Divine Service to Forms such are our Prayers and the Administration of our Sacraments to Gestures as Standing up at the Creed or Gospels and Kneeling at the Lords Supper But now all these are either Natural or Moral Circumstances of Action and which as I have shew'd are inseparable from it Of the former kind are Days and Gestures of the latter are Forms of Administration and so upon the reasons before given may be lawfully determined and used Again these are not forbidden by any Law either expresly or consequentially and have nothing that is indecent disorderly or unedifying in them and which if any should engage his own opinion and experience in he would be answered in the like kind and have the opinions and experience of Thousands that live in the practise of these to contradict him And if there be nothing of this kind apparent or what can be plainly prov'd as I am apt to believe there cannot then the Proposition I have laid down needs no further proof But if at last it must issue in things inexpedient to Christians or an unlawfulness in the Imposure are either of these fit to be insisted upon when the peace of one of the best Churches in the World is broken by it a lamentable Schism kept up and our Religion brought into imminent hazard by both Alas how near have we been to ruin and I wish I had no reason to say how near are we to it considering the indefatigable industry the united endeavours the matchless policy of those that contrive and desire it Can we think that we are safe as long as there is such an abiding reason to make us suspect it and that our divisions are both fomented and made use of by them to destroy us And if this be our danger and Union as necessary as desirable shall we yet make the breach wider or irreparable by an obstinate contention God forbid O pray for the peace of Jerusalem they shall prosper that love thee Let peace be within thy Walls and prosperity within thy Palaces Amen THE END Books Printed by Fincham Gardiner A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect church-Church-Communion 3. The Case of indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about church-Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two parts 8. The Case of Mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The first Part. a Lightf Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 11. 4. b Plut. Probl. Rom. c Macrob. Saturn l. 3. c. 6. Chrysost. and Theophyl in 1 Cor. 11. 17. Tertul. Apol. c. 39. de orat l. 6. Concil Laod. c. 28. c. Synod Petricov conclus 4. An. 1578. Philo. de Sacrif Able c. Lightf Hor. Matth. c. 26. 20. a Ambros. Tom. 4. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. b Tertul. de orat c. 1 4. Ames Fresh Suit l. 2. Sect. 23. c. p. 334. Casaub. Exercit 16. c. 73. a Buxtorf Exercit. Hist. Sacr. Coenae b Ames ibid p. 342. n. XXX a Ames ibid. l. 1. c. 3. p. 17. a Aug. Epis. 118. Januar. b Basil. de Spir. S. c. 27. c Aug. Epis. 119. Januar. d Ambros. lib. 2. de Sacrament c. 7. a Aug. Epist. 118. b Ambros. l. 3. de Sacrament c. 1. Object I. Levit. 10. 1 c. Answ. I. a Esth. 9. 27. b 1 King 12. 32 33. c Isai. 65. 3. d Act. 3. 1. Exod. 30. â— Ver. 34. Ch. 37. 29. Jer. 8. 19. a Lev. 9. 24. b Ch. 6. 12. c Lev. 16. 12. 46. Lev. 9. 24. Lev. 1. 7. 1 Chron. 13. 7. 10. Ch. 15. 2. Deut. 17. 3. 4. Jer. 7. 31. Ch. 19. 5. Ch. 32. 35. Jer. 29. 22 23. Isai. 66. 3. 4. Ch. 65. 3 12. Rom. 1. 28 29. Object II. Deut. 4. 2. Matth. 15. 9. Answer Deut. 4. 4 6. a Deut. 12. 32. Matth. 5. 19. 2 King 16. 14 17. Matth. 15. 3. Con. Trid. Sess. 4. Decr. 1. Object III. Answer Ames Fresh Suit part 2. sect 2. command p. 228. Object IV. Answer Rev. 22. 18. 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. 1 Cor. 14. 16 17. 26 27. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Ch. 14. 40. 1 Cor. 14. 26. Epist. 118. Epist. 118. Epist. 86. Casulano 1 Cor. 10. 2 1 Cor. 9. 19. c. Rom. 15. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 5. 2 Cor. 10. 8. 1 Cor. 14 26. 1 Tim. 1. 4. Rom. 14. 19. 1 Thes. 5. 11. Eph. 4. 12. 16. â— Cor. 11. 16. Aug. Epist. 118. 1 Cor. 14. 33. Rom. 14. 16. Aug. Epist. 86. Epist. 118. 86. Object Gal 5. â— Answer 1 Cor. 10. 29. 1 Cor. 8. 13.
the Governours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conclude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in different things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience as the Apostle saith should keep it intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bind so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular Institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish state and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injured in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worshipâ— as the Church of Rome is in its half-Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitude of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for
prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be a president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was obferved amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publick Worship yet to be sure at Prayer Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Christian Church were Civil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding its being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fathers notwithstanding what is objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon that office the other as it was a testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about and Climb up on in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings would return with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the World but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in its Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit its Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting the Praying toward the East the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days especially from Easter to Whitsuntide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water c.. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit
to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshipped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that Particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most others to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not Now if persons did believe such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churches in the World who do Practise against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practise with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did So in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and do Practise and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in which if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an Appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that ever Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Baptized Where do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Presbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not Worship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the Worship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly Where do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what is prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a
into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God have been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are Insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzza's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the Word of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intolerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attempts to describe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion its likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Natural or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judge of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more particular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may