the beft light they have; leaving fuch perfons to God and their own confciences, as fay they dare not comply with thefe prefcriptions. They are obliged to refift irregularity, diforder, and an ignorant contempt of all authority. If any truly honeft man be excluded Communion by this means, the Penalty is to be confidered, not as the punishment of the fcruples of an honeft man, (which he may have almoft unavoidably) but as a Fence against Disorder; as a stop to fuch ErYours as are against the Peace and Order of this fociety; as a check to the designs of wicked and unchriftian Men, who, under this pretence, and in fuch good company, are doing whatever they can to unhinge all, and bring confufion and ruine into the Church. You must be fenfible from what hath been faid before, that there are cafes in which it is fit that Men, let them be never fo honeft, fhould fuffer thus for their errours, granting them to be unavoidable. But this is not to be charged upon the command, but upon their weakness, and the ill confequences their Errours and miftakes may carry along with them. I might cite Experience as well as Reafon for this, but it is needlefs.

This leads us to confider how a good, and understanding Perfon ought to behave himself, when the Cafe happens, that some things are prefcribed in a Church which he himself thinks lawful, but others pretend they do not; whether he ought himself to comply with these prescriptions, and endeavour to convince others that they ought to do fo too; or whether it is his Duty to inveigh against the Governours of this Church, and add life and strength to the unreasonable scruples of others; to patronize those who separate upon groundlefs prejudices, and with grofs uncharitableness, or to plead against their unreafonable and disorderly practices; to maintain an authority he himself acknowledges in the Church on other occafions, or to countenance the utmost contempt and difgrace put upon it. This we recommend to your fober confideration; and defire you to think how inconsistent it is, to argue against conformity from the fcruples of others; and yet to pretend that you would have complied if the Terms of Conformity had been fram'd to your minds. I fuppofe you are not fo weak as to think that, if all your Terms had been accepted, there would not have been

G

been a number of Diffenters in the land, who would have fcrupled to comply with them. Now, if the Scruples of these perfons would not have been a fufficient argument against your Conformity upon your own Terms; why are they pleaded as a fufficient argument against Confor mity upon other Terms? If they be a fufficient argument against Conformity now; why would they not have been, fuppofing your own Terms had been accepted? Nor do I fee any force in your objeAbridgment &tion, that on the fame reafons the Bishops P. 174. impofe the Crofs and Surplice upon Minifters, they might bring in abundance of ceremonies of the Church of Rome, which we have caft out; because this will lye against the impofition of every thing not abfolutely neceffary, as well as thofe two: and I find you could approve of the impofition of fome fuch things. We think the behaviour, and apparel of the Minifter who officiates, comes under the care of the Governours of the Church; and prefcriptions about, them are a check to the extremes both of Indecency, and fuperftitions Pomp. We think they have authority to fence against these, and to impose rules of behaviour in order to it. But

then,

then, we think they go beyond their au- · thority, when they introduce vain, Senjelefs, indecent ceremonies, or abundance of any fort, to be a trouble and burthen, rather than a grace and beauty to Publick Worship. When the Church of England doth this, then it is time to complain, and open fo vehemently against the abufe of authority: And even then, I do not think a feparation can be juftified: Becaufe a feparation is of a great deal worse confequence to both State and Church, than a compliance with authority in what had better not have been commanded. The Governour may tranfgrefs his duty in commanding, and yet I may be under an obligation to obey. And the pretence of witneffing against his impofitions is not of half fo much force, as the witneffing against Publick Disturbance and Diforder. But fince the Church of England hath not burthen'd the Publick worship with the abundance of Ceremonies you speak of; and fince these mention'd wholly refpect the Minifter; methinks an objection fhould not be brought against them, the weakness of which appears at firft fight. For how does it follow, If the Bishops have authority to prescribe two ceremonies, that they

G 2

have

have authority to prescribe twenty? or, if they have not authority to burthen God's Service with ceremonies, that they have not authority likewife to prescribe one or two? The fault lies in the vanity, indecency, or number of things prefcribed; and if there had been nothing to be objected against the Romish Ceremonies from thefe Topics, our Reformers would hardly have urged an abuse of authority which might be in times to come, as an argument against an authority at the present time.

Having faid what appear'd to me reafonable in defence of the authority by which these things were first prescribed, I shall add a word or two about the retaining them. The impofitions on which your heaviest charge is founded, and which we are now treating of, are, Sponfours at Baptifm, The ufe of the Cross after Baptifm, and Kneeling at the Communion. I do not fee but that I have shewn that the Governours of the Church had anthority to prefcribe these; as much authotity as they had to prescribe other things with which you could comply. So then, these things were once prefcribed by a fufficient authority, an authority to which obedience in all lawful things was due.

The