The perfons who fucceeded those who first prescribed these things found them order'd,as they thought upon good grounds; they found the fcruples and prejudices in the people against them to have arisen fince these things were ordered; and this without reason, and without foundation; they found many men of fober understandings who had the meanest opinion of these impofitions, allowing them either to be fuch as were lawful in themselves, or fuch as would not justify a feparation; they found that the fame arguments that were urged to prove it to be their duty to lay afide thefe, might be with as much strength urged against others; and would as effectully prove it their duty to part with their Liturgy and any other prescriptions, upon the fcruples of the people: and not being willing to acknowledge they had no authority, or right, to infift upon any scrupled thing that is not effential to the worship, or being of a Church, they could not but think it proper to infift upon thefe, rather than make fuch an acknowledgment; they found, after all, that the advantage and union propofed by the alteration of these terms was likely to prove in the iffue

G 3

none

none at all, unless other things of greater moment, and what they dared not think of parting with, were removed alfo. Thus therefore they argued, We find the removal of three impofitions demanded upon these two grounds, That We have no authority to prefcribe fuch things; and, that many fcruple to comply with them, and therefore cannot have communion with our Church. We have examined thefe pretentes, and we find, that all the arguments that are used against our authority in these things, lie as strongly against it in other things, which many of the Deffenting Minifters themselves would have complied with. We think that if we have authority to prefcribe what is not effential to the Chriftian Church, We ought not to acknowledge we have not: and we judge that if the fcruples of the people, tho' never fo unreasonable, be the measures of preferibing, and altering; there is as much reafon, from this argument, to give up our Liturgy, and all Liturgies, as there is to give up these other prefcriptions. If to retain the one, though it hinder many from Communion with us, be not unlawful; neither is it unlawful or finful to retain the others. And by retaining them in oppofition to thofe who argue fo unreasonably, We shall assert

that

that authority we are intrusted with; We fball testify against unwarrantable feparation; We shall give what check we can to those principles which have brought fuch confufion and diforder into this Church and Nation; and we shall refift the defigns of evil men, who, as we judge, make use of the ignorance of Some honeft Christians to overturn our whole conftitution, and, under their shelter, strike at our very root and foundation. Thus, I think, the cafe might be argued, and I fee not what can be replied by You, who argue upon the principles I have been now examining. But you may now ask, Are you then for no alterations? Yes, I am fully perfuaded there may be alterations made for the perfection and advantage of the Church. I profefs, I fhall always plead for fuch as are fo; and that fo much the more, if they be fuch also as are likely to reconcile any Diffenters to it; nay, upon this account, I fhall plead for fuch as are not fo, provided the Church receive no damage from them. But I cannot argue for any upon fuch principles as appear to me to tend to abfurd, and unreasonable alterations, as well as thofe that are reasonable.

Having thus fhewn that the Gover yours of the Church have authority to preG fcribe

scribe those things which you so highly dislike, as well as those which you could have complied with; having fhewn from your felves that New Terms of Communion may lawfully be made; having remov'd your Objections taken from the penalty annexed, and from that unbounded number of Impofitions you fear may be brought into the Church upon the fame grounds that these are; I fhall now observe,

2. That St. Paul fays nothing against this in the 14th chapter to the Romans in order to remove your objection taken from thence. I find that you urge the 1st verses of this Chapter as an argument to prove that it is unlawful to enjoin Minifters to deny the Communion to those who will not receive it Kneeling; or, which is all one, to prescribe Kneeling fo, as that there fhall be no Communion without it. But,

First, It is very unfair to apply what St. Paul fays in one cafe, to cafes not at all parallel to it. St. Paul speaks of such groundless fcruples as were deeply rooted and fixed in the minds of fome Perfons by the Religion they profefs'd before their converfion to Christianity; We speak of fuch fcruples as have been infufed into

many

many men's minds by the common Enemy z as have been taken up and hotly propagated, fince the thing it felf was commanded, and in oppofition to the Authority by which it was commanded. St. Paul fpeaks of fuch groundlefs fcruples, and fuch differences of Opinion and practice as are perfectly confiftent with their joining together in one uniform manner of publick worship and it is a little hard to argue from what he fays of fcruples of this nature, to what he would fay of scruples which are wholly inconfiftent with it. He speaks of perfons who, for what appears, were perfectly difpofed to agree in the fame Cuftoms, and the fame behaviour at the Communion; and what he would fay of perfons who are not, we cannot judge from hence but we may guefs by fome other places, that he was not fo eafie, or indifferent, in the matter of Decency, or Custom,in the publick worship,as you would represent him; and that it was not his judgment, that Decency, and Custom should always yield to the weaknesses of Men ; but that they should comply with Decency and Cuftom. That He was not against preferiptions relating to the behaviour of Chriftians at the publick worship, is