cally; and therefore not fufficient to
prose in kewill: It being agreed on a
Lands, that all ele&tiftens among
Comananas are constantly and folicitou
to be avoided; and that no Separation
Lerial, but what is me Jary. And ₫
have I gone over the Three Heads I
poled at firit.

Ect I must not be so uniust to
Crue, and to my own Design,

1008,

the

pals by the Regis you have off FOR to prove that, tho' your Occafional is with the Church of Englan your Dan, yet Cenfant Communi it is Steral's because this is a ma of your Vreditation; and beca my Design to fhew, that your Commazite would not be finf therefore, is your Duty. Before I fhall only obferve that, hov foever you affirm this Occasione nicn to be no indifferent Matte indispensable Duty; we fee no Senfe of

colle

you

Our People; n
ur Practice,

For it is r

fally comp Ainifters, th nal Comp

omes near the Church, but precifely at at time when the whole Parijh knows t must come to qualitie himself for ne Ofice; and again, that for the of an Office, fome fhall for the space whole Year, attend upon a Service, h they would not join with, peronce, were it not for the confideof that. This is not unjust Cenbut notorious Matter of Fact: And on it, not to make any Perfons but to obferve to you, how little Ofional Communion is founded neceffity of ferving your Charity whom yes fent; on which me to found it: that so you der, whether you do fufficite this grem Dary upon your whether our People do not Duty Etand, or carelefly dif Er to retum to the Question between us, which is only Tou, who can CimnuniFluid Church,

of CONFORMITY'

181

15

h

en

3: Com

i

fome Circumstances which make Constant
Communion finful, you fhould judge itt
be your Duty. I do not doubt, but th
Circumstances may make Actions finfu
nor do I know any Perfons who w
deny it. But, in answer to what
have alleged to prove that there
Circumstances attending upon Con
Communion, which render it Sinf
propose to fhew

First, That thefe Circumstanc
mention, do not attend upon
G
Communion; or, if they do atten
it, that they do not make it unlawf· -·
that the like Circumstances do att
on your Occafional Communion, a
Separation. After which I fhal

Secondly, Suppofing some ince
Circumstances do attend upon
Communion, that, befides fuch
cumstances, many fad, and ter
Sequences do unavoidably a
on Separati
nd make it m
h lefs eligi
hope,

unlant

T

r

to

;

fome Circumstances which make Constant Communion finful, you fhould judge it to be your Duty. I do not doubt, but that Circumstances may make Actions finful nor do I know any Perfons who will deny it. But, in answer to what you have alleged to prove that there are Circumstances attending upon Constant Communion, which render it Sinful, I propose to fhew

First, That thefe Circumstances you mention, do not attend upon Constant Communion; or, if they do attend upon it, that they do not make it unlawful: and that the like Circumstances do attend upon your Occafional Communion, and your Separation. After which I fhall obferve

Secondly, Suppofing some inconvenient Circumstances do attend upon Constant Communion, that, befides fuch like Circumstances, many fad, and terrible ConSequences do unavoidably attend upon Separation; and make it much more unlawful, and much lefs eligible. Which Two Things will, I hope, contain in them a fufficient Reply to every Word you have advanced upon this Head, and, there