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 ...…

XXXVIII. 2. Either our Parish Churches are true Churches, or not. If ⟨p. 29⟩not, the Separatists are so far in the right; And separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them. If yea, then many Churches are in the same City and Diocese. (Of their agreement and dependence on the same Bishop I shall speak anon.)

XXXVIII. 2. Either our Parish Churches are true Churches, or not. If ⟨p. 29⟩not, the Separatists are so far in the right; And separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them. If yea, then many Churches are in the same City and Diocess. (Of their agreement and dependance on the same Bishop I shall speak anon.)

XXXIX. 3. In case that in one City there be resident Strangers, that are sent on Embassies, or live for Merchandise, or flee from Miseries, and are the Subject of other Princes, whose Laws and Customs they are under, e. g. At Frankford, Hamburg, Middleburgh, Dantzick, Constantinople, there have been English distinct lawful Churches: And in London there are Dutch and French Churches: And if the King allowed a Swedish Church, a Danish Church, a Saxon Church, &c. with their several Bishops, who is so weak as to need proof that this is lawful, and they true Churches?

XXXIX. 3. In case that in one City there be resident Stranges, that are sent on Embassies, or live for Merchandize, or flee from Miseries, and are the Subject of other Princes, whose Laws and Customs they are under, e. g. At Frankford, Hamburgh, Middleburgh, Dantzick, Constantinople, there have been English distinct lawful Churches: And in London there are Dutch and French Churches: And if the King allowed a Swedish Church, a Danish Church, a Saxon Church, &c. with their several Bishops, who is so weak as to need proof that this is lawful, and they true Churches?