meet in.

_Ans_. 1. It is easier said than proved, that the Jews were so generally
skilled in the Hebrew tongue, when, while they were scattered in Media
and Parthia, and other places, they had no universities or schools of
learning. Besides, it is not to be forgotten, that the proper language
or dialect in those days in use among the Jews was Syriac; as appears by
divers instances of Syriac words in the New Testament, as of the Jews'
own terms: Acts i. 19, which "in their proper tongue, is called
Aceldama;" John xix. 13. 17, _Gabbatha, Golgotha_, &c.; Mark xv. 34,
_Eloi, Eloi, lama-sabachthani_; with divers other pure Syriac terms.
Grant they did; yet,

2. There were in Jerusalem proselytes also, Romans, Cappadocians,
Cretians, and Arabians, Acts ii. 10, 11; how could they be edified in
the faith, if only one congregation, where nothing but Hebrew was
spoken, met in Jerusalem; if so be there were not other congregations
for men of other languages, that understood not the Hebrew tongue?

IV. From the manner of Christians' public meetings in those primitive
times, both in the church of Jerusalem and in other churches. It is
plain that the multitudes of Christians in Jerusalem, and other
churches, could not possibly meet all together in one single
congregation, inasmuch as they had no public temples, or capacious
places for worship and partaking of all ordinances, (as we now have,)
but private places, _houses, chambers_, or _upper rooms_, (as the
unsettled state of the Church and troublesomeness of those times would
permit,) which in all probability were of no great extent, nor any way
able to contain in them so many thousand believers at once, as there
were: "They met from house to house, to break bread," Acts ii. 46. "In