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 ...…

Reader, Can you tell what he means by [which is the Reason?] Which of the two meaneth he [that I suppose the Church without a Head?] When I so oft and largely prove Christ to be the Head. — Or is it that [I hold some other Head?] When my Book is to disprove it. Which ever it be, I do not think refusing such a Pastor as makes no more of the Ninth Commandment, is a damning Schism. The Sin of Church tyranny goes not alone.

§ 20. P. 45 He proceeds [But the organized Body is the constitutive matter of the man: though other Philosophers used to call the Body a constitutive part: but to let that pass.]

Ans. You had not the Wit to let it pass: Durst I have accused you of ⟨p. 18⟩what you bewray and accuse your self? Reader, Is not the Matter a Part? And is not the Form a Part (of the man)? And doth that man speak plainer, that barely calleth either of them [a Part], and tells you not [which Part it is], Matter or Form? If one of his Pupils should say, Sir, you should not call the Soul the Form, but [a Part], nor the Body the Matter, but a Part; what would the Boys say to him?