ling to comply with the other as with thefe; to acknowledge the power of the Governours in the other as well as thefe; to withstand a Separation founded upon the impofition of the other, as you would do one founded upon the impofition of thefe; and not to inveigh fo bitterly against what you have allowed and approved of, in cafes exactly parallel, as far as your arguments are concerned; for it cannot be more against your confciences to joyn in impofing the other upon the People, than to joyn in impofing these. Thefe arguments if they prove any thing," prove too much; and,therefore,they prove nothing. Now fince thefe are the only arguments you produce against the impofitions in the Church of England; we think it ought to be a fufficient fatisfaction to your Question, by what authority are these things prefcribed? to anfwer, by ment the fame authority by which you ac- 164. knowledge the Governours of the Church may prescribe some other things, against which the very fame dreadful objections lye: and we argue, that if, in one cafe, the Governours ought not to be abused and inveigh'd againft, for the groundless fcruples of the people; certainly in others alfo,

Abridg

Obedience should fometimes be preach'd to the people, rather than a violent lecture conftantly read againft their_Paftours; and that you ought fometimes to confider whither thefe principles tend, on which this terrible invective against impofitions is founded.

Now, whatever is thus order'd, becomes a Term of Communion. One particular Time, appointed; the Liturgy prefcribed, become Terms of Communion; and New Terms of Communion, in as much as Chrift made them not fo; and unnecessary Terms of Communion, in as much as neither a fet form in exclufion to free prayer is fo neceffary, in your opinion, but that the great ends of Chriftianity may be ferv'd without it; and much less the appointment of one hour of the day in exclufion to another, as agreeable to the nature of the Sacrament. Yet thefe you are ready to comply with; from whence I collect, that you do not efteem it fo great a fin to make new, unneceffary Terms of Communion as people may be apt to think from your writings; or to prefcribe things antecedently unneceffary under the penalty of no Communion without them; nay, that it is your opinion, that Obedience to the Go

Vernours

you

vernours of the Church is reasonable in fuch cafes; and, confequently, that a Separation founded upon an abhorrence of fuch prefcriptions (call them impofitions, or new Terms of Communion, or Terms that contradict the Terms Chrift fetled, or transgreffions of the law of Charity, or what pleafe) is an ill-grounded and unreafonable feparation. Hard names alter not the nature of things; and for all the hard names beftow'd upon these prescriptions you do not like, I cannot imagine them any more contrary to the will of Chrift, or the nature of his Religion, than thofe which you could have approv'd of, and on which you beftow no hard words.

From what hath been faid I think it is plain, that those Governours of the Church do not fin, or use the power given them for edification to deftruction, who do not clog the inftitutions of Chrift with trouble. fome and manifold impofitions; who preferibe what they esteem to be in it self reasonable and becoming; what is the greatest fecurity to Religion, and the decencies of publick Worship; who have by publick declarations prevented, and anfwered all the objections that the scrupu lous are apt to entertain against them.

It is plain that, according to your felves, in the Cafe of a Liturgy, the Scruples of the numbers that think it a fin to joyn with one are not to direct the Governours in their prefcriptions, or to over-ballance weightier reafons. Here then you do not feem to think them chargeable with the ill confequences of fuch a command; or the command unlawful, because it will exclude fo many from Church Communion. And yet I verily think, that all the arguments produc'd against the other prefcriptions lye as hard against this. And I doubt not but many amongst those whose common cause you plead, are of this opinion. But I fpeak to you who are not averfe to fuch a Command; and cannot but wonder how you could poffibly agree with one unneceffary impofition; and yet argue from fuch principles against others, as lye directly against all, as well as fome.

Again, thofe Governours who have or der'd nothing, but what if all would feriously comply with, is certainly for the good of the Church, have done their duty, and cannot be charged with fin. And, fuch we efteem the things commanded. I do not think that you can name one

peo

fingle ill confequence, fhould all the ple of the Land seriously endeavour to procure Sponfours for their Children; comply reverently with kneeling at the Communion; and submit to have their Children figned with the fign of the Croß after Baptifm; and I am fure I could name a great many good ones. Certainly that command is not unlawful, which, if it be feriously obeyed by all, procures many advantages, and brings not one difadvantage to the Church.

Neither is that command unlawful which enjoyns a thing under a difproportionable penalty. For if it be, then the Governours of the Church can enjoyn nothing, neither this particular Time, nor this particular Liturgy. But they may do this, as you acknowledge; and yet the penalty to Him whofe fault is only a fcruple about joyning with this Form, and communicating at this time, is no Communion. Therefore you cannot think this fufficient to make a command unlawful. The plain ftate of the cafe, in this point, appears to be this. They, to whom the Government of the Church is intrufted, are to prefcribe what they judge fit in the fervice of God, according to

the