Parish-Churches No Conventicles, From the Minister's reading in the Desk when there is no Communion.  
FOR THE VINDICATION OF THE Practice of Parochial Ministers. IN ANSWER to a late PAMPHLET, styled, Parish-Churches turned into Conventicles, pretended to be written by Rich. Hart, but really penned by Mr. T. A. Barister at Law.  
Showing how he hath defamed the Church of England, contrary to Canon XI, of those 1603.  
By O. V in a Letter to his Friend, N. D. both true Sons of the Church of ENGLAND.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Socr. Hist. Eecles. lib. 5. cap. 23. 
LONDON, Printed for John Gellibrand. 1683.   

Reverend SIR,  
HAVING notice the other Day from the Term-Catalogue, of a Pamphlet called, Parish-Churches turned into Conventicles, Printed for Obadiah Blagrave, I was desirous to know the Import of it at this Season, when our Diocesan, and I suppose yours in the Diocese of London, with the rest of our Right-Reverend Fathers, are by all amicable means labouring to bring Dissenters to the Communion of our Church. Soon after I procured it, and when I had it, I could not but stand amazed for a while at the Contradictions implied in the Title-Page, and the Bombastick Nonsense, or canting Language in the first Period of the Book, wherein the Author seems to account those Reverend Fathers, to whom he directs his Discourse, little better than inconsiderate Fools, who think not of the Obligation of Humane Laws, compared with pag. 3. ad finem. Whereupon I was warmed into a solicitude, to know who this doughty Writer was. After a little Enquiry, I was shortly informed by an ancient Gentleman of Essex, that it was one Mr. T. A. a Barister at Law; and by another, that it was the very same that married a late Judge's Daughter, and lives at G. B. in Essex, who delivered it to the Bookseller, for whom it was printed, having the Name of Richard Hart for a Disguise; and by a third, (who had good reason for what he affirmed) that it had been a dozen Years in hatching. I understand also, that the Vicar of the Parish where he dwells, is a very Orthodox, conformable, and peaceable Man, and in good esteem with your Bishop, my Lord of London; and therefore can't suppose he hath given him any just provocation. You who go often to London, where I hear our Reverend Brethren are frequently emitting Persuasives to Communion with us, in our Common-Prayers, and all the Offices of Divine Service, may do well, by Letter, or otherwise, to find out what that same Minister of G. B. thinks of this late Lawyer, and his bold Undertaking, who would so confidently give Measures to all of us, that we may better know the Design of these Sheets he hath addressed to us: For since I was so inquisitive, it hath been signified to me, that he was fourteen or fifteen Years ago a professed Papist, and that he now differs but in one Point from them, viz. in that of the King's Supremacy, (if he do not equivocate therein): That his own Uncle, Dr. A. upon the Discovery of the Popish Plot, went beyond Seas, and he himself is still looking to Rome, with which, if any should write no Peace, (as Bishop Hall did) it is verily thought it would much vex his Gizzard: For though as a mighty Zealot, he cries up our Statutes and Canons, (p. 3, 4, 9, etc.) and as I am ascertained, hath for no less than twelve Years last passed, been a great Bustler in the Rituals and Circumstantials of Religion, (however to this Day, he hath not learned to have different Conceptions of Time and Place, from Rites and Ceremonies) so that no Ministers near him in the Country, or of his Acquaintance in the City, can be quiet, without his Instruction and Guidance in their Offices; presuming to tell his Reverend Fathers, and all the World too, what is Law, and what is not; yet his Business in this Scrip is contrary to the 11th Canon, of those 1603; To affirm and maintain, that there are within this Realm other Meetings, Assemblies, or Congregations of the King's born Subjects, than such as by the Laws of this Land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches.  
He acknowledges our Parish-Churches to be true Churches, yet arraigns' them for Conventicles. But the best of it is, we who really officiate according to the Liturgy and Practice of our Church, need not fear to traverse the Action of Defamation, which this poor Lawyer doth prosecute us upon, no more than he doth dread an Excommunication for his Contra-Canonical Charge; for he will not be able, with all the Law he makes show of, to prevail with any one Justice of the Peace to convict any one of us for Twenty Pounds a Holiday, for preaching at a Conventicle, whiles we do conscientiously, in our reading of Prayers, observe the Usage and Practice of our Church; but will indeed be laughed at by those of the Long-Robe, for playing the Tom-Fool again in a Gown, by which he could never get his Bread, having it seems left it off, in despair of having his wise Counsel accepted. Belike he would at the Sessions or Assizes, when his mimy Face should appear, with Gravity and Laughter at the same instant, but make the Bench merry, just as the Title of his Pamphlet doth considerate Readers, when by the Practice of the Parish-Churches, he would prove that they serve God contrary to their Practice, etc. Alas! poor Lawyer! being dashed out of countenance, he would disrobe himself again, become an Appendent to the obsequious Family of Ignatius Loyola, and turn a Puny Prophet, (as they do, of what they are plotting to effect) giving us already a taste of that Office, when for a mere Nonobservance of his Locality, he predicts they will in a short time become triumphant over our Church, (p. 2.) and over our Church-Doors we must write in Capital Letters, what he doth in the Roman or Latin Style, (p. 16.) Because the Priesthood among us fell within, it could not stand without; and there will be an End of the Church of England. Which there might be some kind of pretence for, if our Church, which yet he somewhat reckons Apostolical, had no better Foundation (as he would suggest, pag. 2.) than that of the Apostatical Popish Church, in laying claim to a Power of enjoining what God never commanded. But our Church stands not on such a sandy Foundation as this wavering Prophet doth imagine.  
And though I perceive (upon certain Report) that he pretends to be a Perfectionist in his Practice, conformable to our Liturgy and Canons; yet those who have strictly observed his Steps, have found he is not faultless in his Conformity to the Laws of God, and his King; and one of us might say to him, in the Words of St. Paul, Rom. 2. 1, 3, 21, 23. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O Man, whoever thou art that judgest: For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest, dost the same Things. But thinkest thou this, O Man, that judgest them that do such Things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the Judgement of God? Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking the Law dishonourest thou God? For it seems he is remarkably obnoxious for his Irreverence at the Minister's Prayer and Sermon, (which in one of our Statutes, whether he knows it or no, is called Divine Service) by reading some Book of his own, (yet neither the Bible, nor Service-Book) all the time, contrary to Primo Eliz. wherein he is required to abide orderly, not only during the Time of Common-Prayer, but Preaching, or other Service of God, there to be used or ministered; and contrary to the 18th Canon, wherein he is required, not to disturb the Service or Sermon, by walking, or talking, or any other way, nor departed out of the Church during the Time of Service and Sermon, without some urgent or reasonable cause. Yet this, as well as the former, he hath often done, as several Gentlemen have noted, who have occasionally been there, hearing his own Minister, a Man, they say, without all Exceptions in every respect. Further, he is taxed for being a Hinderer of the Word of God to be sincerely preached, a Defender of Popish and Erroneous Doctrine, against the 110th Canon, which describes such as Schismatics. And indeed this Roman AEmylius doth so flirt at our Sermons, (p. 17.) that it is easy to give credit to this part of his Character.  
Having thus discovered this daring Author, and his Design, at least that of his Pamphlet, because he doth in some Pages of it charge us, and the Generality, even Thousands of our Brethren, (whom yet he calls Reverend Fathers) with no small Offence before God, i. e. (he saith) with very great Sin, (p. 4.) particularly, A playing fast and lose with God Almighty; and putting Tricks upon our Mother the Church of England, cheating of her, and with great perfidiousness; yea, with being Sacrilegists, (p. 3.) worse than the worst of Conventiclers, (p. 7.) blinder than the Presbyterians, (p. 17.) Such Offenders against the common Orders of the Church, hurt the Magistrates Authority, and wound the Consciences of weak Brethren, like himself, (p. 5.) To say no more of that which he accounts the Nakedness of his Reverend Fathers, and yet lays it open; I shall take occasion to divert you with some Strictures here and there on his other Pages, that we may plainly see the Illogicalness of his Arguing, to convict us of these heinous Crimes he doth reproach us with.  
To prove his great Assertion, That Parish-Churches are turned into Conventicles, by reading the Communion-Service, or any part thereof, in the Desk; he doth (p. 7.) allege the Definition of a Conventicle, or that which by the Statute doth constitute a Conventicle. But the Logicians will tell this Wellwisher to Syllogisms, before he comes to Argumentation, that every Definition must reciprocate with the Thing defined: Wherefore if the statutable Definition of a Conventicle, doth not agree to the Exercise of Religion in our Parish-Churches, this Logicaster will be baffled, and found, after all his Travel upon this Errand, in a Condition worse than Balaam's Ass, (p. 3.) For, A Conventicle is a Meeting of above four Persons, besides those of the same House, for any Exercise of Religion, in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England. 22 Car. 2. But the general Exercise of Religion in our Parish-Churches, is not in any other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, when the Minister doth read the Communion-Service, so far as is appointed, in the Desk, when there is no Communion, because it is, and hath been since the Reformation, the general Practice of our Church. And though this quicksighted Zealot for a Station at the Altar, could not see it, where he discourses of what constitutes a Conventicle; yet he owns it as a Custom in the same Page, where he blunders fearfully, in denying and asserting (contradicting himself being proper to him) Place and Number to be needful to make a Conventicle.  
For if it be a Custom according to him, than it is a Usuage, and in this case Custom, Use, and Practice are greatly to be regarded; by reason Practice in the Statute is industriously brought in, to note, that an Opposition to it is of the Essence of a Conventicle; so that where there is an Observation of the Practice of the Church of England in her Common-Prayers, there is not a Conventicle. And therefore this Accuser of us did not wisely in describing a Conventicle, to put in the exceptive or restrictive only to the Observation of the Common-Prayer-Book, and Canons, (p. 7.) for he might have easily learned from the Book called, Reformatio Legum Eccles. Tit. de consuet. c. 1. That Custom, Use, and Practice are ever allowed, (and here in this case) as part of the Rule, when neither against Reason, or an express Law; and where a Law is not clear in a Circumstance, (as after we shall see this Writer can here produce nothing positive, that is, explicit) especially of a particular Place, Custom is accounted a good Interpreter of the Law. For our Ecclesiastical Laws affirm, That Custom is a certain Jus or Right, instituted by Manners or Practice, which is taken for the Law, when the Law is deficient, (or not sufficiently explicit): Or it is a certain Right by the Manners or Uses of the whole People, or of the greatest Part of them, begun by Reason, continued and settled, having the Authority of a Law: For of that which is not written plainly the Right comes, which Use hath approved for daily Manners, allowed by the consent of the Users to imitate the Law, when the Customs are not repugnant to the Word of God, or the Edification of the Church; say they, Can. 4.  
But methinks this Gentleman never regards, that however our Lawmakers were so careful, before they passed the Law against Seditious Conventicles, to put in the Word [Practice] as part of the Definition, that they might exempt Sermons, the Ministers Prayers before and after Sermon, Singing of the Psalms, etc. Usuages of our Church: So that when the Bill came up from the Commons, without the Word [Practice or Usuage] the then Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Southampton, at a Conference of both Houses about it, told Sir Job Charlton; If that Word [Practice or Usuage] were not in, he should every day (there being more than four Strangers at his Table) have a Conventicle in his House, when his Chaplain said Grace before and after Meat, for which there was no Form in the Liturgy. Sir Job then, being so hard put to it, told his Lordship, That he might desire all but four of his Strangers to take a turn in his Garden: Which occasioned Laughter by all those present of both Houses; and so the Word [Practice] was put in; which this feeble Denominator of Conventicles hath not well weighed, or else he would not arietare, as he doth, against our Bishops themselves, as well as the rest of the Clergy, with his cornuted Arguments, (p. 2, 3, 9, 10.)  
But I humbly conceive, this Practice of our Parochial Ministers, to read what the Book prescribes of the Communion-Service in the Desk, to be a kind of Prescription, which (say the Ecclesiastical Laws, Tit. de Prescrip. c. 1.) is a certain Right congruous to the Time, taking Force from the Authority of the Laws; which hath not been interrupted, except for a little space, in some few Places, which was attended with a great Concussion in the State. The Practice did not cease, but was only hindered a little by Force, or the Maladministration of a Power which came to be questioned. Wherefore methinks the Practice, which the Ministers of our Church have been, and are generally in possession of, not having been, bonâ fide, by any Legal Process, and Judicial Determination interrupted, being really for Edification, should still obtain. But this Master of the Ceremonies stands upon his Punctilios, and if every Diminutive Puncto be not precisely observed, according to the novel Conceit his narrow Soul hath of the meaning of the Law, (which yet wise Men used to account Universal Practice a good Interpreter of) he would peremptorily conclude, the most grave and Orthodox Assembly, not hitting his Cue, though in the Chappel-Royal, would commence a Conventicle, (p. 7.) Difficiles Nugae! This 'tis for a Lenten Lawyer, to feed upon Mint, anise, and Cummin, and neglect the weightier Matters of the Law. Out of mere pity to him, I cannot but thwart his great-lettered Aphorism, with another in little Letters, as significant, viz. Minimum est curare minima. The Earl of Clarendon's Saying to Cressy, (p. 137.) may serve for an Exposition of it, viz. They do equally mistake, who believe, that the Outworks of Religion must be equally, with the same Passion, guarded and preserved, as the Walls themselves; that no Form, or Ceremony, or Circumstance in Religion may not be altered, or parted with, more than the Faith itself. But this invariable Lawyer, in his Retirement, will not permit his Diocesan to determine a doubtful Rubric by a secundum usum, (p. 9) but will have all tied up to the Letter; though the Law itself, in the Preface to the Book, expects, It should be allowed such just and favourable Instruction, as in common Equity ought to be allowed to all Humane Writings. And again, there it saith, Reading should be in such Order, as is most easy and plain for the understanding, both of Readers and Hearers: And if Doubts arise about the Use and Practice, concerning the Manner how to understand, do, and execute the Things contained in this Book, the Discretion of the Bishop is to be regarded: Who, I have heard, in the Diocese of London, hath not now, any more than his two immediate Predecessors, (when no Communion was) blamed Reading of Communion-Service in the Desk, for the Edification of the People; but rather, when they have been by several Ministers consulted in that particular case, both at their Visitations, and other Times, when they have come to preach in their Churches on holidays, have ordered them to be read as they used to do, when they were not there: Perhaps thinking that good Advice, which King James gave in little Matters to the Archbishop of Spalleto, viz. That he should leave Things as he found them.  
But this fervent Stickler is for his new Way, which if Parish-Ministers will not walk in, according to his guidance, than they are Conventiclers, and Nonconformists of the worse sort, (p. 7, 8.) If they will not walk to and fro betwixt the Desk and the Altar, after his measures; will not be chancelled, when they read Common-Prayer to the whole Congregation; they must be censured for cancelling the Laws, (p. 13.) Whatever any of them have to plead for their Practice, he fancies he can easily answer their Pleas, how rational soever, by begging the Question, and holding the Conclusion. Those who yield, that the Letter of the Rubric may favour his Opinion, yet with the allowance of their Superiors, for Peace sake, and Edification, comply with the general Practice, as comporting with the Spirit and End of the Law, he reprimands as wilful Transgressor's, (p. 4.) And those who are persuaded, that comparing one Rubric with another, and other Parts of the Law with the Canons, as expressing the Sense of the Lawmakers, they have sufficient Warrant to abide in the Desk, and so differ in Judgement from him, he doth, Dictator-like, determine to be Conventiclers, and Nonconformists of the worst complexion: Whereas the former, upon expense of Circumstances, are not culpable; and the latter stand upon the Justification of their Practice, notwithstanding this Lawyer's Opinion is against them. For, besides that the former may well conclude themselves faultless, from what I have noted of Custom, Usuage, and Practice, with the Import of the Statute about Conventicles, which this Gentleman looked upon without Spectacles; If they were wilful Transgressor's, there would have been some Law for their Punishments, or the Bishops would have sharply remarked them in their Visitations, had they had a Warrant for it; or something would have been proposed in the Convocation, when sitting, not to have suffered such Transgressor's to have gone unpunished; none of which do easily occur. The latter have not only the Plea of the former, which, as a concurrent Evidence, will much strengthen their Justification, and Observation of the Law, that aught to be expounded to the most benign and favourable Sense, for the Benefit of those who are to be regulated by it; but they have expressly,  
1. The Order, That Morning as well as Evening-Prayer shall be used in the accustomed Place of the Church, Chappel, or Chancel; and that they take to be the convenient Seat made for the Minister to read Service in. Can. 82. For in the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book 'tis asserted, that, as the Apostle teacheth, All Things done in the Church, aught to be referred to Edification, pleasing God, and profiting his People. And the Compilers of the Book like not that which may more confound or darken, than declare and set forth Christ's Benefits to us; but signify further, If Men declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord, than of Innovations, which (as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion) are always to be eschewed; they will mostly use such Orders, as they think best to set forth God's Honour and Glory, to the reducing of the People to a most perfect and godly Living, without Error or Superstition. But if the Minister without necessity pass from the Desk to the Altar, at the East End of the Chancel, from the Altar to the Pulpit, thence back again; this would more confound, and be less for the Profit of all the People, and make them jealous of that Superstition, which the Papists have by the Protestants been charged with, in such needless Motions, Passes and Repasses, according to the Canon of the Mass of the Body of Jesus; which it may be this Gentleman was much taken with, when a professed Papist. But our Rubric is not for the Priest's muttering, and unnecessary walking, but expressly requires, that he should read distinctly, with an audible Voice, so standing, and turning himself, as he may be best heard of all such as are present. And in a Book of some Canons of English Discipline, de AEdit. Eccles. it is ordered, That if a Rector, Vicar, or Curate, in his Officiating, behaves himself otherwise than as becomes one of his Order, by reading confusedly, as well as by living loosely, he shall be presented.  
2. These Ministers have, by the Rubric, some Things left to their Discretion: So that though they are not to decide some Things, about which there may be doubting, which the Law and Canons empower the Metropolitans and Diocesans to determine; yet they are obliged to use their best Understandings in the Things of God's Solemn Worship; and therefore have a power of discerning, which they are highly concerned to exercise, by comparing one Rubric with another, that they may discharge their Duty most acceptably. As for Instance; When in one Rubric we have, Te Deum shall be said throughout the Year; in the next Rubric 'tis said, Or this Canticle, Benedicite; 'Tis not said, both on the same Day, but taking the Rubrics conjunctly, one that exerciseth his Mind to discern, would understand the meaning of the Law givers to be disjunctive for the same Day, i. e. either one, or the other, and not Te Deum every Day; for than would be no room any day for Benedicite, unless the Minister should, without Prescript, lengthen the Service with that Canticle, and make the disjunctive Particle, or, in the Rubric, to be of no import, but as if it did signify and; and then why not every Day, as well as any Day? In these therefore, as in other Rubrics, the Legislators had reference to the Minister's Discretion, for the doing and executing the Things contained in the Book, appointing a resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, in case Parties take any Thing diversely, which may occasion doubting. So that the Bishop not disallowing what is done, we ought, in such a diversity of Acceptation, charitably to conclude, that the Minister doth duly officiate. As in the Rubric about the Offertory, it is reserved to the Priest's Discretion, to say one or more of the following Sentences, as he thinks most convenient: So that he that saith but one, doth what the Law requires. And yet in the very next Rubric 'tis said, Whilst these Sentences are in reading; which being Plural, signifies more than one, and in strictness agrees not with one, which is Singular: and therefore there is somewhat to be understood for Concord sake. Which may intimate, that the Legislators had more regard to the Duty, than to the Place of it, and had more respect to the Discretion of the Priest, than this Localist hath; he labouring more for the Circumstance of Place, to gratify his own Humour, than the Intention of the Thing to edify the Congregation: Being a Zealot, (not according to Knowledge zealous) to have those who officiate, contrary to St. Paul, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Ministers of the Letter, rather than the Spirit; weak, not able Ministers of the New-Testament. Hereupon it may be noted, that the Parochial Minister, on a Non-Sacrament-Day, is supposed to be found in the Desk, when Part of the Communion-Service is assigned to him by the Rubric, which may cross this Gentleman's Frontispiece, wherein he would make the Congregation a Conventicle, if any part thereof be read in the Desk; yet just before the reading of the Epistle, the Collect of the Day is ordered to be read, ('tis not said, both in the Desk, and at the Table) without any direction, that the Priest should leave the Desk, and go up to the Table; there being no necessity to go thither then, for the Edification of the whole Congregation, many of which to be edified, were not confirmed, and so no Communicants: For by our Ecclesiastical Laws, (Lib. Can. de Concionat. & Reformat. Leg. Eccles. Tit. de Eccles. & Minist. ejus, c. 10.) it is appointed to Ministers, in discharging their Functions, to do all for Edification, as they have the best Warrant from the Old and New Testament; yea, and the Bishops are required so to govern and feed the whole People of God, (not indeed that they may rule over their Faith, but) that they may show, that they themselves are truly the Servants of the Servants of God; and that the Authority and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, is more especially committed to them, not for any other cause, but that by their Ministry and Diligence very many may be joined to Christ; and they who are already Christ's, may increase in him, and be edified; and if some be deficient, they may be brought home to the Shepherd, Christ the Lord, and be confirmed by wholesome Repentance. Hence,  
3. These Ministers find no Prescript or Rubric expressly enjoining the reading of part of the Communion-Service at the Table, when there is no Communion there: For in the last Rubric, where part of the Communion-Office is annexed to that of the Morning-Prayer, viz. Upon Sundays, and other holidays, (if there be no Communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the End of the general Prayers; you may plainly observe, the Convocation, in compiling the Book, aimed at having the Thing done, not at the Place where. And when this Lawyer looks back from this last Rubric, to one of the first, he considers not, that the Station in the Place he contends for, respects the Communion-Time, when the Table hath a fair white Linnen-Cloth upon it, not when it is uncovered with such a Cloth, and stands unprepared for the Communion-Office. Neither doth he consider, that the Minister doth officiate rightly, as well as truly, if he doth (as in Can. 14, with 45.) read the Things prescribed in the Common Prayer-Book distinctly and reverently, in such Place of every Church, with the Allowance of the Bishop, so as the People may be most edified, or to their best Edification. Nor that in Can. 56. for Preachers and Lecturers to read Divine Service; the Church doth not appoint reading any of it at the Altar, under the East end of the Chancel, when there is no Communion, which they would no doubt have done in that very Canon, where they appoint twice in a Year reading, for a Test of thorough Conformity, if the reading of it twice there, (as this Lawyer would have it) had been essential to Conformity, and the not so doing had been constitutive of a Conventicle. Nor the Advertisement, Artic. 1. Jan. 5. 1564, 7 Eliz. in Bishop Sparrow's Collections, that the Common-Prayer may be said or sung decently and distinctly, in such a Place as the Ordinary shall think meet for the Largeness and Straitness of the Church or Choir, so as the People may be most edified. And I am sure, if the People be not edified, the great Canon of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14. 26▪ must be evacuated, and Dr. Beveridg's learned Sermon thereon be of no signification. But this Magisterial Lawyer, who would correct Magnificat, conceiting the Church commands to go up to the Altar when there is no Communion, but can see none for ascending the Pulpit, (p. 17.) If he would but open his Eyes, he might see an express positive Precept for the Sermon then, or one of the Homilies, though none such for going up to the Altar on a Non-Communion Day. However, he is miserably out in his Law, when he tells his Reverend Fathers, that this part of the Liturgy gives sole Authority to their Sermons, (p. 17.) whereas they legally receive Authority from the Bishop, empowered by this same Statute, to preach the Word, before they can as Priests read the Communion-Service at the Table: And when they enter upon Live, to reside there, being allowed to be Preachers, (by whom? the Bishops? No; but according to his Opinion, by reading the Communion-Service at the Communion-Table, when there is no Communion) and obliged also by that which he before professed to own for Law, viz. Can. 45. to preach one Sermon every Sunday in the Year, the Bishop at their Institution having committed to them the Care of Souls. It seems this Lawyer's Zeal doth not spend itself in that Care, because he writes of Sermons with so much contempt. And yet one acquainted with him, might demand of him, according to his Hypothesis, whether reading Communion-Service in a Parish-Church or Chapel on Sundays and holidays to above four; the standing at the Communion-Table when there is no Communion, if there be no Sermon or Homily, were that a Conventicle yea or no? If yea, that would be strange News; and must the Parochial Ministers be bound to preach or homilize every Holiday, though not above five or six in the Church? How then comes this Director, with his Ironies, to depreciate Sermons, as he doth (p. 17.)? Or would he account the Prayer read at the Altar, as he contends, having not the whole, viz. the Sermon prescribed in the Book, to be the Sacrifice of Fools? (p. 3.) If not, according to him, there may in some Cases be an Omission of a Thing enjoined in the Rubric, and yet no Conventicle; much more the Nonobservance of that Circumstance of Place, when there is no Communion, that the Reason of the Thing doth not require it, and yet no Conventicle, against the Intendment of his Pamphlet.  
Whereupon it may be further noted, That if his Argument he labours in, had any thing of weight in it, for such a strict Observation of Place and Station; then laying stress on the Rubric for the Sermon and Homily, in the Directions about the Communion-Service, which show every of these is to be performed, should be preached or read at the Communion-Table; the Lawyer's Argument would have more in it than he thought of, or would have.  
But the greatest Emphasis of all he hath to say, lies, in that 'tis said, Then the Priest shall return to the Lord's Table, (it seems it is not going up to the Altar, which yet in the same Page he says the Church commands, but cannot produce her express Warrant, unless he, relating to the Church of Rome, had the Rubrics in the Roman Missal or Breviary running in his Mind, viz. Reversis Ministris de Pulpito ad Altar, and, Sacerdos revertat se ad Altar, ad Divinum Officium exequendum.) But that respects the Communion-Time, when the Table is covered with a fair Linen Cloth; and then may likely import no more, than turning to the Table, after the reading of the Creed, whilst the Alms for the Poor are collected. And we know the Timing of Things to be read is not always according to the precise Order of the placing the Rubric in the Book: For the Exhortations to be read, antecedent to the Communion, are to follow immediately after the Sermon or Homily, and seem most proper to be read there, where the Sermon is by the Ordinary appointed to be preached.  
And upon this occasion it may be noted, that the Import of the Prayer for the whole Estate of Christ's Church Militant, looking at the Petitions of it, seems likely to be originally composed, chief only for those who could read Homilies, or were not able to compose a Prayer for themselves, before the Sermon or Homily, however as to its place in the Rubric it be postponed; for therein you know we pray, [Give Grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may, both by their Life and Doctrine, set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thine holy Sacraments: And to all thy People give thy heavenly Grace, and especially to this Congregation here present, that with meek Heart, and due Reverence, they may hear and receive thy Holy Word, truly serving thee in Holiness and Righteousness, all the Days of their Life.] Whereas this Lawyer saith, (p. 17.) All the Rubrics belong to the Communion-Service, when there is no Communion, as well as when there is one: Which, taking the Rubrics universally for all and every of them, implies a Contradiction, (a usual Thing in his Pamphlet.) I know of none that doth strictly appoint the Place, when there is no Communion, it being presupposed from the Reason of the Thing; but one of the last is chief to be regarded, which respects the Thing and Time, viz. Morning-Service, and appoints so much of the Matter then to be read, not naming where, but implying there, where the Minister is reading the Morning-Service, unto which such a part of the Communion-Service is appendaged, for further Edification of all the People.  
And how fond soever this Writer is, of having the Priest enjoined to stand at the North-side of the Communion-Table, when there is no Communion, with all his Strains of unanswerable Arguments in his own conceit, he hath not proved it to be the Intention of our Church. Tho to prove what he would have, and to overthrow the Pleas against it, he hath made a fearful Spluttering with his Ergoes, as a Disputant, able to baffle (as he imagines) all Opponents, who, he presumes, dare not stand, seeing him come blustering, and hearing him say, like Cleveland, of the quondam Archbishop of York,  Now my young Sophister, what thinkest of this? Chimaera 's real, Ergo falleris. 
For it may be demanded of this eager Disputant, who contends so much for the Ministers standing to read on the North-side of the Altar, when ('tis said) his own Adoration is towards the East; How at an Oblong Table placed Altarwise, close up to the East Wall of the Chancel, the Minister can be said to stand on the North-side of the Table, when indeed it is but at the North-End, where it may be the Table being narrow, he hath scarce Elbow-Room with his broad Book? (yet that was carefully provided for in the Scotch Book): Which (I hear) so graveled a great Doctor in Cambridg, that he caused the Communion-Table in his College-Chappel to be cut foursquare. This Doctor, inve●ting and lopping the Table, as well as the present Localist, was of a different persuasion from King James, who being told of an inverted Situation of a Chapel in Cambridg, made answer, That it did not matter how the Chapel stood, so their Hearts who go thither, were set aright in God's Service.  
As to the Situation of the Communion-Table, 'tis evident from our Canons and Injunctions, it may lawfully stand in different Places, when there is no Communion, and when there is one: For the Rubric says, At Communion-Time, the Table having a fair Linen Cloth upon it, it shall stand in the Body of the Church or Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayers are to be said, (as was noted before.) And we know, that Morning-Prayer in Parish-Churches is to be read in the Bodies of them, which implies, that the Minister is not to go up to the Altar, (as this Writer says, p. 17.) but to abide in the accustomed Place of the Church, where he may be best heard of all the People, (as he is to be reminded.) And if we compare Can. 82. with the Injunctions of Q. Eliz. 1569, we shall find the Table, when only covered with a decent Carpet, in time of no Administration, and when also covered with a Linen Cloth, in time of Ministration, might be in different Places, without Censure; since it is there said, Save at the Communion-Time, when the Holy Communion is administered, the same shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard (nota benè) of the Communicants, in his Prayer and Ministration; and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more Number, may communicate with the said Minister.  
But who can have the face, except this valiant Champion, to affirm against common Sense and Experience, (as he doth, p. 12.) that the Reader, when he stands close up to the East-End of the Chancel, reading Prayers audibly and distinctly, (i. e. with decency, not a Stentorian Voice, making a troublesome Noise in the Ears of those next to him) may be heard as well as if he stood in the Desk? Which is just as if a Wellwisher to the Mathematics should affirm, that one placed at the utmost end, touching the Verge or Circumference of the Area of an Oblong unequal Figure, and that with his Face to the Side of the Angle next him, when this Area or Floor is parted with great and massy Pillars, and also Skreens, might be heard by all present on the Floor, though several of them were aged, and thick of hearing, and the greatest Number of them parted from the Place he stands in, by the largest of those Pillars, and intervening Skreens, as well as if the Speaker had been in or near the Centre. But if this Gentleman had consulted the forementioned Canon and Injunctions, he might have found, when Ministration at the Table is appointed for Edification of the People, that the Table might be removed, or brought down, so that the Minister might be more conveniently heard of the People. And if it may be brought down, as undoubtedly by these Ecclesiastical Canons it may be, and is so too in some Parish-Churches (which might be named) at Communion-Time, agreeable to the Rule; then his Argument he so glories in, secundum Usum, will not serve his turn: For one Parish-Church may move the Table, which another doth not; yet neither of them are therein Transgressor's, but both do that which they are allowed to do. Yet he accounts the Minister a Transgressor, if he do not preach in his Surplice, (p. 13.) whereas in Can. 25. when there is no Communion, the preaching in Surplices is appointed to those in Cathedrals, not Parochial Churches. What he allegeth (p. 22.) to maintain his Post, from the Usage of Cathedrals, is not cogent to Parochial Ministers, by reason the Rubric he insists o● requires in them, not in these, the Com●●●… on every Sunday at least, (except they ha●e 〈◊〉 ●●asonable Cause to the contrary; which if 〈…〉 practised, or omitted, will, in this Philo●●●●●… 〈…〉 Logic, render them Nonconform●sts 〈…〉 ●●…clers too, (p. 8.) So according to him 〈…〉 will the Addition of their Anthems, (the 〈…〉 which are not found in the Liturgy, neither of ●●ose used in the King's-Chappel) if his Reason●●… be prevalent.  
But I am afraid I shall weary you, as well as myself with any more of it; therefore I hasten to note something about his Testimonies.  
He gins with Judicious Mr. Hooker, (p. 19) whose commonly doth not import generally, or universally, in Parochial Churches; for there is no such thing in Sect. 30. l. 5. (which he quotes): It might be said, now 'tis commonly so in Cathedrals and College-Chappels, even when there is no Communion, that being intra Cancellos, within the hearing of the Auditory. But generally in Mr. Hooker's Time, (as now) where there is not a Parity of Reason with Cathedrals and College-Chappels, it was otherwise. And if he had considered that whole Section of Mr. Hooker's, he might (if he would) have found, that Mr. Hooker doth there rather palliate, than plead for the Thing; for he saith there, He would more willingly be resolved (than to know whether the Minister should say Service in the Chancel) of a greater Doubt, Whether it be not a Kind of taking God's Name in vain, (nota benè) to debase Religion with such frivolous Disputes? a Sin to bestow Time and Labour about them: Things of so mean regard are very unsavoury, when they come to be disputed of.— Which harmless Ceremonies there is no Man constrained to use.— A Matter scarce worth the speaking of, the Law having reserved the Disposition and Redress to the Ordinary of the Place. Good Man, in his Preface he says, He hoped the Day would come, when Passions of former Enmities being allayed, we should, with ten times redoubled Tokens of our unfeignedly reconciled Love, show ourselves towards each other, the same which Joseph and is Brethren were at their Interview in Egypt. He wrote as became a Priest or Presbyter of the Church of England, who, when he entered into Holy Orders, was obliged to maintain and set forward (as much as in him lay) Quietness, Peace, and Love among all Christian People, and especially among them that are and shall be committed to his charge; which, if without need he bring in unusual Practices into his Congregation (as this Lawyer would have him) he cannot do.  
So that we see his first Testimony doth, upon the whole matter, make much more against than for him.  
To what he produceth of the Great Archbishop Laud, it seems (p. 20) some thought it then to be an Innovation; for which, though he in Star-Chamber went about to apologise, and this Lawyer lays stress on it, from his Grace's Observation in many Places, (which yet might only be Cathedrals) and his there arguing from the Rubric, (which hath been considered) and another their time from the Queen's Injunctions, to justify the Fact, or ordering the Table to be placed Altarwise, and railed in: Yet it was observed, that he left out the most material Passages in those Injunctions, for the matter the same with that before-cited from the Canon, viz. Saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be administered: At which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his Prayer and Administration; and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in greater Number, communicate with the said Minister: And after Communion done, from time to time, the said Holy Table to be placed where it stood before. And the King then said, He liked it well, that the Table should stand as it used to do before. In which it seems his Majesty accorded with what was said in commendation of the Prudence of Bishop Andrews, That wheresoever he was a Parson, Dean, or Bishop, he never troubled Parish, College, or Diocese, with pressing other Ceremonies upon them, than such he found used there before his coming thither.  
Yet (to return) that Great Archbishop afterwards (which may evince he was not infallible) when charged with it at the Lords-Bar, he peremptorily denied it, and protested solemnly, that he never gave Order for railing in the Table, etc. till his Vicar-General, Sir Nath. Brent, from his Autograph did evince the Truth of that he had forgotten.  
So that this second Testimony is not so convincing, as the Pamphleteer conceited: For I may take occasion here, to call to mind what Bishop Montague, (who complied with him for the Rails) wrote to the said Archbishop, viz. that, If I might be bold to deliver my own private Opinion, I hold it a mere unnecessary, cumbersome, or irregular Course, (viz. for Eight or Ten, more or less, to come up to the Rails, and so go down, and others come up); I know it hath no Volam or Vestigium in Antiquity. Then adds in another Paragraph: I know of no Law, Articles, Advertisements, Canons, Injunctions, that require it; I cannot tell where, when, by whom it came up: This I know, it is the Practice of the Roman Church, at least in Italy and Rome, and yet draws near upon the Laws of the Geneva-Discipline. I suppose he means, because in their great Congregations there, they walk to the Table, and receive the Sacrament there, and so pass away. Further, the same Bishop, giving the same Archbishop an Account of his Visitation at Ipswich, 1638, writing of successive coming up to the Rails, a first, second, third, etc. and so going down again, after receiving, into some Place in the Chancel or Church, adds, — Again, it may be cumbersome and inconvenient, it being, for aught I know to the contrary, an ancient Tradition of the Church, for no Man to go out of the Chancel, or from his Place, having received it, until the Ite missa, or dismissive Blessing upon them, which we call, the Peace of God. Again, The People cannot digest the going up, and coming down, and disquieting the Assembly, which do neither I myself approve of, etc. Again, Those who have promised Conformity in all Things, but in rising up, and in going up and down, which I neither will nor do require of them, let this suffice. Further, It troubles me, wherein I desire Resolution and Direction.— It is inter minutiora Legis, to make the best of it; and haply, in these Times of Opposition, it were better to follow that wise Direction of the greatest Council of Christendom, the First of Nice, Let ancient Customs be observed. Which this innovating Lawyer perverts, (p. 18.) when a Parochial Minister may say to him, Let the ancient Practice of the Church of England be observed.  
As to his last Testimony, from Bishop Sparrow, (p. 20, 21. which Notion this Gentleman seems to be most fond of, in the foregoing Page 19) That the Church may keep her Ground: It may be said, it is a Conjecture without any solid ground; for indeed the Church will best keep her Ground, when her Officers, in Divine Service, do that which is most for the Edification of all the Church present, whether confirmed or not, rather than only for a few. The standing of the Minister in the Desk, when there is no Communion, is more likely to preserve the Government in quiet, than for him to go up then to the Altar, which was reckoned one of the novel Circumstances, that occasioned the People in Scotland for a time to disturb it. I have been upon certain grounds informed, that Dr. Sparrow, whilst Incumbent, and residing at his Benefice in Suffolk, when he himself read Prayers, he did not go up to the Altar, when there was no Communion, but only to the parting of the Church and Chancel. It seems he himself doth change, and not keep his Ground. If Bishop Montague did not harmonise with the great Archbishop, in all Circumstances for the manner of Worship; and this Bishop vary from himself, in a Circumstance of Place for Worship: Yet the Archbishop and Bishops accorded in the one Use or Liturgy; their little Variations about Modes, and individual Places, will not be of validity to conventicle or disconventicle Parochial Churches.  
Wherefore upon the expense of Circumstances, the Authority of this famous Triumvirate will not avail this ungowned Lawyer, to prove Parish-Churches turned into Conventicles; till he citys the Words of his other Authors, and then to better purpose than he hath done these. I have nothing to say to him; only if I were in his Country near him, and could converse with him, I would civilly demand of him, Who makes the Ministers not standing on the North-side of the Communion-Table, when he rehearseth the Ten Commandments, and it is not covered with a Linen Cloth, there being no Communion, to be constitutive of a Conventicle? Whether he likes best, that the Table stands with the Ends North and South, or in the Body of the Church, or the Body of the Chancel, with the Ends East and West, as most accustomed? If the former, the Rubric cannot be observed exactly, and according to himself, he would have the Minister to transgress the Order of our Church: If the latter, he discommends and disparages the Judgement of the great Archbishop Laud. Yet if the Testimonies of Archbishop Abbot, Archbishop Usher, Bp. Jewel, Bp. Hacket, and Bp. Whetenhall, etc. should be brought in favour of the Practice of our Parochial Churches, (for aught I hear) he would but laugh at them, as he doth at those his Reverend Fathers, who go to the Font in the West, when the Sacrament of Baptism is to be administered there; yet think it not convenient to go to the Altar in the East, when the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper is not to be administered there, (p. 13.) And his Reverend Fathers could easily allow him to appear with his Latin Sentence, Risum teneatis? in his Mouth half open, if he should see them stand at the Font, to read there part of the Office of Baptism, as suppose the Lord's Prayer, when none is there to be baptised, as 'tis fit the Church should keep her standing, so near the Church-Door, (p. 19)  
To what he saith, after all his Reasons and Authority, of his not only convincing, but converting Argument, concerning the Forms of Common-Prayer, set forth upon several occasions of Fasting and Thanksgiving, (p. 21.) I may say, Where can this invariable Lawyer, tying himself to the Letter of the Liturgy, (as he doth, p. 9) speaking of the Bishop's Authority, and not having recourse to the Practice of the Church of England, find any Liberty from the Liturgy, for any to compose any other Forms of Prayer, not already in the Liturgy? If the Bishops, when appointed by his Majesty, (as usually they have done) compose those occasional Forms; the two Houses of Parliament, judging them at any time defective, (as not long ago) may order a Suppletory ●o be drawn up by other Divines, which may be most suitable and proper to the Exigency of State-Affairs: These most times requiring haste, may occasion a reference to part of the Prayers in the Communion-Service, but to be read in the accustomed Place of the Church, where on Days of Fasting and Humiliation they have most usually been, for the Edification of all the People, most solemnly met together, for the Deprecation of Evil, and the Apprecation of Good. And therefore (as I have been assured) old Dr. Layfield, sometime Archbishop Laud's Chaplain, and by him made  of Essex, when his Curate, this Lawyer's Convert, (whom he brags of, as a Trophy of his Conquest, p. 22.) did pragmatically, without ever acquainting the old Doctor, go up to read part of the Prayers at the Communion-Table, on a Fasting-Day appointed since the Discovery of the horrid Popish Plot; the Doctor himself being present, did severely check him for his Insolence. And one would think, that he, who was Prebend of St. Paul's, London, and had been a matter of forty Years Archdeacon, should better understand where all the Prayers should be read on such Days, than this circumstantial Lawyer, or his Pupil doth.  
As for his upbraiding us with being blinder than the Presbyterians, (p. 17, 18.) who were willing to prevent the Mischiefs which some, by their ill Expositions of the Rubrics, (which this Writer followeth) were likely to bring in; I suppose they cannot be so blind any of them, as not to see, that they, or any other Dissenters, cannot be excused from their going to their Parish-Churches, upon the Plea of this one Lawyer, that they are Conventicles; which if really they were, the Statute against Conventicles had excused them.  
When he hath laboured much, he himself doth not charge us in our Ministrations, with the Neglect of any one Thing in the Establishment, (p. 10.) only the Place he conceits it should be done in.  
For his extravagant Politics, about Four Estates in this Kingdom, (p. 10, 11.) and (after all his pleading for a Non-neglect of a little Circumstance of Place, he conceits established by Law) his singular Flattery, under a show of Loyalty, to the great Scandal of his Sacred Majesty, insinuating, as if he would soon declare something in opposition to that which is established by Law, which he would account as binding, as any Act of Parliament since the Conquest: Our Superiors possibly may, some time or other, call him to a stricter Account, as an Expectant of a Toleration of that Religion, which he sometimes professed.  
However, it concerns us, now Easter approacheth, to desist at present from any further minding of his Disputation, and seriously apply ourselves to our Devotion, in commemoration of the Passion of our dear Lord; praying God, He would mercifully grant, that we may both follow the Example of his Patience, and also be made Partakers of his Resurrection, through the same Jesus, our blessed Master: To whose Service he is entirely devoted, who remains,  
Dear Sir, Your Affectionate Friend, O. U. April 5. 1683.  
FINIS.