A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…

Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith, [In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars.] Ans. 1. Yes, no doubt, after the second Century, and perhaps in two Cities a little before; but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century. 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said [p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places, yet still there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptism, and one Bishop, with many Presbyters assisting him: And this is so very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts, that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question.] But when I told him how this would agree us, and hurt his cause, he will quickly fall under his own censure, and became [a stranger to the history of the Church] asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop. This Sermon was written since his Irenicon. And now he feigneth a distinction between [An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop: and for the place at which Christians did communicare.] But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop? Was it not the material place of Communion? And so the members of the distinction are co-incident. Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes & corporis & sanguimis Christi? Each ⟨p. 102⟩Church had long but one of these. The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion, but honorary of some Martyrs. The truth is, the phrase of unum Altar was taken up when each Church had but one; but to set up Altar contra Altar continued after to signify Anti-Churches. But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy. His conjectures from the numbers of Officers, &c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist. And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners. And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropped in by Corrupters: It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches. And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishopric, but a Metropolitan Seat, and might have 800 Parish Bishops.

Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith, [In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars.] Ans. 1. Yes, no doubt, after the second Century, and perhaps in two Cities a little before; but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century. 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said [p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places, yet still there was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptism, and one Bishop, with many Presbyters assisting him: And this is so very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts, that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question.] But when I told him how this would agree us, and hurt his cause, he will quickly fall under his own censure, and became [a stranger to the history of the Church] asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop. This Sermon was written since his Irenicon. And now he feigneth a distinction between [An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop: and for the place at which Christians did communicare.] But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop? Was it not the material place of Communicn? And so the members of the distinction are co-incident. Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes & corporis & sanguimis Christi? Each