fible? And this the end of your efforts to make your catholic visible church, and not the invifible, nor any particular vifible church, visible to me in these texts. And, after all that we have been faying, if it be vifible to any reader, I fhall declare him a reader fo far beyond me in feeing, that I fhall not prefume to offer any more on the fubject to his view. You tell me, you could give feveral other texts, or reasons, I know not which, befides; and I wish I could hear them; but I am pretty confident I may pass this as a flourish to the ignorant reader.

You fay, you have juftly alledged, Eph. iv. and Rom. xii. As to both which I have faid as much in the observations as fatisfies me, that it is not in your power to prove your ca. tholic visible church from either or both of them; and that they both intend quite another thing. But, left a contradic. tion should arise upon you as to Eph. iv. you tell me, "Though you own ftill, that the apoftles, prophets, evan "gelifts, and paftors, were given intentionally to feed the "myftical and invifible body of Chrift; yet ftill they were "fet in the church as visible, under which view of it there "is a mixture both of good and bad." But were they gi ven intentionally to feed that which, according to you, they could not feed? Could visible minifters feed that church which is invifible? What then becomes of your argument against their being fet in the myftical church? And if they were given to feed it, why may not these gifts be said to be fet in it for that purpofe? As I have given you several fcrip. tures, by which you may fee they were fet in the mystical body of Chrift; fo I think I have made it appear, they were fet in the churches or congregations of the faints, where I own there are good and bad, but not vifibly good and bad. And you have not yet made any other church vifible to me in the New Teftament where they could be fet.

Upon my inquiring, why are not the children to be reputed members of the myftical body, if one of the parents be to be fo reputed? you anfwer feveral things; as, 1. It is not our reputation of them that conftitutes them members of that body. But if the law of Chrift command us to refpect them as fuch, they are fuch to us, and that by Chrift's law, as I have told you before; and you have not found another catholic church whereof to repute them members, but that myfti cal body of Chrift whereinto we are baptifed, even as we are baptifed into Christ. 2. You fay the children of profeffing parents, whether believers or unbelievers, are to be baptifed.

If you mean believers or unbelievers, and fo members of the mystical church or not, in the fight of God, it is true; but if you mean in the fight of men, according to the law of Chrift, it is moft falfe; for they are not profeffing parents, if they be not believers, and menibers of the mystical church in the fight of men, according to that law. I know there is a good argument for the baptifm of the infantfeed of them whom the New Teftament commands us to look upon as the true Ifrael, drawn from the circumcifion of the infant-feed of the typical Ifrael, or Ifrael after the flesh, Acts ii. 38. 39. Col. ii. 11. 12.; but not in the way you draw it. For it cannot be proven, that these who are externally in the Chriftian church, are either externally or internally under that covenant that was made peculiarly with all Ifrael after the flesh; nor can it be proven, that the children of any parent under the New Teftament, come into the world by virtue of fuch a promise as that by virtue of which the children of Abraham according to the flesh were born. Then you infer, that, because baptifm is catholic, therefore the partakers of it have their freedom to that whole corporation or kingdom, and have at leaft a right to all its external privileges. But have you manifefted that baptifm, the fign and feal of our ingrafting into Chrift, belongs to any catholic fociety but the myftical body, or the true church and kingdom of heaven? Or have you made it appear, that we are baptifed into any particular church, or that it of itself, without more, gives a right to the privileges of any particular church? Or have you made it your bufinefs to confute what I faid on this head? Nothing like it that I can fee; but you take your principle of a catholic visible organised body for granted, and that this is the body into which we are baptifed; and then draw your inferences.

3.

When I defire you may fhew me where, but in your own head, all the profeffors of the name of Chrift are united toge ther in the unity of one ecclefiaftical government ?

You, 1. refer me to a part of your book that by no means fhews me where; but thews your fondness that appears throughout your Review to have your tedious book more narrowly confidered and diligently read, as if there were fome myfteries and depths of reafon and wifdom in it that we could not fathom at first view.

2. You deny that either you or any Prefbyterian afferted, that the church catholic vifible, is one external, stated and actual fociety. I must therefore think that you have not been afferting

Y y 2

afferting and endeavouring to prove, that the catholic church vifible is one external fociety, but that it is an internal fociety or nothing; not that it is a ftated fociety, but an unstated fociety, or a fociety that has not the ftate of a society; nor that it is an actual fociety, or one actually; but you fay, it is fufficient, if it be one habitually. Well then, it is an habitual, but not an actual society, it is habitually one, but never actually one. And till you explain this your distinc. tion, as here applied, I muft fay, it is the moft inconceivable fociety, to be a vifible one, that ever I yet heard of.

3. Then you tell me, that "though we cannot actually "and at one view, fee all the members of the catholic

church; yet this will never be a good argument they are "invisible." But I was not inquiring about the members of the visible church, according to your way of speaking, or all the vifible members of the church, according to mine. My inquiry was, where they are united in the unity of one visible ecclefiaftic government? To this you anfwer, all the visible members are visible. I own what you fay, that all the coun; tries in the terraqueous globe, are no lefs vifible than our own country, even as I own that all the vifible churches in the world are no less vifible than that whereof I am a mem ber; but if all thefe countries were united any where in the unity of one visible civil government, I would not be in a great ftrait to tell where. And I fee the churches as little dependent on any one vifible catholic ecclefiaftical government, as I fee all the countries of the world depending upon one catholic civil government.

But you fay, "I conceive you mean an univerfal idea or "" genus which has no other existence but in your own "brain." And fo you proceed to propofe fome questions about this univerfal idea. This is not a proper place for dif cuffing the queftion, If there be any univerfal idea? and therefore without troubling myself or you about that, 1 shall give my answers to your three queftions. And, 1. Your catholic vifible church can have no officers given to it, but in your brain; because it has no exiftence without your brain; and a political body, as you fay, is fomething real. 2. I likewife acknowledge, that it has no actual exiftence, no being in nature without your brain, till you fhew me where it is united but there. 3. And, for the fame reason, I deny that it has members. There are vifible members of the real catholic church; there are alfo members of these visible churches, in every one of which that catholic church is fhewed forth; but

I cannot fee that these are parts of a catholic church visible, till I fee that they were ever or fhall be united in one visible catholic government of divine institution.

Upon my refufing, that the churches fcattered through Pontus, Galatia, &c. are exprefsly called the "flock of "God," and that the elders are conjunctly called to feed or rule that "one flock," you tell me I ought to have replied to your question, whether this flock was one, because they affembled in one place for public worship? Or on account of their being united under one ecclefiaftic government, or their having a right and inherent power fo to do? but it was time enough for me to answer this queftion, when I owned that all the Christians in these parts are called "one flock" by themselves, as the Chriftians in the city of Ephefus under the overfight of the elders there, are called "the flock." So I de nied the foundation of your question, and gave good reafons from the text and context for my fo doing, to which you have answered nothing, but by repeating affertions of that which is to be proven, and which is plainly cross to the very text. For though it be manifest that the exhortation, 1 Pet. V. 12. 13. applies to as many companies of elders or Prefbyteries as were in these parts, and as many flocks as had these elders among them, and to all the prefbyteries and the flocks whereof they are overseers to the end of time; yet though the exhortation be thus far indefinite, as you speak, it is moft manifeft, that the exhortation is directed to a com pany of elders as ftanding related to the flock which is a mong them, and whereunto they are enfamples; which flock they are exhorted to feed in the full fenfe of that word, And there is no flock any way spoke of there, but a flock which is among them; nor are they called to oversee any flock there, but the flock which they are to overfee, not as lords, but as enfamples; nor are they exhorted to feed any flock there, but the flock which they could feed in the full fenfe of feeding, and where they difpenfed the ordinance of the fupper, as well as exercifed difcipline and government; nor is there the leaft infinuation of any flock fed with disci. pline and government diftinct from the flock which was fed with the word and facrament.

How then do you propofe to make it appear, that all the churches in these parts were one church, and all the prefbyteries were one council of elders ruling that one compounded church in matters of general concern? Though you repeat this never fo oft, till you find fome foundation for it in this

or

or fome other text, it fignifies nothing. And till you prove that all these flocks or churches are called one flock, though they all had one king, Jefus Chrift, and one law that is now written in the New Teftament, you fay nothing to. your purpose. As to what you fay of my begging the question about the church in Ephesus; after you have destroyed the argument taken from the large converfion there, which extended to all the little Afia, by saying the flock or church in Ephefus confifted only of these in the city, you can do nothing but beg upon the question. Every prefbytery in these provinces, yea and every where elfe, is as exprefsly called to feed the flock which is among them, and oversee it as enfamples, as the prefbytery of the church in Ephefus is called to feed that flock; but it is not yet proven, that any fuch flock consists of many flocks. I alfo denied that the twelve tribes are all defigned church, James v. 14. and gave my reasons, to which you answer nothing, but criticise upon my manner of denying, and come off with a bare repetition of your poor affertion, and a reflection on me, as ufing mean fhifts, i. e. arguments and exceptions, as I take it, which you

will not venture to remove.

2.

Then you lay down a scheme about the gospel-ministry, and affert, 1. The relation of Teftament minifters or elders to Chrift as his ftewards and ambaffadors; but you speak of no relation to the mystical body whereof he is the head. You affert another relation under this, to Chrift's univerfal visible body, I Cor. xii. and Eph. iv. But we have seen the weakness of your arguments on these texts to prove any fuch body of Chrift, or any gift of a miniftry unto it. And baptifm neither respects a single congregation, nor your visible catholic body. Excommunication is out of a particular church, and if it be warrantably done, is ratified in heaven; but there is no visible catholic church yet proven, out of which any person can be excommunicated. 3. You affert, that under this there arifeth another fubfervient to this, and more particular relation, and that is, their relation to particular congregations, by which you fay, they are denominated the elders of fuch and fuch churches, and not of others. And then you apply this chimerical fcheme to the cafe in hand, by repeating your unproved affertion, That many churches are called church, flock, affembly, and one lump. And because the members and elders of one church may be occafionally received by another, and there act as members