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 ...…

Supposing this his meaning, 2. Are not transient acts the fundamentum of this Relation, as verily as of Paternity, Marriage-Relation? &c. Is any Man a Church-Member, or Christian, but by the transient acts of Baptism, Profession, Covenanting, &c.? And do you define a Relation without the Fundamentum?

3. But if Relation be all, wherein lieth our damning Schism? We profess Catholic Communion then somewhat more than you do: For as we profess the same Relation that you do to Jesus Christ, so we profess our Relation of Fellow-Members to all his Body, even to those that in such Matters depart from each others; and if I can understand you, to the greatest part of Christ's Church on Earth, which you damn as Rebels. This is our profest Relation: If you can disprove it, […]

3. But if Relation be all, wherein lieth our damning Schism? We profess Catholick Communion then somewhat more than you do: For as we profess the same Relation that you do to Jesus Christ, so we profess our Relation of Fellow-Members to all his Body, even to those that in such Matters depart from each others; and if I can understand you, to the greatest part of Christ's Church on Earth, which you damn as Rebels. This is our profest Relation: If you can disprove it, 〈…〉

§ 9. He adds, [I conclude, it's sufficient to let you understand what the Ancients meant by Christian-Communion, which in a large Notion signifies the Christian Church or Society, which is called Communion, from Communication, which all the Members of it had with each other. The plain and obvious sense is, All the Churches of the World are but one Church or Society, and have the same right, and the same obligation on them to communicate with each other; for the sake of which, Christian Churches are instituted, as the members of a particular Church are].