Moderation a Virtue, Treatise · Section 2

Moderation a Virtue · Treatise · Section 2

p. 23SECT. II.

There is another Person of a more excellent Temper, a Man of Consideration and Worth, Mr. John Evans, Rector of St. Ethelbert, London: I did with some earnestness of desire procure his Sermon before the Lord-Mayor, for the Arguments sake, to see if I could find such a Man, as would solidly and wisely handle, and openly commend a great Duty out of fashion, and in a Time when they who profess it look very odly, and are pointed out to be avoided. I found the Reverend Preacher to set about his Work like a Workman; and tho he pitched upon too narrow a Notion of Moderation, yet the clearness of his Mind and Style, the Honesty, Openness, and Candor of Spirit, did much gain upon me. After he had spoken of what he takes to be the true Notion of Moderation, in his Doctrine, he delivers the common Notion of it in his Inference, affixing it to Laity and Clergy, pag. 36. and takes it off again from the Clergy, pag. 41. I declare I am not acquainted with any of the Moderate, nor can I of my own knowledge accuse any Minister whatsoever. All that I shall say upon this Point is this, That if there be any such, I am very sorry for them. And after he had given this little satisfaction to them, who for ought p. 24he knew were injured, he could not forbear to say, or write, pag. 48. Give me the Man that is honest, and constant to his Principles, and to what he professes, whatsoever Party or Persuasion he is of; he is much more valuable to me, than he that plights his Faith to the Church, and gives all the Security that can be given for his Conformity to it; and then after he hath wound himself into its Communion and Preferments, plays Booty, and acts like a Nonconformist. These are treacherous Friends, that like Vipers prey upon the Bowels of their Mother, and betray her, as Judas did our Lord, with a Kiss. Of all sorts of Men, the Non-conforming Conformists are the least to be valued, as most unfit for Society.

Behold, here's another friendly Testimonial given to moderate Conformists, but not for Preferment and Favour, we are sure: Treacherous Friends, Vipers, and like Judas, do not savour of Moderation in a Preacher upon that Text. It seems the aking Tooth did now begin to trouble him; I shall not pour Vinegar into it, nor pass it by without some Reflections upon this great Complement.

1. He supposes that there is no moderate Construction of our Faith and Security given to the Church; for if there be, why may not a Man of moderate Principles conform, and retain and practise Moderation, without violation of his Faith? Now some of us knew the way into the Church before he did, and we were told of some moderate Interpretation of our Bonds.

2. If the Words are capable of a mild sence, we are taught that is the sence of the Law: A moderate Man will put a moderate charitable Sence upon them; and if the Words will bear it, he is as honest to the Church, that gives her security in a moderate sence, as he that takes it in a rigorous.

3. How a Conformist, that hath wound himself into the Communion and Preferment of the Church, can act like a Nonconformist, both in her Communion and Preferment, is such a way of acting, as we never yet learnt, nor can well understand, except he allow that a Nonconformist can act like a Conformist, and then 'tis pity he did not share in the Communion and Preferment, the one as well as the other.

4. Any Man that is honest and constant, of any Party and Persuasion, not excepting an ignorant superstitious Papist, (for the more ignorant, the more honest) or Quaker, or any other Sect, is more to be valued than a moderate Conformist, (of whom he speaks). But why a moderate Conformist may not be as honest, and as constant in his Moderation, as any Man that is high and rigorous, or any p. 25other Sect, no other Reason can (I suppose) be given, but because the Rule of Laws of Conformity cannot stand with a moderate Construction: And if that were true, we moderate Men must keep out of the Communion and Preferments of the Church, and be professedly Nonconformists; for one of both we must be: And if we cannot be exact Conformists in the severest sence, and act according to it upon all occasions, we must be Nonconformists. How much ease would it be to the Minds of our Brethren, to be rid of these Vipers, that prey upon the Bowels of their Mother?

But to take a fuller View of that Sermon:

First, he describes Moderation to be such a gracious Habit of Mind, as will teach and incline us to observe a due Mean and Temper in our outward Actions, and Converse with others, so as to give no just Occasion of Offence, p. 7. But he takes it in a more particular Sence, more largely, and more briefly, pag. 7. Moderation is a Vertue, which teaches and enables a Man, upon all occasion of Contest and Controversy with others, to maintain and assert his Principles and Opinions, whose Truth he is persuaded of, with Temper.

Which he doth more particularly branch out:

1. A moderate Man is candid in his Thoughts, apt to make the best Construction of Things that will bear it; in his Words soft, (not calling moderate Conformists, Vipers, treacherous Friends, or Judas's) in his Carriage Courteous, p. 9.2. In Judicial Causes carries a Chancery in his Breast. 3. In Matters relating to Religion, he teacheth us to be concerned about Things more or less, in proportion to their Nature and Worth. 4. In Matters of Injury, he passeth by Faults, bears with, pities, &c. pag. 10, 11, 13.

Again, pag. 15. He thinks, Let your Moderation be known to all Men, imports as much as, that all Christians, at all times, and upon all occasions of Difference and Contest, to give clear and palpable Tokens of their Moderation to all Sorts and Conditions of Men.

Still it appears, that the Objects of Moderation are all sorts of Men, and that the Subject Matter upon which it is exercised, are Matters of Difference and Contest. So he repeats his Notion again, pag. 35. and again, pag. 37.

Now before I go further, I desire the Reader to believe me, that I approve of very much good Matter, well-spoken, and well-applied. But I fear, Prejudice and Partiality weighs too heavy upon his Bowle.

p. 26I do confess, i… is a very good Notion and Doctrine, that we should manage all our Differences with Temper: But why should he single out this as the main, if not whole of the Text, which is but a good Behaviour in a particular Case, and but one Instance of a general Duty, seems not so clear. Besides, 'tis like it is too narrow a Notion, except a Christian have, or may have some Matters of Controversy or Difference with all Men, and that all Christians may have differing and contrary Opinions and Principles, and each one is bound to maintain his own Side with Temper.

As he doth often repeat his own Sence of Moderation, so he doth deliver a common, but untrue Notion of Moderation, in a Lay and Church-Capacity, from p. 36, to p. 41. and then gives his Reasons against such a kind of Moderation, as he is pleased to describe, to pag. 48.

It would be too tedious to examine all the Members and Parts of a moderate Man in a Lay-Capacity, but what is most material.

First, doth it become a moderate Man to be so positive, as to say, after an imaginary, oratorical Description of a Lay moderate Man, such as I and others never knew, This (saith the Preacher) is no Fiction of mine, no Creature of my Fancy, but Matter of Fact, visible to every Eye, p. 37. That it is not difficult to prove, such Men act against their Conscience; for really, a moderate Man, in the common Notion, if examined, is but a softer Phrase for a Knave, pag. 48.

Upon this Character of a moderate Lay-man, drawn pag. 36. I make some Observations, and in the general observe, That he takes some Parts and Vertues of a very honest Man, to make a Knave of: As, 1. He is one who will frequent the Publick Churches. 2. One who will seem devout at Divine Service, (and who doth to us, and our Eye, more than seem.) 3. One who talks much for Union, and wishes for it, but sees no Evil in Schism: Whereas, what can move him to wish for Union, but the Good of Union, and the Evil of Schism? And I would fain know what Benefit any Knave can make of Union? If he only talkt for Union, and did not wish for it, and if this might be known, it were like a moderate Man in the softer Phrase; but if he talks much of Union, and wishes for it, he talks and wishes like an honest Man. 4. Suppose him to be one who thinks he doth God good Service, and takes a good Course to promote Peace by frequenting unlawful Meetings, and yet is clearly for the Religion established by Law. Yet under favour, 1. Suppose he may be mistaken p. 27in thinking so, for all that he may be a very honest Man, for honest Men are subject to Mistakes. 2. If he mistake in the way to promote Peace, for all that he may be very honest. 3. If he thinks those Meetings which you call unlawful, that is to say, Meetings of Orthodox Preachers and Christians, consistent with the Religion established by Law, he may be a wise, discerning, honest Man, and doth distinguish between the Religion, and the mutable Appendages to which he never subscribed, or declared, being but a Lay-man. But then,

Secondly, Some Things are affixed to him, which if true, depends upon proof against some particular Men, if any such there be, which doth not affect more than those Individuals. We know none, that first, work hard against the Church of England on the six Days, and appear for her on the Sunday. 2. Nor any that sees not harm in Schism, (but you may call that a Schism which is not.) 3. Nor any who are one with all Parties, in designing against the Government. 4. Nor that cry, God forbid there should be any Alteration in it: for there may be Alteration in it, as in the natural Body, from Youth to riper Age, without its destruction or dissolution. 5. Nor that look upon Bishops as necessary Evils; for they who account them evil, do not account them necessary. 6. He may be a Son of the Church of England, and yet chuse rather, if he could, (that is, if he lawfully could) to be without the Ceremonies; for the Church doth declare, That those Ceremonies which remain, upon just causes may be altered and changed, (in the Preface of Ceremonies, why some be abolished.)

Thirdly, He delivers some Things positively, which are dubious, and therefore which may be untrue; pag. 37. These are moderate Men in one sence, i.e. they have a moderate Esteem of, and a moderate Love for that Church, in whose Communion they live, and resolve to die, so long as she is up; but if she were down, they could contentedly enough survive her Ruine, and perhaps they might live the longer. Now either this Picture of a moderate Lay Church-man is a Creature of his own Fancy, or a real Being: if a real Being, and a true Man, he is one of his own Acquaintance, or not; if not of his Acquaintance, he paints him by the Ear, by Report, and not by the Eye of his own Knowledg. Let him either reform him if he can, or keep no Acquaintance with him. If he be a real Man, he speaks the Language of Abhorrers and Addressers, who often promise to live and die for the Church, as established by Law; and they are concerned in the Character, drawn (one would think) with too p. 28heavy a hand, and Pencil made of too course Bristles, for a moderate Man to use.

Fourthly; A Moderate Man, such as in some things he sets out in the Colours of a Knave, wipes off the Dash, and thinks he may with an honest Heart and Face, in sincerity towards God, Loyalty to the Government, and Constancy to his Religion, frequent the publick Churches, and Conventicles too: For, first, He is of the Judgment, that God may be truly and acceptably worship'd under different Modes and Forms; therefore he will frequent the publick Churches, for which you cannot blame him, and it may be go to Assemblies called Conventicles (especially when he had the King's Indulgence) 2. He believes there is a Communion of Saints, not only in Faith and Affection, but also in Worship; and therefore if he cannot hold Communion with Orthodox Preachers in publick Churches; he will make bold to enjoy it where he can, which he thinks he may do without Sin, because it is his Duty, and knows no Reason or Law of God, why he may not as lawfully hold Communion with Orthodox, profitable Preachers (from whom he hath perhaps tasted the good Word of God, and by whom his Heart hath been opened,) and Christians, in undoubted, pious, Evangelical Exercises, as in Trade, or Civil Converse in eating and drinking.

Object. But you say, they are unlawful Meetings. Then the honest moderate Christian thinks with himself; 1. I never heard either Treason or Sedition, as much as couched in any of their Sermons or Exercises. 2. It is not sinful to hold actual Communion with sound and pious Christians, antecedent to the temporal Law, therefore it is not sinful in it self. 3. He cannot think so hardly of his Christian Governours, as that they would make a Law, to forbid any pious Exercise, but only such as are evil in themselves, or have tendency to Destruction or harm to the Government. 4. He remembers the moderate Judgment of every part of the Legislative Power, concerning Dissenters for several Years last past. 5. He considers the Law is a Penal Law, and is ready to bear that Penalty with Peace and Quietness. And if you think them unlawful Assemblies, of that sort as are not safe to be tolerated, then he that now frequents the publick Churches, will then frequent them, when those Meetings are disperst, or suppressed. But then what becomes of your own Doctrine of misplacing Zeal about Circumstances, Rites, and Appendages of Religion? which a moderate Man should not do; Pag. 24. If you leave the Moderation of Penalties to Governous, it had been beseeming a moderate Divine, preaching of Moderation, to have forborn to give Magistrates p. 29to whom you preach'd, Alarms to beware of Men that design against the Government, commonly called Moderate Men, the softer Phrase for Knaves, but in proper Language, Knaves and Vipers. If you know any such designing Men, inform against them, they are Strangers to us that are moderate indeed. I have staid Iong enough to view this Picture of a Lay-moderate Church-man; I will walk into the next Room, and view the moderate Church-Clergy Man, who as he is drawn by this Hand, stands out with his Legs as the more crooked Knave of the two, Pag. 40, 42.

Upon him I observe, 1. That this free and open Preacher saith, He cannot accuse any Minister upon his own Knowledg so depainted, and therefore this is not a Creature of his own Fancy neither, but of some other Men's Fancy sure, come to his Knowledg, it seems by Report or Tradition. But if he had not believed it, why would he preach and print it?

To this we have two things to say;

1. We deny the Accusation as it stands; we disown the Picture, it is not ours, we know no such Church-men, or to speak plainly, such a pretended Conformist as is here represented.

2. If there be any such, it is not just, to fasten that upon more than are faulty.

3. Yet supposing or granting most of the things to be true, and they as material as any we offer to the Judgment of our Censors, some Considerations, if not to vindicate the accused, yet certainly to alleviate the Charge, and take the Charge by parts.

First; The Moderate Church-man is one, that upon occasion will marry without a Ring. We answer;

1. This Ceremony doth more concern the Persons to be married, than the Minister that marrieth them; for the Rubrick saith, Then shall they again loose their Hands, and the Man shall give unto the Woman a Ring, laying the same upon the Book, &c. And the Priest taking the Ring shall deliver it unto the Man. It concerns the Man to bring and provide the Ring, and the Woman to receive it, because of what is conveyed to her by it.

2. What Rubrick or Canon doth enjoyn the Minister to provide one? Or, what is his punishment if he do not marry with it? We know the Wisdom of the Church looks to greater matters in Can. 62. censuring the Minister, if he marry without asking Banes, Certificate, or Consent of Parents, or out of the Canonical Hours; from which p. 30no Men are more free, than they who are called Moderate Church-Men.

3. Is there no occasion upon which this may either be justified or excused? As if, 1. The Minister and the Persons, be not worth a Ring. 2. If the Man cannot buy, and the Woman resolve if they may not be married with a Ring of her Husbund's Gift, they will be married without. 3. Or in case the Ring be forgotten, and the place where they are to be married cannot afford one, and the time be so near out, that they cannot fetch one. Shall an Ordinance be denied for want of a Ceremony? Or, what if the Man must take his Bride in the Humour? Or there will be loss to both, if they put it off to another day? Or lastly, suppose the Parties scruple the Ceremony, shall we refuse to execute a Law of Nature, for want of an Arbitrary Local Ceremony?

Secondly; A moderate Church-man is one who will christen without the Cross: So he will, and so he may baptize all that are baptized out of the Church: The Rubrick lays no Injuction upon any to bring the Child to Church, it only saith, It is expedient that it be brought; — and who in this tender Age will bring a Child to Church, seeing another Rubrick saith, Saving at the dipping of the Child; the Child whose Baptism is doubted of, must be dipt, and it belongs not to him to see that the Child so baptized shall be brought to the Congregation afterwards; and by what Rule do they walk, that see good cause to baptize in private, because of Weather, and distance of Place, and yet will not omit the Cross in private? Now whether a Minister may not upon some occasions, and for some great Reasons, omit the Cross, is submitted to Moderate Thoughts, and to a right Judgment. And, 1. If the Parent, who is a Man of Reading and Sense, may have read some Arguments against it, which neither he nor the Curat can answer; Nay, suppose he have but a strong Prejudice or Fear upon him, what if the Curat say, in good civil Language, Except you bring your Child to Church, or have it crost at home, I will not baptize it: Why, then saith the Parent, you shall not baptize my Child: What if the child dy unbaptized? You say, it was the Parents fault for scrupling; He saith no, for it was against his Conscience, and Judgment. But which is rather to be omitted by the Minister, Baptism, which is an Ordinance of Christ, or the Cross, which is an Ordinance of Man? Especially in a Church, which, as it requires the use of the sign of the Cross, so it punisheth with Suspension a Minister that shall refuse to baptize, Can. 68. What if a Parent shall take or demand his Child as p. 31soon as it is baptized, from the Minister? By what Law or Reason can he refuse to give him the Child? Or, if a God-Mother or Midwife be so zealous, call it furious, against the Cross as to take the Child out of the Ministers Hands, as I have heard hath been done, shall the Minister strive and contend?

Object. But you will say by Can. 38. If any Minister after Subsciption to the three Canonical Articles, shall omit any of the Ceremonies, he shall be suspended, &c.

Answ. The Omission must be notorious, before it can come to the Cognizance of the Court, and wilful and contemptuous, before it can be so notorious. But we speak not of such a notorious omission, but of what is occasional, seldom, and for greater Reason; but of this more afterwards.

2. In case the Minister or Curat be but a Deacon, I doubt of his Power to use or make the sign of the Cross, without an equitable Construction of the Law, (of which afterwards): for in the Margin of the Office of publick Baptism it is said; Here the Priest shall make the sign of the Cross in the Child's Forehead. The Priest shall, not the Curat, or the Minister, for then it had plainly reach'd to the Deacon as to the Priest, but a Deacon is not a Priest in this Church: A Deacon doth it only by Presumption.

Lastly; To make the sign of the Cross, is an Ecclesiastical Affirmative Precept, a divine affirmitive Law binds not ad semper, to every particular nunc or time: why should we be more strictly bound to observe in publick an affirmative humane Precept, than a divine? Are we more strictly tied by the Laws of Men, than of God? It may by an Equity of Reason be allowed, upon Occasions of some Necessity, to omit an Ecclesiastical Precept, as we through a gracious Indulgence omit a Divine Precept.

The third Crime of a Moderate Church-Man is, that he will baptise without God-Fathers and God-Mothers, in compliance with weak and tender Consciences.

I answer; If there be any reason of Strength or Cogency for the Omission of such things as these, it is as strong in the Case of weak and tender Consciences as in any: if a Minister cannot omit any of these things with a sincere Tenderness and Indulgence to weak Consciences, then he is obliged from doing a necessary Duty to the weak Brother. And if we are so straightly bound to a rigid Conformity at all times, so that we can in no case omit any thing for the sake of a tender weak Conscience: Who can answer this Argument against Conformity?

p. 32That Conformity which doth oblige to refuse a necessary Duty to a weak Christian, which the Law of Christ requires, is a Conformity against the Law of Christ, and by Consequence unlawful and null.

But such is the rigid Conformity, (as Men make it.) Ergo. In private Baptism they are not required. In publick such as have not received the Communion may be refused, and sometimes Parents can get no better, and too often they are but Cyphers, and stand only to keep up the Form. But be they what they are, instance in any publick Baptism performed without them, if you can, and the Peccant shall bare the Blame of it.

4. The next Imputation, is his giving the Sacrament kneeling, sitting, or standing. I suppose the Reverend Preacher will strike out Kneeling out of the Bill, when he reviews it. I will take no Advantage of that Inadvertency, but to the other Offence make a Return.

And here again, we meet with a Ceremony, which first is enjoyned the People. 2. Some great Men have interpreted the Rubrick thus, He shall deliver the Communion to the People kneeling, not forbidding him to deliver it to them that kneel not. 3. The words of the Canon 27, are lax, Ministri cum Caenam Domini administrant neminem scienter ejusdem facient participem, qui in Genua non fuerit, inclinatus, sub poenaâ Suspensionis. The Communicant is not bound in express Terms to kneel in the very Act of receiving; if he kneel in the time of the Communion, it seems to be sufficient, tho he do not in the Act of receiving the Bread and Wine. The Canon saith not the Minister shall be suspended, if he deliver the Sacrament to any one that doth not kneel in the very Act, but qui in Genua non fuerint inclinatus. If he kneel before, or after, he is not excluded, nor the Minister punishable by the Canon, whatever the Intention of it was. But leaving these things to the Interpretation of Superiors: Let any Minister be named that receives the Sacrament sitting or standing. And if some Communicants do, it is submitted, whether a Minister in some cases ought not rather to venture upon his Ordinaries Indulgence, then put away some Communicants for not kneeling, for which he hath no Law to warrant him (that I know.)

1. In case scruple of Conscience, Prejudice or Fear, the Christian who takes Scripture for his Rule, finding the Gesture of the last Supper to be the same throughout, as they sate at Meat, he cannot distinguish of Predicaments of Quality and Situs, as the learned Saunderson doth (and the Circumstance of Place, the upper Room, was temporay, and not imitable, as the Gesture is) whether a Communicant, otherwise without Exception, shall be excluded for adhering p. 33to the Gesture, which he finds in our lawful Translation of the New Testament?

2. What if a Father, otherwise prepared and without Exception, scruple Kneeling, comes to receive the Communion of his own Son, can the Son justify the rejection of his own Father from the Lord's Table? Children obey your Parents, is a Duty antecedent to Canonical Obedience, and of the Law of Nature. A Minister of a high Complexion, did refuse his own Father, and inform his Diocesan, who was known to be strict enough for all the Ceremonies; yet instead of expected Approbation, he was soundly check'd for sinning against his Father.

For the rest of the Faults, or treacherous Acts of Church-men, I throw them into the Heap of Misinformations, and to me things neither heard nor seen. And that any do bury with an Exhortation of his, or their own, seems to me, like a Tale which the Observator printed many Years ago, of a certain Venerable Bishop, that baptized by the Directory after he was Bishop, and the Liturgy established, which was an errand Rogerism.

To conclude this, and to pass to the Confirmation of his Positive Assertions, I only add, what I have reason to believe; that a strict exacting of Rites and Ceremonies hath driven away many to the Nonconformists, that had staid with us had they been indulged but in some scrupled Ceremony; and since their departure from us, do scruple a great deal more than they did at first. And except our Governours apply themselves to some timely Mitigations, it is impossible so to crop the Sprouts of Dissenters, but new Shoots will grow out of the old Stocks, which cannot be stock'd up without breaking up too much good Ground.

There are two things which the Reverend Preacher delivers with great Confidence and Assurance, as binding us under Condemnation, and stopping our Mouths, which have not the Evidence he presumes they have, wherein we are concerned.

1. He declares our several Obligations to a strict constant Conformity to Ceremonies and all, and saith, To make all sure, and prevent all Evasions occasioned by nice Distinctions about the force and obligation of Human Laws; He will shew that there is no room for Equity and Moderation in this case, pag. 43, 44.

2. Seeing we Ministers have by private Subscriptions and Promises, by open Deelarations and solemn Oaths to our Diocesan obliged our selves to the constant use of the Ceremonies established by Law: I infer, That nothing less than strictness and exactness of Duty, and a p. 34constant, close Conformity is required at our Hands, and that no Man can dispence with himself, and relax the Law in this case. p. 45.

The Inference is drawn from four Premises. 1. The Act of Uniformity, p. 42. 2. The Declaration of Assent and Consent. 3. The Oath of Canonical Obedience, p. 43. And, 4. To make all sure, &c. There is no room for Moderation in this case, which he endearvours to prove, p. 44, 45.

Because that which I first except against, taking the Pages in order, is the last of his Reasons for that Conclusion: I shall invert my Order, and speak to it last, and so take up the second Point in difference, in the first place,

And considering the Premises, I say, He cannot infer that Conclusion from them; for there is more in his Inference, than is in the Premises. He infers as much, as that we are indispensibly bound in all Times, Places, and on all Occasions, to a close strict Conformity, and that if we do not constantly observe it in all Points, we have broken our Faith. If so, then what Conformist is not guilty in a high degree of sinning? then who can conform? Or, who can, and be blameness? Is there such to be found at all times, even in Cathedral Churches?

There are many Occasions for an honest, wise, conscientious Minister to shew Moderation, not only such as our Brother allows to Dissenters, in Words and Passion, but in Fact, or he sins more by a courteous refusal to yield, than by a prudent occasional Compliance; If not, then moderate Men cannot conform, but must abide without, among Dissenters. And our rigid Interpreters of the Laws do furnish them with an unanswerable Argument against Conformity, viz. That Conformity which leaves no room for Moderation, cannot be submitted to without Sin: but such is this rigid Conformity.Ergo.

The Proposition is proved, because we as Christians and Ministers, are bound to let our Moderation be known to all Men: and this Moderation is not only a Moderation of good Language, and abstinence from Passion, but in Fact and Deed. But let us try the strength of the Premises, and if they be removed or shaken, his Inference and Superstructure will fall with all his Confidence. And first, let us see if such Words be contained in, or drawn from our Subscription to the second Article of the 36 Canon; wherein the Subscriber doth promise that he will use the Form prescribed in the said Book, in publick Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and no other. (And no other shall be explained afterwards.) The Promise is a general Promise, and because general, is capable of a Latitude, and that, nothing less than Strictness and Exactness, and a close constant Conformity, p. 35is more than the Canon speaks, an Addition to the Law, which enjoyns the use of it, and no other Form in Competition or Opposition to it. That Inference from this Promise of using it, is denied, and cannot be admitted, except the Law-givers declare that to be the meaning of it.

2. The second Premise, out of which that rigid Inference is drawn, is the Declaration of Assent and Consent; which is to the use of all things contained in, and prescribed by the Book. But the Words and Promise are not, To the constant, close, strict use of all things, at all times, which is more than any Man can promise, or perhaps any Man hath perform'd. However, the Inference is denied, because it contains more than is expressed in that Declaration. But then this ingenious Person doth confirm his Notion by bringing in the Intention, or Scope of that Declaration, which is to the intent, that Vniformity in the Worship of God may be effected.

That I may not be mistaken, I desire it may be noted, we are now come from one Word to another, viz. from a close, strict, exact Conformity to an Vniformity, which is the design and scope of that close Conformity.

To this it is applied;

1. The Act doth enjoyn an Uniformity by a Book named in it; We declare our Assent to the use of that Book; and he that puts that Sence of strict, close, constant use of all and every thing, doth add to the Law, and by a rigorous Interpretation of it, is as far from an honest Moderation, or Equity, as he that doth transgress the Law, Relaxatione nimia.

2. This Uniformity may in a warrantable sense, be taken in opposition to a Diversity of publick Forms, or a Multiformity; that this is not the sense of Knaves, or the invention of Church-Moles and Vipers, is plain by the Preface, as it was called in the Common-Prayer-Book of K. Edw. the IVth, and in our Book follows the new Preface, Concerning the Service of the Church, wherein are these words; And whereas heretofore there hath been a great Diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; some following Salisbury, some Hereford, and some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of Lincoln; now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one Use. If therefore we follow, and use the same Book, we observe the Vniformity required, and explained in that Preface, still continued in this present Book, which is established by Law, and by Consequence, this is a publickly allowed, and a legal Sence.

p. 363. If we take our Uniformity, not only oppositivè, to a Multiformity of ancient Forms and Uses; but appositivè, conformable to the Rubricks and Orders, which are the Rule of our Uniformity, we shall find the Uniformity to be in many Things but general, and not particular: Therefore the Uniformity required by Law, is not a particular, close, strict Uniformity; and by consequence, a strict, close, constant Conformity, taking Conformity in the same Sence as Uniformity, is not required, and therefore not to be inferred, as if all Ministers always were obliged to do the same Things, which is the Import of the Inference which I oppose. And this, I conceive, will appear in two Instances:

1. Of the Prayers and Hymns.

2. Of the Ceremonies, which the exact Conformist drives at.

First; Sometimes you are directed to One or This in several Offices. Now suppose the Minister of St. Ethelbert, for instance, shall say the Te Deum; and his next Neighbours of St. Helen's, and Bishopsgate, or St. Mary Ax, shall say Jubilate Deo; the one use one Hymn or Prayer, and the other another; one should dip, and the other sprinkle: Where such Diversity is allowed, they all conform, but do not keep to a particular Uniformity.

But you'll say, Here's no Omission of any Thing required. True, but let us modestly see, if there be not some Omissions also allowed, which will make a Difformity from the Use of our rigid Interpreters; and whether the Composers of our Book have not been accessary to propagate or countenance a Sect of moderate Men in the Church. Suppose a Man affirm, that a strict, close, constant Use of the Letany be enjoined every Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday; how will he prove it? We think, not clearly and convincingly by the Rubrick, which is the Rule of our Uniformity, which is this: Here followeth the Letany, or general Supplication, to be sung or said after Morning-Prayer, upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and at other Times, when it shall be commanded by the Ordinary.

Here the strict, constant Use of the Letany is not enjoined upon every Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday, but upon Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. If so much had been said for the Use of the Letany on those Days, as there is for the Order of Morning-Prayer without it, there might have been more light to direct us to the constant Use of it; for after it, it is said, Here endeth tho Order of Morning-Prayer throughout the Year; when yet three of these Prayers are to be omitted p. 37by another Rubrick, when the Letany is said; and yet Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays fall within the Year. By the Rubrick for the reading one or more of the Collects after the Offertory, it is left to the Discretion of the Minister to use one or more of those Collects: He that useth one, conforms as truly as he that useth more; and yet there is no particular Uniformity, except every Minister use the same, and as many one as another. A strict and close Conformity to a general Rule is one Thing, and a strict and close Conformity to some Mens Practice, is another. The Compilers of our Book and Rubricks, did (it seems) so word the Rubricks, as to leave some Latitude of Interpretation and Practice, either to the Discretion, or various Occasions of Ministers, and Circumstances of Time, Condition of People, or to the Prudence of the Ordinary, to keep up his Power. Yet notwithstanding this Apology, the Letany is as frequently read by moderate Ministers, as by them that do not affect that Title.

Secondly; Let us see if such a constant and exact Conformity be required in the Use of Ceremonies. Some Ceremonies are required of the Ministers, and some of the People: Those required of the Ministers, are the wearing of the Surplice, and the signing with the Cross, (I have spoken of the Ring in Marriage before; and bowing at the Name of Jesus, and towards the Altar, are no-where required by Law.)

1. The omitting of a Ceremony is no such great Crime, in the Judgment of the Reformers of this Church, as this Reverend Preacher exclaims against; in that Account of Ceremonies, why some be abolished, and some retained, we read this moderate Passage: And altho the keeping or omitting of a Ceremony, in it self considered, is but a small thing; yet the wilful and contemptuous Transgression, and breaking of common Order and Discipline, is no small Offence before God. We admit this, and say, that if sometimes we omit the Use of any of these Ceremonies, suppose in compliance with tender Consciences, or for some weighty reason, we willingly do it, but not wilfully and contemptuously; and therefore occasional, and sometimes necessary Omissions, are but small Offences.

2. Why may not a moderate Minister sometimes omit the wearing of the Surplice, as well as the Brethren, who seem to be the exact Patterns and Exemplars of Conformity, omit the wearing of such Ornaments of the Church, and Ministers thereof, at all times of their Ministration, (such as Copes and Hoods) as were in this Church of England, by Authority of Parliament, in the second Year of the Reign p. 38of King Edward the Sixth? See the Rubrick or Section, [And here is to be noted, &c.] after the Order for Morning and Evening-Prayer.

3. Is not the Rubrick as positive for dipping the Child in Water, warily and discreetly, (if the Godfathers and Godmothers shall certify that the Child may well endure it) as for sprinkling and signing with the Cross? And doth this ingenious and urgent Preacher demand such a Certificate from them, that he may observe this Rubrick, which saith, And then naming it after them, (if they shall certify that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it, &c. How many Children hath he dipp'd in St. Ethelbert? How often hath he demanded such a Certificate? Suppose in the South Parts Infants were dipt, and in the North sprinkled, what would become of Uniformity in a more considerable Ceremony than any of the rest?

4. Why may not the Cross be omitted sometimes to gratify a tender, scrupulous, weak Conscience, without blame, as well as the Omission of dipping Infants, out of respect to bodily Weakness? Is bodily Weakness in an Infant, a better Reason than a Weakness, or the Judgment of Conscience in a Parent? Should the one be omitted, and not the other? Or shall we declare our selves more tender of hurting, a weak Body, than wounding a weak Soul?

5. Uniformity takes in the Part and Duty of the People. The Rubrick, which is the Law, doth often require, that the People should kneel, or supposeth that they kneel: As for instance, before the Confession, Absolution, Lord's Prayer. We know it is impossible or inconvenient for most People, in great and crouded Congregations, and in narrow Pews and Allies, to kneel in Prayer; the greatest part, if not all, in the most conformable Churches, stand. Why may it not be as excusable sometimes in a Minister, for great Causes, to omit some one Ceremony, as it is for the greatest Congregations always, or most commonly to omit that Gesture of Reverence, as positively required as any other? And why may not a Minister as excusably deliver the Sacrament to a Receiver sitting or standing, as pray, the People sitting or standing, when they are required to kneel at Prayer, as strictly as at the Communion? Some Persons are lame, and cannot kneel; shall a Minister refuse them? And if some Impossibility, Inconvenience, or natural Infirmity shall make a Nonconformity blameless; why may not a consciencious Infirmity, or unconquerable Prejudice and Fear in the Consciencious, render the Omission of a Ceremony unblameable, or excusable?

p. 39And I desire it may be noted, That I only shew there is room for Moderation, and do not justify any Practice inconsistent with the Laws, interpreted according to Equity.

By what is said, I presume, it either appears, this Conclusion is too big for the Premises; or it may appear doubtful, whether an exact constant Duty, such as he means, &c. be required by the Act. Let us now see is such an Inference can be drawn from his other Topick, which is,

3dly; Our Oath of Canonical Obedience.

The Oath of Canonical Obedience binds us to lawful and honest Things, and to these within the Limits of our Ministerial Function only, (else our Obedience might extend even to wait at their Table, or to the holding of their Stirrup, both which and many other Things are lawful): And therefore our Diocesans cannot call upon us to go beyond the Laws; and by consequence, that Liberty which the Law allows, is our Right and Privilege. We cannot see how we are tied to a more strict, exact, constant Conformity by this Oath, than by the Laws and Rubricks of which we spake before.

Secondly, he adds, as an Enforcement of the Obligation, That the Right Reverend Father, the Lord Bishop of London, hath laid his Commands upon us, punctually to observe the Rites and Ceremonies.

To which I answer: This Obligation lies upon none but him, and others from whom that honourable Prelate hath required it: What is all this to the Clergy of other Diocesses? If that Right-Reverend Bishop hath exacted this, other Diocesans have not required it: And I could name some, of great Name and Age, who have expressed a greater Moderation, in forbearing to require that punctual Observation of constant, strict, and exact Conformity, as allowing some Scope, in some Occurrences and Cases, to Ministerial Discretion.

And now not finding his Inference in these three Premises, let us see if we can find it in the fourth, which binds all fast and sure.

4thly; To make all sure, &c. I will, saith he, briefly shew, that there is no Room for Equity and Moderation here in this Case. And this he endeavours to prove, 1. By the Notion of Moderation, with respect to Laws. 2. The Words of the Act of Uniformity. 3. The Sence of the Law-givers; that is, First, the Sence of his Majesty in p. 40his Declaration to stand by the Act of Uniformity, Anno 1662. And, 2. The Vote of the House of Commons Feb. 15. 1662. against Indulgence to Dissenters from the Act of Uniformity, p. 44, 45.

To drive home the Nail and to make all sure, that a moderate Man may not be able to stir from the Post of constant, strict, exact Duty; He tells us, There is no room for Equity or Moderation in this Case. Then, first, did he leave his Text, when he came to his Application? (in the Latitude of the Apostles sense, which must needs be large, because the Object All Men, is a general Object). The Text saith, Let your Moderation be known to all Men. The Dissenters are a very numerous Part of the Nation, some of the All Men. That which they desire, is a Freedom, or Abatement, or Omission of some things required: If we tell them with civil and respectful Language, and with tenderness of Affection and Kindness, you must conform to all things at all times, invariably to the Law, and that there is no Moderation to be exercised towards you: I pray Sir, 1. What kind of Law do you make this to be? a **Human Laws are general Rules for common Cases. Leges ad ea quae ut plui imum accidunt applicari solent in Lege quae ratò. See also Grot. de jure Belli. l. 1. c. 4. §. 4.Human Law, forbidding a Duty to a Divine Law. 2. What kind of Law-makers do you represent ours to be, that made a Law, forbidding the Exercise of a certain Christian Duty? For now, you know the Law being made, it is out of the Law-givers Hand and Power, till they in a legal Meeting, please to anul it; so that now you say, as much as that there is a Law that shuts out Moderation, such a Moderation as the case of Difference requires; for Moderation of Affection and good Words, doth not come home to the Dissenters Case, which requires a Moderation in Fact and Exercise? 3. What Encouragement is this for Dissenters to conform, if by their Conformity they must shew no Moderation to the weak and doubting? 4. Do not you furnish them with an unanswerable Argument against Conformity?

But Sir, you produce our Subscription and Assent against us, and is there no Moderation of Sence and Interpretation of it? You may soon know, that the Learned Mr. Chillingworth hath given a Sense of our Subscription to the Articles. Preface Sect. 40. and it passed with the Approbation of the Vice-Chancellor, and Professors of Divinity in Oxford. The like is done by Arch-bishop Bramhall's Vindication of the Church of England, p. 156. the first Edit. And for the Book of Common-Prayer be pleased to cast an Eye upon the last Preface before the now enjoyned Book, speaking of the former Book: The Authors p. 41of it say, they were fully perswaded in their Judgments, that the Book doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or sound Doctrine, or which a godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit to, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same, if it shall be allowed such just and favourable Construction as in common Equity ought to be allowed to all human Writings, especially such as are set forth by Authority, and even to the best Translations of the holy Scripture it self. Here is some Equity of Construction, and Moderation in reference to the Book of Common-Prayer, to which we assent, supposing the same applicable to this, which is spoken of the former, which pretends to no higher Authority than that did.

And to use your own Words, To make all sure, you will see the Error of your dogmatical Assertion, when you see it proved, that Moderation and Equity must be allowed in this Case, or else we are grosly abused by them that require Subscription to the Canon, and cannot subscribe with Verity and Judgment. We subscribe to the three Articles of Can. 36. In the second Article we say that the Book of Common-Prayer, and of ordering and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that it may be so used, and promise to use that Form and no other in publick Prayers, and Administration of the Sacraments. Now that Canon is old, as old as 1603, and refers to the Book of Common-Prayer then in use, and not to this which in several Particulars differs from it. We do not now subscribe to that Book, as it stood then, but to a Book lately changed, in which are many things which were not in that. If there be no Moderation, or Equity of Interpretation of that Canon, and by Consequence of our Subscription, how can any Man subscribe and promise to use that Form and no other? whereas we do not subscribe to that Book then in use, to which the Canon relates, but to that which is now in use? We think now, there is and must needs be an Equity and Moderation of Construction in this case.

2. He saith in the present Case of Conformity, there is nothing but what the Law-givers did foresee and provide against: To prove this he repeats some words of the Act, which say, Nothing conduceth more to the Peace of the Nation, Honour of Religion and Propagation thereof, than an universal Agreement in the publick Worship of God: and to that end, in the next Paragraph of the Act, it is enacted, That all and singular Ministers in any place of publick Worship, shall be bound to say and use the Morning and Evening Prayer, Administration of both Sacraments, and p. 42all other publick Prayers in such Order and Form as is mentioned in the said Book; and that Morning and Evening Prayers be openly and solemnly read.

Here are only general Words enjoyning the use of the Book, but not the exact, constant, strict use of it at all times, and of every thing therein, wich our kind and merciful Friend would impose upon us as the true and genuine Sence.

And our Promise in the Declaration against taking Arms against the King: And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now established; is also a general Promise, and who but the Law-givers can make the meaning of it to be, an exact, strict, constant, close Conformity? which I question whether any Man ever did at all times, no not the Preacher himself, perform, but might disconform by over-doing. There is another general Word, we consent to the Vse of all things; but exactly, strictly, constantly, must be the Addition of him, who hath no Authority either to add or interpret, it being a Rule in the Law, Interpretatio ad eum spectat, qui condere potest. Philip Decius de Regulis Juris.

To conclude this Particular; I make bold to ask any Man, 1. Did the Law-givers foresee all Accidents that might happen, and conclude all Occurrences of Providence within their fore-sight? and to make an invariable Rule for all particular Times and Occasions? I believe none of our Law-givers will say so, for they know they are but Men. No Law-makers, being Men, can foresee, or set down all Cases that may happen, saith Mr. Perkins of Christian Equity. 2. Did they foresee that some Ministers cannot maintain Curats or Readers to help them? that many Parishes cannot maintain, or have not a Minister entire to themselves? that we have not Organs to make the Service easy and delightful, as some have? That in some Countrys, Parishes are of a large Extent, and the People cannot come together so early as in London and Market-Towns? that Catechising and Preaching must take up time? and foreseeing the Weakness and Age of Ministers, that must do all themselves; that many Offices of Baptizing, Churching, Burying (which I have known all to be performed at one Assembly) and yet require a strict, exact, constant Duty of reading all, and every word? Did they foresee, that if the Word be not constantly and duly preached, the greatest part of our People will not come to Church, some thinking they may be idle and lazy as well as their Ministers; and others will go where they may hear and profit; and for all this, did they require a strict, constant, exact Conformity of Ministers, notwithstanding Age and Infirmities, to p. 43read, perform all Offices, and preach besides? I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, saith God; but what say such hard Masters as these? 3. Did the Law-givers foresee, that in great and crouded Churches, it is either impossible or inconvenient, and indecent, where the Fashion is for Men and Women to sit promiscuously in Pews, for all to kneel at Prayer, and yet enjoyn them to kneel at the Confession, Absolution, and Lord's Prayer? &c. Did they foresee that Deacons do baptize, and yet say in the Margin of that Book, Here let the Priest make the sign of the Cross? If there be no Equity of Construction, a Deacon cannot lawfully use the Cross in Baptism. 4. Did they foresee the Resolution of the Dissenters to persist? the great Danger to the Protestant Religion by our Divisions, and Penal Prosecutions of them? (of which the Papists have made great Advantage) and for all this enjoin a strict, constant Conformity, or Excommunications, and Writs, de capiendo? &c. I might add more Queries, but I proceed to his Reserve.

This Reverend Man thought there was strength enough in his main Body of Arguments to bear down the whole Force of the feeble moderate Party. But to make all sure, he hath placed two Reserves, the Power of the King in his Declaration, to stand to the Act of Uniformity, Anno 1662. and the other, the Power of the House of Commons Vote, of Feb. 15. 1662. to grant no Indulgence to the Dissenters from the Act of Uniformity.

Now against this Reserve, we are not afraid to come out with as great an Authority as he argues under; and we think, we have the better, because it is a later, and the fruit of twelve Years Experience. See the King's Declaration of Indulgence of March 15. 1672. And against the Vote of the Commons, of Feb. 15. 1662. we will oppose more than one Vote; even a Bill brought into the House of Lords from the Commons in Favour of Protestant Dissenters: After that his Majesty had cancelled his Declaration of Indulgence, which Bill had certainly passed, but for want of Time; the Parliament being prorogued till October 27. 1673, before it passed the Lords, as it certainly would have done; the Bishops then joyning with the Temporal Lords, and were willing to take away the Assent and Consent, and Renunciation of the Covenant.

A Bill in 1673. in favour of Protestant Dissenters is of greater Authority, and we suppose built upon greater Reasons, than a Vote against Indulgence in 1662. We might tell you of a Bill for uniting Protestant Dissenters, read December 21. 1680. and other Votes; but it shall suffice to have overmatched a Vote of that same House of p. 44Commons in its younger days, 1662. by a Bill of the same House in its riper Age, 1673. And now, if I thought this arguing but in this point, unconvincing Preacher could answer me, I would intreat his Favour to ask him whether the Law-givers of this Act did foresee and provide against a Change of their own Thoughts and Resolutions in reference to this very Case? And then, whether we are to take the sence and meaning of the Law-giver from his first, or from his last and maturest Thoughts and Declaration? But if they had remained unaltered; the Words of the Act, and our Declaration and Subscription, being general, and not limited by any after-Declaration of the same Power, for a rigid Construction, we are inclined to interpret them with the Equity, and Moderation of a known Rule of Law. Benignior Interpretatio semper capienda est.Phil. Dec. de Reg. Jur.

I have now done what I designed, and taking the defensive Part, I shall not pursue the Learned, Preacher through the rest of this branch of the Use, wherein he speaks, more of himself, than he doth to his Auditory, of any Duty that concerns them; but had rather follow him a thousand Paces in the Practice of the Christian Duty of honest Moderation, than give him one Contradiction. And I do again profess, that I am extreamly sorry there is so much matter of just Offence given in a Sermon, and from such Deductions of Application, more suited to the Times than the Text; wherein two sorts of Men are marked with a black Coal, the profest Dissenter, and the Viper, as the Moderate Conformist is called by this Brother. But if it be so great a Crime to be a Dissenter and a Nonconformist? Who are they who are most guilty of making Dissenters? They who urge a Sense of Conformity more rigorous than the Law? Or, they who give a moderate Exposition of general Terms? And who are they who do the best Service to the Church, they who by Christian Moderation bring them in, or they who keep them out, and will not give them the least Harbour within their Church-Doors, but beat them out with opprobrious, reproachful Girds?

I do observe, that Reverend Mr. Baxter doth often give the rigid and milder Sence of what is required by Law, and the Nonconformist, taking the words in the rigid Sence, cannot conform. Plea for the Nonconf. Sect. 9. We are sure then Moderation doth not keep out, nor make the Breach —. And having said thus much by way of Vindication, we plead not guilty; and taking Conformity in the whole Latitude for Soundess of Doctrine, Holiness of Conversation, for serious, and reverent, and rubrical Order in Worship, We are ready to endure a Trial at any time, and they who condemn and p. 45arraign the Moderate Conformist, do at the same time condemn the Governours of the Church for a very supine Moderation towards us, and drowzy Negligence, in not saving the Church from the Moles and Vipers, by executing the Laws upon us, if we are such Offenders.