THE REASONS FOR Non-conformity EXAMINED and REFUTED IN ANSWER To a Late LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY SHEWING Some Reasons for his Non-conformity LONDON Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1679. AN ANSWER TO A LETTER from a MINISTER TO A PERSON of QVALITY SHEWING Some Reasons for his Non-conformity BEING lately in a Bookseller's Shop with a design to gratifie my curiosity in perusing some of those many Pamphlets which either a mistaken or factious zeal crowds into the World I met with a Letter pretended to be writ from a Minister to a Person of Quality shewing some Reasons of his Non-conformity I have often observed this humour in some mean but vain people who dare not look upon Persons of Quality when they are present to talk of them with great familiarity as their peculiar Intimates and Confidents an Art whereby both Papists and Fanaticks think to conciliate great reverence to themselves However I was very glad to see this Pamphlet which being a single sheet was quickly read and if it were thought requisite as quickly answered and indeed I expected either some new reasons of Non-conformity or some new strength given to their old reasons but upon a perusal of it soon discovered my mistake and presently concluded that such stuff as this could not be designed to satisfie a Person of Quality but to impose upon the Injudicious Rabble and that we must expect a new Letter of Reasons for Non conformity every week or fortnight like the Domestick Intelligence or Poor Robin a way which has been found very effectual to corrupt the minds of weak and unstable People For which reason though my other occasions would sufficiently have pleaded my excuse I resolved in great charity to undertake this Gentleman either to satisfie him if he be an honest and Impartial Inquirer or to use as great diligence to undeceive People as he does to deceive them To let pass his Introduction which I confess I can neither make Grammar nor Sense of he tells us that three grand Declarations are required to be made by all those who will conform The First concerning the Book of Common-Prayer the second concerning taking up Arms against the King the third concerning the Solemn League and Covenant Now with reference to all these especially the first and last I have had hitherto insuperable objections against the making any such Declaration I am heartily sorry that any Men retain these Principles and more that they dare to own them and yet there were no great hurt in this would but our Governours take the alarm and consider what Indulgence is fit to be allowed those Men who profess that they have insuperable objections against declaring Treason and Rebellion to be a sin and that they dare not renounce that Covenant which involved this Nation in a Bloudy War which pull'd down Church and State and ended in the Barbarous Murder of the best of Kings for those who believe they are still under the obligation of that Covenant must necessarily believe that they are still bound to act over the same Villanies when they shall have power to do it But of this more when our Author shall think fit to give us his objections against the two last Declarations at present we are only concerned to vindicate the First the Declaration concerning the Book of Common-Prayer And his great objection against this is a great mistake or a disingenuous perverting the sense and meaning of the Declaration The words are these I A. B. do declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book entituled B. L. The Book of Common-Prayer c. Upon which words he thus comments Surely words could not be devised by all the wit of man more comprehensive and more significant to testifie our highest justification and commendation of every point and syllable of every rite and ceremony of every matter and thing contained in the whole Book and in every page and line of it This he descants on at large and greatly triumphs in the unreasonableness and absurdity of such a declaration and I confess I am perfectly of his mind and would be a Non-conformist to any Church in the World that should require such a declaration from me but then those very Arguments whereby he proves the unreasonableness of such a declaration do abundantly convince me that this is not the sense and meaning of the declaration And every man must be of my mind who will but think so charitably of his Prince and Parliament and the Convocation as not to believe them to be all mad For would any men in their wits who deny the Infallibility of Pope and Councils as he well observes the Church of England does require such an assent to any book of humane composition as shall suppose it to be infallible for so this declaration according to that latitude of sense he bestows on it supposes that there is not the least possible mistake in the whole Book of Common-prayer but that it is as infallible as the Bible nay more infallible than any Copy of the Bible now extant in the World in any Language in which there may be some possible mistakes through the fault of the Translators or Transcribers as he observes and as was before observed in the very Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book that in common equity there must be allowed a just and favourable construction to all humane Writings especially such as are set forth by Authority and even to the very best Translations of the Holy Scripture it self which is a plain Argument that they never designed such a declaration of Assent to the Book of Common-Prayer as excludes all possible mistakes and gives us a general rule not to expound Acts of Parliament or Publick Declarations which are humane writings set forth by Authority to an absurd or impossible sense In like manner Queen Elizabeth in her Injunctions brands those for malicious Persons who put such perverse constructions on the Oaths of Allegiance as could not by any equity of words or good sense be thereof gathered And yet upon this mistake our Author proceeds to show the difference between old and new Conformity and asserts that ever since our happy reformation the Ministers were not so strictly enjoyned to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book but it was only appointed to be read and used and the Rites and Ceremonies of it duly to be observed which he calls their moderation and piety very good words and indeed too good not to be qualified and recalled and therefore adds at least their prudence and policy for he supposes that a great many hundreds who conformed in those days would not have conformed had any such declaration been required of them and upon this account doubts not to declare that present conformity is foreign and quite of another nature
from conformity heretofore conscience being now much more forced and violated by them in the Chair which is said to vindicate themselves for dissenting so much from many ancient Puritans who though they disliked many things yet conformed and peaceably submitted to publick Constitutions But this Person is either a great stranger to the Constitutions of the Church of England since the Reformation or cannot but know that if there were no such publick declaration yet there were publick subscriptions required of the conforming Clergy which is equivalent to a declaration for he must be a man of a mighty squeamish conscience who will not declare that which he can and does subscribe For what he asserts that there was no more required formerly of the Clergy but barely to use and submit to the Common-prayer and the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church is notoriously false In the Articles published by the Authority of King Edw. VI. this is one The Book which of late time was given to the Church of England by the Kings B. L. Authority and the Parliament containing the manner and form of praying and ministring the Sacraments in the Church of England likewise also the Book of ordering Ministers of the Church set forth by the same Authority are godly and in no point repugnant to the wholesome Doctrine of the Gospel but agreeable thereunto furthering and beautifying the same not a little and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of England and chiefly of the Ministers of the Word they ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving and to be commended to the People of God which as you shall hear more presently is not inferiour to an unfeigned assent and consent This Article indeed is left out of those which were set forth by the Authority of Queen Elizabeth but instead of it the Clergy were required to subscribe this promise or declaration I shall read the B. L. Advertisements by the Queen Service appointed plainly distinctly and audibly that all the People may hear and understand In the Reign and by the Authority of King James were published the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical which are of force in the Church of England to this day and it is sufficiently known that by the 36 Canon every Person to be ordained or promoted to any Ecclesiastical Benefice or Function is required to subscribe the Three Articles the second of which concerns the Book of Common-prayer and of ordaining and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons that it contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and may be lawfully used and that he himself will use that same form and no other from whence it appears that there was something more required of conforming Ministers in those days than only to read the Book of Common-prayer and to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of it as this Author ignorantly asserts for they were also required by subscription to declare their approbation of it as fit to be used and their promise that they would use it But still they were not so strictly injoyned to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book Right not in these very words but to the same sense for to own that there is nothing in the Common prayer Book which is contrary to the Word of God and that it may be lawfully used and that we will use it is equivalent to an unfeigned assent and consent No says our Author for Assent with reference to the party assenting relates to his understanding and with reference to the thing assented to it relates to the truth and rightfulness of it So again Consent with reference to the party consenting relates to his will and with reference to the thing consented to it relates to that goodness expediency behovefulness of it A very wise and grave observation as if I could not assent to the doing of what is to be done as well as to the truth of a proposition or could not assent to the lawfulness of a thing without assenting to it as every way fittest and best and most expedient as if I could not consent to submit to the use of what is lawful and legally imposed without chusing every thing mentioned and prescribed in the same Book as most eligible and behoveful to be done practised and observed as this Author is pleased to paraphrase an unseigned Consent But to satisfie this Gentleman in the signification of these words Assent and Consent it may be convenient to give him Qu. Elizabeth's interpretation of them in the Preface to the Articles An. 1504. Whereupon by diligent conference and communication and at last Bishop Sparrow's Collection by Assent and Consent of the Persons before-said these orders and rules ensuing have been thought meet and convenient to be used and followed not yet prescribing these rules as laws equivalent with the eternal Word of God and as of necessity to bind the consciences of her subjects in the nature of them considered in themselves but as temporal orders meer Ecclesiastical without any vain superstition and as rules in some part of Discipline concerning decency distinction and order for the time So that the Queen and the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops in commission with him who drew up those Articles thought we might give our assent and consent to orders and rules and by the same reason to a Book of Common-prayer as only meet and convenient to be used and followed and that we may give such an assent and consent to temporary rules which are alterable at pleasure and therefore not supposed to be every way perfect or not to have the least error or defect in them And in this sense the Act of Uniformity requires our unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common-prayer c. that is to the use of it as is expresly mentioned immediately before this declaration that every Minister shall openly and publickly before the Congregation declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other I A. B. do here declare c. Now when the Act it self limits the signification of these words Assent and Consent only to the use it evidently betrays a perverse and malicious design to affix such a large signification on them without the least appearance of reason as to render that declaration very absurd and impious or at best very suspicious to honest men As for what he urges that the Act it self expounds consent by approve where it is said of a Lecturer that he shall give his assent to and approbation of the said Book and to the use of all the prayers c. I would fain know how it can be otherwise for he who assents and consents must approve as far as he assents and consents but why cannot we approve of the use of a Book or approve of
a Book as lawful to be used as well as assent and consent to the use of it so that what our Author seems so passionately to wish that they had required See Mr. Falkner's Libertas Eccles c. 3. no more in conformity than use and submission is indeed all that is required of the conforming Clergy and is all that is necessary to be required to attain the end of that Act which was to establish uniformity in worship that there may be an universal agreement in the publick worship of Almighty God and to the intent that every person in this Realm may certainly know the rule to which he is to conform in Publick Worship which are the very words of the Act but it has always been the practice of these men to force another sense upon the words of Oaths and publick declarations than was ever intended by our Governours on purpose to justifie their unjust clamours and to countenance Schism and Faction Having thus in general justified the declaration of unfeigned assent and consent it is time to consider his particular exceptions against the Book of Common-prayer And his First exception is against reading the Apocrypha as Lessons for the day but he ought to have said for what day for there is not one Lesson out of the Apocrypha appointed for any Sunday throughout the year and is it not great impudence in these men to reproach the Church of England for appointing the Apocrypha to be read sometimes on the Week-days who take no care themselves that either the Holy Scriptures or Apocrypha should be read in their Conventicles all the week nor scarce on Sundays especially considering that there is always one Lesson out of the Canonical Scripture appointed to be read besides the Apocrypha and I suppose they will not assert it absolutely necessary every time we meet to worship God to read two Chapters of the Holy Scriptures for they themselves very seldom read one on their weekly Lectures whatever they do on Sundays we pay much greater reverence to the holy Scriptures than our Accusers do as never meeting together for the worship of God without reading some portion of them what is our fault then not a neglect to read the Scriptures but that sometimes we read some part of the Apocrypha together with the Scriptures and if this be all it is no other fault than what See Falkners libertas Eccl. ch 4. sect 5. the ancientest and purest Churches have been guilty of as is well known to those who are acquainted with the History of the Christian Church and there are few Protestant Writers of any note but have commended or at least allowed the reading of them But they are fabulous Legends such as of Tobit and his Dog Bel and the Dragon Judith and Baruch I suppose this Author does not know that the 5 Ch. of Tobit is left out of our Kalendar nor that many of the ancient Fathers did believe these to be true stories though he is pleased confidently to call them fabulous Legends I never saw any arguments yet to prove them Fables but what would admit of a very fair solution when this Author produces any I shall consider them But supposing them to be fables that is parabolical discourses they are never the less fit for that to be read in Christian Assemblies since they may serve for instruction or comfort or reproof as the Parables of our Saviour do But they are read under the notion of Holy Scripture for so in the whole lump together they are stiled in the order no note of discrimination to make any distinction between one and the other and has this Author then the impudence to charge the Church of England with making no distinction between the Canonical Scripture and the Apocrypha if not is it not done like a very good Christian sliely to insinuate so foul an imputation as this if he does think the Church guilty let him tell me the meaning of the sixth Article of Religion wherein our Church declares In the name of the Holy B. L. Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church And the other Books as Hierome saith the Church B. L. doth read for example of life and institution of manners but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine How is it possible for the best Church in the World to escape the envenomed Tongues and Pens of these Men who do not blush to charge her with such doctrines as are directly contrary to her own Articles Had it not been more reasonable to assert that the order takes no notice of the Apocryphal Lessons than that it includes the Apocrypha in the common title of Holy Scriptures which is the plain truth for it only mentions the Lessons out of the old and new Testament reckoning the Apocrypha so well known and so plainly discovered by the Kalendar when it was once understood that there was no need of particular directions about it There is one objection more with reference to the Kalendar that some Books of the Sacred Canon are wholly left out and never to be read some of them within a very little some of them but half to be read and many of them mutilated and curtailed as to several chapters contained in them Now to show you of what force this objection is let us first consider how much of the Holy Scripture is appointed to be read every Year by our Church The Psalms of David are read over every Month the most part of the old Testament once a Year the new Testament excepting the Revelations thrice every Year besides Epistles and Gospels And have not these Men great reason to find fault with our Kalendar who don't read the tenth part of the Bible once a Year in their Conventicles Secondly the design of publick reading the Scriptures is for publick instruction and therefore the Church may very prudently leave out such parts of Scripture as are dark and obscure and not easily understood without an Expositor or have not such an immediate influence upon the government of our lives and reserve them to be read by Christians at home or to be expounded to the People by publick Teachers and such for the most part are those omissions which this Author complains of dark and obscure Prophecies or Genealogies or such Histories as are related in some other Books which are appointed to be read And now Thirdly I would desire this Gentleman to prove that it is absolutely necessary to read the whole Scripture in our Churches if it be let our Dissenters first correct themselves before they censure those who are more just and innocent if it be not then it is no fault to omit some parts of Scripture which are least fitted to the edification of a promiscuous multitude while nothing is omitted which is necessary to their instruction in Faith and manners and when he shows any such omission I will refuse