A26880:603
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 ...…
Catholic communion defended against both extremes, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ... / by Richard Baxter ...Catholick communion defended against both extreams, and unnecessary division confuted in five parts ... / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1684
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Ans. Their Unity in Christ doth make them one formally: And this is the informing Unity among themselves: But all other Unity is but preparatory or consequential to the formal unity. I told you out of Dr. Barrow, and may see in Rod. Goclenius, Martinius, and many more, beside Metaphysics, in what abundance of loose senses things may be called One: We deny no such Unity, no not in an heap of Sand. But of formal political Unity, why would you never tell us what it is but Union with one King, that makes ⟨p. 28⟩many Cities one Kingdom? Do you rather think they are One Kingdom by any other Union among themselves? Yes, if you take [Kingdom] materially and equivocally, but not else. Dare you say, That they are the Church of Christ, without their Union with him as the Form? Or dare you say, That all Christians united to Christ as their Head and Form, are not eo nomine, one Polity or Church?
Ans. Their Unity in Christ doth make them one formally: And this is the informing Unity among themselves: But all other Unity is but preparatory or consequential to the formal unity. I told you out of Dr. Barrow, and may see in Rod. Goclenius, Martinius, and many more, beside Metaphysicks, in what abundance of loose sences things may be called One: We deny no such Unity, no not in an heap of Sand. But of formal political Unity, why would you never tell us what it is but Union with one King, that makes ⟨p. 28⟩many Cities one Kingdom? Do you rather think they are One Kingdom by any other Union among themselves? Yes, if you take [Kingdom] materially and equivocasly, but not else. Dare you say, That they are the Church of Christ, without their Union with him as the Form? Or dare you say, That all Christians united to Christ as their Head and Form, are not eo nomine, one Polity or Church?
And what's the reason that all this while you will not name that thing else, that makes the Church one? Do it if you can.