of the Jews affembled in one place both before Pilate and be fore Herod? And then tell me what more fays the text on this fubject? And further tell me, if it lie in your power, what place of the New Testament it is, from which you or I may learn that 7 TO AUTO does not carry one place always in its meaning and I'll be obliged to you.

You do not offer to bring any text of the New Testament, to fhew the least mistake in what I have faid of μμadov; but you deny it, and defire the authority of a difinterested perfon, fkilled in the Greek language, to confirm what I fay. Truly a difinterested person will not be easily found; and for skill in the Greek language, if you mean the knowledge of the fense of that word in Greek authors, it cannot determine the question, which is about the constant fignification of that word in the New Teftament. I had faid, this word seems not to be used in the New Teftament, but in the cafe of more or fewer concurring perfonally in the fame action; and I cited all the texts that occurred to me where the word is used: if, therefore, you can bring me no text of the New Testament where this word has not this import, far better yield it, than talk befide the purpose. If you please to look and compare Acts ii. 1. 3. 4. 38. Acts x. 44-47. you will find ground for another affertion of mine, for which you want proof.

3. I confefs I am furprised with your criticifm upon "they 66 all," Acts v. 12. You fay, it is contrary to the natural and grammatical construction of the words, to make wares to be conftructed with όλην την εκκλησίαν. I acknowledge I never made grammatical construction much my study; but I have been put to look in what order words lie in the New Testament, and I think I find the like conftruction there, Acts vi. 5. Acts viii. 1. 1 Theff. i. 12. 2 Theff. i. 1. 2. 3. Neither can I fee any thing unnatural in a difcourfe, where a fociety, a multitude is spoken of, when I hear it faid, They all did fuch a thing, or, They are all in fuch a place; at least I think this is very common. I cannot but wonder to fee this obfervation of yours, the foundation and strength of your arguing, to prove, that by them all that were with one accord in Solomon's porch, we must not understand the whole church, but only the apoftles. And to help on your arguings upon this head, you would have it believed, that the text fays, the people magnified the apostles on account of the miracles wrought; whereas, whatever be faid in the context, the text fays only, "the people magnified them." And the queftion is, What them? It is manifeft, that it is them that VOL. I. H h

were

were all with one accord in Solomon's porch, and to whom no man of the rest durft join himself. But the question still remains, What are they all that are faid to be with one accord in Solomon's porch? and what we are to understand by the reft? You fay they all are the apoftles, and the rest are the whole church: And fo you teach us, that the providence about Ananias made a feparation between the whole church and the apostles; which, I think, could be no advantage to the church, especially when in great fear; and the apostles, by this means, loft a precious opportunity of doing good to

the church.

But the facred writer feems to be declaring, that the church was fo far from being at any lofs by that dreadful providence, that it was rather the better for it; and, if I miflake not, we are not fo much acquainted of the fear of the prefence of the twelve, as of the fear of God, fhewing himself awful in the church, that fell upon all the church, and upon others that heard thefe things. Neither is there any infinua tion, that either the church, or the reft of the people upon whom this fear came, fled from the apoftles, but rather the contrary. At least, if the whole church fled from their pre fence, the context tells us, the multitudes of other people came the nearer them. In a word, it is impoffible to inftruct from this paffage, or even make it appear feasible, that either the church, or the reft of the people, fied from the presence of the apoftles on this occafion; but it is moft easy to con ceive, that the reft of the people, that were moved with the fear of God on this occafion, durft not lightly join the church as members, and yet magnified the church.

4. You look carefully into the book of the Acts, to find out every thing that may be any way wrefted to your pur pofe; but are not, it feems, fo quick-fighted as to pretty clear things there against you; and therefore, with no small affurance, you reflect on me, for infinuating, that there was a feast at Jerufalem when Paul went up, Acts xxi.; and you say, it is but a begging of the question, till I prove it, p. 241. But, feeing you make the queftion to turn upon this hinge, I have fome hopes to fatisfy you, that I did not beg it, as you love to speak, in this infinuation, if the word of God be of any ufe to decide the question: and therefore I defire you may look chap. xx. where you find Paul on his way up to Jeru falem at this time, and confider y 16. and likewife chap.xxi.

27. and fee if the fame thing be not as fully infinuated in the word of God, as it was by me. Yet I cannot attribute

your

your way of treating the fcriptores, to make the myriads of which James fpeaks to Paul, members of the church in Jerufalem, so much to want of fight and nice inspection, as to fome other thing. For, when you fay, p. 188. "We find

"there were great additions made to the church of Jerufa "lem; for it is faid, they had reft, and were multiplied, "Acts ix. 31.” I cannot think that you never looked at Acts ix. 31. where you fee the churches throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, had reft, and were multiplied; but you fet down they, instead of these churches, and construct they with the church of Jerufalem, to your unwary reader; though yet, in another cafe, you could fay, that the church and they would not conftruct together.

Next, you find additions made to the church in Jerufalem, by the growth and multiplication of the word of God, Acts xii. 24. as if there had been no church to receive additions by that, but the church in Jerufalem. And then you tell us, to fhut up all, James and the elders inform Paul, Acts xxi. 20. "Thou feeft, brother, how many thousands [or my"riads] of Jews there are which believe." And, p. 240. & 241. you would have your reader imagine, that the myriads of believing Jews that James fpeaks of to Paul, 20. are the fame thing with the multitude that he said would be in. formed of his coming to the city, and therefore would needs come together, y 22; as if there had been no believing Jews, but fuch a multitude as could easily hear of Paul's coming into the city, and come together upon that. I have a better conceit of your understanding, than to allow myself to think, that these methods ferve to perfuade yourself of what you are faying; and the only apology I can make for you is, That you fee honeft Prefbyterians have used these scriptures in the fame manner before you, and this gives you confidence.

5. Upon aos and way to wantos, you cite Luke viii. 37. and inquire, if I will fay, that every individual perfon in that whole country of the Gadarenes came forth? And you like. wife cite, Luke i. 10. and fay, you believe it will be hard to make it appear, that all the people in Jerufalem were without, praying, at the time Zacharias was offering incenfe. And I fay, I cannot take upon me to affirm, that every individual member of a congregational church, man and woman, comes together at any time, when it may be faid the whole church comes together in one place to do any thing. Even as, when you fay, the whole fynod, or the whole multitude of

Hh 2

the

.

the general assembly, comes together, or agrees to do a thing, I would injure you, if I faid you fpoke falfe, because I found that every individual in the roll of the fynod or affembly was not present. I referred you to Lauder upon this, and pointed you to the title of the book; and I refer you to him a gain. But I do not expect that my reference to him upon this will be taken to import, that I differ in no point from him. I cannot deny, that one bishop came to have the pre. eminency over his brethren in the prefbytery very early, and that this was a deviation from the apoftolical pattern; but this prefbytery and church where that bishop was, must be owned to be one congregation, having one altar, as it came to be called; and this, as it is agreeable to the apoftolical pattern, effectually destroys both diocefan Epifcopacy and claffical Prefbytery, as far as antiquity is concerned; for, if the α To andes, under the inspection of the presbytery, or the one bishop that came to be fet over them, partook of one bread and one cup, and had but one communion-table; then the churches were neither diocefan nor claffical, but only congregational; and if fuch were the churches where this innovation of one bifhop over a prefbytery took place, fuch were the apoftolic churches.

You have a very rare obfervation upon το πληθος μαθητών, its being in the mafculine gender; for you fay it seems to point forth it was an assembly of men, and not of women; and then you reckon, that women have no concern in the choice of officers in the church where they are: and fuch are the obfervations that fatisfy you, it seems, that the presbyterian model of government, and form of a church, is divine, in oppofition to the congregational.

6. I want to know how you observed, p. 418. That Paul planted a church at Ephefus before he met with the twelve difciples; and what ground have you to affirm, that it was not his practice, in other cities, to go from places where there were disciples, and leave them without paftors, when the contrary is fo evident from the book of the Acts, chap. xiv. and Tit. i. 5.

7. Your obfervation upon the word brethren, is according to a fancy of mine, when I first read the Bible, and underftood by that word only the Presbyterian ministers, whom I heard calling one another brethren; but it is altogether unworthy of any man of tolerable fenfe. You fay, "That "brother, or brethren, is ufually applied as the characte "ristic of church officers, as diftinguished from the faints

❝or private believers of any church." And when you have noted down many texts, you go on to fay, " And indeed our "Lord appropriates this name to his apoftles, and thereby "expreffes that equality of authority and power that was among them, or that one of them was not raised above an "other in office, Matth. xxiii. 8." And this is what you alledge to justify your affertion, That, by the brethren, A&s xv. we are to understand persons in office. But you must both alledge and prove more, before you justify that affer tion: for, to make that good, you must prove, that the word brethren is the characteristic of church-officers, as diftin. guished from other Chriftians, and that where it is used in a diftinction between elders and those that are defigned by it, as it is Acts xv. And nothing that you alledge on this head will prove your point, except it shall appear, that brother, or brethren, occurs not any where in the New Testament, but where it denotes perfons in office. And this cannot be evident till you manifeft, that the command of brotherly love refpects only perfons in office. But I will not be surpri fed, though you confine that command to perfons in office, and understand nothing else but them by the words brother. and brethren, in the firft epiftle of John, when I confider the account you make of the faints, or private believers of the churches, by whom I reckon you understand the members of the churches not in office. For thefe, according to you, were fuch persons of whom no visible positive evidence of their being faints or believers, was or ought to be required, in order to their being church-members; and as to whom no man was to look after any pofitive evidence for a foundation of any charitable judgment concerning them, that they were believers.

Probably it may also be your mind, that the brethren, upon whom the brethren of your fynod laid the burden, Acts xv. were perfons in office, as diftinguished from the private believers of the churches. But this would burden the brethren, the office-bearers only, with the yoke in fynodical authority, and leave the church-members free; which will by no means confift with your fense of Matth. xxiii. 8. Though I cannot deny, but that text is perverted by you, while, without attending to the context, you would make us believe, that our Lord is only forbidding the officers to lord over one another, and not forbidding them to lord over the people, as the scribes and Pharifees did, nor the people to fubject their confciences to their authority. Further, I

am