wit no wonder if he could find no other difference between those two Cases His Wâ—t could serve him to find the likeness between the Presbyterians Case and Ours but his Judgment doth not serve him to find the Difference Now if he had been very inquisitive he might have been informed in this by one of the late London Cases printed for Thomas Bassett London 1683. and written purposely to shew this Difference and 't is a wonder that Mr. M. whose study lay much in Pamphlets mist it If he saw it he ought to have shown those Differences there assigned to be none before he parallell'd the Cases But to help his understanding I will shew three material Differences besides that of an Act of Parliament and besides the truth of the Doctrine which was really on the Reformers side and is only pretended to by Dissenters 1. In the condition of the Persons that pretended to Reform 2ly In the manner of their proceeding And 3ly In the Principles they took for their Rule First Therefore there is a great difference in the condition of the first Reformers and the present Dissenters these being only private persons at the best Presbyters over-voted by the major part of their Brethren Whereas the first Reformers were Bishops and the chief Governors of the Church who had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and to which of right it did belong to Govern and Reform the Church over whom they were made Overseers by the Holy Ghost Furthermore the present Dissenters were the Bishops Subjects accountable to them as their Superiors and liable to be discharged from their Office and the Benefits of the Communion of the Church by their Censure and so their Separation from their Bishops is a Schism that is an Ecclesiastical Rebellion But the first Reformers were accountable to no Superior but Jesus Christ they were his immediate Vicars not the Pope's and therefore could not be guilty of any Rebellion against him 2. And as they were thus different in their Condition so they were likewise in the manner of their Proceedings for the first Reformers did strictly forbid private persons doing any thing of their own Head as may be seen by the Proclamation set out Feb. 6. Ed. 6. Anno 2. and accordingly they managed the whole matter by publick Authority in a Regular way according to the ancient Forms of passing Laws and making Alterations in the Church Whereas both Presbyterians and Papists that is all Dissenters proceed on their own Heads in sâ—ight of their Lawful Governors Let a Presbyterian take the same way to remove the pretended Superstition of the Common-Prayer-Book that the first Reformers took to remove the Idolatry of the Mass or let the Papists take the same way to Establish the Mass that our first Reformers took to Abolish it and do it if they can But if they will make use of another way never allowed in the Church and yet pretend to the same Power that the Bishops of England had he must be blind that doth not see the vanity of their Pretences Mr. M. observes well That the not considering this Matter hath brought a world of Confusion on these Kingdoms and till the People understand it we are never like to see an end of Religious distractions pag. 6. for while men without ordinary Mission from the Governors of a Church or without extraordinary Mission testified by Miracle shall be received by the people upon pretence they are sent by a Foreign Church or that the People themselves can declare them Commissionated by Christ which are the pretences of Papists and Dissenters what more peace can be hoped for in the Church than in a State where such things were allowed to be practised Why may not the Presbyterians resist their Lawful Governors as well as the Papists deny their Power and question their Succession though they have none to oppose to it The third Difference between the Dissenters Case in respect of Us and our Case in respect of Papists is in the Principles on which our first Reformers proceeded They did not pretend as he slanders them in his Preface to justifie their Separation for they never made any by the Scriptures only as interpreted by themselves not only without but against the Authority of the present Catholick Church For on the contrary except he mean by the Catholick Church the particular Church of Rome and her Adherents the Catholick Church was for the Reformers as they conceived and the greater part of visible Christians concurred with them in their sence of Scripture as to the most material controversies between our Church and Rome But the true Principles of the Reformation were such as these That the Catholick Faith ought to be always the same in all Ages and could not receive Additions or grow by time that nothing should be an Article of Faith to day that was not yesterday and therefore nothing was to be reckoned as Catholick Faith but what was received semper ubique ab omnibus according to Vincentius's Rule and that nothing was thus Catholik but what might be proved by Scripture taken in that sence which hath not been contradicted by Catholick Fathers These were the Principles of the Reformers Faith. And in other things belonging to the Government and Polity of the Church to Rites Ceremonies and Liturgies 'T was their principle that every National Church was at her own choice how she would order them and her Subjects ow'd her Obedience These are truly Catholick Principles founded on a Rock the word of God interpreted by Catholick Tradition and not on the present sentiments of any party of Men and are a sufficient hedge against Heresie and Schism sufficient to secure the good correspondence of neighbouring and the peace of particular Churches Let any one compare this Basis with that of the Roman Faith and let him judge which is most solid whether that which is founded on the Scriptures as interpreted by all Ages of the Church or that which has only the Voice of a part of the Visible Church and the greater part against it These are the two Bases of the Reformation and Popery To this Justification no Sectary can pretend and though Luther and Calvin c. had really this Warrant to reject the super-added Articles of the Church of Rome yet they differed in this at least some of them that they did not think it necessary to wait the concurrence of their Governors but concluded the major part of the Peoples joyning with them was sufficient without regular Forms and Process and whether that may be allowed in any case I leave Mr. M. and them to dispute for we are not concerned in it and they are of full Age to answer for themselves and he will find they can do it Only he is not to be pardoned when he brings in Socinus answering amongst other Reformers that he â—reached no new Doctrine nor administred any new Sacrament but only the Primitive Doctrine c. according to the
positive and Ecclesiastical constitution And they give the Communion to Laicks both in health and sickness though they have not before confest their Sins to a Priest and that because they are perswaded that Confession is Arbitrary and that Faith is the only and true preparative for receiving the Eucharist So Father Simon shews from Caucus Venetus in his Religion and Customs of the Eastern Nations p. 8. Lond. Ed. 1685. and he owns that Caucus has asserted nothing as to that point which doth not agree to the real belief of the Greeks p. 13. Of the Christians of St. Thomas in India he relates from Meneses that they abominate Auricular Confession p. 94. And though he pretends this to be an abuse introduced into that Church p. 102. yet he produces nothing but his own conjecture to prove it so and acknowledges that most in the East think not themselves obliged to it by Divine Right and consequently it may either be used or laid aside as the Church thinks convenient We learn the same from the Gloss of their own Canon Law where we are told that Confession to a Priest is better said to be instituted by a certain Tradition of the universal Church then from the Authority of the Old or new Testament This Tradition of the Church obliges as a Command and therefore with us he means the Church of Rome Confession of mortal Sins is necessary But is not necessary with the Greeks because they have no such Tradition Here is a Tradition pretended of the Universal Church and yet an acknowledgment that at least one half of that Church has no such Tradition which is as good sence as Roman Catholick However I take this to be a Demonstration that Confession is no otherways approved and frequented by the Christian World except the Church of Rome than it is by the Reformed That is it is looked on by all but Mr. M's Church as a piece of Ecclesiastical Discipline only and then it may be used or dispensed with as the Church sees most for her Edification § 8. This is not only the Opinion of the greater part of the present Visible but it was so likewise of the Ancient Church Though Mr. M. tells us with confidence enough that it was never heard in the Catholick Church till Henry VIII that any was admitted to the Communion without Confession Yet we find direct proof to the contrary in Antiquity Socrates tells us that Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople took away the Priest that was appointed for Confessions since the time of the Decian Persecution and gave free leave that every one should come to the participation of the Holy Sacrament as his own Conscience directed him And Sozo men adds that the Bishops of almost all other Churches imitated him Gratian proposes the Authorities for and against the necessity of Confession and leaves it to the Readers Judgment which he will believe And the Gloss on that is very remarkable In the year 1150. in the time of Gratian nothing was defined or commanded concerning the necessity of Confession by the Church For if there had Gratian had not been ignorant of it nor omitted it but Confession with the Mouth was introduced near an hundred years after by Innocent III. Thus the Roman Gloss and the Reader must judge whether he will believe Mr. M. who affirms that Auricular Confession was always necessary or the Canon Law and Gloss that says it was made necessary about the year 1215 That is not full three hundred years before Henry VIII so late is this Sacrament even in the Roman Church and the Doctrine of its necessity § 9. The third Argument Mr. M. produces for Confession is grounded on the inconveniencies that arise from the want thereof He tells us that Protestant Sermons have some Authority upon the People but not much for lack of this curb on their Vices p. 6. Now whether Sermons or Auricular Confession are the greatest curb to Vice can only be judged by Experience and let that determine whether Protestants or Papists are most Licentious Let us compare Protestant Countries with Popish and see where Vice doth most abound Let us look into Germany Denmark Switzerland the Low Countries England and Scotland and compare them with Italy France and Spain and let any one judge which are most corrupt in their Morals or most happy in their Government Among our selves Let us compare the Protestants who have lived in prosperity these last thirty years and consequently have been most lyable to corruption with the Papists that have been in adversity and consequently are at the best and from these we shall discern what a mighty curb Confession is on the Vices of Men. Lastly Compare the times before the Reformation with what has been since and we shall find even Rome it self at this day reformed to what it was which shews that the Light of Truth which we propose to our People is not so weak a curb on Men's Vices as Mr. M. would persuade us This second inconveniency he alledges from the wont of Confession is the encouragement it must needs give People to sin when they consider they are not obliged to give an account for their Sins So p. 6. Catholiques commit sin 't is true but call themselves to an account for it by Confession and Submission to their ghostly Fathers Protestants sin likewise without calling themselves to any such reckoning because they can make a shift without it And again p. 7. I pray the Reader to consider whether private Sinners in the Church of England do not offend God at a cheaper rate than in the Church of Rome since in the Church of Rome they are bound to some Penance but in the Church of England they may confess to their Ministers and do Penance if they will or if they will not they may let it alone To which I answer That the Church of England hath no Tax of Sins nor doth She promise Pardon of Sins upon the performance of any external action whatsoever whether it cost the performer dear or cheap But she tells her People according to the Scriptures that there is no other way to be forgiven our sins but be heartily turning from them that a good Life and sincere Obedience to the Commandments of God through Faith in Christ are the only means to escape Damnation And that according as every one is certain of the sincerity of his own heart he may be certain of Heaven and no otherwise Let us then compare the Doctrine of the two Churches together and let the Reader judge who teaches the easiest method for Pardon of Sins Saith the Church of Rome If any be so affected in his mind that he is sorry for the sins he hath committed and design not to sin for the future although he be not touched with such a sorrow as may be sufficient to obtain Pardon Nevertheless when he confesses duly to a Priest he doth by the Power of the
Keys obtain Remission and Forgiveness for all his Villanies Saith the Church of England Repent you truly for your sins past have a lively Faith in Christ our Saviour amend your Lives and be in perfect Charity with all Men so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy Mysteries The Church of Rome sees the difference of these two and pretends that Confession was appointed by the Mercy of God to make Pardon the more easie For Let us grant it faith she that Sins could be blotted out by Contrition Yet in as much as few could come to this degree it must happen that very few could expect Pardon of Sins this way The true Intention of Confession and of all other parts of Christian Discipline is Amendment of the Peoples Lives And it will be found that Men do not come to Confession so much to help them to live well for the future as to ease themselves from the Trouble that the memory of their Sins past create them and when by Absolution they are eased of the sense of their former Guilt they are apt to think they may begin on a new score And hence it often happens that Men are more negligent after Confession than before And let never so much care be taken to prevent this abuse which Mr. Arnauld confesses almost Universal while People believe that the Priest can forgive them their sins as soon as they are sorry for them and purpose to forsake them it is impossible it should be removed Whereas when a Man is referred to his own Conscience as the final judge of his own Condition and told that he damns himself if he be partial And that no other Sorrow or Repentance for Sin can save him but such as will in earnest prevail with him to forsake his Sins and live a good Life In this case a Man will find it much easier to satisfie the Priest and obtain Absolution from him than to satisfie his own Conscience Nay after all the Priest can only judge of a Mans Repentance from his own Mouth and if the Man be partial or mistaken in his own sincerity the Priest must be so too and his Absolution insignificant And therefore our Church who lays the efficacy of Absolution on the sincerity of the Penitents Contrition and Faith and tells her People that her Absolution is only Conditional deals more severely and sincerely too with her Penitents than the Roman Church who lays the chief stress on the outward Absolution of the Priest. The Matter of Fact appears to be really thus from the practice of the lewdest Livers amongstus who often take Sanctuary in that Church and without any amendment of Life live in hopes of that Salvation in her which they know they could not hope for in ours § 11. The last Argument Mr. M. urges for Confession is the Interest of the Priest faith he The Church of England for want of Confession appears to me to have lost that Interest in the Consciences of the People which both the Roman and the Greek Priests are happy in at this day I do believei n my Conscience this Argument goes a great way with Mr. M. and not only with him but with all those Priests who value their Interest as he does But he would have done well to have told us what that interest is in which the Priests count themselves happy For the Priests have counted themselves happy sometimes in an interest which contributed very little to the happiness of the People In short we neither do nor ought to covet any other interest with our People than the power of doing and making them good and God be thanked we have as much of that interest as any Clergy of the World and dare compare the Lives of our People with the Lives of either Greeks or Romans It was therefore some other interest which brought in Auricular Confession in which Mr. M. would count himself happy I shall not determine what that may be which Mr. M. could not find in our Church only he must know that among us truly mortified diligent sober prudent Clergy-men who continually reside on their Cures and shew themselves an Example to their Flocks in meekness humility watchfulness and charity have no reason to complain that they want interest with their People But there are some that think it too dear a purchase at that rate and therefore had rather come at it another way That is by perswading people that they can forgive them their Sins though perhaps they are nothing bettered by Confessing Thus Mr. M. seems to state the case What if some Catholicks are never the better for it What are many Protestants the better for all the Sermons they hear and Sacraments they receive If we confess our Sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our Sins What though we are never the better for Confessing If that be Mr. M's meaning and he believes himself he had reason in earnest to change his Church For he may be sure we have no such Catholick Doctrine CHAP. IV. § 1. MR. M. tells us that the third difficulty that stuck with him was the Answer given by Protestants to that Question Where is that one Holy Catholick Church which we do profess to believe in the two Creeds To this he adds several other Questions Was there any such Society as one Holy Catholick Church extant upon the face of the Earth when Cranmer began his Reformation What Provinces of the Earth did this Church inhabit Did Cranmer believe himself a Member of it Who gave him Authority to Reform this one Catholick and Apostolick Church To set up Altar against Altar c. p. 8. To each of these Questions I will give a distinct Answer and shew how little Reason any one has to make a difficulty of them To the first Where is that one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church which we profess to believe in the two Creeds I Answer not in any one place or Province exclusively to the rest but in all places where Men professing the Faith of Christ live under their Lawful Pastors or Spiritual Governors 'T is by these two marks we must find the Catholick Church if we would not mistake the Society of Schismaticks and Hereticks nay of Heathens for her Where-ever we find the Faith of Christ and the Persons professing it living in submission to their Regular Pastors there we have found a branch of the Catholick Church and to that Society we ought to be ready to unite ourselves in this Profession and Submission But Mr. M. by his eagerness to have us assign the ubi or place where to find this Church seems to imagine that there is some one place or ubi where she is always to be found At least that there is some where a Head and Principle of Unity by union to which the Society is made one But we deny any other Head or Principle of unity to this Society besides Christ Jesus And we believe that to
inclinations did comply in earnest what an idle Question is it to ask By what Authority Cranmer condemned that Church from whom he received his Mission and Holy Order When she concurred in all he did and approved nay made all the Alterations in her Liturgy Sacraments and Constitutions that were made The true Question therefore is Whether the Church of England had full power to Reform her self without the consent of the Pope For it is into his Supremacy all this Banter of Mission and indeed the whole Faith of the Roman Church as distinct from the Catholick is resolved If the Church of England was not subject to the Church of Rome she had sufficient power to Reform her self and the only thing for which she is accountable to God the World and her Subjects is the Goodnesâ— of the Reformation If that was a good work Cranmer did well in advising and she in decreeing it but if the Errors removed by the Reformation were not real but only pretended as Mr. M. would perswade us but will never be able to prove Cranmer indeed was answerable for giving her ill Councel but she her self is accountable for the removal of them for it was Her Act. 'T was by Her Authority and Mission though Mr. M. cannot tell it Page 2. that Anno 154â— the word Sacrament in the sence which the Church then gave of it was restrained to Baptism and the Lords Supper and sure the Church of England had Authority enough to explain her meaning by what words she thought fit Let him shew if he can that there were more Sacraments as she understands the word Sacrament ever owned in the Catholick Church than those two allowed by her Lastly to shew that it was not Cranmer's private Opinion influenced the Church 't is observable first that he had several private Opinions two whereof Mr. M. lays to his charge in his Preface which were absolutely condemned by the Church and the contrary established as her Doctrine which he himself signed 2ly That the Bishops and Clergy of England had unanimously entred upon the Business of the Reformation in the time of Cranmer's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Warham Anno 1531. by the Submission of the Clergy to the King and acknowledging his Supremacy and again Anno 1533 by consenting to an Act against Appeals to Rome wherein the Nation was declared to be an entire Body within it self with full Power to do Justice in all Causes Spiritual as well as Temporal And this before Cranmer was Arch-Bishop so far was he from condemning or imposing on the Church from whence he had his Mission § 8. The fourth set of Questions concerning Mission is on this head whether a Presbyterian Minister having received Orders from a Protestant Bishop can by vertue of sâ—ch Orders pronounce the Church of England a corrupt Church or Preach against her Sacraments or Liturgy notwithstanding her Censures His design in this Question is to shew that the first Reformers had no more Authority to Preach against the Romish Church then such a Presbyter has to Preach against our Church I cannot understand how a man can forsake the Church of England and Preach Presbyterian Doctrine by vertue of his Protestant Mission nor consequently how any Man can justifie his Protestant Doctrine by vertue of his Popish Mission pag. 2. Why may not a Presbyterian having the same Authority of Scripture which Cranmer pretended to Preach against the Superstition of the Common Prayer as well as he against the Idolatry of the Mass pag. 6. and more to the same purpose pag. 12. In Answer to this I will shew first why a Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church whereof he is a Member in contradiction to her Censures And secondly that this was not the first Reformers Case 1. A Presbyter or Bishop ought not to Preach against the Constitution of the Church of which they are Members Because there is a Regular way in which they may endeavour a Reformation If they find any thing amiss in her Discipline or Doctrine they may make their Application for redress of it to those that have power to reform it but must not presume being Subjects to usuâ—p their Governors Power For this is the case of private mens reforming abuses in the State in spight of the King a remedy generally worse than the disease However in both Cases private men may sue for Redress and in their proper Stations endeavour it But if such a Bishop or Presbyter be Censured and Suspended he is thereby discharged from the Execution of his Office and he must no more make a Schism to regain it then one must make a Rebellion in the State to re-gain a Civil Office. This we urge and I think with reason against the Presbyterians and other Sects amongst us that either have no Ordination or Appointment to their Offices from the Church of England and Ireland or else abuse the Power against her which was once given them by her and from which they are again legally suspended And as we urge this against them so likewise against M. M. and his Party who without any Mission from these Churches do according to their private sence take a Commission from a Foreign Bishop and Church to Preach against the declared Doctrine of that Church to which by the Law of Christ they are Subjects Them we count those Rebels who when censured and condemned by their own Churches and Governors against all the known Laws of our Church flee from her Tribunal and appeal to Foreigners And what Rebels or Hereticks will ever be convicted p. 4. if they may chuse their own Judges as those do We do not deny the Orders of the Church of Rome we own that she can make Priests Bishops but let Mr. M. shew that the Pope could ever give them Power to exercise their Office in these Kingdoms since it is directly against the ancient Laws and Practice observed and enacted by our Ancestors and in force at the Reformation If a man like not the Orders therefore of his own Church he must be without Orders except he would be a Schismatick and Deserter as Mr. M. has made himself And this is sufficient to shew that the Case of the first Reformers was vastly different from the Case of the present Dissenters which is the second thing I am to prove The whole strength of Mr. M's Paper doth really depend on this Parallel and whoever reads it will find that the only considerable Argument he produce is that the first Reformers Mission could not be good because the Presbyterians have as much to say for Theirs And that he can find no difference between these two only that the first Reformers were Authorized by Act of Parliament I have heard it given as the Character of wit that it finds out the likeness of things whereas it is the work of Judgment to find out the differences Now Mr. M. having whatever his Judgment may be a great
sence of the ancient Fathers pag. 5. which plainly shews that he knew nothing of Sâ—cinus his Opinions or Principles who positively denied the necessity of Baptism and protested against being judged by that sence the Fathers or the Primitive Church have given of Scriptures These are sufficient to shew the vast difference between the pretences of the present Dissenters and the ground of our Reformation And that the Argument he draws from the Obligation in Ordination laid on the Presbâ—ters of our Church to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments as this Church and Realm have received the same according to the Commandments of God pag. 4. is of no force against the first Reformers though it obliged Mr. M. not to desert our Church and the Nonconformists not to preach in contradiction to her declared Doctrine and Worship § 9. And so I proceed to his fifth Query Whether an Act of Parliament in France Spain or Germany be not as good an Authority for Popery there as in England for Protestancy I suppose by an Act of Parliament he means the Laws enacted regularly by the Supream Powers of those Nations which he ignorantly expresses by an Act of Parliament and to this I answer That if any Religion is to be established in any Kingdom by temporal Rewards or Punishments to encourage the Obedient and terrifie the disobedient the supream Powers of every Nation only can thus establish that Religion they themselves are sole Judges with what temporal Rewards and Punishments and how far they will establish it and they are answerable only to God for their actings herein If therefore the Supream Civil Government in France or Spain set up Popery a Man must submit to it or burn for it if the Law be so and such a Law though it is unjust is as forcible for a false Religion as a true But there is another way of establishing a Religion and that is by convincing Mens Minds that the Religion is true and that according as men cordially embrace it the shall be secured of the Divine Favour and be happy in the next World. And if this be the Christian Religion of which they are so convinced one Principle of it is that the Professors thereof ought to associate themselves into a Body and that Christ the Author thereof has appointed Governors who are to descend in Succession and that to these regularly appointed a due Obedience is to be paid as Men value the Rewards or Punishments of the next life Now Men thus perswaded cannot think an Act of the Civil Governors alone a sufficient Commission for any one to undertake the Function of a Spiritual Pastor any more than an Act of these Spiritual Pastors is sufficient to capacitate and commissionate a Man to discharge a Civil Function and therfore Mr. M. argues very unnecessarily against the Parliaments Power to preach or administer Sacraments pag. 3. since the 27th Article of our Church denies expresly that Power to the Civil Governors I suppose I have sufficiently shewn that our first Reformers had a Canonical as well as Parliamentary Mission and I suppose that this Canonical Mission is nothing the less valid because the other goes along with it But then it may be objected Have not France and Spain an Act of the Church as well as State for establishing their Religion I answer they have and so has Mahometism in Turkey an Act of what they count the Church for its establishment And therefore it is not sufficient that the Power that establishes a Religion be competent and the Methods regular by which it is settled but likewise it is necessary that the Religion be true in it self and therefore a man must examine whether the Christian Religion be more purely truly taught established in England or in Spain before he either reject or embrace the one or the other For a false Religion may have all the regular settlements that a true can have and the Professors thereof being conscious of its weakness are often more industrious to make the accidental security the stronger And I do affirm that there is not one Argument in this Paper urged by Mr. M. against Protestants but might with equal advantage be urged mutatis mutandis against convert Christians in a Mahometan Country this alone is sufficient to shew them all to be unconclusive The way therefore for every man to be satisfied in his Religion is to examine it apart from the accidental advantages of it and chuse that which has best reasons to recommend it for a man ought to chuse his Church by his Religion and not his Religion by his Church But he asks in case there be no Judge to determine who have the true sence of Scripture Roman Catholicks or Protestants whether the Catholick sence be not as good as the Protestants Pref. p. 3. It were a sufficient Answer to this to put another case like it to him in the person of a Turk And it is this in case there is no Judge to determine as I know of none saith the Turk which is the Word of God the Bible or the Alchoran Why should not the Affirmation of us Mâ—slelmans who are ready to vouch to the death for the Alchoran and are twice the number of you Christians be as good authority for Men to believe the Alchoran came from God as your vouching for your Bibles is sufficient to perswade men to believe that they came from him But I do not love to shift off a Question and therefore tell him that the sence put by Roman Catholicks on the Scripture is not so good as the sence put on them by the Protestants If it were they would not be afraid to put it to the World and let every person that is equally concerned judge for himself but they had rather appeal to themselves as Judges and then they are sure of the cause But then he tells us that he could never understand what Unity of Spirit or agreement in Faith Christians are like to have page 3. upon these Principles To which I Answer more than they have now If National Churches were left to be govern'd by themselves the Subjects of each Church bound to adhere to their immediate Governors in all quarrels with neighbouring Churches those contentions must soon come to an end as the quarrel between St. Cyprian Stephen did For when the Governours of differing Churches find that they cannot hurt one another or advantage themselves by denial of Communion as it must be when the one Church doth not raise a Faction to side with it in the other the quarrel must soon cease for the thing that makes quarrels endless is interest But if it once be counted Lawful for one Church to get a Party in the others Precincts and set up Altar against Altar in the same place this will continue the Schism and is the very fundamental reason of the breaches of Charity amongst Christians that now pester Christendom which are much