Catholic Communion Defended Against Both Extremes, Table of contents
The Contents of the First Part.
WHether the Resolver truly define the Church. Page 1.
Whether there be not many particular Churches. 3.
Whether these Churches must be Members of one another. 5.
Whether the Vniversal Church and Particulars be not distinct, as Whole and Part. 6.
Whether the Church hath all things Common, and this be essential to it. 6, 7.
Whether God only Constitutes the Church, and no Humane Contract. 9, 10.
Their Charge against the Independents Church-Covenant, examined. 11, 12.
Whether Church-Communion consist in no particular Acts. 15.
His Self-contradiction, p. 16.
More of his Contradictions and Errors. 17.
His first Case, Whether Communion with some Church be necessary? 18.
His second Case of Occasional Communion, examined. 19.
His third Case, Whether we may Communicate with distinct and separate Churches? 20.
His confused use of the words [Church-Union, Communion, Separation and Schism] opposed by a large Explication of Vnion, Communion and Separation, in which is fully shewed what Separation is Schism, and what not, from p. 21, to p. 41.
He seemeth to damn all Christians on Earth, as Schismaticks. 41.
His condemning the Church of England and many other, largely manifested. p. 42 to 53.
What it is, for which he calleth Men Schismaticks. 53.
It is absurd to be Members of opposite Churches, because Christ hath but one Body. 55.
Whether all are Shismaticks who are guilty of Schism? (or Traitors that break any Law): e. g. If the Church of England have any guilt of Schism, &c. 56.
The Contents of the Second Part.
WHether Mr. Ralphson prove, 1. That Kneeling at the Sacrament, and use of the Liturgy are unlawful, false Worship, or Idolatry, and the places are Idols Temples, and to joyn in them, is to joyn in Idolatry. p. 1.
Whether the Argument prove it, because they are Worship not Instituted. 1.
The word [Worship] explained, and Worship distinguished. 2, 3.
Twenty unquestionable Instances of Lawful Acts in Worship, not particularly Instituted by God, which are Modes or Accidents of his own Instituted Worship, and may be called Worship in a subordinate sense. 4, &c.
Whether the use of any such be a defection to Idolatry. 8, 9.
Of Kneeling before the Bread and Wine. 12, 13.
Another Instance of a Lawful Accident of Mans appointment. 13.
The Face of his Doctrine of Separation unmask'd in twenty Particulars. 14, &c.
The Contents of the Third Part. Dr. Stillingfleet's Defender tried.
THe general Character of his Book. p. 1, &c.
He placeth not Communion in any transient Acts, but a fixed permanent State. 4.
Whether Communion and the Church be the same? 5.
Have all the Churches the same Right and Obligation to Communicate with each other? 5.
His Supposition of the World being one Family, &c. p. 7.
His Accusation of Confusion, Mistaking, &c. examined. 8, 9.
Whether Union and Communion be all one, and this be in no transient Acts? 9, 10.
To his Question, What makes the Church One? 10, 11, 12.
Whether that which makes it a Church, make it not One? 13.
His Philosophy opened (for his Pupils) p. 14. when he dare not confute the Boyes common Notions of Physicks, he stands wondering at them, p. 14. As that the Soul is principium motus to the Body. That Vnion is to Soul and Body, like the Copula in a Proposition. 15.
Whether Christ cannot be to the Church a constitutive Form, as the Soul is to the Body, because he is it's Head? and whether Scripture ascribe not to him such Soul-Relations, as well as to be Head? 15.
His putid intimation that I write for another Head of the Chvrch, than Christ. 17.
Whether the Organized Body be not the constitutive matter of Man, and matter be no part? 17.
More of his fumblings about the term [Organized]. The Dr. cannot understand that forma Corporis and forma Hominis are two things. 18.
A Story of a Leveller, shewing how such Doctors writings have success. 19.
How the Doctors Tutor should in his Youth have taught him to understand what the Churches Vnion is, wherein it consisteth, and by what it's caused. 21, to 27.
His profest incapacity of applying the similitude of a Copula, pitied. 27.
His palpable untrue Accusation, in the dark. 28.
His confused Communion. 30.
His Schism plainly confuted, That Churches or Persons of separate and opposite Communion, cannot be united to Christ: By three distinctions, 1. Between Communion and Subjection. 2. Between mental and local Separation. 3. Between mental Separation from Essentials, and from meer Accidents or Integral parts. Instances of the famousest Fathers and Churches that have so far separated from each other.32.
His Whimsey of Two Vniversal Visible Churches. 33.
What excommunicate persons are cut off from Christ. 35.
Six begg'd Suppositions which these false Accusers of Schism must have. 36.
His kind Concessions, That Rebels and Schismaticks may have the power of Orders, and Officers rightly constituted, Sacraments, and all Essentials of a true Church, except Peace, and Vnity, and Catholick Communion (as if Essentials united not). 36.
What Schism is damning, briefly opened. 37.
His Doctrine, [Thas those that believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and lead an holy life in all godliness and honesty — may yet be excluded from all the ordinary means of salvation, proved false, subverting the Gospel. 37, 38.
His odd Doctrine, That the Divine Spirit is the Principle of Immortality in us, which first giveth life to our Souls, and will at last raise our Bodies; modestly examined, and Reasons given for the Immortality of all mens Souls, as well as those that have the Spirit; and that the rest are not annihilated, but have a future life; aad that there is a Resurrection of the just and unjust, and an Hell. 39.
His Notion, That all Bishops are but one Bishop, because Episcopatus unus est. 42.
Of Independency of Churches. 43.
The word [Unus] equivocal. 44.
Whether we may call all those Bishops, who causelesly break Vnity, No Catholick Bishops. 44.
More of Catholick Vnity of Bishops. His Opinion of the Original of Arch-Bishops. 46.
His charge of Knavery and blind Fury, managed by more and more confusion. 47.
He denieth the Church to have any one constitutive Regent Head, when it is essential to Christ to be such, and the Church to have such. He confesseth that the Church is no Politi…al Society, as headed by men. 48.
Whether Civil and Church Policy be not the same in genere? 49.
What Principles of Politicks the Dr. should have learnt in his Youth: Nine Points which he should have been taught. p. 51, 52. Dr. Parker's Doctrine.
The Defenders d…shonouring Dr. Stillingfleet, as if he denied Christ to be a constitutive Regent Head of the Church Visible as such. p. 53. How far Christ is such a Visible Head. 52.
Whether all causeless Separation from any part of the Church, on account of Accidents, or by Opinions, cut off men from the whole Church (with more of his errors confuted) to p. 56.
The Contents of the Fourth Part. The Reasons of my own Communion with Parish-Churches.
QU. 1. Whether men should be compelled to Communion with any Church by corporal Penalties? plainly answered. p. 1, 2.
Qu. 2. Whether they who consent to communicate with some Church, may choose their own Pastor or Company; or may by force be confined to their Parish-Priest and Church? 3.
Qu. 3. For what Reasons I, and such others, do hear in, and communicate with the Parish-Churches? And whether so to do, be a sin or a duty, or a thing indifferent? 6.
The true case and extent of my Iudgment herein. 8, 11.
Twenty Four Reasons of my Iudgment and Practice, which have still seemed unresistible to my conscience. 12.
The Iudgment both of the old Nonconformists and the old Separatists for it, in their own words. 18, 19.
Many Objections answered. 24.
Why I yielded to mens importunity to publish these Reasons at this time. 26.
The Contents of the Fifth Part; being an Account why the Twelve Arguments, said to be Dr. I. O's, do not change my Judgment.
MY Position, and premised History of the matter of Fact. p. 1.
Dr. O's Premises considered, p. 6. Many mistakes therein manifested. 11.
His First Argument, from the want of Institution, examined. 12.
His Second Argument. 18.
His Third Argument, p. 30. And so to the Twelfth.
Forty Errors proved in them at least.
His laying the stress of his condemnation, not of ours only, but of all Liturgick Forms, on the ill effects of them, constrained me in faithfulness to the present endangered minds of Readers, and also to my own conscience, to say so much of the ill effects of Separation on the other side, as I know will be censured by many: But as I have oft done it before (in my Treatise of Baptism, my Gildas Salvianus, my Key for Catholicks, Admonition to Mr. Bagshaw, &c.) I judg it made necessary on this occasion, to repeat so much as have done.