in the outward Form and Ceremonies, which are but a garb or dress, is no real change of the Worship: some change in the late external jurisdiction of the Church, which was not formally Ecclesiastical and spiritual, but temporal and coercive, invested in the Bishops by the Law of the Land, is no change in the true spiritual power, that is intrinsecal to their spiritual office. Nay, the reformation may be encompassed with little variation, as to the outward model and platform, the Kingdom being already squared for it, as hath been above shewed in the offers made by some Bishops. Only the power will be more diffused, being distributed among Bishops and Presbyters in due proportion. Is it objected; once remove the ancient bounds, and we know not where to stop, we must serve every humour, and an inundation of errour and Schism will break in? Surely Papists have as much to say herein against the Protestants, as the Prelatists against the Presbyterians. For they say, that Protestantism is the womb of all Sects, and that we having forsaken the infallible Guide, the Church of Rome, have lost our selves in a Wilderness of errour: besides, who were they that removed the ancient bounds set in the first English Reformation, by introducing many innovations? but to give a direct answer, are not the sacred Scriptures, and Christs holy Institutions, sufficient bounds and land-marks? Cannot prudent and faithful Church-guides keep the flock from wandring, unless they hedge them in by unchangeable Canons, even for meer formalities? In the late distempered times, the Sectaries and masked Jesuites had a free rainge, and all possible advantages, yet it is manifest, that towards the later end, errour was rather in the wane then in the encrease, which we are bold to attribute to the liberty of constant practical preaching. Wherefore settle discipline, incourage true Watchmen, restrain seducers, expel the Jesuites, and the Church through Gods blessing will be kept in peace and order.