191- The .Realnablenef to think , that Divine Worip would not be acceptable without them. Hence I argue, That Confiant Cornrnunion with a Church which path, declared that Divine r'Vorfhip may be acceptable without theftfuper- added Formalities, cannot be thought to intimate, as if Divine Worfhip were not ac- ceptable without them : But, if it intimate any thing about them, it intimates quite the contrary. And farther, I delire to know, W here is that Religious Affembly, amongfl all your own, in which Divine Worfhip is offered, without famefuper added formalities conffantly ufed ? And again, Doth your Confiant Communion with them, intimate, orf eem to intimate,as ifDivine Worfhipwere not acceptablewithout them ? For, if it do not, then, no more dothGonfiant Communion with the church of England ; and, If it do, then confiant Communion is not, in your opinion, unlaw- ful on this account. And ífi.11, your Gon- flant communion with the church of England, is as lawful, as your con- fiant Communion with your own churches as far as this Argument is concerned. For this Argument concerns only your confiant `b)fe ofTomefuperadded Formalities in Reli, gloms Worfhip; not the impofationof them. I fay,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=