196 The ,Rea f nablenefs as ifDivineWor(hipwere not acceptable with- out the fuperadded Formalities ufed in it. I ß°ßa11 add only this, That your Separation, as it is accompanied with Occafional Com- munion, Teems to intimate, as if Divine Yi/orlhip. were not acceptable with the confiant ufe of fuch fuperadded Formalities, as are enjoyned in the Church of England which is contrary to the inwardfenfe of the Moderate Diffenters. And ifthisCircumfiance donot make your Separation unlawful ; why ihould the Circumfiances whichhere you fix upon Confiant Communion, render that unlawful ? Or, why fhould you prefer Separation before it ? From hence, there- fore, T infer, that this Argument cannot proveConfiant Communionwith theChurch of England, unlawful. Let us proceed. 4. Confiant Communion, you argue, re- prefénts Chrifi's own Infiitutionas defeclive, and notorderly ordecent,without theadditions to Divine Worfhip, brought into the Church of England, And, therefore, it is unlaw- ful. I need not tell you, that Christ's own Inflitution, whether you mean, of Baptifm, or of the Lord's Supper, or of Publick and `United Prajer, is asperfei-í, as TIe deigned it to be, and no perfecter And that you do not think, your (elves, that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=