of it to be in one place; for fhould it be used to fignify one fuch place as a city, as it would not in that cafe point to one houfe, fo it would not point to 'diftinct places and diftinct affemblies; there behoved to be another word for that, while the meaning of 7 To auto is ftill in one place; and there is no one place to which it can be applied, wherein there are not in fome fenfe many places. And when we do not read of the house in Jerufalem where Pilate and the Jews met together, John xviii. 28. 29. yet we are fure they met so as to speak together face to face in that place; and fo likewise did Herod and they.

επί το αυτο

As to Acts ii. 44. you muft get another argument to prove that to auro there fignifies different fpots or houses in Jeru falem, than any that can be drawn from their eating their meat from houfe to house, or from their breaking bread in that common eating, plainly diftinct from the facred breaking of bread, and eating the Lord's fupper in the church, when they were all Compare 1 Cor. xi.

επί το αυτό.

Ομοθυμαδον has not the fame import with έπι το αυτό, but im. ports, as where you find the two together, Acts ii. 1. the perfonal concurrence of feverals in the fame action, as they of Tyre and Sidon, with whom Herod was displeased, came to him, that is, the managers and actors in the chief government of Tyre and Sidon. You ufe too much freedom with Acts viii. 6. 10. when you attribute what is faid in the 10th verfe to Philip, while it is speaking of the heed given to Simon Magus for you fay," Acts viii. 6. the Samaritans are "faid with one accord to give heed to Philip, even from the "leaft to the greateft, y 10."

3. You drop your former reason why the whole church, and they all, could not conftruct; and you differ from the `tranflators, who, by the parenthesis, plainly make for me. And I am still surprised with your imagination, that you fpeak according to the judgment of the tranflators, when you would have the apoftles within the parenthefis, and the whole church without, dealing with it as you did with So. lomon's porch; but now you grant that the whole church was in Solomon's porch; yet you will not let the text fay fo. You give a fresh proof of your ability for criticifm upon this head; for now you bring forth two pofitions in place of the former, to fhew, that they all cannot be conftructed with the whole church. The firft feems to be this, that the whole church is not the immediate antecedent of they all, and fo cannot be constructed with it. But by this rule, they all TI 2

cannot

cannot be constructed with the apostles, but with the people, its immediate antecedent. And if you be to establish this as an univerfall rule, That the relative must be conftructed with its immediate antecedent, you will make odd work with the scripture, if you make not fome exceptions; as, for inftance, 2 Theff. ii. 8. 9. Next you tell me, "The relative "and the antecedent must be in the fame gender, and that where the antecedent is a collective noun." And you af firm, "That the relatives and the antecedents are in the "fame gender in the texts that I noted down to you;" per haps imagining, that no reader that understands language would trouble himself to caft his eyes on 2 Theff. i. 1. 2. 3. And I doubt not but you will affirm, that the relative and antecedent collective noun are in the fame gender, Acts xxiv. 20. 21. I am clear, from the apoftle's argument and plain fcope, that they, Acts xv. 11. conftructs with fathers; but the difference of the gender could not hinder they to con struct with the nations, or elfe there is wrong construction in that chapter, which I will not easily acknowledge. See, for inftance, 17. I must tell you, criticifm requires more fedate and nice circumfpection, than perhaps either you or I have leifure or ability for; and we may see that it is not fafe in all cafes to trust to learned critics, even where they are pofitive: And therefore we may leave it to others of more ability and leisure, while we are employed to better purpose.

You charge me here with fetting light of the context, and you repeat this feveral times in your letter. The foundation of this charge, fo far as I can understand, is, That when you dealt fo with the text and context, as you deal with Acts viii. 6. 10. I told you what the text faid, and did not diffemble as to the context. And my answer to your charge is plainly this, That I am for taking all the help unto the un derstanding of the text that the context will afford me; but I am not for making the context to be the text: And herein I differ from you, who charge me with making light of the context, for no other reason that I know, but because I will not fay, that the context is the text.

4. You fay, "I thought you was in my mercy as to a "feaft in Jerufalem, when Paul went up," Acts xxi.; and fo you complain of my marking the page in that cafe. And thus, it feems, whether I mark your pages or not, you will be sure to mark my base intentions. I own I could not understand the ground of your mighty confidence, in demanding a proof for my infinuation, that there was a feaft in Je

rufalem

*

rufalem when Paul went up; but now I perceive it was your fkill in metaphyfics, and your ability thereby to deny confequences, which even an Independent would blush to deny. And I have learned, from the fample of your metaphyfics on this and fome other heads, that it is in vain for me to impugn you, even though you should deny the plaineft fact recorded in the fcriptures.

As to your partial way of quoting Acts ix. 31. to provė the multiplication of the church in Jerufalem, you do not make any defence of your partiality in citing the text, which was the thing complained of; and so I have you convicted on that point, but not filenced, as long as you can talk befide the purpose. For, as to that text and Acts xii. 24. you come off, faying, "That Jerufalem had her share," and you make the beft of that you can; for that city was largest, and therefore would then have the largest share. But you recover yourself fully on this head, and come off in triumph, by means of a proof you have found here for a church in the fingular number, containing under it many fingle churches. And this is the argument in your own words, "For it is faid, Acts xii. « 1. Herod ftretched forth his hand to vex certain of the "church. This, I hope, was not only the church in Jeru "falem, nor the church as invifible, Quo minime credas gur

"

gite pifcis erit." Your hope here feems to be very firm, but what the ground of this hope is, I cannot tell, if it be not this, that "Herod ftretched forth his hand to vex cer"tain of all the churches," that could receive additions by the growth and multiplication of the word after he died; or that Herod could not perfecute the invisible church, no more than Saul could perfecute its invifible head; and upon fuch like grounds of hope, you may expect to find your fish in any pool, yea, and find it, according to that, Crede quod habes et habes.

You give two reafons, to fhew, that all the myriads of believing Jews, Acts xxi. were members of the church in Jerufalem.

The firft is, "Because they were not fuch as could bear any witness against Paul, but by hearfay; they are inform. "ed of thee." And, to strengthen what you fay on this head, it seems to me that the text diftinguishes the myriads of believing Jews that were zealous of the law, from the Jews among the Gentiles whom Paul taught; and fo from the believing Jews his difciples among the Gentiles, who are not declared to be zealous of the law. Yet there were

by

that is ordained by the impofition of the hands of a fcriptural prefbytery.

By this you may fee, that I am of the mind Titus was not fingle or alone in the ordination of the elders in Crete, though there was none in office there but himself when thefe elders were ordained. And it seems plain to me there were no elders fet among the difciples in Crete at their firft converfion; because I reckon the Apostle obferved the fame rule in fetting apart of elders or bishops that he gives to Timothy, 1 Tim. v. 22. And it behoved a bishop to be no novice, or one newly planted, but one holding faft the faithful word as he had been taught. Because there was not time fufficient for setting apart bishops fo qualified in Crete while the apoftle could stay there, he left Titus behind him to fupply his place, and do according to his direction, what he himself could not stay to fee done. We do not read of any other evangelift or officer left there but Titus alone; and where the fcripture is filent, fo muft we. So that, if you will have it that Titus laid hands on these elders or bishops in their ordination, then here is an inftance in the New Teftament of the laying on of hands in the ordination of elders by no officer but one; yea further, an instance of the ordination of elders where it cannot appear there was any bearing office acting in it but one. Neither is there any difficulty in reconciling this with Matth. xviii. 20. where our Lord speaks of two or three elders set in a church; and this will never apply to the cafe of a church wanting elders, or deftitute of a prefbytery, that is, two elders at least. It is the law of Chrift that makes elders; and the Chriftians in the several cities of Crete had that law no o. therwise but from the mouth of the apoftle, or Titus his minister in his place, and under his direction. But a church now, deftitute of a prefbytery, and having that law written to them in the New Teftament, which the Cretians had from the Apostle, and from the mouth of Titus, and obferving that law to their power, may have elders, and get a prefbytery among them, as well as the difciples in any city of Crete could have elders when Titus was with them.

7. As to the next inftance, touching the word brethren, your business was to prove, that it denoted always perfons in office, and even when diftinguished from officers, as Acts xv. or you faid nothing to your purpose. But have you now ma nifested, that the word brethren is any where by itself used to distinguish perfons in office from those that are not in office? Nothing like it that I fee; and I told you before I did not fee

how

how it could be done. You fay now, "The brethren in "Acts xv. have fuch work afcribed them, and are joined "with others in jurisdictional acts, which, in very clear terms, "discover they were brethren in office; and on this founda "tion I have called them fo." But this is only an affertion of the grand point to be proved, and you must look about for another mean of proof than the import of the word brethren, from whence you was bringing a proof for it before. You tell me, you have a strong imagination that the name brethren is taken in the fenfe you have been pleading for, Acts xv. 7.; on which text you propose a question to me thus: "Sir, was the choice made among us private perfons?"?" You alfo answer your queftion, and fay, "Peter himself was " a perfon in office; and this choice was made out of the "multitude, to which he addreffed himself: but if the "choice was made out of this multitude, then these out of "which the choice was made must be supposed to be in of "fice, or in fome measure qualified with him for that office " of preaching to the Gentiles.'

Here you acknowledge that Peter, Acts xv. 7. is addreffing himfelf to that multitude out of which God made choice of him to preach the gospel firft to the Gentiles, i. e. to Cornelius, and them with him, Acts x. before there was any church of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, or Cilicia. From this I have a strong imagination, that Peter is not addreffing himself to a fynod, whereof the officers of the churches in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, were conftitutive members; but to a fociety that had a being before any church of the Gentiles was, and before there can be any pretence of a fynod; for you do not so much as pretend a fynod till Acts xv. and I reckon you imagine that you have there the firft fynod. And the us among whom the choice was made are, as is plain from the whole of Peter's difcourfe, and from this text, Jews diftinguished from the Gentiles; fo that he is neither addreffing himself to the Gentiles perfonally prefent, nor reprefented there; but he is addreffing himself to the company that fent the epiftle containing the decrees to Antioch, Syria, and Ci licia.

Again, by us I can imagine no other fociety to be intended but that fame which at the beginning received the gift of the Holy Ghoft, even the first church of the Jews, the church in Jerufalem; which, notwithstanding of all that had passed over it, was still in being when Peter was here fpeaking; and this my imagination has fome foundation in the fituation of VOL. I.

U u