gether independent of councils, after the innovation of one bishop in every church, which paved the way for fynods and councils, that took place as the native confequence of that innovation. But how comes the affair of councils upon the field, to clear you of an inconfiftency in your way of speaking about the size of the particular churches erected by the apoftles?

You next endeavour to clear yourself of an inconsistency as to what you faid of the greater churches, by giving it another turn: For you had faid before, "And it is not to be ❝doubted, that though the number of profeffors of Chrifti"anity in any large city, and the catechumens, might be so 66 great, as they could not affemble in one place for the or "dinary participation of ordinances; yet those who were ad "mitted to partake of the eucharift, might have place to af "femble in one body, or those who could not have access "at first, might have afterwards occafion, by the removal ❝of others, to communicate in the fame church or place; as "is the cafe of many cities even at this day." And every body fees, that this ferved to fhew, that the bishop's diocese, in the second and third centuries, was no larger, even in the greater cities, than one of our city-parishes, that comes together to receive the Lord's fupper in one place, and at one table. But now you fay, "Though I fhewed what were "the methods ufed to raise the Epifcopal power in large ci "ties, where there were more congregations than one, when "the altar was erected in the bishop's church, and fo one "priest and one altar, and one church and one altar came to "be current terms; yet I never so much as infinuated, that "this practice, or these terms, were according to the New "Teftament." And then you fay, "Thus I have got rid "of this inconfiftency." But let me tell you, thus a man can rid himself of any inconsistency, by faying another thing that to him appears not so inconfiftent. And I am not yet fenfible, that you was, in your book and words before fet down, or the place where they are, fhewing, that this was a method used to raife the Epifcopal power, even the turning of his diocese, that at firft confifted of many commu. nicating congregations, into one communicating congrega. tion, coming together in one place, to partake of the fupper, as does one of your city-parishes. But if you alledge, as you feem to do, "That this was a method ufed to raise the "Epifcopal power;" then you fay against the Epifcopalian, that if the one bishop had remained diocefan, as at the be

ginning,

ginning, and had not become congregational, as he did in the fecond and third centuries, his power had been lefs.

Thus you cannot get rid of this inconfiftency, unless you either own to the Epifcopalian, that diocefan Episcopacy was in being in the very firft ages after the apoftles, or acknow ledge to the Independent, that the churches in these ages were only congregations, the greatest of them coming together in one place to eat the Lord's fupper; and if these were the churches where the innovation of one bifhop took place, these were the apoftolic churches. You hear of the one altar as soon as you hear of the one bishop, and that is from Ignatius, who was bishop of no lefs a church than that in Antioch; and he writes of it to the church of the Ephefians, and to the church of the Philadelphians. You do not deny, that the term one church and one altar, was borrowed from the Old Testament; but you'll find one altar in the NewTeftament-church, even Jefus Chrift, both altar and facrifice, whereof the whole true Ifrael, the mystical body partakes, Heb. xiii. 10.-15. And though the fathers mistook, in the application of the word altar, and this mistake occafioned fuperftition, and at length idolatry; yet they had a foun dation in the New Teftament, for the use of the word altar, with respect to a congregation of the faints, coming together in one place to partake of the fupper: for in their communion in that bread and cup there is a reprefentation of the communion of the true Ifrael, in their one altar Jefus Chrift; and this is the antitype of the typical Ifrael, their communion in the typical altar, 1 Cor. x. 15.-18. Thus far the fathers fpake according to the New Teftament, as well as the Old, in speaking of one church and one altar. And whatever you fay of the railing of the Epifcopal power; yet if they had held by their first notion of one church and one altar, there had never been a diocesan bishop in the world; but the forfaking of that, and keeping by the notion of one bishop and one church, was the true caufe of all the mischief that followed. For out of this cane one catholic visible church, with one bishop or one council, with as many altars as parishes; a monster of a church, the like unto which there is nothing either in the old Testament or in the New, or among the first fathers; though that mystery of iniquity was then working, first in the affair of one bishop in one church, and then in the bufinefs of fynods and councils, that, in their very first appearance, divided the churches, (as in the

decifions

decifions about Eafter), but served to join together that horrible catholic vifible body, "The man of fin."

The third, you say, is the second turned into another shape, and complain that I have not fet down the pages; while yet you own I have fet down pages for the one branch, which is the only branch whereon you charge me with falfehood. And as for the other branch, for which the page is not fet down, you yourself own it, and direct us to one of the pages where it is found. What is the ground then of the loud cry about noting down your pages here, when you note down the page, and give your words, to ease the reader? You should have fet down the whole fentence, which is as follows. "If "our author is not acting the Jefuit, he muft understand "by congregation fuch a competent number of Chriftians, as 66 can affemble for ordinary in one place, for public worship, "and may be edified by the preaching of one paftor at a "time." And this is the first branch.

The other stands in these words in my Obfervations, p. 10. "But against the Epifcopalians you would fet it on another "footing, and have recourfe to the Lord's fupper, and the "whole body partaking of one altar, as it is called, distinct "from the catechumens, p. 534. 535. So, against the In"dependents, you make Perth and Dundee, and the like, "to be two congregations, and against the Epifcopalians,

you make them but one." I have a little before cited the words of pages 534. 535. where you fignify, that, fetting afide the catechumens, they that partook of the eucharift in larger cities, might affemble in one body, or as they do in many cities at this day.

Now, Sir, that I may not feem to be playing the Jefuit with this word congregation, and that there may be nothing but candour betwixt us, let us bring it to these cities at this day, Dundee and Perth, in each of which there are two affemblies ordinarily hearing fermon, and yet but one affembly for breaking of bread; and therefore there is but one parish of Dundee, and one parish of Perth; whereas in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where there are feveral affemblies for the Lord's fupper, there are feveral parishes. Though there should be many other kinds of congregations in a city; yet if there be but one body of Chriftians there, affembling from time to time in one place to eat the Lord's fupper, there is only one fuch congregation there as I call a Chriftian church; and in fuch a congregation all the ordinances of church-worship, and the Chriftian difcipline ought to be performed. But in

your

your way of stating the controverfy with the Independents, you would make two fuch congregations as are churches both in Dundee and Perth; while it is manifeft, from your words before cited, p. 534. 535. of your book, that against the Epifcopalians you make but one fuch congregation as is a church in Dundee, and one in Perth; yet now you would bring yourself off by telling me, "That in these pages you "hold, that in large and populous cities there were several "congregations." Yes, you faid fo; but in these you included the catechumens, while you did not doubt but they who were admitted to partake of the eucharist might assemble in one place. And you fay further, for clearing yourself, Though the guise of these times brought it in custom, for gaining their end, to have all of them communicate at the "bishop's church; yet it never entered into my head they "were all one fingle congregation on that account; nor have "I given the least infinuation of it." You do indeed speak of a practice at Rome, that had its rife about the year 312, of fending part of the elements from the bishop's church to other congregations in the city; but before that time, you seem to contend, that the communicating church in a place was but a single congregation. Your words are: "It is true "Juftin Martyr fays, that after the prefident of the assembly "hath confecrate the bread and wine, the deacons ftand "ready to distribute it to every one present, and carry it to "those who are abfent; yet it doth not appear, that it was " to any assembly of Christians, but rather to single perfons "of the fame congregation, who had not access to be pre"fent: for he feems plainly to speak of the president of one "fingle congregation, and what was the general practice in "his time."

You clear yourself in the fame manner of the fourth inftance for you firft tell me, I conceal the pages, and charge me with fraud in fo doing, and this without fhewing that I have misrepresented you. I had faid, "Against the Inde"pendents you gather together all thofe converted by the "miniftry of the apoftles in Jerufalem, and all those con"verted by Paul's miniftry in Ephefus, where he continued "by the space of two years; fo that all they which dwelt "in Afia heard the word of the Lord Jefus : and this to make "the number of Chriftians both in Jerufalem and Ephefus to be fo great, that there behoved to be many congrega❝tions in each of them." Needed I quote pages for this? Is not the number of them converted by the preaching of the

gospel

gospel in Jerufalem and Ephefus, the grand branch of your argument proving a plurality of congregations in Jerufalem and in Ephefus? Where then is the fraud in concealing pa ges? But left you still complain of fraud, are not these your words touching the church of Ephesus ? “We shall observe

"the former method, 1. To fhew, that there were more "congregations in her than one: 2. That all these were under "the government of a college or presbytery, and not a single "perfon or bishop. As to the first, The multiplicity of con "verts that were at Ephefus, and their great number will "make it evident, that there were in that church several "congregations or affemblies for public worship. And for "clearing this, it is obfervable, that the Apostle Paul conti "nued at Ephesus more than the space of two years, &c. "Befides, during the time of his continuance there, it is "remarked by the infpired biftorian, That all that dwelt in "Afia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks; "and this they had the readier access unto, in that the tem "ple of Diana being there, the city of Ephefus was the pu "blic place of their worship, which occafioned their fre 66 quent reforting thither."

If these be your words, I hope you will not deny, that this is among the first things you fay in the proof of a church in the city of Ephefus, confifting of many congregations. After feveral flourishes upon the multiplicity of converts at Ephefus, including all them on whom fear fell, your words are, “And it is worth notice, that infinite wisdom directed "the apostles to make their longest stays in remarkable ci "ties, and to make the offer of the gofpel in thofe places "where was the greateft refort of people, fuch as Jerufalem "and Samaria in the land of Judea, Antioch in Syria, Co. ❝rinth in Grecia, Rome in Italy, and Ephefus in the Leffer "Afia. But it must be moft furprising, if in all of these the fuc "cefs of the apoftles labours muft ftill be circumfcribed within "the bounds of one affembly, or congregation of Chri ❝ftians." By this time the reader will be fenfible, how little ground there is for the charge of fraud in concealing the pa ges, and perverting the fenfe, upon this branch of the incon fiftency; and how little reafon you had to complain of my taking the "freedom to mifrepresent you, as if you had al"ledged, that all these converted in Judea and Afia had been "members of the churches of Jerufalem and Ephefus." As to the other branch; it happened, that I had fet down the page and your exprefs words; fo you had no evafion that

way.