as what you here fix upon it. Is this Form of Prayer, amended to your own wishes, preferable to that method of Prayer which you have fet up in oppofition to it? If it be, then I argue, That you now con1 Stantly use a method in Publick Worship which You acknowledge to be less eligible, and worse than another; and therefore, that the Conftant use of, and joyning with, any one way, of Publick Worhip, even though it be upon Choice, doth not reprefent it as preferable to all others; and much lefs, when Authority hath commanded the Use of it. If it be not, then I argue, That You would joyn conftantly with a Form of Publick Worship not preferable to all others. And therefore, that it cannot be your Opinion, that Constant Communion implies in it any fuch declaration as, that this Form of Publick Worship is abfolutely, and in it felf preferable to all others. Answer which way you please the Conclufion is the fame: And I will be bold to say, that you must either contradict your felves, or acknowledge, that this is no Circumstance of Conftant Communion; and confequently, that it can be no Argument against it. Besides this, I argue thus with you, Your Separation repre represents it to be your Opinion, That whatfoever ftands in need of Amendment requires your Separation, which is contrary to the inward fenfe of Mr. Baxter, and the Moderate Diffenters. And therefore Separation is unlawful. Nor will the private expreffion of a different fenfe, be a Sufficient guard against such publick,and more forcible Language of continued Practice. If you fay, This is not a Circumstance of your Separation; I fay, Neither would the other be a Circumftance of your Conftant Communion. If you deny that this makes your Separation unlawful; give me leave to deny, that the other would make your Conftant Communion unlawful. But, 2. Constant Communion,you fay,practically betrays your Liberty, in compliance with rigorous Impofers: and therefore, is unlawful. I anfwer, No more, than fuch a Constant Communion as you were ready to exercife, had the Liturgy been amended to your minds. Constant Conformity in kneeling at the Communion is no more a betraying your Liberty, than Conftant Conformity, in the ufe of a Liturgy. Nor is Conflant Conformity to the ufe of our Liturgy as it is now, any more a betraying your Liberty, than Conftant Conformity to it, had it been altered. And if Conftant Communion would have been lawful, tho' a Liturgy had been impofed; it is lawful, tho' Kneeling be impofed; and tho'a Form of Prayer be still impofed. Either, therefore the conftant fubmitting to fome Terms of Communion, (call them Impofitions, or what you please) is not a practical betraying of your Liberty; and fo, confequently, conftant Communion is not: or elfe, It is not unlawful practically to betray your Liberty, in compliance with rigorous Impofers; and fo, confequently, it is not unlawful to hold conftant Communion with the Church of England. Which foever of the Two be true, your Argument, now before us, is equally deftroyed: And one of them must be true; or, you do very ill in telling Us fo often, how ready you have been, and ftill are, to comply upon fome Amendments. Conftant Communion cannot be a practical declaration of any thing more, than that thefe Impofitions may lawfully be complied with, as being not materially finful; and that you judge it better, upon fome Confiderations, to comply conftantly in a lawful action, than to feparate on this Account. This may ferve for an answer, also, to that Charge Charge of yours against Conftant Communion, to the fame effect with this, but in other words; That it would appear to acquit Ecclefiaftical Affumers. For, Suppofing that they were Ecclefiaftical Affu. mers, who impofed thefe Terms of Communion; yet my Conftant complying with thefe Terms can fhew nothing, but that I judge them to be lawful in themselves; and hath not the leaft relation to the lawfulness of impofing them. And I add farther, That your Occafional Communion appears to many, by your own Confeffion, to acquit Ecclefiaftical Affumers. And if, notwithstanding this, Occafional Communion be your Duty; then alfo, notwithstanding this, Conftant Communion may be your Duty. And again, As your Conftant Communion would (you fay) appear to acquit Ecclefiaftical Affumers, and rigorous Impofers; fo, I fay, Tour Separation appears to acquit, and encourage Rigid Separatifts; against whom you seem to fet your felves, as much as againft the others. If you feparate from what you acknowledge to be materially lawful; how much more juftly(they argue) may they Separate from what they judge to be materially unlawful? If you thus exprefs your Refent Resentments against Communion in what you allow to be tolerable; how can they be too rigid, or too zealous, against what they think to be intolerable? If then, it be unlawful to appear to acquit the one; why should it not be unlawful to appear to acquit, and encourage the other? Again, Suppofing your Liberty to be invaded by these Impofitions: yet fince the things required are not unlawful (as you acknowledge) it is certainly lawful, if not very commendable, for you to yield up your liberty, in a small and lawful inftance, to the Confiderations of Peace and Unity. And if it be but lawful for you to do this, then this Argument cannot prove your Conftant Communion to be unlawful. Much lefs, if it appear, upon confideration, to be your Duty fo to do. You may then, I think, be Conftant Communicants, notwithstanding any thing in this Argument: Efpecially confidering, that as there are Rigorous Impofers in the Church of England; fo, there are, and have been many, moft ready and willing, to yield up fome inconfiderable Points, to gain your Conformity. And why should you not thing your |