A70766:120
Moderation a virtue, or, A vindication of the principles and practices of the moderate…Moderation a vertue, or, A vindication of the principles and practices of the moderate…
Moderation a virtue, 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.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.
London: printed for Jonathan Robinson, 1683
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Lastly; To make the sign of the Cross, is an Ecclesiastical Affirmative Precept, a divine affirmative Law binds not ad semper, to every particular nunc or time: why should we be more strictly bound to observe in public an affirmative humane Precept, than a divine? Are we more strictly tied by the Laws of Men, than of God? It may by an Equity of Reason be allowed, upon Occasions of some Necessity, to omit an Ecclesiastical Precept, as we through a gracious Indulgence omit a Divine Precept.
Lastly; To make the sign of the Cross, is an Ecclesiastical Affirmative Precept, a divine affirmitive Law binds not ad semper, to every particular nunc or time: why should we be more strictly bound to observe in publick an affirmative humane Precept, than a divine? Are we more strictly tied by the Laws of Men, than of God? It may by an Equity of Reason be allowed, upon Occasions of some Necessity, to omit an Ecclesiastical Precept, as we through a gracious Indulgence omit a Divine Precept.
The third Crime of a Moderate Church-Man is, that he will baptise without God-Fathers and God-Mothers, in compliance with weak and tender Consciences.
I answer; If there be any reason of Strength or Cogency for the Omission of such things as these, it is as strong in the Case of weak and tender Consciences as in any: if a Minister cannot omit any of these things with a sincere Tenderness and Indulgence to weak Consciences, then he is obliged from doing a necessary Duty to the weak Brother. And if we are so straightly bound to a rigid Conformity at all times, so that we can in no case omit any thing for the sake of a tender weak Conscience: Who can answer this Argument against Conformity?