ans were stumbled at Paul; and, in order to appease them, he was advised to purify himself and it is not eafy to believe, that it was these that received him gladly. But was it not eafy for you from the text and context, y 19. to believe that his first meeting with the elders was after the brethren had received him gladly? And was there any difficulty in believing, that Paul vifited his peculiar friends and acquaintances among the members of the church fo foon as he came to the city, or they him, before he went into James and the elders; and that these were not all the multitude whom it behoved to come together, when they should hear that he was come? Further, you might have perceived, that even the elders that received him, and glorified God on account of what he related to them, infinuated to him, that, according to what was reported of him, he had gone a confiderable step beyond what they had written and concluded, Acts xv. And they defire him to let it appear to the people, that he himself walked orderly, and kept the law. And here is the issue of your criticism and reasoning on the word brethren.

66

8. Upon the next inftance you are found to own, that you can err, fo far as not accurately to exprefs a fentence. And, after this condefcenfion, you give the fentence another turn, i.e. according to your custom, you put another in the place of it; for you fay, "Upon a review of it, it ought to have run thus: yet Judas and Silas were no more members of the church "of Jerufalem than prophets at Antioch, though fome time "members there. The plain force of the argument is, that "in Jerufalem was the first Christian church, and from thence "extraordinary officers came, or were fent by the apostles, "to affift in planting and watering the other churches in the "world." But I am not yet able to perceive the accuracy of your new sentence, nor the force of your argument, if it be still intended to prove, that the apostles and elders of the church in Jerufalem, with that whole church, could not fend Judas and Silas to Antioch; and therefore it must have been a fynod that sent them. To prove this you alledged before, "That Judas and Silas, though they were of the company "that ordained the decrees, were not members of the church "of Jerufalem, but prophets at Antioch, and fome time "members of that church, Acts xiii. 1. 2. 3. and xv. 34.

35. Now, what power, faid you, had the elders of Jeru. "falem to miffionate Judas and Silas, when they were not "members of that church, but prophets at Antioch, unless they had been a part of that fynodical meeting?" These

were your words, and this was your argument. But after you yourself are forced to withdraw the foundation and ftrength of it, you still think the force of it remains.

In your new fentence, which you would have me to think is more accurately expreffed than the former, you acknowledge, that Judas and Silas were fome time members of the church of Jerufalem; and in that which you call the force of your argument, you acknowledge, that from the first Chriftian church in Jerufalem extraordinary officers came, or were fent by the apoftles, to affift in planting and watering other churches and I am fure you do not read of Judas and Silas, fome time members there, their coming from thence, or being fent by the apoftles, to any other church, till Acts xv.

you

But the force of your argument is, "That when Judas and Silas became extraordinary officers, they were no more "members of the church in Jerufalem; and fo could not be "fent from thence by the apostles and the elders, with the "brethren of that church." Yet if I fhould tell you, that, at this rate, there were no ordinary officers, having any fixed relation to any church, or members of any particular church in your fynod, but the elders of the church in Jerufalem that received Paul and Barnabas when he came there; you would readily answer me, according to your fcheme and way of arguing on Acts xv. That they all acted there as elders related to the particular churches from which they were fent, and that were represented by them in the fynod. And when ufe to take it fo ill, that any fhould speak of extraordinary officers acting as fuch in that affembly, Acts xv. you ought yourself to beware of confidering extraordinary officers as fuch in that paffage, and of betaking yourself to that shift, which you would have us believe is but a pitiful one when used by your adverfaries. According to the notion I have of the fynod you plead for in Acts xv. it had as little power to commiffionate extraordinary officers as fuch, as you can pretend the particular church in Jerufalem had. And I defire you, if you will maintain your scheme, to keep by it, and speak confiftently with it; which I humbly conceive will recommend it more than this your way. Now, though men endued with extraordinary gifts, might perhaps ufe a greater liberty in going from one church to another, where there was more need and use for the exercise of their gift, as Silas chose to remain at Antioch; yet did they not act their part as members of that particular church where they refided ordinarily,

as

as Paul and Barnabas at Antioch? And had not that church power to fend them, as the teachers as well as prophets in the church at Antioch fent away Paul and Barnabas, Acts xiii.; and if the church in Antioch had power to commiffionate Paul and Barnabas to Jerufalem, had not the church in Jerufalem as much power to fend Judas and Silas members there unto Antioch? And if the extraordinary gift made them no members, and fo not capable to be fent, was not the cafe the fame with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch?

Because prophefying, with you, does not make a perfon an officer, but being called a prophet, and because that extraordinary gift, when bestowed, made a man, according to you, no more a member of the particular church where he was before; let me inquire, for my own fatisfaction, if these prophets that prophefied by revelation, 1 Cor. xiv. 29. 30. 31. 32. were then members of that church; and if they were all church-officers and elders in that church while they prophefied in it? the reafon of my question is, That I find none debarred from the exercise of that gift in that church and its affemblies, but women; and though the members did not all prophefy, as they did not all speak with tongues; yet the Apoftle fays, "He would they all fpake with tongues, but "rather that they prophefied," 5. & 31. And I am not ready to think, that he would have the whole church to be elders. Till I be fome way cleared as to this, I can never be satisfied, that it can be inferred from Judas and Silas their being endued with the gift of prophecy in the church at Jerufalem, and so called prophets, that they were elders. As it cannot be denied, that there were elders in the first churches that had the gift of prophecy, and fo were prophets; fo it would not be easy to prove, that brethren that were no elders had not that gift, and that they that had that gift in any measure could not be called prophets. Whether Judas and Silas were of the one fort or the other, it alters not the cafe to me, fo as either way to do the least service to your caufe or your ar gument. For if you will affirm they were elders, from the word y, applied to them, Acts xv. 22. compared with Heb. xiii. 7. 17. then you can no more infer, that the bre thren among whom they were yo were allo ηγεμενοι, than you can infer from 1 Pet. v. that the people, among whom were these elders, were alfo elders. Thus I have attended to you in your critical lucubrations, ferving to fupport your scheme of a fynod on Acts xv. you fay, according to your diftinction of

For as to what

at and of, upon Acts

Acts xvi. 2. 4. and Acts xv. 2. I have told you enough be fore.

And so I come, in the laft place, on this head, to fee if you come off any better with your criticisms on the import of the word church. And here I wanted you should prove to me, that the difciples of Chrift throughout the world are any otherwife called the church, but in fo far as, in the judgment of charity, they may be reckoned to be of the "general assembly "and church of the first-born." But all the proof I find is in the pofitions you are pleased to lay down, after my thefis, touching the diftinction betwixt the invifible and the visible church from which pofitions you infer, in the close, that when Chrift gave officers to his church, it was not to her as invifible, but as vifible. I fhall take the trouble to got over these positions, because it seems to me you imagine, they contain a confutation of my thefis, and alfo clear your way to the vindication of the texts you have brought to prove a catholic church visible.

:

As to what you fay, in the firft place, of the twofold vocation or calling, the one merely external by the word, the other internal and invifible by the Spirit: If you mean any other call of the Spirit, but his enabling a finner to comply with the word, and that by means of the word itself, I cannot affent to it. Neither do I fee that the diftinction here laid down by you is in the two branches of it fo comprehensive as it ought to be: for befides that which you call merely external, and the internal, mentioned Rom. viii. 30. I conceive an influence of the word and Spirit upon fome, that yet, in the issue, prove reprobates, which goes further than merely external calling; for your merely external calling is unto them that make light of it, and perfecute the fervants, as well as to them that are gathered together by it, and come as guests to the wedding; and among these again you find fome not having the "wedding-garment," Matth. xxii. 2.

to 14.

Next, You tell me, that, agreeable to this twofold call, there is a twofold faith, the one common, which is to be found in the reprobate, Acts viii. 13. Matth. xiii. 20. the other faving, and only in the elect, Tit. i. 1. Gal. v. 6. And if you reckon this faith twofold, in respect of the object or thing believed, as if there were one faith of the external call of the word, and another faith of the internal call of the Spirit, I cannot affent to it. I am for no faith but the faith of the word. But if you mean a faith proceeding from the

call

call of the word, as it is merely external, without any concurring influence of the Spirit upon mens fouls, engaging them any way to comply with it, there is no fuch faith fpoken of in the texts you cite for it. The fcripture does indeed speak of "the devils their believing and trembling;" but the difference between that common faith and faving faith of the gospel, arifes not from your difference betwixt the call merely external and the call internal by the Spirit; but from the difference betwixt the common and saving influence of that fame Spirit, by that fame gospel, upon the fouls of men. And if your diftinction betwixt the vifible and invisible church stand upon this twofold faith, then the objects of the gospel-call that come not the length even of the common faith, which may be found in the reprobate, are not members of the vifible church.

Then you speak of a twofold fanctity or holiness, the one external and federal, Ezra ix. 2. Rom. xi. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 4. the other internal and absolute, which is only to be found in the regenerate, Pfal. xciii. 5. And I own there is a twofold holinefs, typical, as that of the whole nation of Ifrael, and real or true, as that of the heavenly nation, or kingdom of heaven, the antitype of that earthly nation; but both these are federal. Again, there is a real holinefs, as there is a real covenant-relation betwixt God and all the true children of the kingdom of heaven, that are "born from above," and upon whose hearts he writes his Law. And there is an apparent holiness, as there is an apparent covenant-relation betwixt God and all them whom he calls us to look upon as children of the kingdom of heaven, and points out to us in his word as objects of brotherly love; and this is the appearance of the real, as it can appear to us in this world, and both these are to me intended Pfal. xciii. 5. But how you come to call the external only federal, I cannot underftand.

Further, you tell me, "That, anfwerable to thefe, there " is a two-fold communion allowed to fuch as are within the "bond of the covenant, the one merely in its external pri"vileges, and the other in thofe which are faving also.” If you mean a communion in the death and refurrection of Christ, and the appearance of that, as in baptifm, which belongs to every visible member of the true myftical catholic body of Chrift, and to none else; a communion in the body and blood of Chrift, and a communion in that bread and cup which it fhews forth; a communion in the one faith, or in

that