by this time multitudes of believing Jews, zealous of the law, throughout Judea and Galilee, and in other parts, (be. fide these among the Gentiles taught by Paul), who were not members of the church in Jerufalem; but, in their zeal for the law, were reforting from time to time to the feasts in Je rufalem, and to the feaft that then was. Now none of the believing Jews, but those that heard him teaching the Jews among the Gentiles, could witness against him, but by hearfay and is it probable to you, that all other believing Jews, even all of them that were zealous of the law, were members of the church in Jerufalem ?

Your fecond reafon is, "It is plain, thofe only of Jerufa "lem could receive fatisfaction by Paul's conformity to the law at that time, and not others." But how is it plain that other believing Jews, zealous of the law, befide the members of the church in Jerufalem, were not in Jerufalem at that time? Have you made it plain, that there was no feast at Jerufalem at that time, and that the believing Jews in other places, zealous of the law, were not there? I thought that the utmost drift of all your ftretches on that head, was to fhew, that it was poffible Paul did not get up to Jerufalem at the time he propofed, though he made all the hafte he could to be there, or that it did not involve a contradiction to fay, that, though Paul made hafte on his journey to be at Jerufalem on the day of Pentecoft, and though the Jews of Afia were there at that time, yet there was no feast in Jeru falem at that time. And is it thus plain to you, that those only of Jerufalem could receive fatisfaction by Paul's conformity to the law at that time? Or would you fuffer an Inde pendent to see things plain at this rate? But, though it be moft plain from the facred hiftory, that there was a feaft in Jerufalem at that time; yet though there had been none, what readier way was there to fatisfy all the believing Jews, that were zealous of the law every where, than to fatisfy those of Jerufalem, by conforming publicly to the law at that time?

5. You do not meddle with what I faid touching your criticisms on α TO λnos; and befide fome reflections and a complaint about pages, and references to pages of your book, to oblige the reader, perhaps weary of your book before, to read it over again, I find nothing but what is by no means to the purpofe; namely, that the churches in the first three centuries, according to King, were not independent of councils. For the queftion was, if the a το πλήθος of each

of

of these churches came together in one place to obferve the ordinances of worship? And if each of them had but one altar, or many? And if the av To anos, under the care of a primitive prefbyter or bifhop, came together in one place to eat the Lord's fupper? And all your answer is, they were not independent. I own, as I faid before, they were some way dependent on councils after the rife of the one bishop, and as a confequent of that; but the one bifhop is with you an innovation, and fo is that confequent of it.

:

6. You call the fixth instance a pitiful point; yet you take fome pains on it, and I fhall not put you to further trouble about it. Only, as from this and other inftances you may learn more modefty in your affertions, fo I find, when you are extricating yourself on this pitiful point, a point of fome importance cafts up to you. It seems several things were wanting among the difciples gathered by the gospel in the feveral cities of Crete, who had nothing for the New-Testament fcripture that we have now, but the apoftles, prophets, and evangelifts, and among the reft of the things that were wanting, elders or bishops, most necessary unto the churches, feem to have been wanting in thefe churches. The scripture fpeaks nothing of elders there before, but feems to say they were wanting and as little does it speak of Paul's leaving any of his minifters, the evangelifts, there but Titus. This ftraitens you, and you imagine it will ftraiten me likewise. For you fay," Then he was to ordain them by himself. But you will firft give an instance in the New Teftament, that a fingle perfon did ordain, and then reconcile fuch a prac"tice with Matth. xviii. 20." I am not sure what you mean by ordination; but because you speak of a fingle perfon's or daining, I imagine you take ordination and the impofition of hands for the fame thing. And if this be your mind, I must differ from you, till I fee that hands were laid on the first elders or bishops of the first Christian church, Acts i.; and till I find that Apollos became a New-Teftament minister by the imposition of hands, Acts xviii. 26. 27. 28. I do not queftion that when elders were ordained where there were el ders, hands were laid on them; because I find a presbytery laying hands on deacons when they were ordained, Acts vi. and on an evangelift when he was called and fet apart to that work, 1 Tim. iv. 14. But I am far from being clear to fay, that ordination confifts in the impofition of hands; neither dare I fay, that no man is a minifter of the gofpel, but he

that

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 these elders were ordained. And it seems plain to me there were no elders fet among the difciples in Crete at their first 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 supply 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 fpeaks 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 el ders at least. It is the law of Chrift that makes elders; and the Chriftians in the feveral cities of Crete had that law no o⚫ therwise but from the mouth of the apostle, or Titus his mi nister 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 presbytery 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 nifefted, that the word brethren is any where by itself used to diftinguish 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

1

how it could be done. You fay now, "The brethren in "Acts xv. have fuch work afcribed them, and are joined "with others in jurifdictional acts, which, in very clear terms, "difcover 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 also 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."

church

Here you acknowledge that Peter, Acts xv. 7. is addreffing himself to that multitude out of which God made choice of him to preach the gospel first to the Gentiles, i. e. to Cornelius, and them with him, Acts x. before there was any 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 society 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 fo 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 paffed over it, was fill in being when Peter was here fpeaking; and this my imagination has fome foundation in the fituation of

VOL. I.

But

us in y 8. 9. When Peter has done difcourfing to this fo ciety, and thereupon they all gave ear to the information of Paul and Barnabas, James addreffes them again thus, y 13. "Men and brethren, hearken unto me," y 14. "Simeon "hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles." y 19. "Wherefore my fentence is, that we trouble not them "which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. "that we write unto them," &c. them is concluded, it is faid, "apofiles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen "men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Bar"nabas." 23. "And wrote letters by them after this manner, The apoftles, and elders, and brethren, fend greeting "unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles," &c. This is that company to which Peter addreffes himself when he faid, "Men, brethren, ye know how that God made choice

And when his speech to 22. "Then pleased it the

among us." And these are they that received Paul and Barnabas when they were come to Jerufalem, v 4. Thefe were all brethren, but fome of them were alfo apoftles, fome of them were brethren, and alfo elders or leading men, y among the brethren; and fome of them could have no defignation, importing a diftinction from others by office; and therefore are called only brethren, y 23.; and this is the whole church, ✯ 22. distinguished from the office-bearers, who there get their diftinguishing titles.

Of this company, whereof Peter was one, he says, "God "made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth fhould hear the word of the gofpel." But you infer from his being in office, and from his being made choice of among them to preach, that it behoved them all to be in of. fice, or qualified with him for that office of preaching to the Gentiles. And, by the fame kind of reafoning, you might infer, they were all apoftles; and fo might any man infer, from one's being made choice of among the members of the general affembly to preach in India, that all the lay-elders and commiffioners from boroughs are certainly preachers, or qualified for that office of preaching; which, I conceive, would be notorioufly falfe. And yet we muft fee the strength of thefe kind of inferences, or be declared to have caft off reafon as a mean of judging of things facred. Next, you make the brethren, A&ts xxi. 17. to be the fame thing with the elders, y 18.; for ftill where brethren and elders are dif tinctly mentioned, you must have the word brethren to fig. pify elders. Your reafon for this is, that the private Christi

ans