For Tryon Edwards and my friend, Edwards could not have supported infusion because Edwards was an astute theologian in the Reformation tradition, which has tended to regard justification and infusion as mutually exclusive. Hence Edwards must also have regarded them as mutually exclusive.

While in no way seeking to takes sides, or even to venture a personal opinion on the situation, I feel it may be of an encouragement to my Anglican brethren to know that there is an historical precedent for such a course of action, and that it was crowned with success. It may be a surprise that this precedent stems from the most persecuted sector of the 17th Century Scottish Presbyterian Covenanters, but the parallels are clear and significant.

Earlier in his address, the Cardinal had pointed to the Lord's "expressed will that his disciples be one, just as He is one with the Father; and that this unity was directly linked to Christ's mission, the Church's mission, to the world: may they be one so that the world may believe". In this context - although the Cardinal did not say so in so many words - to recede from the goal of full communion is to recede not simply from some desideratum, but from the Lord's will for His Church.

The purpose of the discussion is to find out the deeper convergences that might hold people together in difference and come to a deeper understanding of the topic or issues discussed. This will be achieved by seeking to understand exactly the thinking behind positions other than my own.

For Indaba to work, Indaba on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4 etc should be seen as interrelated even if their themes differ. The whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts.