any thing of argument against your supposition that is to be found in this Obfervation. Only you infinuate, that Peter's fermon, A&ts ii. was delivered by him to that multitude in different languages; and this is another prop to your fuppofi tion. You have alfo tried your critical skill, for my diverfion, on the word myriads, Luke xii. 1. But the best of it is, you complain of my fhifting feripture-proof as to what I say of churches throughout Judea and Galilee, and rebuke me for difregard to fcripture hiftory; and for my conviction you cite Acts viii. where you fay the Holy Ghott has been ex prefs as to this point. But what is the point that he is fo exprefs upon there? Is he exprefs upon this point, That there were no churches throughout all Judea and Galilee, but that in Jerufalem before the difperfion? I have looked through that chapter, because of your confidence, imagining that though I had read that chapter, as well as the whole book of the Acts, with fome attention before, there might still be fomething in it to which I had not adverted. But as I fee not a word of Galilee there, fo except I should say, that be cause the church in Jerufalem was scattered throughout the regions of Judea, it was impoffible there could be other churches, befide that in Jerufalem, throughout Judea and Galilee, before the difperfion, I cannot perceive how this propofition of mine is any way disagreeable to that part of the facred hiftory. "Though churches be not mentioned "throughout Judea and Galilee till after the difperfion; yet, "when we come to fpeak of impoffibilities, it will be "hard to prove it impoffible, that there were churches "throughout Judea and Galilee before." And this is the fample that you fay you have of my candour among other inftances. But left you beget an impreffion on mens minds, that where you have leaft foundation, there you are most confident, and bring the heaviest charges, I humbly advise you to use lefs confidence, at least till you be better acquaint with the fcripture-history; and while you are declining proof as upon this Obfervation, be modeft, and beware of fupplying the place of an argument by an impotent attack upon the character of your adverfary: for this 1 think would tend much to your credit as an author.

After all, fince you and I are agreed, that the church in Jerufalem was made up only of the Chriftians inhabiting that city, or, at most, the suburbs; and since you have not under. taken to deny, that the converfions in Jerufalem before the difperfion, extended farther amongst the Jews that were re

forting

1

forting there, the impoffibility of the church in Jerusalem its being one congregation remains ftill to be made out, as be fore, from the multiplicity of converts, whether there were churches throughout Judea and Galilee or not before the dif perfion. And you have hesitated, and will for ever hesitate, in making it out from this topic. This being the case, I will eafily compound with you about churches throughout Judea and Galilee. Be you filent where the fcripture hiftory is fi lent; let what it says not be nothing to you, and I shall not fo much as mention churches throughout Judea and Galilee, beside that in Jerufalem before the difperfion.

On the fixth Observation, you fay nothing of the catholic church visible, but flightly repeat fome of your former affertions, fully confidered already. Your anfwer to all my argu ments and exceptions is to be fought out of thefe expreffions: "I find nothing but poor fhifts and carpings, with long "ftories that come not near the point in debate." Again, "And all your popular harangue comes not near the que"ftion." "And your ftrong affertions and uncharitable "charges," and the like. This is indeed the fhortest and the easiest way of anfwering. But as I am not certain that it fatisfies your own confcience, fo I fhall, I hope, never write for the fake of a reader that counts fuch things fatisfying answers. You are fo much touched with what you call my poor fhifts and carpings, and popular harangues, and strong affertions, that you cannot forbear attacking my character, though you seem to have been very fearce of furniture for it from what I faid on this fubject; as appears from your charge, and the ground of it. Your words are: "You fur"ther add, in the excefs of your modefty, that you know 46 no visible union of this body, except you could make " one visible paftor and bishop, &c." But how does that excefs of my modesty appear in this? It appears, by your remark, in these words, "That visible bishop, you infinuate, "has all along been against general councils, as I could e"vince in feveral inftances, were it needful; and all we "plead for is none of his favourite principles." You treat your reader pretty oddly here, when you found this your re mark on the cutting off of a confiderable part of that fentence by an &c. on which you make this remark: for where you have the &c. my words are, "Or unanimous college of "bishops over all the paftors and congregations in the world, "and one vifible place of worship for the whole body to res "fort unto."

Now,

Now, Sir, if I had made fuch a concealment, and built upon it as you do here, what would not have been said upon it by you, that make such a noise and a clamour, merely upon my not noting down the pages where the words or opi nions are found that I remark upon? Certainly, Sir, you that show fuch an uncommon zeal for candour, in laying an adversary's mind and words before the world, and rebuke me fo fharply for the least shadow of the contrary appearing to yourself, and I believe to no other, fhould fhow me a good example, as to this piece of reformation in the practice of writers, left you bring that to my mind," But do not ac "cording to their works."

On Matth. xviii. you incline to make fhort work. You have nothing but what has been confidered before, except a complaint of concealing pages, to make up the want of fomething better to fay, and references to the Independents. And you take off my exceptions, and anfwer all my arguings on Matth. xviii. by fuch anfwers as this. "Thus my rea"foning is owned to be good, even by the Independents, as "to the fubordination of courts; and I find nothing you "have advanced against it, fave in affertions, without any "fuitable proof. As for your impertinent questions and "wranglings instead of answers, from p. 78. to p. 83. as "they do not touch the ftrength of my argument, fo they "are figns of a desperate caufe: And the very foundation of 46 your cavils and quibbles on Matth. xviii. hath been more "than once spoken to in this miffive."

And this short way of anfwering, as it admits of no reply, fo it is very agreeable to what you say of your hope, never to engage with fuch an one as you reprefent me to be, if you were once at the end of this miffive, which it seems you are in hafte to be at the end of. You touch a little at what I faid about women their expreffing their confent or diffent in deeds of discipline. I had left you to choice in this mat ter, according to your fenfe of 1 Cor. xiv. And now I find, because they cannot act these parts in the discipline that are a degree of teaching, you are of the mind, that the teachers may proceed without their confent any way fignified, to bind and loofe, and that they ought not to exprefs their confent or diffent. Then, instead of answering what I faid to you, cutting off a great part of it by an &c. you answer fome wo man's tale, as it is reported by your worthy friend Edwards; and then you tell me, you are wearied with fuch trifling and ftories inftead of anfwers. But thefe are only reflections on

my

my arguments and manner of writing. My impertinent que, ftions, &c. trouble you so on this part of the Obfervation, that it could not pafs without another reflection on myself. I was before a man with many very filly and very ill things about me; but now it is a question if I be a rational crea. ture capable of religion; and I am metamorphofed into fome. thing very like a brute; for I am "one that has caft off "reafon as a mean of judging of things facred." And with that one you are never to engage after you have got to the end of your miffive. But, for this good reafon, you might have faved yourself the trouble of this miffive; while yet, on the other hand, it must be owned, that when I have caft off my own reafon, I am still the fitter to be served with your's in the place of it. And if you be to write against none but fuch adverfaries as will not reject your reasonings and inferences from fcripture, that to you are good found reafon, but admit them all peaceably; then I think it will be fuperfluous for you to write more, though it should be never so easy.

On Acts xv. I expected at least you would make fome exceptions to my plain fcripture-arguments, ferving to overthrow the two great fuppofitions on which all your infe rences were built, and to establish the congregational order, as clearly founded in that chapter. Inftead of this, you tell me, "You find a long difcourfe made up of ifs and buts; " and then, after you have told things in that comical dress, 66 you defire me to draw my conclufion from what you have "faid." And then you complain of this as a way unfuitable to a disputant. But you fay I have not attempted to give any answer to your arguments, more than by antifcriptural affertions. And you offer to make this appear from an affer tion of mine, that you affirm is not clearly founded in scrip ture; and the affertion is this, as you repeat it, "That it is 46 very clear that Paul and Barnabas were not members of "the fynod at Jerufalem, from Acts xv. 22." But my af sertion ftood in these words. "Now, that Paul and Barna"bas were not members of the court that came together to "decide this question, and that they were not of that com ་ pany that ordained the decrees, is to me very clear from "these words, y 22. Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to fend chofen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, Judas, firnamed Barfabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, ⚫ and wrote letters by them.' VOL. I.

3 B

After

After you have fet down this affertion, and the ground of it, in your own way, you addrefs me thus: "But where does "this clearness appear? Is it because Paul and Barnabas are "mentioned as the perfons with whom Judas and Silas were "to go down to Antioch? This is all I can find.", But would you indeed have me to believe, that this is all you can find, or that this is indeed the thing you find, Obf. p. 86. 87.88. to make the affertion clear? As I am clear, this that you fay was not to be found, but another thing; fo, if you had fet down my affertion in my own words, with the words of the text from which I faid I was clear to deny, that Paul and Barnabas were of that company that ordained the decrees, your reader would eafily have perceived what was the ground of my clearnefs. But you did not, it feems, think this so fit. And when you are fhewing the infufficiency of the ground you would have me to go upon, and coming over the text, why do you fhun fo much as mention these words of the text, "Of their own company with?" Well, Sir, this was in deed the eafieft way, to put another argument in place of mine, and other words in place of the words of the Holy Ghoft, or conceal his words and my argument, and then seek the credit of an anfwerer from fuch a reader as would be im. pofed on, by anfwering to another thing that needed no an fwer; but the eafieft way is not always the fafeft and fureft, no will it always be found the way to true honour.

To ease yourself of the diftrefs that this, which you call my affertion, puts you in, you fay, "You are perfuaded I "am among the first that ever held this affertion." It feems then this is one of my diftinguishing fingularities, which you are bound to confute, as not being confuted in the book to which you refer in your poftfcript. But it feems, by what you say, that I am not altogether the firft; and, if I have Luke before me, it is enough. Then you tell your reader very confidently, hoping, no doubt, he will be fo good as to believe you, let Adis xv. infinuate or fay what it will to the contrary, "But we have nothing but your word for it, which you "force us to believe is not canonical." Far be it that my word fhould be canonical; but I am clear we have the word of the author of the book of the Acts for it, and I believe his word is canonical. And it looks like as if you would have your word to be canonical with all them from whom you would hide his word, and to whom you give your own in the place of it.

Next, you think you have found me in a contradiction to myself