A discourse, concerning the materials, the manner of building, and power of organizing of the church of Christ; with the true difference and exact limits between civil and ecclesiastical government; and also what are, and what are not just reasons for separation. : Together with, an address to Joseph Fish, A.M. Pastor of a church in Stonington, occasioned by his late piece called The examiner examined. / By Isaac Backus, Pastor of a church in Middleborough. ; Designed to correct what has been amiss on both sides, and to point out the way wherein we should go.

A discourse, concerning the materials, the manner of building, and power of organizing of the church of Christ; with the true difference and exact limits between civil and ecclesiastical government; and also what are, and what are not just reasons for separation. : Together with, an address to Joseph Fish, A.M. Pastor of a church in Stonington, occasioned by his late piece called The examiner examined. / By Isaac Backus, Pastor of a church in Middleborough. ; Designed to correct what has been amiss on both sides, and to point out the way wherein we should go.

Table of contents

Title page

A REPLY TO Mr. Joseph Fish.

AN ADDRESS TO Mr. Joseph Fish.

APPENDIX, Containing a few remarks upon the controversy about baptism; occasioned by Mr. Elisha Fish's late sermon from Gen. IX. 27.

The CONTENTS.

ERRATA.

ADVERTISEMENT.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A DISCOURSE, CONCERNING The Materials, the Manner of Building, and Power of Organizing of the Church of Christ; with the true Difference and exact Limits between Civil and Ecclesiastical Government; and also what are, and what are not just Reasons for Separation.

Together with, An Address to Joseph Fish, A. M. Pastor of a Church in Stonington, occasioned by his late Piece called The Examiner Examined.

BY ISAAC BACKUS, Pastor of a CHURCH in Middleborough.

Designed to correct what has been amiss on both Sides, and to point out the Way wherein we should go.

BOSTON: Printed by JOHN BOYLES, in Marlborough-Street. MDCCLXXIII.

A REPLY TO Mr. Joseph Fish.

[Page]

ALL must allow that to know, the true limits of the church of Christ, what are his institutions, and who have a right to them, are matters of no small importance; tho' many have complained, and not without reason, that in many of the controversies about them in our day, the nature of the subject has not been so closely attended to as it ought, but that many things have been introduced which tend to mislead or perplex the enquiring mind, rather than to enlighten it. And as I shall have occasion before I close this discourse to give the particular reasons of my writing upon this subject, I desire to refer the reader thereto for his own satisfaction, and would proceed directly to the argument in hand.

In 1767 Mr. Joseph Fish published nine sermons from Mat. 16.18. in which he tried to prove, that those called standing churches in New-England, are built upon the Rock, and from [Page]thence to shew what great evils they are guilty of who have withdrawn from them. In this proceeding many were so fully persuaded that he had injured both the truth and people of God, that I was prevailed with to publish an axamination of those sermons in 1768.

Against which Mr. F. has endeavoured to vindicate himself and his sermons, in a piece intitled, The Examiner Examined, printed 1771; which, for reasons hereafter to be given, I think expedient to make some reply to, under the following heads.

I. Of the matter of the gospel church.

This is the capital point of our dispute. I concurred with Mr. F. that the ‘Truth which Peter confessed, or the person of Christ, of whom this confession is made, is the ROCK upon which Jesus Christ resolves to build his church; and that Peter was one of those lively stones, or precious materials of that building.’ And when he observed from Deut. 29.10, &c. ‘That children, even infants were always reckoned a part of that body or church, which the Lord gathered in Abraham's family,’ I readily concurred with that also; but when he said, ‘Is it not altogether reasonable to suppose that the Christian church is made up of the same materials, that the Jewish church was?’ my answer was, No by no means, because God has said the contrary; to prove which I referred him to ser. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.5, &c.* Ex. p. 11, 12.

[Page] Now in reply Mr. F. charges me a number of times with entirely mistaking his meaning, for no better reason that I can see, than only because I dont agree with it. At length he comes to the point in hand, and says if he understands me, he thinks my meaning is, ‘That the covenant which God made with Israel when he brought them up out of Egypt, was the covenant which took in parents and children, and made them the materials of the Jewish church; but the new covenant which he would make with them afterwards is essentially different from that covenant; and therefore there must be an essential difference in the materials of the churches, Jewish and Christian.’ p. 27.— —True, that is my meaning; and what has he produced against it? Why he first tries to reduce it to this absurdity; that I hold the materials of the visible church to be all gracious persons, and yet own that hypocrites do sometimes creep into it; which consequently puts an end to the distinction between visible and invisible.

‘These, says he, are his sentiments so far as I can see any thing of his meaning.’ Yet I did repeatedly answer this very objection, Ex. p. 57, 95. And Mr. F. has a remark upon a page in which I observed that, These ministers confound the constitution of the Jewish and Christian churches together, and shuffle and shift from one to the other as occasion suits, and then charge us with not distinguishing between the visible and invisible church. They allow that the invisible church contains none but the first born which are written in heaven, Heb. 12.23. but they would have the visible church contain abundance more; [Page]and fly to the Jews, to parables, and to hypocrites to support their notions. Whereas the proper notion of visible is the making manifest what was before invisible: hence says Paul, With the heart man believeth, and with the mouth confession is made; therefore an outward shew of what is not invisibly real, is hypocrisy. The only reason why any get into the visible church who are not born again, is not owing to the rule, but to the imperfection of men in acting upon it. Hence old Mr. Shepard, in answer to this question, Do not hypocrites and no true members of Christ creep in? Says, ‘Yes; but if they could have been known to be such they ought to be KEPT OUT; and when they are known, they are orderly to be CAST OUT. Mat. 25.1, 2 Tim. 3.5. Rev. 2.20. Tit. 3.10.’ *

These are my words; and I did hope that at least the sentence of one of our learned fathers who composed the Cambridge platform, would have had some weight with Mr. F. but no; that old beaten road must be kept, let fathers or children be trampled upon ever so much, yea and his eyes are so dim that he says, "I dont see why Mr. B. ‘may not just as well say of Paul and his brethren in the ministry, as he does of me and mine:—for who of all writers or preachers, does so much as Paul and the other apostles, at connecting the Jewish and Christian churches together; shewing that the latter springs out of the former; or rather, is but a continuation of the same church?’ p. 116. And are there no means to help our authors eye-sight? Yes; [Page]at the top of the same page he has helped mine, and I cant but hope to requite his kindness in the same way. I had quoted 2 Tim. 3.5, but was so short-sighted as to write, THE form of godliness, instead of A form. This he corrects, and says, ‘There is THE form of sound words, which we are to hold fast; and so THE form of divine service which God has instituted to be religiously observed, and not trifled with. And there is A form of godliness which man invents and sets up, and so not binding to christians, widely different from THE form which is of God.’

I heartly thank Mr. F. for this correction, and that for two reasons; one is because I am glad to get rid of my own mistakes; the other is because I hope to do him and others good by it, and for that end request attention to the following particulars.

1. THE form of sound words, calls the covenant that constituted Abraham's household into a church, The covenant of circumcision. Act. 7.8. But A form that man has invented calls it, The covenant of grace.

2 THE form of sound words, calls Abraham's two sons, with the mothers who bare them, an allegory of the TWO covenants, one of which the Jewish, the other the Christian church stood in. Gal. 4.22—31. But the words of mans invention, and which Mr. F. follows, say, ‘The covenant that made the Jews the church of God is essentially the same in all ages,’ p. 39.

3. The form of sound words shews that circumcision was a sign of Christ's death, and of an inward change, Col. 2.11. and that as Abraham had this change, and by faith [Page] saw and embraced * Christ before circumcision was instituted, it was a seal of the faith that he had, when he was in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.10, 11. But man's wisdom asserts that it was a seal to that church in general, tho' it is never called so in the sacred oracles.

4. From Abraham's faith in Christ, before circumcision and other rites of the law were appointed, the apostle proves that his title to be heir of the world, so that all believers should be called his children, was not thro' the Jewish covenant, but a better covenant, established upon better promises, Rom. 4.12, 13. Gal. 3.16, 17. Heb. 8.6. Yet Mr. F. holds both covenants to be essentially the same. He allows a circumstantial difference, and that the gospel dispensation is ‘more spiritual, simple, and free from outward ceremonies.’ p. 35. More spiritual as to ordinances, but carnal as ever in materials; for he declares that ‘There is nothing in the constitution of this new covenant, that necessarily requires a change of the materials of the church.’ p. 36. Tho' THE form of sound words, plainly makes so great change in the materials, as there is between the children of Abraham's flesh, and the children of God; and tells us that those of his seed which the Gentiles were grafted in among, were a remnant according to the election of grace; the rest being broken off because of unbelief, and those who stood, it was by faith, Rom. 9.8, and 11.5, 17, 20. Therefore,

5. The greatest difference between the covenant of circumcision, that God made with Abraham, and the new covenant which he made with [Page]his believing posterity, lay in the materials of the church. The first of his seed who was circumcised was an unbeliever; and when that covenant was renewed, and the ordinance of the passover was added, in the day that Israel came out of Egypt, there was also a precept given, that when a stranger would join with that church, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. Exod. 12.48. But God says, the new covenant with the believing Hebrews, is not according to the covenant he made with their fathers in that day; and the special excellency of this new covenant is, that all shall know him from the least to the greatest. Heb. 8.8—11. Here note; Ishmael did not know God tho' he was thirteen years old when he was constituted one of the materials of that church, but it would not have answered so well, to have placed the opposition there, because Abraham had no precept given him to admit strangers by housholds; that was given in the day they came out of Egypt. So that as I said before, I cannot conceive it possible, for words to express more plainly than these do, that there is an essential difference between the materials, as well as the forms of the two churches.

And what has Mr. F. said against this? Why he has taken up much time to prove, that the covenant of grace was always the same, and that God has brought some to know him in all ages (which I never denied) and then he both adds to, and takes from the word of God; and by that time he has got so bewildered, as to deny his knowing any thing of what himself had transcribed just above. This you will say is very strange. [Page]It is so, but no more strange than true. I have already proved that the word of truth calls the covenant which formed Abraham's houshold into a church, The covenant of circumcision; but Mr. F. takes this away, and adds the name grace to it, which is not put to it in the bible; and reasons upon it till he says, ‘As for any explicit act or prohibition, forbidding children to come (into the christian church with their believing parents) neither Mr. B. nor any other, that I know of, plead such a bar.’ p. 36. And yet he had transcribed in the same page, part of my plea of such a bar, because God expressly says, the new covenant is not according to that which he made in the day wherein he first appointed such a practice. I am very sensible that children are freely called to come to Christ, and that 'tis a joyful thing to hear them cry, Hosanna to him, which implies faith in him as the Saviour; but I do plead an explicit prohibition against bringing them to baptism before they profess this faith. For the first administrator of baptism expressly required, fruits meet for repentance, and said to the Jews, Think not to say we have Abraham to our father. Mat. 3.8, 9. I am sensible that many will here tell us, that this respects men's coming upon a personal right. True it does so; but then it is an explicit testamony that baptism is not a token of the same covenant that circumcision was; for that covenant took in all the men of Abraham's house so strictly, that if any one of them remained uncircumcised, that soul should be cut off from his people. Gen. 17.14. Thus the covenant that constituted that church, took in all the men of Abraham's [Page]house: and as the men of his house, were thus warned not to think of coming to baptism upon their father's right; and as the Hebrews were expressly told, that the new covenant is not according to the covenant that was made in the day that first opened a door for strangers to bring, their housholds upon their faith; if all this does not lay an explicit bar against such a practice, I desire to know what can lay one?

I shall now endeavour to consider all the force of Mr. Fish's arguments against this point, as distinctly as my capacity will admit of.

1. He endeavours to prove that this new covenant is set in opposition to the Sinai law, which neither took in nor cast out children, and not to Abraham's covenant, which he says, "was a pure covenant of grace." p. 29. And that infants, ‘must certainly hold their place in the church, —unless by some special act of God, their privilege is taken away; which is not to be produced. Here then appears the fatal mistake of Mr. B. fatal to his cause.’ p. 32. Answer, if the taking away the name which the holy Ghost has given to that covenant, and adding that of pure grace to it; and applying Gal. 3.17. thereto, in which the apostle expressly refers to Abraham's justification by faith in Christ, before he took the bondwoman, by which he proves that the covenant of circumcision is now to cease when the seed Christ is come. Gen. 12.3, and 15.6. Gal. 3.6, 8, 16, 17. and 4.31. If these things be duly examined, I believe the fatal-mistake will be found to belong to his cause, and not mine: for this new covenant is set in opposition to what was done, in the day they came out of Egypt, [Page]more directly than to what was done at Sinai, months or years afterward.

2. Mr. F. quotes a number of texts out of the old testament which speak the language of grace, and then says, ‘I WILL and they SHALL, was ever the gracious word of God, or form of his covenant of grace; how then is this a better covenant, established upon better promises? as Mr. B. argues.’ p. 34. Answer, I have already observed, that the covenant of grace was always the same, and the language, I will and they shall, in Abraham's covenant, insured the continuance of the church in the line of his posterity, till THE SEED should come to whom the promise was made. Gal. 3.19. but then all that believed not in him, were broken off from the church of God.

3. Mr. F. grants this, but still will have it that the christian dispensation preserves the same materials for kind, because the new covenant is made with Israel and Judah, p. 37. To which I reply, that I well know the gospel church was first constituted of believing Jews; the second covenant was made with them, but then the covenant was new, and so different from the first, that Christ took the first out of the way, nailing it to his cross, that he might establish the second: and has charged us to beware lest any man, thro' philosophy and vain deceit, subject us to ordinances from those rudiments. Col. 2.8, 14, 20. Heb. 10.9.

4. Our author would have it, that the covenant is only circumstantially and not essentially new; to prove which he refers us to the law of love, which is essentially the same in all ages; yet our Lord calls it new. because he taught it more plainly, and pressed it by new motives, p. 35. [Page]I fully concur with his premises, but not with his consequence, for this new commandment is so far from being opposed to the old, that it is declared to be the old commandment which we had from the beginning. John 13.34. 1 John 2.7, 8. Whereas this new covenant is not according to the old one; and the difference is so great that the first of Abraham's sons, and multitudes of those who came after, were in their sins, and did not know God, when they were taken into covenant, but the subjects of this new covenant all know him, and have their sins forgiven.

5. Mr. F. holds this difference to be only gradual, and says, ‘In gospel times the blessings of this new covenant were to issue forth more abundantly.’ p. 35. But I answer, that the subject we are upon is, not the degree of things, but the nature of the church constitution; for he owns that ‘'tis the covenant that makes the church what it is.’ p. 39. I must therefore once more turn him to his own corrections, and observe, that THE form of the church which God has appointed says, They shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for ALL shall know me, from the LEAST to the greatest. Heb. 8.11. This is the covenant which Mr. F. says, makes the church what it is. And who is there that does not know, that the oracles of God which were the chief privilege of the Jewish church, Rom. 3.2. were confined so much thereto, that before Christ had taken that covenant away, and nailed it to his cross, he expressly forbid his apostles to preach to any but those who were in it? yet after it was taken away he commanded them to teach all nations, [Page]and to preach the gospel to every creature, in order to bring such as were taught and believed, to baptism and into the church. Mat. 10.5, 6, and 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. So that the greatest difference between these two covenants appears to be, that men must have a standing in the first, in order to have the free use of the means which ordinarily teach them to know God; while these means in a clearer light, are now freely used with all nations, in order to bring them into the second covenant; and that none come into the church aright but such as knew him before. And if any get in beside such as shall be saved, they do not come in by the door, but like thieves, climb up some other way, or creep in unawares: John 10.9. Gal. 2.4. Jude 4.

Here my opponant tries again to involve me in an absurdity, and says, ‘Whether they got in by creeping, flyly or boldly; thro' the carelesness of the church, or with their consent and according to their judgment, it matters not in the present case; they are in the church: and so 'tis after all but a visible church, of the common stamp.’ p. 45. But where will tradition carry men! who ever thought that if a thief has but once got into the house, that would make void the law that forbids his coming there and what school is it that will teach, that those who take God's covenant into their mouths, if they once see that a thief IS IN, it is "no matter" if they then CONSENT with him! Psalm 50.16, 18.

However I must not forget that our author says, I mistook his meaning. He tells us that his book treats of the church in a large sense, but that I take the word in the most limited sense. [Page]This he insists much upon. p. 10, 15, 16, 23, 51. To which I reply, that the title of his book is, ‘The church of Christ a firm and durable house:’ and his first character of it is, ‘That Jesus Christ has but ONE church in the world, and that is the sums which it always was.’ I observed that the invisible church is so, but entered my exception against its being true of the visible church, which I took notice was what Mr. F. intended. Ex. p. 11. and whether the house be so large as he would make it or not, I thought was the main point of dispute between us; and to have first allowed it to be so large, and then to have tried to prove that it was not so, is a way that I never learned. Indeed he tells me, that my book "sufficiently proves" me not to be a learned man in their way. p. 126. and he also says, ‘Needful accomplishments of learning, can be judged of by none but such as are themselves thus accomplished.’ p. 82. It seems then that I must refer it to the learned, whether the right way of disputing be for one to lay down a proposition, and for another to own it to be truth, and then try to prove that it is not so? and whether a master of arts would act in character or not, if he declared that the other, "disputes without an opponant, and talks entirly beside the purpose." p. 16, only because he did not first allow that what he disputes against is truth!

Might I be indulged with the common privilege of English men, to be tried by my equals, I should not much fear the consequence; for as far as I am acquainted, people in towns endeavour to have their materials so framed, before [Page]they are put into the house, that every joint may supply its place.* And in new beginnings in the wilderness, where they build in the coursest manner, I think their materials are all cut off from their natural stock, † before they are put into the house; and if a learned gentleman should tell those new beginners, that they ought to build their house so large, as to take in a good quantity of the young groth for future repairs; and one should attempt to convince him of his mistake, I hardly think the honest people would attribute their controversy to a mistake about the meaning of the word house.

I was so far from mistaking his meaning, that I took particular notice, that Mr. F. holds those who own the covenant, according to the synod in 1662, and all baptized children, to be members, so as to be under ‘the faithful authoritative watch and discipline of the church,’ Tho' I observed, that the talk of disciplining such in our day, was but empty words. Ex. p. 104. ‡ But he says of that part of my book, that he could not see as I had touched his arguments with anything to the purpose, and therefore passes it over. p. 118. So I shall leave these matters with the reader, and close this head with the following queries.

[Page]1. Can any person be built upon the Rock who does not hear Christ's sayings and do them? Mat. 7.24.

2. Is not this hearing and doing, the same with that believing and confessing which is unto salvation? Rom. 10.8, 10, 14.

3. Will not our Lord spue out of his mouth, every church, and every member that has not this faith and life? Rev. 3.16.

4. Can Noah, Daniel, Job or any other father, deliver and son or daughter from the gates of Hell who have it not? Ezek. 14.20. If not, then

5. How can any souls be fit materials of the church which those gates shall not prevail against, but such as believe in Christ with their hearts, and confess him with their mouths? This leads us to speak

II. Of the gospel manner of building churches.

I know Mr. F. says, ‘I have really nothing to do with Mr. B. upon this head; 'tis out of the question, as a particular church is not the church, which my sermons treat of.’ p. 51. It may therefore be needful to enquire into the following things.

1. Is any other visible church-state instituted in the gospel, but a particular one? The church spoken of by our Lord in Mat. 18.15,—18, is such an one as a brother can tell his grievance to; and whoever thought that could be to any other than a particular community? The seven churches of Asia are spoken to by their great Head, not as one national or provincial church, but as so many distinct churches, who are commended, or reproved by him, according as their works were, in each particular community. The church of [Page]Corinth was reproved, for neglecting to judge such as were within, and not those without their particular society. 1 Cor. 5.12. And if Mr. F. was not treating of a particular church, what means his talk of the privilege of the baptized, as being under her authoritive watch and discipline? In truth our fathers were not a little puzzled with this question. One of them that concurred with another who had gone before him, in resolving to have an argument able to remove a mountain, before he would recede from infant baptism; and was peremptory for bringing persons to own the covenant, in order to bring their children to baptism, who did not see their way clear to come up to full communion; yet he confessed himself not to be so peremptory whether they were baptized as in a catholic, or in a particular church-state. But after much labour between him and others of great note upon it, they concluded to rest the matter thus; ‘That we are to distinguish between a particular church, as it is more strictly taken for a particular corporation of covenanting believers, entrusted by our Lord with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and as it is more largely taken for that special part of our Lord's visible church, which doth subsist in this or that particular place.*’ So that according to them, subsisting in a particular place entitled such as would own the covenant to baptism and discipline, while the power to dispense them belonged to the church more strictly taken. [Page]Mr. F. says, ‘This is what our separate brethren improperly called a half-way covenant.’ Ser. p. 92. If so his learned brethren have now got very openly into the same impropriety. Dr. Bellamy has writen a number of pieces against it under that name; and a learned opponent of his says, ‘As to the half-way practice; I am in it, but not for it. I have no disposition to oppose the Dr. in his endeavouring to break up that unscriptural practice; provided he will take the right course.*’ The course that he would have taken to break up that practice, is for ministers not to require persons to profess a gracious state in order to come to the Lord's-supper; which brings us,

2. To enquire whether persons ought to profess saving faith when they come into the church or not? Dr. Owen says, ‘We desire no more to constitute church members, and we can desire no less than what in a judgment of charity may comply with the union that is between Christ the Head and the church, 1 Cor. 12.27. Eph. 2.22. 1 Cor. 3.16, 17. 2 Cor. 11.1. 18. 1 Thes. 1.1. &c. that may in the same judgment answer the way of the beginning and increase of the church according to the will of God, who adds unto the church such as shall be saved. Acts 2.47. the rule of our receiving of them being because he hath received them, Rom. 14.1, 2. that may answer that profession of faith which was the foundation of the church, which was not what flesh and blood, [Page]but what God himself revealed, Mat. 16.16. *’ The last of these scriptures is connected with Mr. Fish's text. To which I shall only add, that, tho' some in our day would have it, that believing with all the heart, which was required of the Eunuch in order for baptism, meant something short of saving faith; yet Paul says, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10.9. Note, he that believes in his heart, shall be saved; how daring then is it for any to argue that, a believing with all the heart, can mean any lower kind of faith!

3. How is this faith to be confessed? The foregoing scriptures and many more shew, that it was with the mouth or verbally; tho' many would have it to be general and not particular: to prove which the Eunuch's declaration is sometimes produced. Not observing, that Philip had immediate teaching from heaven to go to him, and got well acquainted with his soul-exercises before this confession; nor the vast difference there is between saying, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, now when a man would expose himself in the world to say the contrary; to what it was then, when that truth was so much denied. Saints are often called God's witnesses; and who does not know, that the general testimony from such is not ordinarily enough, but men want to hear in particular, how [Page]they came to the knowledge of what they testify? Hence, tho' Peter had immediate direction from above to go to Cornelius, yet when he came he would have from his mouth an account how he came to send for him. And when the church at Jerusalem wanted satisfaction of Peter about that matter, he did not turn them off with a general declaration, that the holy Ghost sent him, and owned him; tho' he had a much better claim to be credited by that church, than common persons now have to be credited by a church they would join with: but instead of turning them off with generals, Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them. Acts: 11.4. And as our Lord has commanded his disciples, not to give holy things to unholy creatures, and to beware of false prophets, saying, ye shall know them by their fruits. Mat. 7.6, 15, 16. so he has explained those fruits to be, what is brought forth out of the heart by speaking. Luk. 6.45. and John says, That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us. And do not these things sufficiently prove that the gospel method of professing our faith, is by a particular declaring of it with our mouths?

4. To whom is the declaration to be made? Mr. F. refers us to a clause in Cambridge plaform where they say, in case of ‘excessive fear,— 'tis sufficient that the elders, having received private satisfaction, make relation thereof in public before the church.’ p. 51. But as he had spent the four preceding pages, in trying to prove that one of our fathers "worst mistaker." [Page]was their allowing the brotherhood too much power; I believe I ought to be allowed a little room there to prove, that in this case they did not allow them enough. For there is no point more expressly forbidden by our Lord, than for ministers to assume a power like civil rulers. Mat. 20.25—27. Mark 10.42—44. Luke 22.25—27. * Yet where are the civil judges that are allowed the power to examine witnesses in private, and then to read or relate their restimony in public, without giving full liberty to all who are concerned, to hear and examine the witnesses themselves! Will "excessive fear" excuse witnesses in earthly [Page]courts? if not, what a shame is it to pretend that any are fit to be received as God's witnesses, who can't tell before their brethren something of what they know concerning the truth and love! As to a relation of experiences, before all the congregation, which was our fathers common practice, and is often of great benefit; yet I insist not on that for every one; but before the church I think none ought to be received without it. In the epistle to all the saints at Rome, members as well as officers, they were required to receive him that was in the faith tho' weak; and to receive one another as Christ received them. Rom. 1.7. and 14.1. and 15.7. And how can that be done without hearing of them? yet don't mistake me; what I plead for a relation of (as president Edwards said) are the great things wherein godliness consists, and not the persons opinion of his own good estate.* We come,

III. To consider of the gospel method of organizing churches.

[Page] Our author in his sermons tells us, that Christ did not go to colleges or schools of learning for his first ministers, but that they whom he took into his school, were chiefly unlearned and ignorant men; to whom in a little time, he gave such a measure of knowledge, learning, and grace, as abundantly qualified them for the great work, whereto he appointed them. Yet now since the canon of scripture is compleated, he says, ‘It must be but a fond conceit, a remark without reason, judgment or truth—to say, The Lord is now raising up and sending forth,—unlearned and ignorant men.’ And he represents all such as going ‘without any warrant or call from the King of Zion,’ and compares them to Sceva's sons. Acts 19.15, 16.

But of them that are furnished with knowledge and understanding, he says, ‘Such men being found, and presenting themselves, with a humble and serious desire to engage in the work (1 Tim. 3.1.) the apostle farther directs and charges, that they shall have the work of the ministry committed to them by authorized hands, even by officers already in the church.’ &c. In reference to which, as I came across his use of the word extraordinary in another case, I inserted a note upon the great things that were done by that word, and said, ‘The power of Christ in qualifying men for ministry, without going to colleges for them, is hereby limitted to the apostles days; and all are rejected with contempt by Mr. F. who do not receive their gifts at college, and their authority from authorized hands, p. 15—17, and these authorized hands, by the help of this word have got such an [Page] extraordinary power as the apostles never had. For the apostles were only witnesses for Christ, and as such pointed out to the church, what qualifications officers should have, and said, Brethren look ye out among you such men. Acts 1.8. and 6.3. But these pretended successors of the apostles, assume a power to limit the church, in her choice to such as they have approbated; which I trust will be made evident to be a power which the apostles never had.’ Ex. p. 24, 25.

The reader may note, that here I spake of the qualifying, approbating, and choice of officers; but Mr. F. passes over what I said, and presumes to tell what I meant: for he says, ‘'tis evident Mr. B. there means a power of ordaining officers in the church.’ And so fixing upon what I neither said nor meant in that place, he accuses me with ‘keeping back the principal words in the text, as it relates to the present question:’ and with affirming that the apostles, "never had power to ordain;"—with a ‘presumptuous handling of the holy scriptures, and a daring corrupting of the sense of them,’ &c. p. 65, 66. The way he takes to try to prove that I meant what I did not express, is to tell the reader that I refer to a page in his book that treats of ordination; as if I had referred to but one page; whereas my reference was exactly as I have now laid it before the reader, who will judge whether I have injured the truth or not, since the apostles only described what those officers qualifications and work should be, and then called the church to look them out; and the church did so, and they set [Page]those whom they had looked out, before the apostles. But the modern method is, for such as desire to be ministers, humbly to present themselves before officers to be approbated; and the church is limited, in her choice of ministers, to such candidates.

This Mr. F. cannot deny, but after saying much upon it, he comes to these words; ‘Although we think the affair of examination and judging of the qualifications of candidates for the ministry, is committed to the ministers, by the Head of the churches, yet we neither arrogate it wholly to ourselves, as Mr. B. charges, i. e. so as to exclude the people from trying and judging and choosing for themselves; nor do we ever pretend to impose upon them, those whom we examine and approbate.’ p. 82. Reply: What I charged them with, he is here forced to own; and though his mind was so intent upon ministerial power, as not to mention the churches choice, in the page which he says treats of ordination, yet I did not suppose that he excluded the people from a choice among their candidates; and to say I charge them therewith, is what I deny, and let him prove it if he can. This art of slipping in something which does not belong to the case in hand, to prevent its appearing in its true light, is a dreadful part of the learning of our world. Not only so, but he has also proved himself inexcusably guilty of the same thing that he unjustly charged upon me; namely, of keeping back principal words of scripture, on which the present question depended. For when I produced our Lord's commendation of the church of Ephesus, [Page]Rev. 2. to prove that it is the churches work to try ministers, Mr. F. says, ‘These words were spoken to and of the angel or minister of the church.’ p. 81. And keeps back those important words, that the epistle is, What the SPIRIT saith UNTO THE CHURCHES. What a ‘daring and manifest corrupting of the holy scripture is here!’

So when I observed that in Paul's day, letters of commendation were to and from the church; but proved that some ministers in our land claim a power like civil rulers, contrary to the express command of Christ, and then said, If ministers would leave their worldly comparisons, and attend wholly to divine rule, I believe they would find that it belongs to the church with them to try ministers. Ex. p. 40, 41. Yet Mr. F. takes much pains to make the reader believe that I don't hold so, and at last says of the Corinthian church, ‘If letters of commendation went from them or came to them, 'twill be hard for Mr. B. to prove that the brotherhood and not the ministers, gave and received them’ p. 83. I was so far from saying Not the ministers, that I said The church with them; and if men under a pretence of learning may thus change our words from with to not, what will they not do to serve their own turn!

From approbation we now come to ordination; and I observe that the grand point wherein he accuses me with perverting scripture is my saying the apostles were only witnesses; ‘which (says he) every one knows are persons that act in a very different character from those who appoint, set [Page]and six in a station or office.’ p. 66. Answer 1. It is so in earthly states; tho' by the way, 'tis as well known, that in such states all office-power is originally derived from the people; and in the Massachusetts, if not in other provinces, common towns have power, when they have elected their officers, to invest them therewith, by their moderators giving them their oaths, before the meeting is dissolved; and would he place the church of Christ beneath our common towns?

Answer 2. Our Lord himself told his apostles, that they should receive power, after the holy Ghost came upon them; and that they should be witnesses unto him, both in Jerusalem, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1.8. And in after times he speaks of giving power unto his witnesses, and they shall prophesy. Rev. 11.3, 6. Therefore let our author and others consider well, where men have got to, who plead for power to "act-in a character very different from" that which the Son of God gave to his apostles, and to later ministers. The gift of God which Timothy received by the putting on of Paul's hands, and which he was called to stir up, was not the spirit of fear, but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND. A power to keep him from being ashamed of the TESTIMONY of our Lord, or of his suffering servants. A power to hold fast the form of sound words in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, at a time when many turned away from that cause. 2 Tim. 1.6—8, 13—15. This power keeps Christ's ministers from fainting, and enables them to renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in CRAFTINESS, nor handling the word of God DECEITFULLY, but by manifestation[Page]of the TRUTH, commending themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And any minister who has not a measure of this power, if he could have as many bishops or presbyters, to lay their hands upon him, as could stand betwixt here and Jerusalem, they could not make it the duty of any soul to obey him as a minister of Christ. What we are called to is to obey the truth; and so far as ministers hold forth the truth by word and example, it is an important duty to obey and follow them; yea to esteem them highly in love for their works sake. Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3.17.1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7, 17. And those who despise such, despise him that sent them. Luke 10.16.

But to have men's persons in admiration because of advantage is an evil way; even tho' it were the person of an apostle or an angel from heaven. Gal. 1.9. Jude 16. And as all true religion has its seat in the hearts and consciences of men, from whence it flows out into their lives and conduct; so Joshua when he had laid open the truth to Israel, said, if it seems evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve. And Jesus Christ said to the Jews, Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right. And Paul said to the Christians, I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. Hence it is referred to every conscience, whether we can justly view the apostles in any other light, than as being Christ's witnesses and the churches servants. 2 Cor. 4.5. pointing out to the church what was to be done; who having chosen their officers, and set them before them, that the apostles in consequence of the churches act, laid hands on them, and were [Page]the churches mouth to heaven for a blessing on said officers. I think this idea is confirmed by what Peter says of himself; for when writing to elders, he stiles himself also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. From whence he exhorts the elders of churches, to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples of the flock.

Now you may remember that Dr. Owen (as quoted a little back) tells us, that the utmost pretence and defence of the Romanists, to secure their dominion is, That it is not dominion absolutely that is forbidden, but the unlawful tyranical exercise of power. And I before referred Mr. F. to one of his brethren in the same county with him, and a trustee of one of the colleges, that he would limit Christ's church to for ministers, who asserts, that the rights conveyed by the keys, and belonging to the eldership only, are ‘As distinct as the rights of a magistrate are from those of a private freeman, in a civil community. These rights are connected with, and inherent in the office of the eldership. —The express charge given them, not to lord it over God's heritage, supposeth them to have such rights and powers above, over, and distinct from, and independent of the church.—For—'tis not possible they should be in danger of abusing a power they never had.*’ Which shews us, that all the difference [Page]between Roman catholics, and some New-England presbyterians', as to their pleas for power is, The catholic pleads that the scripture forbids, only their tyranical use of lordly power; and the presbyterian pleads that what is forbidden is the abuse of it. And according to both, Peter mistook the case when he said, Not as lords; for he ought to have said, Not as tyrants! and so they are the reverse of the apostles, who spake not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual. 1 Cor. 2.13. For these late pleaders for power, speak not in the words which the holy Ghost teacheth, but in those which man's wisdom teacheth; comparing Christ's heavenly kingdom to earthly states, directly in the face of his word.

Our author imagines that as our excellent fathers, ‘had indeed felt the severities of a usurped power at home, the power of the clergy, it endangered the other extreme.—Here they abate to themselves the power which Christ their Lord had given them, in the point of ordination.’ p. 46. But when all is said and done, can it be more certain that three and two make five, than it is, that if the power of ordination is only in officers, then he must have an uninterrupted succession of such ordinations, down from the apostles, or else he has not a right ordination himself? To try to cover the matter with don't knows is to go back into the church which holds ignorance as the mother of devotion. As in the jewish church the priesthood was limited to one line, so I produced an instance, of such as the sacred historian allows to be children of the [Page] priests; yet because they could not find the register of their genealogy, they were as polluted, put from the priesthood. Ezra 2.62. which I thought was to the point in hand; but Mr. F. starts off, and will not own that he held forth an uninterrupted line; only that Christ has always supplied his church with able ministers according to his promise (and who denied that?) Then from an old book he mentions the names of some in each century; and I observe that baptists ministers will do as wellas any, if people do not know them to be such. For in the 12th century, beside others he says, ‘Were Peter Bruis and his scholar Henry of Tholouse, two famous preachers against popish errors.’ p. 25. So it seems, and one of those popish errors was infant baptism; for Dr. Wall, one of their greatest writers for that practice, say of these two men, that they were, ‘The first antipedobaptists preachers, that ever set up a church, or society of men, holding that opinion against infant baptism, and rebaptized such as had been baptized in infancy.*’ Yet many of our ministers even to this day, will dare to tell their people, That the first baptists in the world, were those of Munster, four hundred years afterward!

To sum up this matter; if Mr. F. has not a register to shew, of an uninterrupted succession of ministerial ordinations clear from the apostles, I leave him and all to consider, whether, according [Page]to the plain scripture example which ash been produced, he ought not, either as polluted to be put from the ministry, or else own himself to have been unjust in blaming, both our fathers and us, for holding the power of ordination to be in the church? I proceed to consider

IV. Of the difference between civil and ecclesiastical government.

In opening the constitution of those which Mr. F. calls standing churches, I produced many facts, to shew how civil and ecclesiastical affairs have been confounded together in our country; which has done amazing mischief, and was the worst mistake that our fathers brought to this land. I fully declared for a harmony between the church and state, but against such a union between them, as has been practised among us. Ex. p. 23.

In reply Mr. F. blames me much for not letting these matters rest as our fathers had left them, while yet he has not the courage to justify all their conduct, nor to run the line, or fix the bound between the two powers, better than they did; and says, "This is too delicate an affair "for me to attempt." p. 56. Then he goes on to prove, what I never in the least denied, that the Jewish church and state were united, while yet their acts as to civil polity, and religious worship, were kept distinct. p. 56.57. Yet from this and some other things he tries to confute, or else to confound me.

Two things therefore appear necessary here to be considered; which are, how the civil rulers in Israel did behave toward the church, and what the difference is betwixt us and them.

[Page] First, how did Israel's civil rulers behave toward the church? This may be answered in two branches.

1. As to a place and furniture for worship. Tho' their great Lawgiver could, had he seen fit, as exactly have proportioned each man's part of the expence, as to have given the pattern of what was to be made; yet instead of that, after giving notice of what was wanted, he said, Whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring an Offring unto the Lord, gold, silver, &c. Exod. 35.5. And when their costly temple was to be built. David like a nursing father, led the way, and of his own proper goods, offered very largely; and then exhorted his people to do the like; which had such effect, as caused him with grateful wonder to say. ‘As for me in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things; and now have I seen with joy, thy people which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.’ 1 Chron. 29.3, 17.

Who can fail to observe, that here it appears, both in the provision that was made for the tabernacle, and for the temple, that what was done was offered to the Lord, and that, as each one found a willing heart, without any prescribing or compelling in either case? Indeed half a shekel was prescribed for each man to offer, to make attonement for his soul, in which the rich should not give more, nor the poor less. Exod. 30.15. Importing that all souls are of equal value; which money was for the service of the tabernacle. And when the temple needed repairing in after times, the king said to the priests, all this money, and all the money that cometh into [Page]any mans heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it, every man of his acquaintance, and let them repair the breaches of the house. 2 Kings, 12.4, 5. But they being negligent of their duty, the king reproved them for it; and at his commandment they prepared a chest, and sat it in the gate of the house, and made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in to the Lord the collection that Moses commanded. And all the princes, and all the people rejoiced, and brought in and cast into the chest in abundance. 2 Chron. 24.6, 8—11. This was their method, as to the place of worship, and

2. Concerning the support of those who ministred in it; we find that the great land-lord and proprietor of all things, enjoined it upon Israel, to offer him the first fruits, and also the tenth of all their increase, to be a provision for his ministers, for the stranger, fatherless and widow; which they were to offer as they would expect a continuance, and a blessing on his land. Levit. 18.9—13. Deut. 26.1—15. Those also who ministred at the altar, were to partake with it. Levit. 6.16—26.1 Cor. 9.13.

And we find in the reformation in Hezekiah's time, that he first stired up those ministers to their duty, and then the people to give them their portion, that they might be encouraged in their work; and as soon as his commandment came abroad, the children of Isarel brought in abundance. 2 Chron. 31.2—5. And after the Jews return from captivity, they were very particular in their covenant concerning these matters; and, when they neglected to act accordingly, Nehemiah contended with them, and stirred them [Page]up to their duty. Neh. 10.32—39. and 13.10—12. Afterwards the Lord by his prophet, charged them with robbing him in these things, and declares that he had cursed the whole nation therefor: but calls them to return unto him, and bring in the stores so that their might be meat in his house, and to prove him therewith, if he would not pour them out such a blessing, that they should not have room enough to receive it. Mal. 3.7—10. All which very clearly shew, that both rulers and prophets, endeavoured each in their place, to stir up the priests and Levites to do their duty in the house of God, and to stir up the people to do their part, both toward his house, and towards those who ministred therein; but I cannot find that rulers were ever allowed, much less required, to use any force to bring any to it. We have many accounts of their inflicting corporal punishments in other affairs, but not in this.

Secondly, What is the difference between the Jewish state and ours? I answer

1. The laws of their state, were made by infallible authority; ours are but the ordinances of fallible men. 1 Pet. 2.13.

2. As God was the King of that state, idolatry was treason against him as such; hence his laws were most strict, that if a brother, the wife of their bosom, or a friend that was as their own soul, should secretly entice them to serve other gods, they should not only refuse to consent; but says God, Thou shalt surely kill him. And if they found that one of their cities had thus turned away. [...] [...]bitants of that city with [...] [Page]Deut. 13.6, 9—15. But the King of Zion says, My Kingdom is not of this world; which he gave as the reason why his servants should not fight, to prevent his being delivered into the hands of his enemies. John 18.36. And his laws allow of some sort of company with idolaters of this world; and if a brother in the church be found guilty of this crime, christians are only required to come out and be separate from such company. 1 Cor. 5.10, 11.2 Cor. 6.17.

3. If Israel would set up a king over them, it must be from among their brethren, and says God, Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deut. 17.15. But it was in obedience to a decree from Caesar, (a stranger and an idolater) that Joseph with Mary came to Bethlehem, when Jesus was born, Luke 2.1, 7. And when the Jews asked Jesus, if it was lawful to give tribute to such a ruler? his answer was, Render unto Caesar, the things which are Caesars; and unto God, the things that are Gods. Mat. 22.21. And his gospel expressly allows, the sword to execute wrath upon evil doers, in civil states. Rom. 13.4. Whereas the foundation and support of Christ's Kingdom is TRUTH. John 18.36, 37. And tho' his servants walk in the flesh, yet they are not to war after the flesh; for their weapons are not carnal. 2 Cor. 10.3, 4. Were this difference between church and state justly viewed, it would obviate the objection that some make, against any use of the carnal weapon at all, as well as prevent others abusing of it about religion as many do: For,

4. In the Jewish state the priests sentence had [Page] liberty; and such as he pronounced utterly unclean, must be had away without the camp. Levit. 13.1—46. And by his sentence a man might dwell in his own house or not; yea by it, a house must be broken down, and its materials carried without the city. Levit. 14.44, 45. And their power went so far as to thrust a king out of the temple when he appeared to be unclean. 2 Chron. 26.20. But what awful tyranny, yea hellish cruelty, has been practised under the christian name, by the priestcraft of those who have confounded the Jewish and christian constitutions together! Tho' if we view them in their distinct light; the high priest was an evident type of Him who has the key of David, that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth. Rev. 3.7. And the other priests were types of the lively materials of which his house is built. 1 Pet. 2.5. And by the sentence of our great high priest, a house or church, which will not be cleansed or reformed, is taken down or removed out of its place. Rev. 2.5. And by the same power will our earthly tabernacle be dissolved. 2 Cor. 5.1—4.

And as the apostles were inspired to publish his gospel, they restored to men the key of knowledge which blind guides had taken away. Mat. 23.13. Luke. 11.52. And were instruments of opening a door of faith unto the gentiles. Acts 14.27. And by the same authority they gave rules for receiving members into Christ's church; and by his power the church of God at Corinth, called to be saints, were required, when they were gathered together, to put away from among themselves a wicked person. 1 Cor. 1.2. and 5.4, 13. [Page]and their obedience thereto was a punishment inflicted of many. 2 Cor. 2.6. And not a word of its being a work done only by officers. Diotrephes who assumed such a power to himself, when an apostle wrote unto the church; his prating and malice therein is exposed, for a warning to all after ages. 3 John 9.10.

Ministers, as distinct from other saints, are never called priests in the new-testament; therefore the power of the ancient priests to govern in the house of God, is an argument for, and not against the government of Christ's house, being in the church as a body. In all civil governments, from the greatest empires to our common families, some have power to judge for others, which power others ought to submit to; but our Lord has most plainly forbidden, either the assuming or submitting to any such thing in religion. Luke 22.25—27. Truth is ever to be submitted to, tho' bad men deliver it; but we are forbidden to call any man on earth master or father. Mat. 23.1—9. Ministers should be burning and shining lights, and rule the church as the sun rules the day, by holding forth light and heat, to direct and quicken men in their walk and work. This is to be done by word and and example. Mat. 5.14—16. Heb. 13.7, 8, 17. And dreadful will be the case of all souls who disobey such rule and influence; but even women are called to look to it, that they receive not ANY teacher of a contrary character, as they would escape a partaking of his evil deeds. 2 John 8.11.

Once more,

5. The same birth that brought a Jew into the world, brought him also into the church, even [Page]so that if a conformity to its ordinances was neglected, he must be cut off from his people. Gen. 17.14. Num. 9.13. And if he or a stranger blasphemed God's name or committed adultry, they must surely be put to death. Levit. 20.10, 11. and 24.16. But the gospel only requires. excommunication for such crimes, if impenitent, and forgives and receives such persons, when penitent. Mat. 12.31. John 8.11.1 Cor. 5.1. 2 Cor. 2.7.1 Tim. 1.13, 20. And though Christ sows nothing but good seed where ever his gospel comes, yet he knew how the devil would do the contrary; and also how his own servants would be in danger of acting toward the tares, the children of the wicked one, when they appeared among his children; therefore he stated this case in a parable, and then explained it to his disciples, to let them know, that the order of the kingdom of heaven is, to let both grow together in the world till the end of it. Mat. 13.24—30, 37—39. Yet how dreadfully have these orders been violated in our land!

I produced many instances of violent methods that were taken, with such as would not conform to, nor support the parish ministers. Mr. F. now says, It is quite injurious for me to charge these things upon ministers or churches; and says, ‘Whether those prosecutions he speaks of, were fact, or if fact, whether right or not (which is not my business here to determine) it matters not in the present case: 'tis evident they are the doings of the civil authority, and of that ALONE.’ p. 56, 59.

On which I would remark

1. That ministers influence in those affairs is too well known, by [Page]rulers and people, to admit this assertion for truth.

2. What Mr. F. has discovered thro' his book, leaves no room to think that he would have left these facts undisputed, if he could have found any ground to dispute upon.

3. If it was not his business to have endeavoured to determine whether those prosecutions were right or not, what business had he to blame me for exposing them? Nay, he does try to justify them; for the rules concerning the magistrates power in matters ecclesiastical, which were laid down by former ministers, he now declares with "judgment and excellency of spirit;" p. 59. and the prosecutions referred to, were exactly according to the spirit of them rules, as I shall have further occasion to shew to him.

4. To avoid the name of using force to support religion, he calls the contracts made with minister's civil covenants, and the proceedings of the civil state to collect the same, ‘acts of the civil state done for its own utility.’ p. 56.

I observed that the offerings of the people, out of which ancient ministers were fed, were as different from civil contracts, as their own houses were from the temple. Ex. p. 79. Mr. F. says, my consequence is false: and to prove it, he instances in the contract of a people with a workman to build or repair a meeting-house, which he observes is for religious worship, yet the contract is intirely of a civil nature; and after some reasonings upon it he says, ‘Let the service done, be what it will, spiritual, civil or secular, 'tis solely the consideration in the covenant that denominates it. If the consideration be money [Page]or worldly substance, 'tis a civil covenant; in that the material cause of it, is worldly property, and is under the care of the civil state.’ p. 94. And after citing several passages concerning the Jewish worship he says, ‘Had not those covenants, which required a certain sum, viz. tithes and offerings for the Lord's ministers, been of a civil or political nature, what right or authority would those civil rulers, Moses and Nehemiah, have had to intermeddle with them; to reprove and correct the people for breaking or neglecting them; and on the whole, to oblige them to render to priests and Levites their due.’ p. 96.

Answer

1. As one if not both of them, were prophets, as well as rulers, and as all the people were required, in any wise to rebuke their neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Levit. 19.17. Is it not surprising to hear a professed minister of the word, ask what right Moses and Nehemiah had to reprove people, unless it were in things civil and political!

2. The instance that eh brings of Moses, is a reproof, not of the people, but of the priests, for neglecting their duty in the priests office. p. 96; and if that was political, how came Mr. F. to say of the Jews, ‘Their civil & religious officers were different setts of men, performing different services, and maintaining as distinct authority in their respective provinces, as now takes place, or SHOULD DO, in congregational churches and civil communities.’ p. 56. I have before produced instances, both of kings and prophets, reproving and stirring up, priests and people, each to their respective duties concerning religious worship; but does that make, either its performance, or its support to [Page]be political matters?

3. The instance for illustration which our author brings is not to the purpose; for a man or a society have right to contract with what workmen they please, to build a house to meet in for worship, and upon such terms as they can agree upon, which contract has the same force with other civil engagements; and there is no more of the nature of religion in the stones and timber of the meeting-house, nor in the workmen's hewing and placing of them, than there is in other houses. But will Mr. F. hold it to be so with his bodily exercise, when he "reads, writes, visits, prays or preaches?" p. 94. If he, or any other minister, will honestly own, that their exercise and labour in those things, has no more of the nature of religion in it, than there is in a carpenter or mason's building a meeting-house; and if people will then contract with them for a certain sum, to perform such exercise, let them pay it: but then call them political ministers, and not ministers of Christ. If the consideration and material cause in the covenant, between a minister and his people be, (as he asserts) worldly property, they deserve no better name.

Men have liberty to teach their sons what trade they think best; and their sons, when of age, have liberty to follow that or other business, as people will employ them, and they can find the best pay; but no man in the Jewish church might be a priest except he were called of God, as was Aaron. And the means of their support, as has been already shewn, were offered and consecrated to God. And no Israelite could make an acceptable prayer, for God to bless, either his people or the land he had given them, unless the man could say, I have brought away the hallowed things out [Page]of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless and widow, according to all THY COMMANDMENTS. Deut. 26.13—15. Note, he must be able to say, I have brought, and also have given; not, others have taken what I could keep no longer. Those who said, Thou shalt give it me now, and if not, I will take it by force, acted under priests who were sons of Beliel, whose sin was very great before the Lord; for men abhorred the offering of the Lord. 1. Sam. 2.12—17. And their father told them the difference, between this and common injustice, saying, "If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? ver. 25.

Is it possible for any words to distinguish more plainly than these do, the difference between civil judge's work, and these religious affairs? Unjust dealings of one man against another are sins against God, and he has armed the magistrate with the sword to redress such wrongs; but the affairs of worship, both as to officers and people, lie directly between Him and them. And it is but lip service, when their fear toward him is taught by the precept of men. Yea it is vain worship, and only a pretence, by which they would cover injustice and cruelty toward others. Isa. 29.13. Mat. 15.5—9. and 23.14.

When great stores had been brought in by the people, in Hezekiah's time, he, in conjuction with the chief ruler of the temple, gave orders to secure them and appointed men to oversee and distribute the same, according to the divine commandment. 2 Chron. 31.11, 13—21. And [Page]who can say any thing against rulers doing the like now?

But what is there in all this, to favor their assessing the people to support ministers, and using force to collect it? Indeed my opponent does not like this word, and the facts that I related agreable to it, he calls "horrible things." p. 111. And he chuses the more soft and ambiguous word, oblige. p. 63, 96. Tho' if he had felt the effect of it as much as we have, I am persuaded that force, and violence added to the end of it, would appear to him mild enough to set their conduct in its true light.

I before declared, that the scripture is abundantly clear for a free support of ministers, but not a forced one; and observed, that there is as much difference between them, as there is between the power of truth in the mind, and the power of the sword on the body. Ex. p. 27. Mr. F. is so far from concurring with that observation, that he says, I corrupted the sense of Mat. 11.5, only because I said, We used to think the gospel was preached freely to the poor. The word freely, he says, is not in the text. p. 64. I did not say, it was expressed there, but in the preceeding page I had quoted Christ's orders to his ministers, Freely ye have received, freely give. Mat. 10.8, 14. Ex. p. 24, 25. which I concluded they obeyed: but Mr. F. would have it, that these orders had no reference to preaching, but only to working miracles. p. 61. and the word freely he says, ‘Is a capital word in the present dispute; the controversy in this place turns upon it.’ p. 64, 65. So it does; and where he will turn to save his scheme I know not; [Page]for he had declared, that the false apostles gloried in preaching freely, to prove which he brought 2 Cor. 11.12. But I attempted to shew that their glorying was in things of another nature; that as Paul, when he first came to Corinth, wrought at tent-making, on weak days, and preached on the sabbath, not with enticing words of man's wisdom: they commended themselves, and said of him, His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Ex. p. 25. This interpretation Mr. F. dislikes; and in order to prove that the false apostles gloried in preaching freely, he has fully proved that the true apostle did so; and if he could have brought the text to say, Wherein WE glory, instead of, wherein THEY glory, it would have answered his end; but that was beyond his power. p. 66, 69. Therefore I think the argument stands thus: Mr. F. says, Christ's order to his apostles, Freely give, had no reference to preaching, and that I corrupted a text, by saying, We thought they preached so; yet Mr. F. has clearly proved that a true apostle did glory in preaching freely, but has failed of proving any such thing of the false ones!

The reason he gives for confining the word freely to working miracles, in Christ's order to his first ministers, is because he says, The workman is worthy of his meat; and, the labourer is worthy of his hire; which words, workmen and labourer, are in other places used concerning common ministerial labours, where no miracles are in question. Be it so, yet 'tis nothing to his purpose, for the verse he quotes which says, The labourer is worthy of hire, also describes how they should come at it, namely, by receiving such things as [Page]they give. Luke 10.7. And the texts that he adds with our fathers comments thereon, all speak the same language. 1 Cor. 9.9—14. which says, Even so hath the Lord ordained; refers to ancient ministers being maintained out of the offerings of the people. And Gal. 6.6, says, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good-things. Not let the collector take it, if he will not give it. Next they cite a passage which says, As God hath prospered him. What is to be done as God hath prospered him? answer, a collection of liberality for the saints at Jerusalem. 1 Cor. 16, 1—3. These are our ministers proofs for not being maintained by free gift; to which they add Neh. 13.11. to prove that ‘when the church power cannot attain the end, the magistrate is to see that the ministry be duly provided for.’ p. 63. The text shews that Nehemiah used reproofs and expostulations in the affair; and the effect was this: Then bro't all Judah the tithe. All Judah were their own collectors; and it proves clearly, that Nehemiah used his influence by reproof, instruction and good example, to move both ministers and people, faithfully to discharge their respective duties in religion: and Oh that all rulers, and subjects too, would do the like!

But, say our ministers, it is a due debt, therefore if the people will not pay it, the magistrate is to interpose and oblige them to do it. p. 63. Answer, both ministers and people owe their all to God, and when they have done all that he has commanded, they ought to realize and acknowledge, that they are unprofitable servants. He has plainly described in his word, both what ministers, and [Page]what people are to do, relating to his worship; and says to each, I know thy works. And with him we have to do. Heb. 4.13. And when he says, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate to him that teacheth in all good things; to enforce it he says, Be not deceived, GOD IS NOT MOCKED; for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap. Gal. 6.6—7.

It is in vain to mince the matter. I am as sensible as Mr. F. is, that the body is much exercised in ministerial labours, and that God has commanded his people to communicate to them of their carnal things; yet the obedience of both, is what they owe to God, who can either prosper or blast them as he pleases; yea, can this night require the soul of him who layeth up treasure for HIMSELF, and is not RICH TOWARDS GOD. Luke 12.20—21. And if money or worldly property, be the consideration in the covenant between any minister and his people, what are they doing but sowing to the flesh? therefore be not deceived.

The sum of the matter is evidently this. All orders of men ought to do what they can in their several stations to promote religion, by speaking and practising the truth in love, but have no warrant to use any force therein: the exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government being this, That the church is armed with light and truth, to pull down satan's strong holds, and gain souls to Christ, and into his church, to be governed by his rules therein; and again to exclude such from their communion, who will not be so governed: while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace, and civil rights of all [Page]persons and societies, and to revenge and execute wrath on those who violate the same.

And if none but Sons of Beliel ever presumed, even under the legal dispensation, so far to interfere between God and his people, about supporting ministers, as to say, if you will not give it I will take it by force; how great must their blindness be, who can presume to do so, under the dispensation which is purely evangelical! And I earnestly beseech my dear countrymen, to consider how inexcusable we shall appear in judging, if we continue to do, not the same but worse things, than we condemn in others!

How much have our rulers, ministers and people, complained of oppression, because of the attempts that have been made, against the right of giving our money, either by ourselves or our representatives, to support government! but if the right thus to give it, is essential to liberty in civil government, where force belongs (as I believe it is) what oppression must it be, to deprive any of the liberty of giving their money freely to promote religion, where force has no place at all! And as we have proved it to be contrary to our Lord's commandment, to call any man on earth master or father, it being impossible for us to constitute another to answer for us at his bar; therefore we connot convey a right to a representative to compel any person, either to attend, or to support a worship contrary to his conscience. And our fathers example in these things, will condemn, rather than excuse us, in so doing; for while they thought force was warrantable in such affairs, they were zealous in the compelling persons to conform, to what they esteemed the right way of [Page]worship, as well as to support it: and if the former was persecution, what cloak can be left for the latter! Some tell us, that money is not conscience: that we know as well as they, but they & all will know, sooner or later, that we all are but stewards of what we profess, and must give account thereof to the great Lord of all; consequently it must be a matter of conscience to those who view things as they are, not voluntarily to support a worship, which they believe is not right. And as a widow who suffered in this cause, which I before mentioned, Ex. p. 21, is now gone beyond the frowns and flatteries of men, I will give the reader her testimony, of what she experienced in her sufferings, as she wrote the same with her own hand on Nov. 4. 1752, in these words. ‘October 15, the collectors came to our house, and took me away to prison, about 9 o'clock in a dark rainy night. Brothers H. and S. were brought there the next night. We lay in prison 13 days, and then were set at liberty, by what means I know not. Whilst I was there a great many people came to see me, and some said one thing, and some another: O! the innumerable snares and temptations that beset me, more than I ever tho't on before! But O, the condescention of heaven! tho' I was bound when I was cast into this furnace, yet was I loosed, and found Jesus in the midst of the furnace with me. O! then I could give up my name, estate, family, life and breath, freely to God. Now the prison look'd like a palace to me. I could bless God for all the laughs and scoffs made at me. O! the love that flowed out to all mankind! then I [Page]could forgive, as I would desire to be forgiven, and love my neighbour as myself. Deacon G. was put in prison the 8th of October, and yesterday old brother G. and they are in pursuit of others; all which calls for humiliation. This church has appointed the 13th of November to be spent in prayer and fasting on that account. I remember my love to you and your wife, and the dear children of God with you, begging your prayers for us in such a day of trial.*’

Their prayers were heard, so that such oppressions soon ceased in that place, and have not been practised there in that manner since; tho' they are continued in other parts of the land. But if any will yet continue to devour widows houses, to uphold a pretence of religion, I trust this widow's testimony will be a witness against them another day. We come,

V. To consider what are, and what are not, just reasons for separation.

Mr. F. accuses the body of the separates with being truce-breakers; but his proof of their being such, all turns upon this point, viz. ‘Whereas they promised, to walk with us in holy fellowship, [Page]in all gospel ordinances, they openly renounced communion with us, when we the standing churches, were daily attending these ordinances of Christ, agreable to his institution.’ Ser. p. 173. And now, as I had set down in my title page, Dr. Owen's saying, That he who will not separate from the world and false worship, is a separate from Christ; Mr. F. allows the sentence to be undoubted truth, and says, it ‘Makes directly against the people for whom Mr. B. is going to plead.’ p. 17. Let this matter therefore be carefully examined.

And.

I. I think we have already produced sufficient proof, that according to Christ's institution, none ought to be received into the church without gospel evidence of their saving union to the great Head of it. The Jewish church was distinguished from the nations of the world by their being chosen of God as a nation, and by the ordinances that he gave to keep them distinct from all other nations; But our Lord has broken down that wall of partition; and through the new-testament he distinguishes his church from the world, by choosing them out of the world, and giving them to know God which is eternal life, whom the world hath not known. John 15.19. and 17.3, 25.1 John 5.19, 20. In the Jewish covenant they were chosen in their family and national capacity; but the gospel covenant is not according to that, and the difference described is, All shall know God, from the least to the greatest. Yet the first thing that Mr. F. advanced to prove, that his brethren had not the spirit of Christ, but the reverse, in separating from his church, is he says, [Page] ‘They endeavoured to draw off from us every true believer, and would have left a congregation behind them, of nothing but such as they judged to be hypocrites and graceless persons. —Surely this is not according to Christ's direction, Let both grow together until the harvest.’ Ser. p. 154.

Now observe, the field wherein Christ said, Let both grow together, he says is The world; and this direction was given when both wheat and tares appeared by their fruit: how impossible then must it be, for those ministers and churches to be duly separated from the world, who apply to the church what Christ said of the world? And let it be particularly noted, that the crime charged by Mr. F. upon his brethren, is their endeavouring to separate true believers from such as they judged to be graceless persons; and acting according to their judgment in thus separating the church from the world, he declares to be contrary to Christ's direction. And so did all the ministers of Windham county; for they not only brought the parable of the tares, and many others for the same end that our author does, but also, after declaring it to be the design of Christ to ‘make his saints, and the ordinances of his visible Kingdom to be the means of the conversion of others,’ represent that ministers and christians cannot let their light shine as they ought before men, when they will have ‘No communion with them in the same worship, and the same ordinances.’ * And for prayer and preaching [Page]the word, we ever held them to be the means for conversion as much as our opponents, and as freely admit all men to the use of them as they do; but to commune with the world in baptism and the Lord's-supper in order to convert them, this they held and we denied; and this was a principal reason of our separation from them. Yet they say, ‘That the church ought to keep and cast out all those who by their fruits are known to be tares no body denies.*’ What can all this mean? why in the same place they shew, that by those who are known to be tares, they mean "scandalous persons;" but they go on to say,† ‘It is the will of Christ, that all those who make an outward credible profession of christianity, should be admitted into his church, and tho' unconverted be there among the wheat, that they may be under proper ordinances for their conversion.’

So Mr. Stoddard, while he was pleading for all who were not openly scandalous, to come to the Lord's-supper as a converting ordinance, tells us that in the synod of 1679, they had a dispute, whether persons should give ‘A relation of the WORK OF GOD's SPIRIT upon their hearts, in order to coming into full communion.—The result was, that they blotted out the clause, of making a relation of the work of God's spirit, and put in the room of it, The making a profession of their faith and repentance; and so I voted with them, and am of the same judgment still.‡’ This general profession, to the exclusion [Page]of a relation of the work of God's Spirit on the heart, was the real state of our difference with them; but as I noted before, Ex. p. 50, this true state of the controversy was industriously shifted, from the way of knowing to the degree of knowledge. As for instance; Mr. Elisha Paine proved from many scriptures, that, ‘The church is to cast her tares out when they appear, or the whole church is leavened.*’ The ministers of that county would have it that no body denied this, and yet go on to accuse Mr. Paine with abusing and perverting the scriptures, because he held that our Lord's prohibition, not to root up the tares, respected the world and not the church. † Thus like the Jewish teachers, they turn things upside down. Isa. 29.16. And now Mr. F. carries it that my argument is, ‘That the saints should separate from the sinners, while they are such, and deprive them of the benefit of their prayers, holy example and other means of their conversion.—From a religious assembly, and set them elswhereto worship.’ p. 114.115. when I said not a word of that nature, and had no more thoughts of such a-separation, than I had of coming into the practice of his party, of sending men to jail if they would not conform to the parish minister.

However all his attempts to darken counsel cannot hide the real state of our controversy, for he says, ‘Mr. B. reads 2 Cor. 6.14.—17. wrong. Be ye separate from UNBELIEVERS, says Mr. B. Paul says, come out from among THEM, and be separate. From whom? Answer, from [Page]visible heathenish idolatry.’ p. 115. But I have a better authority than his, which speaking of Christ's visible church says, ‘Separation is a proper and inseparable adjunct thereof; the apostle speaks of church membership, 2 Cor. 6.14—15. Be not unequally yoked together (yoked with those of another kind, the plowing with an ox and ass together, being forbidden under the law) with unbelievers, i. e. visible unbelievers of any sort or kind; for what participation hath righteousness with unrighteousness?—or what part hath a believer with an unbeliever? it ought not to be rendered infidel; but it was done, to put a blind upon this place, as to its true intention, and to countenance parish communion. *’ To our grief we see such attempts to blind the truth, carried on even to this day. Not a little of this is done by perverting the meaning of the word fruits; which our Lord explains to be what is brought forth out of the heart by speaking. Luke 6.44—45. which evidently includes persons, principles and experiences, as their daily conversation; whereas our opponents would have had fruits to mean only heresy and open scandals; and good fruit to be a general assent to truth, attendance upon worship, and a moral life. But they have not been willing to let our principles and reasons for separation stand as we held them, but have received and published many accusations against us contrary to truth.

II. Christ's true ministers are all furnished [Page]with spiritual gifts from him; but many have been set up as ministers in our land, who were not so furnished, while others whom he had fitted for that work were rejected; for the ministry was "Limited to persons of a liberal (i. e. college) education," to the exclusion of others who were allowed to be, ‘in themselves BETTER QUALIFIED for the work of the gospel ministry than some others that were ordained.*’ And Mr. F. declares it to be a conceit with ut reason or truth, for any now to say, The Lord is raising up and sending forth unlearned men. He owns that he did so formerly, and the reason for is that he gives is, because ‘Christ himself was personally present to educate his sons.’ Ser. p. 65. I observed that to confine this to his persono! presence, struck against his divinity. Ex. p. 65. This Mr. F. now represents as exceeding injurions. p. 88.89. But it is certain that Christ did by his spirit give vastly greater gifts to his ministers after the withdrawing his personal presence, than he did before: gifts for ordinary as well as extraordinary ministers. Eph. 4.11. And Dr. Owen well observes, that after his resurrection he ordered his disciples not to engage in the public work of building his church, till they had received those gifts. Acts 1, and says, ‘Christ would have them look neither for assistance in their work nor success unto it, but from the premised Spirit alone. And herein did lie, and now doth lie the foundation of the ministry of the church, as also its continuance and efficacy. The kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and in the animacing, [Page]principles of it, invisible. If we fix our minds only on outward order, we loose the rise and power of the whole; it is not an outward visible ordination by men, tho' it be necessary by rule and precept, but Christ's communication of that spirit, the everlasting promise whereof he received of the father, that gives BEING, life, usefulness, and success to the ministry. This is the hinge whereon the whole weight of it doth turn and depend unto this day.’ *

Mr. F. is so far from these sentiments, that in order to justify his applying Isa. 50.4. to human learning, he now calls that learning, ‘This gift of the spirit;’ and says, ‘Human learning is AS MUCH the gift of God as grace.’ p. 87, which discovers what violence some men will offer to language and common sense, rather than yield to conviction. We readily grant, that all our faculties, and all our accomplishments, are God's gifts; but success in the study of languages and the liberal arts are not more so, than skill in husbandry is. Isa. 28.26, 29. Yea, as the former is very conversant with heathen fable and sophistry, its subjects are often found not to be so honest as the other. Every thing that can be attained by human instruction and industry, are but the accomplishments of natural men, instead of being spiritual gifts. 1 Cor. 2.12—14. and 12.1—11. The forementioned excellent author truely observes,† that the distinction of natural and spiritual is derived from the Head we are in. The first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickning spirit; therefore [Page]if we are not partakers of his spirit, we have no spiritual gifts; nothing higher than the furniture of natural men. 1 Cor. 15.45—48. And the grand difference is; one has a supreme regard to God, the other a supreme regard to self, in his doings.

III. Christ constituted his church a free people, and he commands them to stand fast in that liberty. Gal. 5.1—13. This command we could not obey without separating from the constitution that Mr. F. pleads for. For

1. I trust it has already been clearly proved, that he claims a power in ministers to examine and opprobate others, and to limit the church to such candidates; and as a reason for so doing he says, ‘The gospel furniture of an able and faithful minister of Jesus Christ, in its full latitude, is above the reach of common people. Very dangerous and pernicious errors, may lie so deep and concealed, as to require much reading and penetration to discover them, which common brethren ordinarily have not.’ p. 82. Which makes me think of Dr. Owen's remarks upon the Pharisees sentence in John 7.49. Yet says the Doctor ‘Was it this people whom the apostles directed to choose out from among themselves persons meet for an ecclesiastical office, Acts 6. The same people who joined with the apostles and elders in the consideration of the grand case concerning the continuation of the legal ceremonies, and were associated with them in the determination of it. Acts 15. The same to whom all the apostolical epistles, excepting some to particular persons, were written, and unto whom such directions were given, and duties [Page]enjoined in them, as suppose not only a liberty and ability to judge for themselves in all matters of faith and obedience, but also an especial interest in the order and discipline of the church: Those who were to say unto Archippus (their bishop) take heed unto the ministry thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. Col. 4. Unto whom of all sorts, it is commanded that they examine and try antichrist's spirits and false teachers, that is, all sorts of hereticks, heresies and errors, 1 John chapters 2, 3, &c. That people, who even in following ages adhered unto the faith and the authodox profession of it, when almost all their bishops were become Arian hereticks; and kept their private conventicles in opposition unto them, at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and other places.*’

Mr. F. tries hard to persuade his readers, that Dr. Owen was for him, and against us, but you may now judge whether the case is not truly the reverse, since the Doctor has so fully proved from the word of truth, that the apostles and elders acted with the brethren in all these affairs, and not in a distinct jurisdiction from them. But ministers in the Massachusetts made a formal attempt to introduce such a jurisdiction about 70 years ago; and tho' it did not succeed as they wished there, yet in Connecticut a political governor, who had been a minister, introduced the scheme; and a learned minister who was trained up among them says, ‘This platform by implication vests a minister with a negative on the church in all her [Page]acts. And in council it has thrown a very great light in their ballance of power into the hands of the ministers, even to more than a negative on the messengers.—Taken literally, it in the first place stipulates the absolute unsubordinate power of particular churches. It afterwards vests the consociated council with authoritative final decision on all matters of discipline submitted to it by the churches of the circuit. It at length vests the council with a general and original jurisdiction on ALL occasions ecclesiastical. *’

It was for opposing and withdrawing from this jurisdiction, that the representatives of Norwich, were censured by the minister and his party, and by that means were excluded from their place in the general assembly. Ex. p. 29. And this was the jurisdiction that exerted all its power to rob Branford of a good minister, because he ventured to preach among the baptists against these ministers wills. Ex. p. 30, 31. And the same that gave "special direction" to the parish in Canterbury to call and retain one of their candidates, against the minds of the church, which occasioned our first separation. Ex. p. 42. Hence

2. The constitution which Mr. F. pleads for, has given the world a power over the church, absolutely inconsistent with gospel liberty; and tho' he has exerted all his art to blind this case (as I shall shew in my address to him) yet by his own account it appears, that ministers ordained their candidate at Canterbury, contrary to the judgment of the greater part of the church; and that when they knew that if they did it, it would not be [Page]in their power to prevent the parish from forcing the church to support him; and tho' they got the society then to vote their willingness that the general court should set them off; yet it appears that when the case came there, ‘The society's attorney objected and said, That it would spoil the society, for if these people were released, the charges would be so heavy upon the rest, that they would forsake the ministers.*’ Which objection the court heard to, and left the church in the hands of the parish, who imprisoned their persons, or spoiled their goods, to maintain that minister, for more then fifteen years; and then they would not release them only on condition, that they should pay their part ‘of the tax, or taxes already granted, to the present established minister in said society;’ and all that voted for his settlement they refused to release at all as long as he continued their minister. He was ordained in 1744, and this parish vote (as appears from under their clerk's hand) was on April 21, 1760. Yet Mr. F. says of this parish, ‘As to their religious conduct in the whole affair, there is nothing appears in them to denominate them the world, any more than in their brethren that are called the church.’ p. 79.

But if to pretend a willingness to release the church till they had got their minister ordained, and then to treat them as they did, be not like the wicked world, I desire to know what can be! Yea, and as those ministers then joined with the world in ordaining that minister against the choice of the church, so Mr. F. now plainly justifies the world [Page]in prosecuting the churches pastor for marrying; and says, ‘Setting up in opposition to the standing churches, their pastor was not an officer known, either in church or state.’ p. 80.

Now kind reader see where we are. This was a regular church till the clergy and the world obliged them, either to take a minister contrary to their judgments, or to leave the meeting-house; and because they never petitioned the civil powers to form them into a "religious society," but only to be exempted from oppression from others, Mr. F. calls them separates, irregular, &c. p. 76. 79. Therefore if these ministers did not cause division and offences, contrary to the gospel. I desire to know whoever did! and we are commanded to mark and avoid such. Rom. 16.17.

I before quoted Dr. Owen's observation concerning national churches, that tho' they talk of liberty of conscience, yet when it comes to the issue, all choice is prevented, and in the church where a man was baptized in infancy, and in the parish where his habitation falls, in that parish-church he must worship, or be dealt with as a schismatick. Then I produced this case at Canterbury, and proved, that two members of that church were dealt with and expelled Yale-college as schismaticks, only for meeting for worship with the church they belonged to, in a place separate from the parish meeting-house; and those who expelled them declared to the world that, ‘Neither the major part of the members in full communion, nor any other persons, in any parish, have any right to appoint any house or place for worship on the sabbath, separate from, and in opposition to the meeting-house, the public place appointed [Page]by the general assembly and the parish.’ This I observed, makes the general assembly lawgivers for the church, and the parish executors of it. Ex. p. 83.84.

But Mr. F. says ‘That relates ONLY to the placing of meeting-houses,—and so is a matter of a civil nature; but don't so much as touch the principles, the order, discipline and government of the churches;’ and he asserts that my last sentence is "evidently void of TRUTH." p. 103, 104. What! does the parish's forcing the church to hear a man they were not edified by, or else to leave the meeting-house, and then ministers and colleges, treating them as schismaticks for so doing, not touch the principles and government of the churches! What amazing blindness is here discovered!

By Mr. F's own account, a certain quantity of worldly estate gives every inhabitant power, by their constitution, to vote for ministers, and all the advantage that the members in full communion have above the rest is that they may vote with the world if they have no estate; and he says ‘All vote in our parishes, as men qualified by law; and as Mr. B. brings in the clergy with the world, with a design to do them a mischief, he makes a terrible overthrow; slaying clergy and laity, standing churches and separates, all with one stroke: but no matter for that—if the ministers &their churches may but fall, he seems willing that he and his brethren, Sampson-like should die with the Philistines.’ p. 83, 84. This is a sort of rhetoric that some bring in to supply the want of argument. I well know that in civil affairs, christians vote with others by virtue of their [Page]civil and worldly qualifications; but as the gospel ministry is a spiritual office, men ought to have spiritual qualifications in order to vote for them; and this confounding of church and world together in such affairs, is a Babel which must and will come down. Dr. Owen says, ‘Where the fundamentals of religious worship are corrupted or overthrown, it is absolutely unlawful to join unto, or abide in any church.’ And the first of these fundamentals that he names is, ‘That all ministers or officers of it, be duly chosen by the church itself. *’ And Dr. Increase Mather says, ‘It would be Simonical to affirm that this sacred privilege (of voting for a pastor) may be purchased with money, or that contributions can entitle to it.†’ And he names a number of principles, which if we espouse, he says we then give away the whole congregational cause; on of which is,‡ ‘That persons not qualified for communion in special ordinances, shall ELECT PASTORS FOR CHURCHES.’

Here note, under the Massachusetts first charter, none were allowed to vote for officers, either in church or state, but members in full communion; but a turn of times in that respect happened a little before these words were written; and the apostacy had now prevailed so far, that we were obliged to separate from the world, who had usurped such a power over the church, or else give away the whole congregational cause. And as the heads of the college declared, That the parish in [Page]Canterbury had ‘the special direction of the association,’ in keeping that minister. Ex. p. 42. therefore it was not I that yoked the clergy with the world, as Mr. F. terms it; for I only remarked what they had done themselves. And now he asserts, that the divine command, Be not unequally yoked, but be ye separate, means from heathens, and not from unbelievers in general, p. 115. We therefore could not be free from that yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear, without separating from them. We have often heard them talk of separating godliness or religion by these means, but the evident design is gain; and the command is From such withdraw thyfelf. 1 Tim. 6.5. The above were the main causes of our separation, tho' other points that are connected therewith had their influence.

Unwarranted ways of worship, is one reason that Dr. Owen gives for separation. This Mr. F. says, ‘I never heard objected even by our separating brethren (as I remember) nor is their any shadow of reason for the charge.’ p. 104. Yet he did inform us that his brethren urged the ‘Half-way covenant as a sufficient reason for their separating.’ But tells us that they improperly called it half way, and says, ‘it is full and compleat, binding them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord our God has commanded.’ While his next words shew, that he leads persons thus to covenant to observe all, when he knows they do not mean all; that they do not mean to come to the Lord's table, for want of sufficient improvement in ‘experimental godliness.’ Ser. p. 92. And what can this [Page]be but false worship? yea lying to God! Another way of worship he tells us that his brethren did object against, and he owns he did practice, which is, ‘writing down all that he judged expedient to deliver at that time, and then praying for assistance.’ Ser. p. 149. These ways of worship he has told the world that his brethren did object against, and yet now he can't remember any such thing, which shews how hard it is to remember or retain in mind, any thing that condemns self.

Neglect of evangelical discipline in the churches, and turning it into a worldly dominion, is another reason for separation. Ex. p. 87. But Mr. F. asserts that it is not applicable to his churches. p. 101—104. Whether the foregoing facts do not prove the case to be otherwise, notwithstanding his witness in his own cause, the reader must judge.

The next article is Dr. Franck's saying that, ‘Carnal preachers under the influence of pride and ambition, interpret whatever is done to their persons, as an assault against their holy function, pouring forth their malice and bitterness upon all those, who, they suppose have affronted them,’ &c. Ex. p. 84. And I produced the words of sixteen of our author's brethren in the ministry, in what he now calls an excellent letter, wherein they accuse those who separated from them, with holding a principle which implied, ‘That there is NO instituted ministry, or order of men, peculiarly appointed to that work in the christian church.’ While the same men exerted all their power, to prevent our churches having ordained ministers. Ex. p. 47. [Page]89. * I also referred him to seven other ministers in his own county, who in a printed alarm to the world, compare our withdrawing from them, to Core's gainsaying Moses and Aaron, who were called immediately from heaven. Ex. p. 23. And now Mr. F. declares that the pastor of the church in Canterbury, ‘was not an officer known, either in church or state,’ only because he was not set up ‘according to the constitution, of the country.’ p. 80. Though by the way, the honorable justices of the superior court in the Massachusetts province, have often, in cases bro't before them, determined that ours are as truly ordained ministers as theirs are.

Yet notwithstanding all the evidence that I produced, Mr. F. says, ‘Our real character is as different from that which he has set up, as the true protestant churches are from the antichristian; or as the apostle Peter was from the Pope of Rome.’ p. 102. But the reader will judge, whether accusing us with holding to, NO instituted ministry, and with being guilty of the gainsaying of Core, only because we followed not them, be as far from interpreting what is done to their persons, as an assault against their holy function, as Peter was from the Pope or not; or whether our separation, as above described, was [Page]not truly from the world & false worship; for no other than such a separation do I pretend to justify.

A few remarks shall close this head. And,

1. It is not doubted but that many have come out from those called standing churches in our land, who did not act upon these principles, but have been influenced by ourward appearances, or unreasonable impressions, rather than an understanding regard to divine truth? and which has caused a great deal of trouble and searching trials among us, and given occasion to our enemies. Yet all the errors in the world cannot overthrow the truth, nor excuse us if we do not obey it; and it is so far from being truce-breaking, to withdraw from ministers and churches, when we see that they grossly swerve from the truth, and will not be reclaimed, that we can not keep covenant, either with God or them, but by such a withdraw.

2. This our opponents allow, but deny our having any such cause to withdraw from them. And to try to support their argument, they collect all the good things, or good pretences that they can find on their side; and then all the errors and evils that they can see or hear of among separates. But what work would it make, if we should requite them in the same way, and draw their character to the world from the false-teaching. lying, whoredoms, drunkenness and other abominations, that in fact have happened among their ministers and churches! yet there would be as much justice in so doing, as in a very great part of what they have done to us in these affairs. Mr. F. told the world, that his design was to draw the separates pictures to the life, that they [Page]might be ashamed. Ser. p. 130. In doing of which he collected the worst things that he could find among any that bore the name; yea, I am told by a gentleman of note in Stonington, that one instance of ill treatment to him which he has published, was from a woman that never was of either the separate church or society, only as she happened to live then at one of their houses. At the same time he says, ‘I know not of one principle or practice among them, that is agreable to the gospel, but what they learned in our churches." Ser. p. 113. Whatever good things they have among them, they have them not as separates,—the things that I have told you of above, are their characteristicks.’ Ser. p. 160.

Since he talks so much about learning, I think to make a little trial of what some of their rules of logic will do in this affair; as thus,

Every cause will produce its own effects. Mr. F. gives a dreadful account of how roughly the separates treated him, soon after they came out of the standing churches. But when they had been out above 20 years, he says ‘They are now, much more moderate and civil, than they were in that day; are very peacable, kind, obliging good neighbours.’ Ser. p. 157, 158.

Ergo, they have received better teaching since they came out than they had before. Again,

Take away the cause, and the effect will cease, Mr. F. tells the world, that the special occasion of publishing his sermons, was ‘The revival of the spirit of separation and annabaptism.’ Preface. p. 3.

Ergo, the spirit of our separation when revived, was a spirit of civility, peace and good neibourhood, [Page]and all his representations to the contrary are unjust and abusive, for which he is condemned out of his own mouth.

3. The only way to bring this controversy to a fair issue, is to examine the true nature and effects of our professed principles, or shew wherein we do not act agreable to them. This I have aimed at in all these labours, and desire others to do the same with me. If any man can shew us wherein we hold any wrong principle, or in a friendly manner correct any disagreable practice, he will do us a real kindness; but to charge us with any thing that we are conscious we do not hold, can never convince us that we are wrong, or they right.

4. It has ever been satan's method, when he could no longer keep people easy with the dead carcase of religion, than to promote in some, great pretences of spirituality which are not true; which formalists have never failed to improve as an argument against reformation. How much have papists used this argument against protestants, and episcopalians against puritans and dissenters? And is not the same now used against us? That there has been much enthusiasm, and many false pretences to spirituality in our day, is a melancholy fact; but it is quite as injurious to lay the blame thereof to the main principles, or chief leaders of our separation, as it would be to the chief instruments of the revival of religion in 1741; for there were as bad or worse things of that nature, that happened before our separation, than have since. Therefore it appeared needful thus to trace matters up to their original, and to set principles and facts in as clear light [Page]as might be, not only to vindicate our sentiments and characters, against our learned opponents, but also to detect the false pretences of some, who are ready to separate from their brethren upon every turn of affairs, yet pretending to stand and act in the same cause we first came out upon. And this is no new thing; for even in the apostles days, after they had earnestly appeared for truth and gospel liberty, and for deliverance from Jewish and heathen bondage, some took occasion under the name of liberty to dispise government; who notwithstanding their great swelling words, were really servants of corruption. 2 Pet. 2.10—19. And it will ever be found, that licentiousness is as real an enemy to liberty, as tyranny; nor is their any great difference between them.

Government is for every one to act toward others, in their several stations and relations, by known laws and established rules; tyranny and licentiousness are the following our own inclinations without due regard to such rules. But as such a way of acting must look odious to all rational minds, when it appears in its own colours; therefore men have always tried to cover it with some specious pretence or another, which yet may be detected by such marks as these. 1. Where self prevails, it will try to excite in others so high an opinion of our deep insight into things that they do not understand, as to yield implicitly to us; while a humble teacher abhors such a dominion over others faith, and labours to manifest the truth to every man's conscience, and exhorts all saints to walk in Christ as they have been taught. 2 Cor. 1.24. and 4.2. Col. 2.7.— [Page]18.2. Whatever garb pride is covered with, if it is crossed it will discover bitterness, and often moves its subjects to become false accusers, and fierce despisers of those who are good. Micah 3.5. 2 Tim. 3.3, 5. While the humble soul is patient, and in meekness labours to instruct those who oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. Jam. 3.1, 13—18. It appears by Jotham's parable, that worthy minds, like the olive, fig-tree and vine, prefer usefulness and the yielding of sweet fruit to others, to any promotion and power over them; while worthless creatures, like the bramble, are forward for dominion; and if any refuse to submit to them, they are presently for fire to come out and devour the best characters that will dare to oppose their ambition. Judges 9.7—15. Hence 3. True love unites tenderness with faithfulness, labouring to gain mens persons, while it uses boldness against their sins; but a proud temper wants to get rid of all who refuse to gratify it, and is ready to say, Am I my brother's keeper! Gen. 4. 1 John 3.12.

As I am willing to have all I have said and done in these affairs, tried by these marks, and no further regarded than it agrees therewith; so I earnestly intreat all my friends and brethren, carefully to examine their conduct thereby. If we do not despise government, we have a conscientious regard to Christ's authority, and to act in our several station and relations as he has commanded us. He has commanded us to hold fast our profession, and to consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling ourselves together, &c. Heb. 10.23—25. But do not some let go [Page]their profession, instead of holding it fast; and forsake their brethren because they say they are fallen, instead of considering their weak and tempted state, and labouring to stir them up, or to restore them in a spirit of meekness, as the command is! Gal. 6.1. The same authority says, Take heed to yourselves, if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent forgive him: and says, All things that are reproved are made manifest by the light. Luke 17.3. Eph. 5.13. But do not some accuse their brethren, of having fallen out of the testimony, of not coming up into the witness; of some such general phrases, without and light to manifest, wherein they have advanced any particular error, or broken any particular precept? Yea, do not some hover in general or figurative words, and tell their brethren, that they cannot see where they are, unless they come up into the witness, &c.? which is a practising the very same iniquity under the pretence of spiritual teaching, as others have done under the name of great learning. Whereas our Lord said to his apostles, A candle gives light to all that are in the house; let your light shine before men, that they may see, &c. Such persons are very ready to condemn the learned for keeping their people in ignorance; though some of them are as grossly guilty of darkening counsel with words without knowledge, as any sophister of the age.

True pastors feed God's people with knowledge and understanding, not with unintelligible noise. We have a glorious promise, that when scorners are consumed, who have made such use of words as to turn aside the just for a thing of [Page]nought, that then, They that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. Isa. 29.20—24. And it affords great comfort and encouragement to my soul, to see how much this promise is now fulfilling in our land; notwithstanding some are still afraid freely to exercise their understandings for fear of getting legal; and seem to think that to learn doctrine, and the distinct nature and connection of things, would lead them off from spirituality: whereas we have no more of spirituality than we have of likeness to God, in whom is no darkness at all; and the very reason why it is impossible for God to lie, or to be tempted of evil, is because he knows better. I John 1.5. James 1.13—17.

One important question is yet before us, which is; How shall we know when we have just cause to separate and when not? The rule is perfect, but the best of men, or of churches, are imperfect; and some will join with no church, because they can't find a perfect one; while others seem as if they would swallow any thing, if it did not cross their own inclination. The rule requires condescention and forbearance, but how shall we know its true limits and extent? I confess that this has been as difficult a point heretofore in my mind, as any point in practical godliness. The clearest light that I have obtained in it is this. It is essential to acting rationally that we have some design or end in what we do. Now the leading design of the gospel, is to turn men from sin to God. Act. 26.18. And so far as conforming to circumcision, and other Jewish rites, would promote this end, Paul condescended to the Jews, (and so to others) but when those things were [Page]brought up in such a way as to cross that design, he would not give place an hour longer, but appeared against them with a fixed resolution. Gal. 2.5. and 5.2.

Another great design, is the edification of the saints; and we are all required to follow the things which make for that end. Rom. 14, 19. And every member of Christ, is required to improve the gift that he has given for that end; and liberty so to do, is of importance to be maintained. Yet while this liberty has not been allowed, (as we have seen) in the churches we came out of, some have ran to the other extreme, and have been so zealous for the liberty of speaking, as not duly to regard others liberty of judging; and instead of being subject one to another, and cloathed with humility, have sadly discovered a contrary behaviour. 2 Cor 14.1 Pet. 5.5. Once more; the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable; and so far as peace can be had consistent with purity; it is to be pursued with all men: but we are never to sell the truth for peace, no not to save natural life. Jam. 3.17. Heb. 12.14. Prov. 23.23.

Now if our eye be single in any of these affairs to the end for which God has appointed them, he will surely guide us in judgment in our use of the means; for Christ's word is, If thine eye be single thy whole body shall be full of light: but if evil, how great will be our darkness? Mat. 6.23. And it is very necessary that we well distinguish, between what are the divine commands, and the forbearance that is allowed in some cases towards persons who do not fully conform to them. For want of this distinction, so great a [Page]man as Mr. Bunyan, improved the instance of forbearance in 2 Chron. 30.18—20, to establish the custom of communing at the Lord's table with unbaptized persons. Whereas the persons who then partook of the passover otherwise than it was written, had not enjoyed the free use of those writings for a long time; and we have no account of their ever partaking so again. What a great mistake then was it, to bring an extraordinary case, to establish a general rule? Yet some have gone further still; for they have improved instances of forbearance as an argument against the authority of express commands.

How have many improved instances of God's visiting, and using further means with degenerate churches before he cast them off; as an argument that we ought to continue with them, even after it is evident to us that they refuse to be reformed? Again, Paul's foregoing his right of temporal communications from some of his hearers, for particular reasons that he gives, 1 Cor. 9. some have improved as an argument that hearers are under no obligation to communicate to any on account of their teaching, but only on account of poverty; and if they are not poor, then not at all. Tho' there is not a plainer command in the bible, for ministers to preach the gospel, than there is, for him that is taught in the word, to communicate unto him that teacheth in ALL good things." Gal. 6.6. I trust it has been sufficiently proved, that the authority of King George does not extend to this case; but shall that make us to disregard the authority of King Jesus! If he be duly regarded, I believe it will be found that both ministers and people, are but stewards of what they [Page]posses and therefore that avoiding all unreasonable censuring of each other, their great concern should be, that in their several stations and relations they may be found faithful, so as at last to receive praise of God. 1 Cor. 4.1—5.

Notes

*

Let the reader observe, that through this discourse, Ser. stands for Mr. F's Sermons: Ex. for my Examination of them; and only p. with figures, for his last piece.

↵

*

His sum of the Christian Religion. p. 25. 26.

↵

*

John 8.56. Heb. 11.13.

↵

*

Eph. 2.21. and 4.16. Col. 2.19.

↵

†

Rom. 11.24.

↵

‡

His notion of disciplining such, is to instruct and wait upon them "till their way is cleared" to come up to full communion. Ser. p. 90, 92, but what discipline is this, more than may be exercised toward those, who are not in the church? Any man in the Jewish church who forbore to keep the passover, unless necessarily hindered, was to be cut off from his people Num. 9.13. Hence Mr. F's large notion of a church, has neither law nor gospel to support it.

↵

*

Mr. Mitchel's life, p. 70, 78. and Dr. Increase Mather's, life. p. 54.

↵

*

Mr. Moses Mather's second piece on the covenant; printed at New-Haven 1770, p. 78.

↵

*

His nature of a gospel church, p. 14. The same author elsewhere largely proves, that no other church-state was instituted by Christ, but a particular one. See his original of evangelical churches. p. 61, 67, 186.

↵

*

‘All the pleas of the Romanists are utterly insufficient to secure their papal dominion from this sword of the mouth of the Lord Jesus; for, whereas their utmost pretence and defence consists in this, That it is not dominion and power absolutely that is forbidden, but the unlawful, tyrannical, oppressive exercise of power;—never was there any dominion in the world, more cruel,—than that of the Popes hath been. But it is evident, that our Lord doth not in the least reflect on the rule or government of the Kings aud Princes of the gentiles—He speaks of them in an especial manner, whom their subjects, for their moderate and equal rule, called benefactors. And such a power or preheminence it was,—that the two disciples desired in his kingdom, which gave occasion to this declaration.—He will have,—no courts, no coercive jurisdiction;—for by these means do the Princes of the gentiles, those that are the benefactors of their countries, rule among them. And this is most evident from what in opposition hereunto he prescribes unto his own disciples, the greatest, and best in office, grace and gifts; namely a ministry only, to be discharged in the way of service. How well this great command and direction of our Lord Jesus hath been and is complied withal, by those who have taken on them to be rulers in the church, is sufficiently known.’

Dr. Owen's nature of a gospel church. p. 79, 30.

↵

*

Should any here object, that Mr. Edwards was against the custom I plead for; I reply, that I know he seems to say much against it, particularly in his discourse on the affections; tho' I think he does not pretend to bring any scripture against it; but only that he did not see full proof for it; therefore if I have brought proof for it, he has nothing against that. What he chiefly appeared against, was the tying persons up to one particular order of experience; and also a being taken with some striking words in their declaration, without due regard to the whole nature of it, and likewise to their life and conversation. And herein I am full in his sentiments; and would intreat all, not to be taken with, or to judge according to appearance, but to judge righteous judgment. Yet after all Mr. Edward, was so far from excluding the telling of experience, that he expressly requires it, in candidates for the ministry.

Treatise on the affections, p. 301, 302.

↵

*

A second letter upon lay-ordination, by Mr. George Beck-with of Lyme. Printed 1766. p. 58, 59.

↵

*

Dr. Wall's history of infant baptifm, part II. p. 184. Vide Gill's answer to Dickinson, p. 32. By the same authority we find, that Gerhardus and Dulcinus, whom Mr. F. calls, Two famous preachers in the 13th century, were likewise baptists.

↵

*

Here note, Mr. F. in his sermons says, ‘The true church of Christ, in whom his spirit dwells, has never been a bitter, fierce, revengeful, persecuting church; but the reverse.’ And tries to fix these odious characters upon the separates, because they sometimes called such ministers as he is pleading for, hirelings, and blind leaders; which he says, was done with an air of glorying rather than mourning. p. 47, 155. The reader will now judge what regard is to be paid to his witness in his own cause: and also who behaved most like the true church under trouble. Esther 4. 1—3.

↵

*

Association letter. p. 16. 17.

↵

*

Ibid. p. 10.

↵

†

p. 23.

↵

‡

Stoddard's appeal to the learned. p. 94.

↵

*

Windham association letter. p. 10.

↵

†

Ibid. p. 11.

↵

*

Preface to Dr. Owen's discourse on the nature of a gospel church. p. 9, 10.

↵

*

Mr. Edwards's thoughts of the [...] 1742 [...].

↵

*

Dr. Owen on the spirit. p. 156, 157.

↵

†

Ibid. p. 217.

↵

*

Original of evangelical churches. p. 295, 296.

↵

*

Dr. Stiles on the Christian union. p. 71. 72.

↵

*

Mr. Paine's view of the churches. Apology p. 7.

↵

*

Original of churches. p. 180, 181.

↵

†

Vindication of the order of the churches. p. 67.

↵

‡

Preface. p. 8.

↵

*

In the same letter p. 42, 43. they compare the going to worship, with such as they call lay-teachers, to following those who worship other gods, Deut. 13, and say ‘The arguments against your compliance is the same—and if there seem to be never so many appearances of God's power attending it, you may not go after it, any more than for the like reason, you may not go after a false god.’ If this be not a forbidding those who follow not them, what can be so called! Mark 9.38.

↵

AN ADDRESS TO Mr. Joseph Fish.

[Page]

SIR,

SINCE you accuse me with, ‘setting up myself as Censor general of the present generation, and with sending abroad a book, full of invectives, bitterness, clamour and evil-speaking against Christ's ministers.’ p. 124, 126. I know of no better method to answer it, than by a little imitation of the apostles example in like cases. Acts. 11.4—17. and 21.1—21. Namely to give a plain narrative of what I have done, and the reasons of my doing so.

As to setting up myself, I freely appeal to all that knew me, that from my cradle to my entrance on preaching, I discovered a disposition, the reverse of setting up myself, as head or leader of any company whatsoever. And my conscience bears me witness in the sight of God, that [Page]the only reason of my engaging in that work, was because I was so clearly convinced, that He had given me a gift, which He called me to improve in that way, that I durst not neglect obedience to Him therein; for I believed then, and do to this day, that there was a wo unto me if I preached not the gospel: therefore I heartily devoted myself to that work, and was freely received therein by God's people; in which I went on for a number of years, before I had any thoughts of appearing to the world in print. But being called to preach in various places, that old question was often put, by those called standing ministers, by what authority dost thou these things? and the darkness which they discovered about it, at last moved me to attempt to hold up to the world, the light that was given me therein, which was accordingly done in 1754, under the title of, ‘The nature and necessity of an internal call to preach the gospel.’ And your learned brethren were so far from attempting ro confute it, that some of them expressed such charity as this; that ‘I. B. never wrote that book, but got his name set to the works of some other man; for (said they) scarce one to ten of our college-learnt men could write such a discourse.’ Whereas it is known to Him who will judge us all, that no person on earth, either wrote or indited one line of it, but he whose name stands in the title page.

As to baptism, after long and sore exercises of mind, occasioned as I see now, chiefly by the false representations which tradition had handed down to us, both concerning principles and facts, I was at last favored with a comfortable establishment. After which I was publicly declared, to [Page]be a covenant-breaker, for turning from infant baptism, notwithstanding our covenant, like that of the fathers of this country, expressed an engagement, to embrace further light as God should open it to us. When this censure came abroad, in the result of a council of elders and brethren, who had professed and acted in fellowship with baptist churches, it naturally caused a general difficulty; and which at length occasioned a general meeting of the separate and baptist churches in your town, in May, 1754; where I remember sir, that you was among the spectators; when, instead of attending to the point in hand, which was, whether a declaring, that turning from infant baptism was covenant breaking, did not give just occasion of offence to the baptists? I say instead of that, much time was taken up in exposing my imperfections about these affairs; which had the same effect with many, that such-like treatment of the baptists has often had, ever since the first reformations from popery; viz. to prevent their seeing things in their true light. But tho' my character was thus injuriously treated, seventy miles from home, before an assembly, from at least three of the four governments of New-England, yet I chose as much as possible, to avoid all personal contests, and only published, as clearly as I was enabled, the true state of the argument concerning baptism, in a discourse upon the bond-woman and the free.

And I never engaged in a printed controversy with any particular person, for seventeen years after my call to the public ministry; till in 1764, the gentleman under whose ministry I was born, and from whom I separated, with six others, published [Page]a piece, wherein, after mentioning the order to blow the trumpet, and to sound an alarm in Zion, they went on to alarm the world, with a representation that the late separates and baptists, were going fast into a dreadful apostacy; and that it was, ‘hid from them, or rather, that they will not see, that they have fell into the way of Cain, and are in danger of perishing in the gainsaying of Core.’ Upon a sight of this, and other things of like nature, from my old minister, I sent a printed letter to him, upon the injustice of such conduct. And what is there in all this, of setting up myself? Tho' I know I am a very imperfect creature, yet I can freely submit, both the occasion, and the temper of these writings, to the judgment of every christian reader.

When you sir, three years after, published a large piece, in the same strain with the ministers just mentioned, and I was prevail'd with to examine it, I thought something further was called for, than what I had before done. And as there is a rule in some cases, to rebuke sharply, and to use a rod, which is distinguishable from a spirit of meekness. 1 Cor. 4.21. I thought it right to make a little trial of the rods, which you and others have furnished us with, to see if ministers had not some feeling, as well as the people that they have been threshing these twenty years. The temper and manner of my executing this design, is further to be considered. You tell me that if I had reproved you with meekness of spirit, had a temper good and kind, you should doubtless have understood my inoffensive language, and given a serious attention to it. p. 124. Could I have believed that, I assure you I would have [Page]taken that method; for tho' a little salt and vinegar may give food a good relish, even with healthy persons; yet I think it was a very just observation of a noted author, in his estimate of the manners and principles of the times, that people's being much more taken with things that tickle and irritate, than with those which are solid and nourishing, clearly proves the distempered taste of our age.

I wish you had now given me reason to think, that you was disposed to give due attention to mild and fair reasoning, upon the affairs between us; for that is my choice: and since we seem to agree in two general heads, I think to make a little trial of what can be done under them.

Frist I observed, that let us talk what we may, of defending truth and of promoting its cause, if at the same time we advance false arguments, or discover a wrong temper and behaviour, we thereby contract guilt to ourselves, and injure our fellow-men. This observation you concur with, p. 125. And let us see what can be done under it.

And,

1. Those who Commend themselves, and measure themselves by themselves, instead of the eternal standard of truth, use false arguments 2 Cor. 10.12. Now sir, in order to convince me of my faults you say, ‘You saw me every where friendly to the work of God; and while I exposed & reproved the false principles, spirit and practice of my erring brethren, you heard me frequently and sufficiently express my charity, love and tenderness for their persons’ p. 126. This is what you say; now for the proof of it.

[Page] You sir, in your sermons, began your arguments, against the separates with allowing, that they held a number of truths, and had some orders among them that were good, but say, ‘I know not of one principle or practice, among them, that is agreable to the gospel, but what they learned in OUR churches.—But THEY have done much to weaken and pull down the church of God, rather than to build it up.’ p. 113. Of learning you say, ‘Though all OUR teachers have not an equal degree of learning; yet HERE the treasure lies, in THESE churches of Christ."* p. 168. "The body of the separates are truce-breakers, for—they openly renounced communion with US, when WE the standing churches were daily attending the ordinances of Christ, agreable to his institution.’ p. 17. But you say, ‘Such is the conduct of our separate brethren, in this grand affair, of casting off a learned, able minister, and setting up such as are unlearned in their room; 'tis really affecting (and I speak it with concern) to see how they are beguiled and led astray, by the subtilty of satan in this interesting affair; and how manifestly they join with the gates of hell, against THE church of Christ.†—Satan deceives them.’ p. 177. Yea, as as if you had had been inspired to tell men's hearts, you say of these brethren ‘They held fast their deceit, they refused to return.’ p. 128. ‘Surely we have [Page]as full evidence, as the nature of the case can admit of, that it was a false spirit, and a false religion that made the separation among us, a device of satan, that old serpent the devil, to injure THE church of God.’ p. 161. ‘The lusts of spiritual-pride, self-love, vain-confidence or self-sufficiency; these lusts do evidently appear in and run through the WHOLE affair of separation (though all are not equally guilty).’ p. 164. And to describe what a sweet and calm temper you went with, to the first separate ordination in your town, you name the two worst enemies the christian has in earth or hell, and then add the separates as the third; saying, ‘The great Searcher of hearts, knows the severe conflict that I had with SATAN, SELF and the SEPARATES (for several hours before the engagement) and the sensible victory that he gave me over them all.’ p. 156.

Now sir, when through your sermons I saw you thus labouring to confine the work of God to your own party, and heard you in strong terms, not only declare your brethren to be governed by their lusts and deluded by the devil, but also to rank them with the worst of your enemies; how was it possible for me to see you friendly to God's work, or tender to his people, while you was so doing!

This reminds me of another instance of your late tenderness. From your attempts in your sermons to draw our picture in odious colors, I took occasion to observe, that Ward's daughter being taken from her husband, and John Smith's wife being poisoned, had often been cast upon us from [Page]pulpits for the same end; although the former never was received as a member of any of our churches, and the latter was excommunicated for his corrupt principles before he committed that fact. You now tell your readers, that I have omitted some material and interesting circumstances relating to Smith, and the church at Canterbury, which keep the bad tendency of their separating principles out of sight; which therefore you have published; tho' you say, ‘It grieves me to relate these things, for I feel tender for the cause and people of God.’ p. 112, 113. These interesting circumstances are, That he had been a very vicious man, but was looked upon by that church a remarkable instance of conversion; and that after his excommunication, and the great crimes he committed. ‘Yet so tenaciously did they hold to their darling principle of a certain knowledge of christians, that they retained their opinion of him as a christian still: and many of them brought the instance of the fall of David, Peter, &c. to justify their sentiments.’ You have not been so fair as to tell us which members they were that talked so, nor from whom you had your information. I know that their pastor and some others talked otherwise to me; and their conduct evidenced to the world, that they were earnest to have justice done him for his sin, both in church and state. But suppose that every word you have related was truth; I could produce an instance of one of your fathers in the ministry, who publicly declared his opinion that one of his members was gone to heaven, that put an end to her own life; how then is the bad tendency of our separation discovered [Page]by what you have related? Rather, does not the interesting matter lie here; that you are conscious that your brethren if not yourself, have from your pulpits reproached the separate churches with these two instances of scandal, one of which never was among them, and the other they had cleared themselves of in a gospel manner; and so it should appear that you have been guilty, as Dr. Franck says, ‘In your sermons of wholly perverting God's ordinance, by rejecting and calumniating those who desire to govern their lives by the gospel of Christ.’ Ex. p. 84.

2. Should you sir, hear an enthusiast, (as I once did) bring this as an argument to prove himself right, in receiving one to administer baptism, who he said, he feared was corrupt in principle, and knew he was in practice, viz. That this text came suddenly to his mind, Go with him nothing doubting, for I have sent him: would you not at once declare this to be a false argument? Well, in a book published by one Mr. I.F. who stiles himself a master of arts, when he is arguing for ministers having human learning, he in his 175th page sets down exactly these words; ‘Our Lord hath shown us that LEARNING is eminently useful, yea even necessary. Isa. 50 4. The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned that I should know how to speak a word in season, to him that is weary. Intimating that he should not have known how, without a learned tongue.’ Now there was one I.B. that had no A.M. to put to the end of his name, who yet ventured to publish an examination of this book, and when he came to this passage, he was so bold as to say, in his 44th page, ‘If Mr. [Page] F. knows no better, than to construe this scripture so, where is his learning? and if he does, where is his honesty? his controversy with us is about human learning, whereas that text expresseth divine learning, as plain as words can possibly do; and there is great reason to think that the prophet here personates HIM, who tho' he were a Son, yet learned be obodience by the things which he suffered, and being tempted, he was able to succour them that are tempted.’

Mr. F. has taken him smartly to task for thus meddling with him, in a piece called, The examiner examined: and on this particular, tho' he owns that the controversy was about human learning, and that he took the prophet in that text, to be speaking of the man Christ Jesus; yet he says, ‘The manner of his receiving this learning or knowledge, does not alter the nature of it; 'tis human learning still: and Christ as man, had all that is contained therein.’ And he takes up half a page to shew to us, that Christ was eminently furnished with grammar, logic and rhetoric; ‘in all which (says he) the excellency of human learning consists.’ then he says, ‘Tho' I know not what Mr. B. intends, particularly by divine learning (for his ideas are very singular)—yet, I freely concur, that the phrase also imports an ability of speaking in all points, as becometh a person TAUGHT OF GOD, and filled with all divine and heavenly wisdom and knowledge, and a singular skill of winning souls, and working upon men's HEARTS and CONSCIENCES. These things I own are included or suggested to us, by the prophet [Page]in this scripture, though more remotely: the FIRST and most obvious import of the word, is in favor of human learning; which is AS MUCH the GIFT of GOD, in its place, as GRACE to improve it to the glory of the giver. And it's highly worthy of our respectful notice, in this day of reproach and contempt cast upon this gift of the SPIRIT, even learning, that our Lord in speaking of ministerial accomplishments, which he had an infinite fulness of, should use such a striking phrase as this, The tongue of the learned.’ p. 85—87.

It appears plain, that this writer had some thoughts about him; for he submits his learning and honesty, in all this, only to "the learned or judicious reader," and tells us, If modesty be added, he thinks it would lead Mr. B. to enquire whether he did not, exercise himself in things too high for him! I say, it appears plain that he had some thoughts about him: for 'tis a wonder if some people who are not masters of arts, do not prove themselves to be so destitute of modesty, and so "singular in their ideas," as to judge, that this minister had not lately read that old question, How knoweth this man letters, having never LEARNED? nor the tender and charitable sentence of the learned ministers of that day, who said, ‘Are ye also deceived! have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him! but THIS PEOPLE who KNOWETH NOT the LAW, are CURSED!’ John 7.15, 47—49. Yea, tis much if this people do not some of them presume so far upon logic, as to conclude, that it was this minister's spiritual gift of human learning, [Page]that taught him to know how, in a letter of CHRISTIAN reproof,* to introduce the HEATHEN fable, of Pheaton's setting the world on fire; and (whatsoever Jupiter may do with his thunder bolts, yet as to men) how in season to say ‘WE have not LEARNED—railing for railing.—I hope the church is not in any great danger. —As for yourself, I believe you may rest secure. The baseness of your reflections, and bitterness of your spirit (however provoking) will likely save you from the angry blows of your injured neighbours; for it Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, who among the followers of Christ, dare enter the list with Mr. Backus? the spirit of the gospel forbids it: you may bid defiance to every christian pen. You are also defended, and may likely escape, by the illsavour of your writings; on account of which property, you are aptly compared by Mr. Flavel, to some cunning animals, which when pursued at the heels, drive away both dogs and huntsmen, with their intolerable stench,’ p. 124, 125.

Ah sir! what times are we fallen into! that one poor illiterate teacher, should prove on overmatch for the angry tempers, christian pens, and delicate noses of all the learned huntsmen in the land; yea, and for their dogs too, so as to oblige them all to quit the pursuit, and give him the field!

[Page] But truly Sir, if I am rude in speech, I mean not to be so in knowledge; and I can freely refer it to all christian people among us, let them be learned or unlearned, whether your argument for the necessity of human learning, from that striking phrase, is not as false as his was, who took the striking phrase, Go with him; without due regard to the character of the persons we should go with? For my part I confess, that for you to call it a singular idea, to speak of divine learning, as distinct from all that man can teach, when yet in the next breath you are forced thus to distinguish, and call the former, a being Taught of God, and filled with the divine skill of winning souls, and working upon men's hearts and consciences; and then to hear you declare that this divine skill, is more remotely included in Isa. 50.4. than the human learning of grammar, logic and rhetoric, which you assert, is as much the gift of God as grace; and that you do not freely submit your learning and honesty in these matters to any but the learned; I own that all these things are too wonderful for me, unless I suppose, that as those who formerly made heart religion a remote thing, and sought deep to hide their council, in righteous judgment, wisdom was hid from them, Isa. 29.13—15; so that something of like nature has taken place again: For when ministers stand as they ought, they renounce such hidden things, and by manifestation of the TRUTH, commended themselves, not only to the learned, but to every man's CONSCIENCE in the sight of God. 2 Cor. 4.2.

3. For a disputant to take any truth which his opponent holds as much as he does, and blend it [Page]with that which is not true, in order to gain his argument, this you say is ‘false and sophistical reasoning.’ p. 99. A proof by the way, that your temper can bear with hard names, when you think them applicable to your opponent. Whether these be so here or not, is to be considered. The case is thus. In trying to prove that the separates heaped to themselves teachers, you said, ‘According to one grand principle of their churches, every one must exercise his gifts in public as he is impressed or moved by the spirit.’ In answer I observed, that for you to pretend that we hold all to have the gift for public teachers is not true. Ex. p. 80.

You now charge me with starting from the question, and say, ‘'tis evident that in the faulted passage above, I have limited the charge of speaking in public, to them that have gifts, and that are impressed or moved by the Spirit to exercise them. And from hence Mr. B. infers, that I therein charge the separates with holding that ALL have the gift for public teachers.’ This you call false and sophistical reasoning. p. 98, 99. To which I shall only [...] [...]hat your words were, Every one; and you [...] that argument with naming ‘women, old and young, together with unskilful and self-concerted exhorters,’ which you represent that the separates wer [...] obliged, by the canons of their church, to suffer to ‘Teach and preach among them’ Ser. p. 163, 165. And if every one does not mean all, and if unskilful persons moved with self conceit, means the same as gifted ones moved by the spirit, then I have reasoned sophistically; if not I believe the epithet will fall back [Page]upon him who began the argument. That I freely leave to others, and only remark, that this was the first time of my hearing of canons in our churches, except the canon of scripture.

Now to come to what is mainly here aimed at, I would note, that the general plan of your sermons, was to give the characters of Christ's church, and then to apply the same to the churches of our day. In doing of which you endevoured to prove, that those you call standing churches, are upon the Rock, and so near like the first church in Plymouth, as to claim a right of relation as sisters or children thereto. And though you was forced to own that they, and the authors of Cambridge platform, professed that the power of ordination is in the church, yet you tried to prove that they did not act according to that profession. This I proved so plainly to be a mistake, that you have not attempted to refute me in it; though you now say ‘the practice of the churches is generally if not universally as I have said it ought to be.’ But lest the reader by this should see a real difference between you and our fathers, you slip in a clause from Cambridge platform, concerning the churches improving elders in ordinations where they can conveniently be obtained. p. 46. This point I twice over declared, that we ALL hold to, and practice upon. Ex. p. 17.63. To what end then, can it be here mentioned but to hide the truth?

In the scond place I clearly proved, that our fathers way of admitting members, was by a verbal relation to the church, of a work of God's Spirit on their hearts; which has since degenerated into written relations, and from that to none at all, in [Page]many places. This you cannot deny, but try to evade it by saying, you was not treating of a particular church; and then you slip in a clause, that in case of excessive fear, our fathers varied from their common method. p. 51. And who ever denied that?

This led me down to open a third article of difference between you and our fathers, which is the root of all, namely the matter of the gospel church. And I produce full testimonies from such as you allow to be some of your most eminent fathers. ‘That if it should pass for current doctrine in New-England, that all persons orthodox in judgment, as to matters of faith, not scandalous in life, ought to be admitted to partake of the Lord's supper, without an examination concerning the work of saving grace in their hearts, it would be a real apostacy from former principles.’ Then I produced the letter published against us by sixteen ministers (and you now call it an excellent letter. p. 54.) which says, ‘It is the will of Christ, that all those who make an outward credible profession of christianity, should be admitted into his church, and though unconverted BE THERE.’ Ex. p. 18.20.

Thus I proved, that our fathers held the power of ordination to be in the church; but that you hold it to be in ministers. That they held to admitting members by verbal relations; you to written ones, or none at all: And thirdly that our fathers declared, That a general profession would be real apostacy; and I proved that your churches have got into it: yet you shuffle along, till from our fathers writing, you bring out the [Page]materials of the church to be professing believers, and their children, and then say, ‘Surely here is distinction without difference—And yet he is shewing an essential difference between the standing churches, and the first in the land. ALL the difference is they EXACTLY agree.’ p. 52.

Whether this is most properly called sophistry, or lying, I leave with God and your own conscience, praying that you may be brought to true repentance.

Having as I concieved, fully proved and essential difference between your churches and our fathers, and meeting with that glaring perversion of the parable of the tares, viz. applying what Christ spoke of the world, to the church; I took occasion to point out the nature of his order, Let both grow together; and how it has been violated among us, by depriving those of their worldly liberties and enjoyments, who would not conform to the parish ministers. Upon which I gave it as my mind that there may and ought to be, a sweet harmony between civil and ecclesiastical rulers, but not such a union as had been among us; for which I gave my reasons, and endevoured distinctly to run the line between them, Ex. p. 20—32. yet you assert this part of my book to be ‘mixed, inconnected and without order,’ and that I have got beside my professed design, and also that I fault your churches for a connection with the state, which you say, ‘is evidently warranted by the holy scriptures.’ p. 55. 56. But take notice; the first part of my professed design was, to open the constitution of your churches. Ex. p. 15. and in this place I [Page]was not beside it, but upon it, and proved the constitution to be such, that if the parish minister disliked another's preaching near him, or called for his salary, the secular powers must exert their force to remove those he was offended with; and to answer his demands: And if you Sir, thought such a connection to be warranted by scripture, your business evidently was to bring your proofs. And have you done it? No.—Indeed you have proved that there was a union between the church and state in Israel, (which I held as much as you) but not a word of such a connection as I had faulted. p. 56. 57. Then you shew that Isa. 49.23, and 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. imply ‘Not only that the magistrate should not himself lay hands on us, nor send his officers and servants to spoil us of, or interrupt us in, the enjoyment of our religious rights; but also that as he has it in his power, he would restrain and punish those that should molest or trouble us in matters of godliness or religion, as well as in matters of honesty, which we have a right to, in common with other men.’ p. 58.

And where is sophistry now! dare you Mr. Fish, before him whose eyes are like a flame of fire, pretend that I have wrote a word, or formed the least argument against such an exercise of the magistrates power towards the church as you have described! No: if those powers had not been moved by your brethren in the ministry to act the very contrary part, to what you have proved from the word of God that they ought to have acted, I assure you I would not have troubled you in this affair. I observe that instead of agreeing with me that the worst mistake that our [Page]fathers brought to this land, was their confounding church and state together, you reckon one of their worst mistakes was, allowing the church the power of ordination; on which you say, ‘Jesus Christ is head and king; and none may rightfully dare to set up any practice, or establish any order in his house, but what he has directed to: to be sure none contrary to his direction. The holy scriptures, not the platform, are to guide us in this important question.’ p. 47. Yet in the important question, whether magistrates have any warrant to use force to support ministers or not? here the case is altered. Mr. F. has sound no warrant for that in the scriptures, therefore he flies to the platform, and tells of the rules our pious fathers laid down therein, which he says, ‘Is done with so much caution, judgment and excellency of spirit, that, tis pity Mr. B. had not contented himself with the rules there.’ p. 59. And what are these rules? why one of them contains these words. ‘If any church shall rend itself from the communion of other churches;—in such case the magistrate is to put forth his coercive power.’ Another of them is; ‘The magistrate is to see that the ministry be duly provided for’ which you explain as meaning that he shall ‘oblige the people that won't do their duty without.’ p. 63.

Now Sir, come up like an honest man. These rules were first drawn by ministers, and thou art the minister who hast blamed me for not being contented with them, declaring them to be laid down with caution and excellency of spirit; and I can freely appeal to your conscience, that it [Page]was really according to the spirit of these rules that the magistrate acted, when to prevent our first separate ordination at Mansfield, they sent their servants, when the old gentlemen that was elected for their pastor, was at worship with his church the day before he was to have been ordained, and LAID HANDS on him, and carried him to prison, for preaching without the licence of such ministers as thou art. This my eyes saw; and the next day I saw more than a dozen of such ministers come up after the shepherd was thus smitten, to see if they could not scatter that flock, which, as your rules express it, had rent itself from your communion. Ex. p. 47.

So openly were those doings of the civil powers (which you have proved was the reverse of what they ought to have acted) countenanced by ministers, who were most if not all of them, signers of that which you now call an excellent letter; and so openly did they say in practice, that if these people would withdraw from their churches, they should not peaceably grow together with them in the world. Yet Mr. F. thou art the man, who hast declared to the world, that ‘It is wholly out of rule, and quite injurious, for Mr. B. to charge the churches or their ministers with sending men to jail for rates, or other like prosecutions (as he rudely talks, and unreasonably complains, throughout his book) for these proceedings are evidently the acts of the civil state, done for its OWN utility.’ p. 56. ‘The doings of the civil authority, and of that ALONE.’ p. 59.

I hope our honorable rulers will take warning by this, and never more exert their power till [Page]they know who it is for; and never use any more force to support ministers, till ministers can produce divine rule for it, and also will own that it is for them. * All the prosecutions that I have complained of are so evidently for ministers, and according to the spirit of your rules, that I promise you, if you can point out one instance which is not so; for that I will make a public acknowledgment. I come,

4. To observe, that all arguments which are founded upon a violation of the golden rule are certainly false ones. That your arguments against us were so founded. I before attempted to prove by three witnesses, out of your sermons; the first of which I introduced thus: No man or community can think it reasonable, to have their character drawn only from their imperfections without any of their virtues: yet shewed [Page]that you had done so with the separates. Ex. p. 5. In reply to which, you now say, ‘It was not my proper business to draw their character as men nor as christians, but only as separates, (sermon, p. 160.)—Whatever virtues they had as men or as christians (which I frequently allow them) yet I knew of none they had as separates. Therefore I had properly to do with nothing but their imperfections, errors or faults.’ p. 19.

Here Mr. F. permit me to tell you one thing, and that is; as much as you think I am prejudiced against your order of ministers, yet I would not have ventured to believe, much less publickly to declare, that you knowingly held to so gross things as you now express, both concerning a learned tongue, and the golden rule, not upon the verbal testimony of the best friend I have on earth. No, I should have thought they some way mistook your meaning: but what is written is written. And though some peculiar circumstances that I have passed through, have (through divine goodness) taught me more how self can blind us, than perhaps many others know; yet your book has taught me more of it than I ever saw before, and in that respect has done me good; and I should be glad to do you a like kindness, though not in a like manner.

Dear Sir, according to your own account, you know of many virtues that these people had as men and as christians, but say, ‘I knew of none they had as separates.’ That is, as they stood opposite to yourselves, neither manhood nor christianity must go into their character. What a [Page]thing is SELF! I attempted to favour you with a glass to see him in before; but as it was from a bishop, you pass it by as not to the purpose. p. 22. I am now favoured with another that is so much clearer, and from such as you own to be worthy hands, that I can't but hope for better success than the other met with. It is this. Three years after our fathers published those rules in the Cambridge platform, which you say 'tis pity I had not been contented with, Mr. John Clark, pastor of the baptist church in Newport (and who was learned both in Greek and Hebrew) went with two of his friends to visit some brethren in Lynn; but as they were peaceably worshipping God together, on Lord's day, July 20, 1651, a magistrate was so zealous to follow the ministers rules, that he put forth his coercive power, and had those three men seized before they had finished their forenoon exercise, and carried in the afternoon to the parish worship; and afterwards sent them prisoners to Boston. There they were all fined, and for not paying it, one of them was whipped thirty lashes, and two of his friends, for openly taking him by the hand, and praising God for his courage and constancy in suffering, were carried before the general court in Boston, and fined 40s. each, or to be whipped.*

When news of this reached to London, Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the Massachusetts first: magistrates, wrote to the ministers of Boston in this manner.

Reverend and dear friends, whom I unfeignedly love and respect.

[Page] It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New-England.—Truly friends, this your practice of compelling any in matters to worship, to that whereof they are not fully persuaded, is to make them sin, for so the apostle (Rom. 14.23.) tells us, and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man for fear of punishment. We pray for you, and wish you prosperity every way, hoped the Lord would have given you so much light and love there, that you might have been eyes to God's people here, and not to practise those courses in a wilderness, which you went so far to prevent.— These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints. I do asure you I have heard them pray in the public assemblies, that the Lord would give you meek and humble spirits, not to strive so much for uniformity, as to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. *

To this Mr. Cotton wrote an answer, wherein are these words, ‘† Honored and dear Sir, My brother Wilson and self do both of us acknowledge your love, as otherwise formerly, so now in the late lines we received from you, that you grieve in spirit to hear daily complaints against us.—Be pleased to understand we look at such complaints as altogether injurious in respect of ourselves, who had no hand or tongue at all to promote, either the [Page]comnig of the persons you aim at into our assemblies, or their punishment for their carriage there. Righteous judgment will not take up reports, much less reproaches against the innocent. The cry of the sinners of Sodom was great and loud, and reached up to heaven; yet the righteous God (giving us an example what to do in the like case) he would first go down to see whether their crime were altogether according to the cry, before he would proceed to judgment, Gen. 18.20, 21. and when he did find the truth of the cry, he did not wrap up all alike promiscuously in the judgment, but saved such as he found innocent. We are amongst those whom (if you know us better) you would account peaceable in Israel.—Yet neither are we so vast in our indulgence or toleration as to think the men you speak of suffered an unjust censure. For one of them (Obadiah Holmes being an excommunicate person himself, out of a church in Plymouth patent,* came into this jurisdiction, and took upon him to baptize, which I think himself will not say he was compelled here to perform—The inprisonment of either of them was no detriment. I believe they fared neither of them better at home.—But be pleased to consider this point a little further. If the worship be lawful the magistrate compelling him to come to it, compelleth him not to sin, but the sin is in his will that needs to be compelled to a christian duty.—Better to be hypocrites than profane [Page]persons; hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man; but the profane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man.— You know not, if you think we come into this wilderness to practise those courses here which we fled from in England. We believe there is a vast difference between men's inventions and God's institutions; we fled from men's inventions, to which we else should have been compelled; we compel none to men's inventions. If our ways (rigid ways as you call them) have laid us low in the hearts of God's people. yea and of the saints (as you stile them) we do not believe it is any part of their saintship.— Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, we have tolerated in our church some anabaptists—and do still to this day.—We are far from arrogating infallibility of judgment to ourselves. You see how desirous we are to give you what satisfaction we may to your loving expostulation.’

Here observe,

1. Our most noted fathers, flinched at the first thought of using force with their neighbours in religion, and tried to turn the blame off to others.

2. When they considered that they did not mean to hold any wrong principle or practice, but were in earnest to promote the right way, they argued that surely others ought to go in that way too; and therefore,

3. That it must be their will that kept them therefrom, which will ought to be compelled.

4. If they could not bring such persons hearts into the right way, yet that it were better for God to have their bodies, than to loose body and soul both.

5. Those who do not like [Page]such treatment, have liberty to keep their distance, but if they will come into our jurisdiction, their imprisonment is no detriment, for we cause them to fare as well there, as at home.

6. By this time it is become good manners with such learning to charge a noted christian magistrate with ignorance, if he could so much as think that there was not a vast difference between the compellings to men's inventions, practised by old persecutors in England, and these compellings which were used by good christians, who fled into a wilderness from such bad courses.

7. Men of the greatest learning or piety in England, must have nothing go into their characters as saints which condems the compelling conduct of the saints here, yet

8. The saints in this wilderness are so far from arrogating infalibility to themselves, that if others will join with them while they are not of their judgment concerning the initiating ordinance of the church, free liberty is granted so to do; but to act their own judgment in a separate society, that must not be tolerated.

And now Mr. F. if you cant see some features of yourself in this glass, one would be ready to think you was got into such a case as the learned Dr. Young tells of, viz. to need spectacles to see a mountain. Yet should that be the case, you have a pair very handy; for only look into the 74th and 75th pages of your sermons, and you will find it declared, That the rules our Lord has given are perfect, but that the wisest and best of men are imperfect, and know but in part, therefore when they come, it may be, with hearts equally honest, and consciences alike tender, to apply those rules, they conclude upon different [Page]forms of divine service; which renders it difficult, if not impracticable for them to worship harmoniously together. And how do you know but that this is the very case with your dissenting brethren? Will you have the face to pretend to know that their hearts were not equally honest with your's! If not, then what a violation of rule have you been guilty of, in trying to strip them of all their virtues, and to draw their characters to the world only from their imperfections! Yet you say, ‘I acted agreeable to the golden rule, in telling them of, and reproving them for their imperfections and errors: for surely, that rule don't oblige us to tell a brother all his good properties, when we go to reprove him for his faults.’ p. 19. Perhaps if you again look over our Lord's treatment of the seven churches of Asia, you will find your surely, to be a mistake as to the manner of reproving; but Sir, that was not the work that you was about, by your own account the principal design of your sermons, was to draw the separates character before others instead of reproving them: and a principal article of advice and exhortation in your conclusion, given out to the world is, ‘Go not after THEM nor follow THEM.—keep your distance * from THEM. Beware that you neither interrupt their devotion, nor join with THEM in their worship. How can you with any good conscience after I HAVE SHOWN you from whence they arose, their principles, spirit and [Page]tendency.’ Ser. p. 191. Is this your way to reprove brethren!

Should you Sir, try again to evade conviction by pretending that I have forgot my subject, and instead of opening the difference, have shewn an exact likeness, between you and our fathers. I reply that this is a great mistake; and to introduce a short view of the difference, I would refer you to Ezek. 43.7, 9. And whatever may be the primary meaning of the text, I believe there is no injustice in accommodating it to the case in hand. A house filled with the carcases of fathers and rulers, cannot prove that it is the spiritual house which they built with lively stones. And to examine whether something of this nature does not appear in New-England, let the following points be considered.

1. Dr. Owen, who for some time was expected, and always was much esteemed here, evidently expressed the sentiments of our most eminent fathers, as to the succession of ministers, when he observed, that it is sufficiently secured, by our Lord's erecting that office, and giving warrant for it's continuance to the end; and by his continuance according to his promise, to communicate spiritual gifts unto men for the edification of his church; whose duty it is to chuse, call and solemnly set a part unto the office of the ministry such as Christ by his spirit has made meet for it, according to the rule of his word; and then he says, ‘Those who plead for the continuation of a successive ministry, without respect unto these things, without resolving both the authority and office of it unto them, do but erect a dead image or imbrace a dead CARCASE, instead of the living and life-giving [Page]institutions of Christ.’ * Compare this with what you reckon one of our fathers worst mistakes, p. 47.

2. Our fathers had such a spirit of faith in preaching,† that the same Mr. Cotton whom we were but now treating of, declared, that the difference will ever hold between the word read and preached, they are two distinct ordinances. Herein we hold with him; but you do not. Ex. p. 72.73.

3. In the effect of such preaching, which brought persons before all the assembly to declare the workings of God's spirit in their hearts, we hold with our fathers, while many of your churches have not even the carcase of that custom left. Ex. p. 54, 55.

4. Tho' our fathers held to the use of compulsion in religion, yet they did not entrust such a power with any but brethren in their churches; but you Sir, put this compelling power into the hands of many who are not members of any church at all.

5. As I have already shewn, they allowed none to vote for rulers or ministers but members in full communion, and your beloved Mitchel declared, that it would ruin the churches if election of ministers were carried by a looser sort of members, Ex. p. 51. How then are they now ruined, when you are forced to own that worldly estate makes voters in such affairs! p. 83.

6. Though the first fathers of New-England held to infant-baptism, yet they were so far from holding of it upon the footing you do, that though some tried hard to bring it on to that footing when Cambridge platform was composed, yet they were prevented the doing of it, as Dr. [Page]Mather tells us, by many worthy men. * And such worthy men as Hooker, Cotton, Shepard, and others, were gone to eternity, and Mr. Norton was in England; when they introduced the scheme in 1662, which you embrace: and the aged president Chauncy, and Mr. Devenport, who were present, could not be easy with bearing only a verbal, but they and others also bore a printed testimony against it.†

8. While our fathers were so much blinded as to think force was to be used in religion, they were in earnest to force men to conform to what they esteemed the right way, as well as to support it: but how little pains is now taken with men's persons, if they can but get their money!

In short, the greatest likeness that I can see between many of the present generation, and those fathers is in a tenderness for self, and a want of tenderness for its opposites. Mr. Cotton could readily sind a divine example, where self was affected, for not proceeding upon report, without a full examination whether they were altogether true or not; and also for not wrapping up the guilty and innocent together: yet how contrary thereto is his treatment of the baptists in the same letter? And you sir, complain much of me for publishing many things concerning your denomination, which you do not dispute the truth of (though I gave you a fair opportunity to do it, by naming persons and places, giving dates and quoting my vouchers) while you have treated [Page]us quite otherwise; and how have you now raked the streets of Canterbury for something against that church, and then you insinuate that we are not honest to own our principles, nor humble enough to confess and put away our errors, because we do not own all that you are pleased to accuse us with! p. 113. As to the principle you there refer to, I did confess the truth concerning it, Ex. p. 50, and you must answer it to our great judge, for your insinuating the contrary here against me.

I am now prepared to answer your query, whether I had not forgotten my sect, when I expressed my concern for the fall of New-England from her ancient discipline? Ex. p. 92. And you say, ‘Why did not his heart smite him, and his pen blot out that expression, of his deep concern for New-England, as fallen from its ancient purity and glory, because her ministers to now testify against the corruptions of separation and anabaptism, just as the fathers in the first churches did?’ p. 111.

Answer 1. The forgoing account plainly shews that they were so much blinded by self, as to try to justify such treatment of dissenters from them, as one of their chief magistrates calls Tyranny, persecution and rigid ways; and as learned saints on the other side of the water, veiwed to be so, even in their most solemn exercises. Yea the learned Mr. Neal (whom none, that have read his history of the puritans can suspect of being prejudiced in favour of the baptists) he does not scruple to declare, that in dealing with Mr. Clark and his brethren, they ‘Broke in upon the natural rights of mankind, punishing men, [Page]not for disturbing the state, but for differing sentiments in religion.*’ And when Dr. Mather attempted to excuse a like treatment of the baptist church in Boston, which was formed May 28, 1665, by declaring it to be a violation of the law of the commonwealth relating to the orderly gathering of churches: which order was, not to do it without the approbation of magistrates and neighbouring ministers. † Mr. Neal boldly replies,‡ that this plea ‘Condemns all the dissenting congregations that have been gathered in England since the act of uniformity in the year 1662.’ And can our fathers tyranny, persecution and rigid ways, ever justify your doing the like!

2. While they accused the baptists of wilfulness, they most evidently discovered a great bias and prepossession against them in their own minds. I noted before that Mr. Hooker, and from him Mr. Mitchel, resoved to have an argument able to remove a mountain, before they would recede from infant baptism. Ex. p. 98. And Mr. Cotton, in a piece he wrote on that subject, against such as he owns did not, ‘deny magistrates, nor predestination, nor original sin; nor maintain free-will in conversion, nor apostacy from grace: but only denied the lawful use of the baptism of children, because it wanteth a word both of commandment and example from the scripture.’ Yea that he was bound to believe that they did this ‘out of [Page]conscience, as following the example of the apostle:’ yet he goes on to declare, that he also believed, that satan had yielded so far in these stirring times of reformation, as to plead no other argument than what may be urged from that main principle of reformation, ‘That no duty of God's worship, nor ordinance of religion is to be administered in the church, but such as hath just warrant from the word of God.’ And (says he) by urging this argument against the ‘baptism of children, satan transformeth himfelf into an angel of light.*’

About the same time a minister at Lynn, wrote against a number of baptist authors; but before he came to any of their arguments, he compares the admitting any scruple about infant baptism, to mother Eve's admitting the serpent's question, Hath God said it? and says, ‘Let my advice be grateful to thee thus far, christian reader, to take heed of unnecessary discourses and disputes with satanical suggestions.—It is not the first age and time that satanical suggestions, Thus it is written, and Thus saith the Lord, hath been propounded.†’

Thus people were taught, to guard against the plainest scriptures that could be brought against infant baptism as being from satan; and Mr. Cobbet, near the close of his book‡ calls it a a profane trick, for any to turn their backs [Page]when an infant was going to be sprinkled, and blasphemy to stile that practice antichristian.*

But alas! how dreadfully had satan yielded when he had prevailed with those fathers, to take his weapons of slander and violence, to support an ordinance that they could not find a Thus saith the Lord for! By these wiles he has prevailed, even to this day, so as to prejudice many in each denomination, against giving the other a fair hearing; and against embracing truths and duties that the others held.

3. Our most noted fathers owned themselves to be imperfect (and left us evidence enough of it's being so) therefore they solemnly charged [Page]us, not to stop in what they had attained. This I before proved, Ex. p. 102. To which I shall now add the words of Mr. Devenport, who fled into Holland from perfecution before he came to our land; and where he ‘Bore witness against their promiscuous baptisms, which (in his account) bordered very near upon a profanation of that holy institution. He observed, That when a reformation of the church has been brought about in any part of the world, it has rarely been afterwards carried on any step farther than the first reformers did succeed in their first endeavours. He observed that as easily might the ark have been removed from the mountains of Ararat, where it first grounded, as a people get any ground in reformation, after and beyond the first remove of the reformers. And this observation quickned him to embark in a design of reformation, wherein he might have opportunity to drive things in the first essay, as near to the precept and pattern of scripture as they could be driven.*’ No wonder then that he bore witness here also, against their degenerating into promiscuous baptisms in 1662. The effects of which were so great by the year 1700, as to cause Dr. Mather, (as I before noted Ex. p. 19) to declare, that ‘If the begun apostacy should proceed as fast for thirty years,—surely it will come to that in New-England, that the most conscientious people therein will think themselves concerned to gather churches out of churches.’ How then could my heart smite [Page]me for having such a concern! Rather must not your's smite you for saying, ‘The glory of New-England departs, as the modern seperation prevails; our fathers being judges?’ p. 112.

However, though our difference in sentiments is great, yet tis time to come to the second general head that we agree in; which is of relating facts. You say, ‘If they are true, he has not slandered us; but if they are false he has: and upon this hypothesis I am ready to join issue.’ p. 111. With this I concur, only with the proviso, that a due regard be paid to the golden rule in the manner of doing it; which naturally brings us to my second witness, to prove your doing the contrary before: which was; that None can be willing to have the character of their whole denomination taken from evil persons and things which may be pickt out among them. Then I quoted a passage out of your sermons, to shew that you had done so to us. Ser. p. 142. Ex. p. 5. You now say the quotation ‘Shows that I was not giving the character of the whole denomination, but only of individuals.’ p. 2 [...]. Had you Sir, but have named the individuals, there would have been some sense in this answer, but since you have not done it, we must have recourse to a scripture instance. It is well known that when an open breach happens, either in church or state, persons of various characters and sentiments will resort to the new party. When the breach between Saul and David came to be known, every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and discontented, gathered themselves unto David, and he became a Captain over [Page]them. Yet when such a character of his party as this was given, viz. There be many servants now a days that break away, every man from his master, it is called Railing; and we are told that the person who gave it, therein acted according to his name, which signifies, a fool or madman. 1 Sam. 22.2 and 25.10, 14, 25.

My third witness was to shew how you had tried to deprive people of hearing and judging for themselves, and had condemned us without a fair hearing. Ex. p. 5, 6. The sum of your reply to it is, That what you delivered was by way of warning and advice to your own people, and say, ‘As for strangers,—the whole fraternity of separates—they are entirely out of the present question’ p. 20, 21. Yet Sir, you first spread printed proposals of subscription for your sermons, through the country, notifying what you had therein written against the separates; and then the books were published and dispersed into all the four governments of New-England, and improved against our denomination in general, before I wrote against them, and I never heard of any one man, that took what you had said, in the limited sense you would now put upon it, till your reply came out. Which limited sense you also now fly to, for a screen from my charge, of your injuring the truth in relating of facts. p. 6. We must therefore come to particulars. And,

1. You are forced to own yourself guilty of two mistakes about the separate minister in your own town. One is, you said the church silenced him: when in truth he silenced himself. The other is concerning the length of [Page]time that he was with them. You said, Less than a year; which saying you are now forced to own was more than a year from the truth; tho' you try hard to make out that I was as much or more mistaken than you was. p. 108. What you advance from the records of that church is entirely in my favour, excepting the date of Mr. Smith's excommunication, and you appear willing to render them doubtful, calling them, records or minutes; and what you chiefly rely upon, is a narrative you say, ‘Taken from Mr. Smith's own mouth, as near as could be related by a gentleman of integrity (whose letter is in hand, and the substance of it is as follows.’) p. 106. So that your chief authority to determine these facts, by your own account, is what was taken from an aged gentleman's memory, after above 20 years changes in this confused world, then wrote as near as another could remember, and a third gives the public the substance of what the second had written. Now I will give you my authorities. One of Mr. Smith's brethren in the ministry, who lived by the way between Stonington and Mansfield, in giving me an account of the state of religion in those parts, wrote thus.

‘As for Stonington, brother Smith hath for some time denied to administer among them, and now hath concluded to return to Mansfield, and hath proceeded so far as to sell at Stonington, and bought at Mansfield; but the church unanimously against his going.’ This was written on April 17, 1749. Your account makes it a year after his removal before his excomunication. Well my account of that is from [Page]one of the council in which are these words. ‘When we were come, and had heard the charge against him, as being a covenant-breaker, in that he had forsaken the work God had set him to do, namely, of preaching the gospel, and administring the ordinances thereof; he was desired to give his reasons why he had so done. He gave this answer, That there was a want of fellowship, but to charge it to the church, or any particular brother he could not: and that was all, as I remember. And then the church declared how they had taken the steps prescribed in the gospel for his recovery, and all proved ineffectual. We all agreed that it was duty to proceed to public censure and excommunication.—The day was the 20th of July; but as to the effect, God has it in his hands, and he orders all things well.’ This was written the last of September, 1750; and I have both of these letters in their authors own hand-writing, to shew to any who desire to see them. And let it be noted, that they were then wrote in way of intimate friendship, containing our own language concerning these affairs, and not with any design of publishing them to the world.

And by these accounts it appears, that he was ordained on December 10, 1746; but that after he had broken his solemn covenant to feed that flock of God, they took the gospel steps with him, and as he did not hear the church, he was excommunicated July 20, 1750. Yet you declared in print, that ‘Him they chose, ordained, silenced, cast out of the church, and delivered [Page]up to satan, in less than a year.’ Ser. p. 145. And now, twenty years after, you have collected a reproachful account of that affair from this dilinquent; and yet at the end of it (to avoid the charge of stigmatizing your brethren) you say, ‘I have ONLY rehearsed their deeds—I have ONLY published their principles, spirit, practices, &c. which THEY themselves PROFESSED and acted over in the open view of the world.’ p. 110 Though but two pages back you was forced to own to the world, that you had published things against them that were not true; and that you was led to do it by ‘Relying upon the information of neighbours, and your own understanding of that affair.’

O Mr. Fish! how much guilt and trouble would you have escaped, if you had honestly retracted all that you have done against your brethren, through a leaning to your own understanding, and acting contrary to the character of Zion's citizens? Psal. 15, 3. Isa. 33.15. May this be a warning and instruction to us all, in our future treatment of others!

2. You Sir charged us with despising learning, and said we had None but unlearned teachers, and that we did not use means for obtaining any better accomplishments. Ser. p. 165. And now in order to maintain your charge, you would limit the controversy to the word college; whereas the words in your charge were, ANY means; colleges, AND superior schools. And when I named two sons of Mr. Josiah Cleaveland of Canterbury, that he sent to college, you assert that he did it [Page] ‘As one of the standing order, long enough before he separated.’ p. 14. while yet you tell us, that the part of the church he was of, on Jan. 27, 1743, ‘Declared against and went off from their former usage.’ p. 76.* And if you examine you may find, that he did not send the last of his sons to college till September, 1744: and as they were both expelled that fall, for meeting with the church they were members of in a place separate from the parish meeting-house; and which the heads of the college dedeclared in print, that they were obliged to do by your laws. Ex. p. 42, 43. who could be so stupid as to send more sons there to be expelled! When that expelling temper was a little over, I mentioned no less than six instances, out of but two towns, of separates sending their sons to college. Ex. p. 43. But you presume to question their doing of it from right motives: and because your party have prevailed to prejudice several of those sons against their fathers principles, you advance that as a great proof that their fathers are erroneous, p. 15. And as I spoke of some of our pastors having skill in the learned tongues, you name one of them, who at his earnest request was dismissed from Norwich, and you say he has ‘Distinguished himself, to the honor of truth & gospel order, by a public reflection upon himself for his error, in promoting separations from the standing churches, so much as he has done; and was some months [Page]ago ordained by regular ministers, over a regular church and congregation in Plainfield.’ p. 15.

Reply, I learn that the ministers did extort from him some general reflections upon separations; yet the order that he was settled in was; dropping the old constitution, and beginning anew by a verbal relation of experiences; not using the civil law for his support, and not using notes in his preaching. And I am informed, that he lately assisted in ordaining a minister in your vicinity, who appears to be a man of spiritual gifts, though he has no more of college-learning than we had. And whether this can convince us that we were wrong in separating from your constitution, that we might introduce such gospel order (and which now spreads in your colony) let the reader judge! You close this article with telling your readers, that you had sufficiently proved your charge against us, but if any thing more is required, the spirit and language of my book may supply the place of many witnesses. p. 15. I am content to refer the matter to that test; for I trust it has appeared, and will appear to the end, that God has given me a real regard for knowledge and truth, but a hatred of ignorance and sophistry.

3. In opening your constitution I mentioned the trouble that Norwich representatives met with for their opposing their ministers attempts to bring in the Saybrook scheme, and said that, After many councils, and much fatigue, a sum of money prevailed with that minister to quit his place. Ex. p. 29. You now say, The sum of money was only for his temporal interest in the town. p. 72. To which I reply, that I had no [Page]thought of blaming him for felling his estate there, thought I had an account of that from the same hands that I had the other; but as I find from the town records, that upon resigning his office, he made a demand of old arearages, beyond what the town judged to be any ways his due, I suppose that from thence it was taken that a certain sum was given him to quit his place. This is the clearest light I can as yet gain in the case. I am willing to have every mistake rectified, and that things may appear as they are. Had that been your temper Sir, would you have said A council. p. 72? as if he had been dismissed by the calling only of one council; when in truth they had them year after year, from soon after the introduction of the Saybrook plan in 1708, till that minister resigned his office on August 31, 1716. And would not an impartial disposition also have prevented, a long descant that you there add, upon Mr. Tennant's language, in order to turn it against us; when I expressly told you, that it was his reasoning and not his language that I approved of? Ex. p. 33. At the same time you pass over in silence what I brought against you from Mr. Edwards, which I as plainly told you I preferred before the other. Is this the learning you plead so much for!

4. You spend six pages upon the facts that I related concerning Canterbury, on which you reflect that ‘'Tis sad that Mr. B. lays no restraint on his pen!’ p. 79. And you say, ‘This may serve as a general caution to his readers, how they receive and rely upon his account of things in other parts of his book,’ p. 80. And give no hint that I [Page]took every article which you controvert, from an author in that town, who was acquainted with all these affairs, and publickly appealed to ministers and courts for the truth of his narrative; and which I never heard disputed till your reply came out, while you keep your author's name concealed, who condemns me upon his present rememberance. p. 77. As far as I could now gain light from the several accounts that are given, I have corrected and opened the true state of that separation; but whether I can with safety retract any particular circumstance that is now disputed, which was published 20 years ago, by a man of credit that I was acquainted with, only upon the memory of one that I knew not, let the reader judge! And I shall close these facts with remarking, that you catch at my saying, After the church withdrew, the consociation was called and ordained Mr. Cogswell, Ex. p. 38. as a proof that they did not cause that division. Rom. 16.17.18. p. 84. But Sir, I proved by the plain testimony of the heads of your college, that his preaching to the parish (which caused the church to withdraw) was with the special direction of those ministers. Ex. p. 42. And what a miserable shift is it, for you to catch at the word after, to prove that they did nothing before!

And now Sir, let us sum up the whole affair. You have accused me with using false arguments, but how have you proved it? The first that I observe, is from my naming some of our ministers, who had been men of note in the places where they lived; you represent that from thence I argued, that they had college learning [Page](as if all learning was confined to colleges) and you form a ridiculous syllogism for me accordingly. p. 13. But whether you or I are rendered most ridiculous by it, let the reader judge. Again, when I observed that you mistook the rule itself through your book; my argument from it was, That nothing less could be expected, than false actings upon a false rule. Ex. p. 5. That is when a man is seduced into a crooked way, it cannot be expected that he will go strait in it. But you represent my argument to be, that you could not have an honest heart. p. 19. Notwithstanding I expressly said, ‘I desire always to avoid the evil of judging the counsels of others hearts, and to judge righteously according to what is made manifest.’ And I went on to tell what I supposed it was that blinded you. Ex. p. 5, 6. And I still suppose that you have been thus blinded, and moved to use shifts and evasions to try to clear yourself, and unreasonbly to censure your opponent. Thus when I said, you had condemned us without a fair hearing; you reply ‘They were out of my jurisdiction. I had no business to call them to a hearing.’ p. 21. As if I had spoken of a personal audience: when you know that I expressly referred to what we had published to the world, which you had paid no regard to. Ex. p. 6. So when I mentioned what the false teachers at Corinth gloried in, and (to confirm it) what the Corinthians suffered from them. Ex. p. 25, 26. You shuffle the matter over, till you would make your readers believe, that I held, that those teachers glorying was in what the saints suffered from them. And though you will not allow that [Page]Christ gave any orders to his apostles to preach freely, yet you have proved that Paul did preach so; and you carry it, that his design therein was to "cut off occasion of offence." p. 68, 69. But I have no thought of his being afraid of offending those teachers; for what he was evidently concerned about was to prevent any occasion or handle for them to do mischief. Once more, When I observed that the epistles to Timothy and Titus were to direct ministers concerning their behaviour in the church, not over it. I immediately went on to explain my meaning; and that by over it, I meant a distinct power or jurisdiction above the church, instead of acting with them in trying ministers. Ex. p. 39, 41. But you Sir, quote several texts wherein the word over is used to describe ministers work as watchmen or guides to the church, which perfectly agrees with my sense of the word in it, as being leaders therein; while you go on, (as before observed) to assert, that what the Spirit saith unto the churches was "spoken to and of the ministers;" and proceed till you represent, that I held that letters of commendation went to and from the brotherhood and not the ministers, though I plainly said the church with them. p. 80—83.

And so I think it is lamentably evident. that you have proceeded in a crooked way through these writings, both as to arguments, and facts: while I have not been able to discover that I have used one false argument against you; and the chief mistakes that I have found are, my writing The form, instead of A form of Godliness; and my being misinformed about one circumstance at Norwich.

[Page] As for temper; you talk much of my want of modesty, but the two plainest instances to shew what you mean by it, that I have observed, are my appearing so boldly as I have, against you about the learned tongue, and against the Windham ministers upon the parable of the tares. p. 55.87. which cases as they have been plainly stated I leave with the reader. But you say, I have used ‘Unsufferable PERTNESS, surprising CONFIDENCE, and a haughty air of ASSURANCE.’ p. 123. To which I reply, that I have so often seen people lost in a wilderness of words, so as to take wrong for right, and right for wrong, that I have endeavoured to come as pert and direct to the case in hand as I could; and as the sufferings of Christ's servants formerly, caused many of the brethren to wax confident, boldly to speak the word without fear; I shall not derry my belief, that this unworthy creature has been freely favoured with something of the same influence; and also with a measure of that assurance of understanding in gospel mysteries, which the apostle was earnest we should have, to guard us against philosophy and vain deceit. Phil. 1.14. Col. 2.1—8. If my confidence has in any instance gone beyond my evidence, I am sorry you had not convinced me of it. You add, that ‘This offence is aggravated by a total want of good manners, and civil language, through a great part of your book.’ p. 123. To which I shall say, that though I never thought myself a pattern of manners, yet in these affairs, I'll venture to compare notes with you. In your appendix where you professedly set yourself to collect out of my whole book, expressions most void of decency, the [Page]hardest names you have found are these, viz. I closed my remarks upon your applying the learning that our Saviour received by the holy Ghost, Isa. 50.4. to what is learned in your colleges, with saying, Did any Pharisee ever abuse scripture to impose upon people, worse than this? Ex. p. 44. And when you appealed to the Lord of conscience, whether it was not covetousness, accompanied with wilfulness and disobedience, all founded on weakness, rather than pure conscience that induced the separates to refuse to pay your salary? Ser. p. 164, I said, Does he or his brethren take Paul's advice and direction, about dealing with weak brethren? or rather is not the liberty which they would allow, just the same with Pharaoh's,—Go ye, serve the Lord; only let your flocks and herds be stayed? Ex. p. 80.

These are the two plainest proofs, in their "native dress," of my want of good manners, that you have found in my whole book, and both of them delivered by way of query: whereas I have already referred you to one passage (among many) in your sermons, wherein you Sir, as a public minister, deliver it not as a question, but a strong assertion, that ‘'Twas a false spirit, and a false religion that made the separation among US, a device of satan that old serpent the devil.’ And in your present piece, which tells us in its introduction, that ‘There is not the least need of one bitter word, nor unkind reflection, nor can there ANY purpose be answered thereby, but venting the corruption of nature,’ p. 3. Yet in order to ward off the sentences I had quoted from those eminent authors, Owen and Franck, you say,— ‘Our real character is as different from that which he has set up, as the true [Page]protestant churches are from the antichristian: or as the apostle Peter was from the Pope of Rome; or the gentle Barnabas and Paul, from Mr. Backus. And I know not of a more striking contrast.’ p. 102. Rather you should have said, you did not then think of any; for a more striking contrast came afterwards to mind, and then out it comes; which is that between the Arch-angel and the devil. Yea, and all this has not vented nature enough; but (as if the witch of Endor was come again, to bring up the dead to condemn the living) you assert that, I am compared BY Mr. Flavel to animals, too naucious for dogs! And you go on to tell me, that all this ‘correction is gentle compared with the offence.’ p. 124, 125.

If all these words are gentle, I know not what you would have more but blows from the secular arm. However it all serves still further to open the case we are upon. It had got to be customary in our land, to have ministers persons so much in admiration, as to allow them almost all the power in the admission both of ministers and members, and to treat them with such reverence as scarcely to oppose them in any thing. Therefore when some were raised up to appear boldly against their corruptions, they had recourse to many shifts and evasions, to hide the true state of the controversy, while they vented their natures as you have done, by calling the worst names, and using the most odious comparisons, that their learning afforded. And I am bold in it, that such kind of manners from men of your sort of education, was not only a great cause of our separation, but also has done more towards prejudiceing peoples minds against college-learning, than all those you call lay-teachers could have done if they had [Page]tried. And had I not been clearly convinced hereof, and seen what stumbling-blocks had been laid thereby, and also found the weight of that command, Go through, go through the gates, &c. Isa. 62.10. I should by no means have pursued these matters so far as I have done. But here you tell us, you will leave it to the judicious reader, ‘whether he has skilfully and faithfully done the service; or whether he has not cast twenty stones at the prophets of the Lord, his ministers, to one that he has removed out of the way of his people?’ p. 17. As I have seriously considered of this affair, I freely join in referring of it to all christian people; and if any can shew me that I have cast one stone at any such person, my concern shall be to improve the first opportunity that presents, to make them the best satisfaction I can. I know that my aim has not been against any human person, but against Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess, that has been suffered to teach among the churches, and to seduce Christ's servants. And I desire never to spare her in the least, till she sinks like a stone, never to rise more. Jer. 51.64. Rev. 2.20. By which I understand all that mystery of iniquity by which any are seduced, to set up or gratify self under the cloak of religion, with methods of deceit and cruelty towards others. Which methods are used by some to as bad purposes, under the name of Great spirituality, as they are by others under a pretence of learning. And if a Peter or a Barnabas, are carried away with dissimulation, they ought to be withstood to the face, and the so doing, argues not any want of respect, either to their persons, or their office, but the contrary. Gal. 2.11—14.

[Page] You Sir, talk much of how you and your brethren stood by the work and cause of God when we separated, and say, The breach of peace began on our side, p. 18, 126. But surely the nature of his work, is to bring souls to the knowledge of their lost condition, and of the only way of help through Jesus Christ, and to follow him in all his ways, and not to follow the voice of strangers. And we followed the ministers who were friends to that work, till they turned and said a confederacy with the enemies of it, and joined in the manner you have done, to bear down all that would not conform to the constitution which I have now exposed; so that we were bro't to the necessity, of either yielding to that yoke of bondage, or else to separate from them. And the same argument was often used then that you use now, viz. That the seven churches of Asia were as corrupt as your's, who ('twas said) were called to reformation, but not to a separation. But how falacious is this argument? We know they were first called to a reformation; to repent and do their first works, and not to suffer deceitful teachers among them, who like Balaam loved the wages of unrighteousness. And their Lord declared to them, that if they did not repent quickly, he would remove the candlestick out of his place, and fight against them with the sword of his mouth. Rev. 2.5, 16. Which I believe he has done, and is now doing to your churches.

These things I leave to your solemn consideration, desiring always to take the same advice myself, and rest, dear Sir, your hearty well-wisher,

Middleborough, Octo. 21, 1772.

Isaac Backus.

Notes

*

Now Sir, is learning limited to the churches of your own town! p. 12.

↵

†

Note Sir, you forgot this passage when you complained of my title. p. 16, 17.

↵

*

In your proposals for subscription, this part of the book in called, ‘A letter of christian reproof for the bitter antichristian spirit that run through the whole of his performance.’

↵

*

"It is not the diversity of opinions (which cannot be avoided) but the refusal of toleration to those of different opinions (which might be granted) that has produced all the bustles and wars that have been in the christian world, upon account of religion. The heads and lenders of the church. moved by avarice and insatiable desire of dominion, making use of the immoderate ambition of magistrates, and the credulous superstition of the giddy multitude, have incensed and animated them against those that dissent from themselves; by preaching unto them, contrary to the laws of the gospel, and the precepts of charity. That schismaticks and hereticks are to be outed of their possessions, and destroyed. And thus have they mixed together and confounded two things that are MORE DIFFERENT, the church and the common-wealth.— That magistrates should thus suffer these incendiaries, and disturlers of the public peace, might justly be wondered at; if it did not appear that they have been invited by them unto a participation of the spoil, and have thought fit to make use of their coveteousness and pride, as means whereby to increase their own power." Lock on Toleration, p. [...].

↵

*

Neal's history of New-England, vol. I. p. 299—303.

↵

*

Massachusetts history, vol. III. p. 401, 402.

↵

†

Ibid p. 403—407.

↵

*

He was excommunicated for separating from the church in Rehoboth.

↵

*

In your sermons p. 164, you applied Isa. 65.5. to 28; but who is it now that says, stand by thy self, come not near ME!

↵

*

Original of churches p. 165.

↵

†

2 Cor. 4.13.

↵

*

Mitchel's life p. 73.

↵

†

Therefore it was contrary to truth for you to assert an exact agreement with them, even in the point of infant baptism. p. 60.

↵

*

History of New-England, Vol. I. p. 303, 304.

↵

†

Magnalia, B. 7. p. 27.

↵

‡

Ibid. p. 304.

↵

*

Mr. Cotton or the grounds and ends of the baptism of children. Printed 1647. p. 3, 4,

↵

†

Mr. Thomas Cobbet's vindication of the covenant, and church estate of children. Printed 1648. Epistle to the reader. p. 8—9.

↵

‡

Page 295.

↵

*

It was doubtless in consequence of such teaching as this that the following law was made in Boston, 1644, viz. Although no human power be Lord over the faith, and consciences of men, yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the christian faith, and destruction of the souls of men, ought duly to be restrained from such notorious impieties.

It is therefore ordered and declared by the court; that if any christian within this jurisdiction, shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian faith and religion, by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresies: as denying the immortality of the soul, or resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate,—or denying that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins,—or shall openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or shall purposely depart the congregation, at the administration of that ordinance,—or shall endeavor to seduce others to ANY of the errors or heresies above mentioned; every such person continuing obstinate therein, after due means of conviction, shall be SENTENCED TO BANISHMENT. General laws and liberties of the Massachusetts colony, revised and re-printed by order of the general court at Boston, May 15, 1672. p. 58, 59.

↵

*

Magnalia, B. 111. p. 53.

↵

*

The truth I suppose is, that the church had not explicitly declared for either platform till then, when a majority voted for Cambridge, and against Saybrook, which was a cause of their separation.

↵

APPENDIX, Containing a few remarks upon the controversy about baptism; occasioned by Mr. Elisha Fish's late sermon from Gen. IX. 27.

[Page]

DR. Gill observes, that there has been scarce any thing wrote by us these fifty years but in our own defence; our Pedobaptist brethren being continually the aggressors, and first movers of the controversy; they seem as if they were not satisfied with what has been done on their side; and therefore are always attempting, either to put the controversy upon a new foot, or to throw the old arguments into a new form; and even say the same things over and over again, to make their minds, and the minds of their people easy, if possible. But this is our case; if we reply to what is written against us, then we are litigious persons, and lovers of controversy; though we only rise up in our own vindication, for which surely we are not to be blamed; and if we make no reply, then what is written is unanswerable by us, and we are triumphed over.* Which observation is as applicable to our country [Page]as to that in which it was wrote; for Mr, Joseph Fish first began the controversy with us in his nine sermons; yet because I, at the importunity of friends, made some reply to him, he accuses me with setting up myself as censor general, &c. And 'tis likely the same temper will renew the accusation, for my yielding to a like importunity, in taking some notice of the pamphlet before me; which is intitled, ‘Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem; or infant baptism vindicated, in a discourse, the substance of which was delivered in Upton, January 5, 1772; with objections answered, by Elisha Fish, A. M.’ I say, some notice; for I shall not go over all the arguments again, which I have already answered in the foregoing discourse, but refer the reader thereto, and shall now only make a few remarks on their general manner of managing the controversy.

After Job's long dispute with his friends, Jehovah appeared with this solemn demand, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by WORDS without KNOWLEDGE! Job. 38.2. And a very great evil that the Corinthians were reproved for, was their uttering words that were not easy to be understood, but like a trumpet which gave an uncertain sound. 1 Cor. 14.8, 9. Yet one of the greatest masters of learning in our nation observes, that commonly the most material words in controversy, upon which the argument turns, are so used; though says he, ‘one who should speak thus, in the affairs and business of the world, and call 7 sometimes 8, and sometimes nine, as best served his advantage, would presently have clapped upon him one of the two names [Page]men constantly are disgusted with; and yet in arguing and learned contests, the same sort of proceeding passes commonly for wit and learning: but to me, it appears a greater dishonesty, than the misplacing of counters, in the casting up a debt, and the cheat the greater, by how much truth is of greater concernment and value than money.*’

With grief of heart we often see this to be the case, with the advocates for infant baptism. Could they once be brought to a distinct and steady meaning in three words, the controversy would soon come to an end. I mean the words, covenant, grace and promise. It is evident that in the old testament, to be in Abraham's covenant, meant the same as to be members of that church, and under obligation to conform to all its ordinances. Natural birth brought his seed into the church, and being in, all their males must needs be circumcised as soon as they were clean. Levit. 12, 2, 3. And all their males were required to keep the passover in the first month, if clean and not in a journey; and if that were the case, they might not neglect it any longer than the next month, upon the penalty of being cut off from their people, Gen. 17.14. Num. 9.9—13. Deut. 16.16. and do any hold the covenant to be so with us? Indeed some of our most noted fathers say, ‘We know of NO stronger argument for infant baptism than this, That church members are to be baptized.†’ And from the scriptures just now cited, 'tis evident, [Page]that Abraham's seed born in the church, and therefore must be cut off from it, if they were not circumcised at the appointed time; and must we then take our opponents, by grace to mean nature; * and that nature brings their seed into the covenant of grace! And that though the gospel church was first constituted of members who were born not of blood nor of the will of man but OF GOD. John. 1.13! yet that since the establishment of christianity, blood and the will of man, can bring members into the church! But why then do not all these members come to the ordinance of the supper, as the Jews did to the passover? our author's answer is, That the passover was temporary and legal, † and he says, ‘If it had been the will of the great Head of the church, not to have appointed any gospel passover or holy supper for his church, that would not have altered the privileges of the promises relating to baptism in Abraham's covenant, one way or the other.’ p. 37. 38.

To which I reply, that if he had not appointed baptism nor the supper, it would not have altered the promises to Abraham, for there is no mention of either of those ordinances therein; but 'tis certain that the promises to him did insure the continuance of the church in the line of his posterity till the seed Christ should come, to whom the promises were made. Gal. 3.16. And till then their establishment in all the legal ceremonies was [Page] as God promised him. Deut. 29.13. But when Christ came, all the children of Abraham's flesh, who believed not in him, were broken off from the church of God, while the children of promise, the election of grace were retained therein; and a new covenant was made with them not according to that made with their fathers; and many of the children of Japheth were persuaded, and graffed in among them, and stood there by faith. Rom. 9.7.8 & 11. and 5.17.20. Heb. 8. All which may plainly teach us, that to be in covenant, means the same as being in the church, both in the old testament, and in the new; and that grace means free salvation by Christ, whom Abraham and other believers looked to, through the shadows of the law, and who is now beheld with open face through the glass of the gospel; and that the blessings that God promised to Abraham, which are come on the Gentiles, are forgiveness of sins, and the influences of the holy spirit; which promise is given to them that believe. Acts 2.38, 39, 41. Gal. 3.13, 14, 22.

This is evidently the strait line of truth, but the crooked way of deceitful philosophy and men's traditions, as it carried Peter and Barnabas away with dissimulation, so it has carried this author (let him be ever so pious) into the following evils.

1. To add to God's word; for that word calls the covenant that formed Abraham's family into a church, The covenant of circumcision. Acts 7.8. And as all know that circumcision is out of date, it would appear the evident consequence, that the covenant which it gave name to is also taken away, and a better one established in it's room. Heb. 8, 6. and 10.9. Had not men presumed [Page]to add the name grace to it, on which addition most of their arguments for infant baptism turn. And to support this they make another addition; for where the word says of Abraham, He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. Rom. 4.11. This writer is so daring as to assert, that Abraham ‘has set us the most public example in applying the seal of the righteousness of faith to his infant seed, at God's command; which seal now is baptism.’ p. 29. In which, unless he can make Abraham's receiving what he had faith in, to be the same as applying to others what they had no faith about, he will be found guilty of adding to God's word. Yea he not only adds what is not there, but 2. He also denies what is there; for he over and over denies, there being any express word against bringing infants into the church now, as they did among the Jews. p. 13, 33, 39, 40. Notwithstanding God's express declaration, That the new covenant is not according to the covenant that took in professors by housholds, and that the extent of the new covenant is, that ALL shall know him, from the LEAST to the greatest. Heb. 8.11. Which declaration our great author tries to evade by asserting, That the apostle here did not refer to the covenant of Abraham, ‘which had the token of circumcision annexed to it.’ p. 15. And though he owns that the usual language of the new-testament is, repent and believe and be baptized, yet he says, ‘We do not discover the least opposition to the practice of infant baptism, which takes place and follows upon our visible and credible profession.’ p. 34. But stay; how [Page]does it follow? Abraham had no warrant to circumcise one person, but such as were either born in his house, or bought with his money. Gen. 17.13, 23. The first order that was given to bring strangers to circumcision by housholds, was on the day that Israel came out of Egypt, Exod. 12.48. and the covenant which Jeremiah prophesied of, and which Paul applies to the gospel dispensation is placed in express opposition to what was done on that day. Therefore all those who bring any family to baptism upon the faith of the head of it, act directly against these scriptures; and in order to keep themselves in countenance in that way, they go on, 3. To abusive treatment of those who will not go with them. This writer represents that our sentiments, would make Paul to contradict himself, which none but a prejudiced or infidel mind will admit. p. 16. He tells us of incredible presumption; of opposing the exact fulfilment of his text, and that those who ‘oppose infant baptism, are in danger of fighting against God (at unawares).’ p. 23.24. Of raising an unanswerable objection in the minds of the Jews; and of too much resembling them in their unbelief. p. 25. Of offering violence to the scriptures. p. 28. Of horrible sentiments. p. 38. And all to enforce his advice, to shun the doctrines and practices of such as oppose his opinion about children. p. 39. Nay all this is not enough, but 4. He must add one of the worst errors of popery; I mean that of the sacraments conferring grace by the operation or work done. * For [Page]as a full evidence for infant baptism, he from Mr. Bostwick, gives us Origen's words that ‘It is because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized.’ p. 44. Origen is the first man that any of them have ever been able to produce, who expressly appeared for infant baptism, and his argument to support it is, because he says, BY it the pollution of our birth is taken away. But Tertullian in the same age opposed the practice, as our author owns, p. 45. And yet in p. 47, he would have his readers believe, that there was "No dispute about the point," for more than a thousand years after the apostles. And then to bind the whole he says, ‘Infant baptism is valid, and agreeable to the institution [Page]of Christ; or else there neither is nor CAN BE any regular baptism in the church, to the end of the world. p. 48.’ That is, If in times of antichristian darkness, they did change the ordinance, and the change did prevail so far that none uprightly and openly appeared against it,* then we can never reform and come right again! Whether a stronger argument than this against reformation, was ever brought out of the smoke of the pit or not, is left to the readers judgment!

2. The mystery of iniquity began to work in the apostles days, 2 Thes. 2.7. and had prevailed so far when infant baptism was introduced, as also to bring infants to the Lord's supper, as a saving ordinance: and likewise to use the sign of the cross, Godfathers, renouncing the devil and his works, exorcisms, dipping the head thrice in reference to the three persons in the Trinity, consecrating the water, anointing with oil, &c. at baptism; for all which Dr. Gill has produced plain and express preofs, out of the same fathers that are quoted for infant baptism, and of as early date; and he observes, that the reasonings for infant baptism that are used ‘From the testimony of the antients, the difficulty of an innovation, and the easiness of its detection, may be applied to all and each of these rites. Wherefore, whoever receives infant baptism upon the foot of apostolic tradition, and upon such proof and evidence as is given of it, if he is an honest man; I say again, if he is an honest man, he ought to give into the practice of ALL these rites [Page]and usages.* But, said one of our baptist ministers 130 years ago, concerning the reformers, They can assume and erect a church, take in and cast out members, elect and ordain officers, and administer the supper, and all anew, without any looking after succession, any further than the scriptures: but as for baptism, they must have that successively from the appostles, though it comes through the hands of pope Joan. What is the cause of this, that men can do all from the WORD but baptism!†’

Dr. Owen tells us, that the protestants in their separation from the church of Rome, proceeded upon these general principles. ‘1. That the word of God is a perfect rule of faith and religious worship. 2. That christian people were not tied up to blind obedience unto church guides, but were not only at liberty, but also obliged to judge for themselves, as unto all things that they were to believe and practise in religion and the worship of God. 3. That there was not any catholic, visible, organical governing church, traduced by succession into that of Rome, whence all power and order was to be derived.—They could acknowledge NO such church state in the Roman church, nor the derivation of ANY power and order from it. So far as there is a declersion from this principle, so far the cause of the reformation is weakned, [Page]and the principal reason of separation from the Roman church is rejected.*’

From whence I leave the reader to judge, what cause we had for a new separation; and shall close the whole with observing, That denying the intire depravity of nature, and the absolute sovereignty of grace, and holding that the promises threof are connected with the desires and doings of natural men, and that their final state turns upon their well or ill improving their free-will power, and that a man may finally fall from grace received, are the dregs of popery, which since the reformation have been called Arminianism; while excluding, or disregarding the authority of the divine law, is Antinomianism: both of which names the principle of beliver's baptism has often been reproached with; while yet we are constantly complained of because we will not be either Arminians or Antinomians, or both of them. For what is all the noise we hear, of our children's being in covenant, or else that if they die in infancy we can have no hope of them, without it be from the uncovenanted (i. e. sovereign) mercy of God? And that (either by birth or by men's works in baptizing of them) they are in the covenant of grace and children of promise, † till by their own [Page]doings they fall therefrom: I say what is all this but the relicks of Arminianism? Yea, relicks absolutly inconsistent with the apostolic doctrine, of all being under sin, and under the curse, till they are delivered by Christ, and receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Rom. 3.9. Gal. 3.10, 13, 14. I believe God can and sometimes does sanctify infants from the womb: but evidence that they have faith is necessary before baptism.

On the other hand, our apponents hold it to be the law of Christ, that all believers should baptize their children, and yet will call those regular baptists, who will join in their churches, without bringing their infants, or acting in the baptism themselves, as they believe the law of Christ directs. And though our opponents hold with us, that it is the law of Christ, that all should be baptized before they come to the Lord's table; yet many of them accuse us of rigidness, of unchurching all but ourselves, &c. only because we [Page]will not meet such persons there, as we cannot believe in our conscience to be baptized according to our Lord's direction. If any on our side are found to use any deceit or violence toward the other denomination, or any method contrary to speaking the truth in love, let them be corrected or punished according to the demerit of their crime; but if the truth breaks up churches, it highly concerns all that belong to them, to awake and consider what churches they are. We have two sorts of separation described in holy writ: One is produced by an exalting of self above others; the other by such an adherence to divine rule as to part with those who will not conform to it. Isa. 65.5. Psalm 119.115. And unless our pedobaptist fathers and brethren can convince us that HE who was faithful in his house, and worthy of more glory than Moses, has yet left things at such loose ends, as only to appoint the use of water in the sacred name, without determining whether it should be by sprinkling, pouring or burying, but has left that to be determined by men's consciences: I say till they can convince us of this, all their noise about the evil of re-baptising and close communion, cannot satisfy our minds, that we can duly regard the law of Christ, if we come to his table with any who have not been buried with him in baptism.

I am sensible that this author, after owning that in scripture we ‘Have no express account about the baptizing of the infant seed of believers:’ p. 32. yet tells us of ‘straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel,’ because we will [Page]not admit that practice upon the covenant of circumcision. p. 33. But as 'tis evident to us, that men have changed the ordinance, from burying to sprinkling; and, from those who are taught and believe, to applying it to subjects before they are capable of being taught, without any divine warrant at all; let this change be called a gnat or a camel, or what else they please, yet I trust it will ever appear too big to be swallowed, by those who duly attend to the orders of our great Lord and Master, which are; ‘Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost; teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS, WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. AMEN.’

Notes

*

Dr. Gill's answer to a piece called, The baptism of infants a reasonable service, founded upon scripture and apostolic tradition. p. 3, 4.

↵

*

Lock's essay on understanding, B. 3. C. 10. S. 5.

↵

†

Magnalia B. 5. p. 79.

↵

*

Directly contrary to having, NO confidence in the flesh. Phil. 3.3.

↵

†

Circumcision was as temporary and legal as the passover, and is much oftener spoken of as such. Rom. 2.25. Gal. 5.2, 3. and 6.13.

↵

*

Here note, I don't charge Mr. F. with knowingly holding this error; he declares the contrary. p. 38. and would have it, that when the fathers called baptism regeneration, they used the thing signified for the sign. p. 43. But the case is evidently not so. I readily own that circumcision under the law, and baptism under the gospel, were both signs of Christ's death, and of regeneration by his grace; and as Abraham had the thing signified before he received circumcision, it was a seal to him of the faith he had; and at God's command he applied the sign of what was then future, to such as had not the thing signified wrought in them: but 'tis in vain for any to say. They stand to act for their children as Abraham did for his, unless they can prove that a national church is to spring from them, and that a Saviour is hereafter to come out of it. Baptism is not a type of a future crucifixion of the Saviour, but a token of that great event which is past, and that we are crucified with him, and HAVE put him on. Gal. 2.20. and 3.27. And to put this sign upon our children, unless we imagine with Origen, that BY it the inward change is wrought, is to do so much toward making our children hypocrites. The Westminster-catechism calls baptism, a sign of our engrafting into Christ, therefore to put this sign on any before we have some gospel evidence that they have been made dead to the law, what is it but adultery! Rom. 7.3.4.

↵

*

Isa. 24.5. Micah 7.2.

↵

*

Dr. Gill's answer to the piece called, [...], &c. p. 24—34.

↵

†

Crosby's history vol. 1. p. 10 [...].

↵

*

Dr. Owen on the original of evangelical churches. p. 291, 294, 297.

↵

†

Our author refers to several ancient promises, so God's people, of the pouring of his Spirit on their offspring, which he compares with Act 2.3., and says, ‘The promise is the immediate privilege of believing parents, and their children, as it's expressed in the present time, and [...] may not be so divided as to be the immediate privilege of the believing parents, and the future privilege of their children when they shall believe.’ p. 30. But he has forgot, that this promise in the present time was proclaimed, not to believing but guilty parents, who had said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Mat. 27.25. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized. And doubtless there were both parents and childeen that received the promise on that day; and in after days, those which the Lord added to his church, were such as should be saved. Acts. 2.41, 47. Compare this with Peter's limitation of the promise to even as many as God shall call, and what warrant can we have from all this, to baptize any till we have some evidence that they are called so as to receive the promise of the Spirit, unless we will dare to add to God's word!

↵

The CONTENTS.

[Page]

N. B. Where (Ex. with figures added thereto occurs) it refers to pages in my examination of Mr. Joseph Fish's nine sermons, where the same points as here are treated of.

A Reply to Mr. Fish under these heads. 1. Of the materials of Christ's visible church; which are proved to be only professing believers: and his arguments for infantbaptism are distinctly answered. p. 4—17. (Ex. p. 12, 13, 97—129.

2. Of the manner of building churches. Christ has instituted none but particular churches, which are tobe built up by persons giving a verbal account of a work of God's Spirit on their souls, to the church, in order to their being received as members. p. 17—23. (Ex. p. 17—19, 31, 49, 50. Testimonies to confirm this, from Dr. Owen, p. 18, 58—60. Capt. Clap, p. 54. Mr. Eliot, p. 55. Mr. Shepard, p. 57, 95. Mr. Mitchel, p. 19, 51, 56. Dr. Mather, p. 17—19.)

3. Of organizing churches. The power both of approbating and ordaining ministers proved to be in the churches, and none have a right to act therein only as they are appointed thereto by the church. p. 23—33. (Ex. p. 16, 24, 40, 41, 60—63. This confirmed by the example of our fathers, p. 16, 52. and by Dr. Owen, p. 64, 69, 70.)

4. Of the difference between civil and ecclesiastical government. p. 33—51. (Ex. p. 20—32.)

The gospel method of supporting ministers opened, and the evils of using force in the case described. p. 35, &c. (Ex. p. 20, 24—27, 29, 30, 46—48, 74—82.)

5. Of separation; the cause and nature of our's. p. 51.

1. It was because church and world were confounded together. p. 52—56. (Ex. p. 20, 50, 51, 94. This confirmed by Dr. I. Mather, p. 19. Dr. Cotton Mather, p. 37. Mr. Mitchel, p. 51. Dr. Owen. p. 85—88.)

[Page] 2. Because human learning was put in the place of the gifts of the Spirit, to qualify ministers. p. 56—59. (Ex. p. 41—45. This confirmed by Mr. Tennant, p. 33. Mr. Edwards, p. 34, 68. Mr. Prince, p. 52. Dr. Frank, p. 53. Mr. Porter, p. 68, 69. Dr. Owen, p. 86.)

3. Because gospel liberty in such affairs was denied. p. 59—66. (Ex. p. 38—41, 46—48, 50—53. This confirmed from Mr. Tennant, p. 34. Mr. Edwards, p. 34. Dr. Owen, p. 83, 86, 88. Dr. Frank, p. 84, 90.)

4. Because unwarranted ways of worship were practised among us. p. 66. (Ex. p. 72, 102, &c.)

5. Because gospel discipline was neglected and changed into a worldly dominion. p. 67. (Ex. p. 20, 28—31, 51. Dr. Owen upon it. p. 85—87.)

6. Because of minister's setting up themselves, and instead of preaching to edisication, treating those who would not submit to them with a great deal of abuse. p. 67, &c. (Ex. p. 35, 84, 90, 91, 94.)

An address to Mr. Joseph Fish,—giving the reasons for my writing, p. 79. And shewing to him that he has in his arguments to support the standing churches, been guilty,

1. Of setting themselves up as a standard instead of divine truth, p. 83.

2. Of using scripture words without duly regarding their meaning, p. 87.

3. Of blending truth and error together in many instances, in order to gain his argument, p. 91.

4. Of violating the golden rule so much as to endeavor to draw their own character only by their virtues or good pretences; and that of their opponents only by their imperfections, p. 99.

Our fathers like conduct will condemn, and not excuse him herein, p. 101.

Mr. Fish in these proceedings has grossly misrepresented several facts, p. 116.

And has shewn a wrong temper: so that according to his own concessions he is guilty both of sophistry and slander, p. 126.

APPENDIX, shewing that the advocates for infant-baptism proceed in an obscure and unsteady use of words, which carries them away into additions to God's word, and a denial of what is therein; also to abuse their neighbours, and countenance popery, Arminianism and Antinomianism.

[Page] HAVING thus summed up the matter in short terms, the author has one earnest request to make to all his readers; and that is, That they would always be careful to distinguish between the characters of men and the truth of God. He desires to be far from setting himself up in comparison, much less in competition, with many great and good men, who have practised infant baptism, and other things which he opposes. If those practices cannot be vindicated from divine truth, the characters of men can't do it, but only serve to perplex and keep souls in bondage. The goodness of David's character could never make that proceeding of his to be right, which he was moved to by satan; neither could the badness of Joab's character, make it wrong for him to look upon that conduct to be abominable. 1 Chron. 21.1, 6. Dissimulation was no better in Peter than it was in Judas; therefore Paul called it by it's proper name, to prevent others being ensnared thereby. Gal. 2. 13. Yet as one or two actions do not ordinarily form a man's character, David is far from having the character of satan's servant, or Peter from having that of a hypocrite or a traitor. So let all take notice, that what I mean to appear against, is the particular evils that I have named, and not against the characters, or any of the virtues of those who have been ensnared by them. Hence there is no need for any to take pains to prove that learned men, or good men have hold those things; for that is not disputed. The turning points of our whole dispute may be reduced to these four questions.

[Page] 1. Whether Abraham's believing, and being justified by the covenant of grace in Christ before he took the bond-woman, can give us warrant to confound that grace with the covenant of circumcision (which included the children both of the bond-woman and the free) so as to bring the children of our flesh to baptism, before we have any gospel evidence that they are made free in Jesus Christ? Gal. 3.17, and 4.22—31.

2. Since the chief advantage that the Jews had by the covenant of circumcision was, that unto them were committed the oracles of God; which were so much limited to them, that before Christ by his death had taken that covenant out of the way, his apostles might not preach to any but to them who were in it. Rom. 3.2. Mat. 10.5.6. Is it not an absolute falshood, for any to assert, that the covenant is the same with our children, as it was with theirs? and since our children have the means for conversion used with them, in so much clearer light, than theirs had under the law; what an abuse is it to accuse us with lessening our children's privileges, only because we dare not put the outward sign of regeneration upon them, before we have evidence that the inward change is wrought?

3. Though the primitive churches employed elders in ordaining others over them, which doubtless is an example for us to follow; yet how can that prove, that the conferring of office-power is inherent in officers, and not in the church as a body, since Christ expressly warned his disciples, against having any such superiority among them as there is in civil [...], saying, He that [Page]is greatest among you let him be as the younger: and the apostles were but the churches servants for Jesus sake? Luke. 22.26.2 Cor. 4.5.

4. Since in the Jewish church, where a certain part or proportion of the peoples income, was by express command to be given to the ministers of the sanctuary, while yet neither precept nor precedent can be found for rulers using any force to collect it; what warrant can any earthly power have now, to assess any persons, and use force to collect the same, for the support of any religious worship whatsoever?*

Now the reader may form some judgment of what sort of persons they are, who extol liberty, charity and a catholic temper, while their own charity begins and ends in self, by the two following notes. Speaking of our separation the writer says, ‘Such uncharitable principles have led them to exclude themselves from the communion of THE catholic church.’ p. 38. And speaking of occasionally inviting ministers to preach he says, ‘I cannot see the propriety nor the expediency of inviting the assistance of ANY man, be his profession what it may, that denies ME the rights and privileges of the church of Christ. If we cant eat and drink of one bread and one cup, in token of mutual fellowship; I see no reason why I should encourage such persons in their uncharitableness, since charity is the great criterion of real christianity.’ p. 65.

[Page] If any can fairly answer these questions; or can shew that this is not the true state of our controversy, they will do something to the purpose: but to neglect this and fill up volume after volume with other things, evidently tends to confusion and not to peace. And if any with Abner, chuse now to call it play; they like him, will surely find it to be bitterness in the latter end. 2 Sam. 2.14, 26.

Notes

*

The reader will not wonder that such care is taken to have this question truly stated, when he is informed, that since these sheets were in the press, the author has seen a discourse that bears so sine a title as this; ‘Catholicism: or, christian charity,’ published at the particular request of a convention of those called standing ministers at Bristol, on May 20, 1772, in which the writer mentions our separation, which he calls a sect well known, and says, ‘It is worthy of notice, that many of the leaders of that unhappy schism, who were for pulling down ministers, and ripping up churches in their great zeal (rather fury) for supposed heresy, particularly in the article of giving and receiving ministerial support; I say many of those very persons are as fond of support from their people, as those they once anathematized. The consistency and honesty of such a temper and conduct is far beyond me to reconcile, and is, I apprehend, as irreconcilable as light and darkness.’ p. 38. Thus their charity prompts them to represent us, as not only inconsistent, but also dishonest; and the way they take to do it, is by insinuating that our controversy with them was about giving and receiving; whereas the truth is, it was about assessing and forcing; and they are welcome to produce one instance if they can of any such inconsistency and dishonesty as they here speak of, unless it be in two or three teachers who have deserted the cause that they once professed to be in, in order to get into fellowship with these ministers. And since they have given this pamphlet the name of charity, I would just remark that they say, ‘There is doubtless a sort of natural, as well as christian charity. The source of this kind of charity is self; here it begins and ends.’ p. 25. and they say, ‘Liberty and candor are the great basis of human happiness: we often hear persons extolling the advantages of both, who yet seem to be really acquainted with neither. For if they have any design on foot, if you entertain different views, and with freedom speak your mind, you are instantly deemed an enemy, and you must be treated as such, so that if you escape without the sword, it is not so much owing to a generous spirit of liberty, as a want of power.’ p. 65.

↵

ERRATA.

[Page]

Page 5. l. 15. r. two churches. P. 23. l. 4. for the r. his. P. 31. l. 11. r. spiritual things. P. 33. l. 1. r. has. P. 38. l. 35. r. among. P. 41. l. 13. r. declares was done. P. 50. l. 6. r. possess. P. 53. last l. for And r. As. P. 56. l. 22. r. which as. l. 24. for had r. bad. P. 57. l. 16. r. 15. P. 61. l. 2. dele light in their. P. 66. l. 12. for separating r. supporting. P. 84. l. 20. for minister r. ministry. P. 90. for on r. an.

ADVERTISEMENT.

AT Mr. Phillip Freeman's in Union-Street, Boston, may be had the Author's former Piece against Mr. Fish, bound with this, for three Piastereens. At the same Place may be had, his late Vindication of sovereign Grace. His Description of an Evangelical Minister, preached at Mr. Hunt's Ordination. His Reply to Mr. Holly on Baptism; and his other Works.

Information about this book

Title statement

A discourse, concerning the materials, the manner of building, and power of organizing of the church of Christ; with the true difference and exact limits between civil and ecclesiastical government; and also what are, and what are not just reasons for separation. : Together with, an address to Joseph Fish, A.M. Pastor of a church in Stonington, occasioned by his late piece called The examiner examined. / By Isaac Backus, Pastor of a church in Middleborough. ; Designed to correct what has been amiss on both sides, and to point out the way wherein we should go.

Backus, Isaac, 1724-1806.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N09953

ID [TCP]

N09953

ID [STC]

Evans 12655

ID [NOTIS]

APZ0353

ID [IMAGE-SET]

12655

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99037972

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 12655.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N09953)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 12655)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 12655)

Source

— A discourse, concerning the materials, the manner of building, and power of organizing of the church of Christ; with the true difference and exact limits between civil and ecclesiastical government; and also what are, and what are not just reasons for separation. : Together with, an address to Joseph Fish, A.M. Pastor of a church in Stonington, occasioned by his late piece called The examiner examined. / By Isaac Backus, Pastor of a church in Middleborough. ; Designed to correct what has been amiss on both sides, and to point out the way wherein we should go., Backus, Isaac, 1724-1806..

Extent

150, [2] p. ; 19 cm. (4to)

Printed by John Boyles, in Marlborough-Street.,. Boston: :: MDCCLXXIII. [1773]. (Two states of gathering K noted. One has catchword 'posess' on p. 77; the other 'possess.') (Errata statement and advertisement for the author's works to be had of Philip Freeman, p. [151].)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.