of CONFORMITY. Charge of yours againfl Confiant Com- munion, to the fame effeE with this, but in other words ; That it would appear to acquit EcclefafticalAffumers. For, Sup- pofing that they were Ecclefiaf"tical Affu. mers, who impofed thefe Terms of Com- munion ; yet my Confront complyingwith thefe Terms can Thew nothing, but that I judge them to be lawful in themfelves ; and hath not the leafs relation to the lawfulnefsof impofing them. And I add farther, That your Occafional communion appears to many, by your own Con- fefl'ion, to acquit Ecclefiaftical .Affirmers, And if, notwithftanding this, Occafional communion beyour Duty ; then alfo, not- withftanding this, Confiant Communion may beyour Duty. And again, As your conftant communionwould(you fay) appear to acquit Feclefiaftical Affumers, and rigo- rous Impofers ; fo, I fay, Tour Separation appears to acquit, and encourage RigidSeta- ratifts ; againff whom you Teem to fet your felves , as much as againfi the others. Ifyoufeparate fromwhat you ac- knowledge to be materially lawful ; how much more juftly(they argue) may they feparate fromwhat they judge tobe mate- rially unlawful ? Ifyou thus exprefs your Relent. I9f I 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=