of CO$FORIv1ITY, il. To {hew that the Arguments pro- pofed by Mr. Calamy in defence of Your (elves, are not fufficient to jufiify your behaviour, even fuppofing the Terms of Minifierial Conformity I mbeU nre fonab ByUnreafonable here, Ì in your Opinions ; fuch as You could not with a fafe Confcience comply with; fuch as You could 'not, after all your confideration, heartily approve of, or fubmit to, without Sin. If you could have joined with themwithout finning, You acknowledge that You ought to have done it, and You profefs that You would have done it. But not being able to Minifierpublickly in the Church ofEng- land without aiìing againíl Your Con- fciences, You 141inifler publickly in afepa- rate way. After, therefore, that Mr. Cala- my hath produced, in your names, the Reafons why You think the Terms of Mi- nifierial Conformity unreafonable, and á compliance with them finful ; He ad- vances theArguments which induce You to Minifier publickly in a feparate way. Accordingly, I now fuppofe his Reafons to be fufficient to prove that a compliance With thofe Terms had been finful in You ; and come to examine his Arguments for A 2 your 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=