3. And grant yet that some churches cannot admit such scrupulous persons to her communion as dare not join in every punctilio, circumstance, or mode; it doth not follow that those persons must therefore be excommunicated, or forbidden to worship God among themselves, without that which they scruple; or to join in or with a congregation which imposeth no such things upon them. Persecution will unavoidably come in, upon such domineering, narrow terms as those. The man is a christian still, though he scruple one of our modes or ceremonies, and is capable of catholic communion. And if private and little inconveniences shall be thought a sufficient cause, to forbid all such the public worshipping of God, on pretence that in one nation there must not be variety of modes, this is a dividing principle, and not catholic, and plungeth men into the guilt of persecution. It was not so in the churches of the Roman empire. In the days of Basil, his church and that at Neocæsarea differed; and ordinarily, several bishops used several forms of prayer and worship, in their several churches, without offence. And further, _Direct._ XVI. Different faults must have different penalties; and excommunication or forbidding men all public worship of God, must not be the penalty of every dissent. Is there no smaller penalty sufficient, if a doubtful subscription or ceremony be scrupled, than to silence ministers therefore from preaching the gospel, or excommunicating men, and forbidding them to worship God at all except they can do this? This is the highest ecclesiastical penalty that can be laid on men for the greatest heresy or crime. Doubtless there are lesser punishments that may suffice for lesser faults.