inconfiftency, when you are cleared as to one thing that is fubjoined; as to which you fay, "But alas! I find another "thing fubjoined," p. 12. " namely, That the Chriftian "churches were formed according to the fynagogues; and

yet I would not suffer the church in Jerufalem to be like a "fynagogue. Yes, I will allow it to be fo as to the order of "its ftanding officers and fome ufages; but not as if it was

a fingle congregation." I expected you would here tell me of a claffical fynagogue, to which your claffical church fhould anfwer; because you had spoken in your book, p. 281. of the feparate and claffical meetings of the rulers of the fyna. gogues. But now you have thought fit to drop this, and ac knowledge, that the fynagogues were but fingle congrega tions, and deny that the church in Jerufalem was like a fynagogue in this refpect..

The Chriftian church, then, according to you, is not form. ed according to fynagogues, as it is claffical. Further, you do not pretend to point out any other court to which the fynagogues were fubjected, but that fupreme catholic court that was erected at Jerufalem; and that court, as it behoved it to meet in the place which the Lord chufed, the typical place, fo it confifted of the high priest, the priests, and the Levites, diftinguished by you from them that judged in the matters that you make purely civil. But you are not of the mind, that the ministers of the gofpel anfwer to the fet of officers that judged in that court, or that they have a relation to them; and you think they anfwer only to the ordinary prophets and teachers in the fynagogues, that had no concern in the tem ple: feeing, therefore, you have never attempted to prove more than the fubordination of fynagogues, fingle congregations, to a catholic court under the Old Teftament, and that court made up of typical officers, to whom the minifters of the golpel have no relation, and meeting in a typical place, tell me by what parity of reason your claffical churches, and their fubordination to provincial and national fynods, the laft acting independently of any catholic court on earth, come out of the fynagogues and their fubordination? or what is there in all this any way like the fynagogues? Yet you say, you allow the church in Jerufalem to be like a fynagogue, as to the order of its standing officers;" but what say you of the chief ruler of the fynagogue? "and fome ufages;" but I want to know what thefe ufages are; and if this be one of them, That the fcripture was read in the hearing of the whole fynagogue; and this another, That any Jew had access

to

to exhort publicly in the fynagogue? Thus I have followed you upon the fecond obfervation; and, holding what I faid in the conclufion of it as here again repeated, I go forward with you to

OBSERVATION III.

On which

tions.

you

review what you call my critical examina

And, 1. You are very short upon your at and of, and perhaps fubftantial; but I can fay nothing about it, till I understand it. You complain of my spending a great deal of time on this very trivial point, which you now fay, "Though it was "yourself that brought it on the field, can neither affect the "cause the one way nor the other." Yet I find you still fpending time upon at and of, as thinking the cause fome way affected by thefe; for, p. 36. 37. you have a criticism upon them, whereby I am made to underftand, that the brethren. that were at Lyftra and Iconium, Acts xvi. 2. were only occafionally there at that time; but if it had been faid, the brethren of Lyftra and Iconium, they had certainly dwelt there. You give me a reason for your diftinguishing between at and of, on Acts xv. 2. and xvi. 4. in these words, "I "conceive, that the elders of the church imports the pecu"liar relation that is between that church and them; where" as the elders at Jerufalem carries no more in it than the "bare indication of the place where they were at the time, "without the least hint of any stated relation they bore unto "that church.".

Thus you find elders of a church, not of a place, but at a place; and fo there is not, according to you, a relation betwixt an elder or elders, and a spot of ground, with all the people on that spot, by virtue of their living there. And thus you overthrow the intent of your first criticism on at and of. I told you before, that if you would speak according the original, you must say in where you faid at; so, Acts xvi. 4. I read Teporα, as y 2. iv Auspais. And, according to your criticism, when I read Philip. i. 1. "The faints which are at "Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," I am not to understand, that these refided in that city; for I am not to conclude more but the indication of the place where they were at the time; and fo, for ought I know, it might be an affembly of faints, bishops, and deacons met in Philippi at that

time. But then what becomes of the Prefbyterian argument for many bishops in one church, taken from these words? The like may be faid of Rev. ii. 24. You fay further on Rev. ii. and Acts xx. 17. "The elders of the church expref"feth the relation between the elders and the church; "whereas had it been said the elders at the church, no more "could have been concluded than the bare indication of the "place where they were at the time." Here you shift in the church in the room of the city or place, which alters your criticism a little, but adds nothing to its strength, unless you affirm, that these words, Acts xx. 28. "The flock, "the Holy Ghost, hath made you overfeers," express not the relation betwixt thefe overfeers and that flock, but only fignify, that they were there when they were made overfeers. And perhaps you will alledge, that when Peter fays, "the "elders," TUS EV Ü, I epift. chap. 5. 1. he does not exprefs any relation betwixt these elders and the Christians among whom they were, but only that they were among them at the time. Thus I am of the mind you have fucceeded no better in your fecond critical effort upon at and of than in the first. 2. You fpend more time on επι το αυτον but to as little pur pofe for as I can understand you, the great thing you fay in defence of your criticism on Acts iv. 25. 26. 27. compared with Pfal. ii. 1. 2. against what was alledged by me, is this, "That, in the judgment of all the apoftles, the rulers that "were gathered together, ex To AUTO, are the kings, Herod, " and Pontius Pilate." And you propofe this question to me, Who hold the rulers there to fignify the rulers of Ifrael? "But are not all kings rulers, though all rulers are not kings? "And if so, they cannot be excluded here; nay, the apostles "exprefsly include them." But let me alfo inquire, If, where kings and rulers are diftinguifhed, we must not underftand by rulers, these that are not kings? You give me an other question, "Have they any where here made a distinc. "tion between the rulers and the kings, or infinuate, that we are only to understand the Jewish rulers?" You an fwer this question yourself, and fay, "No, it is only the "people of Ifrael who are charged." But I am not fatisfied in this anfwer, nor in the reafon that fupports it; for it is plain to me, that the kings of the earth and the rulers are as much distinguished, y 26. and Pfalm ii. 2. as the heathen and the people are, y 25. and Pfalm ii. 1. And if the rulers of the Jews be neither intended by the word rulers, y 26. nor any way pointed at in that defignation, the people of Ifrach

TO

27. they are not all charged with the death of Chrift here, where there is fo particular mention of the parties concerned in it; which is a wonder, confidering the hand they had in it. And whereas you fay, "It is only the people of Ifrael "who are charged, and the charge of his death is on the "Jews, upon the whole nation, becaufe done by their infti"gation and connivance, Acts ii. 23. If this only exclude the rulers of the people, and if when you fay the Jews and the whole nation, you except the rulers, then you fay fomething to the purpose; but at the fame time you speak what cannot be supported by Acts ii. 23. and what is plainly contrary to the truth of the thing, Matth. xxvii. 1. 2. 12. 13. 17. 20. Mark xv. 1. 4. 11. Luke xxiii. 13.-24. And how the death of Chrift could be charged on the whole nation of Ifrael, without charging efpecially the rulers with it, who were, when affented to by the Jews whom they ruled, as much the nation and people of Ifrael as Herod and Pontius Pilate were the kings of the earth, is not eafy to be imagined.

There is nothing more manifest in the book of Acts, than that the apostles charged the Jewish rulers with the death of Chrift, Acts iii. 17. v. 27. 28. 29. 30. So that I cannot understand how you came to eite Acts ii. 23. to fhew the con. trary. And if you had confidered the context, you might have feen, that the apoftles Peter and John were just come from the presence of the Jewish rulers, where Peter had been faying, 8. 10. 11. "Ye rulers of the people, and elders of "Ifrael, be it known unto you, and to all the people of "Ifrael, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom "ye crucified, This is the ftone which was fet at nought " of you builders." And you might also have perceived, that this fame company, in the words following thefe in debate, speak with reference to the late threatenings of these rulers against the apostles, 17. 18. and fay y 29. "And "now, Lord, behold their threatenings;" plainly declaring, that these rulers that had been gathered together against Christ, both with Herod and with Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles, were now threatening them. How then could you imagine, that the apoftles and their company were here speaking nothing of the rulers of the Jews, and making no appli cation of the 2d Pfalm to them, but to Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the people of the Jews, in diftinction from them, when it is fo manifeft they are especially pointed at? Now, Sir, I fay again, that in Luke xxiii. I find both VOL. I.

Τε

Herod

έπι το αυτο

Herod and his men of war gathered together against Christ, with the people of Ifrael, rulers and ruled, and Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles with him, gathered together with the people of Ifrael, rulers and ruled; I find the kings of the earth, Pilate ftanding up, and the Jewish rulers gathered together before him, againft Chrift; and Herod standing up, and the Jewish rulers gathered together before him, against Christ; and I ftill inquire, what more says the text? And where is the text in the New Teftament, from which it can be made appear, that the phrase cannot there fignify in one place, or in the fame place? You cite Acts iii. 1. But were not Peter and John together in one place, when going up into the temple, walking together? Next you have Acts iv. 26. of which we have been speaking. Then you bring 1 Cor. xiv. 23. where the evidence of the text obliged our tranflators, as good grammarians, and as little Independent as yourself to ren der it in one place. And then you have Luke xvii. 35. which you may compare with Matth. xxiv. 41. and fee if you can fetch any argument from thence to exclude one place from the meaning of aur. there. Your grammar upon it, and

επί το αυτο

the various tranflations of it by learned men, while all muft own it fometimes fignifies in the fame place, fignify nothing, till one text be produced in the New Teftament, where it can be proven, that it must be tranflated otherwife. And let me tell you, after what I have said, this has never yet been done.

But I had almoft forgot the new state of your queftion to me on Acts iv. 26. You put the question again thus, "Whe "ther Herod and Pontius Pilate, the kings of the earth, and "the rulers, were gathered together in one place against the "Lord and his Chrift?" Though this ftate of it be as little agreeable to the text as the former, and fo as little needing any answer from me; yet because you fay, that, by my own confeffion, Herod and Pontius l'ilate did not gather together in one place against Chrift, I now think it proper to tell you, that Luke xxiii. 12. hinders me from confefling, that these whom you call the kings of the earth and the rulers, even Herod and Pontius Pilate, did not meet together in one place against Christ. And I do not understand what you intend by faying, "That the people of Ifrael did not gather together

into Pilate's judgment-hall, John xviii. 28." feeing your intention cannot be to flew, that they were not gathered in one place with Pilate, becaufe you faw the contrary in the 29th verfe. I am fill of the mind, that they who understood To AUTO here to figuify in this city, took the meaning

επί το αυτο

of