of CONFORIvirrY. I07 faying thus, Ifwe lhouldCommunicate con- flantly with the Church E(lablifhed,wefhould not indeedfin in the ad ion it Pelf, but in the Circumflances or Con/equences ofit wefhould. For this Confiant Communion would be a Tra'heal Conceffion that the Church is per- fed, and would tend to confirmmany ChurchMen, in their opinion that it was fo. This I find you frequently mention- ing, and therefore give me leave to ex- amine it thoroughly before I proceed. I have juft now fhewn that your Communion with the Church of England would imply in it nothing like this, and have allegd the example of great numbers who con- flantly Communicate with it, and are farfrom thinking it perfe&, and tilde not only of one, but ofall forts. Communi- catingwith aChurch cannot be aprac`lical declaration that it is fo complete as to need no Amendments, but can only fignify that we judge it tobe fo perfe&, that we can very well communicate with it. When you conflantly keep Company with any Perlons, would you have this fignify that you imagine them to be abfo- lutely without fault ? And can it fignify any more,but that you judge them fit for your confiant Converfation ? So likewife let
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=