i So The Bea f nableneJs ceffary ; and therefore not fufficient to prove it lawful :. It being agreed on all hands, that all needlefs divifons amongf Chriflians are confantly and folicitoufly tobe avoided ; and that no Separation is lawful, but what is necefary. And thus have I gone over the Three Heads I pro. pofed at firf}. But I muft not be fo unjufl to your Caufe, and to my own Defign , as to pafs by the Reafons you have offered , toprove that, tho' your Occafional Com- munion with the Church of England, be your Duty, yet Confiant Communion with it is Sinful ; becaufe this is a main part of your (Vindication ; and becaufe it is my Defign to fhew, that your Confiant Communion would not be finful , and therefore, is your Duty. Before I do this, J (hall only obferve that, how exprefly foever you affirm this Occafional Commu- nion to be no indifferent Matter, but an indifpenfab -6e Duty ; we fee not any inch Senfe of it in your People ; nor could we collea from your Pra&ice, that this is your Opinion. For it is rnanifei%, and what is univerfally complained of by the .fablifhed Mini trs, that there is hardly any Occa Tonal Communicant who ever comes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=