Moderation a vertue, or, A vindication of the principles and practices of the moderate divines and laity of the Church of England represented in some late immoderate discourses, under the nick-names of Grindalizers and Trimmers / by a lover of moderation, resident upon his cure ; with an appendix, demonstrating that parish-churches are no conventicles ... in answer to a late pamphlet entitled, Parish-churches turned into conventicles, &c.

An Appendix demonstrating that Parish-Churches are no Conventicles, particu∣larly for reading the second Service in the Desk. In answer to a late Pam∣phelt, entitled, Parish-Churches turn∣ed into Conventicles, &c.

IF the Title of this Epistle to all the Reverend Clergy of the Church of England were proved in the Epistle, that Parish-Churches turn∣ed into Conventicles, and Informers inform, and Magistrates proceed upon their Information, it would be a great Project to bring the Wealth of the Kingdom into the King's Exchequer, to make the Poor of our Parishes Farmers, and Freeholders at least, and the Informers Fellows to Peers, by the Moities for so many Conventicles kept throughout the Kingdom, above twenty Years, in most of our Parish Churches. But we hope that Parish Churches, being neither any Man's House, nor Barn, nor Yard, nor Back-side, may not come within the Act against Conventicles. And except they deny Churches to be the Houses of God, they know not how to sue the Owner of them for 20 l. for the House. But if it should so happen, that this Notion should univer∣sally take, and gain Assent and make Converts, as he saith he hath made, pag. 21. and so Rectors and Vicars, because they have taken Possession, may be adjudged Owners of the Churches, by some who wish there might be some Law to undo us; we are perswaded that our Magistrates would not interpret the Act, as including Parish-Churches, seeing it speaks of a House, in which a Family doth inhabit; or, if it be in a House, Field or Place, where is no Family inhabiting; yet we suppose it is a House that hath been, or may be inhabited, or was built to be a Habitation; and we hope that the Parish Churches are presum'd to be no Places for unlawful Assemblies, or Conventicles. And for some other Reasons it may be thought that the Author might have invented another Title for his Epistle:

He doth chiefly insist upon one piece of Nonconformity to prove Parish-Churches Conventicles, and that is, because we do not read the

second, or the Communion-Service at the North-side of the Holy Table, when there is no Communion, p. 5. And this Omission is a Sin of that nature and tendency, that it doth not only offend against the Common Order of the Church, but hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the Conscience of the weak Brethren, p. 5. He beseecheth us to consider what Mischiefs we do both to Church and State, p. 7, &c. A heavy Charge! and that 'tis high time to provide a∣gainst so dangerous an Offence! He tells us of two sorts of Persons he hath to deal with; one plainly confessing that 'tis commanded by Au∣thority; but say, they have their Liberty (to read there or not) not∣withstanding that Command. Another sort confidently tell him, there is no such Command. And I suppose many may be found, that are doubtful, if not confident; and I do profess I am neither convinc'd nor converted by what he saith, and shall be judged by the Law it self by and by; and make a few Observations and Oppositions.

1. He saith, The place for reading the second Service, is without all doubt, a thing indifferent in its own nature. To this I oppose that a place inconvenient for saying or reading any part of the Service of God is not a thing indifferent; because it is partly what is read to the People for their Edification, and partly the Devotion of the People towards God. If the Communion-Table be sixed Altar-wise, or be not removed from the upper end of the Church, in very many Churches the People cannot hear, and cannot join in Prayer: some have made some such Objection to him, which he doth not remove, and saith, Be it never so inconvenient. This may be debated in a regular way, and the Inconvenience taken away by legal Authority; but for any Pa∣rish Curat to judg of the Convenience or Inconvenience of a Law — and thereupon to alter the Law after his own Model, is no less a piece of Insolence, than to take upon him to be King, Bishop and Priest in his own Parish. Whereby we are instructed, that a Minister is to read at the Altar whether the People hear or no, and pray, or not. I know one Doctor that takes leave sometimes of his great Congregation, and goes to the upper end of a Great Chancel, rather like to his private Devotion, than publick Worship. But a great Doctor had some re∣spect to the Edification and Devotion of his People, when he set his Man at the Steeple to observe whether he could be heard from the Table over all the Church: to make trial of it, he interrupted his Devotion (as the Story goes for true) and called to his Man by name: Dost thou hear me now? the Servant answers, Yes, very well, then the Minister goes on. Certainly this Doctor thought it was ne∣cessary

the People should hear and be edified, hear and joyn, and ma∣ny of us Curats are of the same Mind. This was a Reason in Queen Eliz. Injunctions Anno. 1559. and Can. 82.

2. Pag. 7. He saith, It is only the Observation or Non-observation of all the Orders, Rites and Ceremonies (and none other) which are appointed in and by the Common-Prayer and Book of Canons, which gives it the Denomination of a Church or Conventicle. Now, if I forget not, Preaching and Teaching in any such Assembly as is described by the Act, makes a Conventicle, and the Preacher finable 20 l.

3. He saith, The Plea of Custom is not good in this case, because it is against a Positive Law. But we say, our Positive Statute-Law allows of the Custom of placing the Communion-Table; so the Rubrick before the Communion,

The Table at the Communion-time, &c. shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayers are appointed to be said.

A Custom is esta∣blished by this Law: this Custom is as Antient as the Reformation. See the Injunctions of Bishop Ridley, An. 1550. in the Collect. of Records in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation, p. 206.

4. Pag. 9.

Doth not the Book of Common-Prayer it self restrain all Diocesans from making any Order concerning any Doubt arising about the Use and Practice of any thing in the Book?

To this we oppose a Clause in that Preface, or Chap. concerning the Service of the Church, in which are these Words; And for as much as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but Doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same: to appease all Diversity (if any arise), and for the Resolution of all Doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this Book; the Parties so doubting, shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocess, who by his Discretion shall take order for quieting and appeasing the same, so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book. This we conceive is esta∣blished by Law. And to shew that this reading of the second Service when there is no Communion, is not contrary to Law, we will once again publish the Law.

This Writer takes it all along for granted, that the Law requires it, and goes upon Petitionem Principii, or a false Supposition.

1. By the Rubrick before the Communion, which must be obser∣ved to be one of those Rubricks that enjoyn, or direct what is to be done when there is a Communion, or before a Communion.

Rubr. The Table at the Communion-time having a fair white Linnen Cloth upon it, shall stand in the Body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are wont to be said: and the Priest

standing at the North-side of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer, with the Collect following, the People kneeling—.

Then the Priest is to stand at the North-side of the Table when it is so covered, &c. And it is so only to be covered when there is a Communion; for this let us consult Can. 82.

We appoint that the same Table from time to time shall be kept and repaired in sufficient and seemly manner, and covered in the time of the Di∣vine Service with a Carpet of Silk, or other decent Stuff, thought meet by the Ordinary of the Place, if any Question be made of it, and with a fair Linnen Cloth at the time of the Administration, as becometh that Table, and so stand, saving when the holy Commu∣nion is to be administred; at which time the same shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may the more conveniently be heard of the Communicants in his Prayer and Administration, &c—. And likewise that a convenient Seat be made for the Minister to read Service in.

What, saith he, are there no Rubricks to direct the orderly read∣ing of those Prayers where there is no Communion?

To this we say, 1. Upon Sundays and Holy-Days, if there be no Communion, shall be said,* 1.1 all that is appointed at the Communion till the end of the general Prayer for the good Estate of the Catholick Church. This part of the Communion-Service being added to the Morning Service in the Pew, appointed by the Canon to be made conveniently for the Minister to read the Service in, we are sufficiently directed to read this Service, where the other is said: to which it is added, And if any Man doubt of the place, his Diocesan may direct him by the Law; and if there be no doubt, may read it there where he reads the rest.

But against this he objects, the Rubrick before the Offertory, Then shall the Priest return to the Lord's Table and begin the Offertory, Can any Man be said to return to a place he was not at before?

To this we say, 1. In some places there is no Offertory constant even at Commu∣nions, the People having sent their Offerings before to buy Bread and Wine. 2. * 1.2 When there are Offertories, there are Com∣munions; and then the Priest returns to the Lords's Table when he comes out of the Pulpit, and so we are bound still but to Communion-times.

Lastly; He objects: [Then shall follow the Sermon.]

What only on Communion-Days? &c. and shews his respect for Sermons, calling the Sermon the Great Diana, and ironically and profanely, For the dear sake of that Unum Necessarium, that Magnum Oportet.

Sir, did you declare at your Ordination, (if you be a Minister) that you trusted you were moved by the Holy-Ghost, and called to the Ministry? and now, when you plead so stiffly for a Rite, call a Sermon a Diana!

But to answer your Argument, we say, That Rubrick seems rather to direct when we shall go to the Sermon, than give us Authority for Preaching: We have other Authority to bear us out to make our Preaching Legal, than that Rubrick; and therefore we have Sermons on other times besides when there is a Communion. Lastly, we say, some of the Rubricks belong to actual Communion, as this doth for going to the Altar, as you phrase it; other Rubricks direct, (when there is none) the Order of the Service.

You bring up a Rear of Authorities, which might have as decent∣ly been placed in the Head of Reasonings; but we know an inarti∣ficial Argument à Testimonio, is not so forcible as an artificial. But we know no Use of Testimonies and Names without Reason, ex∣cept it be to think to deceive such easy and kind Sirs, as you call us. But to the chief of them I say:

1. The Presbyterians, in their Reply to the Bishops, in the Grand Debate, tell the Bishops, Moreover there is no Rubrick requiring this Ser∣vice at the Table, when there is no Communion, pag. 45. And so they were as blind as we.

2. Mr. Hooker saith, Those Parts of the Liturgy are at the Table of the Lord commonly read; he saith not, enjoined to be read.

3. Arch-Bishop Laud leaves out part of the Rubrick, which makes against you and him, out of his Page, and saith, In many Places in his own memory it was read, pag. 41. but not so much as naming one Parish-Church in which it was so read.

Pag. 19. saith he, And now it remains that I should produce some unquestionable Authorities to back my Reasons, that it may appear to all un∣biassed Persons, that the Judgment of all the great Worthies of our Church, who have either occasionally, or on set purpose treated of this Matter, is unanimous.

One would have expected to have seen an Army of Worthies, and they all great Worthies, to have enforced his Reasons; but when we come to look upon them, they are but seven in all; and how omi∣nous is it, that a perfect Number of Seven should be found to perfect his Victory!

The first of these is the most judicious Hooker; nay, if most judici∣ous, he might have served alone; and what saith he? Book 5. §. 30. That the Prayers being devised at first for the Communion, are, when there is no Communion, at the Table of the Lord for that Cause also commonly read. All he saith is, that they are commonly read; but whether in few Places, or many Places they are common∣ly read, he doth not say, and doth not name any one Place in either College or Hall, Cathedral Church, or Chappel, in which the Com∣munion-Service was always read. And so many Things are done commonly, for which there is no Rubrick.

The second Authority produced, is of great Arch-bishop Laud, in his Speech in Star-Chamber; I'll quote the Page for him, Pag. 41. Indeed that great Man clears himself from the Eleventh Innovation, which was reading the second Service at the Communion-Table or Altar, by leaving the Matter very dark and doubtful. To this first I can truly say, that since my own Memory this was in use in very many Places. 1. He speaks of what was in the Compass of his own Me∣mory. 2. What was in use in very many Places, in which he had been; and so he speaks of what he saw, and therefore sell within his own Memory: how doth this prove it was no Innovation? If it was customary in many Places, it was a Custom that had no Force in many, if not most Places, in which it was not in use. 3. The Arch-bishop confirms this by the Rubricks, which I have recited be∣fore, and takes out of the last Rubrick before the Communion, this part of the Rubrick only: The Priest standing at the North-side of the Holy Table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with that which follows; leaving out that other part of the Rubrick, The Table at the Communion-time, having a fair white Linnen Cloth upon it; which shews, that that Rubrick doth only refer to the Communion-Time: whence he infers, the second Service is to be read at the Communion-Table; an Infe∣rence that no Man, that regards not his Grace above Truth and Rea∣son, would ever yield to.

The third Testimony is of the Right-Reverend Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Sperrow, in his Rationale of the Common-Prayer, pag. 239. And because this Finder of new Conventicles doth wish or exhort his Rea∣der to mark the Reason of this famous Triumvirate, and then read the second Service hereafter in the Desk if you can; I will take the more notice of the Rationale. And first, the Rationale is neither the Law, nor a legal authorised Expositor of the Law. And to do the Rationale Right and Respect, this Author, or the Printer, hath made the Passage to be neither Sence nor Reason. The Words of the Ratio∣nale

are: Private and solitary Communions of the Priest alone, she (the Church) allows not; and therefore when other cannot be had, she appoint's only so much of the Service, as relates not of necessity to a present (this Writer hath it to a private) Communion, and that to be said at the Holy Table, and upon good Reason, the Church thereby keeping as it were be•• Ground, visibly minding us of what she desires and labours towards, our more frequent Access to the Holy Table: And in the mean while, that part of the Service which she useth, may perhaps more fuly be called the Se∣cond Service.

Now weak Understandings cannot see a convincing Reason for rea∣ding of the second Service at the Communion-Table, in all this: 1. Not in those Words, When other Communion cannot be had: Other than what? what's the Substantive to other? Sure not private and so∣litary, which goes before, and is not allowed by the Church. 2. Or when other Communion cannot be had than in Prayers only, without the Sacrament, she appoints so much of the Service as relates not to a present Communion. How as relates not of necessity to a present Communion, and that to be said at the Lord's Table? Here the Thing in Controversy is positively said, without any Proof; the first part of the Rubrick clearly speaking of a Table covered, &c. which is at no other time than of a present Communion, or a Sacrament. And upon a good Reason, and with reverence to the Author, here's as bad a Reason as can be given. Doth the Church mind us of a Duty, which she requires not as often as the Communion-Service is said? She invites Guests to this Feast only when a Communion is ap∣pointed, and the Table prepared. 3. The Reason is not square, to argue from a constant reading of the Service at the Table, to a (only) frequent Access. The Access should be as frequent as the In∣vitation, or the Invitation is vain, when there is no provision.

The other four, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Elborow, Mr. Ham. L'Estrange, Dr. Comber, are too few to drive us all to the North-side of the Ta∣ble; there are more for us of all degrees, than ever were against us.

If all will not do, he brings upon us a Reason, which hath convin∣ced and converted the Obstinate, pag. 21. Let us search all the Forms of Prayer upon special Occasions, since the King's happy Restoration, or since the Blessed Reformation, and we shall find, even when there is no Communi∣on intended, that it is said expresly, The Priest shall stand at the North-side of the Table.

1. To this I answer: Grant it to be in all; are those Forms and Rubricks enjoined by Act of Parliament? If not, they are not a Law, I question not at all his Majesty's Power to appoint Fasts and Thanks∣givings;

but nothing is to us a Law, but what is by Act of Parlia∣ment. And I believe his Majesty never gave him encouragement to say, as he doth, pag. 13. ☞ That the Determination of his Majesty's Will and Pleasure is as binding to him, as any Act of Parliament since the Conquest.

2. The Rubrick in some of those Forms is only this, I am sure: The Priest standing at the North side, &c. shall say; and not, The Priest shall stand at the North side of the Lord's Table, and say. Then it were a Law, if enjoined by Law.

3. Do the Printers receive that in Charge from the King, or the Arch-Bishop, to print that Rubrick? Or do they do it for Custom and Form sake?

4. I am sure also, that in the Form of Thanksgiving for Queen Elizabeth's Inauguration, Novemb. 17. there is no Rubrick at all before the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments; but after the Grace of our Lord Jesus, the Lord's Prayer and Commandments follow, and other Prayers. Therefore it was not so since the Reformation; and that Queen's Reign took up a great part of our Time since the Refor∣mation; and that Day was as great and solemn a Day as hath been kept to his Majesty's Restauration. And whether that Piece of the Rubrick in our late Books came not in with the Innovations, I will leave to the Enquiry of others, who have a greater Treasure than my poor Collection doth contain.

And now we may say, those that were convinced by this Reason, have quietly receded from their Obstinacy, and been very easy tender-hearted Converts.

After all the Triumph, he rallies up the prime Churches, King's Chappel, Cathedrals, two Universities, and many Orthodox Parish-Churches, where the Prayers are so read, viz. Dr. Hicks, Dr. Sher∣lock, Dr. Dove, Mr. Pelling. Now whatever their Parish-Churches may be, if they be more Orthodox Parish-Churches than ours, 'tis rare. We take it to be no immodest Comparison to say, we are sure we are as Orthodox Parish-Ministers as they are. And how they can stand at the North side of the Table, we cannot understand, if their Tables stand Altar-wise, (as they do, or else their Churches are no more Orthodox than ours) except standing at the North End of the Table, be all one as to stand at the North Side; or that their Tables have no Ends, but are equilateral, and so still their Churches be He∣terodox, and not Orthodox. But if their Tables be of the ordina∣ry fashion, they must stand at the North End of the Table, and not at the North Side; and so they may come nearer to the Table than

others do, they come no nearer to the Rubrick than their Neighbours. And if our Churches are Conventicles, which I hope are not proved so to be, those Orthodox Churches which he names must come into the Number.

And to conclude, there was greater Reason for reading at the Communion-Table in former Times than now; for the Rubrick in the Book of Common-Prayer, till of late, was this: The Collects, E∣pistles, and Gospels to be used at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, and Holy Communion throughout the Year, before the first Sunday in Advent. [Book of Common-Prayer, &c. by Rob. Barker, 1634.] And this was the Rubrick in King Edward the Sixth's Time; but in ours now, Col∣lects, and Epistles, and Gospels, to be used throughout the Year. And therefore then the Celebration of the Sacrament was supposed, or for ought I know the Epistles and Gospels were not to be read, till the last Rubrick after the Communion was brought in, to read so much as was not necessary for the Communion. And this seems to be another Evidence, that the Rubrick for standing at the North Side of the Ta∣ble did relate to the Communion-Time, or Celebration of the Sacra∣ment, because then even the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels were to be read at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper throughout the Year; and if there be no Communion, there is no necessity of standing at the North Side of the Table: And till I see better Proof, I will con∣clude, Parish-Churches are no Conventicles.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See Rubrick after the Communion
• * 1.2

  See Ridley's Injunction before qu ie. Item That the Minister in the time of the Communion immediately af∣ter the Offertory, to monish the Communicants. Now is the time if you please to remem∣ber the poor Man's Chest.