Catholic communion defended against both extremes, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ...…Catholick communion defended against both extreams, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ...…

I will give you a general Instance, and a particular one: 1. You cannot name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles days till now, that had no error. You take Episcopacy to be an error in the very constitution: Name one Church from the 3d or 4th Century, for a thousand years, that was without it, either Catholics or Heretics, that were indeed a Church: And must Christians have forborne associating with any of them? Or might not own the good in their Associations, without owning the evil?

I will give you a general Instance, and a particular one: 1. You cannot name me one combined company of Churches from the Apostles days till now, that had no error. You take Episcopacy to be an error in the very constitution: Name one Church from the 3d or 4th Century, for a thousand years, that was without it, either Catholicks or Hereticks, that were indeed a Church: And must Christians have forborn associating with any of them? Or might not own the good in their Associations, without owning the evil?

2. The Independents gathered a Synod at the Savoy, and there among their Doctrinals or Articles of Faith, laid down Two Points expressly contrary to Scripture: 1. That it is not Faith, but Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, when as it is both; and the Scripture often saith the contrary. 2. That Christ's Righteousness imputed, is our s•le Righteousness: Whereas the Scripture doth many hundred times name also our inherent and practical Righteousness. I asked some yet living, why they consented to these, and did not rather expound the Scripture than deny it? And they said, That it was Dr O's▪ doing. Now doth it follow, that every one that there confederated with you, owned these errors?

2. The Independents gathered a Synod at the Savoy, and there among their Doctrinals or Articles of Faith, laid down Two Points expresly contrary to Scripture: 1. That it is not Faith, but Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, when as it is both; and the Scripture often saith the contrary. 2. That Christ's Righteousness imputed, is our sle Righteousness: Whereas the Scripture doth many hundred times name also our inherent and practical Righteousness. I asked some yet living, why they consented to these, and did not rather expound the Scripture than deny it? And they said, That it was Dr O's doing. Now doth it follow, that every one that there conederated with you, owned these errors?